The fact that you see two patterns and “exceptions” tells me that maybe we don’t quite have a proper grasp or understanding yet.

As for the apostles receiving the Spirit at Pentecost, it appears that Jesus gave the disciples the HS, before Acts 2 (see verse after this para), and some of them were filled with the HS again in Acts 4.31. Maybe Christians can be “filled” more than once.

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
John 20.21-22

This next passage seems to be saying Jesus sent out his Apostles with power. Wouldn’t the power come from the HS? (Lk 4.14)

And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal.
Luke 9.1-2

And in Mat 10 Jesus sent out disciples in pairs to: heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons. Would they be able to do this without the Spirit? He said they received without paying, and to give without pay. What did they receive? Could it have been the HS?

When I endeavor to understand a Biblical truth, I look for the understanding that doesn’t leave any “holes” or inconsistencies. I cannot accept that God can be inconsistent if he wants in Acts, but we have to live by the epistles. If it appears that God has “exceptional cases”, maybe we just don’t have a clear understanding yet. After all, Acts is the history of what was actually happening as most of the epistles were being written.

Maybe the apostles were baptized here, Luk 3:21.

I think 3 is the most likely case.

The epistles and Acts reveal two different patterns for receipt of the Spirit. According to the epistles, all with the Spirit are saved and only those with the Spirit are saved. The Spirit is received when someone is saved and lost when they fall away. But Acts has a number of accounts where that pattern is broken.

The correct analysis, I think, is to treat the epistles as normative but recognize that God is not bound by his own norms. He can make exceptions when it suits him to do so, and Acts has a number of exceptional cases.

The apostles received the Spirit at Pentecost although they had had faith long before and there’s no recorded baptism of them. Cornelius received the Spirit before baptism. The Samaritans received the Spirit after baptism.

But each of these exceptional cases drives the narrative of Acts — showing God working through the Spirit to spread the gospel throughout the world.

1 Cor 12 discusses gifts of the Spirit, such as tongues as prophecies, and explains that the Spirit gives gifts as he pleases. There’s no uniform rule as to how someone obtains a particular gift. Indeed, the passage is clear that not everyone gets the same gifts. But we all receive the Spirit.

Acts 8.15-17
…who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

We teach that one is saved at the point of immersion…this passage seems to indicate that the people had been converted to the point of being immersed in the name of Jesus (this is as far as I got at 15 yrs old) it doesn’t say they weren’t “saved”. BUT they sent men to these ppl of Samaria to make sure they received the Holy Spirit.

Is Rom 8.9 saying that these ppl in Acts 8 weren’t saved until the ppl from Jerusalem came and laid hands on them and they received the Spirit? Does this mean that we should we be sure to send ppl out to verify that all who are “saved” have the Spirit?

It seems that both the Spirit and the gifts that he “apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor 12) can come at a later time than “when saved”. What does this do for what Paul said? Could there be a translation inconsistency? or something?

I’m just trying to gather a clear understanding, it’s not my intent to argue, but there seems to be more to it than, just “We receive the Spirit when saved.”

Thank you for your discussion.

Jay, just curious: do the translations we read do an accurate job of translating “spirit” with the capital or lower case “s”?

But does that mean Paul is using the word in a vulgar manner? I think it is a matter of context and intention on the part of Paul, the later of which we can never know since we do not posess or have access to the mind of Paul. My guess is that Paul was not be flipant with his toungue nor was he seeking to be like the world. Rather, he used that word to show the severity of his point.

I recently preached on this passage and the way I dealt with it was to say that “Paul uses a term here that is best translated as “crap” or a term that is vulgar enough that I won’t actuall repeat it but I am telling you this to tell just how worthless Paul feels about all the religious accomplishments we could boast on.”

Grace and peace,

Rex

I have to agree with you. A reference to feces is not necessarily vulgar. It takes much more than the fact that Paul used a word that might mean feces or might mean refuse to make him into a vulgarian.

I read several blog posts across the internet that people have written on this question, and I would up feeling like I was back in 6th grade — with a bunch of guy snickering at every word that might have a scatological or sexual reference.

Personally, I think Adam nailed it. As is so often the question, it’s about the heart and spirit behind the usage. Teach a class of seventh graders, and they may giggle when you talk about the “damned” going to “hell” — because their mommies taught them these are dirty words. And they aren’t. But call on God to damn someone to hell, and that’s not cussing, it’s cursing — because of the heart behind it.

When I was an unbelieving adolescent, I used profanity on a regular basis. When I became a Christian, the Spirit of Christ convicted me of my sin in this area. The Scriptures are clear that I am to speak in ways that honor my Savior. He deserves it.

Deut 6:5 Hear O Israel! The Lord our God – The Lord is One!

1 Cor 8:6 but to us One God the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we exist.

Now unless Paul changed Gods, 1 Cor 8:6 certainly looks like a quotation of Deut 6:5 (one, Lord, God) with Jesus placed right in the middle. Within the One True God are God the Father and Christ the Lord.

Jay, I apologize for getting this started again.