Ananais and Sapphira...lost?

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

No, the text says they were filled by satan.

Get out your Greek NT and read 4:31. The same verb is used to describe the filling of the Holy Spirit. Therefore these two are professed to have been void of the Spirit and filled by/with (does not matter which) Satan. Deal with the text. You do no have to believe it or like it but you have to accept that it says what it says. It says his heart was filled by/with Satan, ie possession/blasphemy.

 

[webdog]

You have a paradox solve. On the one hand, the Bible means what it says and therefore you have to deal with it. Or on the other, you can go and try and make it say what you want it to but you have not have it both ways.

The very same verb is used in 4:31 to refer to the filling of the Holy Spirit. So which is it are they filled with the Holy Spirit or are they filled with Satan? It cannot be both... even you admit that.

No kidding it means what it says. Unfortunately the greek has more than one meaning, and you cannot deal with that. Funny, you have no problem redefining "world" and "all" in calvinism discussions...but here "it means what it says".

 

[2BHizown]

I recieved the gift by faith, brother. If works are not a condition for being justified by works, then what is?

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 2:16
Faith is a gift that is given to God's own on regeneration of the heart, as is repentance!

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

No kidding it means what it says. Unfortunately the greek has more than one meaning, and you cannot deal with that. Funny, you have no problem redefining "world" and "all" in calvinism discussions...but here "it means what it says".

Hey do not go chaning the subject. You cannot have it both ways. If Satan did not possess infill or fill these two then I guess the Holy Spirit did not do it here either:

31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

The text in both cases uses the same word for "fill." So 'fill' your pipe with that and smoke it... end of discussion!:wavey:

 

[James_Newman]

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

So this is obviously a different justification than the one in James, which is by works.

 

[James_Newman]

Get out your Greek NT and read 4:31. The same verb is used to describe the filling of the Holy Spirit. Therefore these two are professed to have been void of the Spirit and filled by/with (does not matter which) Satan. Deal with the text. You do no have to believe it or like it but you have to accept that it says what it says. It says his heart was filled by/with Satan, ie possession/blasphemy.

I use the same verb for filling my gas tank and filling my trousers. That doesn't mean I climb into my gas tank.

 

[Blammo]

Hey do not go chaning the subject. You cannot have it both ways. If Satan did not possess infill or fill these two then I guess the Holy Spirit did not do it here either:



The text in both cases uses the same word for "fill." So 'fill' your pipe with that and smoke it... end of discussion!:wavey:

Who is arguing the meaning of "filled"? You are saying they were filled with Satan; the text seems to say Satan filled them with the intent to lie. Either way "filled" DOES mean the same thing.

Nice try. (quit smoking whatever is in your pipe)

 

[Blammo]

You think that someone in the early church who is recorded to have died on the spot after lying to the Holy Spirit for whatever reason is funny? I find that sad.

This was cute too.

James did not say he thought what happened was funny. He said your interpretation of what happened is funny.

 

[J. Jump]

That no-lordship error is so dangerous to the soul of so many!

A BIG amen to that one. Your statement is EXACTLY correct, but you are misusing terms as many in Christendom do today. Unfortunately you are applying Lordship to spiritual salvation instead of what you talked about in the above quote, which is the soul.

Whether or not someone accepts Christ's Lordship is relevant ONLY to one's soul not one's spirit which is made alive at the moment someone believes in the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, Who died and shed His blood on their behalf a sinner.

Nowhere in Scripture does God require Lordship to deal with sin. He requires death and shedding of blood. Salvation is Jesus as the Lamb, not Jesus as the Christ.

Whether or not someone accepts Christ's Lordship determines whether or not one's "soul" is going to be saved in the future. Only a "saved" (spiritually alive) person is even in a position to accept or reject Christ's Lordship. A spiritually dead person is not interested in having anyone be lord/Lord over them except themselves. But after the spirit is made alive then a person is "able" to see in a differnt Light, although that doesn't mean they will.

How would you prove you had in fact received the gift?

There is no way one can prove that they accepted a spiritual gift. The whole idea that it is spiritual means that it is unseen.

It's just like if while I'm typing my wife came up and gave me a kiss then an hour later I would not be able to "prove" to anyone that she gave me a kiss. I couldn't "prove" it a minute after she gave it to me.

Nowhere in Scripture does God require proof of acceptance of something that was done on the behalf of the other. If God required something of me then it wouldn't be grace at all. Grace means no requirements.

No discipleship on the other hand has requirements. And that's why there will be payment at the end of the discipleship road, whether good or bad.

I am theologically trained, biblically well informed, and spiritually well grounded.

These self-proclaimed experts are the ones that I am REALLY leary of

 

[2BHizown]

So this is obviously a different justification than the one in James, which is by works.

There is no justification by works stated in James or any other book of the bible.
Further study could possibly clear up your questions.

 

[LeBuick]

Second, you clearly state, "I understand satan cannot co-exist with the Holy Spirit." Well, let me ask you this, how can Satan, who is not omni-present/science/powerful, come into your thoughts if the Lord is present in your body? This does not say that you have allowed your own sinful nature to do this or so. No it states that Satan has filled their hearts. Satan does not have the power to oppress/possess/infill/or place thoughts in your mind. He is not God and never will be. He only has the power to be in one place at one time. And he is not welcome nor able to enter the holy of holies, the temple of the Holy Spirit, which is your mind/body/soul, if you are born again and bought with the blood of Jesus. There is power in the blood!

I disagree with you here which lead to other post I disagreed with.

You make Satan out to be the guy with the pitch fork and tail. Satan is a spirit, an evil spirit and not a person. This spirit does exist in all men to include those that are saved. Go back to Paul in the 7th chpt of Romans, even if I would do good, eveil is present. He says the evil is in his flesh. Go back to Jesus in the wilderness, he was tempted yet he was alone. Where do you think the tempter was? You think he was walking along with Jesus?

The power Satan has is temptation. He can and will tempt us just as he tempted Jesus. He can make you do it, but he has a lot of practise at tempting people.

Why is it not believable that Satan put the thought in the mind's to hold back a little instead of giving all like the rest of the Church who were on one accord. Holding back the money though bad, is not the lie. The lie came when they denied the fact that they held back part of the bucks.

 

[LeBuick]

There is no justification by works stated in James or any other book of the bible.
Further study could possibly clear up your questions.

I agree, James is saying show me a believer with no works and I will show you a person who really doesn't believe. Justification and salvation is purely by faith and faith alone.

We do not work to be saved, we work because we are saved. Part of salvation is renewing ones mind to a mind like in Christ Jesus. One that will work.

 

[Hope of Glory]

What exactly does one mean "that you must make sure you are really, really, really, really truly saved, and if yourworks don't reflect that, then you're not."? Is that somehow different from "saved"? I have never found the phrase "really and truly saved" in any Bible I've looked at. In fact, in the KJV (AV) , RV, or ASV, I don't believe you can even find the words "real" or "really". But I did manage to find "saved", "sure", "know", "certain", and "certainty". Granted, "certain" is rarely, if ever, used in the way we use the word, today. Oh yeah, you do find "truly", but I don't believe you can ever find that word used in the context of "salvation", at least not in the AV. I'm not so sure about the ASV, not havig looked up each word change from the KJV. But both 'truly' and 'certain' are found in Scripture unlike "really". Now back to our story, after shooting at the theological rabbit running by!
I've found, over the years, that "really and truly saved" seems to be little more than a 'code phrase' for "Lordship Salvation", which is itself, a "back-door" attempt to sneak "works" inside the building, and attempt to push them out in front of the 'hoss', rather than having that wagon at the door to hitch to. The problem is the door! The door at "Salvation Stables" is only wide enough to ride the horse of faith thru. The wheels on the 'works wagon' are too wide, and, does not allow the wagon to be pushed through the door. But get that horse out the door, hitch him to that wagon, and he can and does perform admirably and properly. Think about it!

Ed, I was using satire to state exactly what you have said here.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Get out your Greek NT and read 4:31. The same verb is used to describe the filling of the Holy Spirit. Therefore these two are professed to have been void of the Spirit and filled by/with (does not matter which) Satan. Deal with the text. You do no have to believe it or like it but you have to accept that it says what it says. It says his heart was filled by/with Satan, ie possession/blasphemy.

Acts 4:31 uses ἐπλήσθησαν and Acts 5:3 uses ἐπλήρωσεν.

They both mean "filled", but have slightly different connotations, because they are different words.

 

[James_Newman]

There is no justification by works stated in James or any other book of the bible.
Further study could possibly clear up your questions.

Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Not according to 2BHizown, James. Further study might clear that up.

I agree, James is saying show me a believer with no works and I will show you a person who really doesn't believe. Justification and salvation is purely by faith and faith alone.

No, this is what James is saying, which does not agree with what you say he is saying.
Jam 2:24
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

We do not work to be saved, we work because we are saved. Part of salvation is renewing ones mind to a mind like in Christ Jesus. One that will work.

Yeah, I don't put gas in my car to get to work, I put gas in my car because I have a job.

Cannot you see that James 2 and Romans 4 are talking about two different things? That is why they seem to contradict. Not because James is speaking in some type of mystical reverse meaning. 'If you read it backwards, you see that James is saying the same thing Paul is saying.' Baaaaloney.

 

[LeBuick]

No, this is what James is saying, which does not agree with what you say he is saying.
Jam 2:24
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

You left out the previous verse;

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

It said Abraham believed God, then add the part about you see how it works.

Then go here

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Again, he is not saying you must have works to be saved, he is saying we work because we are saved. You have to get the sequence right or you will destroy Jn 3:16 and Rom 10:9

Besides, you can't take one Epestile and have it overshadow the rest of the NT. They all must be viewed in harmony.

 

[James_Newman]

You left out the previous verse;

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

It said Abraham believed God, then add the part about you see how it works.

Then go here

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Again, he is not saying you must have works to be saved, he is saying we work because we are saved. You have to get the sequence right or you will destroy Jn 3:16 and Rom 10:9

Besides, you can't take one Epestile and have it overshadow the rest of the NT. They all must be viewed in harmony.

If works touch any part of the gospel of free grace, it is tainted. Lordship salvation is a lie designed to take your assurance from you and to keep you working to prove your salvation instead of seeking the reward that the Lord has offered to His own who will serve Him. James is all about a believer adding works to their faith. James is speaking to people who are already saved, period. There is nothing that can be added to the salvation that is by faith alone. Abraham was justified once by faith, and then he was justified a second time by works added to faith. He would not have lost the first justification if he had not gone up the mountain to sacrifice Isaac, but he would not have gained the second either.

We are told to rightly divide the word. We cannot harmonize two things that are not supposed to be harmonized.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

After reading this passage ... I think (Ananias and Sapphira) were probably saved. But as SBCPastor pointed out earlier, Scripture does not make a definitive statement to that effect.

Either way, God is not very Seeker-Sensitive, is he?

And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things. Acts 5:11

:saint:

 

[LeBuick]

If works touch any part of the gospel of free grace, it is tainted. Lordship salvation is a lie designed to take your assurance from you and to keep you working to prove your salvation instead of seeking the reward that the Lord has offered to His own who will serve Him. James is all about a believer adding works to their faith. James is speaking to people who are already saved, period. There is nothing that can be added to the salvation that is by faith alone. Abraham was justified once by faith, and then he was justified a second time by works added to faith. He would not have lost the first justification if he had not gone up the mountain to sacrifice Isaac, but he would not have gained the second either..

Did you change positions or were we agreeing all along?

What I meant by harmonizing is some folks tendancy to take one verse nd try to build or justify a doctorine. My point is, if you understanding of that one verse is in conflict with any other verse then your understanding is wrong.

 

[LeBuick]

I hope Webdog doesn't mind but let's go a step further...

Everyone sold their land, houses and all their posessions and laid the proceeds at the Apostle's feet. Then distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Where did every one live? Where they a commune?

Did any of them work? Did they bring their checks to the Apostles and were given according to their need?

How was need shown? Where they allowed creature comforts?