Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39)

The Bible often speaks about faith and baptism together, and sometimes refers to them interchangeably; however, its doctrine is that faith is necessary for salvation, but baptism is not. We know this because the man who was crucified next to Christ was accepted by a simple confession of faith without baptism. Then, Cornelius and those with him received the Holy Spirit before water baptism. Peter realized that they had received the Spirit because they spoke in tongues, and since the Spirit was given only to those who were regenerate, he inferred that these Gentiles had received faith and salvation while he was still speaking. It was after this that they were baptized with water.

Thus in this sense water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but they are often mentioned together or even mentioned interchangeably because there is often no reason to sharply separate the two. The apostles did not entertain long delays between faith and baptism. If a person understood and confessed faith in the gospel, then he was to be baptized with water as soon as possible, even within the same hour or the same day. Although there is no reason to insist that a person could be spiritually damaged if there is a delay, the early disciples saw no point to such a delay, and so confession of faith and baptism with water are often mentioned together, because chronologically speaking, they are closely positioned.

Peter instructed the people to believe in Jesus Christ, to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Salvation is associated with faith and baptism, and after this they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, whose outpouring was the reason or platform for this sermon to them. The context defines what Peter meant by the gift of the Spirit and what he thought were the manifestations of this gift. As he cited from the prophet Joel, “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17-18).

In Peter’s thinking, when people received the Holy Spirit, they would prophesy, they would dream dreams, and they would see visions. Luke’s thesis is that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit makes the church not only a kingdom of priests, but also a company of prophets. It is impossible to force this gift of the Spirit into something that is synonymous with salvation. Faith is for the forgiveness of sins. The Spirit is for the endowment of power. Just as faith and baptism are two different things that are often mentioned together, the gift of the Spirit is different from the gift of Christ for forgiveness, but are often mentioned together because there is no reason to so sharply separate them. One who has received Christ by faith should also receive water baptism and then receive the Holy Spirit.

On this matter, controversy surrounds 1 Corinthians 12:13, which says, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free – and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” One side of the debate argues that the verse refers to the same baptism of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and since it states that all believers have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, the conclusion is that the baptism of the Holy Spirit cannot be a different and subsequent event to conversion or regeneration. The other side maintains that the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as Luke consistently portrays it, is an event different and subsequent to conversion or regeneration, and that this verse does not contradict such a position.

There are detailed theological and grammatical arguments on both sides of the debate. However, the complicated controversy is a complete waste of time. When it comes to this specific item, all the arguments are futile and unnecessary, because the matter does not hinge on this verse and cannot be settled by it. This is because, for our question, it is totally irrelevant for Paul to mention regeneration in Christ and the baptism in the Spirit together, or interchangeably, or to declare or assume that all believers have received both of them.

As stated before, the Bible often mentions regeneration in Christ and baptism with water together, or interchangeably, or declare or assume that all believers have both of them. For example, Paul writes in one place, “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life” (Romans 6:4). And in another place, he says, “In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Colossians 2:11-12; also Galatians 3:26-27).

The apostles took it for granted that the believers were baptized with water, although we know that they did not regard baptism as necessary for salvation, or that they were the same thing, or that anyone who was converted to Christ was automatically and simultaneously either drenched with water or thrown into water. In addition, despite the assumption, it is conceivable that at least one believer in the audience had not been baptized with water. Perhaps he was converted only a few minutes before the letter was read to the congregation. Thus just because a letter sounds as if all believers had been baptized with water does not necessarily mean that all believers are in fact baptized with water. It is an operating assumption.

Many verses in the apostolic letters assume that all those in the audience were believers – because they were addressing believers! – but it is conceivable that there was at least one unconverted person who heard at least one of these verses as they were read. For the purpose of these letters, the operating assumption was entirely proper. I suppose even an unbeliever would not think that he became a Christian just because he was exposed to a letter that assumed it was speaking to a group of believers. Nevertheless, seminary-trained morons are capable of just this extraordinary feat when they are motivated enough to transform their prejudice into orthodoxy.

Therefore, it means nothing if there is a biblical verse that mentions regeneration in Christ and the baptism in the Spirit together, or if it refers to them interchangeably, or if it declares or assumes that all believers have the baptism of the Spirit. Rather, just as other parts of Scripture portray water baptism as not necessary for salvation, and portray conversion and water baptism as distinguishable events, we must derive our doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit by how it is portrayed in other parts of Scripture.

In fact, if other parts of Scripture portray the baptism of the Spirit as something distinct from conversion, but if 1 Corinthians 12:13 assumes that all believers have received it, then the verse becomes a damning commentary on those who are without it and who oppose it. It would mean that there is something defective in their faith and character. It would mean that these people do not have what all believers should have, and they even fight against it and try to prevent others from receiving it. This is the hypocritical and murderous spirit of the Pharisees. They would kill Jesus himself before they would admit that they are wrong or that there is something lacking in them.

Then, there is the objection that it is impossible for those who are truly converted to be without the Holy Spirit. In reply, the baptism of the Spirit and the fullness of the Spirit are only terms used to designate a specific promise or event, and it does not exclude the Spirit’s presence in other settings or in other aspects of the application of redemption. Although conversion and baptism with water are distinct events, we do not say that one who is converted has never been touched by water and has never taken a bath or a shower until after he has been baptized with water. So of course all Christians have the Spirit in a sense, and of course the Spirit summons and converts anyone who comes to faith in Christ, but this has nothing to do with the issue of whether the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a distinct and subsequent event.

After this, there is the objection that Luke’s doctrine – that the baptism of the Spirit is a distinct and subsequent event to conversion – results in a two-class system in the Christian community. It makes those who are without the Spirit baptism into second-class members of the church. First, to some this sounds more like an admission than an objection. Second, even if not an admission, this could be a description instead of an objection. If the further objection is made that the church is not divided into two classes, the answer is that this doctrine could be evidence that it is indeed so divided. Third, the language is loaded, and the matter does not have to be presented this way. Fourth, one could make a similar objection about water baptism, but we know that the new birth and water baptism are distinct events. Someone who has been converted may not be baptized with water for a period of time. Is he a second-class believer? And does he have to remain this way? Fifth, even the most zealous proponents of the doctrine that Spirit baptism is a distinct event would just as strongly insist that it is available to all who believe in Christ. So if it divides the church into a two-class system, who is at fault but those who refuse to believe and receive? But religious hypocrites tend to blame others for their own unbelief and deficiency.

Peter was explicit in defining who could receive the promise – the promise that would result in the manifestations mentioned by Joel. He said that the promise was for that generation and subsequent generations, and that it was for the kind of people present as well as those people far away. Then he added that it was “for all whom the Lord our God will call” – not all those whom God would call to become apostles, but since the promise of the Spirit is here associated with the promise of forgiveness of sins, he meant that the promise of the Spirit would be for all those whom God would call to repentance and salvation. It is for all Christians. Thus Peter destroyed any possibility that this promise of the Spirit and its manifestations would be restricted by times and titles.

Just as significant is the fact that Peter declared this promise of the Holy Spirit as part of the gospel, and not as something added on top of it. This promise – and the Bible knows no promise of the Spirit different from the one described by Joel – is basic and integral to the message of Christ, and to what it means to be a Christian. Therefore, to deny or alter it, or to explain it away, is not only to attack a secondary doctrine, if there is such a thing, but it is a direct assault against the core of the gospel. The offender is thus in danger of coming under the curse of Galatians 1: “As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:9).

In order to erode sound doctrine and to excuse themselves, men often attempt to redefine the nature, scope, and possibilities of the Christian faith, not according to the promises of God, but according to their own deficiencies and evil intentions. They would reduce the Christian faith into something that they can live with, into something that they can attain, and then they would impose this on you so that you would not exceed them and make them look like spiritual losers and hypocrites. Men of true faith and love would urge you to reach for greater heights according to the promises of God, even if this means you would exceed them. Do not be cheated out of the inheritance that Jesus Christ has won for you by his own blood. Hold on to all that he has for you, and regard all contrary doctrines with contempt.

God remembers his promise, and he would destroy entire nations to fulfill his word. It is nothing for him to topple a few thousand denominations and a few million preachers and theologians in order to deliver. But do we forget his promise? Do we wallow in unbelief? Do we surrender to human tradition and popular opinion? Do we excommunicate God from our churches and seminaries so that he would not disturb us as we serve him like hypocrites? Although others may pursue this path, we are free from their power, because God’s promise is beyond the regulation of human policy and immune to the suppression of human establishment. It is “for all whom the Lord our God will call.” If God has called you to himself, then you do not need any man’s approval, but you are free to receive from him with faith and thanksgiving.