[HYRYP 1]

[HYRYP 2]

      Much is said these days about Christians receiving their Pentecost. This experience is known by different names. But whatever the name by which it is known--whether Pentecostalism, the Apostolic blessing, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost or the Latter Day Rains--the thing in the mind of its advocates is virtually one and the same. And that thing, as we understand it, is a repetition or a refulfillment in the lives of individual Christians of that which took place in that little upper room in Jerusalem about 1900 years ago. This, as we sense the situation, is the gist of the thing, or the whole matter in a nutshell. However, if our impressions of these modern movements are not correct, we are ready to have some one correct us, as we would not knowingly or intentionally misrepresent a single soul in respect to these things.

      Of course, some Christians in the use of these terms may mistake the filling of the Spirit for Pentecost or the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. It is possible that they are confused in the meaning of terms, and so ignorantly and unconsciously take or occupy an erroneous position. If so, their position, while unfortunate, is pardonable. They are to be pitied more than censured. Nevertheless it is to be regretted, that if they mean a filling of the Holy Spirit that they do not say so in that many words, and not use such misleading terms as the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, the Pentecostal blessing and other similar expressions.

      But it is not so much to this class that we refer in this message. We have in mind those religious bodies or individuals who, in the use of such terms, mean to convey precisely what the terms signify. They seem to want to tell us, and in such a way that we will not misunderstand them, that their experience is identical or analogous to that which the 120 at Pentecost were privileged to enjoy. To say the least, this is most unfortunate.

      In the first place, what was Pentecost? Pentecost, in short, was the fulfillment of that to which an Old Testament feast by [3] the same name pointed. However, the feast had several other names, such as the Feast of Harvest and the Feast of Weeks, each name of which is richly significant in its etymological teaching. In other words, or to state it conversely, the Feast of Pentecost was a type of the descent of the Holy Spirit, for it was "when the day of Pentecost was fully come" that the Holy Spirit came also.

      By a careful study of this subject our reader will discover that the Holy Spirit did not come as a direct result of a certain length of time in which the 120 disciples were engaged in prayer in that little upper room in Jerusalem. He came when the "day of Pentecost was fully come." The disciples in the little upper room prayed, it is true, but where in the Word does it say that the Spirit's coming at that particular time was an answer to their prayer? If the time that those 120 disciples first entered that upper room would have been 100 days before the period of the Pentecost feast, they would have been compelled to have waited the full 100 days. The length of time spent in the upper room was determined by the number of days until Pentecost and not by the amount or quality of the praying that was done.

      And it does not say that Pentecost was given in answer to their waiting or tarrying, although the Lord explicitly commanded them, saying, "Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high," but they were not told to "tarry" in order to be endued. The tarrying and praying were rather incidental. Pentecost, we repeat, came not so much as a result of their tarrying, but rather as the result of the day of Pentecost having "fully come." The praying and waiting could not hasten the Spirit's coming, and the lack of those devotions and spiritual exercises could not delay or prolong the coming of the Spirit. He came when the day came--no sooner and no later, and that, in a sense, irrespective of the waiting and praying. The time that the trains come into a railroad station is not governed by the length of time the passengers tarry in the waiting room. They are governed by the schedule. And God's trains [4] always come in on schedule time. And the reason the Holy Ghost did not come sooner was because the time of His arrival had not yet come. But when the schedule time, the day indicated by the Feast of Pentecost arrived, the Holy Ghost was there also.

      Now if there should be such a thing as a repetition or refulfillment of the day of Pentecost in the lives of believers of to-day, why are they told to pray and wait for it? Had our advocates of such a thing not better be a trifle more orthodox and ask the seekers after the Pentecostal blessing to wait until the season or anniversary of Pentecost came around again?

      There has never been a refulfillment of that to which Pentecost pointed--Never! There never was but one Pentecost. The religious experiences or spiritual ecstasies of which many speak may or may not be the result of the operations of the Spirit of God, as there are fleshly manifestations by which the devil seeks to dupe the saints of God, but one thing is quite certain, not one of those experiences can be said to be an actual duplicate or reproduction of Pentecost.

      There were other feasts of Jehovah besides the Feast of Pentecost. Did they have a refulfillment? Or was their fulfillment ever repeated? We think not. There was the Feast of the Passover. It pointed to the death of Christ. When Christ, who is our Passover, died, that was the fulfillment of that feast. There was never another or refulfillment of that feast after that. Christ never died again. He dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over Him. He who now liveth was dead but behold He is alive for ever more. Now if there was no repetition or refulfillment of the Passover feast, on what grounds, we ask, have we a right to think there will be a reproduction or refulfillment of the Pentecost Feast? When Christ died He died not only once, but He died for all and for all time. And so when Pentecost came it came not only once, but also came for all and [5] for all time. Reader, suppose you pause right here for a moment and ponder this point until it has time to thoroughly soak in.

      It is true, we admit, that Pentecost has its dispensational aspect. What took place in the upper room was the "early rains" of God's dealing with Israel. It was the immediate or direct fulfillment of the Feast of Pentecost. The remote or ultimate fulfillment, or what might be called the dispensational or "latter rains," will come later, when Israel is again gathered into their own land. This seems clear to the writer, and we trust is clear to our reader, but it is not this phase of our subject that we have in mind at this time.

      The testimony of the other feasts on this point is in full and perfect harmony with the testimony of the ones already mentioned. Take, if you will, for instance, the Feast of the Tabernacles. This feast takes us back in thought to the time when the people lived in tents or booths and when God dwelt among His people in the Tabernacle. It speaks to us of God tabernacling among men. This found its antitype or fulfillment when the Word became flesh and dwelt (or tabernacled) among us. This was the immediate fulfillment of this feast. However, there will be a remote or dispensational fulfillment, which shall take place when it shall be said, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them." When this takes place there will never be another coming down of Jehovah among men.

      The same will be true in the fulfillment of the Feast of the Trumpets. There will be a trumpet when the Lord comes for His Church, and trumpets will be sounded when Israel is re-gathered. Other than these, the Word knows of no other fulfillment of this feast.

      We do not wish to be understood as opposing a deeper, and fuller, and richer, Christian experience. Far from it. We would not wilfully or knowingly utter a single word against the believer enjoying to the full his birthright privileges in Christ, for not one of us but what could be a little more spiritual. The thing we do oppose is the perversion of a type or any portion of the [6] Word and the making of that perversion of the Word to serve as the basis of a false hope of some extraordinary spiritual experience. It is not the Holy Ghost or even more of the Holy Ghost, that is the need of Christians to-day. They have the Holy Ghost. What is needed more than any thing else is for the Holy Ghost to have more of the Christians. We would not hold out to believers a will-o'-the-wisp or phantom expectation by directing them to Pentecost for their pattern of birthright blessing and means of obtainment, but rather to Romans eight and Ephesians 5:18.

      Paul knew that believing in Christ and receiving the Holy Ghost for this age were simultaneous, and so he said, "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." And note the course he pursues in finding out whether those twelve disciples at Ephesus were actual believers, that is, had an evangelical faith and not a mere historical faith. He did not pointedly and blankly say, Have you believed? but asked for the proof of a genuine faith, saying, "Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" But when they expressed their ignorance of the Holy Spirit he prodded a little deeper by asking them unto what they had been baptized, for baptism in the case of the Gentiles follows the reception of the Holy Spirit. So if they had not received the Holy Spirit it was quite evident that they had not believed. And to this they readily confessed when they admitted that John's baptism was the only baptism about which they had any knowledge for John's baptism was not a confession of faith already exercised in Christ, but rather a promise exacted from the people by John that "they should believe on Him which should come."

      Now for another thing. What was done at Pentecost? It was the baptism or the forming of believers into the body of Christ of which the Lord Jesus is the Head. In other words, God is now making a New Man of which His Son is the Head and the Church is the body. And how is He doing it? Well, suppose we go back and see how He produced Adam the first man, and this will likely serve as a clue in discovering how we may expect Him to make the New Man. He created Adam the first man. He was [7] formed by some extraneous force or power outside of himself. But Cain and Abel, as well as all other descendants of Adam, were not produced that way. To Adam and Eve were given the power of procreation or reproduction, and so the offspring of the first pair were brought into the world by some inherent power native to themselves. Of course, when we speak of the power of procreation as being native to the first pair we mean as that power was delegated to them by Jehovah. And it is of utmost significance in this connection to note that the original pair, as well as every pair since then, brought forth in their "own image." But the original creation or the primary form of bringing human beings into the world was never repeated.

      But what of the making of the New Man? Has the forming of the first man no lessons for us here? We think so. At Pentecost the first believers were formed or baptized into one body. That act was never repeated, just as the original act of Jehovah in bringing the first man into the world was never repeated. The offspring of the first pair was not brought into the world in a way identical with that by which the first pair was produced. Now the Holy Ghost is in the church and that in a manner correspondingly similar to that in which the power of procreation was in the original pair, and if you will allow the expression, by an Inherent Power--the power of the Holy Ghost--the Church through the Gospel, is begetting sons and daughters in her "own image," as Adam begat sons and daughters in "his own likeness, after his image." The Church is a new creation and hence her offspring are new creatures. Paul says, "In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel." See, it is no longer a baptism into the Body of Christ through the descent of the Holy Ghost as at Pentecost, but the Church reproducing itself by the spiritual power of procreation as "in Christ," and as indwelt and controlled by the Spirit of God. But if men and women are to have a Pentecost after the form and fashion of the Pentecost at Jerusalem 1900 years ago, then every time a believer is added to the Body of Christ the Holy Ghost must go back to Heaven and come down again as a "rushing mighty wind," and appear unto such believers like "cloven tongues of fire" and sit on them, as He did at the first. Now, in the light of this fact, let us ask [8] again the question that forms the caption of this article, Have you had your Pentecost?

      Pentecost, or the baptism with the Holy Ghost, may be said to have a threefold aspect. It began with the descent of the Spirit upon the 120 in the city of Jerusalem, then it passed to Samaria, and from there it went to the house of Cornelius where it seemed to end in the falling of the Spirit upon that little assembly of Gentiles. Now, beloved, which aspect of Pentecost or the New Testament baptism of the Holy Ghost is yours, for there are three of them, and each one of them differs quite materially in one or more respects from that of the others. To the Jews the Holy Ghost came in one manner; to the Samaritans in another style, and to the Gentiles in still another fashion.

      But you say, "I thought you said a moment ago that Pentecost was one and that it was never repeated, but now you would have it three." No, no, we would not have three Pentecosts, but only one, and that one is expressed in three parts. If our reader will turn to the 23rd chapter of Leviticus and the 22nd verse, he will discover three things respecting the Feast of Pentecost, known also, as previously stated, as the Feast of Harvest and the Feast of Weeks. There was, in the first place, the general body of the "harvest," then the "corners of the field," and lastly, the gleanings of the harvest. And these three parts of the harvest were for three classes, namely, first, Israel or the Jews in general, then next the "poor," and then the "stranger." But all three parts and all three classes were included in making up the Feast of Pentecost. So in the fulfillment of Pentecost we may, without doing violence to the Word, look for three parts and three classes. And there were three parts and three classes, namely, the Jew at Jerusalem, the Samaritan in Samaria and the Gentile in the house of Cornelius. And we will allow our reader to judge whether the three things--the "harvest," the "corners of the field," and the gleanings, as well as the three classes,--Israel or the Jews in general, the "poor," and the "strangers," [9] correspond to the three places or experiences, as well as the three classes, upon which the Holy Ghost fell at the beginning.

      Allow us to act the role of a draftsman or artist and see if we cannot make more clear what we have in mind by the use of a chart.

      We would not be too dogmatic, but would simply suggest the above chart as helpful in throwing light upon a subject that is not only little understood, but sadly abused as well. Let us now look at the three stages of Pentecost in detail.

      To the Jews at Jerusalem the order and events of Pentecost were as follows (Acts 2:1-5):

      1. An assembly of men and women who had believed under the direct ministry of Christ.
      2. The descent of the Holy Ghost from Heaven as of a "rushing mighty wind."
      3. The Holy Ghost filling the house where the 120 had gathered.
      4. The appearance of "cloven tongues as of fire," and it sat on each of them. [10]
      5. The filling with the Holy Ghost.
      6. The speaking with other tongues.

      There never was a gathering before nor since that was just like this in all its particulars and details.

      With the Samaritans the order and events by which the Holy Ghost came upon them was somewhat different (Acts 8:12-17):

      1. Philip preached the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of the Lord Jesus.
      2. They believed Philip's preaching.
      3. They were baptized both men and women.
      4. There appeared from Jerusalem the Apostles who prayed for the Samaritans that they might receive the Holy Ghost.
      5. The laying on of the Apostle's hands.
      6. The receiving of the Holy Ghost.

      But to the Gentile congregation in the house of Cornelius the order and events of the giving of the Holy Ghost were still different (Acts 10:44-48; 11:13-17):

      1. A conversation between an angel and Cornelius who was the central figure of the congregation that had met in his house, also a vision to Peter the preacher of a vessel let down from Heaven, "wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air."
      2. A sermon by the Apostle Peter.
      3. The hearing of the Word as delivered by Peter.
      4. The falling upon, and the receiving of the Holy Ghost by those who had heard the Word, and that after the manner of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the circumcision in the beginning, and all in accord with the promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost as made to John the Baptist by the Lord (Acts 11:15,16).
      5. The speaking of tongues and a magnifying of God. There seems to be a difference between the speaking with tongues here and that at Pentecost at the beginning. Here it was a magnifying of God, but at the first it appears to have been directed to [11] the people. Then, again, at the first the speaking of the tongues was "as the Spirit gave them utterance," but here there is no such qualifying term.
      6. Water baptism.

      You will note, that in the first part of the foregoing chart, that we have used the commission as found in Acts 1:8. We have done this, not simply because it best serves our purpose, nor yet because the commissions in Matthew and Mark have nothing in them for the Church, but because the commission in Acts 1:8, as we see it, embodies the fullest and clearest expression of the Church's mission in this age of grace.

      The commission in Matthew 28:19, 20 is strangely Jewish, and national. It is the Gospel of the King and the teaching of "all nations." Now it is not the business of the Church to teach the nations as such, nor even to collectively make disciples of nations as nations. We would suggest the attorney general or prime minister as the instructor of nations, and even they would be limited to matters purely legal and civil. Maybe the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church take their authority from this for their assumption of the work of telling the government what it ought and ought not to do, for neither one of these bodies seems to show any hesitancy in presenting overtures of counsel and advice to the powers. And possibly our reformers take these words as supporting their mass movements. But men are not saved in masses in this age, even if it be true that they are going to hell in masses. The truth of the matter is, that this national phase of Matthew's commission has to do largely with Israel for the next age, for she will yet be the missionaries to the nations of the earth.

      In Mark's Gospel it is Christ as the Servant of Jehovah under the similitude of an ox, and the commission there is to "every creature," or the whole creation. The Gospel (or good news) of Christ's work is not now being realized by the lower creation, for the wolf is not yet dwelling with the lamb, nor is the lion yet eating straw like the ox. But there is a day coming, when the whole groaning creation, now travailing in pain, will be [12] "delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." What a foregleam! What a day that will be! No wonder that this Gospel, which closes with promises of blessings for the "whole creation," should begin with Christ among the "wild beasts" (Mark 1:13). What a strange sight that was for those wild beasts to look into the face of the One whose redemption would some day bring to them deliverance from the results of the Fall.

      Coming back again to the three stages of Pentecost, let us compare them and note wherein they differ.

      In the first stage--Pentecost at Jerusalem--there is no mention of the 120 having submitted to water baptism; in the last two stages--Pentecost in Samaria and for the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius--there is such a mention.

      In the first stage, as already noted, water baptism is not mentioned at all; in the second stage water baptism preceded the baptism with the Holy Ghost; in the third water baptism followed the gift of the Holy Ghost.

      In the third stage there is a mention of the ministry of an angel, as well as the service of one of the audience in gathering together a band of hearers (a fine thing for any minister), also a vision, a voice, a vessel and trance for the preacher; in the first two stages these things are not to be found.

      In the second stage there was the laying on of hands connected with the receiving of the Holy Ghost; in the first and third stages there was no such ceremony.

      Now which one of these three stages of Pentecost are you patterning after? What are you, a Jew, or a Samaritan, or a Gentile? And remember, if you take any one of these three stages of Pentecost as your model or example, then you must take all that goes with it. You dare not pick out the one part of it for your experience and discard all the rest. And you cannot follow all three of the stages, for they all differ the one from the others. For instance, how could you, by one baptism, be baptized both before and after the receiving of the Holy Ghost? [13] Or how could you receive the Holy Ghost by both the laying on of hands and not the on of hands? If you should attempt any stunts of this kind you would find yourself in the same dilemma as some of our weak-kneed brethren who are trying to straddle the issue between fundamentalism and modernism. The issue, if you will allow us to coin a word, is not straddable. It is much like the man who once got up in a testimony meeting and said that he thanked God that he was a barbed-wire Christian. The people all looked at him in amazement, not knowing what he meant. Then he went on and explained himself by saying, that a barbed-wire Christian is a Christian who must be on one side of the fence or the other, that it is out of the question to sit comfortable for any length of time on a fence like that.

      And is it not probable, that when Peter says concerning Pentecost in Jerusalem, "This is that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel," instead of saying, This is a fulfillment of that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel, that he may have had in mind that the scope of Pentecost was not yet covered, that the "corners of the field" (the Samaritans), and the "gleanings" (the Gentiles) must receive their share of it also, before the period typified by the Feast of Pentecost should come to a close.

      It will be noticed that Peter preached differently at the several gatherings. To the Jews at Jerusalem, immediately following Pentecost, he said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). To the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius he said, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" To the Jews, you will see, they were to repent and be baptized with the view of receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. To the house of Cornelius they were to be baptized because they had already received the Holy Ghost. [14]

      And, furthermore, as noted in a recently published message from the pen of the late Dr. A. C. Dixon, that Peter in his sermon after Pentecost, at which 3,000 were converted, did not speak with tongues. And that when the 120 spoke with tongues nobody was converted. The people were simply "confounded," and "amazed," and "marvelled," and "were in doubt." And from the information that comes to us from many of the tongues movements the stressing of the spectacular is anything but lacking. There is so much show or excitement to wonder, and alas! alas! so many, we fear, are still left "in doubt."

      Beloved, hadn't we better be satisfied that He has baptized Jew, Samaritan and Gentile (the three classes mentioned in the commission of Acts 1:8) into His body, and that for all time, and let the matter rest at that, and then go forth in yieldedness in the power of the indwelling Spirit along lines of the gifts He has given us.

      Moreover, if men would pattern after the Holy Ghost in His way of doing things, then they must never publish their so-called Pentecosts or baptisms of the Holy Ghost. After the three Pentecostal scenes mentioned in the foregoing pages, all of which belonged to the period of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost never recorded another scene like them. And for the simple reason that there never was another like them. Over and over again the Holy Ghost records cases of New Testament conversions, but no baptisms of the Holy Ghost are associated with any one of them. Where in the New Testament has there been a spiritual experience of which it could be truthfully said, as was said of that little gathering in the house of Cornelius, "The Holy Ghost fell on them as it did on us at the beginning?" After the three stages covered by Pentecost were past there never again was anything analogous to it. Never again was there the rushing as of a "mighty wind," or the "cloven tongues line as of fire."

      It may surprise our reader to know that Pentecost is only mentioned three times in the New Testament--once in the 2nd chapter of Acts, where the Holy Spirit first descended and which [15] included Samaria and the house of Cornelius; and again in Acts 20:16 and First Corinthians 16:8--and in neither one of the last two mentionings is it referred to or spoken of as a repetition or refulfillment of the Spirit's first descent.

      And how strange, how very strange, that the Epistles, which were addressed to the Churches, should be absolutely silent on the matter of a Pentecost. And while the second and third chapters of Revelation are distinctively the things that the "Spirit saith unto the Churches," yet He mentions nothing about a Pentecost or "baptism" of the Holy Ghost. And if there was ever a place on God's footstool- where something of the kind was needed we would surely suppose that some of those seven Churches constituted that place.

      In the Book of Ephesians the Church is the "fulness of Him that filleth all in all." So it is not strange that Paul in that Epistle should put the knowledge of the riches of the glory of Christ's "inheritance in the saints," as well as the "exceeding greatness of His power," within the reach of those "who believe." The Apostle did not, as many would have done, limit those blessings to the ones who had received their Pentecost or "baptism" of the Holy Ghost? Paul knew better. He even goes so far as to lay at the feet of every believer the working of God's "mighty power, which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the Heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion." The very resources of Heaven belong to a man the moment he takes Christ by faith as his Saviour. And all he needs to do to enjoy them is to yield and reckon.

      Our modern teachers press their Pentecostal experience upon individual believers. Is it not possible that there is some importance to be attached to the fact that the Bible Pentecost was always a collective affair ? At Jerusalem it "filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, . . . and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." In [17] Samaria they laid "their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost." And in the house of Cornelius "the Holy Ghost fell on them." In the three stages of Pentecost not once was it an individual affair.

      Isn't it rather odd in the face of the Pentecostal movements, that when Peter preached that memorable sermon immediately after Pentecost in Jerusalem and 3,000 were converted and again when the 5,000 believed, that there followed no such a spiritual demonstration or "baptism" of the Holy Ghost as that which the 120 experienced. And Peter, who was one of the 120, never as much as pressed the "cloven tongues like as of fire" business upon the three and five thousand newly regenerated souls. Had Peter already apostatized? We think not. If Jesus had come back then our partial rapture brethren would have had those thousands of new-born souls left back, like the five foolish virgins, to go through the tribulation, and all because they did not have their Pentecost or "baptism" with the Holy Ghost. How significant that the first converts of the early Church were not favored with an experience identical with that which the 120 had, as though the Lord wanted to show that such a thing could not be expected until Israel in their final regathering would receive their "latter rain."

      You will notice that we have associated the "latter rain" with Israel. And so it should be, for it is distinctively Jewish. The moment a man places the "latter rain" into the age of grace, that very moment by that act he destroys the immanency of the doctrine of the return of Christ. How could Christ come any moment, if there was an event that must take place before His coming, especially if that event had not yet come to pass? In other words, the man who would preach the return of the Lord would be compelled to qualify his statements by saying, "Yes, Jesus is coming, but we need not look for Him yet, for He cannot come until the church has fully enjoyed her 'latter rain.'" Be [17] loved, the return of Christ must always be preached as "at hand"; that is, the next thing on God's program.

      Our partial rapture Pentecostalists would play havoc with the saints of Christ. They would not only, on the one hand, deprive many of the New Testament believers, because of spiritual unfitness, the privilege of going to be with Christ at His Coming, but would also, have them go through the awful tribulation period. The jailer believed and he had no Pentecost. Must he go through the tribulation? We think not. Lydia believed and she had no Pentecost. The Lord simply quietly and sweetly opened her heart, and she "attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." Must she go through the tribulation? We think not. And multitudes of others believed, in Ephesus, in Thessalonica, in Corinth, and in Galatia, and not one of them has a recorded Pentecost. Will they all go through the tribulation? We think not. We may be glad that the matter of our going to be with Christ in the rapture is not in the hands of any man or body of men who hold to the partial rapture theory. "They that are Christ's at His Coming."

      Once more, Have you received your Pentecost? Did you have your "baptism" of the Holy Ghost? If you are a believer, Yes, thank God, Yes. You received your Pentecost and "baptism" 1900 years ago when the early Church received theirs, just as the whole race received its life when God breathed into the nostrils of Adam the "breath of life, and he became a living soul." And really, the word life, as used here, is in the plural--the "breath of lives." That is, your life, my life, as well as the life of every human soul was breathed into the nostrils of Adam. Yes, you received your Pentecost much as the lower creation was infused with renewed energy when the "Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." But God never breathed the breath of life into another man's nostrils, and the Spirit never again brooded over the face of the waters. The one act, in each case, was for all time. [18]

      We imagine we hear some one saying, "Why, the people who preach the 'baptism' of the Holy Ghost and the Pentecostal blessing are fundamentalists." Possibly so, and that makes the danger all the more serious. The woman who mixed the leaven in the three measures of meal was also a fundamentalist--she didn't so much as cast aside a single measure of the Gospel meal, but she did corrupt it. She could easily have said, "I preach the Truth, the whole Truth," but she would not dared to have added, "And I preach nothing but the Truth," for she added leaven to the pure meal of the Gospel.

      Those persons of whom Paul speaks in Second Corinthians 2:17, could have said the same thing. Paul does not charge them with casting overboard so much as a single tenet of the faith once delivered to the saints, but he does accuse them of adulterating the very faith to which they held. So in the "last days" we may look for the apostasy in the form of a corrupted fundamentalism. And of all forms of the apostasy this is the most insidious and subtle and consequently the most dangerous.

      Rev. W. Graham Scroggie spoke to the point on this subject in a recent address at the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago.

      "The 'baptism' of the Spirit in the evangelical records points forward to a blessing yet to come: 'Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' In the first chapter of the Acts the prophetic finger is still pointing to an experience that awaited the believer. Turning to the Epistles, we find in I Corinthians 12 a reference to the baptism of the Spirit, but it is no longer prophetic. It is history, and points back to something accomplished: 'By one Spirit were we all baptized into one body.' If the evangelic records point forward and the apostolic writings point back, at what point do these prophetic and historic references meet? Unmistakably in the second chapter of the Acts. On the day of Pentecost all believers were, by the baptism of the Spirit, constituted the body of Christ; and since then, every separate believer--every soul accepting Christ in simple faith--has, in that [19] moment, and by that act, been made partaker of the blessing of the baptism. It is not, therefore, a blessing which the believer is to seek and receive subsequent to the hour of his conversion."

      Of course, the filling of the Spirit is another and different thing, and, unlike the "baptism" of the Spirit, its need is constant and hence must be often repeated. The believer cannot get along in the Christian life without it.

      Allow us, briefly, to give our reader a principle which may not only serve him to good advantage in his study of this subject, but also in his study of the Word in general. In Acts 1:1 we have this statement, "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach." The "former treatise" refers, of course, primarily to the Gospel of Luke, and, a sense, it may be said to apply to all the Gospels. So it will be seen that the Gospels contain what Jesus "began to do and teach." Hence if the Gospels comprise the beginning of the doings and teachings of Jesus, then we may safely infer that the continuation of those doings and teachings is to be found elsewhere in the Word. And so it is. In the Book of the Acts we have what Jesus continued to "do," and in the Epistles is to be found what He continued to "teach."

      Now here is a vital point and one that is well worth considering, for not a few sincere Christians have gone wrong because of their failure to see this distinction. It is this: Are we to get our doctrines from the doings of the early Church, in which doings the Church was fallible? or are we to take them from the teachings of the early Church and in which teachings the Church was infallible? Surely not from the Church's recorded doings, for then it would be right for the Church to have a "scrap" once in awhile, as Paul and Barnabas had over the taking of John Mark with them. The doings of the early Church are all right as far as they accord with the teachings, but where there is a difference between the doings and the teachings, then the doings must be judged by and made subordinate to the teachings, and never [20] the teachings judged by nor made subordinate to the doings. The early Church erred in its doings, but there is no error in its teachings as found in the Epistles. Take, if you will, the doings of the early Church in having "all things common" (Acts 2:44; 3:32-37). Let the Church of the present day follow the same course as its policy and see where it will land. The early Church might well have said, "Don't always do as we do, but do as we say." It is not so much, What did the early Church do? but, What saith the Scriptures--What did the early Church teach?

      Take the Pentecostal movements of to-day and see if some of their doctrines are not largely based on the doings of the Apostolic Church, as set forth in the Book of the Acts, and not on the teachings of the Epistles. It is not the doings of the early Church that are said by the Apostle to be "profitable for doctrine," but the Scriptures which are "given by inspiration of God." In matters of doctrine the Word is the last court of appeal. Some people will have an ecstatic, rhapsodical experience, and then go off on a tangent and preach that experience instead of preaching the Word of God. This is most unfortunate, and as a result we have all kinds of vagaries and fanaticism in the Body of Christ. Paul had a wonderful experience--he was caught up into the third heaven. Did Paul make that experience the basis of a dogma and then go off and preach it as something to be enjoyed by all saints ? By no means. The Lord blocked the way for such a thing by three considerations, as follows: 1. Paul's ignorance. "I cannot tell." 2. Paul's inability. He "heard unspeakable words." 3. The illegality of such a thing. "Not lawful for a man to utter." See II Corinthians 12:1-4. And yet in the face of these things modern fanaticism will persist in saying, "I don't care what the Bible says about the baptism of the Spirit, I have had the experience." But somehow the Spirit cares, for the weapon He uses is not so much the doings of the early church, nor yet the experiences of present day saints, but Be uses a weapon of His own forging--a sword--and that Sword is the Word of God.

      Or to further illustrate, suppose, instead of giving the Word of regeneration, the Church should preach the New Testament experiences of conversions, what a confusion it would make. One [21] would preach the quietly opening of the heart, as in the case of Lydia; another would preach an earthquake experience, as in the case of the jailer; and still others would preach a light above the brightness of the sun, striking the young convert down into the dust, as the necessary accompaniment of a genuine conversion. A thousand times better preach salvation through faith in Christ and let the experiences take care of themselves. Experiences are only outward or incidental expressions of an inward work and they may differ not only according to the temperament of the individual, but also according to the will of the Lord for each particular life.

      It is the prerogative of the President of the United States to invite to the White House as his personal guests whomsoever he will. Now, reader, suppose that you should be one of the selected or chosen ones to enjoy the exalted privilege of the President's hospitality, would you then go out of the White House, and, without any other authority than that of your experience as the President's guest, invite everybody you met to call on the President! We hardly think so. It would be rather risky business. If you should attempt such a thing and your friends would respond to your invitation, you would get the President, as well as your friends, in wrong. Your friends would likely be barred from the favor you enjoyed. This in turn, to say the least, would reflect upon the honor of the Chief Executive. It would put him in the light of not making good on his promises, whereas the trouble would have been due to the liberties you had taken with those things that constituted his prerogative alone. It is even so with the Lord. We dare not take our experiences with the Lord and offer them as the privileges of believers in general. It would not work. Peter had the experience of being delivered from prison. Had James been alive and still in prison at the time of Peter's deliverance, Peter could not have offered the same boon to James. By no means. To have done so would have meant failure, and this would have been taken as a reflection on the Lord in failing to make good on His promise. But in reality such would not have been the case. It would only have been the refusal of the Lord to duplicate in the life of another that which [22] in sovereign grace He had done for one of His saints, and which thing that favored saint had no authority for offering to another. God in His sovereignty has healed many a saint of His in this age. He healed the writer and we praise Him for it. But think of the many failures and the reflection cast upon Jehovah due to those failures, when those healed saints, without any other authority than that of their own healing, build up a doctrine of healing on their own experience and then go out and offer the same experience to others. To us it looks like an abuse or the taking of an advantage of the Lord's sovereignty. Beloved, His Word, and not our experience, is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.

      It must be remembered that the Book of the Acts, in which nearly all of these modern movements center, is the history of a transition period, the passing from Law to Grace. So some of the things found in this Book may partake of Law, others of Grace, and still others of both Law and Grace. Many of the dear saints of God fail to recognize this peculiar feature of this particular Book of the Bible and so become the easy victims of all kinds of spiritual vagaries and weird and nonsensical interpretations. Governmentally the days immediately preceding the Declaration of American Independence--the days of the Continental Congresses--also comprised a transition period. Now the Supreme Court of the United States of to-day might just as well base its decisions upon the actions of the Continental Congresses as for the Church of the Lord Jesus to confine the taking of its doctrines entirely to the Book of the Acts. And yet it is to this Book, which is not primarily doctrinal, but rather historical, that many of the modern movements go for their authority, and hence all this confusion in Christendom.

      It will be noted that in the greetings of the Epistles to the churches, that there are no greetings from the Holy Spirit. It is grace and peace "from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ," but nothing from the Holy Spirit. Why this [23] silence concerning the Spirit? Remember, it is no slight on the Holy Spirit. It is something like this: If we were delegated by the Central Pennsylvania Bible Conference to send greetings to the Montrose Bible Conference, and suppose that Drs. White and Gregg and Mr. Putnam were three of the Central Pennsylvania Bible Conference speakers, and further suppose, that Mr. Putnam should leave the Central Pennsylvania Conference and go to the Montrose Conference as one of the speakers there and that he should leave before we had been instructed to send the greetings, do you think that in our greetings we would include a salutation from. Mr. Putnam? In other words, would we write the greetings after this fashion? Greetings from the Central Pennsylvania Bible Conference and from Drs. White and Gregg and from Mr. Putnam, etc.? We think not. We would omit the name of Mr. Putnam. And why? Simply because Mr. Putnam would already be at Montrose. So in the Epistles, the greetings are "from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ," but not from the Spirit. And why? Simply because the Holy Spirit, in His official capacity, is already in the church. He took up His abode in the church at Pentecost, and, blessed be His name, He will be with the church forever. So, beloved, don't ask the saints of God to "tarry" for the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven. You are centuries too late for that. He is here now and has been here for 1900 years already. And why are not the Pentecostalists orthodox in their heterodoxy? Why don't they ask their victims to "tarry" at the place where God appointed them? Why don't they ask them to "tarry at Jerusalem?" Why don't they urge them to get their transportation papers and have them set sail on the first vessel leaving for "Jerusalem?" [24]

[CTS 1-16]

      The electronic version of Charles F. Reitzel's Have You Received Your Pentecost? has been transcribed from a copy of the pamphlet. Thanks to Ed Rosenberry, Conference Minister of the East Pennsylvania Conference, Churches of God, for providing an electrostatic copy of this publication.

      Pagination has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 8:      descendents [ descendants
 p. 18:     "at hand;" [ "at hand";
 p. 20:     Theophilis, [ Theophilus,
 p. 24:     "Jerusalem?" [ "Jerusalem"?
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 24 October 1997.
Updated 15 July 2003.