Spirit baptism — at conversion, after it, or in the sacraments

This page is generated from arguments/TestimonyArguments/SpiritBaptism. Every heading and paragraph below is a docstring in those files; every formula is rendered from the encoding they check. If the page and the source disagree, the page is the one that is wrong, and regenerating it is the fix.

Atoms are numbered propositional variables, numbered once for the whole page, so the same variable means the same claim in every position below. Reading the logic is the short version of what the notation means. A result marked ⚗ is one this library constructs rather than reports.

TestimonyArguments.SpiritBaptism — Spirit baptism: at conversion, after it, or in the sacraments

John promised that the one coming after him would "baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Mark 1:8). A reader asks: is that something every Christian receives in becoming a Christian, or a second experience to seek after it? The question is mostly asked among Protestants, and it is about what follows conversion, not about justification itself. So it is an argument of its own, not a party to the sola fide dispute.

The views do not line up with the sides of that dispute. Lutherans and Rome have confessed together "that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ" (the Joint Declaration, §25), and that the Lutheran teaching it states "does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent" (§41); Baptists, Pentecostals and the holiness churches did not sign it. Lutherans, the Reformed, Baptists, Pentecostals and the holiness churches all hold that faith alone justifies; Rome, which holds the sacramental view, does not hold that faith alone justifies, in the sense Trent condemned. On Spirit baptism, Lutherans stand partly with Rome (the Spirit is given in water baptism), and Baptists with the Reformed.

Three answers, four positions

  • At conversion — Dunn, the most-cited scholarly case, and Stott. "In one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13): the baptism in the Spirit Christ gives is part of becoming a Christian, so there is no second one to seek.
  • After conversion — two traditions, which this page calls the subsequence views when it means both.
    • The Pentecostal view (the Assemblies of God, 2010; Menzies; Stronstad): at conversion the Spirit baptizes into the body of Christ — 12:13 is baptism by the Spirit, "the Holy Spirit is the instrument" — and in "a subsequent and distinct experience, Christ will baptize in the Holy Spirit", as in Samaria (Acts 8) and at Ephesus (Acts 19), for empowerment.
    • The holiness view: entire sanctification — a second work of grace after conversion, in which the believer is cleansed from sin and made perfect in love — is the baptism with the Spirit. The Church of the Nazarene confesses it: entire sanctification "is wrought by the baptism with or infilling of the Holy Spirit" (Manual 2023, Article X). It is contested from within: Wesley, whose teaching on the second work the holiness churches carry on, held the second work and declined the name — "they all 'received the Holy Ghost' when they were justified" — and in 2010 the faculty of the Nazarene seminary, keeping entire sanctification, wrote that they no longer hold that reading of the Spirit's baptism exegetically tenable.
  • In baptism and confirmation — Rome: the Spirit is given in water baptism, "new birth in the Holy Spirit", and in confirmation "the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost". Lutherans hold the first half, and have no sacrament of confirmation. This is a later gift too, but a sacramental one: not a second baptism beyond the sacraments. The Catholic charismatic renewal, which speaks of a "baptism in the Spirit" of its own, is not encoded here.

What is not encoded yet:

  • Tongues. The Assemblies of God hold that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of Spirit baptism — the first outward sign that a believer has received it (their paper, summary statement 5). To rate that claim honestly needs a reader who grants the subsequence view and still denies the evidence doctrine, since everyone who denies subsequence denies it trivially. Pentecostal dissenters are known (Fee; Bosworth), but their words could not be verified, so the claim is left out rather than rated on memory.
  • Paul's word and Luke's. "Baptized in the Spirit" may not mean the same in 1 Corinthians 12:13 as in Acts. Menzies grants that Paul's baptism in the Spirit comes at conversion and holds that Luke's is a different, later gift. If he is right, the conversion view and the Pentecostal view are partly answering different questions. The encoding uses one word for both; a dilemma over the word is the natural next step.

Where it turns

On the Acts narratives. The Pentecostal view holds that they are a pattern for believers today, and Stott reads them as unrepeatable transitions, "not a pattern"; read for what they mean, the two exclude each other, so the Pentecostal view cannot read Acts as transitions at all (pentecostal_cannot_read_acts_as_transitions), and Stott's reading denies one of its premises (stott_undermines_the_pattern). Read as a pattern, the narratives meet the variety of Acts itself — the Spirit falls on Cornelius's household as they hear (10:44), and is promised with baptism at Pentecost (2:38) — at a step the Assemblies of God contest. So the Pentecostal view must read Acts as a pattern and answer its variety. What that costs the conversion view is not checked here: Stott owes an account of why Luke's narratives set no order for later believers; Dunn avoids the question by denying that the Samaritans were yet believers before they received the Spirit; and Rome reads Acts 8:17 and 19:6 as confirmation (Catechism 1288).

Weighed as a dispute, nothing is forced (spirit_baptism_forces_nothing). The conversion and sacramental views can be held together, and the two subsequence views can be held together; every view can be defended, in one of the two camps, and neither camp is forced.

Where things are

FileContents
Atoms.leanthe texts, the readings, the three conclusions
Sources.leancite, and the ratings of each step
Positions.leanthe four views, and Acts read as a pattern
Dispute.leanthe views weighed, the verdicts, and what Acts can be read as

TestimonyArguments.SpiritBaptism.Atoms — the atomic claims

The texts each side reads, the readings each side gives them, and the three positions' conclusions. The texts are kept apart from the readings, so that a reader can see which claims are what Luke and Paul say and which are what a tradition says they mean.

TestimonyArguments.SpiritBaptism.Sources — citation and classification for every atom

cite is total, so an uncited atom does not compile. Each reading is cited to a source that holds it; each step's rating is cited to whoever grants its grounds and denies its conclusion.

Ratings for inference steps

The claims, numbered

claimkindheldsource
\(P_{1}\)1 Corinthians 12:13 — in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body ※textualChristian, historical-grammatical, consensus1 Cor 12:13
\(P_{2}\)Acts 8:14–17 and 19:1–7 — believers, already baptized, receive the Spirit afterwards (so the Assemblies of God; Dunn denies they were yet believers)textualChristian, historical-grammatical, disputedassemblies-of-god-baptism-holy-spirit-2010; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 19:1-7
\(P_{3}\)Acts 10:44–48 — the Spirit falls on Cornelius's household before baptism ※textualChristian, historical-grammatical, consensusActs 10:44-48
\(P_{4}\)Acts 2:38 — repent and be baptized, and you will receive the gift of the Spirit ※textualChristian, historical-grammatical, consensusActs 2:38
\(P_{5}\)1 Corinthians 12:13 is the baptism in the Spirit Christ gives, received by every believer at conversioninterpretiveChristian, historical-grammatical, disputeddunn-baptism-holy-spirit-1970; stott-baptism-fullness-1975
\(P_{6}\)1 Corinthians 12:13 is baptism by the Spirit into the body, not Christ baptizing in the SpiritinterpretiveChristian, historical-grammatical, disputedassemblies-of-god-baptism-holy-spirit-2010
\(P_{7}\)In Luke-Acts, baptism in the Spirit is prophetic empowerment, distinct from the gift Paul ties to conversioninterpretiveChristian, historical-grammatical, disputedmenzies-lukes-understanding-2017; menzies-empowered-witness-1994; stronstad-charismatic-theology-1984
\(P_{8}\)Luke's narratives of receiving the Spirit are a pattern for believers todayinterpretiveChristian, historical-grammatical, disputedstronstad-charismatic-theology-1984; assemblies-of-god-baptism-holy-spirit-2010
\(P_{9}\)The episodes of Acts 8, 10 and 19 are unrepeatable steps in the gospel's spread, not a patterninterpretiveChristian, historical-grammatical, disputedstott-baptism-fullness-1975
\(P_{10}\)Entire sanctification is a second work of grace after justificationtheologicalChristian, historical-grammatical, disputedchurch-of-the-nazarene-manual-2023, §Articles of Faith, X, ¶10; wesley-letters-1931, §to Joseph Benson, 28 December 1770; bassett-white-paper-article-x-2010
\(P_{11}\)The Spirit is given in water baptism: new birth in the Holy SpirittheologicalRoman Catholic, disputedcatholic-church-catechism-2000, §1262; catholic-church-catechism-2000, §1265; kolb-wengert-book-of-concord-2000, §Small Catechism, Baptism, third part
\(P_{12}\)Confirmation gives the full outpouring of the Spirit, as at Pentecost and in SamariatheologicalRoman Catholic, disputedcatholic-church-catechism-2000, §1302; catholic-church-catechism-2000, §1288
\(P_{13}\)Every believer is baptized in the Spirit at conversiontheologicalChristian, historical-grammatical, disputeddunn-baptism-holy-spirit-1970; stott-baptism-fullness-1975
\(P_{14}\)A baptism in the Spirit distinct from and after conversion is to be soughttheologicalChristian, historical-grammatical, disputedassemblies-of-god-baptism-holy-spirit-2010; church-of-the-nazarene-manual-2023, §Articles of Faith, X, ¶10
\(P_{15}\)The Spirit is given in baptism and confirmation, not in a second baptism beyond the sacramentstheologicalRoman Catholic, disputedcatholic-church-catechism-2000, §1302

※ grounded in scripture alone: the reading is assumed, not argued for.

onTheConversionStep

The step from 1 Corinthians 12:13 to Spirit baptism at conversion is rated disputed, conservatively. Dunn and Stott hold it. The Assemblies of God reject its conclusion, but by denying a ground — that the verse speaks of Christ baptizing in the Spirit: "'by' is the best translation, indicating that the Holy Spirit is the instrument" — so they do not contest the step itself. No reader was sought who grants both grounds and denies the conclusion, so the step is not rated above the bottom.

def onTheConversionStep : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work dunnBaptismInTheHolySpirit,
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work stottBaptismAndFullness,
        Reference.work agBaptismPositionPaper],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

menziesAgainstNoSecond

The step from Spirit baptism at conversion to "no second to seek" is contested, by Menzies. He grants that Paul's baptism in the Spirit at 1 Corinthians 12:13 is tied to conversion, and holds that Luke's is a different, prophetic gift, to be sought after it. Whether that is granting the ground and denying the conclusion, or reading "baptism in the Spirit" in two senses, is the question of Paul's word and Luke's, which this argument does not yet encode.

def menziesAgainstNoSecond : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work menziesLukesUnderstanding,
    supporting := [Reference.work menziesEmpoweredForWitness],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

onTheInstrumentalStep

The step from the Pentecostal reading of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is rated disputed, conservatively. The Assemblies of God hold it. Dunn and Stott reject its conclusion, but by denying a ground — they read the verse as the baptism in the Spirit that Christ gives, not the Spirit as instrument — so they do not contest the step itself. No reader was sought who grants both grounds and denies the conclusion, so the step is not rated above the bottom.

def onTheInstrumentalStep : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work agBaptismPositionPaper,
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work dunnBaptismInTheHolySpirit,
        Reference.work stottBaptismAndFullness],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

actsToSubsequence

The step from the Acts narratives to a second Spirit baptism is well supported: grant that believers in Samaria and Ephesus received the Spirit later, that Luke's Spirit baptism is empowerment, and that his narratives are a pattern, and the conclusion follows. Unlike the steps rated conservatively here, this one was audited for a reader who grants all three grounds and denies the conclusion, and none was found: the readers who reject it deny a ground — Dunn, that the Samaritans were yet Christians; Stott and Fee, that the narratives are a pattern. The other steps were not audited in their encoded form, so they stay at the bottom.

def actsToSubsequence : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work agBaptismPositionPaper,
    supporting := [Reference.work stronstadCharismaticTheology],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

wesleyAgainstTheHolinessName

The holiness step is contested, from within the Wesleyan tradition. The Church of the Nazarene holds it (Manual 2023, Article X). Wesley grants the "second change, whereby they shall be saved from all sin and perfected in love", and denies that it is Spirit baptism: "If they like to call this 'receiving the Holy Ghost,' they may: only the phrase in that sense is not scriptural and not quite proper; for they all 'received the Holy Ghost' when they were justified" (to Joseph Benson, 28 December 1770). The Nazarene seminary faculty, keeping entire sanctification, "no longer view the American holiness hermeneutic of the 'baptism of the Spirit' as exegetically tenable" (2010).

def wesleyAgainstTheHolinessName : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work wesleyLetters
        (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "to Joseph Benson, 28 December 1770"),
    supporting := [Reference.work nazareneWhitePaper],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

onTheRite

The sacramental step is rated disputed, conservatively. Rome holds it (Catechism 1302). Westminster rejects the sacramental view, but by denying a ground — that the Spirit is given in the rite as Rome says: baptism's efficacy "is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered" (XXVIII.6) — so it does not contest the step itself. No reader was sought who grants the grounds and denies the conclusion, so the step is not rated above the bottom.

def onTheRite : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work catechismCatholicChurch (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "1302"),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work westminsterConfession (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "XXVIII.6")],
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.disputed }

onTheSacramentalExclusion

The step from the Spirit given in the sacraments to "no second baptism to seek" is rated disputed, conservatively. Rome holds it (Catechism 1302). The natural contester is the Catholic charismatic renewal, which keeps the sacramental gift and speaks of a "baptism in the Spirit" of its own; its texts were not verified, so it is not cited, and the step is not rated above the bottom.

def onTheSacramentalExclusion : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work catechismCatholicChurch (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "1302"),
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.disputed }

agAgainstTheVariety

The step from the variety of Acts is contested, by the Assemblies of God. They grant Acts 10 and 2:38 and still read Acts as a pattern: their paper lists Acts 10:44–46 among the evidence for a subsequent experience.

def agAgainstTheVariety : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work agBaptismPositionPaper,
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

stottOnTheTransitions

The step from the transitions reading is rated disputed, conservatively. If the episodes of Acts are unrepeatable, they set no norm for believers today, Stott argues. No reader was sought who grants the transitions reading and still holds a second Spirit baptism to be the norm, so the step is not rated above the bottom.

def stottOnTheTransitions : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work stottBaptismAndFullness,
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

Citations

cite

Citation and classification for every atom. Total, so nothing is uncited.

def cite : Claim → AtomMeta

TestimonyArguments.SpiritBaptism.Positions — the four views, and what Acts can carry

Four views, each from a source that holds it — at conversion, Pentecostal, holiness, sacramental — and two arguments about the Acts narratives: that Acts gives the Spirit in more than one order, and that its episodes are transitions, as Stott reads them. Read for what its claims mean, the Pentecostal view must take the narratives as a pattern: "pattern" and Stott's "not a pattern" exclude each other (pentecostal_cannot_read_acts_as_transitions). Each is a line of reason: its own grounds, one step, what it delivers — and, where it answers a rival, the step it answers with.

The conversion view

corinthiansToConversion

From 1 Corinthians 12:13, read as Christ baptizing in the Spirit, to Spirit baptism at conversion. Rated disputed, conservatively: the Assemblies of God deny its conclusion by denying a ground, the conversion reading.

\[ (P_{1} \land P_{5}) \rightarrow P_{13} \]

conversionExcludesASecond

If every believer is baptized in the Spirit at conversion, there is no second Spirit baptism to seek. Rated disputed: Menzies grants that Paul's baptism in the Spirit comes at conversion and holds that Luke's is a second gift, to be sought. Whether he denies this step or uses the word in two senses is not yet encoded.

\[ P_{13} \rightarrow \lnot P_{14} \]

conversionCase — At conversion (Dunn, Stott)

The conversion view, as Dunn and Stott hold it: every believer is baptized in the Spirit at conversion, so there is no second Spirit baptism to seek.

\[ \begin{aligned} \text{(1)} \quad & P_{1} \\ \text{(2)} \quad & P_{5} \\ \text{(3)} \quad & (P_{1} \land P_{5}) \rightarrow P_{13} \\ \text{(4)} \quad & P_{13} \rightarrow \lnot P_{14} \\[4pt] \vdash \quad & P_{13} \end{aligned} \]

Grounded in scripture alone: 1 Corinthians 12:13 — in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.

The Pentecostal view

instrumentalReadingExcludesConversion

The Pentecostal reading of 1 Corinthians 12:13 excludes the conversion reading: if the Spirit is the instrument baptizing into the body, the verse is not Christ baptizing in the Spirit. Rated disputed, conservatively: Dunn and Stott deny its conclusion by denying a ground, the instrumental reading.

\[ (P_{1} \land P_{6}) \rightarrow \lnot P_{5} \]

actsToSecond

From the Acts narratives, read as a pattern of empowerment, to a second Spirit baptism to be sought. Rated wellSupported: its rejecters deny a ground, not the step.

\[ (P_{2} \land P_{7} \land P_{8}) \rightarrow P_{14} \]

pentecostalCase — After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad)

The Pentecostal view, as the Assemblies of God hold it: at conversion the Spirit baptizes into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13); in a subsequent and distinct experience Christ baptizes in the Spirit, as in Samaria and at Ephesus, for empowerment.

\[ \begin{aligned} \text{(1)} \quad & P_{1} \\ \text{(2)} \quad & P_{6} \\ \text{(3)} \quad & P_{2} \\ \text{(4)} \quad & P_{7} \\ \text{(5)} \quad & P_{8} \\ \text{(6)} \quad & (P_{1} \land P_{6}) \rightarrow \lnot P_{5} \\ \text{(7)} \quad & (P_{2} \land P_{7} \land P_{8}) \rightarrow P_{14} \\[4pt] \vdash \quad & P_{14} \end{aligned} \]

Grounded in scripture alone: 1 Corinthians 12:13 — in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.

secondWorkIsTheBaptism

The holiness step: the second work of grace is the baptism with the Spirit, to be sought after conversion. Rated disputed: Wesley grants the second work and denies that it is "receiving the Holy Ghost".

\[ P_{10} \rightarrow P_{14} \]

holinessCase — A second work of grace (the holiness tradition)

The holiness view, as the Church of the Nazarene confesses it: entire sanctification is a second work of grace, and it "is wrought by the baptism with or infilling of the Holy Spirit" (Manual 2023, Article X). Contested from within its own tradition, by Wesley and by the Nazarene seminary faculty.

\[ \begin{aligned} \text{(1)} \quad & P_{10} \\ \text{(2)} \quad & P_{10} \rightarrow P_{14} \\[4pt] \vdash \quad & P_{14} \end{aligned} \]

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

The sacramental view

actsTwoToTheSacraments

From Acts 2:38, with the Spirit given in water baptism and fully in confirmation, to the Spirit given in the sacraments, not in an experience to be sought. Rated disputed, conservatively: Westminster, which holds that the grace of baptism is not tied to the moment of the rite, denies a ground, not the step.

\[ (P_{4} \land P_{11} \land P_{12}) \rightarrow P_{15} \]

sacramentsExcludeASeeking

If the Spirit is given in the sacraments, there is no second Spirit baptism to seek beyond them. Rated disputed, conservatively: the Catholic charismatic renewal is its natural contester, not yet cited.

\[ P_{15} \rightarrow \lnot P_{14} \]

sacramentalCase — In baptism and confirmation (Catholic)

The sacramental view, as Rome holds it: the Spirit is given in water baptism — "new birth in the Holy Spirit" — and fully in confirmation, "as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost". A later gift, then, but a sacramental one, not a second baptism beyond the sacraments. Lutherans hold the first half, and have no sacrament of confirmation, so the view as encoded is Rome's.

\[ \begin{aligned} \text{(1)} \quad & P_{4} \\ \text{(2)} \quad & P_{11} \\ \text{(3)} \quad & P_{12} \\ \text{(4)} \quad & (P_{4} \land P_{11} \land P_{12}) \rightarrow P_{15} \\ \text{(5)} \quad & P_{15} \rightarrow \lnot P_{14} \\[4pt] \vdash \quad & P_{15} \end{aligned} \]

Grounded in scripture alone: Acts 2:38 — repent and be baptized, and you will receive the gift of the Spirit.

What Acts can carry: two readings of the narratives

varietyExcludesAPattern

Acts gives no one order: the Spirit falls as Cornelius's household hears (10:44), is promised with baptism (2:38), and comes later with the laying on of hands (8:17; 19:6). So no episode is the pattern. Rated disputed: the Assemblies of God grant Acts 10 and read it as evidence for subsequence.

\[ (P_{3} \land P_{4}) \rightarrow \lnot P_{8} \]

varietyCase — Acts gives the Spirit in more than one order

The variety of Acts, as an argument: Acts gives the Spirit in more than one order, so no one episode is a pattern for believers today.

\[ \begin{aligned} \text{(1)} \quad & P_{3} \\ \text{(2)} \quad & P_{4} \\ \text{(3)} \quad & (P_{3} \land P_{4}) \rightarrow \lnot P_{8} \\[4pt] \vdash \quad & \lnot P_{8} \end{aligned} \]

Grounded in scripture alone: Acts 10:44–48 — the Spirit falls on Cornelius's household before baptism, Acts 2:38 — repent and be baptized, and you will receive the gift of the Spirit.

transitionsSetNoNorm

If the Samaritan and Ephesian episodes are unrepeatable transitions, they set no norm: no second Spirit baptism is to be sought on their strength. Stott's step, rated disputed conservatively.

\[ (P_{2} \land P_{9}) \rightarrow \lnot P_{14} \]

transitionCase — Acts 8 and 19 as transitions (Stott)

Acts read as transitions, as Stott reads it: the later reception of the Spirit in Samaria and at Ephesus marks steps in the gospel's spread, and sets no norm.

\[ \begin{aligned} \text{(1)} \quad & P_{2} \\ \text{(2)} \quad & P_{9} \\ \text{(3)} \quad & (P_{2} \land P_{9}) \rightarrow \lnot P_{14} \\[4pt] \vdash \quad & \lnot P_{14} \end{aligned} \]

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

narrativesReadAsPattern

Reading the narratives as a pattern: the Assemblies of God and Stronstad.

def narrativesReadAsPattern : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work stronstadCharismaticTheology,
    supporting := [Reference.work agBaptismPositionPaper],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

asAPattern

The Acts narratives, read as a pattern for believers today.

def asAPattern : Reading Claim :=
  { name := "as a pattern for believers today",
    commits := p Claim.actsNarrativesAreNormative,
    source := narrativesReadAsPattern }

pentecostalOnAPattern — After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), read as a pattern for believers today

The Pentecostal view, with the Acts narratives read as a pattern.

\[ \begin{aligned} \text{(1)} \quad & P_{1} \\ \text{(2)} \quad & P_{6} \\ \text{(3)} \quad & P_{2} \\ \text{(4)} \quad & P_{7} \\ \text{(5)} \quad & P_{8} \\ \text{(6)} \quad & (P_{1} \land P_{6}) \rightarrow \lnot P_{5} \\ \text{(7)} \quad & (P_{2} \land P_{7} \land P_{8}) \rightarrow P_{14} \\ \text{(8)} \quad & P_{2} \rightarrow P_{8} \\[4pt] \vdash \quad & P_{14} \end{aligned} \]

Grounded in scripture alone: 1 Corinthians 12:13 — in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.

Readings, written down

conversionReading

The conversion view's world: every believer baptized in the Spirit at conversion, 1 Corinthians 12:13 read as Christ baptizing in the Spirit, the episodes of Acts as transitions, no pattern, and no second baptism to seek.

def conversionReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.cor12_13IsBaptismByTheSpirit => False
    | Claim.actsNarrativesAreNormative => False
    | Claim.secondSpiritBaptismToBeSought => False
    | Claim.entireSanctificationIsSecondWork => False
    | x => True

pentecostalReading

The Pentecostal view's world: 1 Corinthians 12:13 as baptism by the Spirit into the body, Luke's Spirit baptism as empowerment, the narratives a pattern, and a second baptism to seek.

def pentecostalReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.cor12_13IsChristBaptizingInTheSpirit => False
    | Claim.spiritBaptismAtConversion => False
    | Claim.actsEpisodesAreTransitions => False
    | Claim.spiritGivenInTheSacraments => False
    | x => True

Each position holds

conversionCase_establishes

Grant 1 Corinthians 12:13 read as Dunn and Stott read it, and every believer is baptized in the Spirit at conversion.

theorem conversionCase_establishes : Establishes conversionCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

conversionCase_is_satisfiable

The conversion view can be held without contradiction.

theorem conversionCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable conversionCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

pentecostalCase_establishes

Grant the Acts narratives as a pattern of empowerment, and a second Spirit baptism is to be sought.

theorem pentecostalCase_establishes : Establishes pentecostalCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

pentecostalCase_is_satisfiable

The Pentecostal view can be held without contradiction.

theorem pentecostalCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable pentecostalCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

holinessCase_establishes

Grant that the second work of grace is the Spirit's baptism, and it is to be sought.

theorem holinessCase_establishes : Establishes holinessCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

holinessCase_is_satisfiable

The holiness view can be held without contradiction.

theorem holinessCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable holinessCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

sacramentalCase_establishes

Grant the Spirit given in water baptism and fully in confirmation, and the Spirit is given in the sacraments, not in an experience to be sought.

theorem sacramentalCase_establishes : Establishes sacramentalCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

sacramentalCase_is_satisfiable

The sacramental view can be held without contradiction: the conversion view's world holds it too.

theorem sacramentalCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable sacramentalCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

varietyCase_establishes

The variety of Acts delivers its conclusion.

theorem varietyCase_establishes : Establishes varietyCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

varietyCase_is_satisfiable

The variety of Acts can be held without contradiction.

theorem varietyCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable varietyCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

transitionCase_establishes

Acts read as transitions delivers its conclusion.

theorem transitionCase_establishes : Establishes transitionCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

transitionCase_is_satisfiable

Acts read as transitions can be held without contradiction.

theorem transitionCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable transitionCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

What Acts can carry

pentecostalOnAPattern_is_satisfiable

The first reading is coherent: the Pentecostal view with the narratives as a pattern contradicts nothing by itself.

theorem pentecostalOnAPattern_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    pentecostalOnAPattern.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

whereTheVarietyMeetsThePattern

Why the variety of Acts stands against reading it as a pattern. The crux is the step from Acts 10 and 2:38: the Spirit comes as they hear, is promised with baptism, and comes later with hands laid on, so no one episode is the pattern. What it breaks is the Pentecostal view's premise that the narratives are a pattern. The step is disputed: the Assemblies of God grant Acts 10 and read it as evidence for subsequence.

Why Acts gives the Spirit in more than one order stands against After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), read as a pattern for believers today.

  • The crux: \((P_{3} \land P_{4}) \rightarrow \lnot P_{8}\), a premise of Acts gives the Spirit in more than one order.
  • What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
  • Granted: \(P_{3}\), \(P_{4}\), which the break also needs.
  • Where the rival breaks: \(P_{8}\) cannot be held together with \((P_{3} \land P_{4}) \rightarrow \lnot P_{8}\) and \(P_{3}\), \(P_{4}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
  • What this rests on:
    • \(P_{3}\) Acts 10:44–48 — the Spirit falls on Cornelius's household before baptism — consensus: Acts 10:44-48
    • \(P_{4}\) Acts 2:38 — repent and be baptized, and you will receive the gift of the Spirit — consensus: Acts 2:38
    • the step itself — disputed: assemblies-of-god-baptism-holy-spirit-2010

TestimonyArguments.SpiritBaptism.Dispute — the four views weighed

The four views as parties to one dispute: at conversion; after it, as the Pentecostals hold; after it, as the holiness tradition holds; and in baptism and confirmation, as Rome holds. The Pentecostal and holiness views are the subsequence views: both hold a second baptism in the Spirit, after conversion, to be sought. Who defeats whom is computed from their premises and checked by the kernel.

How to read the verdicts

  • Defeats. One position contradicts another — denies one of its premises, its conclusion, or a claim it derives on the way — and is not the weaker of the two. A defeat that runs both ways is a standoff.
  • Weakest link. A position is only as strong as its least-supported premise or step. Every party here rests on something rated disputed, the lowest rating, so no rating breaks a standoff.
  • Forced. Accepted however every standoff is resolved.
  • Can be defended. Held by some consistent position that answers every attack on its members, itself or through an ally.
  • Not forced. Some consistent position leaves it out — which is not the same as false.

What the solver computed

Four standoffs, and nothing else. The conversion view stands off against both subsequence views, and so does the sacramental view; the two subsequence views do not attack each other, and neither do the conversion and sacramental views. Nothing is forced (spirit_baptism_forces_nothing). Every view can be defended (conversion_defensible, pentecostal_defensible, holiness_defensible, sacramental_defensible), in one of two camps, and nothing joins them: the conversion and sacramental views together, and the Pentecostal and holiness views together.

That is where the question stands in the literature, and the page says so rather than choosing. The conversion and sacramental views agree that there is no second baptism in the Spirit to seek, and differ over the rite, which this dispute does not weigh. What would decide between the two camps is argued, not weighed: what Luke's narratives are (pentecostal_cannot_read_acts_as_transitions says the Pentecostal view must read them as a pattern), and whether Paul's word at 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Luke's are the same baptism — a question not yet encoded.

Strength

conversionCase_strength

The conversion view's weakest link is disputed, at several places: its reading of 1 Corinthians 12:13 and both of its steps.

theorem conversionCase_strength : conversionCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

pentecostalCase_strength

The Pentecostal view's weakest link is disputed, at several places: its reading of 1 Corinthians 12:13, of Acts 8 and 19, of Luke's Spirit baptism, of the narratives as a pattern, and its step from the instrumental reading.

theorem pentecostalCase_strength : pentecostalCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

holinessCase_strength

The holiness view's weakest link is disputed: its premise, and the step Wesley contests.

theorem holinessCase_strength : holinessCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

sacramentalCase_strength

The sacramental view's weakest link is disputed, at several places: its readings of the rite and both of its steps.

theorem sacramentalCase_strength : sacramentalCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

The dispute

viewNode

The package each view argues from.

def viewNode : View → ArgumentPackage Claim :=
  fun x =>
    match x with
    | View.conversion => conversionCase
    | View.pentecostal => pentecostalCase
    | View.holiness => holinessCase
    | View.sacramental => sacramentalCase

spiritBaptismDispute

The dispute over Spirit baptism: every view can be held without contradiction, delivers its conclusion, and has its steps rated.

def spiritBaptismDispute : Dispute Claim View :=
  { node := viewNode,
    consistent := spiritBaptismDispute._proof_1,
    sound := spiritBaptismDispute._proof_2,
    rated := spiritBaptismDispute._proof_7 }

conversion_stands_with_the_sacraments

The conversion and sacramental views can be held together: one reading satisfies both — every believer baptized in the Spirit at conversion, the Spirit given in the sacraments, and no second baptism to seek.

What this does not claim: that the two agree. They differ over what the rite does, which this dispute does not weigh; the result says only that nothing encoded here makes them contradict each other.

theorem conversion_stands_with_the_sacraments :
    spiritBaptismDispute.StandTogether [View.conversion, View.sacramental]
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

the_subsequence_views_stand_together

The two subsequence views can be held together: a second baptism to seek, whether read as empowerment or as the second work of grace. Whether it is the same second experience, the encoding does not say.

theorem the_subsequence_views_stand_together :
    spiritBaptismDispute.StandTogether [View.pentecostal, View.holiness]
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

viewDefeats

The defeats of the dispute, as a table.

def viewDefeats : View → View → Prop :=
  fun x x_1 =>
    match x, x_1 with
    | View.conversion, View.pentecostal => True
    | View.conversion, View.holiness => True
    | View.pentecostal, View.conversion => True
    | View.pentecostal, View.sacramental => True
    | View.holiness, View.conversion => True
    | View.holiness, View.sacramental => True
    | View.sacramental, View.pentecostal => True
    | View.sacramental, View.holiness => True
    | x, x_2 => False

instDecidableRelViewViewDefeats

The table is finite, so membership in it is decidable.

def instDecidableRelViewViewDefeats : DecidableRel viewDefeats

viewStrength

Each view's weakest link: disputed for every one.

def viewStrength : View → ℕ :=
  fun x => 0

viewNode_strength

Each view's weakest link, as its package computes it.

theorem viewNode_strength : ∀ (i : View), (viewNode i).strength = viewStrength
    i
-- axioms: propext

spiritBaptismDispute_defeats

Who defeats whom, all 16 pairs: four standoffs, and nothing else. The conversion view and each subsequence view defeat each other — "no second to seek" against "a second to seek" — and the Pentecostal view also denies the conversion reading of 1 Corinthians 12:13. The sacramental view and each subsequence view defeat each other on the same point. Every cell is computed by Horn.defeats? and checked by the kernel.

theorem spiritBaptismDispute_defeats : ∀ (i j : View),
    spiritBaptismDispute.defeats i j ↔ viewDefeats i j
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

spiritBaptismFinite

The dispute in the form the verdict solver computes with.

def spiritBaptismFinite : Solver.Finite spiritBaptismDispute.defeats :=
  {
    parties :=
      [View.conversion, View.pentecostal,
        View.holiness, View.sacramental],
    complete := spiritBaptismFinite._proof_1,
    defeats := fun i j => decide (viewDefeats i j),
    spec := spiritBaptismFinite._proof_2 }

spiritBaptismDispute_supports

Nothing supports anything, in all 16 pairs. Every cell is computed by supports? and checked by the kernel.

theorem spiritBaptismDispute_supports : ∀ (i j : View),
    ¬spiritBaptismDispute.supports i j
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

spiritBaptismDispute_partOf

Each view's case is part of its own and of no other's. Every cell is computed by partOf? and checked by the kernel.

theorem spiritBaptismDispute_partOf : ∀ (i j : View),
    spiritBaptismDispute.partOf i j ↔ i = j
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

spiritBaptismMap

The dispute over Spirit baptism drawn: who defeats whom.

1 2 3 4

Solid red: defeats. Dashed green: supports. Dotted blue: one party's case is part of another's.

#Party
1At conversion (Dunn, Stott)
2After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad)
3A second work of grace (the holiness tradition)
4In baptism and confirmation (Catholic)
FromToEdge
1 At conversion (Dunn, Stott)2 After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad)defeats
1 At conversion (Dunn, Stott)3 A second work of grace (the holiness tradition)defeats
2 After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad)1 At conversion (Dunn, Stott)defeats
2 After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad)4 In baptism and confirmation (Catholic)defeats
3 A second work of grace (the holiness tradition)1 At conversion (Dunn, Stott)defeats
3 A second work of grace (the holiness tradition)4 In baptism and confirmation (Catholic)defeats
4 In baptism and confirmation (Catholic)2 After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad)defeats
4 In baptism and confirmation (Catholic)3 A second work of grace (the holiness tradition)defeats

The defeats are the cells of spiritBaptismDispute_defeats, the supports the cells of spiritBaptismDispute_supports and the parts the cells of spiritBaptismDispute_partOf, each computed from the parties' premises and checked by the kernel. The attacks derived through support and through parts are reported, not counted: every verdict is computed from the defeats alone. Every derived attack is already a defeat.

What the dispute decides

spiritBaptismSettlesNothing

Why nothing is forced: every view has a defeater. The conversion view has the Pentecostal, the Pentecostal and holiness views have the conversion view, and the sacramental view has the Pentecostal.

Nothing prevails outright: every party is defeated by another.

  • After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott).
  • At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad).
  • At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats A second work of grace (the holiness tradition).
  • After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats In baptism and confirmation (Catholic).

What this rests on. The reasons state 4 defeats and 0 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, spiritBaptismDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

spirit_baptism_forces_nothing

Nothing is forced. Every view is in a standoff the dispute cannot resolve, and every weakest link is disputed, so no rating breaks a tie.

What this does not claim: that the question is idle. Each view can be defended; what the dispute cannot do is choose between readings rated alike.

theorem spirit_baptism_forces_nothing : Framework.grounded
    spiritBaptismDispute.defeats = ∅
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

conversionStandsWithTheSacraments

Why the conversion view can be defended: it stands with the sacramental view, and answers both subsequence views, itself.

At conversion (Dunn, Stott) is accepted on some resolution.

  • A position holding At conversion (Dunn, Stott), In baptism and confirmation (Catholic) can be held.
  • None of At conversion (Dunn, Stott), In baptism and confirmation (Catholic) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
    • After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott), and At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad).
    • A second work of grace (the holiness tradition) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott), and At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats A second work of grace (the holiness tradition).
    • After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats In baptism and confirmation (Catholic), and At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad).
    • A second work of grace (the holiness tradition) defeats In baptism and confirmation (Catholic), and At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats A second work of grace (the holiness tradition).

What this rests on. The reasons state 6 defeats and 4 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, spiritBaptismDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

conversion_defensible

The conversion view can be defended, with the sacramental view: some maximal defensible position — one no other party can join without losing that — holds both.

theorem conversion_defensible : Framework.CredulouslyAccepted
    spiritBaptismDispute.defeats View.conversion
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

conversionAnsweredByPentecost

Why the conversion view is not forced: a defensible position holds the Pentecostal view, and it defeats the conversion view.

At conversion (Dunn, Stott) is not accepted on every resolution.

  • A position holding After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), A second work of grace (the holiness tradition) can be held, and it holds After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad); After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) conflicts with At conversion (Dunn, Stott): After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott), and At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad).
  • None of After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), A second work of grace (the holiness tradition) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
    • At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), and After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott).
    • In baptism and confirmation (Catholic) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), and After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats In baptism and confirmation (Catholic).
    • At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats A second work of grace (the holiness tradition), and After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott).
    • In baptism and confirmation (Catholic) defeats A second work of grace (the holiness tradition), and After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats In baptism and confirmation (Catholic).

What this rests on. The reasons state 6 defeats and 4 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, spiritBaptismDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

conversion_not_forced

Nor is it forced. A maximal defensible position holds the Pentecostal and holiness views, and cannot hold the conversion view with them.

theorem conversion_not_forced : ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted
    spiritBaptismDispute.defeats View.conversion
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

pentecostalStandsWithHoliness

Why the Pentecostal view can be defended: it stands with the holiness view, and answers both the conversion and sacramental views itself.

After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) is accepted on some resolution.

  • A position holding After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), A second work of grace (the holiness tradition) can be held.
  • None of After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), A second work of grace (the holiness tradition) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
    • At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), and After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott).
    • In baptism and confirmation (Catholic) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), and After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats In baptism and confirmation (Catholic).
    • At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats A second work of grace (the holiness tradition), and After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott).
    • In baptism and confirmation (Catholic) defeats A second work of grace (the holiness tradition), and After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats In baptism and confirmation (Catholic).

What this rests on. The reasons state 6 defeats and 4 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, spiritBaptismDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

pentecostal_defensible

The Pentecostal view can be defended, with the holiness view.

theorem pentecostal_defensible : Framework.CredulouslyAccepted
    spiritBaptismDispute.defeats View.pentecostal
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

pentecostalAnsweredByConversion

Why the Pentecostal view is not forced: a defensible position holds the conversion view, and it defeats the Pentecostal view.

After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) is not accepted on every resolution.

  • A position holding At conversion (Dunn, Stott), In baptism and confirmation (Catholic) can be held, and it holds At conversion (Dunn, Stott); At conversion (Dunn, Stott) conflicts with After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad): At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), and After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott).
  • None of At conversion (Dunn, Stott), In baptism and confirmation (Catholic) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
    • After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott), and At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad).
    • A second work of grace (the holiness tradition) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott), and At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats A second work of grace (the holiness tradition).
    • After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats In baptism and confirmation (Catholic), and At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad).
    • A second work of grace (the holiness tradition) defeats In baptism and confirmation (Catholic), and At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats A second work of grace (the holiness tradition).

What this rests on. The reasons state 6 defeats and 4 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, spiritBaptismDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

pentecostal_not_forced

Nor is it forced. A maximal defensible position holds the conversion and sacramental views, and cannot hold the Pentecostal view with them. What would decide is argued, not weighed: what the Acts narratives are (pentecostal_cannot_read_acts_as_transitions).

theorem pentecostal_not_forced : ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted
    spiritBaptismDispute.defeats View.pentecostal
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

holinessStandsWithPentecost

Why the holiness view can be defended: it stands with the Pentecostal view, which answers the conversion and sacramental views.

A second work of grace (the holiness tradition) is accepted on some resolution.

  • A position holding After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), A second work of grace (the holiness tradition) can be held.
  • None of After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), A second work of grace (the holiness tradition) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
    • At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), and After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott).
    • In baptism and confirmation (Catholic) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad), and After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats In baptism and confirmation (Catholic).
    • At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats A second work of grace (the holiness tradition), and After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott).
    • In baptism and confirmation (Catholic) defeats A second work of grace (the holiness tradition), and After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats In baptism and confirmation (Catholic).

What this rests on. The reasons state 6 defeats and 4 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, spiritBaptismDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

holiness_defensible

The holiness view can be defended, with the Pentecostal view. Not forced, for the same reason the Pentecostal view is not.

theorem holiness_defensible : Framework.CredulouslyAccepted
    spiritBaptismDispute.defeats View.holiness
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

sacramentalStandsWithConversion

Why the sacramental view can be defended: it stands with the conversion view, which answers both subsequence views.

In baptism and confirmation (Catholic) is accepted on some resolution.

  • A position holding At conversion (Dunn, Stott), In baptism and confirmation (Catholic) can be held.
  • None of At conversion (Dunn, Stott), In baptism and confirmation (Catholic) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
    • After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott), and At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad).
    • A second work of grace (the holiness tradition) defeats At conversion (Dunn, Stott), and At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats A second work of grace (the holiness tradition).
    • After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad) defeats In baptism and confirmation (Catholic), and At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats After conversion (Assemblies of God; Menzies, Stronstad).
    • A second work of grace (the holiness tradition) defeats In baptism and confirmation (Catholic), and At conversion (Dunn, Stott) defeats A second work of grace (the holiness tradition).

What this rests on. The reasons state 6 defeats and 4 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, spiritBaptismDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

sacramental_defensible

The sacramental view can be defended, with the conversion view. Not forced, for the same reason the conversion view is not.

theorem sacramental_defensible : Framework.CredulouslyAccepted
    spiritBaptismDispute.defeats View.sacramental
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

What the Pentecostal view can read Acts as

pentecostal_cannot_read_acts_as_transitions

The Pentecostal view cannot read Acts as transitions. Its own premise is that Luke's narratives are a pattern for believers today, and Stott's reading says, in its own words, that they are "not a pattern" (TestimonyArguments.Meanings.SpiritBaptism.joins). So what the view holds, read for what its claims mean, denies the transitions reading outright.

What this claims: the Pentecostal view must read the Acts narratives as a pattern; the other reading is not open to it. What it does not claim: that the pattern reading is right. Read as a pattern, the narratives still meet the variety of Acts (whereTheVarietyMeetsThePattern), at a step the Assemblies of God contest.

Before the two readings were joined by meaning, this was a dilemma with two horns, and the transitions horn broke only at Stott's step from transitions to no norm. Joined, the horn is not there to break: no reader can hold the Pentecostal view and read Acts as transitions.

theorem pentecostal_cannot_read_acts_as_transitions : Entails
    pentecostalCase.held (notP Claim.actsEpisodesAreTransitions)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

stott_undermines_the_pattern

Stott's reading meets the Pentecostal view at its premise. Read for what its claims mean, Acts as transitions denies that the narratives are a pattern, and that is one of the Pentecostal view's premises. Before the join it met the view only at Stott's step, as a reason not to seek a second baptism; now it contradicts what the view rests on. Whether that attack is a defeat is a question of ratings, and this argument's dispute does not seat Stott's reading as a party.

theorem stott_undermines_the_pattern : UnderminesOn transitionCase
    pentecostalCase (p Claim.actsNarrativesAreNormative)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound