logo

Many insist the baptism of the Spirit is distinct from the fullness of the Spirit.

 

Charles C. Ryrie insists that the baptizing work is never mentioned in the OT.

Baptism is frequently identified with the filling of the Spirit. Sometimes the terms “baptism” and “filling” are confused, while at other times the same error is stated by asserting that the baptism does not come at the time of regeneration but a subsequent work of grace. Confusion is compound by the fact that great men like Torrey and Moody were unclear. Torrey taught that a person could or could not be baptized with the Spirit at the moment of regeneration. (Charles C. Ryrie, The Holy Spirit, p.75.)

     Charles C. Ryrie teaches that the baptism of the Spirit is not identified with the filling of the Spirit but the baptism of the Spirit comes at the time of regeneration. Torrey teaches that “a person could or could not be baptized with the Spirit at the moment of regeneration.” Torrey’s statement is quite erroneous and based on the misinterpretation of Acts 10. There is no scriptural reference to indicate that the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at the time of regeneration. Acts 1:5-2:4 confirms that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is identified with the filling of the Holy Spirit. The terminology “the filling of the Holy Spirit” is inaccurate. It should speak of the filling of the power of the Holy Spirit. Charles C. Ryrie continues:
 
If it is the baptizing work of the Spirit that places a person in the Body of Christ, and if the Body of Christ - because it depends on the resurrection and ascension of Christ –is distinctive to this age, then so is the baptism. Biblically, the baptizing work is never mentioned as being experienced in the Old Testament or in the days of Christ’s earthly ministry. Indeed, after His resurrection and just before His ascension He declared that it was yet future (Acts 1:5). It first occurred on the day of Pentecost. (Charles C. Ryrie, Ibid., p.76.)

     The note, “It is the baptizing work of the Spirit that places a person in the Body of Christ,” is inaccurate and based on the mistranslation and misinterpretation of 1 Cor. 12:13. The baptizing work of the Spirit does not place a person in the Body of Christ (God) but gives the power of the Spirit to one who is already in the Body of Christ (God) through faith in God. This doctrine must be applied to all the children of God in both OT days and NT days. The note, “Biblically, the baptizing work is never mentioned as being experienced in the OT or in the days of Christ’s earthly ministry,” is thoroughly inaccurate.
     The note, “Indeed, after His resurrection and just before His ascension He declared that it was yet future” (Acts 1:5), is correct, but the word of Jesus in Acts 1:5 must be applied to the only 120 disciples. The note “That it first occurred on the day of Pentecost” is quite erroneous since there were many servants of God in OT days who received the power of the Spirit when the Spirit came on them. If the doctrine “to be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit and with/in fire is to receive the power of the Holy Spirit, and to receive the power of the Holy Spirit is to be filled with the power of the Holy Spirit” is not accepted, even theologians like Charles C. Ryrie will be in great confusion.

Michael Green comments on the term “the fullness of the Holy Spirit.”

What does the New Testaments say about the fullness of the Holy Spirit? Surprisingly, it says nothing at all. The Greek word for fullness, pleroma, is applied to many things in the New Testament, notably to both Christ and the Church; but never to the Holy Spirit. This is no an important point, because the idea may be present without word; but it does show how ill-based in Scripture is any attempt to make the ‘fullness of the Holy Spirit’ into a doctrinal war cry, as if it were a most important and neglected biblical emphasis. (Michael Green, I believe in the Holy Spirit, p.178.)

     The note “the NT says nothing about ‘the fullness of the Holy Spirit” is incorrect. For an example, examine Luke 4:1: “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan River.” Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit or He was in the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Both mean the same. Being “full of the Holy Spirit” is the same as “the fullness of the Holy Spirit” according to the literal wording of the NT regar- ding the fullness of the Holy Spirit. But as noted already above, “Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit” must be translated and interpreted to mean, “Jesus was full of the power of the Holy Spirit.” The right and biblical terminology should speak of “the fullness of the power of the Holy Spirit” since in speaking of the “fullness of the Holy Spirit,” the Holy Spirit is not treated as God and a divine Person.

Billy Graham insists that the baptism of the Spirit is not the fullness of the Spirit.

Since the baptism with the Spirit occurs at the time of regeneration, Christians are never told in Scripture to seek it. The purpose of the baptism with the Holy Spirit is to bring the new Christian into the body of Christ. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a command to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. All Christians are committed to be filled with the Spirit. Anything short of a Spirit-filled life is less than God’s plan for each believer. What does the Bible mean when it speaks of the fullness of the Holy Spirit? Let’s define the fullness of the Spirit. To be Spirit-filled is to be controlled or dominated by the Spirit’s presence and power. (Billy Graham, The Holy Spirit, p.79,80,114.)

     Billy Graham’s note, “Since the baptism with the Spirit occurs at the time of regeneration, Christians are never told in Scripture to seek it. The purpose of the baptism with the Holy Spirit is to bring the new Christian into the body of Christ,” is based on the mistranslation of the Greek lambano in John 7:39, 20:22, Acts 8:14-19, 10:47, 19:2, Gal. 3:2 and the Greek eis in 1 Cor. 12:13. The note should read, “Since the baptism of the Spirit occurs after regeneration, Christians are told in Scripture to seek it. The purpose of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not to bring the new Christian into the body of Christ. The new Christian can receive the power of the Holy Spirit after becoming one body of Christ. The note, “To be Spirit-filled is to be controlled or dominated by the Spirit’s presence and power,” is erroneous. It should read, “to be power-filled is to receive the Spirit’s power.” The note, “the baptism with the Spirit is distinct from the fullness of the Spirit,” is thoroughly unscriptural. If Acts 1:4-2:4 is carefully examined, it is clear that the baptism of the Spirit is synonymous with the fullness of the power of the Spirit.

Rene Pache insists that the baptism of the Spirit is not the fullness of the Spirit.

From 1 Cor. 12:13 we can infer that the Spirit’s baptism is the act whereby God makes us members of Christ Body. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the act whereby God gives to the believer his position in Jesus Christ. It has already been pointed out that the baptism of the Spirit is not mentioned as affecting Jesus Christ. When He was baptized in the River Jordan, He was filled with the Holy Spirit, invested with the power of the Spirit, anointed by the Holy Spirit, according to the expressions used by Luke 3:22; 4:1,14,18, but nowhere is it said that He was baptized of the Holy Spirit, though many of the Spirit’s workings are mentioned in connection with Christ. Since the baptism of the Spirit is linked with the believer’s position in Christ, how, could the Savior have been immersed in Himself or united to His own Body? The Spirit’s baptism places us in Jesus Christ and enfolds us in His Grace, while the presence and fullness of the Spirit put Christ within us. (Rene Pache, The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, p.71,72.)

     “From 1 Cor. 12:13 we can infer that the Spirit’s baptism is the act whereby God makes us members of Christ Body. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the act whereby God gives to the believer his position in Jesus Christ.” This note is based on the mistranslation and misinterpretation of 1 Cor. 12:13. The Spirit’s baptism is not the act whereby God makes us members of Christ Body. All Christians are already in Christ through faith in Him before receiving the baptism of the Spirit. The note “The Spirit’s baptism places us in Jesus Christ and fullness of the Spirit put Christ within us” is from the mistranslation of John 14:17. The disciples of Jesus were in/with the Spirit through faith in Him before receiving the baptism of the Spirit at Pentecost. The Bible confirms that all Christians become members of the body of Christ through faith in Him before receiving the baptism of the Spirit. To believe in Jesus is to be a member of his body. The note (“When He was baptized in the River Jordan, He was filled with the Holy Spirit, invested with the power of the Spirit, anointed by the Holy Spirit, according to the expressions used by Luke 3:22; 4:1,14,18, but nowhere is it said that He was baptized of the Holy Spirit”) is quite erroneous. Acts 1:5,8 and 2:2-4 affirm that to be baptized with/in the Spirit is to be filled with power of the Holy Spirit, so we should conclude that Jesus was filled with the power of the Spirit; that is, He was baptized with/in the Spirit immediately after He was baptized with/in water in the Jordan. The doctrine of the Spirit is in great confusion when Acts 1:5,8 and 2:2-4 are misunderstood.

John F. MacArthur insists that the baptism of the Spirit is not the fullness of the Spirit.

In Acts 1:8 clearly, the receiving of power was parallel to the receiving of the Holy Spirit…the disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost. What is the difference between the baptism and the filling? Charles and Frances Hunter, for example, lead seminars instructing people how to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Charles Hunter speaks of the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the fullness of the Holy Spirit as if they were the same. They are not. Acts 2:4 simply says, “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.” (John F. MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, p.214,234-235.)

     The note, “In Acts 1:8 clearly, the receiving of power was parallel to the re- ceiving of the Spirit,” is from the misunderstanding of Acts 1:8. The receiving of power was by no means parallel to the receiving of the Holy Spirit. The note “the disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost” is quite erroneous since it is from the mistranslation and misinterpretation of John 14:16-17 and Rom. 8:8-16, which record that the disciples received the Holy Spirit before the day of Pentecost. In the note John F. MacArthur says, “Charles Hunter speaks of the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the fullness of the Holy Spirit as if they were the same. They are not.” But Charles Hunter is quite correct in this instance. Acts 1:5,8 and 2:3-4 confirm that the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the fullness of the power of the Holy Spirit are the same. MacArthur continues:

Acts 2:1-4 teaches two distinctive truths. At Pentecost, Christian believers were baptized with the Holy Spirit into the body. Then the Holy Spirit filled those believers to give a miraculous testimony. Acts 2:3-4 records the actual reception of the Spirit. The disciples were baptized with the Spirit (verses 2-3), accompanied by a sound from heaven like a mighty rushing wind and cloven tongues as of fire, which rested upon each of them. At that point all were filled with the Spirit and began to speak in other languages. (John F. MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, p.216, 235.)

     The note, “Acts 2:1-4 teaches at Pentecost, Christian believers were baptized with the Holy Spirit into the body,” is quite erroneous. At Pentecost the 120 dis- ciples were baptized with/in the Holy Spirit as the existing body of Christ (In the Upper room “they were all together in one place” in Acts  2:1). MacArthur failed to grasp that to believe in Jesus is to be in the one body of Jesus. The 120 disciples did already believe in Jesus before the day of Pentecost.
     They were already in the body of Jesus before Pentecost. As the body of Jesus they were baptized with/in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. The misinter- pretation and misunderstanding of John F. MacArthur is based on the mistrans- lation of 1 Cor. 12:13. The note “the disciples were baptized with the Spirit (verses 2-3). At that point all were filled with the Spirit and began to speak in other lan- guages” can be summarized, “At Pentecost, the disciples were baptized with the Holy Spirit, and they all were filled with the Spirit. Interestingly, through his note, MacArthur equates “to be baptized with the Spirit” with “to be filled with the Spirit,” making both phrases synonymous. It is quite ironical that he also insists that to be baptized with the Spirit is not to be filled with the Spirit. MacArthur continues:  

1 Corinthians 12:13 makes clear that Spirit baptism is actually an integral part of every Christian’s salvation experience. Spirit baptism brings the believers into a vital union with Christ. To be baptized with the Holy Spirit means that Christ immerses us in the Spirit. Baptism with the Spirit makes all believers one. It is a fact, not feeling. (John F. MacArthur, Ibid., p.230-231.)

     The note is quite erroneous since it is based on the mistranslation of 1 Cor. 12:13. Thus, it must be “1 Cor.12:13 makes clear that the Spirit’s baptism is not actually an integral part of every Christian’s salvation experience.” The Spirit’s baptism does not bring the believers into a vital union with Christ. To be baptized with the Holy Spirit does not mean that Christ immerses us in the Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit does not make all believers one. The Scripture confirms that all believers were made one through faith in Christ sent by God prior to receiving the baptism of the Spirit. Acts 1:5,8 and 2:3-4 record that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is to receive the power of the Holy Spirit, that is, to be filled with the power of the Holy Spirit.

Richard B. Gaffin insists that the baptism of the Spirit is not the fullness of the Spirit.

As I have already tried to show, the baptism with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is a unique event of epochal significance in the history of redemption. Therefore it is no more capable of being repeated or serving as a model for individual Christian experience that are the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. This, by the way, is an indication that the filling of the Spirit is not identical with the baptism of the Spirit. Unlike the latter in its once-for-all occurrence at conversion, being filled with the Spirit is an ongoing process or activity in the Christian life. The command of Eph 5:18 may be variously paraphrased: “be continually full of the Spirit,” “be filled with the Spirit again and again.” (Richard B. Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost, p.22,32.)

     Richard B. Gaffin insists that the baptism with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is no longer capable of being repeated or serving as a model for individual Christian experience. This statement is erroneous because it is from the misunderstanding of the relation between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the filling of the power of the Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, i.e., the filling of the power of Spirit at Pentecost, is being repeated and will serve as a model as an individual Christian experience subsequent to conversion until the second coming of Christ.
 

Sinclair M. Ferguson comments on “baptized with the Spirit and filled with the Spirit.”

The apostles were regenerated. Later, at Pentecost, they experienced a new work of the Spirit: they were baptized and filled with the Spirit and spoke in other tongues as an evidence of this new stage of his activity in their lives. (Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, p.82.)

     It is correct to write, “The apostles were regenerated. Later, at Pentecost, they experienced a new work of the Spirit.” But the note “at Pentecost, they were bap- tized and filled with the Spirit” is quite ambiguous. The relation between “were baptized and filled with the Spirit” is not clear. It is preferable to say at Pentecost that the 120 disciples were baptized with/in the Spirit, that is, they were filled with (the power) of the Spirit. To make it clear: The 120 disciples were regenerated be- fore the day of Pentecost. Later, at Pentecost, they experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that is, the filling of the power of the Holy Spirit.

John F. Walvoord comments on the baptism of the Spirit and the fullness of the Spirit.

Baptism is often identified with the filling of the Holy Spirit. Particularly older writers such D. H. Dolman use the expression baptism as a synonym for filling. While their teaching may be most helpful as in the case of Dolman, the terminology is confusing and in the case of some writers results in the end in unscriptural teaching.
(John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit, p.139.)

     Walvoord insists, “baptism is not identified with the filling of the Holy Spirit. The expression baptism is not a synonym for filling. The terminology is confu- sing.” This note is quite erroneous and his own terminology (“the filling of the Holy Spirit”) is confusing. The vast majority of all Christians accept the termi- nology “the filling of the Holy Spirit,” but it is quite unbiblical. It is based on the mistranslation of Acts 2:4. We must speak of “the filling of the power of the Holy Spirit” since according to the doctrine of the Trinity the Holy Spirit must be treated as God the Holy Spirit and a divine Person. John F. Walvoord continues:

In Acts 1:5, Christ in His parting words to His disciples said, “For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.” Two important facts appear in this statement: (1) Up to this time the Holy Spirit had not baptized them; (2) they would receive the baptism in or with the Holy Spirit in a few days “not many days hence.” They were told to wait in Jerusalem until they were baptized by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4). (John F. Walvoord, Ibid., p.144.)

     The terminology in this note shows great confusion. For instance, in the note “They would receive the baptism in or with the Holy Spirit,” the Spirit is treated as an element/means like water. In the note “The Spirit had not baptized them and they were baptized by the Spirit,” the Spirit is treated correctly as the baptizer like Jesus. If the Spirit is not treated as God the Spirit, without a single exception, all subsequent writings on the Spirit will be in great confusion. Walvoord continues:

The indications are unmistakable that this prophecy was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost. The power to witness, while not connected with the baptism of the Spirit, was present on the Day of Pentecost and the disciples immediately began the work of Christ specified as their program in Acts 1:8, and on the Day of Pentecost, the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit. (John F. Walvoord, Ibid., p.144.)

     The note, “The power to witness, while not connected with the baptism of the Spirit,” is thoroughly inaccurate and based on the misinterpretation of Acts 1:5,8, which confirm that the baptism of the Spirit is to receive the power to witness. The note argues that this prophecy (Acts 1:5) was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost; the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit. According to this note, if this prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost, they were baptized with/in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. He also argues that at Pentecost, the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit. Here, it can be seen that Walvoord teaches that to be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit is the same as “to be filled with the Holy Spirit.” But he also argues that that baptism is not identified with the filling of the Holy Spirit, and baptism and filling are not synonymous. His insistence is confusing and ironical and based upon the misinterpretation of Acts 1:4-2:4 and 1 Cor. 12:13.

Robert Gromacki insists that the baptism in the Spirit is not the filling of the Spirit.

The baptism in the Holy Spirit and the filling of the Holy Spirit are two separate divine works. Although several groups try to equate them, the biblical evidence contrasts them. The baptism in the Holy Spirit is once-for-all operation, whereas filling is a continuous process. The baptism in the Holy Spirit is nonexperiential, whereas filling is a reality to be experienced. There is no command for any believer to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, but there is a command to be filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18). The baptism in the Spirit is universal among all Christians (1 Cor. 12:13). (Robert Gromacki, The Holy Spirit, p.494.)

     This thoroughly inaccurate statement is based on the misunderstanding of Acts 1:5,8, 2:3-4 and 1 Cor. 12:13. The baptism with/in the Holy Spirit and the filling of the Holy Spirit are synonymous. To be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit (and with/ in fire) is to receive the power of the Holy Spirit/to be filled with the power of the Holy Spirit after salvation.

R. A. Torrey identifies “baptized with the Spirit” with “filled with the Spirit.”

In Acts 1:5 He said, “For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.” When this promise of John the Baptist and of our Lord was fulfilled, “there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them. And they were filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:3,4, RV). Here we have another expression, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” used synonymously with “baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (R. A. Torrey, The Person & Work of the Holy Spirit, p.146.)

     Torrey says, “Here we have another expression, ‘filled with the Holy Spirit,’ used synonymously with ‘baptized with the Holy Spirit.’” This is correct according to the records of Acts 1:5 and 2:3-4. But the phrases “filled with the Holy Spirit and baptized with the Holy Spirit” fail to treat the Spirit as God the Spirit. The correct expressions should be “filled with the power of the Holy Spirit” and “baptized with/in the Holy Spirit’s fire.”

Merrill F. Unger rejects the doctrine of the Spirit mentioned by R. A. Torrey.

R. A. Torrey, much quoted by charismatic leaders, mistakenly equated “the gift of the Spirit” with “the filling of the Spirit” and then identified both these terms with “the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” As a result, Torrey served “as a kind of John the Baptist figure for later international Pentecostalism.” The Pentecostal Donald Gee declares, “It was, perhaps, Dr. Torrey who first gave the teaching of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost a new, and certainly more scriptural and doctrinally correct emphasis. His logical presentation of truth did much to establish the doctrine.” Torrey’s error comes to light when all the references to Spirit baptism are collated and the historical section is studied in the light of Jesus’ upper room discourse and the doctrinal epistles. (Merrill F. Unger, The Baptism & Gifts of the Holy Spirit, p.70.)

     Merrill F. Unger teaches that R. A. Torrey, much quoted by charismatic leaders, mistakenly equated “the gift of the Spirit” with “the filling of the Spirit” and then identified both these terms with “the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” The insistence of  R. A. Torrey is quite right and biblical, but terminology “the filling of the Spirit” is erroneous. It should speak of “the filling of the power of the Spirit.” The note of Merrill F. Unger, “Torrey’s error comes to light when all the references to Spirit baptism are collated and the historical section is studied in the light of Jesus’ upper room discourse and the doctrinal epistles,” is quite erroneous. The book of Acts must be consistent with the Epistles since each is the word of God written by the Holy Spirit through the disciples of Jesus. The book of Acts should be read for the history of the disciples as well as for doctrine just as the Epistles are. The OT and NT are the word of God, revealing the history of the sons of God and the doctrine of God. To argue that the doctrine of Acts is not consistent with that of the Epistles is based on the mistranslations and misinterpretations of the Greek text.

Stanley M. Horton identifies “baptism” with “filling.”

But what happened on the Day of Pentecost was not only called a baptism. Many other terms are used. It was indeed a baptism, but the Bible also says it was a filling. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit (2:4). With all these terms used, it is thus impossible to suppose that baptism refers to something different from filling, or that the Pentecostal experience was limited to the Day of Pentecost. (Stanley M. Horton, What the Bible says about the Holy Spirit, p.138.)

     The note is right and biblical. But Horton mistakenly accepted the phrase “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4) as authentic. Horton continues:

It was a pouring out of the Spirit upon them, as Joel prophesied (2:28-32). It was a receiving (an active taking) of a gift (2:38); a falling upon (8:16; 11:44; 11:15); a pouring out of the Gift (10:45); and a coming upon (19:6). (Stanley M. Horton, Ibid., p.138-9.)

     The note “It was a pouring out of the Spirit upon them, as Joel prophesied”(2:28-32) is from the mistranslation of Joel 2:28-32 and Acts 2:17-18. It should be “It was a pouring out of the gift of the Spirit upon them.” This was a receiving of the gift of the Spirit and a pouring out of the gift of the Spirit. The gift of the Spirit does not point to the Spirit as the gift, but one of nine gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7-10).

John R. Rice identifies “baptized with the Holy Spirit” with “filled with the Holy Spirit.”

We will find that at least five terms were very clearly used about what happened to the disciples at Pentecost. These terms are: (1) “endued with power from on high,” (2) “filled with the Holy Ghost,” (3) “baptized with the Holy Ghost,” (4) “I will pour out of my Spirit,” (5) “the gift of the Holy Ghost.” These terms are clearly used about the one identical blessing. (John R. Rice, The Power of Pentecost, p.144.)

     John R. Rice’s argument is right and biblical except his misuse of some terminology. John R. Rice continues:  

It is all right to speak of being “filled with the Spirit,” if you mean endued with the power from on high. It is all right to speak of being “baptized with the Spirit,” if you make it quite clear that you mean endued with power from on high. It is all right to speak of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon people. “Filled with the Spirit” is the term most often used of the power of Pentecost. “Filled with the Holy Ghost” means exactly the same as “endued with power from on high.” (John R. Rice, Ibid., p.145,147.)

     The note, “It is all right to speak of being ‘filled with the Spirit,’ if you mean endued with the power from on high,” is erroneous. In speaking of “filled with the Spirit,” the Spirit is not treated as God and a divine Person. The note “It is all right to speak of being baptized with the Spirit” should rather be, “It is all right to speak of being baptized with/in the Spirit and with/in fire.” The note “It is all right to speak of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon people” should rather read, “It is all right to speak of the pouring out of the gift of the Holy Spirit upon people.” The note, “‘Filled with the Spirit’ is the term most often used of the power of Pentecost” is no doubt a valid observation, but it is more correct to speak of being filled with the power of the Spirit.

J. Oswald Sanders does not identify the baptism with the filling.

Our Lord’s promise, “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence,” when the promise was fulfilled, no mention is made of the baptism at all. The statement is “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.” For this reason it is contended by those who hold the previous view that the words baptized and filled may be used interchangeably. But it is by no means necessarily so. The distinction between these words is of vital importance, for much hinges on it. Actually the words “baptism” and “filling,” far from being synonymous, are opposite in meaning. By the baptism, we are in the Spirit. By the filling, the Spirit is in us. To say that the words “baptized,” “filled” or “received” can be used interchangeably and practically synonymous, is a gratuitous assumption which lacks support both in Scripture and etymology. The power for service received by the disciples on the day of Pentecost is said to be the result of the filling, not of the baptism. (J. Oswald Sanders, The Holy Spirit and His gifts, p.64,65,69.)

     The note, “To say that the words baptized, filled or received can be used inter- changeably and practically synonymous, is a gratuitous assumption which lacks support both in Scripture and etymology,” is thoroughly inaccurate. It is based upon the misinterpretation of Acts 1:5,8 and 2:1-4. The argument “the words bap- tized and filled may be used interchangeably” is right and biblical since in fact both words are used interchangeably in the NT, including Acts 1:4-2:4.
     The word “baptized” is synonymous with “filled” in the NT but both words are not synonymous with the word “received.” The claim that both are synonymous with the word “received” is from the mistranslation of the Greek verb lambano. “The power for service received by the disciples on the day of Pentecost is said to be the result of the filling, not of the baptism,” also is thoroughly inaccurate. To be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit and with/in fire is to receive the power of the Holy Spirit, i.e., to be filled with the power of the Holy Spirit.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones is in great confusion on “the baptism and the filling.”

A man is baptized and filled with the Spirit at the same time. But I want to suggest that a man can be filled with the Spirit in terms of Ephesians 5:18, and still not be baptized with the Spirit. That is the confusion of regarding Ephesians 5:18 as dealing with baptism with the Spirit. (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joy Unspeakable, p.67,198.)

     Jones says, “A man is baptized and filled with the Spirit at the same time.” That means then that “to be baptized with the Spirit” is not the same as “to be filled with the Spirit.” The note, “That is the confusion of regarding the phrase ‘be filled with the Spirit’ in Eph. 5:18 as dealing with baptism with the Spirit,” means that both things are not identical. Both arguments of Lloyd-Jones are quite erroneous. Lloyd-Jones continues:

Ananias does not instruct Paul on the way of salvation. He is sent to heal and to fill him with the Holy Spirit. Ananias visited Paul and he was baptized with the Holy Ghost. (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Ibid., p.29,110.)

     Lloyd-Jones says that Ananias was sent to heal and to fill Paul with the Holy Spirit. That means that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit by Ananias sent by Christ. Lloyd-Jones also says that Ananias visited Paul and he was baptized with the Holy Ghost by Ananias. This explanation suggests that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit by Ananias, and was baptized with the Holy Spirit by him. If it is said that Paul was baptized and filled with the Spirit at the same time, it makes no sense. Lloyd-Jones insists that in the case of the apostle Paul both things are iden- tical, but in the statement mentioned above, he insists they are not identical. Through his statements, it is confirmed that Lloyd-Jones himself is in great confusion. If anyone does not accept both things as identical, he will be in great confusion like Lloyd-Jones. Lloyd-Jones continues:

In Acts chapter 1:5 we read that our Lord told the disciples that they should ‘be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.’ Then in Acts 2 we get the fulfillment of that: in ten days or so it did happen. But the interesting thing is that in Acts 2, where we are given the account of how the first disciples and apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit, the term ‘baptism’ is not used; we are told that ‘they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,’ and that is term that is generally used afterwards. Now that tends to lead to confusion in this way–people jump to the conclusion that every time you come across the phrase ‘filled with the Spirit’ it must of necessity mean exactly the same thing. They say, ‘Filled with the Spirit is filled with the Spirit.’ And so it is that so many people are utterly confused by what we read in Ephesians 5:18, ‘…but be filled with the Spirit.’ ‘Now there it is,’ they say, “be filled with the Spirit.” And the disciples were filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. So these peoples tend to fall into the error and confusion of imagining that these two things are identical.…but it was only on the day of Pentecost that they were baptized with the Spirit. (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Ibid., p.65-6,151.)

     Where then is the source of Lloyd-Jones’ confusion? His note, “In Acts chapter 1:5 we read that our Lord told the disciples that they should ‘be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.’ Then in Acts 2 we get the fulfillment of that: in ten days or so it did happen,” is supported by the Scripture even though the term ‘baptism’ is not used in Acts 2. Another note (“we are told that ‘they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,’ and that is term that is generally used afterwards. Now that tends to lead to confusion in this way–people jump to the conclusion that every time you come across the phrase ‘filled with the Spirit’ it must of necessity mean exactly the same thing”) is a mixture of correct and incorrect elements. The note, “we are told that ‘they were all filled with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pente- cost,” is supported by the Scripture (Acts 2:4). The note, “every time you come across the phrase ‘filled with the Spirit’ it must of necessity mean exactly the same thing,” is also correct, but Lloyd-Jones does not accept both as synonymous. The note, “The disciples were filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. So these peoples tend to fall into the error and confusion of imagining that these two things are identical,” is quite erroneous and makes no sense since here Lloyd-Jones himself is in great confusion. The phrase “You will be baptized with the Spirit not many days hence” in Acts 1:5 must refer to an event fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. But since Acts 2:4 reports they were all filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, we must conclude that both are exactly synonymous. In his notes, Lloyd-Jones insists that the disciples were filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. He also insists that only on the day of Pentecost they were baptized with the Spirit. In this he insists that “filled with the Spirit” and “baptized with the Spirit” are identical. Elsewhere he insists that both are not identical. So his explanations on the relation between “baptized with the Spirit” and “filled with the Spirit” are filled with great confusion, inconsistency and contradiction.
     If one does not accept both terms as synonymous, great confusion, inconsistency and contradiction result. Where then is the source of Lloyd-Jones’ great confusion? The answer is simple. He does not understand (1) that both terms are exactly synonymous, and the meaning of “to be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5) is to receive the power of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:8); and (2) “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4) is from the mistranslation about the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:5,8 and 2:2-4 confirm that to be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit, to receive the power of the Holy Spirit, namely to be filled with the power of the Holy Spirit are exactly identical. In conclusion, the reason Lloyd-Jones is in great confusion is from the misunderstanding of the relation between Acts 1:5,8 and 2:2-4. Lloyd-Jones’ comment, “So these peoples tend to fall into the error and con- fusion of imagining that these two things are identical,” is thoroughly illogical and inaccurate. If these two things are not accepted as identical, without a single exception, every Christian will follow the great error and confusion of Lloyd-Jones. Lloyd-Jones continues:

Now indeed take the very word that is used in Acts 2. Now ‘filled’ means filled. It does not merely mean that Spirit was in them, they were ‘filled with the Spirit’ to overflowing; or ‘drenched.’ (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Ibid., p.79.)

     The comment, “they were filled with the Spirit to overflowing; or drenched,” is thoroughly inaccurate since it is from the mistranslation and the misunderstanding of the relation between the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the filling of the power of the Holy Spirit. Lloyd-Jones continues:

We are sometimes told, “You never find the epistles exhorting people to be baptized.” That is perfectly right, but the answer is obvious. They are not exhorted to be baptized with the Spirit because they were already baptized with the Spirit! Now in the New Testament epistles you obviously do not get exhortations to people to seek the baptism of the Spirit. Why? Because they already had it. (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Ibid., p.36,43.)

     The inaccurate note, “You never find the epistles exhorting people to be baptized. That is perfectly right,” is the result of a failure to identify the baptism of the Spirit with the filling of the power of the Spirit, as noted above. The command “be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18) is the same as “be baptized with the Spirit.” The note, “They are not exhorted to be baptized with the Spirit because they were already baptized with the Spirit,” is inaccurate because there is no scriptural basis to indicate that all the Gentiles who received the Epistles were baptized with the Spirit. If anyone does not identify the baptism of the Spirit with the filling of the Spirit (the filling of the power of the Spirit), he will be in great confusion.  

Why do many scholars insist the baptism of the Spirit is not the fullness of the Spirit? (A)

     The first reason is that their claims, both Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal, are based on the mistranslation and misinterpretation of 1 Cor. 12:13 and Acts 1:5.

1 Cor.12:13 ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν (BNT)
NIV       We were all baptized by (ἐν) one Spirit into (εἰς) one body.
KJV       By (ἐν) one Spirit are we all baptized into (εἰς) one body.
NKJ       By (ἐν) one Spirit we were all baptized into (εἰς) one body.
NRS       In (ἐν) the one Spirit we were all baptized into (εἰς) one body.
Author   We were all baptized with/in/by (ἐν) one Spirit in (εἰς) one body.

Acts 1:5   ἐν πνεύματι βαπτισθήσεσθε ἁγίω (BNT)
NIV        You will be baptized with (ἐν) the Holy Spirit.
KJV        Ye shall be baptized with (ἐν) the Holy Ghost.
NKJ        You shall be baptized with (ἐν) the Holy Spirit.
Author    You will be baptized with/in/by (ἐν) the Holy Spirit (in one body).

     The English versions mentioned above translate en heni pneumati (ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι 1 Cor. 12:13), which is in the dative, as “by one Spirit or in one Spirit,” and en pneumati hagio (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίωActs 1:5) in the same dative as “with the Holy Spirit.” But “by the Spirit” is quite distinct from “with the Spirit.” In “by the Spirit” the Spirit is treated as God the Spirit. He is the baptizer of the baptism. In “with the Spirit” the Spirit is not treated God but the element/means of the baptism. Though “by the Spirit” is quite distinct from “with the Spirit,” most scholars mistakenly and incorrectly identify “by the Spirit” with “with the Spirit.” Thus, their interpretations are senseless and even be misleading.
     En pneumati (ἐν πνεύματι) in Acts 1:5 and 1 Cor. 12:13 must be translated as “with/in/by the Spirit” since both are the same construction. The words “and with/ in fire” are omitted in both. Graham mistakenly taught that to be baptized with the Spirit is not the fullness of the Spirit because the purpose of the baptism with the Holy Spirit is to bring the new Christian into the body of Christ and to be Spirit-filled is to be controlled by the Spirit’s presence and power. (Billy Graham, the Holy Spirit Ibid., p.114.)
His note is erroneous because it is based on the mistranslation of 1 Cor. 12:13. Nowhere in the Scripture is there a passage can be inferred to mean that the purpose of the baptism with the Holy Spirit is to bring the new Christian into the body of Christ. Its purpose is not to bring the new Christian into the body of Christ. For instance, the 120 disciples were already in the body of Christ before receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Why do non-Pentecostals insist that the baptism of the Spirit is quite distinct from the fullness of the Spirit? This is actually based on the mistranslations and misinterpretations of 1 Cor. 12:13, Acts 1:5,8 and 2:2-4.

Why do many scholars insist the baptism of the Spirit is not the fullness of the Spirit? (B)

     The second reason springs from the misinterpretation of the relation between Acts 1:5,8 and 2:1-4. When these passages are thoroughly examined, it is simple to find the meaning of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as well as the fullness of the Holy Spirit. If the relation between Acts 1:5 and 1:8 is not understood, it is particu- larly impossible to understand the relation between the baptism of the Spirit and the fullness of the Spirit, that is, the fullness of the power of the Spirit.

Acts 1:5    Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. (KJV)
NIV           You will be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a few days.
NRS          You will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.
Author       You will be baptized with/in/by the Holy Spirit (and with/in/fire) not many days from now.
Author       You will be baptized with/in fire by the Holy Spirit (in one body) not many days from now.

Acts 1:8     You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. (NIV)
Author       You will receive the power of the Holy Spirit when He comes on you.
TEV           You will be filled with power when the Holy Spirit comes on you.
Author       You will be filled with the power of the Holy Spirit when He comes on you (not many days from now).

     Both Acts 1:5 and 1:8 record the promise of Jesus that was to be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. Thus, it can be inferred that the phrase “not many days from now” is omitted in Acts 1:8. It should be observed that the words “with/in fire” in Luke 3:16 is omitted in Acts 1:5. Both have the same emphasis on the up-coming baptism of the Holy Spirit, and this is also the same promise of John the Baptist and Jesus. The promise of John the Baptist in Luke 3:16 and that of Jesus in Acts 1:5,8 were fulfilled at Pentecost. Thus, even though the wording is different, both carry the same meaning. They are synonymous thoughts. In conclusion, even though the wording is quite different, it must be inferred that the record of Acts 1:5 is synonymous with that of Acts 1:8. This is the clear teaching of the Scripture. Acts 1:8 can be inferred to mean that “You will receive the power of the Spirit when He comes on you,” or “You will be filled with the power of the Spirit when He comes on you.” Both words are the same meaning. Thus, it can be summarized as follows:

You will be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1:5)
        To be baptized with/in the Spirit

You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. (Acts 1:8)
You will receive the power of the Spirit when He comes on you.
You will be filled with the power of the Spirit when He comes on you.
        To receive the power of the Spirit when He comes on you  
        To be filled with the power of the Spirit when He comes on you

They were filled with the power of the Spirit when He comes on you. (2:3-4)

To be filled with the power of the Spirit when He came on them
     From these explanations, it can be concluded that to be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit is to receive the power of the Holy Spirit/to be filled with the power of the Spirit when the Spirit comes on you. Acts 1:5 must be consistent with Luke 3:16 and Matt. 3:11. Both Luke 3:16 and Acts 1:5 must be mentioned because the promises of both John the Baptist and Jesus were fulfilled at Pentecost. In both passages the only difference is between the use of the active voice and the passive voice. Thus, Acts 1:5 must be understood to mean that the disciples were going to be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit and with/in fire. Here, the baptizer who is Jesus is not mentioned in Acts 1:5 but Luke 3:16 records that Jesus is the baptizer of the baptism of the Spirit’s fire. After talking to His disciples (Acts 1:4-8), Jesus ascended into heaven. After His ascension, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to baptize His disciples with/in the Holy Spirit and with/in fire, that is, with/in the fire of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Actually, the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus baptized them with/in fire at Pentecost. Thus, Acts 1:5 should be inferred to mean, “You will be baptized with/in fire by the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus.” Now, Luke 3:16 and Acts 1:5,8 and 2:3-4 could be read as follows:
 
You will be baptized with the Spirit. (NIV)
You will be baptized with/in/by the Spirit.
You will be baptized with/in the Spirit and with/in fire by the Spirit.
Jesus will baptize you with/in the Spirit and with/in fire.
Jesus will baptize you with/in fire through the Spirit.
The Spirit sent by Jesus will baptize you with/in fire. (Author)
You will receive power when the Spirit comes on you. (NIV)
You will receive the power of the Spirit when He comes on you. (Author)
You will be filled with the power of the Spirit when He comes on you. (Author)
The Spirit will fill you with His power.(Author)
They were filled with the power of the Spirit when He came on them. (Author)

     These are different wordings but carry the same meaning. They are synonymous expressions. It must be understood that the promise of Jesus (Acts 1:5,8) was to be fulfilled at Pentecost. Acts 1:5,8 are in the future tense construction and in harmony with the past tense construction of Acts 2:3-4. The only difference between Acts 1:5,8 and 2:3-4 is in the tense of the verbs. These speak synonymously. This is the clear explanation of Acts 1:5,8 and 2:3-4.

What does Acts 2:3-4 say about the promise of Jesus in Acts 1:5,8?

Acts 2:3-4   They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. (NIV)

     What does Acts 2:3-4 say about the promise of Jesus in Acts 1:5,8? The answer brings the obvious discovery of the relation between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the fullness of (the power of) the Holy Spirit. In the phrase “You will be baptized with/in the Spirit not many days from now,” the words “not many days from now” actually point to the day of Pentecost. The promise in Acts 1:5,8 was to be fulfilled on that day. Thus, it must be recorded that they were baptized with/in the Holy Spirit, that is, they received the power of the Holy Spirit on that day, but there is no literal record of this in Acts 2:3-4. Instead, according to the modern English versions it is recorded that all of them were filled with the Holy Spirit when what seemed to be tongues of fire came on each of them. So it should be inferred that Acts 1:5,8 are synonymous with Acts  2:3-4. Luke  3:22 records that the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus in bodily form like a dove. Acts 2:3 records that the Holy Spirit came on the 120 believers in bodily form like tongues of fire. Thus, it must be decided that the phrase “tongues of fire came on each of them” means that the Holy Spirit came on them since in Acts 1:8 Jesus Christ promised “the Holy Spirit will come on them.” Through the modern translations,  Acts  2:3-4 can be simply summarized: “They were filled with the Spirit when the Spirit came on them.” Acts 2:3-4 must be consistent with Acts 1:5,8 since Acts 2:3-4 is the result of the promise of Acts 1:5,8. Acts 2:3-4 must be inferred to mean the one of the following sentences since it was the result of the promise of Jesus in Acts 1:5,8.

They were baptized with/in the Spirit (and with/in fire) when He came them.
They received power when the Spirit came on them.
They received the power of the Spirit when He came on them.
They were filled with the power of the Spirit when He came on them.

     Instead, according to the modern versions, Acts 2:3-4 is recorded as follows:

They were filled with the Spirit when the Spirit came on them. (All versions)

     Acts 1:5,8 should be consistent with Acts 2:3-4 but the wording is inconsistent. What gave birth to this lack of harmony in the Word? It came from the mistrans- lation of the Greek text of Acts 2:4. So it must be translated as “They were filled with (the power) of the Spirit when He came on them,” as noted already. Also Luke 3:16 and Acts 1:5,8 carry the same meaning as Acts 2:3-4. Only the wording is different. Luke 3:16, Acts 1:5,8 and  2:3-4 confirm “You will be baptized with/in the Spirit (and with/in fire)” is the same as “You will receive power when the Spirit comes on you/they were filled with the power of the Spirit when He came on them.” Out of this it can be constructed a strict doctrine of the Holy Spirit: “to be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit and with/in fire is to receive the power of the Holy Spirit, and to be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit and with/in fire is to be filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, and to receive the power of the Holy Spirit is to be filled with the power of the Holy Spirit.” This doctrine must be applied to the translation and interpretation regarding the Holy Spirit written in the OT and NT.

What does the Bible say about “When were the 120 disciples filled with the Spirit”?

Acts 2:1-4  When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. (NIV)
 
     We read here that the 120 disciples of Jesus were surely filled with (the power) of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. It is certainly impossible to oppose to this obvious declaration of Acts 2:1-4, but through these same verses it is impossible to answer the question, “When were the 120 disciples baptized with/in the Spirit (and with/in fire)?” In Acts 2:1-4 there is no mention regarding the terminology “baptized with/in the Spirit” (the baptism of the Holy Spirit).

What does the Bible say about “When were the 120 disciples baptized with the Spirit”?

Acts 1:4-5  On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (NIV)

     We read here that according to the promise of Jesus, the disciples of Jesus will be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit (and with/in fire) on the day of Pentecost.

What does the Bible say about “When did the disciples receive the power of the Spirit”?

Acts 1:8   But you will receive power 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. (NIV)

     We read here that according to the promise of Jesus Christ, the disciples were to receive the power of the Holy Spirit to be the witnesses when He came on them on the day of Pentecost.

Why did they all join together constantly in prayer at the Upper Room?

Acts 1:9-14   After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. (NIV)

     The text says that the 120 disciples were staying and joined all together in prayer at the Upper room to obey Jesus’ command (“Do not leave Jerusalem and wait for being baptized with/in the Holy Spirit”). They also expected to become Jesus’ witnesses from Jerusalem after receiving the power of the Holy Spirit when the Holy Spirit came on them.

What does “When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place” mean?

Acts 2:1  When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. (NIV)

     We read that the 120 disciples were all together in one place in the Upper room in obedience to Jesus’ command (“Do not leave Jerusalem and wait for being bap- tized with/in the Holy Spirit”). They also expected to become Jesus’ witnesses from Jerusalem after receiving the power of the Spirit when He came on them.

Did the Holy Spirit come on them on the day of Pentecost?

Acts 2:2-3   Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. (NIV)

     Acts 2:2-3 does not mention “the Holy Spirit,” but from Acts 2:2-3 we must infer that the Holy Spirit surely came on them in the form of the tongues of fire on the day of Pentecost. In Acts 11:15-17, the apostle Peter says clearly that the Holy Spirit came on them on the day of Pentecost.

Did the 120 disciples receive the power when the Holy Spirit came on them?

     The Bible does not specifically say that the disciples received the power of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, but to hold a contrary view makes no sense at all. They were praying and waiting for the baptism with/in the Spirit, that is, for the receiving of the power of the Spirit (See Acts 1:8-2:1). It is apparent that the word “power” is tacit in Acts 2:4. It must be certainly apparent that they received the power of the Holy Spirit when He came on them. According to the promise of Jesus (Acts 1:8), Peter began to preach the resurrection of Jesus after receiving the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. We must conclude that Acts 2:1-4 was surely the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus in Acts 1:4-5 and Acts 1:8.

Were the 120 disciples baptized with/in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost?

     Even though there is no direct confirmation of this, we know they were waiting and praying together as the body of Christ until the day of Pentecost. They sought to obey Jesus’ command (“Do not leave Jerusalem and wait for being baptized with/in the Holy Spirit”) and to become Jesus’ witnesses from Jerusalem after receiving the power of the Holy Spirit. If they were not baptized with/in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, neither the text nor the context makes sense. For these reasons, we must conclude that they were baptized with/in  the Holy Spirit on that day. Therefore, the apostle Peter began to preach the good news! He had received the power of the Spirit, namely the baptism of the Spirit. In Acts 2:3-4 there is no precise reference to “They were baptized with/in the Spirit.” Instead the text says, “They were all filled with (the power) of the Holy Spirit when the Holy Spirit came on them.” Accordingly, it is logical to conclude: “They were all baptized with/in the Holy Spirit when He came on them at Pentecost. They were all filled with (the power) of the Holy Spirit when He came on them at Pentecost.” These two groups of words convey the same idea. They are synonymous.

Peter says that the 120 disciples were baptized with/in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

Acts 11:15-17  As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God? (NIV)

     We read here that the Holy Spirit came on Cornelius and his family as He had come on the 120 disciples at the beginning. Peter’s words, “at the beginning,” refer to Peter’s first preaching in Jerusalem at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit came on the 120 disciples of Jesus in the form of the tongues of fire. Peter said, “...Then I remembered what the Lord had said: John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” This means that they were baptized with/in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Peter said that the Holy Spirit came on them, so they received the power of the Holy Spirit when He came on them.
     Peter also explained that to be baptized with the Holy Spirit is to receive the gift of God. In context the gift of God in Acts 11:17 is defined as the gift of tongues of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:46. On the basis of these passages it is incorrect to argue “the baptism of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the fullness of the Holy Spirit.” This is based on the mistranslations and misinterpretations of Acts 1:4-2:4. If only Acts 1:4-2:4 were thoroughly examined, it would be simple to understand the relation between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the fullness of the power of the Holy Spirit.

Merrill F. Unger insists that the baptism and the filling occurred at the same time.

The baptizing work of the Spirit is universal among Christians, whereas the filling with the Spirit is not. All Christians are so baptized, without a single exception (1 Cor 12:13). The account of Pentecost (Ac 2) is one of the most abused portions of Scripture because the gift of the Spirit, the baptism of the Spirit, and the filling of the Spirit have been hopelessly confused in Pentecostalism, Neo-Pentecostalism, and similar charismatic movement popular at present. Although the baptism and the filling at Pentecost occurred at the same time, this does not by any means indicate that they are always simultaneous nor that they are identical. The baptism and the filling could not possibly be the same. (Merrill F. Unger, The Baptism & Gifts of the Holy Spirit, p.29,69-70.)

     The note, “Although the baptism and the filling at Pentecost occurred at the same time, this does not by any means indicate that they are always simultaneous nor that they are identical,” seems right but it is thoroughly inaccurate. It is based on the mistranslation and misinterpretation of 1 Cor. 12:13 which mistakenly is taken to mean that the Spirit’s baptism is the act whereby God makes believers members of Christ’s Body. (Rene Pache, The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, 71.)
This argument is reinforced by the misunderstanding of the relation between Acts 1:5 and Acts 1:8, that is, the misunderstanding of the meaning of the baptism of the Spirit and the filling of the power of the Spirit. The erroneous note, “the baptism and the filling at Pentecost occurred at the same time. The baptism and the filling could not possibly be the same” should state instead that the baptism, that is, the filling occurred at Pentecost. Both are identical. Merrill F. Unger continues:

Regarding the power of the Pentecost the divine word is not that “they were all baptized with the Holy Spirit,” but “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4)…This does not mean the baptism of the Spirit is the filling. Pentecost was much more that a mighty filling with the Holy Spirit to empower the infant church for witnessing and growth.(Merrill F. Unger, The Baptism & Gifts of the Holy Spirit, p.153-4.)

     The note, “Regarding the power of the Pentecost the divine word is not that they were all baptized with the Holy Spirit,” is thoroughly inaccurate. It is based on the misinterpretation of the relation between Acts 1:5 and 1:8, which tells us to be baptized with/in the Spirit is to be filled with the power of the Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit is one with the filling of the power of the Spirit. Merrill F. Unger insists that the baptism is not the filling. However Acts 1:5 and Acts 1:8 show that to be baptized with/in the Spirit is to be filled with the power of the Spirit. In the note, “Pentecost was much more that a mighty filling with the Holy Spirit to em- power the infant church for witnessing and growth,” the phrase “a mighty filling with the Holy Spirit to empower” carries great confusion because the Holy Spirit is not treated as God. It should speak of “the filling of the power of the Holy Spirit.” The note “a mighty filling with the Holy Spirit to empower the infant church for witnessing and growth” should be “The Holy Spirit empowered the infant church for witnessing and growth with His own power,” or “The Spirit filled the infant church with His power for witnessing and growth.” Unger continues:

The doctrinal epistles of the New Testament conclusively show that the baptism is the basis of the filling but not the filling itself. Both occurred at Pentecost. (Merrill F. Unger, Ibid., 153-4.)

     This argument is quite erroneous since it is based upon the mistranslation and misinterpretation of 1 Cor. 12:13, Acts 1:5,8 and 2:2-4. To write “the baptism is the basis of the filling but not the filling itself. Both occurred at Pentecost” is in great error since the baptism is not the basis of the filling but is the filling itself. The baptism, that is, the filling, occurred at Pentecost. Unger continues:

Many teachers, however, have fallen into the subtle fallacy of making the filling with the Spirit in Acts 2:4 synonymous with the Spirit’s baptizing ministry because John predicted that Messiah would baptize with the Holy Spirit and because our Lord Himself described the approaching advent of the Spirit at Pentecost in these words: “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence” (Ac 1:5; cf. 11:14-16). (Merrill F. Unger, Ibid., p.153-4.)

     The note is quite erroneous since the prediction of John in Luke 3:16 and the promise of our Lord in Acts 1:5 were fulfilled in Acts 2:3-4 at Pentecost. It must be concluded that the Spirit’s baptizing ministry, that is, the baptism of the Spirit is synonymous with the filling of the power of the Spirit in Acts 2:4. To receive the baptism of the Spirit is to receive the power of the Spirit or to be filled with the power of the Spirit. If this is not accepted as biblical, the interpretations of Acts 1:5 and Acts 1:8 become impossible. Merrill F. Unger continues:

To fail to distinguish between the baptizing and filling work of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost leads to doctrinal confusion among God’s people and may even lend shelter to the cults. The error of making “the baptism of the Spirit” an experience subsequent to regeneration, as Rene Pache says, “is the result of a confusion of terms.” (Merrill F. Unger, Ibid., p.159.)

     Unfortunately, this Unger’s claim is thoroughly inaccurate and based on a mis- translation. Acts 1:5,8 and Acts 2:1-4 should be inferred that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is synonymous with the filling of the power of the Holy Spirit, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit takes place subsequent to regeneration. Merrill F. Unger continues:

By far the most important term for the power of the Spirit in Acts (2:4; 4:8,31; 9:17; 13:9,52) and in the epistles is the expression filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18). It is the correct doctrinal term to be employed. As only the terminology of Scripture is employed accurately will teaching on the subject of the Holy Spirit be redeemed from error. (Merrill F. Unger, Ibid., p.162.)

     Merrill F. Unger mistakenly accepts that the expression “filled with the Spirit” as biblical. But the term (“filled with the Spirit”) is based on a mistranslation. The correct expression must be “filled with the power of the Spirit.”

Rene Pache insists that the disciples received both the baptism and the fullness at Pentecost.

At Pentecost the one hundred and twenty disciples were not only baptized with the Spirit (Acts 1:5), but were also filled by Him (Acts 2:4). The fullness of the Spirit does not imply that we have more of the Spirit at our disposal, but, to the contrary that He possesses more of us and holds us entirely at His disposal. (Rene Pache, The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, p.78,118.)

     This inaccurate note, “At Pentecost the one hundred and twenty disciples were not only baptized with the Spirit (Acts 1:5) but were also filled by Him (Acts 2: 4),” is based on a mistranslation and misinterpretation. At Pentecost the 120 disciples were baptized with/in the Spirit and with/in fire (Acts 1:5), that is, they were filled with the power of the Spirit (Acts 2:4). The note, “The fullness of the Spirit does not imply that we have more of the Spirit at our disposal, but, to the contrary that He possesses more of us and holds us entirely at His disposal,” is quite erroneous and based on the misinterpretation of relation between Acts 1:5,8 and 2:3-4. The terminology “the fullness of the Spirit” is inaccurate because the Spirit did not honor as God the Spirit. The correct terminology should be “the fullness of the power of the Spirit.”

Guy P. Duffield comments on the baptism of the Spirit and the fullness of the Spirit.

The power of the baptism with the Holy Ghost for special service is the distinctive result of having been filled with the Spirit. (Guy P. Duffield/N.M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, p.308.)

     To write “the power of the baptism with the Holy Ghost for special service” is correct since Acts 1:4-5 and Acts 1:8 say so, but the note “this power is the dis- tinctive result of having been filled with the Holy Spirit” is erroneous and from the mistranslation and misinterpretation of Acts 1:4-5, Acts 1:8, and Acts 2:3-4. It should read, “To receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit is to receive the power of the Holy Spirit, and to receive the power of the Holy Spirit is to be filled with the power of the Holy Spirit.”

John R. W. Stott insists the fullness was the consequence of the baptism of the Spirit.

The purpose of the baptism of the Spirit is incorporation into (eis) one body, namely the body of Christ, the church. What happened on the Day of Pentecost was that Jesus ‘poured out’ the Spirit from heaven and thus ‘baptized’ with the Spirit first the 120 and then the 3,000. The result of this baptism of the Spirit was that ‘they were all filled with the Holy Spirit’ (Acts 2:4). Thus, the fullness of the Spirit was the con- sequence of the baptism of the Spirit. The baptism is what Jesus did (pouring out the Spirit from heaven); the fullness is what they received. (John R. W. Stott, Baptism & Fullness, p.42,48.)

     This argument seems right and biblical. The note “What happened on the day of Pentecost was that Jesus ‘poured out’ the Spirit from heaven” is quite erroneous because Jesus did not pour out the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2:17 must be understood to mean that Jesus poured out the gift of the Spirit from heaven. Thus the disciples received the gift of tongues of the Spirit, that is, the power of the Spirit (the baptism of the Spirit) on the day of Pentecost. Here we learn that the pouring out of the gift of the Spirit is the baptism of the Spirit, and also the pouring out of the gift of the Spirit is the filling of the power of Spirit. Examine the following passages to understand whether Stott’s note (“The result of this baptism of the Spirit was that ‘they were all filled with the Holy Spirit,’ and the fullness of the Spirit was the consequence of the baptism of the Spirit. The baptism is what Jesus did ‘pouring out the Spirit from heaven’; the fullness is what they received”) is correct or not.

You will be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1:5)
You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. (Acts 1:8)
You will be filled with power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. (Author)
You will be filled with power of the Holy Spirit when He comes on you. (Author)
The Holy Spirit will fill you with the power of the Holy Spirit. (Author)
They were all filled with the Spirit when He came on them. (Acts 2:3-4)
They were all filled with the power of the Spirit when He came on them. (Author)
I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh. (Acts 2:17) (Author)
I will pour out the gift of my Spirit on all flesh. (Acts 2:17) (Author)

     It could be argued here that Acts 1:5 was fulfilled in Acts 2:3-4. Is “what they received” different from “what Jesus did”? The note, “the result of the baptism in Acts 1:5 was the fullness in Acts 2:4. The baptism is what Jesus did (pouring out the Spirit from heaven); the fullness is what they received,” seems right and biblical, but it is thoroughly inaccurate. Stott says, “What Jesus did is ‘pouring out the Spirit from heaven.” This could be written as, “The Spirit was poured out from heaven by Jesus.”
     Consequently, he argued, “Jesus poured out the Spirit on them.” This is in the active construction and carries the same meaning as “The Spirit was poured out from heaven by Jesus,” which is in the passive construction. In summary, even though it could be said that the result of what they received was the work of Jesus, “what they received” was by no means different from “what Jesus did.” What they received was the same as “what Jesus did.” Actually, what they received was the gift of the Spirit, and what Jesus did was to give the gift of the Spirit. For instance, Jesus loves His disciples. Thus the disciples are loved by Jesus. In this case, if it could be said that the result of what they received was what Jesus did, it seems right but it makes no sense at all because what they received is love and what Jesus did is love. This case should be inferred to mean that ‘what they received’ was ‘what Jesus did.’ Likewise, it should be inferred that the baptism they received was the fullness of what Jesus did because the baptism they received was the power of the Spirit, and the fullness of what Jesus did was the power of the Spirit. That is, the baptism they received and the fullness of what Jesus did was the power of the Spirit. Both are not different but the same.
     If the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 1:5 is identified with the filling of the power of the Spirit in Acts 1:8 and 2:4, the argument (Did both occur at the same time? or Were both received at Pentecost?) will cease. The erroneous note, “The baptism is what Jesus did (pouring out the Spirit from heaven); the fullness is what they received,” has to be changed. The baptism is what Jesus did (pouring out the gift of the Spirit from heaven); the fullness is what they received (pouring out the gift of the Spirit from heaven). That is, Jesus poured out the gift of the Spirit on them from heaven, and thus the gift of the Spirit was poured out on them from heaven, and thus the disciples received the gift of the Spirit from heaven. It is the same meaning. Stott’s argument, “The result of the baptism of the Spirit was that they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts  2:4), is thoroughly inaccurate. It must be inferred that the baptism of the Spirit is the fullness of the power of the Spirit, and to be baptized with/in the Spirit (Acts 1:5) is to be filled with the power of the Spirit (Acts 1:8; 2:4). It is confirmed that “the baptism” in Acts 1:5 is synonymous with “the filling” in Acts 2:4 though both wordings are quite different. So the fullness of the power of the Spirit was not the consequence of the baptism of the Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit is the fullness of the power of the Spirit. Acts 1:5-2:4 confirms that the baptism of the Spirit is synonymous with the fullness of the power of the Spirit. The note “the 3,000 were baptized with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost” is Stott’s assumption. Acts 2:38-41 does by no means record this.

Billy Graham: Nowhere in the Bible is there a command to be baptized with the Spirit.

Nowhere in the New Testament is there a command to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Surely if baptism with the Spirit were a necessary step in our Christian lives, the New Testament would be full of it. Christ Himself would have commanded it. But we are not commanded as Christians to seek something that has already taken place. All Christians are committed to be filled with the Spirit. (Billy Graham, The Holy Spirit, p.80,114.)

Billy Graham himself shows that there is a command, “be baptized with the Spirit.”

And after His death and resurrection He commanded them to remain in Jerusalem to await the gift of the Spirit, “Tarry ye in the city...until ye be ensued with power from on high” (Luke 24:49 KJV). Before He ascended He told them to stay in Jerusalem until they were “baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence” (Acts 1:5 KJV). (Billy Graham, Ibid., p.71.)

     Let’s divide Graham’s arguments into two parts to understand the issue. First, he insists that Jesus commanded the disciples to remain in Jerusalem to await the gift of the Spirit (“Tarry ye in the city...until ye be endued with power from on high” - Luke 24:49). This is a correct interpretation according to Luke 24:49. The phrase “Tarry ye in the city...until ye be endued with power from on high” is su- rely a command. Secondly, he insists that before Jesus ascended He told the disciples to stay in Jerusalem until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence. Here too, Billy Graham’s interpretation is according to Acts 1:4-5. In the phrase, “He told them to stay in Jerusalem until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit,” is a command to “stay” like that of Luke 24:49. Let’s again sumarize to understand the details. From Graham’s teaching we can conclude:

Tarry ye in the city...until ye be endued with power from on high.
Tarry for being endued with power from on high.
Be endued with power from on high……..This is an actual command.

     All of these phrases contain the same basic command and same meaning. From Graham’s teaching we can conclude:

Stay in Jerusalem until you were baptized with the Holy Spirit.
Stay in Jerusalem to be baptized with the Holy Spirit.  
Be baptized with the Holy Spirit…………This is an actual command.

     All of these phrases contain the same basic command and same meaning. From Graham’s teaching we can conclude:

To be endued with power is to receive the power of the Holy Spirit.
To be baptized with the Holy Spirit is to receive the power of the Holy Spirit.
To be endued with power is to be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
“Be endued with power” is the actual command of Jesus.
“Be baptized with the Holy Spirit” is the actual command of Jesus.

     Although Billy Graham insists that nowhere in the NT is there a command to be baptized with the Holy Spirit, according to his own writing there surely is such a command (“Stay in Jerusalem until you were baptized with the Holy Spirit”). This command is the same as “Be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Unfortunately, Billy Graham is in great confusion because he failed to grasp this aspect of his own teaching. We can say with certainty that the statement, “Nowhere in the NT is there a command to be baptized with the Holy Spirit,” is from the misinterpretations of Acts 1:4-5 and Luke 24:49. Billy Graham’s note, “Nowhere in the NT is there a command to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. All Christians are committed to be filled with the Holy Spirit,” is from the misunderstanding of the relation between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the filling of the power of the Holy Spirit, that is, the relation between Acts 1:5, 1:8 and 2:3-4.

John F. MacArthur insists the Bible gives no command to experience “baptism of the Spirit.”

As we have seen, the Bible gives no command to experience a “baptism of the Spirit.” The Christian is baptized with the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ at the moment of belief (1 Cor 12:13; Rom 8:9). There are seven references in the New Testament to the baptism with the Spirit. It is significant that those references are all in the indicative mood. Not one of them is a command. But Scripture is full of commands about how to live the Christian life. Ephesians 5:18 told us how to achieve that worthy walk: being filled with the Spirit. (John F. MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, p.313.)

     John MacArthur teaches, “There are seven references in the NT to the baptism with the Spirit. It is significant that those references are all in the indicative mood. Not one of them is a command.” If one were to glance over this note, it seems right and biblical, but it is thoroughly inaccurate and unsupported by the Bible. To write “the seven references being ‘all in the indicative mood’” is correct, but it is incorrect to insist that “not one of them is a command.” This is certainly from the misinterpretation of Acts 1:4-5 and the misunderstanding of the relation between Luke   24:49 and Acts 1:4-5,8. Acts 1:4-5 must be examined to understand God’s command regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit. If one were to glance over Acts 1:4-5, there seems to be no command regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Here, the phrase “you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” certainly is in the indicative mood just as MacArthur insists. But when the real meaning of Acts 1:4-5 is understood, the command to be baptized with the Spirit is found. Acts 1:4-5 confirms that Jesus gave them a command as follows:

He commanded “Do not leave Jerusalem, wait for the promise of my Father, which you have heard me speak about” (Ac.1:4)..It is a command.

     Here, a question is needed, “What is the actual promise of God the Father in Acts 1:4-5?”

John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence (Acts 1:5)....Literally, it is not a command.

     Here, the actual promise of God is “you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” At first glance this promise does not seem to present a literal command, but it does. It is an actual command because all the records of Acts 1:4-5 are written with a commanding structure. Acts 1:4-5 is not all in the indicative mood but in a command mood. The verses of Acts 1:4-5 are not two different sentences but only one sentence describing the command of Jesus. The literal appearance of the promise of Jesus written in Acts 1:4-5 appears to be in an indicative mood, but actually it is in an imperative mood. Therefore, both verses of Acts 1:4-5 must be inferred as follows:

Jesus gave them this command:
Do not leave Jerusalem.
Wait for the promise of my Father.
Wait for the promise of being baptized with/in the Holy Spirit.
Wait for being baptized with/in the Holy Spirit.
Be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit, and then leave Jerusalem.

     All these commands are directly linked to the imperative “wait for the promise of Father.” After obeying the Father, after being baptized with the Holy Spirit, the disciples were commanded to leave Jerusalem to preach the good news to all people. These possess different wordings, but they have one and the same meaning. Acts 1:4-5 confirm the command, “Be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Many teach that nowhere in Scripture is the Christian taught to tarry and wait for the baptism of the Spirit, as noted above, but as we have seen, here is a command (“wait for the baptism,” or “wait for being baptized with the Spirit”). If anyone continually claims there is no such command in Acts 1:4-5 (“Be baptized with the Holy Spirit”), let’s examine Eph. 5:18. Eph. 5:18 says, “Be filled with the Spirit” (all English versions). It should be translated as “Be filled with the joy of the Spirit, as noted already. It is a command. As we have already seen, the baptism of the Spirit is synonymous with the filling of the power of the Spirit. Therefore, “Be filled with the Spirit” is the same command as “Be baptized with the Spirit.” But Billy Graham insists as follows: “Nowhere in the NT is there a command to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Surely if the baptism with the Spirit were a necessary step in our Christian lives, the NT would be full of it. Christ Himself would have commanded it. But we are not commanded as Christians to seek something that already has taken place. All Christians are committed to be filled with the Spirit.” (Billy Graham, The Holy Spirit, p.80,114.)

     Now it is surely proven that this argument obviously is from a mistranslation and misinterpretation. Acts 1:4-5 records a command to be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ Himself commanded it. We are commanded to seek what has yet to take place. All Christians are commanded to be filled with (the power) of the Holy Spirit. That is, all Christians are commanded to be baptized with/in the Holy Spirit.

Matt. 28:19 shows two commands of water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Matt. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (KJV)
NKJ            Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
NIV            Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
NAS           Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

     Without a single exception, all scholars in all Christian society interpret the phrase “baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19) as pertaining to only baptism with/in water. This is thoroughly inaccurate and unscriptural because it is based upon two misunderstandings: (1) the mistranslation and misinterpretation of the relation between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the fullness of the power of the Holy Spirit; and (2) the word “baptize” in the NT. We will discuss this in detail later. (See the detailed discussion on the two kinds of baptism in Matt. 28:19.)
The “baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19) must speak of the two kinds of baptism, water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This means that two baptisms are one baptism. Two baptisms are to be one baptism. One baptism includes both. That is, every believer must receive water baptism and the baptism of the Spirit as one baptism. From Matt. 28:19 we find that Jesus commanded us to “be baptized with/ in water, and be baptized with/in the Spirit and with/in fire,” that is, “baptizing (baptize) them with/in water, and baptizing them with/in the Spirit and with/in fire.”