Answers In-Depth to Questions about Christianity
Speaking in Tongues is NOT Needed to
Be "Baptized in the Spirit"

QUESTION:  Our Catholic catechisms do not even mention baptism in the Holy Spirit, but the
Bible clearly stresses this experience.  I've been reading about it, and Jessica, a dynamic
Protestant friend of mine, has been giving me some spiritual direction on the matter.  She
says, "No wonder most Catholics today seem so powerless in their spiritual lives.  They have
missed this experience, the key to a deeper Christian life!"  She also tells me that I will know
that I have been baptized in the Spirit once I have spoken in tongues.  I'm not comfortable
with doing something so strange yet, but I want everything God wants me to have.  Must I
speak in tongues to be baptized in the Spirit?  Answered by Rev. Paul L. Rothermel

Below is an evaluation by an Assemblies-of-God minister of my views expressed above.
                                             --Rev. Paul L. Rothermel

Father Paul,

Thank you for sharing this article with me.  I read it with interest.  Here are my brief comments.

1)  I am not a theologian, rather I am 42 year old Pentecostal who considers himself a student of
the Word and lifelong learner.  I also recognize my gift of teaching and my calling to be a pastor.  I
feel the latter gives me some qualification to address these things, but only with reservation.

2)  The first thing that caught my attention, and you so quickly point out, is the value of tradition in
the Catholic faith that is not present within my framing of Biblical matters.  This alone signifies that
I would not as easily accept some things that are acknowledged by the Catholic church, whereas I
would say, "It could be, or it could not be.  The Scripture is silent on this."  This does not mean I
would reject some of the traditions, rather I simply cannot be as dogmatic since they are not within
the Holy Text.

Ironically, whereas you see this as "the Protestant handicap," I would see this as "the Catholic
handicap" (grin).

3)  Once the argument of "tradition" is put behind me, I can easily follow your reasoning and nod in
agreement.  I particularly liked the part that read:

Doubt can be about a proper recipient (Samaritans, Gentiles, ones with John’s baptism?).
Doubt can be about the proper spirit (the Holy Spirit of Israel and of Christ’s Apostles?).
Doubt can be about the proper baptism (believers in Christ with John’s baptism only?).

4)  I affirm another statement,
"It is better to experience the teachings of the Apostles than to teach all their experiences!"  
An old-time Pentecostal might say it this way, "It is better caught than taught!"

5)  I have never heard the idea,
"If the Samaritan believers had spoken in tongues right before or right after Baptism, the skeptical
Jewish Christians could have very easily dismissed this display as the result of a demonic spirit, not
the Holy Spirit..."

This is very interesting and quite possible.  I might use this in my own future teaching of the
subject. Thank you.

6)  In conclusion, you have put together a fine hand-out.

I am certain Catholic Charismatics face the same problem we Pentecostals face in the teaching of
these things.  Speaking in tongues was not meant to be an intellectual exercise, rather a supernatural
experience.  It is one thing to become "book smart" in these things, perhaps even become
comfortable in learning about them, but I believe this is a gift for all believers and God is looking for
Christians to experience it.

I hope these comments were helpful.

Blessings,
Pastor Gary

John the Baptizer promised that the Coming One “shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
Does this mean that all Christians should pursue an experience of “speaking in tongues”?
St. Peter ties this “spiritual baptizing” to two events with tongues-speaking (Acts 11:16).
On Pentecost and at Cornelius’ house, a language miracle occurred when the Spirit came.
Peter proclaims that Joel predicted this out-pouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28, Acts 2:16-21).

The biblical issue that most divides us from Pentecostals is reception of the Holy Spirit.
Are sacraments OR the manifestation of “other tongues” a more sure sign of this?
Obviously, there can be only one orthodox Catholic answer to this important question.

Without Tradition the Holy Scriptures are sometimes unclear (the Protestant handicap).

“The Seven” in Acts 6-8 perform functions of helping widows, preaching, and baptizing.
Without our Catholic Tradition we would not know that Stephen and Philip are deacons.

Baptism and Confirmation initiate all Christians (Acts 8:14-17, 19:1-7, Hebrews 6:1-2).
Catholic Tradition teaches an additional “Sacrament of Initiation,” the Holy Eucharist.
Acts mentions the Eucharist (“breaking bread”) as basic but not as initiatory (Acts 2:42).
Nowhere does the Bible suggest First Communion initiates Christians, although it does.

The promise of receiving the Holy Spirit is associated with Baptism (Acts 2:38, 19:2-3).
The Holy Spirit is also received through “the laying on of hands” (Acts 8:17, 9:17, 19:6).
Catholic Tradition tells us the Holy Spirit is received in Baptism AND in Confirmation.
The Spirit comes to live within us at Baptism and comes to empower us at Confirmation.
Common folk think of Baptism more as a removal of sin than as A reception of the Spirit.
Most Catholics think of Confirmation as THE sacrament for receiving the Holy Spirit.

God promised through John the Baptizer “Spirit baptism” for God’s people (Luke 3:16).
[In the Bible this reality is always a verb, never the noun used here for our convenience.]
Jesus Christ repeated this divine promise before He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:4-8).
While this promise first came through Joel and John, this “baptism” came through Jesus.

EITHER “the promise” means that Jesus Christ will baptize in water with the Holy Spirit,
OR “the promise” means He will overwhelm all His own by means of Spirit possession.

OPTION ONE:  A SUPERIOR FORM OF BAPTISM (SACRAMENTAL)

If this option is right, the Baptizer foretold a better baptism in water than his own.

KEY VERSE:  1 CORINTHIANS  12:13  (same Greek phrase as in John’s promise)
We Christians have ALL been baptized IN the Spirit INTO the one Body (the Church).
Because of Baptism and Confirmation, all “drink of one Spirit,” and so He lives within.
Even “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” do not bring someone into the Church.

In the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, it is always Jesus Who baptizes through His ministers.
During Jesus’ pre-Resurrection ministry, He baptized through His disciples (John 4:1-3).
Jesus strongly advised Nicodemus to be “born out of water and the Spirit” (John 3:3-5).
He could be born out of the Spirit then, but the Spirit was “not yet” [given] (John 7:39).
He could be born out of the Spirit, but the Sacrament of Confirmation was not yet given.
The Spirit then as now acted as “Mother” by giving a birth to one’s spirit through water.
Before Christ’s resurrection, Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit “is WITH you (disciples).”
Pentecost would mark the day when the Spirit “shall be IN you (disciples)” (John 14:17).
Whenever one was baptized IN the Spirit-permeated water, he was baptized IN the Spirit.
Whenever Jesus baptizes in water through humans, it is a “baptism IN the Holy Spirit.”

BECAUSE “the promise” is future to the Ascension, another option is more likely.

OPTION TWO:  AN OVERWHELMING DISPLAY OF SPIRIT POSSESSION

We can learn much from all the uses of the Greek word “epi-pipto” in the book of Acts.
This Greek word, “epi-pipto,” is usually translated as “to fall upon” or “to come upon.”
St. Peter reported the Holy Spirit “fell upon” Cornelius’ household (Acts 10:44, 11:15).
St. Peter said that this reminded him of the Spirit’s “falling” at Pentecost (Acts 11:15).
St. Peter associated BOTH events with the promised “Spirit baptism” (Acts 11:16).
The Holy Spirit “fell upon” the Samaritans whenever they were confirmed (Acts 8:16).
This “falling upon” may be like a concerned embrace (Acts 20:10) or a kiss (Acts 20:37).
The “falling" grips “baby Christians” the way fear grips an entire populace (Acts 19:17).
Although overwhelming fear cannot be seen or measured, it reveals itself in many ways.
Even in the context of complete silence, such a fear can reveal itself in many little ways.
Although the Holy Spirit cannot be seen or measured, He reveals Himself in many ways.

At Pentecost, display of the Spirit was both a matter of hearing and seeing (Acts 2:33).
At Samaria, this display of the Spirit may have only been a matter of seeing (Acts 8:18).
Was Luke teaching a pattern: tongues occur whenever the Spirit first falls on believers?
If so, he would have mentioned tongues at Samaria, the second “falling-upon” event.
If he believed that this was so, he definitely was not teaching it, but only assuming it.

“Spirit Baptism” can be non-sacramental (Pentecost, Cornelius), OR sacramental.
Objectively, “Spirit Baptism” is the reception by us all of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling.
Subjectively, “Spirit Baptism” is our initial perception of the Holy Spirit possessing us.
Our first overwhelming sense of His presence in us may be called “Spirit baptism.”
Any later experience of His powerful presence is properly a “(re-)filling with the Spirit.”

The fullness of the Spirit will come from within, like an artesian spring (John 7:38-39).
We cannot get more of the Spirit, but the Spirit can get more control of each of us!
Christians should remain Spirit-possessed (this may be as clear as demon possession is!).
Do you and I possess the Holy Spirit, AND does the Holy Spirit possess you and me?

Almost all the early Christians were confirmed immediately after they received Baptism.
Paul was not aware of any Christians who did not possess the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9).
It is silly to set St. Paul against St. Luke in these matters (“different pneumatologies”?).
St. Luke traveled with Paul on some missionary journeys (cf. the “we” sections of Acts).
Reception of the Spirit would have been a major missionary focus for all new converts.
Anyone can baptize, but only bishops and priests can confirm and confect the Eucharist.
Deacons cannot confirm (or confect the Holy Eucharist or forgive post-baptismal sins).
St. Philip could not confirm the Samaritan Christians, because he was merely a deacon.
SS. Peter and John confirmed the Samaritan Christians, because they were Apostles.
Ananias more than likely baptized and confirmed Saul, called Paul (Acts 9:17, 22:16).
If so, Ananias was not merely a deacon, because he could confirm but deacons cannot.
Ananias was not an Apostle, because this would surely have been mentioned by Luke.
Ananias could only have been a priest (presbyter), according to our Catholic tradition.
St. Paul confirmed twelve “Ephesian disciples,” because he was an apostle (Acts 14:14).
Priesthood in harmony with Apostolic Succession grants ability to confirm (Acts 8:21).

Many confirmed Catholics have never known an overwhelming sense of the Holy Spirit.
This is because they have not prayed seriously for the indwelling Spirit to control them.
“Catholic Charismatics” truly emphasize the value of prayer for the Spirit (Luke 11:13).

The early gift of tongues was a God-given guide that groups had received the Holy Spirit.
Doubt can be about a proper recipient (Samaritans, Gentiles, ones with John’s baptism?).
Doubt can be about the proper spirit (the Holy Spirit of Israel and of Christ’s Apostles?).
Doubt can be about the proper baptism (believers in Christ with John’s baptism only?).

The early experiences of the Holy Spirit recorded in the book of Acts were valuable:

First, as clearly demonstrating (Pentecost) that the Church has the Spirit of Israel (Joel)!

Second, as clearly demonstrating that orthodox Jews are not the ONLY proper recipients!
What worked for the early Jewish Christians?  The SAME gift of tongues and prophecy!
Their doubts are not necessarily our doubts; so their proofs need not be our proofs!
Note: Tongues = inspired prayer in an unknown language (Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 12-14).
Prophecy included inspired praise in a language known to the speakers (Luke 1:67-68).
It is better to experience the teachings of the Apostles than to teach all their experiences!

Third, as clearly demonstrating that the Spirit is given in relation to CHRISTIAN rites!
This is clearly established by Paul in his dealings with the Ephesian disciples (Acts 19).
This is suggested in Peter’s requirement that Cornelius’ household be baptized (Acts 10).
This is proved earlier when Peter and John confirmed the baptized Samaritans (Acts 8).

There was great hatred historically between Jews and Samaritans (racial AND religious).
What if Samaria, a wild haven of evil spirits, had had an immediate display of the Spirit?

If the Samaritan believers had spoken in tongues right before or right after Baptism, the
skeptical Jewish Christians could have very easily dismissed this display as the result of a
demonic spirit, not the Holy Spirit (Samaritans were heretics even in the Jewish religion).

Ss. Peter and John had the status to overcome doubts as long as they were eyewitnesses.
Samaria was a clear demonstration that all the baptized are meant to have the Spirit of the
Apostles and share in one Body (Unity in love quickly overcame the divisions of hatred.).
Laying hands on someone was a sign of unity (Was joy, too, a visible sign of the Spirit?).
This Apostolic touch was a visible sign of Samaritans united to the Spirit of the Apostles.

                                                        THE END.
WARNING!  This is an advanced website.  To maximize benefit, you should
first acquire a basic and intermediate understanding of Christianity.  There are
many intermediate websites.  For  an entry-level experience, feel free to
browse my other website:  What You Should Know about ULTIMATE REALITY
"A little learning is a dangerous thing...."
--Alexander Pope