Does this passage support the Pentecostal doctrine of the second blessing?

Acts 2:1-4 states, “When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. ² And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. ³ And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. ⁴ And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.” Pentecostal theologians claim that this passage supports the doctrine of a Spirit baptism. Is this the case?

Pentecostals interpret this passage through the lens of John the Baptist’s words: “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Mt. 3:11-12). Hence they see Acts 2 as a fulfillment of John’s prophecy articulated here. Just as the believers in Acts 2 were told to “wait for what the Father has promised” (Acts 1:4-5), so Pentecostals claim that believers should wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

And yet, we contend that Pentecost was a special event that was punctuated by certain signs—not to be expected in our day. There are a number of problems with the Pentecostal interpretation of Acts 2:

First, this passage really doesn’t fit with the Pentecostal scenario. The AOG position paper states, “The disciples’ experience at Pentecost serves as a paradigm for later believers.” However, we believe that Pentecost was a unique, one-time event, which we shouldn’t expect to be repeated today. In fact, there are a number of differences between Pentecost and Pentecostal practice today:

We find it inconsistent to expect some parts of Pentecost for today, but not others.

Second, tongues do not always accompany salvation in the book of Acts. While tongues do accompany salvation in three instances in the book of Acts (2:4; 10:46; 19:6), they do not always follow it. For instance, later in this same chapter, 3,000 people come to Christ, but they never speak in tongues as these first believers did.

Third, while both Matthew 3 and Acts 2 refer to the Holy Spirit and fire, this is simply word association. Our first rule of hermeneutics is context—not word association. When we consider the very next verse in John’s speech, we read, “His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Mt. 3:12). This refers to judgment—not speaking in tongues. This interpretation also parallels the earlier context which states that some were baptized and saved (v.6), while others were unrepentant and were judged (v.7). Thus we see nothing in Matthew 3 that would predict Spirit baptism—only salvation and judgment.