Daddy Freeze, Christmas and “the Paganization of Christianity”

An ancient Jewish proverb says: “If you wish to strangle, be hanged on a good tree.” It means, if you must rely on an authority, you do well to make sure it’s a reliable one.

This was my deduction after watching an hour-long YouTube interview with Daddy Freeze by Abimbola Adelakun in July 2019.

For those who might not be familiar with these two figures, here’s a brief background:

Ifedayo Olarinde (popularly known as Daddy Freeze) is a Nigerian broadcaster who who propelled himself to national fame in 2016 by calling out and virulently criticizing the doctrines and practices of popular pastors and ministers in Nigerian churches. His regular boiler-plate rhetoric against Pentecostal clerics carved for him a niche, and in 2018, he declared himself the founder of the Free Nation In Christ Online Church (or “Free The Sheeple” movement).

Abimbola Adelakun is an Assistant Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies at the University of Texas. She is also a columnist with Punch Newspapers. Her research interests include Critical spirituality, Pentecostalism and Pentecostal culture, religious creativity and modern African cultural performances and expressions. She identifies as a “non-theist” and is obviously a Secular Humanist.

With the pedigree of both the interviewer and interviewee, I was hoping to gain some insights into the ideological underpinnings of this man who is frequently vaunted as an “undefeatable critic” of Nigerian Christianity.

But after ten minutes of listening to this man talk, I cringed at the wide gap between his bombastic claims and his supporting arguments. By the time the video got halfway through, I bristled and pressed “Stop” because I could no longer stomach his harsh, bullying tone and mutilation of basic facts, history and logic.

Since he touched on the topic of Christmas, I’ve decided to revisit that interview and address some of the things he said. His words appear in blue while Dr. Adelakun’s words are in green.

I’m going to throw some light on Christmas … A lot of people argue that, “Oh yes, we agree Christmas was a pagan festival, but Christ came to replace it.”

This a straw man. Whatever pagan worship that was occurring on December 25 prior to Christ, lacked any coherence or a chain of continuity that could be directly traced down to those observing Christmas today.

Granted, many customs, words, concepts and styles of one civilization pass on down and influence one another. But if some of them had pagan significance at some other time or place, it doesn’t mean it still does.

The fact that December period was observed in some old festivals doesn’t mean that they have the same influence or significance today. After all, people can choose any day of the week or month to observe whatever is of importance to them. You don’t have to forge a connection between theirs and the past.

Not to mention, our modern calendar is not the same as ancient calendar of other cultures.

Let me give you this example: you are the river goddess, I’m Christ, okay? We are both born on the same day. It makes no sense for us to shift Christ’s birthday if it happens to fall on the river goddess’ birthday. Hey, we are both born on the same day, let’s do it together, you understand? But we know the Christians are separated from the river goddess’ worshippers…

This is a vapid oversimplification of paganism and it does nothing to strengthen his argument.

Pagan religions don’t specify a date for the nativity of their deities. Most ancient festivals were based on local geographical weather, seasonal cycles, moon phases, and astrological dates. In plain terms, their festivals rarely fell on the same day each year.

For example, Tammuz, which the Encyclopedia Britannica defines as a Mesopotamian “god of fertility embodying the powers for new life in nature in the spring” had varying festival periods in the pagan calendar.

Easton’s Bible Dictionary says his festival was observed in Chaldea in “the month of July, the beginning of the summer solstice.”

The Fausset’s Bible dictionary says “an annual feast was kept to him in June” at Byblos.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says the “mourning by Tammuz was celebrated in Babylonia by women on the 2nd day of the 4th month… [while in Syria his death was celebrated] in midsummer.”

Now Christ was born three months before Christmas, and you took him from his birthday. You didn’t bother finding out what day he was really born and of all days you are matchmaking with the river goddess.

This is a frozen argument. The claim of Jesus being born on September or October is debatable, but Mr Freeze says it dogmatically. No one is definitely sure which exact month Jesus was born on, neither does it matter. What matters is that He was born.

The allegation of matchmaking a deity’s birthday to another also assumes that all ancient cultures or geographical locations used the same calendar or shared the same concept of their deity’s “birth.”

People like Daddy Freeze suppose that if something once had a pagan significance, it must always be of pagan significance! That’s untrue.

The days of the week and months of the year were named after pagan deities. They had pagan significance in the past, but it doesn’t mean they still do so.

Friday was named after Frigg and Thursday after Thor. That you hold a religious service on a Friday doesn’t mean you worship Frig. Neither does having your religious festival on a Thursday mean you worship Thor.

The names, Mercury, Venus, or Mars for planets were originally pagan names. But no one today supposes that planets are deities.

And you can’t hide behind Jewish calendar because during the Babylonian captivity, the Jews renamed some of their months in Babylonian terms. The month of Abib was renamed Nisan and another one was even named Tammuz! Yet no one would accuse Jews of worshipping Tammuz.

This time it was a god, Nimrod with Christ. And then you say you’re replacing Nimrod with Christ. Oh brilliant! But you’re still celebrating with Nimrod’s tree and the Yule and the mistletoe and the gifts and the parties, so where is the Christ?

It’s there

This is where he sounded so lopey that it was embarrassing for me to watch or listen to. Notice that even Dr. Adelakun who had no intention of defending Christianity had to point it out to him: the Christ you say is absent in Christmas is there. But daddy Freeze sees Nimrod.

Many anti-Christmas/anti-Easter zealots are like a close circuit; they read the same set of hogwash, rehash the same lines of arguments and repeat the same trope of misinformation which they never bother to fact check in any objective or valid sources.

So most of the time, when you’re dealing with the “Christmas-is-of-pagan-origin” folks, you’re stuck with a self-perpetuating and self-validating worldview. Mr so-and-so (who isn’t even a scholar in the field he’s pontificating on) says it or wrote it, and he is in our coterie, so that settles it.

I’ve written about the fatal flaws of the “Nimrod-is-god” assertion and I do not wish to repeat it here. Both the Bible and history indicate that Nimrod was never worshipped as a deity (whether a “father god” or “king of the gods”); he founded no religion and has no valid link to deities in the Babylonian, Persian Greek, Roman, or Nordic pantheon.

In plain terms, the old theory of the “Babylon connection” of Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz to pagan deities (both ancient and modern) is at best, tabloid sensationalism.

I don’t see it, unfortunately. I don’t see it. What I see is the paganization of Christianity and here is the biggest point that everybody misses, Christ never asked for his birthday to be celebrated. Never. There were many years that Paul went to meet Peter… no birthday. They remembered to do so many things but never remembered to celebrate his birthday? It was never part of the doctrine.

Daddy Freeze’s Free the Sheeple movement is simply one of the versions of the Sacred Name cults or Hebrew Roots movement. These are aberrant religious groups that teach that all of Christianity except theirs is irredemably infected with hellenized paganism, that Christianity went off the rails right from 325 AD.

Yup, no one got it right for 1700 years. The real name of God was lost, the name of Jesus was paganized. The gospel was paganized. Everyone was in darkness, lost and doomed for hell until the light came on in the 20th century when some pockets of people knew “the restored truth.”

And what’s their truth? That using the Hebrew name of God and Jesus, following the laws of Moses and disavowing apostle Paul and the epistles of the New Testament as “Greek pagan corruption” brings you to the light…yes, new light. Doesn’t that sound familiar yet?

So when Mr. Ifedayo goes off in tangents and tells us about how the only two birthdays in the Bible were instances where men were executed (the second through a chain of manipulation and indirect assassination), he’s not deriving this from either Scripture or history, but his cultish ideology – the kind that is inconsistently selective about pagan origins.

According to Browser’s Book of Beginnings, the earliest evidence of a game that featured two opposing teams kicking, tossing, and aggressively advancing a ball in opposite directions was practiced 5,000 years ago in Egypt—as a fertility rite. Sounds like football doesn’t it?

So why do they rail against Christmas and still play or watch soccer?

There are so many issues with Christmas. The paganization is not even the date (which even is paganized), the paganization is even the celebration…

In the Bible, Jesus is called a Lion (Rev. 5:5), Satan is also called a lion (1 Pet. 5:8). Using Daddy Freeze’s logic, Jesus is Satan!

The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in his hand (Ps. 75:8). Using Daddy Freeze’s logic, God is mystery Babylon.

Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Using Daddy Freeze’s logic, the Lord Jesus is pagan.

Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the “sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Using his logic, the God of the Bible was “paganized.”

Someone needs to school Daddy Freeze (and Reno Omokri, another kook in the barrel) that taking a stand against paganism shouldn’t be taken to foolish extremes. If you want to fish for pagan origins behind every bush and shelf, you will have to reject the Bible as pagan!

All of the following practices or beliefs mentioned in the Bible were also known among pagans: raising hands in worship, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in a temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, a city of refuge, bringing forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire etc.

That some primitive tribes worshipped trees in the past doesn’t mean people decorating trees during Christmas today are worshipping trees. That’s the dumbest argument in the book.

When was Christ’s birthday celebration decided? 317 years after He died! Oh wow, it took you 300 years, and who decided it? The Council of Nicaea and Constantine who worshipped the sun all his life and “gave his life,” why because there was a problem in his kingdom. Come on.

This was the lowest water mark. Anyone who is so lacking in intellectual dignity to the point of claiming that the Council of Nicaea and Constantine decided on Christmas shouldn’t be taken as an authority on any Christian doctrine, no matter how large his YouTube subscribers might be. It’s simply irresponsible for Daddy Freeze to spout such an outright falsehood for public consumption.

At this point in the video (at 20:00-20:06) you could see the look of “My goodness, I can’t believe you’re this wack” on Dr. Adelakun’s face.

Okay, so I think this is where I’ll disagree with you. First of all, the things that you highlighted, it’s like you seem so much invested in faithfulness to an origin rather than looking at it as an appropriation of the past to meet the exigencies of the present. So if we say Jesus… [DF rudely interrupts her mid-sentence to ramble].

There is really nothing you can do because what you have called Christianity today is a composite of all these past paganism, Jewish culture

[DF quickly interjects again aggressively]:

My Christianity is a Christianity that starts in the red Bible which is the highlighted words of Jesus. Anything else that history has is history’s business.

Notice how he contradicts himself. He appeals to history to bolster his hypothesis that Nimrod is the figure being honoured at Christmas and leans on Constantine and the council of Nicaea, but when he was given a picture of history that conflicts with his bias, he quickly throws history into the bin and dives into that oh-so-cool solo scriptura jibe.

Daddy Freeze only considers history as  valid so long as it supports his abstractions, fancies and self-canonized authority. This is a very unreliable man, a hack who pretends to do serious research – a false teacher who shouldn’t be teaching you – that is, if you don’t wish to go astray.

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit: A Distinct Experience

There are sincere Christians who have been taught that when you receive the New Birth, you receive the Holy Spirit. This is true.

But where they introduce a degree of falsehood is when they teach that there is no other experience for you beyond the New Birth, that at the moment of salvation, you received the baptism with the Holy Spirit and have all the Holy Spirit you can have.

To remove this blindfold, we need to back away from “denominational positions” and allow the light of Scripture illuminate our minds.

Paul Enns, mentioned in the first article, wrote that:

Pentecostals tend to confuse the terms for baptism of the Spirit and the filling of the Spirit. They suggest the same Greek phrase (en pneumatic) is used to describe believers being placed into the body of Christ at salvation (1 Cor. 12:13) and being empowered for service subsequent to salvation (Acts 1:5). (The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Publishers: Chicago. 2008 p. 677)

At this juncture, I’m not convinced that this scholar is accurately presenting the beliefs of those whom he disagrees with.

He obviously subscribes to the argument that the Holy Spirit baptism is indistinguishable from regeneration. A Bible passage often appealed to is Ephesians 4:4-5

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (RSV)

This verse is used to teach that there is only one baptism available to the believer but in context, it is referring to baptism into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit. This occurs at the New Birth. It is a baptism in (or by) the Holy Spirit that Paul was referring to in 1 Cor. 12:13, which was discussed earlier.

But the type of baptism conferred by Jesus on members of His body, which we are discussing, is the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5).

Hebrews 6:2 speaks of  “the doctrine of baptisms” (plural). This is referring to all the baptisms available in the New Covenant: first is the baptism in or by the Holy Spirit – which saves us, then we have water baptism and there is also baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Once you note the prepositions used, you can distinguish the first one from the third.

Knowing the difference

Another distinction between the New Birth and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit can be seen in what Jesus did when He appeared to the disciples after His resurrection:

“So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” (John 20:21-22)

Just as God had breathed into Adam the breath of life at creation, Jesus breathed resurrection life into His disciples. It was an act of recreation – an impartation of life into their spirits by the Holy Spirit. This is what we call the New Birth or regeneration.

Yet, it’s clear that the baptism with the Holy Spirit was still in the future for them:

I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Lk. 24:49)

“For John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (Acts 1:5)

“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Acts 1:8)

Earlier, Jesus had declared them clean by the Word (Jn. 15:3) and He breathed the Holy Spirit into them making them born again. But Jesus didn’t say they “already received all the Holy Spirit that’s there to have” because they still needed to be clothed with power from above. They received this infilling and outflow of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

A man may be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and still not be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

In regeneration there’s an impartation of life, and the one who received it is saved; in the baptism with the Holy Spirit there’s an impartation of power and the one who receives it is fitted for service.

Consider the following passages:

“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2:4)

“Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.” (Acts 10:44-46)

“He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.” Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:2-6)

God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?” (Heb. 2:4)

Notice the phrases used in the NT to describe one and the same experience: “baptized with the Holy Spirit,” “clothed with power from on high,” “filled with the Holy Spirit,” “the Holy Spirit fell upon them,” “the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out,” “receive the Holy Spirit,” “the Holy Spirit came upon them,” and “gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

From the question Paul asked the Ephesian believers in Acts 19:2 and their response, it’s clear that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a definite experience of which one may and ought to know whether he has received it or not.

The baptism with the Holy Spirit is God’s gift reserved only for His children; it’s not for the unsaved. The world can’t receive or know the Spirit of Truth, and that’s why we don’t preach the Holy Spirit to the world. Jesus said:

“If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13)

But Jesus Christ is God’s gift to the world (John 3:16). That’s why we preach Christ to the world, so as many that accept Him will be born again. So it requires a travesty of logic to confuse the New Birth with Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 8, the Bible separates out these two experiences that one would have to be mischievous to conflate both.

12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. 13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”

The Samaritans were saved when Philip preached Christ to them, they were also baptized in water as a public demonstration of their salvation – they had the witness of the Holy Spirit within them – but the apostles Peter and John certainly didn’t think the new converts had all the Holy Spirit they could have.

The apostles came down and prayed for the Samaritan believers, not to be saved, but to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit – a subsequent definite experience!

Saul of Tarsus was converted on the way to Damascus. He believed in Jesus as Lord and surrendered his life to Him. Then the Lord appeared to another Christian, Ananias, in a vision and instructed him to go to Saul and lay hands on him:

“Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 9:17)

Notice two things, Ananias addressed Saul as “brother” and he didn’t say “the Lord sent me here to lay hands on you so you could get saved.” Why? Because Paul was already saved, but now he needed to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit for the assignment God had for him.

Yet it may shock you that some teachers will tell you that the book of Acts is merely historical, so we can’t derive doctrines about the Holy Spirit baptism from it. That’s a cop out because:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16)

Since the book of Acts is part of Scripture, it is profitable for doctrine. We can’t dismiss it because the events describe in it conflict with our presuppositions.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not just an event described in the NT, it’s also a doctrine and an experience that is real today.

Next, I will be discussing the nature, purposes and possibility of the Holy Spirit baptism.

 

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit: the Seal and the River

If there is one doctrine that I think has united the church and unfortunately, divided it along denominational lines for decades, it would be the teaching regarding the baptism with the Holy Spirit. This doctrine still remains controversial in several denominations today, and yes, a flash point point of mordant disagreements.

My experience reading and listening to pneumatological positions, polemics and musings – on both sides of the fence – leaves me with an impression that many who reject the reality of the baptism with the Holy Spirit today are largely influenced by denominational tenets, wrong teachings, misunderstandings and selective attention to Scripture, which have all ossified into “traditions” over the years.

In some cases, many believers have been burned by fanatical teachings and practices espoused by movements that have gone off the ditch with spiritual experiences and then ended up in an opposing extreme position – becoming a cessationist and rejecting all spiritual experiences altogether.

It seems we all struggle with this anomaly of going off into a doctrinal ditch on one side only to come out of it and swerve right into the ditch on the other side of the road.

But we need to find a biblical middle ground on this, because if something is clearly set forth in God’s Word, we have no right to deny or dilute it.

In a bid to rightly critique the Word of Faith movement, a theological reference work made a statement that denied the baptism with the Holy Spirit as a distinct experience subsequent to salvation:

The command to “ask Jesus for a baptism in the Holy Spirit” is not found in Scripture. The Holy Spirit baptizes all believers into the body of Christ at the moment of salvation (1 Cor. 12:13). (Paul Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Publishers Chicago, 2008, p. 677)

Let’s first look at this verse:

“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body; whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13).

Our attention needs to be drawn to three things here. First, the context of this verse points more to the unity of the body of Christ, than a doctrine.

Second, if we followed the rendering in the original Greek, the first part of this verse would read as: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” The Greek preposition here is en which means “in,” not “by.” Another Greek preposition that usually follows the verb baptizo is eis meaning “into.”

The clarity of the verse in question was hampered by translational dynamics.

Third, the word baptized in this verse in the past tense (not the perfect tense) and it refers to a single event that already took place at a certain moment in our past experience.

Granted, some Christians have jumped on this verse and inferred that unless you have been baptized with the Holy Spirit, you’re not yet in the body of Christ. This interpretation stems from flawed bible hermeneutics.

To understand what that verse was saying when it used the words “baptized into,” we need to consider four parallel passages in the New Testament where the same terms were used. (All quotes, unless otherwise stated, are from the NKJV)

Baptism into repentance

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance…” (Matthew 3:11)

The Greek preposition rendered “unto” (or “for” in other bible versions) is eis which means “into.” So literally, it reads as: “I indeed baptize you with water into repentance.”

The people whom John baptized had already repented before they were baptized into repentance.

That baptism was only an outward acknowledgement of the repentance that had occurred inwardly. In fact, John the Baptist abruptly refused to baptize those who didn’t show any proof of inner repentance:

“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance.” (Matt. 3:7-8)

Baptism into the forgiveness of sins

“When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 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.” (Acts 2:37-38 NIV)

Be baptized…for the forgiveness of sins” in the Greek is literally “be baptized…into the forgiveness of sins.”

As explained earlier, their sins were already forgiven by their repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. It wasn’t the baptism at Pentecost that washed away their sins, it was only an outward testimony of the forgiveness of sins they had received.

Baptism into Christ

“Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:24-27)

Again, we see that they were already children of God through their faith in Jesus. They were already in Christ before they were baptized into Christ. Their baptism was simply a public acknowledgement of the spiritual adoption they had received.

Baptism into death

“How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:2-4)

Here, we see that being “baptized into” is used in connection with being baptized into the death of Jesus Christ. Baptism is then spoken of as a burial which indicates that the person first dies to sin through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ before baptism (“the burial”) which publicly acknowledges that spiritual state.

Now, in the light of this understanding, let’s look again at 1 Cor. 12:13

“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.”

It means we were already in the body of Christ, regardless of our race or class, just as the people whom John baptized were already in repentance, just as the people baptized on the day of Pentecost were already forgiven of their sins, just as the people referred to in Galatians were already in Christ, and just as the people referred to in Romans were already dead to sin before they were buried in baptism into Christ death.

So, the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a public acknowledgement of our membership in the body of Christ. Therefore, it can be defined as the supernatural seal that is given to each individual member of the body of Jesus Christ by which He acknowledges them as a part of Him.

Now, I am going to provide another definition of the baptism with the Holy Spirit as I address the second aspect of the quote from Paul Enns earlier. He argued that nowhere in the Bible do we find an express command that Jesus should baptize anyone with the Holy Spirit.

But this argument is specious in the sense that there are several Christian doctrines that we adhere to today that were not expressly commanded, but merely implied from biblical narrations, descriptions and deductions.

The Bible presents doctrines into two ways: as commands or statements, and as description of events or experiences. When we combine both statements and events, we then have a complete picture of what the Bible is saying.

Even from the NT, we see many different men baptized with water, but John pointed at Jesus Christ and declared, “this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33 RSV). Jesus alone has been given the privilege to confer this supernatural seal on the members of His body.

The term “baptism with the Holy Spirit” is an instructive description, because one of the symbols of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is water.

God knew some people would confuse the New Birth – which places us in the body of Christ – with the distinct experience subsequent to it, called the baptism with the Holy Spirit, which confers its outward acknowledgement on us.

Thus, in the NT, Jesus used the image of water to picture both the Holy Spirit dwelling presence in the New Birth and the infilling of the Holy Spirit. First, in John 4, Jesus told the woman at the well of Samaria:

10 If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”

13… Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”

Here, Jesus is talking about receiving eternal life – just as he told Nicodemus in John 3. The work of the Holy Spirit in us when we become saved is what Jesus likens to a fountain of living water. This well of salvation is for our personal benefit.

But in John 7, Jesus speaks of another experience in the Holy Spirit:

“On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:37-39)

He is comparing the receiving of the Holy Spirit to the act of drinking which then leads to an outflow of rivers (note the plural) of living water. This is an apt description of the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, there are two experiences in the Holy Spirit. There is water in a fountain, and there is water in a river. The water is essentially the same, but they have their different purposes.

It’s from this ambit that we can also define the baptism with the Holy Spirit as the supernatural infilling and overflow of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer making him/her a channel of God’s power to others.

To confuse the New Birth with the Holy Spirit baptism would be as fatal as confusing justification with sanctification.

I will be continuing from here in a series of articles where I’ll be discussing the distinction, nature of the Holy Spirit baptism, the conditions of receiving it as well as respond to some objections to it.