First, Ray’s comment to which I was responding, and then his three later comments. I quoted nearly all of his first comment in mine, but figure he’s entitled to have the full text posted.
Ray at 7:56 PM.
I figure the reason Jay thinks the apostles received the “gift of the Spirit” without being immersed is that he for some reason wants to believe every gift of the Spirit is identical, which they are obviously not. Since there is no record of the apostles being baptized for the remission of their sins after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, it might be surmised that they were not baptized with “Christian baptism.” But that’s not taught doctrine. It’s a guess.
I see good reason to believe that there were varying gifts of the Spirit. Some, after having received the promised “gift of the Spirit” at baptism were later said to have been “filled with the Spirit.” There’s no definition given for this filling. It’s just stated that it happened. Since it happened to the same people more than once, it obviously is not a one-time event as is receiving the gift of the Spirit upon baptism into Christ.
And others in early days did receive varying spiritual gifts. SOME could prophesy. SOME could heal. SOME could interpret “tongues.” SOME could speak sometimes “in tongues.” None of these gifts seem to have continued to happen past the apostolic age. This causes me to think those “gifts of the Spirit” were transmitted only by the “laying on of hands” by an apostle, as they were in those first years while the apostles were alive.
“The gospel” is good news about JESUS, not about His Spirit. We are called to spread the gospel throughout the world. The Spirit is sent at the Father’s direction and the unique Son’s direction. At times selected by them. It is suggested that we should ask to “receive” the Spirit. Yet the Spirit is given (God’s GIFT) to every believer at the conclusion of the new birth of water and spirit. So it might be thought obvious that there are varying “gifts” of the Spirit. And our commission is to carry wherever we go the message about Jesus, not about His Spirit.
[My last post goes here.]
Ray at 8:11 PM
Jay tells Price that Paul had to be baptized to receive the Spirit while the other apostles received the Spirit without being baptized. Tilt! Paul had to be baptized to receive remission of sins and a “gift of the Holy Spirit.” That’s true. And we have no record of the other apostles ever being baptized. That’s also true.
But it does not follow that the baptism in (with) the Spirit which was promised to the apostles and which they received as recorded by Luke in Acts 2 is the same GIFT of the Spirit which Paul and every other convert to Christ received upon baptism. I’m sorry to have to disagree with Jay, but in this case he simply is wrong. There are differing gifts of the Spirit. Some were baptized in the Spirit (only the apostles so far as I know). Some received power to heal and do other unusual things and this was by a laying on of hands by apostles. And ALL converts to Jesus as Lord received a gift of the Spirit which I choose to call simply, “an indwelling of the Spirit.”
Those who received the indwelling had NO power to perform miracles of any kind. Those who received a laying on of apostolic hands did receive unusual spiritual powers. The apostles received powers which only they possessed. They were promised by Jesus that they would be able to remember all He had taught them while He lived on earth and was with them in person. They were promised they would be led into all truth–additional truths Jesus had not taught while He was here. These are differing gifts of the Spirit. They are not all the same. There’s no reason we should try to claim they are all the same.
Ray at 8:29 PM
About the experience enjoyed by Cornelius and his household–Whatever it was that happened to them, the SIGNS of it convinced Peter that he could then baptize them into Christ, at which time they would receive the promised gift of the Spirit’s indwelling. We shouldn’t overlook that it was SIGNS which did the convincing.
Those signs were the same as seen on Pentecost when the apostles were baptized in the Spirit. Those signs were never seen during normal baptisms. So, no, what Peter was speaking about was not the baptisms of the 3,000 that first day. No signs accompanied them or at least are told of. It would be expected that Luke was giving a complete record of these events.
So it is NOT the baptisms of others that convinced Peter that it was God’s will that Gentiles could be baptized into Christ. It was signs like those that accompanied the baptism in the Spirit of the apostles. There were no signs accompanying the baptisms of the 3,000 or the additional 2,000 the next day. There WERE signs which could be seen by Peter and those who accompanied him and which could be reported by them to other church leaders later in Jerusalem. This may have been sounds or may have only been sights. But it was what Peter needed to see in order to convince him that the formerly hated Gentiles now could be baptized into Christ and become equal partners with Jewish Christians in serving Jesus.
How amazing are the ways of our God! He gave signs which could not be mistaken, both for the birthday of the church for Jews and for the first Gentiles who later were made part of His kingdom. Much water had gone under the bridge (figuratively speaking) before the Gentiles were accepted into the JEWISH church of the first years.
Ray at 9:07 PM
Jay, Luke’s language makes clear that it was only the apostles who were baptized in the Spirit. The pronoun “they” is preceded by “the twelve” rather than by “the 120.” And the miracles were performed, Luke informs us, “by the apostles.” No mention of power given to the 120. The preaching was not done by the 120. Peter stood up with the other apostles and preached. He did not stand up with the 120. There’s no good reason for us to assume baptismal power was bestowed on the 120. I certainly do not believe it. I’m not sure why you want to believe so. The text surely doesn’t say that.
And I have to disagree with these claims which follow. They are simply not true according to what is revealed.
Moreover, there are examples of Christians having gifts without apostolic laying on of hands. Romans 12 mentions the presence of prophets and other spiritual gifts in Rome, and yet no apostle had ever been to Rome.
Jay, do you submit proof that no apostle had ever been to Rome before prophets and others spiritual gifts by Christians were said to have been present? And shall we believe that every Christian in Rome had never received a laying on of hands by an apostle? That is what you’re saying. I’ve missed seeing any such statements in Luke’s record. Where did you learn of these facts?
The Corinthian church was filled with miraculous gifts, and yet Paul had only baptized a few. It would seem odd that he’d refuse to baptize, for fear of creating a class of members having a special, apostolic baptism, and then lay hands on some but not all — which would surely have created far more jealousy than baptizing some but not all!
Your conclusion is seen, but it is not necessary that any thoughtful student would agree with it. What is certain is that the apostolic “laying on of hands” was not conferred as the apostle baptized converts. It was a separate act which did not involve water so far as is stated. And inasmuch as special gifts were NOT the same for all, why would we conclude that Corinthians would have any valid reason for jealousy if some HAD a gift and they didn’t have it or if Paul for any reason chose to anoint some but not others? We do well to not jump to conclusions based on what WE prefer Paul or any apostle to have done.
I think the Spirit is was and is sent at the Sons(Jesus) request. Although you could argue that they are one and the same! I think Jay believes that the Apostles received empowerment is because it was recorded that they would. One of the gifts received on this great day was obviously the ability of speaking in different languages. Why speak in different languages one this day? Because Christ is proclaiming to all peoples the good news. I am not sure why we would discuss the immersion of the apostles. Christ instructed us to be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins and for the gift of the Holy Spirit. If it is required of us by Christ then they would also be required to be baptized. Just because it is not recorded is no reason to then question whether they did or did not! Is is stated that if everything that happened was recorded that there would not be enough room for all the books. The problem that Paul is addressing to the church in Corinth is the very reason the Christ tells us that miracles would cease. The Corinthians were putting emphasize on the gift they had received and elevating themselves based on the gift they had received not in the reason for which the gift was given. Remember we desire power so we can claim that we have been graced with Gods favor missing the reason behind the empowerment. Paul concludes that we should pray for the gift of prophecy(meaning sharing the gospel not predicting the future) and for the gift of Love. This congregation clearly need to pray for the gift of Love. I am not sure why one would think that we receive apostolic powers if were baptized by an apostle specifically. So if one could show me scripture describing such a event, I would like to read the verse or verses. I have read the scripture in Romans and I am not understanding how we come to the conclusion that the gifts described by here are empowerment requiring the laying on of the hands of the apostles. I understand them as gifts that we acquire by being graced by Christ for the very purpose of proclaiming the good news. We receive these same gifts through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Don’t stumble on the gift of prophecy(proclaiming the Word). I guess you could think that this is proclaiming you are a prophet of God. Considering this is occurring at time when this occurred. But then again prophet exist today the question that we must ask ourselves is true/false prophet. What would be the point of one today? We have the revelation of Jesus Christ what other revelation is needed!
Hi, Robert–
You observed, regarding prophesy: “Don’t stumble on the gift of prophecy(proclaiming the Word). I guess you could think that this is proclaiming you are a prophet of God. Considering this is occurring at time when this occurred. But then again prophet exist today the question that we must ask ourselves is true/false prophet. What would be the point of one today? We have the revelation of Jesus Christ what other revelation is needed!”
>>>
To work from top to bottom, if all prophesy is is the proclamation of Jesus (the Word of God) then why would Paul call that a gift, and insist that the Corinthians earnestly desire to do it? All it takes is opening one’s mouth. Paul does not call preaching a spiritual gift. You seem to have eliminated what the scripture calls prophecy and replaced it with Bible teaching. That would be an unfortunate conflation and an unbiblical one.
Did Paul claim to be an apostle? Then why should not another man say that God has called him as a prophet. Your words seem to dismiss this with a sniff of disdain rather than with scripture or with reasoning. As such, it is not convincing.
You are absolutely correct in suggesting that we should discern whether a person is a true prophet or a false prophet. This is not unlike the Spirit’s message to Ephesus, where he commends them for testing those who claimed to be apostles and were not. Please consider: if there were no more apostles and no more prophets, there was no need to “test” them. Same today. Your cashier does not test three dollar bills with one of those little markers. That would be foolish. We are not warned against “prophets” but only against “false prophets”. If Paul told us, “Don’t expect any more prophets,” rather than teaching the exact opposite, your point might have substance.
As to “what more is needed?” one might as well ask this about all Paul’s letters and about Revelation. The Twelve had presented the gospel and it was being spread throughout the known world. The church had the gospel, so who needs Paul? Or John’s revelation? Why did we not sweep them away as being superfluous? Because in that day, the church was not so arrogant as to assume that they knew everything about God that they needed to know, all wrapped up in some writings by a variety of church members. They knew that God had been speaking to men for thousands of years and it never occurred to them to presume that He had suddenly shut up.
It’s hard to “stumble over” prophecy when we don’t understand it or acknowledge it. We don’t stumble over what we long ago tossed out of our path.
Charles, I am new to this so bear with me! I think praying for the gift of prophecy is another way of saying I need to be gifted in order to proclaim Gods Word to others. The gospels were not completed and Jesus thought that he needed Paul. Considering Paul had a big hand in many of the books written. When we read and teach from the Bible we are prophesying are we not? I am confused one minute your stating that they had the gospel and then in the next paragraph your pointing out that they did not have this great book of enlightenment. I still need an answer to my question which is; what point is there today to have prophets?(like those in the old testament where they are filled with the Spirit or empowered by God to proclaim a new message or revelation) Are they going to reveal something new that Christ was not able to have written in his revelation that he inspired to these men to leave to us? Something like the revelation of Joesph E. Smith. My point is that there is no need for that to occur today. We have the Spirit and the Word or revelation. I would be cautious around anyone claiming that he is a prophet of old proclaiming a new message other than the one that is left by our Lord. How effective was this system at getting the chosen to turn from there ways? What is it that they did that is any different then what we are demanded to do? Are we not sent out to proclaim Jesus to the whole world so that all might repent and change their ways. Is this not the same exact mission that they were sent to do? Today we have a great multitude of Spirit filled individuals proclaiming the Good News. Praise God!
Robert wrote: “I think praying for the gift of prophecy is another way of saying I need to be gifted in order to proclaim Gods Word to others. ”
>>>
Robert, is that REALLY what you think Paul was saying when he encouraged the Corinthians to desire to prophesy?
I have considered the following hypothetical conversation:
“I have given apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers to the church, to equip the saints for works of service.”
“Well, thanks, Jesus. I guess we’ll take the evangelists, shepherds and teachers. We can certainly find work for them. The shepherds can run the congregation, the teachers can fill the pulpit on Sunday and the evangelists can go talk to unbelievers for us. But you can keep the apostles and prophets. We don’t need ’em.
“Oh, no offense, Jesus! It was a nice offer, and I’m sure that back in the day when people didn’t know everything we know, apostles and prophets were pretty darn useful. But with all we know now, what with Bibles and concordances and Greek Interlinears and Vines and Thayers and all, I can’t see a single use for apostles and prophets. Nope, we just don’t need those gifts anymore. Thanks for the evangelists, though. We’ll take more of those if you got ’em.”
I won’t presume to know just what Jesus would say next, but I am pretty sure I wouldn’t want to be here for it…
I guess we will agree to disagree on this subject. I am not writing to say that I am right or wrong, I only offer a differing view or insight. I understand Romans 12 pointing out that the gifts given are given for a purpose. And I asked what would be the purpose of prophesy mentioned here? What is your insight into the word “prophesy” what is causing you to get upset with my thought on this word?