Ananais and Sapphira...lost?

[EdSutton]

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.

Amen, Bro! Preach on!
The key words here would seem to be "You see how..." This is how man sees it; this is not how God sees it. God 'saw' it once, in Gen. 15:18, done, signed, sealed, and delivered! Man 'saw' this 'total faith' thirty years later at Mt. Moriah!

Ed

 

[Hope of Glory]

Second, in the context of the book of Acts the exact same verb was just used in the previous chapter to describe what is unarguably the filling of the Holy Spirit.

Nope, different verbs, with different roots. Similar, but different.

Acts 4:31 is from the root "pimplEmi" (Strong's 4130) and Acts 5:3 is from "plEroO" (Strong's 4137).

They are similar, but in Acts 5:3, it has to do with filling up a deficiency or influence completely. In Acts 4:31, has more to do with being fulfilled or being filled mentally. Neither implies a permanency, in and of itself, and neither implies an exclusivity.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Seems to me there may be some confusion as to being indwelt by the Holy Spirit and filled by the Holy Spirit.

I wanted to add this, but the time for editing again had expired.

 

[Hope of Glory]

The Holy Spirit fills/indwells/baptizes the same folks.

The Holy Spirit baptizes no one!

 

[Hope of Glory]

For examples of "possessed", see:

Matthew 4:24: Mt 4:24: And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were [possessed with demons (KJV has "devils", which is incorrect)] - [ones being demonized], and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

Matthew 8:16: When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were [possessed with demons (KJV has "devils", which is incorrect)] - [ones being demonized]: and he cast out the spirits with [his] word, and healed all that were sick:

There are other places, but this is much different than Acts 4:32:

This is different than Acts 8:7: For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed [with them]: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.

This is similar to Acts 16:16: And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

In Acts 8:7 and Acts 16:16, the individuals actually possessed the spirits.

In Matthew 4:24 and Matthew 8:16, they were "demonized".

This is different than "filled".

"Possessed" in 1 Corinthians 7:30 is different, as well, from all the others that I have mentioned. It has to do with "retaining": 1 Corinthians 7:30: And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Nope, different verbs. Similar, but different.

Okay, this is the last time I am going to address this ridiculous notion that these words are different. They are the exact same root word of plarow. eplarosen is the aor. ind. act. form of the root word and it means to fill or to control. In 4:31 the verb is in the aor. ind. pass. However, the root meaning of the word is the same, to fill. A. T. Robertson recognizes them as the exact same root word. I can assure you that no one in here is well versed enough in Koine Greek to understand how the root words transform in order to accommodate the needs of the culture at the time. While the two words are in different forms they have as their root the same meaning and are in fact derived from the same source or root word. If you believe otherwise then you really need to go work on your argument at the PhD level and teach us why we are wrong in the academic community.

Just because I am a nice guy, I will give you this one lesson in Koine Greek morphology. There is such a thing as a semantic domain to each verb in the Greek language. The semantic domain of each of these forms is the same. They mean to fill. plarow is a derivative of plaras 'full.' And it has at is basic root meaning, "to cause something to become full." In your Greek lexicon you will not doubt find that pimplami will be listed for the same verb in 4:31 and it has as its meaning, "to cause something to be completely full or to fill completely, to fill up." plaras which these words derive from means, "a quaint of space completely occupied by something or full."

Now all you want to be linguists out there, I do not care how your slice it there is no argument you can put forward that makes this anything other than what it is.

According the NT Greek, Satan occupied, filled, spiritually controlled these two. That is what the idea of Satan filling your heart has at its root. Satan does not have power over the born again Christian. Jesus bought us with his blood. For Satan to gain control of you, he would have to wade all the way through the blood of Jesus. Then he would have to crack open the seal of the Holy Spirit. If he got that far he would be one saved Devil. We know that is not going to happen.

So unless you have studied at the PhD level in NT Greek, or are competent to discuss Greek morphology then please give this one a rest because you guys are over your head and splitting hairs that do not effectively change anything.:tonofbricks:

 

[Hope of Glory]

I can assure you that no one in here is well versed enough in Koine Greek to understand how the root words transform in order to accommodate the needs of the culture at the time.

No one but you, right?

And yet, you make the unbiblical statement about being baptized by the Holy Spirit, and somehow equate that with being indwelt and filled by the Holy Spirit, and equate those two terms as well.

Interesting.

 

[James_Newman]

I'm not even going to pretend to be a great greek scholar, but I can see even in the same chapter, the same word used in vs 28

Acts 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

Explain now how the disciples possessed/controlled Jerusalem. I think that perhaps you have filled this thread with a bunch of authoritative hot air.

 

[James_Newman]

One thing we know is that only God reads hearts and knows for sure. We have to wonder actually whether a true believer would lie to the Holy Spirit! Our acts reflect our faith. This was a very effective lesson in increasing unity in the early church.

Getting back to the real world, I would have to question what was so significant about this particular act that would make it more abominable than lying to any member of the church that was indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Why is it that if my wife tells me a lie, she is not immediately judged for blasphemy and lying to the holy spirit?

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

No one but you, right?

And yet, you make the unbiblical statement about being baptized by the Holy Spirit, and somehow equate that with being indwelt and filled by the Holy Spirit, and equate those two terms as well.

Interesting.

No. I am not suggesting that I am the only one who is correct. I listed A. T. Robertson, for one who agrees with me among many others, as a historic Baptist who formerly was the original Pres. of SBTS and to this day quite honest the most brilliant NT linguist to have grace Baptist circles. Seeing that you are referring to Strong's as your source of reference that tells me most everything I need to know about your qualifications. No one in this thread has demonstrated a knowledge of Koine Greek that I can recognize as credible in terms of their scholarly merit. Everyone has a right to their opinion. But I have formerly studied with two of the best evangelical scholars out there, Adreas Kostenberger, PHD Trinity and David Alan Black DTheol Basil. I do not refer to grammar text books for my list of meaning nor would I ever bring up Strong's in a discussion. Why because Strong has been discredit in his methodology. Try the "The Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament" by Rogers&Rogers or Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament or even better still "The Greek-English Lexicon of the NT based on Semantic Domains, Vols. 1-2."

I have not ever made any statement in this thread that is unbiblical. I challenged you to start a new thread on the Holy Spirit if you want to exchange ideas. Put up or stand down but do not smack talk without backing it up.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

I'm not even going to pretend to be a great greek scholar, but I can see even in the same chapter, the same word used in vs 28

Acts 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

Explain now how the disciples possessed/controlled Jerusalem. I think that perhaps you have filled this thread with a bunch of authoritative hot air.

Jamie,

Please do not try and be cute, you have only made my case even more strong by bringing 5:28 into the discussion. The teaching filled Jerusalem. It was infiltrating the city. Satan does not infiltrate the spirit/mind of the believer. Satan does not enter the believer. The teaching entered Jerusalem and filled it. Same word as vs. 3 and in the same form as vs. 3. Great illustration. BTW, you do not have to be a Greek scholar to read the Bible, but you do need to be a Greek scholar to read the Greek NT accurately and reliably.

 

[Blammo]

Jamie,

Please do not try and be cute, you have only made my case even more strong by bringing 5:28 into the discussion. The teaching filled Jerusalem. It was infiltrating the city. Satan does not infiltrate the spirit/mind of the believer. Satan does not enter the believer. The teaching entered Jerusalem and filled it. Same word as vs. 3 and in the same form as vs. 3. Great illustration. BTW, you do not have to be a Greek scholar to read the Bible, but you do need to be a Greek scholar to read the Greek NT accurately and reliably.

That's great, BPT(Phd wannabe), you just made my case.

Acts 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

You have correctly stated it was the "doctrine" that filled Jerusalem, not the "ye". Based on your argument with me, wouldn't the above verse mean that "Peter and the other apostles" filled Jerusalem?

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

That's great, BPT(Phd wannabe), you just made my case.

Acts 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

You have correctly stated it was the "doctrine" that filled Jerusalem, not the "ye". Based on your argument with me, wouldn't the above verse mean that "Peter and the other apostles" filled Jerusalem?

Just because I do not wear my titles on my sleeve does not by any means indicate that I am a wannabe. I am quite confident in my scholarly acumen, enough to come in here and straighten out the babel that you are feeding me.

As to your suggestion that Peter and the other apostles should be the ones who filled Jerusalem, the Greek NT literally states "you have filled (one word in Greek) Jerusalem (one word) of teaching (one word) your (one word)..." Those four words translate "you have filled (same word and in same word form as vs. 3) Jerusalem with your teaching."

So if you read the Greek NT it states exactly what I suggested that it does, that the doctrine of the Apostles teaching had filled the city of Jerusalem.

No confusion here. And Satan still is not going to fill the heart of a believer in Christ. What is your foundation? My foundation is Jesus and he is my savior. He says he has me in his right hand I will not be taken from him. Satan has no power over the believer. These two are not representative of true believers but hypocrites. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[Blammo]

Just because I do not wear my titles on my sleeve does not by any means indicate that I am a wannabe. I am quite confident in my scholarly acumen, enough to come in here and straighten out the babel that you are feeding me.

As to your suggestion that Peter and the other apostles should be the ones who filled Jerusalem, the Greek NT literally states "you have filled (one word in Greek) Jerusalem (one word) of teaching (one word) your (one word)..." Those four words translate "you have filled (same word and in same word form as vs. 3) Jerusalem with your teaching."

So if you read the Greek NT it states exactly what I suggested that it does, that the doctrine of the Apostles teaching had filled the city of Jerusalem.

No confusion here. And Satan still is not going to fill the heart of a believer in Christ. What is your foundation? My foundation is Jesus and he is my savior. He says he has me in his right hand I will not be taken from him. Satan has no power over the believer. These two are not representative of true believers but hypocrites. What is so hard to understand about that?

Acts 5:3 ...hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost...

("to lie to the Holy Ghost" is what filled the heart of Ananias, not Satan.)

Acts 5:28 ...ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine...

(their doctrine is what filled Jerusalem, not Peter and the other apostles)


I don't have any trouble with the English. Far better educated men than you translated the Greek into English for us. Now we can read and study the word of God for ourselves instead of looking to folks like yourself for doctrine.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Seeing that you are referring to Strong's as your source of reference that tells me most everything I need to know about your qualifications.

And just why do you assume that I use Strong as a source of reference? I use Strong's numbers, just as does the Brown-Driver-Briggs, Thayer, and others. You know what happens when you assume something? (If you had been paying attention instead of spouting off at the mouth, then you would know my opinion of Strong's as a reference source, but you strike me as a pompous sort of fellow, so I doubt that you have read anything before you spout off.)

If you want to look at the Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains, you will have to look under 4398 for Acts 4:31 and under 4444 for Acts 5:3.

There are 24 verses that use the same root as the one in Acts 4:31. There are 86 verses that use the same root as the one in Acts 5:3.

Oh, I'm sorry, you have more expertise than anyone else, so there must be 110 verses that use the same root.

BTW, if you want to play dueling PhD's, I can play that game as well.

I have not ever made any statement in this thread that is unbiblical.

You certainly have. Here's your exact quote:

The Holy Spirit fills/indwells/baptizes the same folks.

The Holy Spirit baptizes no one. (Someone else, I believe it was Blammo, pointed out that filling and indwelling are not the same thing also, but he can only fill those who are indwelt. Either way, the Holy Spirit baptizes no one.)

 

[Blammo]

The Holy Spirit baptizes no one. (Someone else, I believe it was Blammo, pointed out that filling and indwelling are not the same thing also, but he can only fill those who are indwelt. Either way, the Holy Spirit baptizes no one.)

It was actually J.Jump that pointed this out. Thanks for the compliment, but I consider myself more of a student than a teacher.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

And just why do you assume that I use Strong as a source of reference? I use Strong's numbers, just as does the Brown-Driver-Briggs, Thayer, and others. You know what happens when you assume something? (If you had been paying attention instead of spouting off at the mouth, then you would know my opinion of Strong's as a reference source, but you strike me as a pompous sort of fellow, so I doubt that you have read anything before you spout off.)

If you want to look at the Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains, you will have to look under 4398 for Acts 4:31 and under 4444 for Acts 5:3.

There are 24 verses that use the same root as the one in Acts 4:31. There are 86 verses that use the same root as the one in Acts 5:3.

Oh, I'm sorry, you have more expertise than anyone else, so there must be 110 verses that use the same root.

BTW, if you want to play dueling PhD's, I can play that game as well.



You certainly have. Here's your exact quote:



The Holy Spirit baptizes no one. (Someone else, I believe it was Blammo, pointed out that filling and indwelling are not the same thing also, but he can only fill those who are indwelt. Either way, the Holy Spirit baptizes no one.)

So my point in saying that you are referencing strong's numbers seems to indicate to me that you got your information from Strong's. I think I have made my case as to why I believe what I do about this thread. Now as I have said, start another thread if you want to discuss the finer theological points of the Holy Spirit. Put up or stand down, but do not smack talk unless your are willing to back it up. Start a thread and I will be there...

In your above analysis you do not seem to show an awareness of the difference in root meaning, and root form. Words take on many forms but have at there semantic root the same meaning. Why are you trying to derive a difference in meaning when the words have the same root meaning? I have listed several good laymen's resources for your consumption. Try and reference some of them and tell me what is different in terms of the actually root meaning in terms of semantic domain in the verb form 4444 vs 4398. A. T. Robertson sees them in effect as having the same root meaning or source. Now answer that question. You are making a big fuss over the differences in these words, but they mean the same thing. So what is your point?

You said "BTW, if you want to play dueling PhD's, I can play that game as well." Tag your it. I have listed who I studied with at the doctoral level, how about you? Who have you studied with that I am going to recognize as leading scholar in the evangelical scholarly community? I have already laid down my cards...

And just so you will know I have read every word of everyone on this now reviling excuse for a theological discussion of a thread.:tongue3:

 

[2BHizown]

No I am not at all confused. I am theologically trained, biblically well informed, and spiritually well grounded.

I love this statement of such extreme humility!:tongue3:

 

[DHK]

You said "BTW, if you want to play dueling PhD's, I can play that game as well." Tag your it. I have listed who I studied with at the doctoral level, how about you? Who have you studied with that I am going to recognize as leading scholar in the evangelical scholarly community? I have already laid down my cards...

And just so you will know I have read every word of everyone on this now reviling excuse for a theological discussion of a thread.:tongue3:

You don't know people on this board very well. You are very pompous and trust more in your education rather than in Christ. At least that is my assessment.
I am not going to tell you how many degrees I have, nor how many years of post-secondary education I have taken, but I willing to guess that (considering your age which is in your profile) that it is more than you.
As far as I am concerned I was saved as an adult and have been studying at the foot of Jesus for more years than you have been alive. If I were you I would tread softly.
DHK

 

[EdSutton]

Ed there is really no need to sign Ed at the bottom of your posts because we see your name Ed Sutton as your call sign, that is unless putting Ed at the bottom is a type of euphemism for "Word." There now word from Ed... Ed out.:tongue3:

Not wanting to sound combative, here, since I'll save that for later if need be, but that is how I choose to sign off on the BB or anywhere else. I have done it for a while, I shall continue to do so in the future.:smilewinkgrin:

Ed