Could you say the same?

[bmerr]

I think the important point is that believers somehow "receive" the Holy Spirit (not merely the Charismatic gifts) who seals them, and that thus, the Holy Spirit is in/with believers in a special way. Romans 8:9 says that "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." So, what we can know, and what is important for this conversation, is that if the Holy Spirit is not working in, through, and with someone in this special way (whatever the nature of that way), that person is not saved; conversely, if the Holy Spirit is doing so, that person is saved.

Mike,

bmerr here. In Acts 2:41, those that gladly received the word were baptized. Considering John 6:63, where Jesus said the words that He spoke were spirit and life, could "receiving the word" and "receiving the Spirit" be synonyms?

Certainly as one lives by the word, he is living by the Spirit that inspired the word. It seems as though just about anywhere soemthing can be attributed to the Spirit, the same thing can also be attributed to the word. The exception to this would be in the manifestation of miraculous gifts, which served to confirm the spoken word.

As I said earlier, I'm not opposed to one believing in a personal indwelling, just the direct operation.

Thus, the salvific receiving of the Holy Spirit may well be coupled with Charismatic phenomena, or at least may well have been in the early days of the Church, so that when we see that someone "received" the Holy Spirit and that He "fell on them" or "filled them" or that someone began manifesting supernatural phenomena, the two are not mutually exclusive, but coupled together. Case in point: the believers in Samaria.

Near as I can tell, with the exception of Cornelius, each time miraculous gifts of the Spirit were imparted, it was done through the laying on of the hands of an apostle, and those receiveng them had already obeyed the gospel, and were thus saved. The Samaritans and the 12 men in Acts 19 would demonstrate this.

Both groups had heard, believed, and obeyed the gospel. Both groups had an apostle to lay hands on them. Their salvation and the manifestation of spiritual gifts were separate incidents. That's how it looks to me, anyway.

In the case of Cornelius, (have we come full circle?) the Spirit falls independent of the laying on of apostolic hands, and, from what I see in the text, as Peter began to speak, thus before they had heard the gospel by which they would be saved.

The biggest difference in this case from most conversion accounts is that Gentiles are to be the audience, where up to this point only the Jews had been preached to.

At the same time, the biggest similarity between Acts 10 and Acts 2 is that there are Jews who needed to be convinced that what was happening was sanctioned by God.

In both cases, the gift of tongues, whereby people spoke a language they did not have the natural ability to speak, yet the hearers could understand, is bestowed by Christ without anyone asking for it, and the result is that the Jews who were present are convinced that God is authorizing the events that are happening.

Wow. Happy fingers :type: ! My contention is that the impartation of spiritual gifts, whether by Christ (Acts 2, 10), or through the laying on of an apostle's hands (Acts 8, 19) is always portrayed in the Scriptures as a separate event from one's salvation through faithful obedience to the gospel.

Final thought, I wanted to make it clear, in case of any misunderstanding, that I do not hold baptism to be more important than repentance or faith, only that it is equally important.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Bmerr,

First, I apologize for my absence. I am away every other weekend helping at a church some distance from the school. Apparently, a Restoration Movement church needs help badly enough to enlist a crazy Baptist. :laugh:

Now, on to your last post.

Again, I see your point with all of the references to the Spirit being possibly applicable to the Word, except in one noteable case: I Corinthians 6:19--"Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?" Now, in context, this verse is talking about why fornication is so bad. Why is fornication so bad? Because the very spirit of God is personally dwelling within us, in a similar manner to the way God dwelled in the Old Testament temple.

I do agree, however, with your position that the "falling" of the Holy Spirit and the "indwelling" or "receiving" of the Holy Spirit are two separate things. I think that in the Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19 cases they happened in very short sequence, but they are not connected in essence with one another. I don't think that, under the New Covenant, the "falling" can happen to someone who hasn't had the "indwelling" happen, though. That is, as far as I can see, an unsaved man cannot have the Holy Spirit fall on him, at least the way things have worked since that Pentecost.

Again, with Acts 10/11: the way I read it, it seems to fit my perception of that sequence of events (Cornelius heard the Gospel, received the indwelling Spirit, and had the Spirit fill him so everyone else knew it). Likewise with Acts 19. In Acts 8, the Samaritans believed and were baptized in Jesus' name, but did not receive the indwelling Spirit because He had not been poured out on them yet, and so received Him via the laying on of hands, and His presence was made known by the signs. In Acts 2, the Apostles believed, received the Spirit (but not until He was poured out), and then the Spirit filled them so they could preach the message.

What I'm saying is not necessarily that I'm right, but that the Scripture is equally consistent with my view and with yours, and so our debate must turn its focus elsewhere to make any progress, lest we just wind up arguing in circles. The grammar of Acts 2:38 has been discussed, and so far as I can see, the original hearers would have heard Peter say something like this: "The group of you repent (and let each single one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of the sins of the group of you, and the group of you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Again, word order is not important in the Greek except to add emphasis (that is, what is listed first is considered of more importance in Greek, but syntactically it makes no difference).

Final thought, I wanted to make it clear, in case of any misunderstanding, that I do not hold baptism to be more important than repentance or faith, only that it is equally important.

Nope, no misunderstanding, at least on my part. I shared your view long enough to know it quite well. And while I understand your statement, I disagree with it. The Bible does not make baptism as important than repentance and faith. Faith is the basis, the foundation for the whole thing. To me, saying that baptism is as important as faith is like saying the living room is as important as the foundation.

I look forward to continuing this conversation again.

Michael

 

[bmerr]

Mike,

bmerr here. The 1 Cor 6:19 thing does lend itself to a personal indwelling, which I'm not strictly opposed to. Certainly will require more study.

I do agree, however, with your position that the "falling" of the Holy Spirit and the "indwelling" or "receiving" of the Holy Spirit are two separate things. I think that in the Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19 cases they happened in very short sequence, but they are not connected in essence with one another. I don't think that, under the New Covenant, the "falling" can happen to someone who hasn't had the "indwelling" happen, though. That is, as far as I can see, an unsaved man cannot have the Holy Spirit fall on him, at least the way things have worked since that Pentecost.

The distinction I see in the Acts 2 and Act 10 events from those in Acts 8 and 19 is that in 2 and 10 there is a beginning. Acts 2 is the beginning of the church, and Acts 10 is the beginning of the gospel being carried to the Gentiles. In each case there were Jews that needed to be convinced that what was happening was from God. Also, both occurrences took place apart from any human intervention.

Acts 8:18 notes that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostle's hands, which is what we see in Acts 19. These cases involve people who had already heard, believed, repented, and been baptized.

Acts 2 was an instance of baptism with the Holy Spirit, administered by Christ, which Peter referred to when describing the events at Cornelius' house. Cornelius & Co do not appear to have heard the gospel, and had certainly not yet obeyed the gospel so as to be saved, so I don't see how they could have been.

Again, with Acts 10/11: the way I read it, it seems to fit my perception of that sequence of events (Cornelius heard the Gospel, received the indwelling Spirit, and had the Spirit fill him so everyone else knew it).

If the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) is the indwelling of the Spirit, then Cornelius had not yet received it, since he had not yet been baptized. The Samaritans had been though, and so had the 12 in Acts 19. What they received through the laying on of the apostles' hands was something separate from whatever they received at baptism.

The apostles seem to be a unique case. I'm not aware of any Scripture reference that shows that any of them were baptized under the NT, except Paul. My guess is that if they had responded to John's baptism while it was still in effect, (which seems likely, since Jesus did, and they were His disciples), they were already saved, and were not in need of baptism under the NT.

What I'm saying is not necessarily that I'm right...

Good, because I am clearly in the right :laugh: !!!

...but that the Scripture is equally consistent with my view and with yours, and so our debate must turn its focus elsewhere to make any progress, lest we just wind up arguing in circles.

I'm not opposed to examining other Scriptures, but I don't think we're quite done with the Acts examples quite yet. Forgive me if I seem repetitive.

The grammar of Acts 2:38 has been discussed, and so far as I can see, the original hearers would have heard Peter say something like this: "The group of you repent (and let each single one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of the sins of the group of you, and the group of you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Again, word order is not important in the Greek except to add emphasis (that is, what is listed first is considered of more importance in Greek, but syntactically it makes no difference).

Mike, I still don't see how baptism can be viewed as unneccesary with regard to the remission of one's sins.

The Bible does not make baptism as important than repentance and faith. Faith is the basis, the foundation for the whole thing. To me, saying that baptism is as important as faith is like saying the living room is as important as the foundation.

If faith without works is dead, and it is (James 2:17, 20, 26), and repentance and baptism are what is commanded of believers, and they are (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 22:16), then how are both repentance and baptism not equally important parts in the believer's response to the gospel? Certainly both of them are predicated on belief, else what would be the point of either? I'm just saying that belief, apart from either repentance or baptism is of no avail.

Time to get back to work.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Bmerr,

Good to hear from you again. I was beginning to worry that you'd forgotten about our discussion.

The distinction I see in the Acts 2 and Act 10 events from those in Acts 8 and 19 is that in 2 and 10 there is a beginning. Acts 2 is the beginning of the church, and Acts 10 is the beginning of the gospel being carried to the Gentiles. In each case there were Jews that needed to be convinced that what was happening was from God. Also, both occurrences took place apart from any human intervention.

I agree. So what we're seeing is the same phenomenon happening by different means and for different purposes.

Acts 8:18 notes that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostle's hands, which is what we see in Acts 19. These cases involve people who had already heard, believed, repented, and been baptized.

Indeed. The Holy Spirit himself (and not merely a miraculous sign) was given through the laying on of the Apostles' hands in Acts 8. Not so in Acts 19; there He "came upon" them rather than indwelling them at the laying on of their hands.

Cornelius & Co do not appear to have heard the gospel, and had certainly not yet obeyed the gospel so as to be saved, so I don't see how they could have been.

Except that they could have heard the Gospel and believed the Gospel, and so the only way one can authoritatively assert that they weren't saved would be to accept your view a priori; that is, you seem to be arguing along the lines of:

Baptism is essential.
They were not baptized.
Thus, they were not saved.
Therefore, baptism is essential.

That's a circular argument, which is why I say that this whole passage is consistent with both our views by itself, and can easily support either position. I showed earlier how the Acts 10 and Acts 11 can both be chronological, so the way you take this passage depends entirely upon the theology which you embrace when you begin looking at it (although I would argue that taking it with "fresh eyes" would lead to the conclusion that Cornelius and Co. heard the Gospel, believed it, and were saved before baptism, but you knew that already).

If the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) is the indwelling of the Spirit, then Cornelius had not yet received it, since he had not yet been baptized.

If remission/the Holy Spirit is conditioned on faith/repentance apart from baptism, as I have been contending, then Cornelius very well could have been indwelled already. That's why I suggested we leave this passage for now and look at others.

The apostles seem to be a unique case. I'm not aware of any Scripture reference that shows that any of them were baptized under the NT, except Paul. My guess is that if they had responded to John's baptism while it was still in effect, (which seems likely, since Jesus did, and they were His disciples), they were already saved, and were not in need of baptism under the NT.

Not to make a rabbit trail off our rabbit trail, but if John's baptism was invalidated in the New Covenant, and the baptism with the Holy Spirit is not salvific, and the Apostles did not undergo a "Christian" baptism, then there seems to be no way for them to have been saved, except by citing thirteen separate exceptions to the rule, and I'm inclined to disagree with the entire concept that God makes exceptions to His conditions for salvation (and, from things I've read from you, it seems you're inclined the same way).

Good, because I am clearly in the right :laugh: !!!

Nuh-uh! :laugh:

Mike, I still don't see how baptism can be viewed as unneccesary with regard to the remission of one's sins.

Gramatically, there is a disconnect between the two, as has been shown. The break and resume in thought during the "be baptized" clause disconnects it from remission of sins. Is it that grammatical disconnect that you're having trouble seeing?

I'm just saying that belief, apart from either repentance or baptism is of no avail.

Indeed. I heard one who held your view analogize it to making a PB&J sandwich, how bread, jelly, and peanut butter are all essential, and so you can't call one more important than the others. But, from what I can see, that is not the Bible's view on it, and I think some Restorationist theologians secretly agree when they try to redefine "faith" to include "obedience."

Sorry for the long post. I'll try to restrict my amount of quoting next time.

Michael

 

[Darron Steele]

I think it is noteworthy that the events of Acts 10 was gone over THREE times in Scripture, and that a church-wide decision was made on the basis of it in Acts 15.