Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the Book of Acts

by Edgar R. Lee

People often allege that Pentecostals wrongly base their doctrine of baptism in the Holy Spirit on three historical passages in Acts. To counter that misperception, I have pointed out in previous articles in this series that we find the theological roots of the doctrine in both the Old Testament and the Gospels.1

The primary texts, of course, do come from the Book of Acts, which in relating the formative history of the Early Church, shows how the “promise of the Father” (Acts 1:4, KJV)2 flowing from the Old Testament through the Gospels finds fulfillment in the teaching and experiences of the early followers of the Christ.

While many Christians accept Acts as historical, even inspired, they do not allow Acts to inform their doctrine and spiritual life. Fortunately, rigorous study of Luke’s writings from all points on the theological spectrum has dramatically enhanced our appreciation for Luke not just as a historian but also as a theologian who emphasizes the charismatic dimensions of the Spirit’s work prophesied in the Old Testament.

In this article, I interpret Luke as a charismatic theologian who demonstrates that baptism in the Holy Spirit is an experience of empowering to facilitate the mission of the Church.

Luke’s Stated Theme

In his introduction to Acts, Luke indicates what he understands baptism in the Holy Spirit to be. With a few terse lines he connects Acts to his Gospel via the post-Resurrection dialogs of Jesus and the disciples.3 He specifically recalls Jesus’ final instructions: “[Jesus] ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for the promise of the Father” (Acts 1:4, NRSV;4 cf. Luke 24:49). Jesus’ reason for such a command then follows: “For John baptized with [in]5 water, but in a few days you will be baptized with [in] the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5). Luke, further recalling Jesus’ words, describes the outcome of the anticipated baptism in the Spirit: “But you will receive power (dynamis) when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8; cf. Luke 24:49).

What Luke intends to teach Theophilus (Acts 1:1), and all who later will read his book, is that baptism in the Holy Spirit is an encounter with the Spirit of God that empowers the emerging Church for worldwide witness to the salvation provided through the crucified and risen Jesus. Luke does not intend to develop a full-blown pneumatology that explores the Spirit’s wider soteriological role.

Baptism — Metaphor for an Overwhelming Experience

Luke informs us that Jesus, just before His ascension, recapitulated the Baptist’s prediction of Spirit baptism: “For John baptized with [in] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with [in] the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5). The Baptist’s prophecy is so compelling that each of the Gospel writers placed it at the beginning of his work (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). Luke also alludes to it at the end of his Gospel (24:49) as well as at the beginning of Acts. Any promise given pride of place at the beginning of each of the first five books in the New Testament is uncommonly important and hardly to be neglected.

The language of baptism is graphic and dramatic. The Greek verb baptizo, the form used throughout the New Testament, means to “to dip [completely, i.e. “immerse”]” or “to cause to perish (as by drowning a man or sinking a ship).”6 It derives from bapto, which means “to dip,” “to dip into a dye,” or “to dye,” thus “immersion.” Used literally or metaphorically, baptism is a vivid image that describes an overwhelming experience.

Scholars think John adapted his practice of baptizing from the initiatory rites required of Gentile proselytes who immersed themselves in water as a part of their purification to enter Jewish faith. While various washings characterized Jewish life, Jews themselves as God’s covenant people, it was thought, had no need to be baptized. So the Baptist’s call for persons to repent and demonstrate their sincerity by baptism in water like Gentile proselytes was indeed a radical event. Not surprisingly, this repelled the Jewish elite and they rejected the Baptist’s message (Luke 7:30).

There is also a striking comparison and contrast between John’s baptism in water and Jesus’ promised baptism in the Holy Spirit. The comparison, using the language of analogy, is that just as the Baptist and his disciples submerged repentant Jews in water, the coming Messiah will plunge His followers in the Holy Spirit. The contrast lies in that, while baptism in water is indeed a radical religious event, baptism in the Holy Spirit administered by the Messiah is exponentially more powerful and significant. Luke’s narrative demonstrates what a profound and overwhelming experience baptism in the Spirit turns out to be.

Pentecost — Overwhelmed by the Spirit of Prophecy

The initial fulfillment of Jesus’ promise to baptize in the Holy Spirit occurs on the Day of Pentecost. Describing the event, Luke shifts metaphors, “All of them [the 120] were filled (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4). Like the baptismal imagery, being “filled” emphasizes the initiative of the divine Baptizer, but it also specifically notes the impact on the recipient. As an immediate result of being “filled” with the Spirit, the disciples “began to speak in other tongues (lalein heterais glossais) as the Spirit enabled (apophthengomai) them” (Acts 2:4).

Luke further heightened and illuminated the effective agency of the Spirit by using the unusual verb apophthengomai. Never adequately translated by English versions, and used only three times in the New Testament (Acts 2:4,14; 26:25),7 this rare verb specifically indicates that the “other tongues” of these newly Spirit baptized believers are inspired by the Holy Spirit. In ancient Greek, while apophthengomai might denote the speech of a wise person, it was also used specifically for the speech “of an oracle giver, diviner, prophet, exorcist, and other inspired persons.”8

Significantly, Luke also employs this unusual verb to describe Peter’s impassioned sermon to the bewildered observers. “Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed (apophthengomai) the crowd” (2:14). Just as the Spirit enabled the 120 to speak with other tongues, the Spirit enabled Peter to speak as a prophet in his native tongue. Quoting from Joel 2:28–32, Peter delivered a remarkably astute theological and evangelistic presentation of what God has done through Jesus of Nazareth, now unquestionably “Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). The explanation of the Pentecost event and its attendant phenomena is that the crucified and exalted Jesus has received and is pouring out the gift of the Holy Spirit (2:33,38), and thereby signaling the arrival of the new covenant era.

Not only is Peter speaking as a prophet, he also places particular emphasis on prophecy as the sign of the Spirit’s coming. Having received the Spirit, he says from Joel, both “sons and daughters will prophesy” (Acts 2:17). The Hebrew text of Joel used “prophesy” only one time. But, lest his hearers miss the point, Peter appends a second “they will prophesy” to the end of his quotation (verse 18). Luke obviously understands that speaking in other tongues at Pentecost is a particular form of prophecy.

The Pentecost narrative, taken at face value, is about the Spirit’s coming in prophetic empowerment to enable believers to bear effective witness to the new covenant salvation provided through belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. As Roger Stronstad rightly puts it, “The pouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost inaugurates nothing less than God’s people as the prophethood of all believers.”9

Given the full sweep of biblical theology from the entire New Testament canon, we of course assume these recipients of the Spirit have been converted via a work of the Spirit. But for Luke, regeneration by the Spirit is not what he wishes to emphasize — baptism in the Spirit/filling with the Spirit in Acts is for prophetic empowering.

Continued Baptisms in the Spirit

While there appears to have been many baptisms in the Spirit, i.e. initial “fillings” of the Spirit, in Acts, Luke purposefully narrated only three (including Pentecost) that mention speaking with other tongues. The second occurrence, narrated in chapter 10, took place a few years after Pentecost in the Roman provincial capital of Caesarea on the Palestine coast. There, the Spirit suddenly and unexpectedly “came on” (10:44; epipipto, literally, “fall on”) a Gentile audience in the home of a Roman centurion, Cornelius, where Peter was a somewhat reluctant missionary. Peter’s Jewish companions were understandably “astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God” (verses 45,46). Peter concludes, “They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (verse 47). Beyond question, in this case, speaking in tongues is a decisive sign of baptism in the Spirit.

Luke also narrates Peter’s report to the Jerusalem church leaders who were skeptical of his approach to the Gentiles. “Then I remembered what the Lord had said, ‘John baptized with [in] water, but you will be baptized with [in] the Holy Spirit.’ So … God gave them the same gift as he gave us” (Acts 11:16,17). Though Jewish believers can, at this point, scarcely believe and accept this, Peter attests that God sovereignly baptizes even Gentiles in the Holy Spirit, as indicated by the same prophetic phenomena of “speaking in tongues and praising God” experienced at Pentecost and, presumably, frequently thereafter.

The third example of Spirit baptism is in the narrative of Paul’s ministry to “some disciples (mathetes)” whom Paul met in Ephesus. They, like Apollos in Acts 18, have some relationship to the movement inspired by John the Baptist and have been baptized in that movement (19:1–5). Observing something amiss in their spiritual formation, Paul inquired, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when [after] you believed?” (verse 2; “after,” included as an alternate reading in the NIV margin, is grammatically and contextually the better reading).10 Receiving a negative answer, Paul further instructed and then rebaptized them “into the name of the Lord Jesus” (verse 5). At this point, if not before (“disciples” are always believers in Acts), Paul considered them authentic believers. After their water baptism, “when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied” (verse 6). This narrative bristles with intriguing questions, but in any event Luke has provided a third instructive example of baptism in the Holy Spirit in which believers experience an overwhelming post-conversion visitation of the Spirit, attested by speaking in tongues, that prophetically quickens their witness.

Reflecting on these three texts, Donald Johns remarks, “It is a common storytelling technique the world over to tell things in groups of threes: three times should be enough to tell anything. The paradigmatic effect of these stories should lead us to expect the same things in our own experience with the Spirit.”11

Luke’s Terminology

The structure and content of these narratives notwithstanding, Protestants often insist that baptism in the Holy Spirit is the new birth, at which time the Holy Spirit spiritually regenerates a person and brings him into the community of faith via baptism in water (often termed today as “conversion/initiation”12). Luke’s narratives do not support this understanding and a more focused look at his terms in context makes it even clearer.

“Baptize/d in the Spirit.” Luke only uses the phrase “baptize/d in the Holy Spirit” two times in Acts (1:5; 11:15,16; with five occurrences in the Gospels). As we have seen, Luke’s introduction in chapter 1 associates the promised baptism in the Spirit with power for witness. Luke’s account of the Spirit’s coming on the Day of Pentecost (2:4) likewise focuses exclusively on prophetic empowering. Peter’s use of the phrase with reference to Cornelius’ experience (11:16) focuses on the prophetic empowering of the Gentiles signaled by their speaking with tongues and praising God. While these contexts always assume belief in Jesus, there is no textual association of the phrase with regeneration as a work of the Spirit.

“Filled with the Spirit.” As Luke shows in Acts 2:4, “baptize/d in the Spirit” may also be termed “filled with the Spirit,” his favorite term. However, “filled with the Spirit” is somewhat more generic and may also be used to describe special visitations of the Spirit after an initial baptism in the Spirit. Luke shows that Peter (4:8), the assembled believers (4:31), and Paul (13:9) have experienced subsequent “fillings”of the Spirit for crisis ministry. But Luke never uses “filled with the Spirit” to denote new birth; it always denotes a powerful prophetic empowering for witness (cf. Luke 1:15,41,67; Acts 13:52).13

Paul’s use of this phrase somewhat parallels Luke’s. When Paul urged (present imperative), “be filled [pleroorather than Luke’s pimplemi] with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18ff.), he described the effect as a repetitive experience including both personal worship and charismatic hymnody to edify the community, as well as to inspire ethical conduct.14

Other terms. The coming of the Spirit to early believers was an observable event for which Luke employed a vivid and varied vocabulary reminiscent of that used by the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) to describe the experiences of Old Testament leaders when the Holy Spirit came upon them for prophetic and other leadership functions.15 Speaking of the experiences of Cornelius’ household, Luke twice used the phrase, “the Holy Spirit [fell] on (epipipto [NIV “came on”]; 10:44, 11:15)” the believers. Luke uses “Receive (lambano)” the Holy Spirit both of the Caesareans and the Ephesians (10:47; 19:2). The Holy Spirit was “poured out (ekcheo)” on the Caesareans (10:45) and also “came (erchomai [variant epipipto])” to the Ephesians (19:6). These terms are not the language of regeneration; they are the language of charismatic empowering.

Luke’s conversion language. Luke shares with the Early Church a common vocabulary that for him, at least, distinguishes conversion from Spirit baptism. Luke’s most common descriptor of conversion in Acts is “to believe [in Christ].” For example: “But many who heard the message believed (pisteuo), and the number of men grew to about five thousand” (Acts 4:4); “everyone who believes (pisteuo) in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (10:43); “Believe (pisteuo) in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved … he [the Philippian jailer] was filled with joy because he had come to believe (pisteuo) in God” (cf. 16:31,34; cf.5:14; 8:12,13; 9:42; 10:43; 11:21; 13:12,48; 14:1; 17:12,34; 18:8,27, et al.). Luke also uses other terms for coming to faith, e.g. “accepted the word of God” (8:14); “received the word of God” (11:1); “believed and turned to the Lord” (11:21); “repentance and … faith” (20:21); “repent and turn to God” (26:20).

It seems evident that Luke consciously distinguishes between conversion and baptism in/being filled with the Spirit.

One Baptism — Many Fillings

The fact there are numerous times after the Day of Pentecost when believers previously filled with/baptized in the Spirit are again “filled with the Spirit,” leads some to question whether baptism in the Spirit is subsequent to regeneration. Peter was filled with/baptized in the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. But when brought up on charges for preaching about Jesus and healing in His name, he was again “filled with the Holy Spirit” to reply to his accusers (Acts 4:1–21). In response to further intimidation, as Peter and John gathered and prayed with the assembled believers, “the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly” (4:31–33). Sometime later, Paul who had already been “filled with the Holy Spirit” upon the imposition of Ananias’ hands (9:17) was again “filled with the Holy Spirit” to chasten the sorcerer Elymas (13:10).

It is important to observe that Luke does not call these subsequent fillings “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” Moreover, each of these “fillings” with the Spirit is an occasion of prophetic inspiration enabling believers to wisely, powerfully, and effectively bear witness to their resurrected Lord in a wide variety of settings, many fraught with danger. None of them is a conversion experience.

Pentecostals have long recognized that Luke presents a decisive post-conversion coming of the Spirit in power that is properly one’s baptism in the Holy Spirit. We can also refer to this event as “being filled with the Spirit.” But in no case does Luke describe a repeated “filling” of the Spirit as “baptism in the Spirit.” After initial baptism in/filling with the Spirit, the Spirit continues to work episodically and supernaturally, often repetitively, in various circumstances. Pentecostals, consistent with Paul’s exhortation in Ephesians 5:18–21, explain and encourage these phenomena with the dictum, “One baptism; many fillings.”

Baptism in the Holy Spirit as Subsequent Event

If Luke did not understand “baptism in the Spirit” to be regeneration, it becomes apparent that baptism in the Spirit is in some way distinguishable from regeneration by the Spirit.

Classical Pentecostals often taught that when Jesus breathed (emphysao) the Spirit upon the 10 apostles (and other believers present at the time?) in His first meeting with them after the Resurrection (John 20:21–23), they were at that moment “born again” (John 3:5), or, in Pauline language, “regenerated” (Titus 3:5). More recent Bible scholars have an increasing appreciation for the life-giving power explicit in the Old Testament usage of emphysao (cf. Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 37:9) and view this event as the anticipated climax to Jesus’ teaching about the life-giving Spirit throughout John’s Gospel.16 It is by no means exegetically and theologically far-fetched to think of the apostles and (the inner circle of believers) as being “born again” at this time.

But whatever one’s final judgment may be on John’s “insufflation” passage, it seems nonetheless apparent that belief in Christ preceded Spirit baptism in most of the carefully constructed Acts narratives. The Pentecostal view of subsequence has a broader base.

The Samaritans of Acts 8 “believed” and were “baptized” as Philip preached the “good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (verses 12,13). Yet the Holy Spirit “had not come upon any of” them until Peter and John arrived and “placed their hands on them, and [only then] they received the Holy Spirit” (verses 16,17). The Samaritan reception of the Spirit was dramatic and generally conceded to have included speaking in other tongues (though not detailed by Luke). Opportunist that he was, Simon Magus was so impressed by what he saw that he tried to purchase the power to confer the Spirit in similarly dynamic fashion (verses 18,19). To be sure, the Jerusalem leaders needed to see God’s sovereign initiative in saving the despised Samaritans. Nonetheless, we have an incontestable case in which belief in Christ and baptism in the Spirit are separated in time.

A close reading of the remainder of Acts points to similar experiences. It would appear that Paul, blinded by the blazing revelation of the resurrected Jesus, came to saving faith in that encounter on Damascus Road (9:1–9). Yet, Jesus supernaturally directed Ananias to Paul, not to evangelize him, but to lay hands on him and pray for him to be healed and filled (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit (9:17,18). Since Paul was immediately baptized in water, the reader is certainly to understand that he was baptized in the Spirit subsequent to his belief in Christ and in a similar manner as earlier believers.

The account of the coming of the Spirit to the household of Cornelius (10:24–48) is the one account that does not show a chronological sequence between the moments of regeneration and Spirit baptism (though some point to the striking piety of Cornelius and all his family thus considering them already to be old covenant believers [10:1–7]). While Peter preached to them, suddenly “the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message” (verse 44). In such a case, the distinction between regeneration and Spirit baptism may be more theological than chronological, but certainly not inseparable in a theological “order of salvation.” In any case, this event reminds Pentecostals not to insist upon a rigid and lengthy chronological separation between new birth and baptism in the Spirit.

Only occasionally does Luke closely connect both the experiences of believing in Christ and reception of the Spirit. But, of events in Pisidian Antioch he writes, “the Gentiles … honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed” (13:48) which shortly thereafter is followed by, “the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit” (13:52). In the context of Luke’s larger narrative, such an incident may well suggest an experience of the Spirit subsequent to conversion.

We can find further examples of Spirit baptism subsequent to regeneration in the connected narratives about Apollos and other disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 18:24 through 19:7). Apollos relocated from Alexandria to Ephesus already having “a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures” and being previously “instructed in the way of the Lord.” Moreover, “he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John” (18:24,25). Tersely, Luke reports “When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately” (verse 26). It appears likely, especially when one studies the linkage of this incident with that of the other erstwhile disciples of the Baptist that follows, that Apollos, too, receives Spirit baptism at this time.

With regard to Paul’s encounter with the former disciples of the Baptist, both the grammar and the chronological sequence of this narrative show that Spirit baptism followed their faith in Christ whether first experienced in the Baptist’s circle or when presented by Paul (Acts 19:1–7).

Our point here is that Luke presents baptism in the Spirit/filling with the Spirit as an experience subsequent to conversion. These two may stand in very close proximity or be discernibly separated in time. There is both a theological and (often) a chronological differentiation between the two events.

Tongues as Sign

Speaking with other tongues looms larger and is much more carefully integrated into Luke’s narrative than is generally recognized.

The tongues experience is, among other things, an important sign of baptism in the Spirit. This is clear from Luke’s pointed inclusion in his narrative of the preliminary criteria employed by Peter’s Jewish companions to judge the authenticity of the Spirit’s coming to Cornelius and his household: “For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God” (10:46).

Luke carefully shows how Peter, in his inspired prophecy on the Day of Pentecost, connected the disciples’ spontaneous tongues with Joel’s promise of the Spirit, and implicitly with the long Old Testament history of public attestation of the Spirit’s coming. When God put His Spirit on the 70 elders, they prophesied (Numbers 11:25). When “the Spirit of God came upon [Saul] in power … he joined in … prophesying” (1 Samuel 10:9,10). When Samuel anointed David, “the Spirit of the Lord came upon David in power” obviously in some demonstrable way (1 Samuel 16:13). In his mature years, David overtly identified himself as a prophet (2 Samuel 23:1,2; cf. Acts 2:30).

Theologians have regularly seen the relevance of tongues to the universal proclamation of the gospel at Pentecost with people present “from every nation under heaven” attentive to believers miraculously addressing them in their native tongues (Acts 2:5). Biblical theologians, with justification, often consider Pentecost the reversal of Babel (Genesis 11:1–9) as the Spirit directs a universal offer of salvation to all humankind. At Babel, God confused the one tongue of humankind and scattered them over the world until the completion of His purposes in the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, in the coming of the Spirit, a multiplicity of tongues signals His universal offer of salvation in Christ.

Luke’s very carefully arranged narrative, with three distinct accounts of Spirit baptism attested by speaking with other tongues set within the larger context of salvation history, is indeed supportive of the classical Pentecostal belief that speaking with other tongues is the initial sign, or evidence, of baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Finally, Luke’s unique contribution to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is to highlight the Spirit’s role in empowering believers to live, act, speak, and thus bear verbal witness in a way that facilitates the mission of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.


1. For good surveys, see Douglas A. Oss, “A Pentecostal/Charismatic View,” in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today, ed. W. A. Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 245–257; Anthony D. Palma, The Holy Spirit: A Pentecostal Perspective (Springfield, Mo.: Logion Press/Gospel Publishing House, 2001), 33–54.

2. Unless otherwise indicated, biblical quotations are from The New International Version (NIV). Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.

3. Acts is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke. Luke-Acts is often thought of as a two-volume work. Cf., the mention of “my former book” (Acts 1:1).

4. Scripture quotations marked NRSV are taken from The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version / Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America.—Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, c1989. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

5. The English preposition “in” correctly translates the root meaning of the Greek preposition en that is always found in the phrase “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” While the Greek en is certainly flexible in meaning and function, in this case “baptize in the Spirit” best fits grammatically and contextually. Thus one baptizes “in” water (immersion), that event becoming the analogy for “baptize in the Spirit.” Moreover, it is Christ who is the promised baptizer and the Spirit is the element into which one is baptized. For an extended discussion see Palma, The Holy Spirit, 100–105.

6. Colin Brown, gen. ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), 1:144.

7. The word is used six times in the Septuagint (LXX), once for genuine and five times for false prophecy (1 Chronicles 25:1; Psalm 59:7; Micah 5:12; Zechariah 10:2; Ezekiel 13:9,19). Cf. D.L. Bock, Acts(BECNT) (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 99.

8. F.W. Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. [BDAG] (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 125.

9. Roger Stronstad, The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 70.

10. For a discussion of the grammar, see Stanley M. Horton, What the Bible Says About the Holy Spirit, Rev. ed. (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 2005), 159–162.

11. Donald A. Johns, “Some New Directions in the Hermeneutics of Classical Pentecostalism’s Doctrine of Initial Evidence,” in Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism, ed. Gary B. McGee (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 163.

12. See James Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 4.

13. Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984), 53–55.

14. James Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), 238–239.

15. For a convenient list of terms, references, and helpful discussion, see Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 17-20.

16. Ably argued by scholars across the theological spectrum. See for example Horton, What the Bible Says, 128–134; H.M. Ervin, These Are Not Drunken As Ye Suppose (Plainfield, N.J.: Logos, 1968), 25-33; J.R. Williams, Renewal Theology: Salvation, the Holy Spirit, and Christian Living (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 174; G.M. Burge, The NIV Application Commentary: John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan , 2000), 559–561; C. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 2:1204,1205. For a more extensive review of the critical issues see also Burge’s The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 114–149.