„I have not gone about this subject the conventional way, building a case upon key subsequence passages in Acts, such as Acts 2, 8, 9, 10 and 19. It is fairly well established and acknowledged by cessationists and Third Wave positions alike that a pattern of subsequence exists in Acts. The question then becomes whether or not that pattern is normative for today.
I have attempted to show that Luke intends this pattern to continue, by virtue of Peter’s paradigmatic promise in Acts 2:38-39, and that these promises cannot refer to regeneration if we properly understand Luke’s pneumatology and interpret the promises about the baptism in the Holy Spirit according to his charismatically oriented understanding of the Holy Spirit.”

It all centers around Jesus’ promise:

„And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now….”” (Act 1:4,5)

[for what purpose?]

„…But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) ESV

And to answer your objection about the Samaritans actually „receiving” the Holy Spirit just then, I would like to specify how much of Him?…

John1:16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.
2Cor.3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (ESV)
Just as there are degrees in the fullness of Christ and His Word (Eph.3:17-19; Col.3:16), so it is with the Holy Spirit.

And I think this agrees better with the reason you give for the 2nd exception (Acts 19):
„We learn from the passage itself that they had only been baptized in John the baptist’s “baptism of repentance”—they had not heard the Gospel which identified Jesus as the Messiah. They had not even heard of the Holy Spirit! It makes sense then that they would not have received him then, because they never were truly converted.” Underline this last clause.

Indeed Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) ESV

Andy,
The question that remains then: were the Samaritans saved without the Holy Spirit? You must work this problem into your exception somehow and it seems like you just touched on it in your first reason:

“Some believed one had to be circumcised and adopt the law of Moses in order to be saved (see Acts 15), but others believed gentiles could be saved simply through faith. God seems to have withheld his indwelling presence from the Samaritans so that two of the highest leaders in the church…”

You either have to make a bigger exception (for salvation), or fall into the same fringe theology (not saved) you are combating here. And by the way, isn’t it kind of misleading the way you used “subsequent” in your opening line? That’s not what pentecostal subsequence is about (hence John’s clarification).

If you’re still open to evaluating these classic interpretations, let’s continue the discourse. Sorry for the delay, but I wanted to go through the whole essay myself, before posting the link above – probably the best/most succinct and honest defense of a subsequent Holy Spirit baptism I’ve seen. Really hope our friends read it.

Properly stated, Acts 8 is an exception to the rule that the Holy Spirit indwells all people upon conversion, and the reasons provided above don’t lead me to confusion nor despair as to why God did it that way! I hope that helps clarify my position.

The only resevervation I have is with your explanation of the Samaritans’ exception: Because it raises the question, if they did not “have” the Holy Spirit, were they still saved without Him, between the time that Filip preached and they beleived, until Peter and John came to lay hands on them? Wouldn’t that contradict the doctrine you laid out earlier?

Though you give some compelling reasons for this exception, I think mainstream pentecostal doctrine gives an easier explanation, which is the distinction of the „second work”, that John mentioned. I think the language indicates this:

Acts 8:16
„For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
This „fallen upon” (all translations but NIV) and „poured out” is descriptive of the filling/baptism of the Spirit, as in Cornelius’ house too:
Acts 10:44,45
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

Granted, this last verse seems to support your explanation, but I also think it’s God’s ideal and greatest desire: to fill newly consecrated believers at conversion. And I’m guessing, from the following point that you still hold to a second work:

„The only instruction regarding the Spirit is to be “filled” with the Spirit, but that is different from the indwelling of the Spirit.”

Again, you’ve given a splendid exposition of fundamental truths that should be abundantly clear to all pentecostals. Sad to realize there are still a few in our circles that believe the “folk” traditions (nice adjective:). And though they are on the “fringe”, as John points out and as far as I know in our churches (they’re also denounced by mainstream pentecostal preachers), some of our friends describe environments where they form the majority. I’m interested in their perspectives and hope they’ll comment here too:)

If theology should merely expose “the church’s understanding of God that is based on, faithful to, but not limited to the biblical witness”, then doesn’t it also require apology and scientific methods – at least in those extra-biblical witnesses?

My intuition is that this is more a definition of dogmatics, since earlier you also said, “I think biblical theologians, historians, etc. participate in a category very different from dogmatics.”

My only reservation about this definition is the dependence on an extra lense in between (the church’s understanding, ie. majority position), which I think becomes the weakest link in the process. If the church gets to identify revelation, then don’t we also need to accept by faith stuff like the apparitions of Mary?