Scroggie on Baptism with the Spirit

Acts 2

Sermon Transcript by Rev. Ernest O’Neill

On the matter of speaking in tongues – there are four instances in the Bible where examples are
given of people being baptized with the Holy Spirit. Of course Dr Graham Scroggie is saying three
of them mention tongues in connection with this baptism of the Holy Spirit. And in one verse
tongues are not mentioned in connection with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

You remember that he has the approach of the normal dispensationalist. The dispensationalist says,
“The old dispensation was ending and the new was beginning. Judaism was about to give way to
Christianity. The water was about to be exchanged for the wine. The earthly was to be displaced
for a while by the heavenly, and the kingdom was about to make room for the church.” So it’s very
real — there is an old dispensation and a new dispensation. And then they can break that up into
the dispensation of law, and this dispensation of innocence, and all that kind of thing.

Dr Scroggie tends to take the approach that this was the change-over time. This was the transition
time between the Old Testament, or the old dispensation, and the new dispensation. So of course, he
will argue as his book goes on, that therefore the tongues as a sign of the baptism of the Holy
Spirit is not necessarily something that will be carried on through all the years — that it was
something that signified the transition period between two dispensations, and so it was specifically
for those years.

Now he won’t say that the gifts, and the Holy Spirit as a gift in the church, is only for that
dispensation. He’ll just be talking about the tongues as a sign. So he is not in that sense, an
extreme dispensationalist, who says, “No, no, those gifts were only for those days.” He’s not
saying that. But he’s saying the tongues as a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is connected
up just with that transition time.

Now we have a tendency to say, “Look, we don’t even need to prove that much. It’s enough for us
that there is one instance out of the four where there is no tongues. So that indicates people can
be baptized with the spirit without necessarily speaking in tongues.” I think that’s the kind of
approach we would take.

But having looked at that, what I’d like to go on with is his fairly careful examination of those
instances. I’m doing this not even so much that you may accept his interpretation, but that you
yourselves will be encouraged to look carefully at scripture and examine the doctrine that is
presented in it, so that when you deal with loved ones on the Internet you do not come off with
little party lines. Either the party line of Campus Church, the party line of Christian Corps, or
the party line of the Baptists, or the party line of the Methodists, or of Catholics — but you
really do get into scripture yourselves and know what lies behind certain verses.

I think that Scroggie was known as an exegete — a Bible scholar. I don’t know if he had studied
much Greek or much Hebrew. So in a way I don’t know that he went behind the language very much
himself. He would quote other scholars but I don’t think he’d go behind the languages. But of
course Barth just floated back and forward between Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and German with great ease.
So in many ways I don’t think of Scroggie as a very, very scholarly exegete. But he certainly was

a well-known evangelical preacher who did preach holiness or victory over sin, and certainly took
care in his study of the Bible. You’ve only to look at all the books that we have in our library
{that formerly was his library} to see that he certainly always had his mind going.

And indeed one clergyman I know said, “Boy, I don’t see how he had time to do anything else — he
spent so much of his time reading.” I think the man probably spent nine or 10 hours a day in his
books — so he certainly paid a lot of attention to it. So he was very careful. I’d love you to
catch this idea of looking into the scriptures to see what they say about tongues, and other topics.

That’s why I was impressed by this little book {pointing to a book} because I thought, “Well, at
least he’s taking some time to try to interpret these verses.” So this is how he starts: “What were
the nature and use of this speaking of tongues? As to the nature of it, nothing more can be said
than it was a supernatural endowment, of which latent possibilities of man’s soul were brought in to
exercise divinely-directed superintendence. As to the use of it, in each instance it was employed
as the language of praise and of worship, and in no instance with which to preach the gospel.” And
I thought that might catch your attention — because we always say, “Well, that’s why they spoke in
tongues — so they could preach the gospel.”

It’s quite interesting, and I suppose he knows it, but he puts himself right in the Pentecostal line
as he says this. But I’m sure he’s not anxious to do that. “As to the use of it, in each instance
it was employed as the language of praise and of worship, and in no instance with which to preach
the gospel. It is commonly assumed that the disciples on the day of Pentecost preached the gospel
by means of those tongues to the gathered nations. But on what is such a supposition based?
Certainly not on the record which tells us plainly that so far from the crowd being the occasion of
the tongues — the tongues were the occasion of the crowd.”

In other words they caused the crowd — the tongues. It wasn’t because all the crowd was there and
therefore they had to find a language to explain to them. It was they were already speaking in
tongues, and that drew the crowd. It was the sound that brought the crowd together. All the
disciples were speaking with tongues before the crowd collected and they would not have been
preaching the gospel to one another. Obviously he’s saying that.

Moreover we are definitely told what was the substance of their speech. “We hear them speaking in
our tongue,”{paraphrase of Acts2:8} and we always assume, “Oh well, one of the mighty works of God
was Christ’s death on Calvary.” But Scroggie takes the Magnificat as an example, where Mary said,
“He that is mighty hath done great things.” He’s drawing attention to the fact that they were
speaking of the mightiness of God, the allmightiness and his great power, and the mighty things that
he had done down through the years.

“’Manifest me this’ does not refer to preaching the gospel, but to extolling God — to praising his
majesty and power. Unto this end therefore were tongues employed at every instance of their use,”
he says. “This is true also of its manifestation at Corinth. The second question we must ask is:
were these tongues of the same character in each of these instances recorded in the Acts? Were they
the same tongues? It appears that they were not, and for the following reason. In Acts 2:1-11(
that’s the first one), the tongues were also dialects. This is made very plain by the use in the
Greek of two words. They began to speak with tongues — “glossa.” We know the term “glossolalia”
{which means speaking in tongues}.

“Every man heard them speak in his own language,” — “dialektos.” So he’s just bringing out the
point that there are two words used here– “glossa” and “dialektos.” Of course you can guess what
he’s going to say that one is. “This makes it perfectly clear that at Pentecost the “glossa” were
also “dialektos”, that the tongues were also dialects. The several disciples on that great day
spoke in 15 or more dialects, and thus witness was born to these peoples that God was actually in
their midst.”

So that’s what he’s saying. The disciples were actually praising God and they were praising him in
tongues and in dialects that the people there could recognize. And the people realized these men
were Galileans. They of course couldn’t speak these languages naturally. So it was that miracle,
he’s saying, that drew the crowd together.

“But there is no evidence that in Chapters 10 and 11, (Chapter 10, and it’s referenced in Chapter
11), “the tongues were also dialects. Nor so far as we can see is there any reason why they should
have been — because the people assembled in the house of Cornelius would be Romans and not of mixed
nationality.”

Now you should just look at that. That’s Acts 10:44. And again, I think you can grasp why I’m
drawing this to your attention, so that you yourself will begin to be careful and thoughtful in your
interpretation of scripture, and above all not just except the normal interpretations that you’ve
heard of. “While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And
the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the
Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and
extolling God.”

So he’s saying that, because it was in the house of Cornelius, that it was only Romans who were
there. They were not of mixed nationality. Scroggie goes on: “Moreover, at Jerusalem the
unbelieving crowd heard, whereas at Caesarea the occurrence does not seem to have arrested the
public attention. The like gift of Chapter 11:17 refers to the spirit himself, and not to the
speaking of tongues, and therefore does not mean as some suppose that the tongues at Caesarea were
also dialects. The speaking in tongues in all these instances are alike in this, that it was a
sign.”

As a sign it drew attention to the fact that something miraculous had taken place here. “But
different in this, that in Chapter 2 the sign was chiefly for the sake of the crowd. In Chapter 10
it was chiefly for the sake of the apostles, because they heard these people speaking in tongues,
and suddenly realized Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit.” So it was for the sake of the
apostles in that case. On the day of the Pentecost it was for the sake of the crowd. And in
Chapter 19 it was chiefly for the sake of those who received it.

In Chapter 19, while Apollos was at Corinth, verse two says, “And he said to them, ‘Did you receive
the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ And they said, ‘No, we have never even heard that there is a
Holy Spirit.’ And he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ They said, ‘Into John’s baptism.’
And Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the
one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of
the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they
spoke with tongues and prophesied.” So he’s saying there it was for their sake, because they had in
a sense entered into a baptism of some kind into Jesus, but not into the Holy Spirit himself.

“Into what then were you baptized?” They said, ”Into John’s baptism.” So they had been baptized
into the name of John for the repentance of their sins. You remember that John was actually a
preacher of the Old Testament. He preached the Old Testament gospel — the gospel of bringing a
right spirit into people that is mentioned in the Psalms. That’s what they had entered into.

Scroggie writes, “Was the tongue sign intended to be paramount or was it not?” Here you need to
listen carefully. See how he gets at this: “Was the tongue sign,” — now he’s not saying “tongues,”
because he accepts that tongues as a gift in the church is present now. But he’s saying the tongue
as a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit . That ties up immediately, you remember, with a
statement from a Pentecostal man: “We believe that the baptism of the Holy Ghost in fire is the
coming upon them within of the Holy Spirit to indwell a believer in his fullness, and is always
borne witness to by the fruit of the spirit and the outward manifestation, so that we may receive
the same gift as the disciples in the day of Pentecost.”

So that’s what he’s talking about. He’s saying, “Is this true? Must it always have the outward
manifestation? And if you don’t speak in tongues then is it true you haven’t received the baptism
of the Holy Spirit?” So that’s what he’s saying: was this tongue sign intended to be permanent or
was it not? Now we would probably tend to answer him, “Well, wait a minute Dr. Scroggie. Of the
four instances here there, was one that had no tongues. So surely that’s indication that even in
the transition period people entered into the baptism of the Holy Spirit without tongues.” But
anyway, he’s pursing this.

“This question is of the first moment, because to answer in the positive is the confirmation of the
present day claims.” That is, the Pentecostal belief that tongues always accompany the baptism of
the Holy Spirit. “Or, in the negative removes the ground in which these claims rest. We do not
hesitate to say that tongues as a sign was never intended to be permanent and as history witnesses
has not been permanent.” Because, of course, he’s saying it has not continued — that many people
have entered into the baptism of the Holy Spirit without tongues.

He makes that very, very strong point: “Were it true that speaking with tongues is the evidence of
us having received the baptism of the spirit, we would have to conclude that the blessed saints of
all the ages of this dispensation never received the baptism. The martyrs of the early centuries,
the faithful in the dark middle ages, and of later times Wickliffe, Bonnie, and Luther, or Wesley,
Whitfield and a vast host besides whom time would fail us to name — these all lived their fragrant
lives and accomplished their holy service without the blessing — which some would have us believe
would be the crown of blessings.” So of course, that’s a strong point.

But he goes on, “We do not hesitate to say that tongues as a sign was never intended to be
permanent, and as history witnesses has not been permanent. Signs of this kind are no more a part
of the Christian witness than the Mosaic ritual is the form of Christian worship. Each age as
scripture unfolds it we see to have been a preparation for that which followed it.” And this is
where the dispensation business comes in, “The primeval period prepared for the patriarchal period.”
The primeval was almost prior even to Adam but certainly from Adam, and the patriarchal would start
with Abraham probably.

“The latter prepared for the Israelite period,” when Israel became a nation, “And the whole Mosaic
economy ,which extends virtually up to the catastrophe of 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed, was
a preparation for the present Christian age. And this last again is preparing for the coming
millennial age. It is most important to observe that one age does not end before the next begins,

but that they overlap, and that the period of this overlapping is in each instance a transition
period with its peculiar characteristics. The signs wrought in Egypt immediately preceding Israel’s
release have their parallel in the signs wrought to you in the apostolic period which ushered in the
present economy.”

“Let us remember that the time of which we are speaking there was no New Testament to which appeal
could be made. And for this reason in part no doubt signs were vouchsafed to them as evidences of
the divine presence in power. But now the New Testament which then in process of formation is
completed, and to that we make appeal. That is our power and our authority rendering the working of
miracles unnecessary. And if it is claimed that we may now do all that the apostles did, how is it
that no one is writing Holy Scripture?”

“We know perfectly well that that was an apostle prerogative, and we should know also that it was
not the only one. The present is not an age of sensuous, but of spiritual power, and if for lack of
experience of that power we resort to what is sensuous, we need not be surprised that the devil
makes the most of the opportunity.”

So of course, his point you can hear strongly is: these signs were tied to the transition period
between the dispensations.

I don’t know that it’s necessary to go that far. I think it’s enough to say, “Look, this was not a
big deal. There were times when people spoke in tongues, and there were times when they didn’t
speak in tongues. And since that time there have been many people who have obviously been baptized
with the Holy Spirit, and the mighty works of people like Finney and Moody and Wesley are testimony
to that.”

But what I’d love you to do is to think about these things. Not just to rest back in either what
you’ve heard me say, or what we’ve heard in our own traditions, but to really get in scripture and
think through things carefully. And especially when you’re on the Internet — not to be dogmatic.

Please don’t be dogmatic and say, “This is the way it is.” Or be narrow-minded and cut somebody off
at the knees, who seems to be expressing something that you feel we’ve all decided in our many
classes and our many discussions through the past 20 or 30 years.

Don’t do that — because that little one has not had the experience you’ve had, has not had the
exposure that you’ve had, has not often had the light that you’ve had. And if you say, “Do you mean
they could enter in to the baptism of the Holy Spirit without knowing everything perfectly?”
Believe it or not, they could. Yes, just as you did. Just as all of us did.

So you may say, “Well Pastor, why are you bringing kind of a double line in here –because what
you’ve said is always what we’ve been clear about?” Well, because I want you to see this is a man
that was respected and that we respect. He’s an intelligent man, and he’s a man that has given
himself obviously to a detailed study of scripture. Yet, he’s coming to the same position as we are
but by a slightly different route. And he is certainly saying some things that we would not
necessarily all agree with.

Now there is an important verse that you need to look at finally at the end of Mark, and it’s one
that’s easy to forget. It’s the famous Great Commission. Mark 16:15: “And he {Jesus} said to them,
‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized

will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those
who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up
serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on
the sick, and they will recover.’” So it’s important here to say that that took place in Verse 20:
“And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the
message by the signs that attended it.” It’s important to see that Jesus promised that there would
be signs.

Now I think that’s the line we would have taken pretty naturally. But he didn’t say all these signs
are to take place every time, and that’s right. I frankly think that’s firm enough ground to stand
on. But still it’s important for us to see that this is part of a Great Commission and the Holy
Spirit will be faithful to us, as we believe.

Does anybody have any obvious questions to ask me? I know you’re not all anxious to be on tape.

Did Dr. Scroggie address this verse in Mark at all and make some sort of interpretation of it?

Yes he does. He says that obviously, the mention of tongues in those four places were not the only
occurrence of tongues in the light of that verse at the end of Mark. Where he says obviously Jesus
promised these as signs and so he, I think, tries to be fair about that. He makes a point that we
shouldn’t just assume that tongues occurred only in these four places because obviously they were
promised by Jesus. And indeed, I think he is referring also to that Verse 20 that said that signs
followed Jesus’ resurrection.

Scroggie brought up that verse in Mark himself in his book. And he brought it up as proof that
tongues did not occur just in the places that were mentioned. But you can see that the way he then
explains that is that that was part of the transition time, and that’s why that took place. And on
the other hand, Jesus does not say that. He simply says, “These signs will follow them that
believe.” And of course, you can see the way Scroggie builds on that. He says, “Well, they didn’t
have the New Testament in those days. So some signs were essential to establish the authority of
these disciples probably, or apostles as followers of Jesus who did speak with authority.”

Because this man has written so many books, it’s presumptuous of anybody to try and wipe out his
position there in just a few words. Many of the people involved in the current charismatic
movements or in the strange things that go on in the name of charismatic worship or almost
charismania — I don’t think they’re strict Pentecostals. I’m afraid maybe they aren’t in all cases
even purely spiritual.

But I think the strict Pentecostal position in practice is quite dangerous, because the emphasis
then goes on to, “Have you spoken in tongues?” And it’s so easy then for the cart to get before the
horse. Because it’s so easy then for you to concentrate in a service on getting the other person to
speak in tongues. So it becomes rather a game really. So I think that’s a weakness of the emphasis
that this is the sign that you’ve been baptized with the Holy Spirit. And of course there’s further
difficulty raised to it by the fact that people in many religions experience this ecstatic gift of
tongues and speak in a language that is not their own. So it’s not a sign that is connected only to
the Christian gospel.

But really, I’d just be happy if you all would begin to think carefully about it and know the
verses. And then it’s very scriptural and it’s very helpful if you can show yourself a “workman

that needeth not be ashamed.” That is, if you show yourself as one who does know the verses and who
can interpret them, and yet has a breadth of view that allows people some space to move in.

Dr. Scroggie is making the point that tongues is not necessarily a sign of receiving the Holy
Spirit. Would he acknowledge that it was a gift for now?

That’s right, because he goes on to the speaking of tongues as a gift in the church. He has
sections in the book entitled “the bestowment of the gift, the guardian of the gift, the exercise of
the gift.” Yes, so he’ll hold to that.

But maybe that will help you, and I don’t think I need to tell you that it’s better not to make
cracks about the barking like dogs. The whole thing is so silly, and so dreadful that it’s better
not to make cracks, or – I think you can stir up irrational response if you are very contemptuous of
it. I think it’s much better to approach it from the angle that Christ certainly has always had an
elevating effect on men and woman. Someone has said, “The Holy Spirit when he comes makes men
gentlemen and women ladies.” And it seems that’s more the kind of effect that the Holy Spirit has,
rather than in getting us to bark like dogs or animals.

So don’t be tempted by Satan to go at something for almost the satisfaction of knocking it down. I
would avoid the negative as much as I possibly could. I think you’ll always get into trouble with
the negative. It always raises people’s hackles and gets them preoccupied with the unimportant
things. Anything else?

I think at least I’ll use this opportunity to mention quickly some of these books that talk about
this subject. Samuel Chadwick, The Way to Pentecost. Chadwick it seems to me is a balanced man.
The Charles Finney book The Promise of the Spirit. You remember, his experience of the Holy Spirit
was certainly a very emotional one — but I don’t think it was with speaking in tongues. Of course,
the whole thrust of his preaching is not that, but it’s purity of heart and obedience and repentance
from sin.

The Power of the Spirit is by Andrew Murray. He’s just a very balanced presenter of the victory
over sin and self in the inner life. And then there’s The Nature of Spiritual Growth by John
Wesley. I don’t know who he is but he certainly seems to be very popular with some people.
{Laughing} And here’s John Stott’s Baptism and Fullness. I don’t know if Stott is as open as Martyn
Lloyd-Jones obviously is to the kind of gospel we have believed in. So I’m not sure how Stott
tackles that.

Billy Graham’s book The Holy Spirit: it seems to me Graham — though he didn’t preach the baptism
of the Holy Spirit — I thought that at some point he had testified about some change in his own
life — but I don’t know. And The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, H. C. G. Moule is a well
known English scholar and so I’d imagine that’s very reliable that way. And this I think is another
Andrew Murray book — The Spirit of Christ — and it’s really balanced. So those are some of the
books we have here. Thank you very much.