Dear Paul
It is now clear to me that I have made an interpretation of Acts 5:32 that may not be warranted. For sure, the verse does not specifically say what I said it says. So, I am grateful to you for pointing this out. However, there are a few points I'd like to make about this passage and your interpretation of it. As you have rightly said, the passage does not specifically contain the word "every," but whether the phrase "those who have obeyed Him" in this passage included every person who had obeyed Him up to that point in time, or whether, as you argue, only the apostles and those on whom the apostles had laid their hands is an interpretation that is not specifically mentioned in the text anymore than is the word "every." Furthermore, and I think you know this, I put the word "ordinary" of the phrase "the 'ordinary' indwelling of the Spirit" in quotations exactly because it is an interpretation not specifically mentioned in the text, but is a way of referring to the non-baptismal, non-miraculous (i.e., without the laying on of the apostles' hands) measure of the Holy Spirit I believe the Bible teaches every baptized believer receives as a seal/deposit/guarantee (2 Corinthians 1:22-23; Ephesians 1:13-14). Just as the "triune nature" of God is not specifically mentioned in Scripture, nevertheless, I think you would agree with me that the Godhead is, in fact, triune in nature. So, whether or not the Bible teaches that there is a sense in which the Holy Spirit is received by Christians without this being manifested by signs, wonders and divers miracles, and whether this could be described, for the sake of identification/clarification, as "the 'ordinary' [or non-miraculous] indwelling of the Spirit," and whether this has anything to do with the "gift of the Holy Spirit" that was promised to "obedient believers" in Acts 2:38 (this latter expression being a phrase that's not specifically found in the text either), is really the question before us, and it is to this question that I now turn my attention.
Many, if not most, "New Testament Christians" (although this expression is not found in the Bible, I think you know who I'm talking about) believe the "gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38 is salvation/the remission of sins, that is, they believe salvation/the remission of sins is the gift the Holy Spirit gives to obedient believers. In contrast, you and I believe that the gift mentioned here is the Spirit Himself. But, unlike you, I do not now, nor have I ever, entertained the idea that this gift involved miraculous gifts exclusively, or that it was something promised "only" to those who heard Peter and the rest of the apostles preach that day. In fact, the immediate context clearly says, "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call" (verse 39, emphasis mine--AT). In light of this, I find it difficult to believe you can confidently argue that this promise was "only" for those who heard the apostles speak that day. Nevertheless, in an effort to make your case in spite of verse 39, you ask, "When Peter told them, 'you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,' what do you think they understood him to mean?" You answer this question by saying: "They expected what the apostles got. And I believe they got it." Really now? Do you think those who heard the apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit? If not, then although they certainly received the Holy Spirit that day, they did not receive the baptismal measure, did they? Furthermore, when did trying to figure out what people were thinking when someone was speaking to them by inspiration move high up in the rules of Bible interpretation? In fact, I can think of a few examples, and I'm sure you can too, where those who heard the word of God were quite mistaken about what it was they heard. Even though you seem convinced that those who heard the gospel on that first Pentecost after the Lord's ascension into heaven got "exactly what the apostles got" (viz., the Holy Spirit Himself, manifested as either the baptism of the Holy Spirit for the apostles, or as gifts of the Holy Spirit for those who had hands laid on them by the apostles), there's nothing in the context that specifically says this was the case. Consequently, I don't understand how you believe the thousands who obeyed the gospel that day received a miraculous measure/outpouring of the Holy Spirit (i.e., that they received various miraculous gifts [charisma] of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the apostles' hands), and that this was something promised only to those who heard the apostles' teaching that day. All we have, it appears, is simply your interpretation of this passage--an interpretation I believe is in clear contradiction of Acts 2:39.
Peter, as he was being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, said that what was happening that day was the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy in Joel 2:28-32 (Acts 2:16-21). Although Joel's prophecy is most often interpreted in connection with the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the miraculous gifts that were given through the apostles' hands, I think it is a mistake to limit it just to these things. Clearly, the pouring out of God's Spirit on all flesh included the miraculous abilities exhibited by the apostles, the household of Cornelius, and those who had hands laid on them by the apostles, but why must it stop there? Why could not this outpouring include the "gift of the Holy Spirit" (i.e., the Holy Spirit Himself) promised to every repentant, baptized believer? Was it not Jesus Himself who, in John 7:37b-38, said: "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"? The apostle John explained Jesus' remarks by saying: "But 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" (verse 39). It is clear that these two verses speak of "anyone who thirsts..." and "He who believes in Me." Why, then, am I not to believe that when Peter said, "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:39), that he was not talking to all, then and in the future, who would obey the gospel? After all, Jesus, who was now glorified in heaven and sitting at the right hand of His Father on high, was the One who was pouring out what was seen and heard on that first Pentecost. If this included the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as well as the miraculous gifts of the Spirit given by the laying on of the apostles hands, which it clearly did, then why could it not also include the "gift of the Holy Spirit" given to every obedient believer? So, other than your belief that Acts 2:38 is limited to those that day who heard Peter's sermon, I don't see any Scriptural reason why the gift of the Holy Spirit could not also include Him being given to every obedient believer, not just then, but throughout the Christian dispensation. Couple this with Ezekiel 36:27, where God says, "I will put My Spirit within you," realizing He is referring to those same people to whom He also said He would give a "new covenant" (Jeremiah 31:31ff.), a "new name" (Isaiah 62:2-3), and a "kingdom which shall never be destroyed" (Daniel 2:44), and I think one can see that these are none other than the people He was referring to when He said, "I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh" (Joel 2:28). Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that this is not exactly what happened on that first Pentecost after the Lord's ascension into heaven, a day Peter later referred to as "the beginning" (Acts 11:15). The beginning of what?, we might legitimately ask. The beginning of everything God had promised to those who would be His people (Jeremiah 31:33). Why, then, do you object to God giving His Spirit to His people (not some of them, but all), just like He said He would in His holy word?
Later, when Paul wrote to the Galatian Christians, he asked them, in Galatians 3:2, "Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" Now, I realize there were those at Galatia who worked miracles (verse 5), but it seems clear that the apostle was referring to something he assumed to be universal among those who were truly obedient believers, namely, that they would have "received the Spirit" in connection with their faith in the gospel, which is an idea not inconsistent with Acts 2:38 and 5:32. Also, in writing to the Ephesian Christians, the apostle Paul said, "In Him [viz., Christ] you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory" (Ephesians 1:13-14, emphasis mine--AT). This being the case, it ought not to surprise us that Paul would consider a good test of true discipleship to be whether or not one who claimed to be a disciple of Christ understood he had received the Holy Spirit when he believed (Acts 19:2). But, contrary to this, you argue, "We can infer that the reason Paul asked, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?,' was that as far as he knew they had not been where any apostle could give them the Holy Spirit, and when men became Christians they did not by the fact of becoming Christians receive the Holy Spirit." You could be right about what Paul was thinking, even though I believe you are wrong about people not receiving the Holy Spirit "by the fact of becoming Christians." On the other hand, you could also be wrong about what the apostle was thinking, and I believe you are. Why? Because 1) what you say appears to contradict the clear teaching of Scripture and 2) to "infer" something, as you've done, is one thing, but to "necessarily infer" is quite another thing altogether. Although you can infer this is what Paul was thinking (i.e., it is your interpretation/opinion), it cannot be necessarily inferred that this was so. Therefore I am not required to believe this is what the passage actually teaches. Furthermore, I find it interesting that you neglect a very important point made in these verses, namely, that these Ephesian "disciples" were not actually true disciples, in that they had not been baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (verse 5). When one takes this into consideration, it seems quite reasonable that Paul, having previously left Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus (cf., Acts 18:19), would have found out about their encounter with Apollos, a preacher who knew only the baptism of John (Acts 18:25), and who had to be instructed in "the way of God more accurately" by Priscilla and Aquila (verse 26). Accordingly, upon returning to Ephesus and finding "some disciples," Paul would have reason to be suspicious that there may be some at Ephesus who were claiming to be disciples of the Lord, but were not, and this because they had not been properly baptized. Assuming Paul understood that every person who was properly taught the gospel would know that he or she had received the gift of the Holy Spirit, Paul's questioning of these disciples does not seem at all out of line. Now, I'm certainly not saying you must believe that I'm right on this, but I do think my conclusion is much more reasonable than yours, and that it fits the immediate context (cf. Acts 18:24-19:7) much better than yours.
You go on to argue, "1 Corinthians 13:8-13 and other verses show conclusively that the gifts of the Holy Spirit passed away when the New Testament was completely revealed and confirmed." Yes, and I believe they did, but what does this passage say about "the gift [not gifts] of the Holy Spirit"? Until you prove conclusively that the "gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38 means only those things (viz., "spiritual gifts" or "diversities of gifts") mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 4, then I don't see how you can make a valid case for your position from 1 Corinthians 13:8-13. It seems to me you have just assumed what you need to prove.
Lastly, as you have made it clear you are answering what I have written on this subject, and because you make a point of arguing that the Holy Spirit was/is not given "through baptism," it seems safe to conclude that you believe I teach it was. However, I don't remember ever thinking this to be the case, nor have I ever taught such a thing. On the contrary, I believe the Holy Spirit, who was promised to "anyone who thirsts" and "He who believes in [Christ]" (John 7:37-39), was, and is, bestowed on the believer who repents and is baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38-39). As a result, I believe the obedient believer is "sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise" (Ephesians 1:13) who is given, verse 14 says, as "the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory." The "purchased possession" that is to be redeemed refers, the Scriptures elsewhere make clear, to our mortal bodies, which will one day be resurrected (i.e., redeemed/glorified) through the Spirit who now dwells in each and every child of God (Romans 8:11). It does not seem strange, then, to hear Paul say, "Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?" (1 Corinthians 6:19). Now, if these two passage do not say that the Holy Spirit dwells in the obedient believer's body, then I don't know what they do say. Furthermore, and in connection with 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, if the "guarantee" of the eventual resurrection of our bodies to a glorified state depends upon the Holy Spirit dwelling in our bodies, then I just don't understand why you and others work so hard to deny that "His Spirit" actually dwells in our mortal bodies.
I've emphasized "actually" in the above sentence because I'm convinced that although you acknowledge "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit," you do not, for a moment, believe the Holy Spirit actually dwells in every obedient believer. You make it clear that you believe the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit is a "completely different thing" than the gift of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Acts 2:38. Your position is that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian representatively through the "word of Christ" which he takes into his heart and mind (Colossians 3:16). In other words, like many of our brethren, you believe the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian "only in and through the word," if I might be permitted to use a familiar, much overworked and, I think, biblically unsound expression. But, by comparing the "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" of Colossians 3:16a with the "but be filled with the Spirit" of Ephesians 5:18b, you argue that being filled with the Spirit, which you equate with the indwelling of the Spirit, is precisely the same thing as letting the word of Christ dwell in us richly. Although I agree that these two passages are parallel, I do not agree with you that the indwelling of the Spirit is equivalent to letting the word of Christ dwell in us richly. On the contrary, it is clear to me that being filled with the Spirit of Ephesians 5:18b, based upon the immediate context of 5:18a, which says, "And be not drunk with wine, in which is dissipation," carries with it the idea of coming under the influence (i.e. being "drunk"), not of wine, but of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when one lets the word of Christ dwell in him richly (i.e., in abundance), this is equivalent to being filled with (i.e., being under the influence of) the Spirit. So, instead of one being filled with wine, Paul calls on Christians to be filled with the Spirit. As it is my belief that Paul is talking to individuals who had already received the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit upon conversion, it is my belief that what he is talking about here is being under the influence of the Holy Spirit's teaching.
Being “filled with the Spirit,” which is a command to be obeyed, not a promise to be received, is equivalent to being under the influence of (i.e., being guided and led by) the Holy Spirit. The third person of the Godhead directs us through the word of God, which Paul elsewhere describes as "the sword [or implement] of the Spirit" (Ephesians 6:17). Consequently, being under the influence of the Holy Spirit (i.e., being "filled with the Spirit") means that one is filled with love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, et cetera, all of which are described by Paul in Galatians 5:22 and 23 as the "fruit of the Spirit." Being thus filled, believers will be more than willing to give jubilant expression of all this by doing what is mentioned in the next two verses, which is "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in [their] hearts to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of [their] Lord Jesus Christ."
Yes, you are right when you say that when Christ's word controls our lives, the Holy Spirit is controlling us. But, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not as "simple" as you claim, in that the indwelling word and the indwelling Spirit are not equivalent, as you seem to be claiming. To illustrate this point, I call your attention to the next to the last paragraph of your article, which reads:
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit actually begins before baptism. The word of God is the seed of the kingdom. When it lodges in one's heart it begins working and changing that individual. He believes, repents, confesses and is baptized. The word of Christ is richly dwelling within him. As he continues to study and obey and believe and repent, the Holy Spirit is controlling his life. Truly, the Spirit is dwelling within him.

Now, my brother, if you are right in your claim that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit actually begins before baptism, then why did Paul instruct those who had already believed, repented, confessed and been baptized to "be filled with the Spirit"? According to your interpretation, Paul would be commanding those who were already indwelt by the Spirit to be indwelt by the Spirit. Does this make any sense? On the other hand, if being filled with the Spirit in Ephesians 5:18b is only equivalent to letting the word of Christ dwell in us richly, and not with the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then Paul's command to the Ephesian and Colossian brethren makes perfectly good sense and is, I think, in harmony with everything else the Bible has said about this important, but difficult, subject.
In closing, let me say, once again, that I appreciate your instruction concerning Acts 5:32. I'll be more careful in my use of this passage in the future. May God bless us both as we continue to study His word.