1) There clearly seem to be cases in Acts of the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurring AFTER saving faith, with a time gap in between. In John 20:22 Jesus breathed on the disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," yet in Acts 1:5 he tells them to wait for the baptism, which eventually comes at Pentecost (Acts 2). The Samaritans "believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" and "they were being baptized [in water], men and women alike" (Acts 8:13). But THEN we read, "Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit." (Acts 8:14-17) When Paul was in Ephesus we find, "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying." (Acts 19:5-6) In this last case, even if these Ephesians were not born-again believers in Christ before Paul spoke to them, there still seems to be a (short) gap between the moment they believed (vs. 5) and when the Holy Spirit 'came on them' at the laying on of Paul's hands.

2) The Holy Spirit came upon Jesus in a special way after he was baptized by John. Certainly Jesus was not lacking the Holy Spirit, nor the life of the Spirit, for His first 30 years. However, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in this special way corresponded to the beginning of His public ministry (see Matthew 3:16-4:25). In other words Jesus already had the Spirit, but the Spirit came upon Him in a special way at God's appointed time for what God intended to accomplish through Him from that point onward.
   In the first two chapters of his gospel, Luke mentions the Holy Spirit 'filling' or 'coming on' John the Baptist (Luke 1:15), Mary (Luke 1:35), Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), Zechariah (Luke 1:67), and Simeon (Luke 2:25). However, the first time Luke mentions the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus is in verse 3:22 at the time of Christ's water baptism. After that he repeats the fact several times. 'Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert.' (Luke 4:1) 'Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside.' (Luke 4:14) 'The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.' (Luke 4:18) It seems to me that the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus at the start of His public ministry to empower Him for the work of God with an empowerment different from what He had needed up to that point.

3) We are taught to ask for the Holy Spirit and we are commanded to be filled with the Spirit. Luke 11:13 says, "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?" Ephesians 5:18, "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit." This would seem to imply that it is possible for believers to NOT "be filled" with the Holy Spirit. Also, we have clear examples of believers "being filled" with the Holy Spirit, implying that in some way they were not "filled", in the same way, moments before (e.g. Acts 4:31). The "baptism" of the Holy Spirit is related to the "filling" of the Holy Spirit, in that it is something beyond simply the presence and "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit. Just as it is possible to HAVE the Holy Spirit but not be FILLED with the Holy Spirit, it is equally possible to HAVE the Holy Spirit but not be BAPTIZED with the Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, I consider it likely that the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit is simply the name of the first time we are "filled" with the Holy Spirit (compare Acts 1:5 with 2:4, see also Acts 9:17).

4) In the New Testament, when the Holy Spirit "comes upon" believers for the first time (another way of saying they are baptized in the Holy Spirit), there is a clear manifestation, and experience perceptible not only to the recipient but also clearly to those around. To be more specific, the experience is something beyond man's natural abilities. At Pentecost they proclaimed the mighty deeds of God in various languages such that those who saw it were amazed (Acts 2:1-12). In Samaria there seems to have been a visible manifestation of the Spirit through the believers because Simon SAW that the Spirit was bestowed (Acts 8:18). When Paul was filled with the Spirit something fell from his eyes and he began to speak the Word with such boldness and confounding wisdom that those who heard him were amazed (Acts 9:17-22; compare Acts 1:8, "You will receive POWER when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.") When the Holy Spirit was "poured out" and "fell upon" the Gentiles in Caesarea they spoke in tongues and exalted God. (Acts 10:46) When the Holy Spirit "came upon" the believers in Ephesus they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
   Moreover, these five cases are all of the cases in Acts of the Holy Spirit "coming upon" people. In four cases an experience beyond human ability is explicit, in the case of Samaria it seems to be implied.
   Moreover, this is consistent with the meaning of the word "baptism" itself. The Greek "baptizo" means "immersion." The choice of the phrase "immersion in the Holy Spirit" seems inappropriate for something that can come imperceptibly. The very language Scripture uses gives me the impression that to simply "have" or be "indwelt by" the Holy Spirit is not the same as when He "comes upon" or "fills" or "immerses" or "falls on" someone.
   Moreover, this is consistent with the Old Testament pattern. When the Holy Spirit "came upon" or "filled" Bezalel, the 70 elders of Israel, Balaam, Moses, Joshua, Othiel, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Saul, David, Micaiah, Elijah, Elisha, Amusai, Azariah, Jehaziel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Micah they were given in most cases extraordinary abilities to prophesy or proclaim the word of God, but also in some cases other extraordinary abilities such as the ability to interpret dreams, perform craftsmanship suitable for the tabernacle of God, lead and judge an entire nation, see visions, perform acts of superhuman strength, lead mightily, boldly and wisely in battle, etc.

   Now let me answer some common objections and questions related to the position I am supporting. Obviously this will be incomplete, and I look forward to discussing this more with any of you who are interested.

Objection: If you say that some believers have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and some haven't, doesn't this set up two 'classes' of Christians? My Answer: This view does make a distinction, but I don't believe it sets up two 'classes' of Christians, as if one were superior to the others. Granted that someone, believing that they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, could develop a proud attitude towards others who they believe have not received it. But that is a problem of their sinful pride, it is not a test of the truth value of this view itself. The gift of evangelism is held in high regard by many Christians today. Someone with the gift of evangelism could become proud of 'leading many people to Christ.' Such attitude is sin, but that doesn't affect the fact that Scripture teaches that some believers have the gift of evangelism, while others have 'less honorable' gifts such as administration or service. (1 Cor 12)
   So we should not evaluate the truth value of something in terms of the apparent desirability of what we think the results will be. We determine truth by God's Word and then conform our attitudes to be appropriate godly attitudes toward that truth. The fear that this view could make a distinction between Christians should not drive us from considering whether it is a Scriptural view.
   Also, consider point 2 above regarding the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus at His water baptism. Jesus was obviously not 'lacking' the Holy Spirit before that time. And the Holy Spirit did not come upon Jesus at that time because Jesus had finally attained a certain level of worthiness in God's eyes. So we need to completely banish from our minds the idea that God gives the Holy Spirit according to our 'level' of Christianity or our worthiness. God gives the fullness of the Holy Spirit to accomplish what He desires to accomplish at a certain time. Therefore I don't think this view sets up a higher 'class' of superior Christians any more than saying that Jesus attained to a higher class of Christianity when the Holy Spirit came upon Him at His water baptism. Being baptized in the Holy Spirit or not, being filled with the Holy Spirit or not, having the spiritual gift of evangelism or not, having the spiritual gift of teaching or not, etc., indeed are distinctions, because God gives to the body differently according to His desires, but these distinctions do not qualify anyone as more or less godly. In regard to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, we may be in the "category" of Jesus before the Holy Spirit "descended upon" Him at His water baptism. We are spiritually alive, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, in communion with the Holy Spirit, and (to an extent) empowerd by the Holy Spirit to conquer sin. We have spiritual gifts from the Holy Spirit whereby we can be a blessing to both believers and unbelievers. We are by no means constrained to not speak about God or the great things Christ has done in my life.
   Yet, if God so chose, at some point He could send the Holy Spirit to "come upon" us for great empowerment in being His witness (Acts 1:8). In that case, in regard specifically to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I would consider someone in the "category" of Jesus AFTER the Holy Spirit descended upon Him at his water baptism. Jesus had a "ministry" after this event that was quite different from His life before, and there is no doubt that this was part of God's plan. Jesus was not less godly or less "significant" before the baptism and descent of the Holy Spirit. God gives His Spirit in His way to accomplish His purposes at His appointed times. So in either case we belong to the "category" of Jesus, which is not a bad place to be.
   One very common American fallacy is the confusion of "equality" with "sameness." We are so desperate for "equality" that we reject anything that would distinguish between people. And thus we come to many false conclusions. All believers are equal in value and importance. But I would draw a distinction between what God empowered Christ to do in His first 30 years and what He empowered Christ to do in His 3 years of public ministry. I would draw a distinction between the lives and the ministry of the 12 apostles before Pentecost and after Pentecost. And I would draw a distinction betwen the empowerment for witness of the believers in Acts following the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and my own empowerment for witness. That distinction is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But distinction doesn't eliminate equality.

Question: Do you (Zach) believe that you have been baptized in the Holy Spirit? Answer: No, but I eagerly desire and pray for it, as I believe I should.

Objection: For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. (2 Cor 1:20) All the promises of the New Covenant (including the pouring out of the Holy Spirit) belong to all of us as believers in Christ. Beyond being born-again we don't have another 'level' of spiritual experience to attain to. My Answer: This objection is related to the previous one. The wonderful thing about Joel's prophesy which Peter quoted on the day of Pentecost, is that the promised pouring out of the Holy Spirit is not restricted to any special class of believers. 'And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.' (Joel 2:28-29) In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit 'came upon' people for extraordinary circumstances. But now, the promise of the 'pouring out' of the Holy Spirit is for all of us who are called (Acts 2:38-39). So indeed, the promises God has made are 'Yes' in Christ. Indeed, the promise of the 'pouring out' of the Holy Spirit is for all of us as believers in Christ. The problem is that we often reject, in various ways, promises that are ours.

Objection: 1 Corinthians 12:13 says, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." Here the baptism of the Holy Spirit is explained as our inclusion into the body of Christ, which means all believers. My Answer: It is not clear that this verse is speaking of the same 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' that John the Baptist spoke about. The Greek preposition 'en' used in these verses can be translated as 'in', 'with', or 'by.' John the Baptist contrasted his own baptism 'in' water with someone coming after him (Jesus), who would be the agent to perform a baptism 'in' the Holy Spirit. The 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' that I am talking about in this letter is what John talked about, wherein Jesus immerses us in the Holy Spirit as John immersed people in water. I believe that 1 Corinthians 12:13 is talking about the Holy Spirit baptizing us into the body of Christ, which is something different. See also John Piper's sermon on the difference between what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 12:13 and what John the baptist spoke of at http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/81/030881.html

Objection: The extraordinary manifestations of the Holy Spirit recorded in some cases in Acts, and in some cases in the Old Testament, are just that - extraordinary. We should not take them as a model of how the Holy Spirit always, or even usually, works. Many works of the Holy Spirit (in bearing the fruit of Galatians 5 and sanctifying our lives) are less of a "fireworks show" but equally (if not more) significant. My Answer: I think it is absolutely true that the work of sanctification, and purging pride from the human heart, is at least as miraculous and at least as glorious and beautiful as immediate outward manifestations such as praising God in unknown languages, prophesy, and highly empowered boldness for witness. By no means do I want to diminish that fact. I would rather the Spirit bear the fruit of love in my life than enable me merely to prophesy (1 Cor 13).
   However, in this context we are not merely talking about the work of the Holy Spirit in general. We are specifically addressing what John the baptist called the "baptism in [of, with] the Holy Spirit." That baptism is an IMMERSION (by definition) and is an immersion in the Holy Spirit and FIRE. What I see in Scripture is that God works BOTH through gradual process, and God also works through sudden events. There is build up and gradual development, and there are also sudden breakthroughs. By all indications, it seems to me that what John called the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is one of those breakthrough events, an "immersion", "pouring out", and "filling" of the Spirit, words which speak to me of intensity.
   It would be a terrible error to look only for the sudden baptism of the Holy Spirit, and not desire, expect, or care about the slow refining and purifying work of the Spirit that occurs throughout our lives as believers. However, the problem of this error does not excuse us to make the contrary error of diminishing the significance of the sudden baptism and fillings of the Holy Spirit which are also parts of God's design for our lives.
   Now, regarding the "extraordinary-ness" of the manifestations we see in Scripture of the Holy Spirit "coming upon" people. In general, I agree that it is dangerous to draw expectations for ordinary believers' experiences from the narratives we read in Scripture. For example, we may read about God speaking directly to Moses. But we shouldn't forget that while God was interacting this way with one Moses, there were a million Hebrews hearing the word of the Lord through the more "ordinary" and "mundane" means of having it declared to them by a man. So we should be cautious.
   However, in this case I think the WHOLE POINT of Joel's prophecy is that the "pouring out" of the Holy Spirit, which in OT times was restricted to certain men in extraordinary circumstances, will be EXTENDED to "all people." It won't just be the apostles and prophets who receive this "pouring out" of the Holy Spirit. It is for all of God's servants. Joel 2:28-30 says, "And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days. I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke."

Objection: If, then, the promise for the "pouring out" of the Holy Spirit is for all believers, doesn't that mean that we can know that we have received it? Or, put another way, how can you claim on the one hand that this promise is for all believers and then claim, on the other hand, that not all believers have received it? My Answer: I admit that this is the greatest point of difficultly for me in regard to the position I hold to. For it seems to me that very few believers in this age, and even through much of history, experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit in the way that I see it taught in Scripture. I cannot say for certain why this is so. However, some thoughts and observations:
   First, the apostles were commanded to wait until they were clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49, Acts 1: 4-5). Often in Scripture God commands His people to "wait." In our waiting God is glorified, for He is the only Sovereign One who knows exactly when to move. He is the Initiator, His people are responders. It shows our dependency that if He does not go before us, we cannot go. And yet God's people often get anxious, and want to "do something" and get results. So we rush off without waiting. In the OT, Israel's military victory was dependent on God's presence. Yet often Israel got anxious and ran ahead without the Lord's empowerment. And here is the key --- what does God often do when His people run ahead without His empowerment? He let's them. That is a very sobering thing to consider; if we rush ahead of the Lord without His power His answer might just be to continue letting us rush ahead, without Him. I ask myself, does my witness have the power [Greek - dunamis] that Acts 1:8 is talking about? If not (as I conclude to be the case for myself) I would rather wait for it (and possibly be looked down upon by others for incessant waiting) than rush ahead in my own strength.
   Along the same lines of "waiting", we also have Jesus' teaching on persistent prayer in Luke 11:5-13. This is the story of the man who got up to give his friend bread, not because he was his friend, but because of his persistence. Jesus goes on to tell us to "keep asking", "keep seeking", and "keep knocking" (according to the present continuous tense of the original Greek). Am I stretching Jesus' intention by applying this teaching to the baptism/pouring out of the Holy Spirit? I don't think so, because at the end of this very passage Jesus says, "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"
   Second, it is possible to "quench the Spirit" (1 Thes 5:19). Paul does not expand on this isolated verse at the end of his epistle, so I don't have a lot to say either. I will just point out that the following verse is, "Do not despise prophetic utterances."

Objection: The Bible speaks of different manifestations/gifts of the Holy Spirit, but not different 'amounts.' My Answer: The Bible does speak of different gifts of the Holy Spirit. But also speaks with such terminology as "pouring out", "filling", "falling upon", and "immersion" (baptism) in regard to the Holy Spirit. You can categorize this vocabulary as you wish, but in any case I would say that you have to consider that the imagery of words like "immersion" and "filling" is not exactly the same as just talking about "different gifts." There is something else at stake here.

Objection: The cases you refer to in Acts where the coming of the Holy Spirit comes at some point after conversion, are unique to the apostolic age. At the very beginning of the church, God sent the Holy Spirit to people in when the apostles were present to establish the authority of the apostles, so that the church would not be fragmented by following all kinds of different leaders. My Answer: I agree that these outpourings of the Holy Spirit in Acts consistently came in the presence of one or more of the apostles (including Paul). However, Scripture - as far as I see - does not say WHY this is so. The theory of an "apostolic age", and that God acted differently at this time to establish the authority of the original apostles, is in my opinion extrabiblical and speculative at best.
   Admittedly we must use caution when drawing doctrine from narrative. Just because something happens in a Biblical story doesn't mean that will be normative in the way God interacts with people in general. However, consider this. We can agree that the "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is a concept that is intended to apply beyond the period of Acts (I don't know of any evangelical views in objection to this). Acts gives some examples of this baptism with the Holy Spirit. In some of the cases in Acts the baptism is apparently simultaneous with conversion (e.g. Acts 10:44). In other cases the baptism is apparently at a time after conversion (e.g. Acts 2:1-4; Acts 8:12-17). No teaching passages, as far as I see, teach us, directly or indirectly, that either of these possibilities ceased after the death of the original apostles. Therefore I find it most reasonable to conclude that the various possibilities we see in Acts are still possibilities today.
   One more observation. If someone says that these instances in Acts are special cases, they have at least acknowledged that rebirth by the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Holy Spirit are distinct concepts. At some point in history they occured seperatly. So even IF they are tied together in the time of their occurence today we must admit that they are at least different concepts. There is not something within their very nature that they 'have to be' simultaneous, because at one time they weren't.
   See also Appendix (below) on the uniqueness of the apostolic age.

Question: So do you subscribe to the Pentecostal doctrine that speaking in tongues is THE sign of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. My Answer: No. It can be a sign (Acts 10:45-46), but it is not necessarily THE sign. Although I see the baptism of the Holy Spirit being a perceptible experience (at least by the individual themself - but likely to those around as well), I don't see that speaking is tongues is universal to that experience. In Acts sometimes the manifestation was prophesy (no foreign tongue) or great boldness to witness. Yes, it makes sense that an "immersion" or "filling" would overflow, but not necessarily in the gift of tongues.
   Also, I see Paul specifically saying that not all speak in tongues (1 Cor 12:30) and I don't accept the claim of some Pentecostals of two different kinds of "speaking in tongues."
   Also, Joel's prophesy of the pouring forth of the Spirit was that, "Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions." There are a variety of possible manifestations. And I don't think that Joel intended a comprehensive list, these are just some examples.

Appendix on the Uniqueness of the "Apostolic Age":

   The manner in which the so-called "Apostolic Age" is unique is an important matter to consider when we seek to apply lessons from the church in Acts, or the other first century churches, to our situation today. This includes, but is not limited to, considerations of the baptism of the holy spirit, the existence and use of the "supernatural" spiritual gifts, the sharing of property (as we see in Acts 4, etc.), the degree of zeal and awe towards the Lord which is to be considered "normal" in the Christian experience, and so on.
   First of all, before I comment on its uniqueness, I should comment on the phrase "Apostolic Age" itself. I think that for many who use this phrase, there is an underlying assumption that there were only 12 (plus or minus 1) apostles in the history of the church. Thus the "Apostolic Age" is basically synonomous with the first century A.D. I do not altogether accept this assumption. I think that there may have been an apostolic office that was peculiar to the 12, but I think there is an apostolic spiritual gift that can exist today. See my article on apostleship for more on this topic. Nevertheless, even if "apostleship" can continue today, that doesn't negate the fact that there were some aspects of the first century which were unique in salvation-history, such as the writing of Scriptures. Thus I will proceed now to talk about the uniqueness of events and patterns in Acts, and will refrain from the label "Apostolic Age".
   First of all, I believe it must be affirmed as a principle of good Biblical interpretation that just because something happened (in a narrative) does not mean that it "directly applies" to us. Even direct commands should be understood FIRST in their immediate context, and only then looked at in light of application for ourselves.
   [This is especially true of the Old Testament. Modern Christians all too easily point to a verse in the Old Testament and speak as if its words were directly applying to us. In general I think this is incorrect Biblical interpretation. The Law of the Moses was given to Israel and binding on Jews. Most of the prophets were speaking to Israel about the situation of Israel at that time. When we read passages like Acts 10, 11, 15, Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians we often fail to understand some of the big issues that were being struggled through in the early church. Namely, the fact that the gospel of salvation in the Jewish Messiah was for non-Jews as well. This was shocking and difficult to deal with, including all of its implications. One of the major struggles, then, was the question, "To what extent is the Law of Moses binding on non-Jews who are deciding to follow Christ?" I have looked at this particular question in my essay New Testament Principles for Old Testament Interpretation so I will not address it further here.]
   We do not conclude that since Jesus began His public ministry around age thirty, that this is the correct age for everyone to be baptized and enter ministry. We do not say that just because Paul preached in synagogues, we must do the same. Just because many Christians in Acts sold their property to give away the money, does not mean we are all required to do so. And so on and so on. Just because something happened in Biblical narrative does not mean it is commanded of us. And furthermore, just because something happened in Biblical narrative does not mean it is indicative of the "normal Christian life." The church in Acts was severely persecuted, but it also enjoyed times of "peace" (Acts 9:31). The church experienced favor (Acts 2:47, 5:13), and disfavor (Acts 19) from society. We cannot isolate particular examples or stories and say they are indicative of how the Christian life IS, or how it SHOULD BE, unless we have further justification for doing so.
   Furthermore, it is important to recognize the uniqueness of certain events in history, such as the incarnation of Christ. Jesus spoke as if it was appropriate for his disciples to take a different attitude towards fasting while He was with them as opposed to after He was gone (Mk 2:19). Further, when we consider such matters as apostleship and prophecy in the New Testament it is utterly vital that we keep in mind that the church of Jesus Christ was in its initial stages at this time, and that the New Testament letters were only just being written.
   So, the uniqueness of the period of Acts, or the period of Jesus' lifetime, or other periods we may read about in Scripture, is one principle that keeps us in balance and keeps us from making wrong conclusions. But this principle comes with a clear complimentary principles which should be equally obvious. Just because something happened in Scripture does not mean it will not happen today, and just because Christians did or experienced something in the times of Christ and Acts does not mean that those things should not be done or experienced today.
   It would be foolish to conclude that just because something happened during a "unique" period, that therefore it will not occur today. Here is an example of obviously non-sensical reasoning: 1) The time of Jesus' incarnation was wholly unique in all of history. 2) People ate and drank with Jesus. 3) Therefore people will not eat and drink today, since that was unique to Jesus' time. Admittedly I've gone overboard in creating a non-sensical example, but the point is that the existence of a unique period does not make everything about that period different from today.
   I believe it is wrong to say, "The Holy Spirit fell on some people in Acts at a distinct time after they were converted, therefore there will also be a time gap today", and it would be equally wrong to say (though no one says it quite this way), "The Holy Spirit fell on some people in Acts at a distinct time after they were converted, therefore there will be NO time gap today." I believe it is wrong to say, "People in Acts spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Spirit, thus anyone who truly receives the Holy Spirit today will speak in tongues", and it is equally wrong to say, "People in Acts spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Spirit, but since Acts was a unique period, therefore no one should speak in tongues."
   And so we can summarize that these two principles are actually just one. The one principle is that just because we find something in narrative neither confirms nor denies that it can be, should be, or will be our experience as Christians today. In other words, the statements "It happened in Acts" and "The period of Acts was unique" are BOTH inadequate to settle the question of whether something should be expected today.
   In particular, when it comes to questions such as those regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the supernatural gifts, and the passionately fervent love and zeal for the Lord we read about in Acts, then in such context the statement "The period of Acts was unique" is a valid and helpful principle to keep in mind, but we must not think that it answers the question. It most certainly doesn't answer the question, it only brings one principle into the discussion. The period of Acts was unique. Indeed! Do we therefore conclude that the supernatural gifts continue. No! Do we therefore conclude that they have ceased. No! So the statement, "The period of Acts was unique" hasn't settled any matters, it has only provided us with one tool to help us as we carry on investigating the matter.
   Indeed, in many conversations I have had regarding the Holy Spirit or the life of the Church in Acts, I find many Charismatic and Pentecostal Christians are far too quick to affirm that something we read in Acts should reflect normal Christianity today, and I find that many non-Charismatic and "traditional" Christians are far too quick to deny the modern relevance of Acts, simply brushing it away with the line, "The period of Acts was unique." Either conclusion, even if it turns out in the end to be right, should not be made so quickly. To find that something occured in the early church, and to affirm the uniqueness of the period of the early church in Acts, is the beginning, not the end, of our study into how we should understand its significance for us today.
   I am not saying that narrative is useless for forming doctrine and giving practical wisdom. Otherwise, how could all Scripture be useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness, when most of it is narrative? Narrative is useful in guiding our life and doctrine, I am just saying we need to take care in its use, rightly handling the word of truth.
   And finally let me point out one more principle. An event having a unique significance in salvation history does not nullify the potential for that event also having significance as a model for the Christian life. The crucifixion of Christ is the most noteworthy example. Evangelicals would fight vigorously against the interpretation of Jesus' death as merely a model of love. Rightly so evangelicals affirm the significance of Christ's death on the cross as a unique, literal event in human history, whereby He took on the sins of the world and purchased our redemption. The significance of this utterly unique event in salvation history must not be diluted by viewing it as merely an example to us of how we ought to love one another. And yet, Jesus Himself, in addition to the inspired New Testament writers, saw fit to also speak of His death as indeed precisely such a model for us (Mk 10:43-45; 2 Cor 4:10; Eph 5:2; 1 John 3:16). Just because something in Scripture had a unique role in history does not mean that God does not also intend to use it as a model, or lesson, or illustration about something such as the modern daily Christian life.
   So I say, was Pentecost unique? How about the events surrounding the establishment and growing and building up of the early church in Acts and the early church Paul wrote to, did these events have a unique role in history? Was the ministry of the original 12 apostles unique? I would answer yes, yes, yes. There was unique stuff going on all over the place. So what do we conclude about these matters? Well, based on their uniqueness alone we conclude... nothing. Observing Biblical precedents, and observing the potential uniqueness of the Biblical precedents, is one stage, possibly the first stage in our study. We may very well come to conclusions, and observing the narrative itself as well as its potential uniqueness will factor in, but hopefully our conclusions will come only after looking into several other factors as well.