The Holy Spirit

Where others land: 2 positions, each with what it costs

1. THE OBJECTION01the answer ›Open but cautiousThere is no convincing biblical case that the gifts have ceased, so we should not say they have. But there is also no biblical warrant for expecting them as a regular feature of ordinary church life, and much modern charismatic practice does not resemble what the New Testament describes. God may do anything; we should neither forbid nor engineer it.Its case, in fullIt refuses to prove a negative that Scripture never states. On the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13, this position often sides with the continuationist, "the perfect" is the return of Christ, while still declining to build a church culture around the gifts.It distinguishes between what God may do and what we may promise. Much charismatic damage comes not from believing God heals but from guaranteeing that he will in a given case. This position keeps the possibility and drops the guarantee.It takes seriously that the New Testament's own regulation of the gifts is overwhelmingly restrictive in tone: two or three at most, in turn, with interpretation, and if no interpreter, silence.D. A. Carson, *Showing the Spirit*; Wayne Grudem, *Systematic Theology* (Grudem is more firmly continuationist but pioneered the framing); a large share of contemporary evangelicals in practice.

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. It can become a theoretical openness that never changes what any meeting actually looks like. If the gifts are genuinely given for the common good, a church that never seeks them is missing something real, not merely declining an optional extra.

2. THE OBJECTION02the answer ›The sacramental / third-wave and Catholic-charismatic readingsThe gifts continue, but they are ordinary equipment for ordinary Christians rather than the marker of a separate spiritual class. On the Catholic side, the fullness of the Spirit is tied to baptism and confirmation, with charismatic renewal understood as a release of what was already given rather than a second reception.Its case, in fullIt preserves the continuation of the gifts while removing the two-tier Christianity that has caused so much pain: the sense that there are Spirit-filled believers and then everyone else.It reads 1 Corinthians 12:7 straight: the manifestation of the Spirit is given "to every man," not to a qualified elite.It has been the least divisive form of renewal historically, because it does not require a congregation to split over an experience.The Catholic Charismatic Renewal, which began at Duquesne in 1967 and was welcomed by Paul VI in 1975; John Wimber and the Vineyard movement; many Anglicans, including the late J. I. Packer's sympathetic treatment in *Keep in Step with the Spirit*.

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. It can under-read the narrative pattern of Acts, where the coming of the Spirit is repeatedly a datable, noticeable event and not merely a formal possession. And in Catholic form it ties the Spirit's giving to sacraments in a way Protestants find hard to locate in Acts.

Where others land: 2 positions, each with what it costs

1. THE OBJECTION01the answer ›It is conversion: every Christian is baptized in the Spirit alreadySpirit baptism is what happens when a person is saved. There is no second reception to seek. Believers are commanded to be filled with the Spirit, repeatedly, and more than they usually are, but that is a different word and a different thing from baptism.Its case, in fullThe one text that defines the term directly is 1 Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." All. Not the advanced ones. If Paul can say every member of the fractious Corinthian church has been baptized in the Spirit, the term cannot describe a subsequent experience some believers lack.Romans 8:9 draws the line hard: "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." There is no category of Christian without the Spirit, so there is no waiting room.Acts is narrative, and narrative describes what happened rather than prescribing what must happen. The book covers a genuine hinge of history, the gospel crossing from Jews to Samaritans to Gentiles, and Luke marks each crossing with a visible outpouring so the church could not deny that the outsiders were truly in. Read that way, the Samaritan delay in Acts 8 is about apostolic verification of a boundary crossing, not a normal two-stage pattern.The Ephesians of Acts 19 turn out to be disciples of John the Baptist who had not heard of the Holy Spirit and were re-baptized in Jesus' name. They were not Christians waiting for an upgrade; they were pre-Christian and were brought all the way in at once.Pastorally, this view spares believers a spiritual second-class status and the exhausting pursuit of an experience that may never arrive on demand.Martyn Lloyd-Jones is a partial exception, but the standard case is John Stott, *Baptism and Fullness*; James D. G. Dunn, *Baptism in the Holy Spirit*; the broad Reformed and evangelical consensus.

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. It must flatten the Acts 8 sequence, where Luke says the Spirit "was fallen upon none of them" though they had believed and been baptized, a sentence that is hard to fit if reception is automatic at faith. And it has to explain why Paul asks the Ephesians a question about timing at all, if no gap is ever possible.

2. THE OBJECTION02the answer ›The sacramental viewThe Spirit is given in baptism and sealed in confirmation or chrismation. What Pentecostals seek in a later crisis experience the church has always given in the sacraments; the appropriate later development is a deeper living-out of what was already received.Its case, in fullIt has continuity: the laying on of hands after baptism in Acts 8 and 19 is exactly what confirmation formalizes, and the church was doing it by the second century.It grounds assurance in something objective (a promise attached to an act of the church) rather than in the intensity of a personal experience, which fluctuates.It resists the tiering of Christians as firmly as the Reformed view does.Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching; classical Anglican and Lutheran confirmation practice.

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. It can turn a living reception into a completed formality, and it does not easily account for the datable, unmistakable, sometimes disruptive character of the outpourings Luke describes.

Where others land: 2 positions, each with what it costs

1. THE OBJECTION01the answer ›Initial evidence: the classical Pentecostal positionTongues is the initial physical evidence that a believer has been baptized in the Holy Spirit. It is distinct from the ongoing gift of tongues for ministry, which not everyone has.Its case, in fullIt reads the Acts pattern consistently rather than selectively, and it explains why Peter in Acts 10:46 treats tongues as sufficient proof that Cornelius's household had received the same gift.It gives an ordinary believer something concrete to expect rather than an undefined feeling.The distinction between evidential tongues and the congregational gift is not an ad hoc rescue; Paul himself distinguishes private tongues that edify the speaker from public tongues requiring interpretation in 1 Corinthians 14:2-5, 18-19.The Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths; the Church of God (Cleveland); the Foursquare Church; the Azusa Street tradition from 1906.

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. No New Testament text states the doctrine directly; it is inferred from narrative. And it can leave sincere believers who have sought the filling for years feeling that God has passed them over, a pastoral cost the position must own and its best teachers do.

2. THE OBJECTION02the answer ›Tongues is one gift among manyThe Spirit distributes gifts as he wills, tongues included. A person may be genuinely and powerfully filled and never speak in tongues. Requiring it as evidence adds a condition Scripture does not state.Its case, in full1 Corinthians 12:11 and 12:30 both point the same direction: the distribution is the Spirit's choice, and not everyone gets the same gift.Acts describes the outpourings in different terms in different places: tongues in some, prophecy, boldness, and praise in others.It removes a test that has, in practice, produced imitation and quiet shame in people who did not want to be left out.Most of the charismatic renewal; the Vineyard; Gordon Fee, *God's Empowering Presence* — himself a lifelong Pentecostal who argued against making tongues a required evidence.

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. It can soften into expecting nothing in particular, which is not what Acts describes either. If the filling is real, something should be different.

Where others land: 1 position, each with what it costs

1. THE OBJECTION01the answer ›Prophecy today is a lesser, fallible gift than ScriptureOld Testament prophets spoke God's words directly and were to be stoned if wrong. New Testament congregational prophecy is a Spirit-prompted impression reported in human words, which can be partly right and must be judged. It never carries the authority of Scripture.Its case, in fullIt explains why Paul commands the church to weigh prophecies at all: you do not weigh the words of God.It preserves the sufficiency and uniqueness of Scripture while leaving room for the gift.It fits 1 Corinthians 13:9, "we prophesy in part" — partial by nature, not merely partial in delivery.Wayne Grudem, *The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today*; widely held across the charismatic and Third Wave stream.

   THE ANSWER

   The honest difficulty. Critics argue this creates a category the Bible does not have, and that a prophecy which may be wrong is not what the word "prophecy" meant to any first-century reader.