Since people who do not take the historic Baptist view of Spirit baptism are going to have a very difficult time interpreting Luke 11:13, Protestant writers and Baptists influenced by Protestantism make a variety of non-exegetical affirmations about this passage. Much of this material is dealt with in the following endnotes to the post above. There was enough here that I thought it should be separated into another post. The text above is the main point--the material below provides technical material refuting erroneous views of the passage.
[i] The church had a Comforter, a para¿klhtoß, before the Pentecostal coming of the Spirit—Christ Himself, the Son of God, was their Comforter, for the Holy Ghost was “another Comforter” (John 14:16; cf. 1 John 2:1).
[ii] Lewis Sperry Chafer, commenting on John 14:16–17, wrote: “The promise of Christ—‘I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter’ (Para¿klhtoß)—may well be set over against Christ’s word recorded in Luke 11:13, ‘If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?’ This assurance was uttered early in Christ’s ministry and, being so great an innovation over the relationships provided in Old Testament times to which the disciples were alone accustomed, evidently was never entered into by them. After His ministry is well concluded and before He departs out of this world, He declares that He will pray the Father and for the very presence of the Spirit for which they had failed to pray. The provisions included in Christ’s prayer are more extensive and anticipate at least two age-characterizing realities: (1) That the Spirit should be given as an indwelling Person to each of the eleven men present. They, according to Old Testament usage, had been accustomed to think of the Spirit as bestowed only for very specific purposes by the sovereign will of God. That the Spirit might be given to all men of faith and without exception was wholly new to them. Thus was introduced one of the greatest features of the new dispensation that was then coming into view—a feature too often overlooked by theologians, that the Spirit is given to all believers from the least of them to the greatest of them. Though emphasized constantly in the Epistles, this fact of the indwelling Spirit is here announced by Christ for the first time. (2) The second age-characterizing feature is the truth that the indwelling of the Spirit in the child of God is an unchangeable fact. Christ prayed that the Spirit might abide with believers forever, and that prayer is answered as definitely and certainly as the prayer that the Spirit should come at all. Thus it is assured that the Spirit indwells and that He abides in the heart forever. This same truth John again asserts in his first Epistle, ‘But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you’ (1 John 2:27). This truth, it will be observed, determines much in the doctrine of the security of those who are saved. The Christian may grieve the Spirit, but he will never grieve Him away; he may quench the Spirit (in the sense that the Spirit is suppressed), but the Spirit will never leave the heart into which He has come to abide. (pgs. 117-118, “The Teachings of Christ Incarnate, Part 3: The Upper Room Discourse.” Bibliotheca Sacra 109:434 (April 1952) 103-136). Elsewhere Chafer insightfully commented on Luke 11:13, “Because [Luke 11:13] is located in the New Testament and because it was spoken by Christ, many have concluded that this passage must be incorporated into the general doctrine of the Spirit’s relation to the Christian. Great error and misunderstanding have thus been engendered. . . . The passage under consideration conditions reception of the Holy Spirit upon asking, whereas the Christian, as has been seen, receives the Holy Spirit without any asking as a part of his salvation and when he believes. The Spirit, consequently, is now given to those who do no more than believe. In the dispensational divisions of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit . . . the period between the baptism of Christ and the day of Pentecost was characterized by transition, and in that period Christ offered the Spirit to those who would ask for Him. This provision of His was so in advance of the relation which the Spirit sustained to the saints in Old Testament times, to which relationship the apostles were in some measure adjusted, that there is no record that they ever ventured on to this new ground; accordingly, at the end of His earth-ministry, Christ said: ‘I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever’ (John 14:16). This introduces an entirely different relationship to the Spirit. The disciples were not now to receive the Holy Spirit in answer to their own petition, but in answer to the petition of Christ. Thus it is indicated that the Holy Spirit has now been given because of Christ’s prayer and to all who believe. As 1 Samuel 16:14 and Psalm 51:11 serve to demonstrate that the experience of the Old Testament saints cannot be made the norm of Christian experience, in like manner Luke 11:13, which was for the disciples between Christ’s baptism and the Day of Pentecost, cannot be made the norm of present experience” (Systematic Theology: Pneumatology (pgs. 130-131, vol. 6, chap. 10). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1976 (reprint ed.).
[iii] The nonarticularity of Pneuvma ›Agion in Luke 11:13 does not by any means establish that a reference to anything less than the Person of the Holy Spirit, the third member of the Godhead, is in view. While Nigel Turner in his Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965) advocated the “generalization with regard to the significance of the article in references to the Holy Spirit in Luke’s writings . . .that ‘as a general rule, and subject to conditions, whenever the Holy Spirit has the definite article the reference is to the third person of the Trinity (expressed either as to Pneuma to hagion or as to hagion Pneuma), but when the article is absent the reference is to a holy spirit, a divine influence possessing men’ (p. 19) . . . [this] must . . . be called in question. Turner . . . mentions, but does not exhaust, complicating factors, factors so complicating . . . as to leave little room for assurance in pressing his rule. When one considers the fact also . . . [certain other] clear and indubitable references to the Holy Spirit [that] . . . would dispose the reader . . . to take hagion Pneuma . . . in Acts as the Holy Spirit, one’s doubt about Turner’s rule must increase. In addition to all this, the application of the supposed rule to particular passages will be found to yield very unsatisfactory results” (John H. Skilton, book review of Turner’s Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Westminster Theological Journal 29:2 (May 1967) p. 218). Turner was a theological modernist (although not on the most radical wing of liberalism) who believed in “distancing himself from the doctrine of verbal inspiration (a question [he affirmed was] ‘beset by innumerable difficulties’)” (pg. 104, Trinity Journal 3:1 (Spring 1982) p. 104, Book Review by M. Silva of Christian Words, by Nigel Turner. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1980.), and “Turner defers to certain critical hypotheses which are unacceptable to conservative students . . . the Pastorals are treated separately from Paul . . . and the Johannine literature is treated in three units” (pg. 273, Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (Jul 78), Book Review by Zane C. Hodges of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James Hope Moulton. Vol. 4: Style, by Nigel Turner. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976). Nigel Turner’s view that nonarticular Pneuvma ›Agion is something less than the Person of the Holy Ghost is not the product of Spirit-led exegesis, since he was an unsaved, natural man (1 Corinthians 2:14), nor is it required by a correct understanding of Greek grammar. Pneuvma ›Agion is a monadic noun phrase, referring specifically to the Person of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, and thus, like other monadic nouns, and in a fashion like that of proper names, it is definite without the article. Daniel Wallace wrote, “A one-of-a-kind noun does not, of course, require the article to be definite (e.g., “sun,” “earth,” “devil,” etc.). One might consider pneuvma as monadic when it is modified by the adjective a‚gion. If so, then the expression pneuvma a‚gion is monadic and refers only to the Holy Spirit” (pgs. 248-250, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace). A. T. Robertson stated, “In the N. T. . . it is [very] common to find simply qeo/ß, especially in the Epistles. . . . [T]he word is treated like a proper name and may have [the article] (Ro. 3:5) or not have it (8:9). The same thing holds true about pneuvma and pneuvma a‚gion, ku/iroß, [and] Cristo/ß. . . . [As the] word qeo/ß, like a proper name, is freely used with and without the article . . . [s]o also pneuvma and pneuvma a‚gion may occur with and without the article. . . . Ku/rioß, like qeo/ß and pneuvma, is often practically a proper name in the N. T.” (pgs. 761, 795-6, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research). Likewise, James Elder Cumming in his Through the Eternal Spirit: A Biblical Study on the Holy Ghost (Chicago, IL: Revell, 1896), elec. acc. http://books.google.com, “Appendix II: On the Use of the Greek Article Before the Names of the Spirit of God” pgs. 286-296) discusses and refutes the arbitrary, unsound, and contradictory views of those who build doctrine, often on modernistic assumptions, from an alleged distinction between articular and nonarticular pneuvma a‚gion. After documenting a variety of contradictory theories by proponents of a distinction, Cumming writes, “May I venture now to call attention to the strangely vague, arbitrary, and not very consistent rules laid down? . . . [C]an we find in the use of the Article an indication of the distinction between the Person of the Holy Ghost and His influences[?] . . . [W]e must answer, No. The use is so irregular, and so much at the discretion of the writer, that no such intention can be traced. . . . I venture to submit . . . that there is no such distinctive use of the Article in the New Testament in connection with the mention of the Holy Ghost as to warrant us in finding a theological or spiritual reason for its presence or absence; and that all such pressure of . . . rules . . . as has been attempted, is misleading and unfounded ” (pgs. 286, 294-296).
To affirm from the nonarticularity of Pneuvma ›Agion that power of or works from the Spirit are in view in Luke 11:13, rather than the Person of the Spirit Himself, requires one not only to ignore the syntactical facts of Greek monadic nouns but also the other 49 instances of the phrase Pneuvma ›Agion in the NT, each of which refers to “the Holy Spirit” and cannot in accordance with sound exegesis be reduced to anything less (Matthew 1:18; 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25; 3:16; 4:1; 11:13; John 1:33; 7:39; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5; 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5; 7:55; 8:15, 17, 19; 9:17; 10:38; 11:16, 24; 13:9, 52; 19:2; Romans 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 12:3; 2 Corinthians 6:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:5-6; 2 Timothy 1:14; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 2:4; 6:4; 1 Peter 1:12; 2 Peter 1:21; Jude 1:20). In some verses, trying to reduce Pneuvma ›Agion from “the Holy Ghost” to something like “power from the Holy Ghost” is entirely nonsensical (e. g., Romans 15:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:5). Nor is there any reason to conclude that anything less than the Person of the Spirit is in view in nonarticular OT verses that refer to the Holy Spirit, v®dOq Aj…wr (Isaiah 63:10-11; Psalm 51:11). Old Testament phrases like “the Spirit of the LORD” (hÎOwh◊y_Aj…wr, Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Samuel 10:6; 16:13-14; 19:9 (still definite although here a shorthand meaning hODwh◊y tEaEm hDo∂r Aj…wr) 2 Samuel 23:2; 1 Kings 18:12; 22:24; 2 Kings 2:16; 2 Chronicles 18:23; 20:14; Isaiah 11:2; 40:7, 13; 59:19; 61:1; 63:14; Ezekiel 11:5; 37:1; Hosea 13:15; Micah 2:7; 3:8) are always definite although always nonarticular because of the nature of the Hebrew construct phrase—this fact holds even when the phrase refers to something besides the Holy Ghost such as the wind (cf. Hosea 13:15). Similarly, the equivalent NT phrases Pneuvma Kuri÷ou “the Spirit of the Lord” (Luke 4:18; Acts 5:9; 8:39; 2 Corinthians 3:17) and Pneuvma Qeouv, “the Spirit of God” (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 7:40; cf. Matthew 12:28; Rom 8:14; 15:19; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Corinthians 3:3), are monadic and definite even when non-articular.
If nonarticularity for the Holy Spirit refers not to His Person, but merely to power or works from Him, one wonders if nonarticularity in references to the Greek Path/r such as “Our Father which art in heaven” (Matthew 6:9), “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matthew 11:26), “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34), “the Father which hath sent me” (John 5:30), “Holy Father” (John 17:11), “one God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:6), and “the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:11) denote not the Person of God the Father, but merely power from or works done by Him; or if the nonarticular ui˚o/ß in “O Lord, thou Son of David” (Matthew 15:22), “Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1), “the Son of the Highest” (Luke 1:32), “the Son of man” (John 5:27), and many similar verses do not refer to the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, but only to power or works from Him.
One should also note the convincing parallels where articularity and nonarticularity for Pneuvma ›Agion are clearly shown to refer to the same events and actions on pgs. 68-70, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Dunn. His conclusion is correct: “Where pneuvma a‚gion confronts us in the NT it never designates a charismatic endowment without the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit himself.”
[iv] Thus, the verse indicates that the “heavenly Father [would] give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.” The direct object of the verb give is the Holy Spirit, and the indirect object, those who receive the Spirit, are them that ask. No reference to the Holy Spirit being given to or ministering to people other than those who are doing the asking is contained in the verse. John 16:7-11 is a promise Christians can and should take to the Lord in prayer that the lost will be convicted of their sin by the Spirit—but if they employ Luke 11:13 to that end they are pleading what the text does not say.
[v] Thus, Luke 11:13 promises the Holy Spirit to “to them that ask,” toi√ß ai˙touvsin, the repeated action being expressed by the present participle.
[vi] Their action is expressed by dido/nai, a present active infinitive, expressing iterative action.
[vii] Thus the future active indicative dw¿sei is employed. The Greek future, “with reference to aspect, . . . seems to offer an external portrayal, something of a temporal counterpart to the aorist indicative” (pg. 567, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace). Thus, one would expect an aoristic, point-action sort of idea for the future tense of di÷dwmi as employed in Luke 11:13. While the future tense presents an action as a whole, it is true that the use of the future on its own does not eliminate the possibility of progressive or durative action within the aoristic presentation (cf. the uses of di÷dwmi in Matthew 13:12; 24:24, 29; 25:29; Mark 4:25; 13:22, 24; Luke 8:18; 19:26), but the definite majority of the appearances of the future of di÷dwmi indicate one-time action (Matthew 4:9; 7:7, 11; 10:19; 12:39; 16:4, 19, 26; 20:4; 21:43; Mark 6:22-23; 8:12, 37; 12:9; Luke 1:32; 4:6; 6:38; 11:8-9, 13, 29; 16:12; 20:16; 21:15; John 4:14; 6:27, 51; 11:22; 14:16; 16:23; Acts 2:19, 27; 13:34-35; 24:26; Romans 14:12; James 1:5; 1 John 5:16; Revelation 2:7, 10, 17, 23, 26, 28; 3:21; 4:9; 11:3; 21:6). Thus, while the promise of Luke 11:13 could have partial fulfillment in anyone who so asked and sought for Him in the gospels, the ultimate fulfillment of the verse took place on Pentecost, for before then “the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39. It should be also noted that “an example [of pneuvma such as] ou¡pw h™n pneuvma (Jo. 7:39) merely illustrates the use of pneuvma like qeo/ß as substantially a proper name” (pg. 795, A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934).). Compare also the Appendix, sermon #2, “The Church, The Habitat of the Holy Spirit” on John 7:39.
While the background NT usage of di÷dwmi would weight one in favor of one-time action as he approaches Luke 11:13, the immediate context provides very strong corroboration. The Spirit is affirmed to be a one-time gift given in response to repeated prayer (Acts 1:14), just as four verses earlier in 11:9, the central affirmation of the pericope containing 11:13, “ask . . . seek . . . [and] knock” are repeated actions, but “shall be given . . . shall find . . . shall be opened” refer to one-time future events in response to the continued asking, seeking, and knocking. The iterative present tense verbs and one-time future tense responses in v. 9, 13 are parallel (cf. also 11:26, e˙pizhtei√ and doqh/setai; James 1:5, ai˙tei÷tw . . . kai« doqh/setai).
[viii] Subsequent to this transitional action referenced in Luke 11:13, where the Holy Spirit was initially bestowed in the baptism of Acts 2 in response to continued prayer, the Holy Spirit would be, for the course of the age of grace, given permanently and unchangeably at the moment of regeneration (1 John 4:13; note the perfect tense, de÷dwken, in “he hath given us of his Spirit.”). However, this does not relate the promise of Luke 11:13 to those living today, because Spirit indwelling is temporally simultaneous with faith in Christ (cf. Romans 8:9); the Spirit is not today a gift given subsequent to regeneration as a response to continued prayer.
[ix] Ephesians 1:17 is not listed (although it also has an aorist of di÷dwmi, albeit an aorist optative), because the verse is not about the Holy Spirit. The Received Text do/nta in 1 Thessalonians 4:8 is the inspired and preserved reading, found in 97% of Greek MSS including Codex A. The reading dido/nta is a textual corruption.
Attempting to support a type of Reformed revivalistic PCP doctrine, Iain Murray argued, “On Ephesians 1:17 Bishop Moule wrote: ‘We are not to think of the ‘giving’ of the Spirit as of an isolated deposit of what, once given, is now locally in possession. The first ‘gift’ is, as it were, the first point in a series of actions, of which each one may be expresssed also as a gift.” Were it not for this truth, prayer for the Spirit (Luke 11:13) would be meaningless” (pg. 19, Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism, 1750-1858, Iain H. Murray. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1994). The Greek tenses employed in Scripture for the giving of the Spirit contradict the position of Moule and Murray that the Spirit’s bestowal as a gift is not once and for all at regeneration. Consequently, in the dispensation of grace after the completion of the event of Spirit baptism, Murray’s statement of the consequence of invalid premises on his part is correct—prayer for the Spirit is indeed meaningless.
[x] Acts 8:18-19 (And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost; qeasa¿menoß de« oJ Si÷mwn o¢ti dia» thvß e˙piqe÷sewß tw◊n ceirw◊n tw◊n aÓposto/lwn di÷dotai to\ Pneuvma to\ ›Agion, prosh/negken aujtoi√ß crh/mata, le÷gwn, Do/te kaÓmoi« th\n e˙xousi÷an tau/thn. iºna wˆ— a·n e˙a»n e˙piqw◊ ta»ß cei√raß, lamba¿nhØ Pneuvma ›Agion.) does not constitute an exception. The present passive di÷dotai in v. 18 is distributive, “the use of the present tense for individual acts distributed to more than one object” (pg. 520, Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics). Each person who the apostles laid hands on received the Holy Ghost, but each person received Him, the “gift of God” (8:20), but once. Simon was also in spiritual darkness in this matter (v. 19; cf. v. 20-24).
[xi] See Acts 2:4, e˙di÷dou, imperfect tense; the Spirit was continuing to give utterance; 1 Corinthians 12:7, di÷dotai, present tense, the manifestation of the Spirit is being given; 1 Corinthians 12:8, the word of wisdom is being given (di÷dotai, present tense) by the Spirit. Note also Christ, fulfilling His Mediatorial office, was continually given boundless measures of the Spirit from the Father (ouj ga»r e˙k me÷trou di÷dwsin oJ Qeo\ß to\ Pneuvma), John 3:34.
[xii] While writers are far from unanimous on Luke 11:13 (cf. the views, and their advocates, delineated on pgs. 96-97, “Rethinking The Role Of The Holy Spirit In The Lives Of Old Testament Believers,” Gary Fredricks. Trinity Journal 9:1 (Spring 1988) 81-104), the conclusions advanced above are also made by others. For example, Merrill F. Unger wrote, “Christ while on earth taught that the Father, in answer to prayer, would ‘give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him’ (Luke 11:13). This promise, of course, was pre-Pentecost and was spoken under the old economy, when the Spirit of God came upon men and departed, according to divine sovereign will. For a man to ask for, much less receive, the Spirit was a staggering new thing to a Jew, in advance of the fulfillment of Joel 2:28, 29, and there is no evidence that any asked for the Spirit, claiming this promise. To apply this teaching to this present age, is to forget Pentecost and the fact that every believer now has the indwelling Spirit. It was the ascended Christ who asked the Father for the Spirit as the ascension Gift (John 14:16), and no believer now . . . indwelt with the Spirit as he is, need ever ask for Him. He possesses Him, and never because he has prayed or asked for Him, but because he has Him as a free gift by virtue of simple faith in the crucified and risen Savior” (pg. 363, “The Baptism with the Holy Spirit,” part 2. Bibliotheca Sacra 101:403 (Jul 44), 357-374. It should be noted that agreement on Luke 11:13 does not mean that Unger, or others cited, agreed with the historic Baptist view of Spirit baptism presented in this composition). Charles Ryrie wrote, “Luke 11:13 . . . might seem to indicate that the Spirit may be given and taken away repeatedly[.] . . . However, it must be recognized that [this verse, as with 1 Samuel 16:14 and Psalm 51:11, is] pre-Pentecostal. And that is very important, for it is not until Pentecost that we can expect any normalcy in the operation of the Spirit in this age. After all, the Lord Himself recognized the pre- and post-Pentecostal difference as late as the upper room discourse where the majority of the promises concerning the coming and ministry of the Spirit were given. Therefore, even if the Spirit was removed from the lives of people before Pentecost, the fact that this happened before before Pentecost rules out carrying over such experience into the post-Pentecostal era” (The Holy Spirit (Chicago: Moody, 1965) pgs. 70–71). “Luke 11:11–13 stresses that Father will give the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt 7:11 “good things”). This link between the Holy Spirit and prayer is seen also in Acts 1:14 where Luke portrays the disciples praying before they receive the Pentecostal gift of the Spirit in Acts 2. Thus, Talbert states: ‘Indeed, the evangelist would see this promise of Jesus in Luke 11:13 as the basis for Pentecost.’ The gift of the Spirit represents the coming of the kingdom of God” (pg. 690, “Theology Of Prayer In The Gospel Of Luke,” Kyu Sam Hana, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 43:4 (Dec 00) 675-695). Strong notes that “The Plymouth Brethren . . . object to praying for the Holy Spirit, because he was given on Pentecost” (Systematic Theology, Augustus Strong, part 7 (Ecclesiology) 1:2, elec. acc. Systematic Theologies, vol. 17, Rio, WI: AGES Digital Software library, 2006). Reformed, non-dispensational writers (e. g. Thomas Boston, Stephen Charnock, Robert Dabney, Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Manton, Matthew Poole, etc.) seem to almost universally affirm that Luke 11:13 indicates that the Spirit should be prayed for today, while dispensationalists (e. g. Lewis Sperry Chafer, cited above in endnote 38, Ryrie and Unger as cited in this endnote, etc.) often affirm that He has now come to permanently indwell saints and that Luke 11:13 is a pre-Pentecost promise.
[xiii] It is important to mention that this does not mean Christians should refrain from asking for blessings from the Spirit, a greater work of the Spirit upon them to strengthen them spiritually, for greater measures of conviction of sin from Him, or similar sorts of requests. What is affirmed is that none of these requests relate to Luke 11:13, a verse that relates to Spirit baptism and the now completed dispensational transition connected with the Pentecostal gift of the Holy Ghost. Nevertheless, no prohibition for prayer for powerful works from the Spirit is argued for by an affirmation that the prayer of Luke 11:13 was dispensational and fulfilled in the book of Acts. Such works from the Spirit are good things, and the believer’s “Father which is in heaven give[s] good things to them that ask him” (Matthew 7:11; a parallel passage, to be sure, but a different occasion—note the differences specified in Luke 11:1 and Matthew 4:23-5:1; in the words of John Gill, commenting on Luke 11:1, “The following directions concerning prayer, though they agree with those in Mt 6:9, etc. yet were delivered at another time, and in another place, and upon another occasion: Christ was then in Galilee, now in Judea: he gave the former directions unasked for, these at the request of one of his disciples; the other were given as he was preaching, these immediately after he had been praying; as soon as he had done a work he was often employed in, as man and mediator, on account of himself, his disciples, cause, and interest: and this was done). Indeed, the Father will the more freely give glorious blessings by His Spirit when the people of God employ the promises of the Word that actually relate to what they are praying about—thus, recognizing what Luke 11:13 truly teaches should lead to more answers to prayer for mighty works from the Holy Spirit as verses that actually promise such (cf. John 16:8-11) are pleaded. Sound exegesis of the work of the Spirit will contribute to, not hinder, genuine blessings from on high and revival; poor exegesis contibutes to spiritual confusion instead of revival.
Spirit Baptism part 7, actual text
Spirit Baptism part 7, actual text