This paper will discuss the success of Anthony D. Palma’s defence of the doctrine of subsequence and initial evidence and comment on the manner in which he defends his views against other scholars.
Subsequence
Despite the opinions of many scholars who contend that there is no distinct and identifiable charismatic experience of the Spirit apart from regeneration, Palma provides solid and convincing biblical evidence of a post-conversion Spirit-baptism that was not only taught but also experienced in the early church. Engaging in a Pentecostal hermeneutic that employs the medium of history to convey theological truths, Palma explores all the narrative examples of Spirit baptism in the Lukan texts and identifies specific characteristics and patterns that clearly indicate a Pentecostal experience subsequent to salvation. He demonstrates how the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2; Joel 2) is programmic for the early church and establishes a paradigm of post-conversion Pentecostal experiences that empower believers for evangelism. Following the Day of Pentecost, the author examines the Samaritan Pentecost (Acts 8:14-20), Saul’s Spirit-baptism (Acts 9:17), Cornelius and his household’s Spirit-baptism (Acts 10:44-48), and the Ephesians’ Pentecost (Acts 19:1-7). From his inductive study, Palma observes that in three of the five narratives surveyed (Acts 8; 9; 19), those who had an observable charismatic experience were already converted for some time. In the two remaining narratives, though they do not explicitly state that conversion preceded the baptism in the Holy Spirit, conversion prior to Spirit-baptism is implied (Acts 2; 10). The emerging pattern clearly indicates that there is an experience in the Holy Spirit that is separate from and subsequent to conversion that was occurring among the believers in early church.
Responding to scholars who have opposing opinions, Palma confronts their arguments with a reasonable and convincing explanation of the biblical texts in question. In response to Bruner’s and Haenchen’s contention that the Spirit-baptism of the Samaritan converts (Acts 8) was the exception that proves the rule (the rule being that believers receive the Spirit at the time of conversion), Palma reminds readers that Luke never denies the indwelling work of the Spirit at the time of regeneration, but rather seeks to highlight the distinct nature of the charismatic experience subsequent to salvation. Other scholars, such as Dunn and Hoekema, who argue that the Samaritans were not regenerated at the time of their Spirit-baptism but were actually receiving salvation instead of a subsequent Pentecostal experience, Palma notes that Luke records that the Samaritans had previously “accepted the word of God,” a phrase synonymous with genuine conversion throughout the Lukan narratives. Despite the contrary viewpoints of other scholars, Palma is successful at defending the doctrine of subsequence by mapping the patterns present in the biblical accounts and providing sufficient evidence to support the understanding of Spirit-baptism as an experience subsequent to conversion.
Initial Evidence
Beginning his defence of the doctrine of tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit-baptism, Palma highlights how inspired utterance occurs when the Holy Spirit comes upon people throughout biblical history. When Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost and the disciples were baptized in the Holy Spirit, they responded with inspired utterance in the form of tongues-speaking. Following the Day of Pentecost, the narrative theology of the book of Acts consistently repeats the pattern of tongues-speaking as the initial evidence of Spirit-baptism, establishing a normative paradigm for believers in the early church. Despite the fact that nowhere in the Scriptures is there a propositional statement identifying tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit-baptism, Palma highlights how “all” the people spoke in tongues in Acts 2 (also see Acts 10), suggesting that tongues is regarded as the immediate empirical manifestation that authenticates the Pentecostal experience.
Evident from Palma’s book, there are numerous scholars who oppose the concept of tongues being the initial evidence of Spirit-baptism. Objecting to the notion of initial evidence, Carson states that Luke records several places where individuals are said to be filled with the Spirit without any indication of the evidence of tongues. Responding to Carson, Palma suggests that Luke did not feel obligated to mention tongues explicitly at every single occasion of Spirit-baptism, but cumulative evidence within the text undeniably supports the doctrine of initial evidence. Carson also suggests that if tongues is the initial evidence of Spirit-baptism, the evidence of wind and fire should also be normative signs present in the Pentecostal experience. However, unlike the evidence of tongues which is identified or strongly implied in numerous texts, wind and fire were only present on the Day of Pentecost and are not mentioned anywhere else in the narrative where people are Spirit-baptized. Dunn, another scholar who opposes the Pentecostal doctrine of initial evidence, contends that, though Luke intended to portray tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit-baptism, Luke’s accounts are “crude” and “undiscriminating,” emphasizing Luke’s unbalanced and rather undependable theology. However, for those who have a high view of Scripture, Luke’s descriptions of the early church’s post-conversion encounters with the Holy Spirit are divinely inspired and more than adequate for the formation of doctrine. Despite these and other opposing voices, Palma presents a biblically sound and convincing defence of the doctrine of tongues as the initial evidence of the Spirit-baptism and considers the manifestation of tongues normative for every believer who receives the Pentecostal experience.
Bibliography
Palma, Anthony D. The Holy Spirit: A Pentecostal Perspective. Springfield: Logion
Press, 2001.
