Baptism, An Exploration: Of Sawdust and Planks, Part 1

252 Responses to Baptism, An Exploration: Of Sawdust and Planks, Part 1

1. Jay Wilson says:

   February 10, 2011 at 7:52 am

   Jay, maybe you present certain words and phrases just to get a reaction out of people rather than to present a more accurate picture. It seems to me that you generalize and accuse whole groups of people -particularly churches of Christ. It is true that some churches have catered to a very legalistic and stilted view of baptism, "the one true church," and many other teachings. And if your parents and your school sort of channeled you into the more legalistic and Spirit-less churches, I hope you know that not all churches of Christ adhere to what you were taught.
2. Jerry Starling says:

   February 10, 2011 at 8:55 am

   Jay G. wrote:

   "Now, when I charge the Churches of Christ with error regarding the Spirit, you may think I’ve forgotten that the subject is baptism. But, you see, they go together hand in glove. They are inseparable doctrines. Indeed, get one wrong, and you’ll get the other one wrong."

   How true!

   Jay W., the doctrine of the churches of Christ that Jay G. presents as being flawed is the same doctrine that I grew up with. Yes, things are changing – some – now. Unfortunately, Jay's charges remain true in far too many churches across the land. Our "evangelism tools" (Bible Correspondence Courses, filmstrips, sermons, etc.) focus much more no baptism than on Jesus. In fact, when someone says we are saved by grace through faith, he feels compelled to immediately add that "this does not mean we do not need baptism."

   In this series Jay has done a superb job of presenting the Biblical meaning of baptism – as God intends it to be. He has also shown that faith is indispensable. I believe it was Leonard Allen who pointed out that a well used book on "The Gospel Plan of Salvation" (T.W. Brents) barely mentions the cross. In my own hearing, a gospel preacher accused K.C. Moser of teaching that baptism is not for the remission of sins – when Moser's actual words were "Baptism is not for the remission of sins in the same way the blood of Jesus is for the remission of sins."

   Yes, things are changing – and it is clear, comprehensive teaching such as Jay is doing on this blog that are helping us to correct the errors of our past (that still linger in the present) so that we will not carry them forward into our future.

   Somewhere along the line we got sidetracked from the real focus of the gospel and made baptism the center piece. If Jay can help us to put the focus back on Jesus and trust in Him, we should be grateful.

   Jerry
3. Royce Ogle says:

   February 10, 2011 at 9:21 am

   And we've denied that the Holy Spirit as a "seal" not only shows ownership but is more than that. It is also clearly God's "guarantee" He will complete the transaction. We certainly can't emphasize that aspect because when we do our people can't be saved and then lost and then saved for scores of unscriptural reasons. The HS is a guarantee or He is not. The Bible says He is.
4. Theophilus Dr says:

   February 10, 2011 at 9:53 am

   Jay Wilson.

   Jay W, your point is well-taken, and I, for one, appreciate your post very much. You have raised some issues that really need to be discussed. I hope I don't sound like I am "speaking for Jay G," because Jay G can speak (and write) much more eloquently than I can.

   I have found it to be very difficult to write a summation about a group of millions of people who have a history of maintaining a list of rules or oral tradition, without writing them down except in tracts, bulletins, sermons at prominent institutions, articles in periodicals by editors who value themselves as the majority whip of the "brotherhood," etc., over the geographical expanse of the country and over the last 100 years or more. I can say this because I have tried to do the same thing, and I have had the same difficulty.

   My background is almost identical to Jay G's, and I was reading down Jays post thinking, "Yes!, Yes!, Yes!" For me, this post summarizes in an organized fashion the major attitudes that the "mainstream, publicized, prevailing establishment" has promoted for a century or so that help to explain the historical reasons of where "we" (generalization) are today. These are attitudes that have held the CoC back – quantitatively how much and how many congregations depend on the area and other things.

   Before problems can be addressed, they have to be clearly defined. Jay G's post does a very good job of summarizing some of these problems, and I can confirm what Jay has said. There is more to say, and I look forward to future posts by Jay G. But, analyzing the past and organizing and describing specific problems is to facilitate a plan of action and not to indite anybody. A post of this type will inevitably generate some defensiveness, and I can only speak for myself (as if I had written this post) that no such offensive approach is intended whatsoever.

   I may sound like I am defending Jay G, but it is really the message, because I could have written the same thing, although it would have been more verbose and ambiguous. (I would have been more precise in discussing spiritual gifts and fruit of the Spirit, since they are not the same, but that's another story). 🙂

   There are many things to be thankful for, and one of these is represented by Jay W's post. (1) I thank God for every congregation and person in the CoC who is part of a local group such as Jay W describes. I thank God for Jay Wilson. I thank God for every Spirit-directed exception to what Jay G described in his post. May your light shine brightly. (2) I thank God that the "mainstream" attitudes of the CoC have shifted over the last 50 years toward a greater understanding of the power of the Holy Spirit. I thank God there are CoC congregations who are growing in understanding of the miraculous power of an active Holy Spirit and in the understanding of what the Unity of the Spirit means. I thank God that I attend one.

   But there are too many congregations and too many people who still hold to the historical prevailing attitudes about doctrines that divide the body of Christ and that are based on things of the physical realm and not the spiritual realm. These attitudes quench the work of the Spirit. Many of the problems Jay G described are based physically-limited thinking. Just read comments on some of the blogs, this one and others. The battle is in the spiritual realm and "we" have blinded ourselves too long.

   I would have added one more category to Jay G's post. "We" have allowed ourselves to be "blown about by every wind of doctrine" while vehemently denying it. How? When one doesn't like what someone else's doctrine is claiming, the reaction is to go to the opposite side. The classic CoC reaction to groups with doctrines of baptism in the Holy Spirit being speaking in tongues and associated behaviors and "you don't have the HS unless……" have generated a response of "baptism in the HS only occurred twice" and "God doesn't work that way anymore" and "this all died out with the apostles" etc ad nauseum. That enforced interpretation is based on looking at someone else's doctrine and not based on looking at Jesus through the revealed Word. There are many ways to be blown about by doctrine. One is buying into it hook, line, and sinker. The other is reacting to it rather than seeking the real truth from the Word. Discussions on the One In Jesus site help to direct us to the Word and the Spirit of the Word and to challenge our traditional thinking.

   Jay, I apologize if I created more confusion. (Both Jay W and Jay G).
5. Price says:

   February 10, 2011 at 10:09 am

   When a theological doctrine eliminates the active and present Holy Spirit from modern Christianity one is left with a deflated balloon. IMHO, the relegation of the H.S. to First Century Only has left us with a church of flesh under the control of man. How many young adults in our congregations could write 3 meaningful paragraphs concerning the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today? He has become an "it" that is no longer present instead of a real person of the God-head.

   Romans 8:14 "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God".. What does that say about those who no longer believe that He is applicable in our lives…I always enjoy watching people try to avoid denying Him and yet maintain His insignificance.

   Again, IMHO, the sacredness of water versus the Spirit in baptism may be the greatest error the church has ever taught.
6. Norton says:

   February 10, 2011 at 11:14 am

   Amen Brother Jay. According to Acts 19, the fact that the twelve Ephesian believers had not been taught about nor received the Spirit, caused Paul to question their baptism. Scarey isn't it.

   On the brighter side. Years ago my rural church of about fifty had only one elder. He taught adult class and did most of the preaching for some fifteen years. He was strong on "The Spirit dwells only through the Word". Most of the congregation disagreed, but we were young and rarely challenged him. After fifteen years I don't think he swayed one person to his view.
7. guy says:

   February 10, 2011 at 11:24 am

   Price,

   The truth is, i'm not really certain what i think about the HS. But if i were forced to take a position right now, it'd be some strong form of cessationism–most if not all of the HS passages describe phenomenon exclusive to the early church. Again, that's only if i were forced to pick; the truth is i've yet to hear any explanation that connects all the dots and clarifies all the puzzles for me.

   My point is though, my puzzlement over this topic in no way harms my belief that Christ is Lord of heaven and earth even presently and that He is actively participating in my own discipleship. i don't see why it should. i'm not sure why i should think the HS is God's only means of working in my life.

   Just hypothetically, suppose you found out tomorrow that the HS was first century only–God told you or someone demonstrated conclusively from the text or whatever, just suppose. What would that change for you and your following of Christ? Would you stop being a Christian? Would you stop loving Christ? Would you stop striving to obey His teaching? Would you stop praying? Would you stop encouraging other disciples? Would you stop believing the church can make a difference in the world through Christ's power? If none of this, then what would change?

   –guy
8. Laymond says:

   February 10, 2011 at 12:01 pm

   Again, IMHO, the sacredness of water versus the Spirit in baptism may be the greatest error the church has ever taught.

   What church did you ever attend that taught this, and why did you stay there.?
9. Laymond says:

   February 10, 2011 at 12:10 pm

   Norton, this is another thing that baffels me, why would you continue to go to a church that you believed was teaching falsely? Did they make you go there?
10. Laymond says:

    February 10, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Guy, nothing would change, not even their belief. because the place they claim their belief comes from, does not exist. and as you say they can not explain exactly what this modern day HG does for them that God does not do for us, That is the reason I pray "Father which are in heaven" as Jesus suggested we do.
11. guy says:

    February 10, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    laymond,

    If i had to leave every time someone said something i thought was wrong, i'd never stay at any congregation very long. Where could i go where no one ever said anything with which i disagreed?

    –guy
12. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 10, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    Guy, firstly, I apologize to you for trying to put on another person's hat (my hat is truly Price-less) and address your questions. But your questions are very good and they represent ones that I would have asked in previous years.

    I think the idea of cessationism was promoted mainly to use as a weapon against groups who claimed if one didn't speak in tongues they didn't have the Holy Spirit and used passages in the book of Acts to "prove" their point. That is clearly eisegesis, but we in the CoC have done the same thing for our "proven" doctrine.

    I was in the periphery of a conversation once about God, and one person said, "Whether or not God exists is just how you define it." I thought to myself, "That is so stupid! As if a human could define the creator God out of existence? That doesn't change God in this universe one little bit." Then I thought, "Wait a minute. He can define God out of existence …. for himself in his own little universe." He doesn't change God, but he can make God not exist in his life, because God has given him that choice.

    Then I thought of the common saying, "Oh, God doesn't work that way anymore." And I realized that the statement has no impact on the God who created the universe, but maybe God doesn't work that way in this person's life. God has given them that choice, as well. I studied the Word and found how much of the power of God at work through me depends on my faith. I can limit God's power in my life by lack of faith. How does "God doesn't do that anymore" fit into that?

    You asked, "What would change?" The measure of the power of God for the church. Power for evangelism, power for growing into full knowledge of Christ, power for the church to become more like our standard, the New Jerusalem, power to hear the Holy Spirit revealing the truth in God's Word. That would translate into number of people saved and maturity of the body of Christ, just like in Acts.

    There isn't much in your post that I would disagree with, except it needs to ask another question: "What would change?" That depends on "How much to we want to continue to miss?"

    How much have "we" (CoC generalized) missed over the last 50 years or more claiming that God doesn't work that way anymore. We wanted to cut the water off to the Pentecostals and we cut our own spigot instead. That's the way it works when people come out of the flesh instead of the Spirit.

    Stemming from my study, I think most denominations maintain some doctrine that is based on misinterpretations about accounts recorded in the book of Acts, including both Pentecostal and CoC. The Samaritans is an example, which you asked about and which I covered in another thread. We have to look past the details and see the big picture of what Luke was addressing. Many of the individual events in Acts were addressed toward a specific purpose. But does that mean humans can develop a doctrine that the Holy Spirit won't operate in that manner again?

    I finally realized, "Who am I to tell the creator of the universe what He can or will do anymore?" He can do anything, anytime, anyplace, any reason, any circumstances, and He doesn't have to check it out with me. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Now, I pray that the Spirit of God will empower us as in the book of Acts or more. I now say, "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief." I say, "Lord, bring it on."

    So what would change. Faith for the miraculous power of almighty God to work in my life.
13. Laymond says:

    February 10, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Guy, I didn't say run every time someone said something you disagreed with, ask them to show you in scripture where they formed their opinions.
    But I believe Jesus said "let the blind lead the blind" , and if you follow along you will fall into that same ditch.
14. RS says:

    February 10, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    Great post.
15. Grizz says:

    February 10, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Satan is a word that means, Accuser.

    It seems to me that many of the accusations people level at others, even sometimes at themselves, are a shifting of blame and responsibility.
    Jesus did not call me to shift the blame for my poor stewardship of my learning to others whenever the opportunity presents itself. Jesus called me to love others and accept others with their strengths and weaknesses intact…which is the only way I could possibly love them…or be loved by them.

    Was that your point, Jay?

    I feel there is yet an invisible elephant in the room. It is an elephant made up of all the things about Jesus being denied.

    John wrote at least seven times that Jesus described himself with 'I AM' statements. John also wrote of other self-revelations by Jesus. Some of them (usually the least understood) are more easily accepted than the rest. Others of those declarations are very uncomfortable. NONE of those statements can be discarded without doing violence to the picture Jesus painted of himself. To claim that we accept Jesus and yet reject any portion of even one of those revelations is to deny Christ is who he said he is.

    The implications are staggering.

    Shifting blame is just one of the ways Satan deceives people into undermining the love we are to show one another. 'Say your group misled you,' he whispers. 'Say you were part of a culture that got it wrong.' 'Shift the blame, at least some of it, to others whenever taking responsibility for your own deficiencies and sins is too uncomfortable alone.' Satan promises a little relief from the sting of personal failures in the stewardship of our own responsibilities. He even delivers on his promise – if we can just get past this 'small' lie to ourselves. And with some practice it gets easier and easier to accept the 'little' lie.

    Humility dies when we shift blame. Grace thrives and God is glorified when we own blame that belongs to us.

    It is a paradox worth knowing and accepting that this is life – that we can only live by dying to self-preservation and self-justification.

    How does this relate to issues with how HS immersion and immersion into Jesus are pesented? It relates because we present the 'little lie' as fact whenever "we" substitute "we" for "I".

    The message never suffers when we stop shifting blame. In fact, the message is freed of the burden of the 'little lie' when I accept that the failure in stewardship was mine when I accepted teaching without questioning and understanding it and checking it out. Accepting the blame makes me no more and no less guilty – and God cleanses continually such a confessor. No such assurance accompanies the 'little lie'.

    Jay, I do not now separate immersion into Christ from immersion in the HS. I cannot remember ever having done that. And yet I grew up in churches of Christ and became a Christian and a minister of the gospel in churches of Christ from Illinois to Nebraska to Arkansas to Texas to Indiana. I have heard good and bad sermons on this very subject of 'HS immersion v. into Christ immersion' from skilled and unskilled preachers and no one ever forced me to disregard the truth Jesus teaches and Paul teaches and Peter teaches. I visited IBC in Florence, Alabama for workshops in the 1970s; attended Soul-Winning Workshops in Tulsa, Oklahoma and in Chicago, Illinois and even helped get one started in Decatur, Illinois; attended seminars in Atlanta, Georgia and Estes park, Colorado and even in Corby, England and Brussels, Belgium; worshipped with brethren in hundreds (if not thousands) of congregations from California to Florida and from Ohio to Arizona and from Idaho to Michigan and right down to Tennessee in cities from Knoxville to Nashville to Memphis. Nobody coerced me into any of my heresies at any of those places. My heresies were (and are?) my own.

    So why offer such a blanket accusation of an entire brotherhood? Is it just hyperbole?

    Seekers find whatever it is for which they look…as Jesus promised. Shall anyone pretend one must not seek in order to find?

    Disregard me if you will, but let him who has ears hear the truth. Each one's misconceptions belong to the ones who accept them. Teachers are responsible, but so are learners. I am to blame when I fail to acknowledge that truth.

    Grizz
16. Laymond says:

    February 10, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    It is rare when a person of the "indwelled spirit" belief, that holiness is given at baptism, ever suggests that you read "Peter" Why ? because he places the burden of becoming "holy" upon the individual. Not some Personal indwelling of the "HS".
    1Pe 1:14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
    1Pe 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
    1Pe 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
    1Pe 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning [here] in fear:

    1Pe 2:1 ¶ Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
    1Pe 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
17. Randall says:

    February 10, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    Theophilus Dr,
    Above you mentioned that "the idea of cessationism was promoted mainly to use as a weapon against groups who claimed if one didn't speak in tongues they didn't have the Holy Spirit and used passages in the book of Acts to "prove" their point."

    I don't doubt that is a big part of the motivation. I might add that the notion that the HS is active in regenerating a person that is spiritually dead and bringing them to faith in Jesus is a concept associated with the most feared and misrepresented of all doctrines, Calvinism. Even Alexander Campbell was pretty much a Pelagian when it came to his understanding of conversion. So perhaps the CofC reaction against Calvinism (the Baptists used to be Calvinists) also contributed to the idea of cessation of the activity of the HS.
    FWIW,
    Randall
18. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 10, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    Randall, I think you are absolutely correct, and you used a key word in your description. It seems to me that FEAR is a common denominator among the various groups that developed a doctrine involving cessationism. And John said that those who fear have not been perfected in love, because perfect love casts out fear. Lack of love? …. That has been very costly.
19. Price says:

    February 10, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Dr. T….I need you to get a web site that my wife can post to when she gets frustrated and then you can respond for me !! LOL…Wow..excellent stuff…

    Brother Guy…you asked how would things change…In my world, it would all change.. I would be working out of my own individual flesh instead of being led by the Spirit. Paul said in I Cor 2:12 that we were given the Spirit in order "that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." Why would anyone want to go back to a time when we could NOT know the things that are freely given to us?

    Would worship change? Paul says in Philippians 3:3 "For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh– " Why would I want to go back to worship that was not empowered by the Spirit. Should I not wish to worship as Jesus said, "in Spirit and Truth." Why would I want to go back to a time when I had confidence in my own ability to do anything as well as if I were empowered by God?

    Would I love Jesus…the question might be "would I EVER HAVE loved Jesus" without the Holy Spirit…I believe the Bible plainly teaches that one doesn't call God, He calls us…It is by His Spirit that any of us have believed…Romans 8:29-30…

    So, yes, things for ME would change and change drastically. I can't speak to anyone else.

    Regarding the gifts of the spirit…I bet a pop quiz in most churches would be very revealing on the varying beliefs. My personal experience has been that there isn't a lot of BAD teaching about the Holy Spirit in the CoC…there is a TOTAL LACK of teaching about Him….outside of being a "seal" and that you "get" him at baptism…what else is taught ??

    Laymond, I sense you are digging in your heels…why? What would be wrong with God being interactive with His people ? What negative impact would that cause in the world ? I don't understand the resistance..
20. Price says:

    February 10, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    One more thing…why is it that when we disagree with a theological position we have to name that position after some person but the positions we agree with are referred to as the obvious Truth…??
21. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 10, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Price, I love that observation!! We (or considering Grizz's post, "I") tend to attach a label to something as if the label is a lead weight so that theological position will sink to the bottom of the pond so "i" will not have to deal with it. But that really does frustrate good communication. Thanks.
22. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 10, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    Laymond @ 1:13PM 02/10/11

    Thank you for referring to scripture in 1 & 2 Peter; it gives a better framework for communication. To better understand your post, please tell me your thinking about another passage in 1 Peter. ! Peter 1:1-3.

    ….To God's elect …. who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: (NIV).

    Now, this is a difficult passage to understand (with the elect, chosen, and foreknowledge in there), and unfortunately it gets only worse looking at it in the Greek. One view is that sanctification (being made holy) is a process by which the Christian is transformed more and more into the likeness of Christ. And this passage seems to say that sanctification is through the Spirit.

    Passages at the beginning of a writing are generally considered to provide the context for the passages to follow. 1 Peter 1:15-16 certainly calls us to be holy, but considering the context set in vs 2-3, what do you think is the role of the Spirit in this inner-working process?

    Considering the complexity of the vocabulary in these verses, I'm not sure how one interpretation could be clearly superior to another. I would like to know what your thinking is.

    Thanks.
23. guy says:

    February 10, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    Randall, Theo Dr

    i don't doubt some people who are cessationists hold that doctrine with an underlying motivation of fear. But i also don't doubt that some who believe in a presently active HS (or whatever you call the opposite position) also hold that doctrine with underlying suspect motivations.

    Freud offered a psycho-analytic explanation for belief in God. Everyone can't live without the idea of some "father" being over them to protect them and love them and make them feel secure. Thus, concluded Freud, belief in God is just mass delusion from suspect motivations.

    The fact is all the suspect motivations in the world don't determine the truth or falsity of the position in question. Even if Freud is right, it doesn't prove whether or not there's a God. And even if every cessationist is a scardy cat, that doesn't disprove cessationism.

    –guy
24. guy says:

    February 10, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    Price

    You wrote:
    "I would be working out of my own individual flesh instead of being led by the Spirit."

    How does that follow? How do you know God doesn't have some *other* means of enabling you and supplying your needs?

    You wrote:
    "Why would anyone want to go back to a time when we could NOT know the things that are freely given to us?"

    Again–how does that follow? How do you know there isn't some other way God now undergirds our religious epistemic pursuits?

    So what you're saying is if, hypothetically, you found this to be true, you'd stop doing what you're doing? Do you believe you've loved Christ this whole time? If you found out the Spirit doesn't work the way you think, would you really decide to quit loving Christ? You say you'd question whether you ever had. But i'm guessing you believe you do. So would you just quit trying regardless of whether it was genuine or illusory?

    Perhaps God is able to do more than we think or imagine. Perhaps He is powerful enough to work even in ways of which we are unaware. If so, why think if He does anything at all, it must be through "the Spirit"? Is God not sovereign enough to get things done and accomplish His purposes any other way?

    –guy
25. nobody special says:

    February 10, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    So apparently we can get to Heaven by our ability to obey? Laymond, if this were the case, Jesus would have never had to come. I am in no way saying that we do not need to obey, but even with everything clearly laid out for us (rules and regulations) WE ARE STILL GOING TO MESS UP!!! This is why the Spirit of Grace that indwells us helps us obey God and do as he commands whereas people that lived under the old law or who are not yet Christians don't have the same help we do. Why? Because they do not have the gift of the Holy Spirit which is his presence in our fleshly bodies! (Acts 2:38, 1 Cor. 6:19) Jesus brought GRACE and truth (John 1:17). Jesus knows we are going to mess up, and that's why we have to trust in his grace and not in ourselves and strive to do what he wants us to do!
26. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 10, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Guy

    I think you are absolutely correct. There are many references in scripture that suggest that things in the physical realm can happen that have the appearance of a miraculous event but they are a fraud from the enemy (2 Cor 11:13-15, others). I have had what may be more opportunities than most to know about both miracles and fraud. You mention certain words in your post: "people," "some," "Freud," "cessationist" for instance. These words all have something in common, and it seems pretty obvious to say it; all of these words describe people and not Jesus Christ. When we look at other people, whether they be Freud or frauds, we are going to end up off track. The challenge is to rise above the storm and keep eyes on Jesus and stay grounded only on His Word, because all things based on this world are noise and are usually a distraction from the Truth. Maintaining faith requires continually going back to the Word, back to the Word ……… Eyes off frauds; back to the Word.

    I have to keep remembering, if God said it, it is true. If someone else abuses it and is a fraud, it challenges my faith, but I have to continually go back to the Word.

    Thank you for your questions and comments. They help make me think.
27. Laymond says:

    February 10, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    "Now, this is a difficult passage to understand (with the elect, chosen, and foreknowledge in there), "

    Well not really, all Christians assume the totality of the bible was written for them, when it was not.
    Peter is strictly speaking to the Jews who are in foriegn lands.
    (anyway that is how I see it)
    1Pe 1:1 This letter is from Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. I am writing to God's chosen people who are living as foreigners in the lands of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia.
    1Pe 1:2 God the Father chose you long ago, and the Spirit has made you holy. As a result, you have obeyed Jesus Christ and are cleansed by his blood. ———.
    1Pe 2:10 "Once you were not a people; now you are the people of God. Once you received none of God's mercy; now you have received his mercy."
    Maybe if we remember what Paul said in Romans chap 11.
    Rom 11:1 ¶ I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.
    Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

    ( read the whole of Romans chap 11. )
28. Grizz says:

    February 10, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    Laymond,

    Your post highlights a bit of a different perspective than that which I have on this topic, which only serves to make my point more clear.

    When we read Peter, why is it that we immediately interpret the remarks you have so graciously listed for us in non-HS-guided ways? Does Peter explicitly say that this is to be done without utilizing the guidance of the HS? Or is this an interpretation based on the presupposition that if Peter wants us to understand the HS to guide us in these assignments then he will explicitly or implicitly say so with clarity that 21st century readers will recognize?

    I would challenge the idea that Peter would have to say anything specifically about involvement or non-involvement of the HS in these assignments by asking what makes anyone think that Peter considers HS involvement in our lives is only part-time and at the times of choosing of the believer?

    What do you think I might be missing?

    Grizz
29. guy says:

    February 10, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    Grizz wrote:
    "HS involvement in our lives is only part-time and at the times of choosing of the believer"

    This is a very interesting comment. It seems that many assumptions and unspoken rules about how the Spirit works get taken for granted all the time.

    Is the HS involved when the Christian sins?
    Does the HS stop being involved when the Christian fails to conscious seek the HS' involvement?
    Will the HS not be involved in the lives of Christians who don't believe that the HS is involved?
    Can the HS be involved when a Christian is unaware of the HS' involvement?
    Is it possible for the Christian to believe in a given instance that the HS was involved and yet it be false that the HS was involved?

    People seem to act like these things are obvious. Its certainly not obvious to me, nor obvious to me why i should think that any of these things are obvious.

    –guy
30. Jerry Starling says:

    February 10, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    Guy, in your reply to Price at 4:21 p.m. you asked several times, "How do you know God does not have some other way to …." work in ways of which we are unaware. I'm sure that He does. What these ways may be, I cannot imagine – nor can you.

    I do know that He has told me in many passages of Scripture about His Spirit transforming me. Now, I do not know how He does that; I'm pretty sure that I must cooperate in the process and I'm also pretty sure that the sword of the Spirit is also involved in cutting away the things of my flesh.

    But to say, as some of the comments on this blog seem to be saying, that those who believe in an active Holy Spirit are 1) claiming instant holiness and 2) renouncing all responsibility for their actions is just not true. Jay has certainly not implied that in his comments – nor have those who have commented. What I hear most of these saying is that God is doing for us and in us far more than we can do ourselves. As Paul put it in Philippians 3:12-13, we work out our salvation while God works in us both the willing and the doing of His will.

    Jerry
31. guy says:

    February 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Jerry,

    You wrote:
    "I do know that He has told me in many passages of Scripture about His Spirit transforming me."

    Since not one single passage in the canon of scripture is addressed directly to me, i cannot make this same knowledge claim. Whether any such passages are addressed to me indirectly or by implication is precisely what is in question for some–including myself.

    –guy
32. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 10, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    Laymond

    "Well not really, all Christians assume the totality of the bible was written for them, when it was not.
    Peter is strictly speaking to the Jews who are in foriegn lands."

    This is a most interesting comment. How do I choose what was written for me and what was not? Is what was written for me different from what was written for you?

    Is this a difference between "to" and "for?" 1 Peter may not have been written "to" me, but wasn't it written and preserved by the Holy Spirit over the ages "for" me? And "for" you? And "for" everyone?

    Otherwise, why should I bother to look up something in Romans chapter 11? After all, Romans was written "to all in Rome." Rom 1:7.

    Surely I must have misinterpreted what you meant. Please help.
33. Price says:

    February 10, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    Brother Guy… I must admit to finding your questions rather odd…. If I can't depend on God the Father sending God the Holy Spirit to do all the things that the Word says that He will do….then why on earth would I be expecting Him to do something that He didn't indicate that He would do? If He can't be trusted to do as He says, then on what basis would I assume that He would something else ? It's not a matter of His Ability to do as He wishes…He said He would do it so I Expect Him to do it. Debating on whether or not He could do anything that He wished to do has no bearing whatsoever on His commitment to doing what he said He would do.

    I trust Him with all that I am so I don't have to worry about being abandoned to my own ability. I don't know how it all works EXACTLY…don't pretend to..but I know that He said "Lo, I am with you always." Until He writes another chapter of the Bible and says otherwise…I'm taking that to the bank !!
34. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 10, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    Guy, you ask interesting questions faster than I can think of answers. I hope it is okay if I try to address a few questions. Some of my answers have verses that can be quoted and some are experience-based.

    Guy wrote: (but I added the numbers)
    “(1) Is the HS involved when the Christian sins?
    (2) Does the HS stop being involved when the Christian fails to conscious seek the HS' involvement?
    (3) Will the HS not be involved in the lives of Christians who don't believe that the HS is involved?
    (4) Can the HS be involved when a Christian is unaware of the HS' involvement?
    (5) Is it possible for the Christian to believe in a given instance that the HS was involved and yet it be false that the HS was involved?
    People seem to act like these things are obvious. It’s certainly not obvious to me, nor obvious to me why i should think that any of these things are obvious.”

    (1) The Holy Spirit is involved in the life of the Christian to the extent that the Christian yields control to the Spirit. What controls me controls my thoughts, attitudes, behavior, and future. Paul said the Spirit and the flesh battle for control (Romans 7:14-8:17), and control by the sinful nature (aka flesh) produces death (8:6). “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you” (8:9). Only Jesus Christ had total Spirit control, we do not. Sometimes we defer to the sinful nature and that is called sin. The Spirit is not controlling us at that time, and the Spirit may be “grieved” by our choice of flesh over Spirit, but because we are continually cleansed as we walk in the light (1 John 1:7), the Holy Spirit doesn’t have to leave and come back when we are willing to exercise a better choice to behave better.

    This is where the indwelling Spirit has a different manifestation than the operation of the Holy Spirit in almost every case in Acts. The indwelling Spirit transforms us into the likeness of Christ, the extent to which we will yield control to Him. The manifestations are the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5). In the book of Acts the manifestations were external signs for a particular occasion. The purpose was different. That is important for understanding the operation of the Spirit, but it does not support cessationism. To explain that would require another 40 pages.

    (2),(3),(4) All answers = YES. The Holy Spirit is part of the Promise of the Father (Acts 1:5,8; 2:38-39) and He doesn’t come and go when I think about it. By God’s grace, the Spirit is given because of God’s faithfulness and not because of mine. Thank God. The Spirit intercedes for me (8:26-27) and cries to the Father and testifies that I am a co-heir with Christ (8:15-17). I can recognize that the Spirit was active in my life even when I thought (as I was raised to believe) that those sorts of things were only for the first century. What’s the difference, then? I can allow the Spirit to work with greater power in my life if I have more faith and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. So I keep studying and searching and learning.

    (5) Can Christians be tricked and deceived into thinking they are controlled by the Holy Spirit and they really are not? Yes.

    (1 Cor 11:14-15) And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness.

    (1 John 4:1-3) Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

    Things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned, and the operation of the flesh cannot discern the Spirit (! Cor 2). That is why we need to be spiritually trained and to wear the whole armor of God (Eph 6) because we are in a spiritual battle

    (1 Tim 4:8) rather, train yourself to be godly. 8 For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.

    It is a whole lot easier to remain oblivious to the battle in the spiritual realms than it to become aware of it. As long as one remains oblivious, they don’t pose any big threat to the enemy. But when one become spiritually discerning, the enemy will send all hell at him. What one decides depends on faith, courage, stamina, and what one has the guts for. If one is not willing and prepared to undertake this mission, I would recommend they just stay in their easy chair. It’s a lot safer – at least for this world; I wouldn’t be so sure about the next one. Guy, trust me on this one; I have lived in both camps.

    Guy wrote: “Since not one single passage in the canon of scripture is addressed directly to me, i cannot make this same knowledge claim. Whether any such passages are addressed to me indirectly or by implication is precisely what is in question for some–including myself.”

    This is another matter for discernment. Some people say that Jesus told his disciples the Comforter would guide them into all truth, so that was just for the apostles and not for me. If that’s the case, then the great commission was to those standing there with Jesus in Matthew 28 and not for me, either. In fact, there’s nothing in there to me!! Where does one draw the line? For me, I must start studying scripture from the perspective that everything is directed to me, either actually or in principle, and it very rare that I eliminate something as not relevant. I believe all scripture was preserved for a reason.

    I hope this help in some way. Thanks.
35. guy says:

    February 10, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    Price,

    You wrote:
    "If I can't depend on God the Father sending God the Holy Spirit to do all the things that the Word says that He will do."

    This presupposes that the Word says that HS will do certain things *for me.*

    Maybe it does say that. If i found out tomorrow that my cessationist leanings (please note again they are only leanings) were all false and the HS actually does indwell me and actively works on me, etc., what would it change? i'd still go to church. i'd still pray. i'd still read my Bible. i'd still try to encourage my brethren. i'd still strive to obey all the teachings of Christ. i'd still try to develop Christ-like virtues.

    If instead i found out tomorrow that all my cessationist leanings are all true and the HS was for the first century only, what would it change? i'd still go to church. i'd still pray. i'd still read my Bible. i'd still try to encourage my brethren, obey Christ's teachings, and try to develop Christ-like virtues.

    Why? Because i trust Christ can save me and care for me regardless of which view turns out to be true.

    –guy
36. Laymond says:

    February 10, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    pretty much my point, the subject is pretty much the same but written for different people.

    Peter wrote for the Jews, and Paul wrote for the Romans.

    Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?
37. guy says:

    February 10, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    Theophilus,

    You wrote:
    "It is a whole lot easier to remain oblivious to the battle in the spiritual realms than it to become aware of it."

    Holding either view could be a form of "oblivious"-ness.

    You wrote:
    "In fact, there’s nothing in there to me!!"

    Exactly. Not one Bible author addressed me by name. Not one Bible author directly addresses anyone living in my specific socio-cultural context. If i found a letter in the trash tomorrow, i wouldn't just presume that the "you" or "we" in the text included me. If i saw a 500yro document in a museum tomorrow from, say, the king of Egypt to his court officials, i wouldn't read it and assume that every "you" or "we" included me. Thus, i have no place to presume that every "you" and every "we" in Scripture includes me. Whether the text applies to me indirectly or implicitly is a matter of study. Perhaps many of them do. Perhaps most of them do. Perhaps they all do. But taking for granted that they all do would be a basic mistake when reading any document of any kind that isn't explicitly addressed to me.

    –guy
38. Laymond says:

    February 10, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    Grizz asked.
    "When we read Peter, why is it that we immediately interpret the remarks you have so graciously listed for us in non-HS-guided ways?"

    1Pe 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning [here] in fear:

    "Does Peter explicitly say that this is to be done without utilizing the guidance of the HS?"

    Well no, but. he does say you will be judged on how well you do it. Why would God feel he needed to judge his own work?
39. Price says:

    February 10, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    Guy, if you can't trust God to do what He said He would do…why would you go to church? I'm certain that when he fills you with His presence things will radically change in your life. Why would it not..? …Would it be possible to be the same if you were filled with the presence of God Himself ?? if you felt His presence, of something indescribable but much greater than yourself within your mind and understanding …..what would you say to a fellow that asked you the questions you asked me ??

    I honestly don't know how to respond to you…I think it honestly boils down to what you and God talk about… If you believe Romans 8 then even if you don't know what to ask for, the Holy Spirit will intercede for you with the Father.. The Word says that "you will look for me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.. I trust that you will find the Truth there..in communion with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, in whose name you were baptized…
40. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 10, 2011 at 11:11 pm

    Guy

    "I trust Christ can save me and care for me regardless of which view …."

    This is a great statement of faith. Amen.

    Consider one of the ways Christ cares for you and one of the reasons He died was that you could be declared sinless so that God can live within you. Christ had to die for that. God can't live within a person dead in sin. What does that mean? It means I have a greater source of power of transformation than I could ever, ever provide for myself. I can grow much more into the likeness of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus died that He could pour out than I could ever grow under my own power.

    We aren't talking about salvation – it's growing into the fullness of Christ after salvation. God freed us from sin so that we could grow into Him.

    You may not have meant to say it this way, but you said the same thing.

    "I'd still strive to obey all the teachings of Christ. i'd still try to develop Christ-like virtues. ….what would it change?"

    What would it change? I wouldn't be "striving" anymore; I wouldn't still be "trying to develop Christ-like virtues" anymore. To the extent that I yielded that work to the control of the Holy Spirit within me, I would be continually transformed into the likeness of Christ at an infinitely higher rate of progress than anything I could ever do in myself.

    Brother, you may not have meant to say it, but you hit the answer right on! And you don't have to understand all about the Spirit's work and have it all figured out. In fact, 1 Cor 2 says you won't be able to do that. Just pray about it and ask God to illuminate your thinking. God promised He will respond (James 1:3).

    And keep your great statement of faith!
41. Rich says:

    February 10, 2011 at 11:11 pm

    Jay,

    Your observations of churches of Christ are so very different than my personal experiences.

    For example, I was baptized as a teenager in an extremely conservative congregation (KJV only, no eating in the building). Yet, the teaching concerning baptism included a strong emphasis on the Holy Spirit's involvement and the continued Christian (faithful) living to follow.

    I remember being disappointed immediately following my baptism because I thought I would feel the Holy Spirit working in me in a very explicit way. That event began my major transformation as a person, but it wasn't nearly the step-function change I had assumed from the church's teachings.

    Also, baptism was always taught as the beginning point of our new life in Christ, not the end point of doing something to get saved.
42. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 10, 2011 at 11:28 pm

    Guy, either I am not very clear or else you look for things to remove from context.

    Try this: "There's nothing in there to me, but there is everything in there for me."

    Did you intend your last paragraph comparing the scripture to a letter in the trash to sound like a very fleshly view of inspiration? Hopefully, I misinterpret, because it certainly comes across that way.

    I would be disappointed if that were to be a fundamental problem. If so, we have discovered that we have no common basis for discussion. I hope that is not the case.
43. Laymond says:

    February 10, 2011 at 11:52 pm

    Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats:
    Jhn 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
    Hbr 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

    Can anyone give me an answer to this question, what are we to be judged on, how well the HG guided us or how well we obeyed the word of God. as I understand it all men will stand judgement both good and evil, would it be a fair judgement if some were to have a special "Holy Guide" indwelled, and others did not.

    Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
44. guy says:

    February 11, 2011 at 12:00 am

    Price,

    You wrote:
    "Guy, if you can't trust God to do what He said He would do…why would you go to church?"

    Who said i can't trust God to do what He said He would do? What He said He would do and for whom is what is in question. This is a matter of studying and discerning what it is He will do *for me.* If He never said nor intended to do something *for me,* then i can hardly charge Him with being untrustworthy.

    –guy
45. guy says:

    February 11, 2011 at 12:03 am

    Theo,

    You wrote:
    "To the extent that I yielded that work to the control of the Holy Spirit within me"

    Precisely how does a person "yield that work to the control of the Holy Spirit" such that the person no longer makes any decision or exerts any effort to love or obey Christ?

    –guy
46. guy says:

    February 11, 2011 at 12:28 am

    Theo,

    i'm not even sure what you're asking or hinting at. If you're questioning whether i believe in inspiration–yes, i believe the books in the canon were written by divine inspiration. i believe human authors penned the words in their own times, to their respective audiences, for their own purposes, using the language and idioms and style and even personality distinctive to each author–God allowed all of that and still guided the words of the authors so that what they wrote has divine authority.

    But even saying that is not the same thing as saying that the immediate intended meaning of any passage in the canon was meant for me in the same way and same sense that it was meant for its express recipients. The point about the letter from the trash is that i wouldn't read it with the presumption that any or all of the letter was intended for me in the same way and same sense it was intended for its explicit addressee. Similarly, even though the books in the canon were written by inspiration, i still wouldn't read them with that presumption.

    –guy
47. Grizz says:

    February 11, 2011 at 3:05 am

    Laymond,

    You bring up a very interesting point about judgment, especially so when one begins to study exactly what Peter said and the subtle differences that distinguish between say 1 Peter 1:17 (krino) and the different word used in 1 Peter 4:17 (krima) and yet another word used by Jesus in Matthew 25:32 (aphorizo).

    The thing is, despite the difference in words, the meaning is very similar and seems to be an example of finding several different ways to say the same thing.
    (1) Matthew 25:32 – Jesus said the people would be first gathered and then separated (aphorizo) into two groups – sheep and goats – according to the ways they respond to one anothers' needs.
    (2) 1 Peter 1:17 – Peter says God will impartially mark each one according to how they occupy themselves.
    And (3) 1Peter 4:17 – Peter says discerning of deeds will begin with the house of God.

    No condemnation, but a general identification of who belongs where according to that which they have occupied their time doing.

    Laymond, you asked, "Why would God feel he needed to judge his own work?"

    I would suggest to you that God is not judging the rightness or wrongness of anything He did within us, but rather identifying those in whom His work was done and those who refused to welcome His work in their lives.

    I would also ask you, in what sense did God need to pronounce a qualitative judgment about the things He/They created at the end of each creative session in Genesis 1? ("…and it was Good" x 5; "…and it was very Good" x 1) Was God telling us what Max Lucado suggests – He don't make no junk? Or was He simply identifying all that was done was His work? Or do you have a third theory in mind?

    Thanks for engaging with me to explore this. I appreciate it, laymond.

    Grizz
48. Grizz says:

    February 11, 2011 at 3:11 am

    Laymond, this is a great question and should be explored. We might be getting away from Jay's post a bit, but i hope to continue with you.

    Take a look above and see my last response to you in which I addressed 1 Peter 1:17 and 1 Peter 4: 17 and Matthew 25:32 specifcally. I also referenced the judgments pronounced by God at the end of each day of creation. Take a look and see if there is not something there for you to chew on. I think you will find there is – whether you swallow it or not being a different matter (smile).

    Get back to me after you read the thoughts there – which i think apply here as well.

    Blessings,

    Grizz
49. Price says:

    February 11, 2011 at 9:35 am

    Guy. I think I sort of understand you statements regarding the application of the word in your life… Joshua was told to march around Jericho..I doubt any of us think that applies to us today…stuff like that is what I assume you are talking about…However, regarding the Holy Spirit, scripture says that this is for GUY !!

    Acts 2:38-39 (emphasis on 39) And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

    Everyone whom the Lord calls — that's you and me Guy !! The inspiration of the Holy Spirit on Luke who records Peter's words leaves no doubt…The gift of the Holy Spirit is for EVERYONE who God calls to himself…

    If EVERYONE who believes receives the Holy Spirit, then that includes you if indeed you have believed. Now, I assume that we have the free will to reject the Holy Spirit in favor of our own self effort but I would seriously question the reasoning of someone who would prefer their own effort over that empowered by God Himself. And, if we are to have the Holy Spirit then what does He do for us and in us? Scripture is loaded with information in that regard and it would be preferable to teach it rather than continue to ignore it.

    The scripture is plain as day that the Holy Spirit is given to all believers. Then how can the cessationist pov prevail in this instance? The only way to hold to that pov would be for the Holy Spirit to be given to us to do nothing. He indwells us but we are unchanged because He is now impotent ?? I find that to be a theology not at all supported by scripture with a purpose of empowering the flesh of man. That to me is a Tower of Babel type chaotic disaster…not Good News.

    Laymond, Grizz…I too would be interested in discussing the Judgment at some point on the appropriate page…
50. Laymond says:

    February 11, 2011 at 9:44 am

    Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
    (less than five chapters later)
    Gen 6:5 ¶ And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
    Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
    Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
    We see that God's work was good in the beginning, but it was polluted by the work of another, and became so repugnant to God that he destroyed the polluted and cleansed the earth with a great flood/ water. And we see that it did not take that long for the world, or at least the people to become in need of a savior, again.
    Isn't that the message Peter was giving the Jews.?

    There are just some things, over which we have control, we have to do our self. When we are baptized we have a starting point, not a finalization. (my opinion, if we were to receive the "HG" at baptism as some say, there would be no more reason to fear, but the scriptures say, there is reason to fear and guard against falling back into the old ways.
51. Brad Adcock says:

    February 11, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Guy,

    I must say you ask questions and present an argument that for me is both deeply thought-provoking and also deeply puzzling. My brain hurts with all the extra work you’ve given it. 🙂 I don’t presume to know half as much as some of the other posters you are already involved with, but I thought I’d ask a few questions and try to clarify my own thoughts of what you’re saying.

    Yes, as Price has already pointed out, there are some things that have no bearing on me personally. Yet I fail to see how I could become or grow as a Christian without applying the things written in the Bible.

    “Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.” 1 Corinthians 10:11 – Here Paul is writing about the things that happened to the Israelites wandering in the wilderness, but he says the things that happened those thousands of years earlier were for those to whom he wrote. They were written down to instruct them as an example (both of what to do and what not to do). It occurs to me that if I were one of Paul’s intended immediate audience, and if I were to believe that only the things written directly to me are intended to apply to me, then I would have to call Paul a liar regarding this verse. The Corinthian who believed such might say, ‘Not so, Paul. I don’t see my name anywhere in the Old Testament. It cannot be for me.’

    “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 – Yes, this is written specifically to Timothy by Paul; but I would venture to say it is not intended for Timothy’s ears alone. If it is only for Timothy, then who would he teach, or reprove, or correct, or train in righteousness? Himself? That’s definitely needed, but almost the entirety of chapter 1 is written to exhort Timothy to remain firm in his faith and the things he has learned. Rather, these particular verses are intended for ‘the man of God,’ that is, the messenger of God. Which messenger? The verse doesn’t elaborate; I would take it to mean ANY messenger (an assumption, I admit, but it’s not that much of a stretch).

    The question at the heart of my thinking is this: If absolutely nothing in the Bible is written to or for you (understanding your or my name doesn’t appear there) – how is it you came to Christ? I mean, apart from doing what the Bible prescribes in its words written to someone other than yourself or myself (or hearing those exact things from someone else), how can you put on Christ? If the things written in the gospels and the letters of the New Testament are only in reference to their immediate intended audience, then absolutely no one who was not present in those particular places at those particular times would have ever become Christians.

    I hope you don’t find this argumentative; it’s not intended to be. I hate to add to the load of things you’re already replying to, but this is simply my attempt to understand where you’re coming from.
52. Price says:

    February 11, 2011 at 11:21 am

    Laymond, my spirit rose up against what you were saying in regard to fear. I immediately remembered these two verses from the NT and I wondered how you would apply them to your fear theology…

    Romans 8:15 "For you DID NOT receive the spirit of slavery to FALL BACK INTO FEAR, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" and

    I John 4:8 "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love."

    Yes, the world was polluted by sin through Adam but praise be to God that Jesus rescued us from that sin… Romans 5 ends a discussion of this very topic with this statement…"For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous."

    I Corinthians 1 says that we have absolutely no ability to boast..as it says. in verse 30-31 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

    Even if you were able to do in your flesh the things that were pleasing to God, Paul speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says it's nothing for us you to take any pride in… Jesus is our righteousness, He is our sanctification, He is our redemption…We are on our own…nothing… If it weren't for Him working in us daily, we'd have no hope…none…zero…To argue for fear of judgment and self effort is hopeless in it's goal…so says the Word.
53. Royce Ogle says:

    February 11, 2011 at 11:23 am

    I have 5 grand children under the age of 12. Each of them can tell a sheep from a goat at a distance. Can a goat become a sheep by his own will? It isn't very difficult at all for God, who knows the heart, who sees faith, to know who is and is not his own. There are those who are walking in the light. And, there are those who are not his and reject the light. And, they do it by nature. Those who are goats live to please the flesh. Those who have been made sheep have a new heart with God's law written upon it and they live by the the Spirit, not the flesh.

    The whole world will be judged by Jesus Christ. No man comes to the Father but by him. His sheep know him, they listen to his voice,they follow him, and another they will not follow.

    I fear some of us have reduced God to a task that any human judge could do given the facts about people's lives. The God of the Bible is far different. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Jesus gave a holy, sinless life for ungodly sinners bearing their sins and paying the penalty for them.

    Why do we even need Jesus Christ if he is not who he said he was? If all we get when we are baptized is a new chance to live good enough we are all damned. There is NONE righteous, no not ONE.
54. guy says:

    February 11, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Brad,

    Perhaps i was unclear. i never claimed that no part of the Bible applies to me in any sense. i think most if not all of it does apply to me in some sense. All i claimed was that none of it was expressly addressed to me, and consequently, i try not to read it with the presumption that any part of it is addressed to me directly.

    –guy
55. guy says:

    February 11, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Price,

    There are passages in scripture that employ terms which seem to delineate universal and limitless scopes that, upon investigation, clearly do have limits and boundaries whether logically implied or contextually supplied or whatever. In Acts 2, Peter quotes God speaking through Joel "i will pour out my Spirit on all people." Absolutely *all* people? All including the people dead and buried in the ground at that point? No, people who were alive. Well, still, absolutely *all* people alive at that point? No, not lost people. So "all" turns out not to be so universal after all. Just one example, but as a result, i don't read the passages you cite and just presume the scope of their content includes the present day. Maybe it does. But i'm not willing to make that jump easily when there's reason to think i shouldn't.

    –guy
56. Brad Adcock says:

    February 11, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Gotcha. I understand what you mean now. You're talking about the same sense in which alot of people in every generation seem to read the book of Revelation as if John were writing just for them from just down the street. At least that's the one I notice the most blatantly.
57. Price says:

    February 11, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    Guy, I appreciate and concur with your suggestion that proper exegesis is important to understanding scripture. Wouldn't argue for a minute about that…However, regarding the Joel passage…it's fairly clear from the passage in Joel that God is speaking to "His People", not the Babylonians….He isn't talking to dead people either…pretty clear from the passage… Then you have Peter interpreting the passage as it applied to what He was seeing…So, it obviously applied to people who were living, people who were "His People", believers, and the gifts of the spirit were manifest as was prophesied…..This continued for many, many years in various churches, in various locations, with Jews and Gentiles that became believers…on men and women…as is recorded by divine inspiration. So we now know that it wasn't just for the day of Pentecost…that it continued until……….and that's the rub isn't it…when did it end, IF it ended…so we have to look at scripture to determine if it says anything about that…

    Most of the cessationist arguments are so strained in interpretation that hardly anyone believes it…Surely, if it were true then the arguments would be more convincing.. Truth isn't that vague…and when one sees passages such as I quote earlier about the promise of the Holy Spirit being for ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE…well…I know what I believe and why I believe it…I'm certain..I'm not "leaning" a particular way or another…I'm planted firmly and cannot be moved.. The Bible says it so I expect it to be true.

    The ECF's which always get brought up by the IM folks as "proof" one way or the other wrote for nearly 500 years about the gifts of the Spirit being present without one sentence of refutation that I can find…500 years…long time…

    If you had a way for this blog to ask the general church community if they had ever witnessed an obvious encounter or intervention of God that caused something to happen for good that couldn't be explained otherwise…and you allowed them to comment anonymously…their comments would flood the servers… God is alive and well and doing what He wishes in the lives of those that open the door and allow Him to come in… that's His promise…and we know how God treats His promises…
58. guy says:

    February 11, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Brad,

    Exactly. Start reading texts like they were addressed to you, and you can come up with some weird ideas about what Paul or John or Peter meant. You (someone who reads it this way) think its exciting because you're finding ways to fit everything anyone said right into your own life (horoscopes work this way–the end up being virtually unfalsifiable because of how loosely they can be interpreted). But its actually sad–you're missing out on what the author really intended.

    Revelation is a good example. i think apocalyptic prophecy in general fits that bill. Watch TBN very long and it's amazing how every single contemporary news headline somehow made it into Daniel's or Ezekiel's mind thousands of years ago. But i think the exact same mistake can be made with any part of scripture. Frankly, i think much of Reformation-esque understandings of Paul result from this kind of mistake. And i'm just saying that the present subject is one about which i don't want to make the same mistake, so i'm very cautious to include myself in every "you" or "we" i read in Scripture about the HS. Maybe they do include me. Maybe they don't. My point is i'm not going to take for granted that they do.

    –guy
59. guy says:

    February 11, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    Price,

    You wrote:
    "Most of the cessationist arguments are so strained in interpretation that hardly anyone believes it…Surely, if it were true then the arguments would be more convincing"

    Do you think truth is always convincing? Do you think people being convinced is a necessary indicator for truth?

    These critiques are purely perspectival. Don't you think any atheist could say the same thing about belief in God or the resurrection of Christ? "Well, if it really were true, all the arguments would be more convincing to me." Don't you think that a Trinitarian and an Arian could look at each others position as though her interpretation is so strained its puzzling why she believes it? Proof and persuasion are two different things.

    You wrote:
    "If you had a way for this blog to ask the general church community if they had ever witnessed an obvious encounter or intervention of God that caused something to happen for good that couldn't be explained otherwise…and you allowed them to comment anonymously…their comments would flood the servers."

    If you conducted the same recording method for "obvious" encounters with abductions by aliens, i imagine the comments would also flood the servers. Would you take that as proof that all such phenomenon are legitimate and all such encounters are veridical?

    –guy
60. Price says:

    February 11, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    Guy, you compare the debate over cessation within the Christian community to a debate between a Christian and an unbeliever…That's not the same and is a deflection… What I'm talking about is a debate among believers over the arguments presented to support cessation or not..different discussion altogether… Cessation is a minority opinion among believers…period…you're welcome to that belief and as a brother in Christ I respect your right to choose without having to accept your conclusions…I base my belief firmly in scripture and it is the overwhelming majority opinion of the Christian community…

    Now really…do you think the members of your congregation would overwhelm the servers with encounters with aliens or is that another deflection… I'm talking believers…rational and coherent believers…and you know that…why deflect ? That's avoidance.. we can disagree agreeably without avoiding the topic.. Although, some have not knowingly entertained angels…
61. Steve Wilson says:

    February 11, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    I am enjoying this discussion on many levels, but like others I am having trouble keeping the players and perspectives straight. I wish that these profile things worked better so that I could click and know whether someone was a preacher, elder or active attender or a CoC or whether they (like me) were a former CoC person who still follows Christ (through the indwelling of HS) or some other background that makes this site worth your time. However, all that aside, what I would really like is a little clarification on cessationist history. It sounds to me like a lot of the dispensational thinking that was popularly supported by the Schofield Study Bible. I remember as a child hearing that the Holy Spirit had quit working in people after the Bible was finished, but I don't know where that thought came from . . . I have to assume that it could not have been inspired by the Holy Spirit because that would be internally contradictory. (Sorry, that was a really funny but unnecessary dig.) Briefly, when did it start and gain strength in the Church of Christ?
62. guy says:

    February 11, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    Price,

    Again–i never claimed a position. i said i had leanings toward cessationism but remain generally unconvinced about how the HS works. i haven't meant to defend cessationism, just to clarify why i don't find it obviously false and the opposite obviously true. But at the end of the day, for all i know, it is.

    i'll overlook the accusation of deflection now, but if you keep accusing, i'm done. i said what i said in earnestness and sincerity and with a genuine motivation to contribute to our current discussion. But if accusations fly then the tone of this discussion is no longer Christ-like or fruitful IMO.

    You said that if cessationist arguments were true, they'd be more convincing. Am i misrepresenting you there, or have i misunderstood? i don't aim to misrepresent. If that if your position, my response was/is this: Do you take it as a general point that all true positions will be the most convincing ones? If that is your general position, then i take it to be obviously false, and i gave you reasons why. If that's not your general position (please specify), why should there be a difference on this matter regarding who the participants are (namely Christian-Christian vs. Christian-non-Christian)?

    Now, do you take the "overwhelming majority opinion of the Christian community" to be an indicator of truth? That is, is the majority opinion among Christians a reason to agree with that position? And if so, how much reason is it? Is it a sufficient reason to agree with that position?

    –guy
63. Guestfortruth says:

    February 11, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    Jay said: "When I was a teenager, a couple of teens at church got baptized. They were (what’s the term?) thugs. And they went forward, confessed Jesus, and the preacher immersed them into water.

    The next day, their thuggish friends asked them, “We heard you got baptized. Does that mean you’re going to stop cussing and drinking”? They replied, “Hell, no, that was just insurance!”

    Now, I ask you, what kind of preaching led them to figure that getting immersed would insure them against damnation? I think that teenager believe the Doctrine " Once in Grace, Always in Grace" This teaching says: Once you are save you can not lose your salvation. Jay is this part of Calvinism? I don't think that teenager understood the Gospel mainly Repentence! Some people believe that repentence is just feel sad!

    Is this true ? "They’d heard a lifetime of sermons on the necessity of baptism, in the right mode, for the right reason " Is not baptism part of the Gospel?
64. Price says:

    February 11, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Guy, please accept my heart felt and sincere apology…I did not mean to let accusations fly..I was just defining what I thought was happening.. no ill intent toward you was meant… I just didn't see the value of comparing our discussion to one between atheists or aliens…

    Regarding your question of majority opinion…I do not form MY opinion based on who the majority is…I study and listen to as many reasoned pov as I can and try to figure out for MYSELF what is the position that is IMHO most consistent with scripture…In the case of the cessastion debate, my personal opinion just happened to be consistent with the majority opinion but I didn't just see who thought this way or that and choose to go along with the ones that had more on their particular side of the debate…I don't know how the rest of them decided but it does seem that most have decided in favor of an active Holy Spirit..

    It is my personal opinion that there is Truth and there is Non-Truth today as there was in the first century. The Berean community of believers were commended for comparing what they were being taught with Holy Scripture to determine if what was being said was true. They did so, the scripture says, with readiness of mind.. The Bible also suggests that we be prepared to defend our belief..The only way I know how to do that is to look closely at the various arguments, in this case for and against an active Holy Spirit, and try as best as I can to see which one is most consistent with the teaching of scripture. My experience is that the Truth is consistent with the written word, isn't greatly dependent on personal opinion, and is free of much proof-texting. In my study, the salvific points are generally crystal clear and the issues with which we have the greatest freedom are less specific. So, no you have not misunderstood me if you believe that I think the Truth is most evident as compared to the non-truth..

    In regard to the question of an active Holy Spirit…there is either a Yes or No decision.. One might not have had sufficient time to study but ultimately one must make a decision on what they believe given the depth and implication of scripture. Romans 8 also says that he who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him.. I needed to know whether I believed that was true or not.. I came down on the side of the most convincing argument and that was YES..I believe in an active Holy Spirit indwelling in all that believe and will accept Him.
65. Grizz says:

    February 11, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    Laymond,

    Do you question whether we receive the HS upon our immersion into Christ? Did Peter get that wrong?

    Immersion is, indeed, a starting point of sorts. We rise from it to a new life in Christ – as opposed to the old life outside of Christ that was put to death in the water grave.

    There are multiple ways to look at this, Laymond. We can take the rules to follow approach – as though we were guests in another's home. Or we can take the stewards of the Master of the home approach – as servants who love their Master and would do anything for Him. Or we can take the child of the Master approach – as the heirs and offspring of the Master.

    In any case we follow out of love and devotion, not out of fear and hopelessness. True, if we were not His, we would have much to fear and no hope of a place in His home…but that is neither the condition of nor the attitude of a beloved child of God. As Paul wrote, that is not the Spirit we received.

    How do you view your place in God's household, Laymond? Are you a lovingly devoted member of the household? Or are you unsure?

    My Dad, who went to sleep in Christ in 1994, could be a scary guy to other people, but not to me or my brother or sister or mother. We knew him too well for that and knew he was devoted to us as we were devoted to him. Fear disappeared in the presence of his love.

    If my Dad, a man of God, but still just a man, could treat us with that much love, how much more does our Heavenly Father love us and care for us? What could we possibly fear from Him as His children? Of course, the same cannot be said for those who not of God's household. They certainly have plenty to fear.

    God has never failed to keep His promises, Laymond. Peter, whom I hope we can agree was filled with the Spirit, said that we receive the promised HS when we repent and submit to immersion into Christ. We have all the assistance we could want in this life – not to coerce us into changing, but to mentor us and guide us in the process…to empower our decision with God's best support. The HS is God saying He is committed to our success. The only question left is, are we committed to His glory?

    Blessings,

    Grizz
66. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 11, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    Steve Wilson wrote "what I would really like is a little clarification on cessationist history."

    Steve, I lived through all that and I can give more detail about it's origin and the Biblical misinterpretations behind the doctrine that anyone would want to read. In fact, for me, remembering these things is worse than remembering when I had the chicken pox. But, a little information might be helpful, and I can give a whole lot more if anyone is interested (which I hope no one is).

    I think this doctrine gained traction when the "charismatic" movement began to grow and compete for membership attendance and contribution. It was also claimed by certain prominent "charismatic" groups that to be saved, you had to have been baptized with the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, else you didn't have the Spirit and weren't of Christ. That is pure heresy, but rather than keeping eyes on Jesus, "scholars" in the CoC devised an interpretation of Acts, 1 Corinthians, and other scriptures that baptism with the HS only occurred twice and no more, manifestations of the HS only occurred when an apostle was present & available to lay on hands, tongues in Acts = tongues in Corinth; the miraculous spiritual gifts in Corinth were only because they didn't have the written word, and these would cease when the word was written and distributed (1 Cor 13:8-10) because the "perfect shall come" meant the Bible (James 1:25, "the perfect law of liberty" – (isn't that an interesting contradiction). Everything else -arguments and scripture passages – were woven into this matrix of eisegesis so it became "miracles ceased at the end of the first century or when the last person died on whom some apostle had laid their hands." That included spiritual gifts, especially tongues and healing & other claimed miracles, indwelling HS (too dangerous), and baptism with the HS. Using this, the Holy Spirit doctrine of competitors could be supposedly rendered invalid. Didn't work well.

    The only people this "doctrine" affected was the very people who espoused it. We defined out of existence (for ourselves) the power that God gave the church to evangelize the world and to be transformed into Christ. I believe that if change toward the truth had not begun and continued through the 80's, 90's to today, the CoC might not even be here now. In my opinion, this interpretative approach is a dupe and tool of the enemy. The interpretations of the passages used for cessationism are not valid.

    Cessationist slants still appear today as a basis for some people's opinions about miracles, tongues, indwelling HS, baptism with the HS, etc. It is unfortunate when these ideas still influence people's thinking, but they may explain some comments, including ones currently given on this site. Some of these opinions might even surface in response to what was said in this post. There may even be an increase in new posts from people, attracted here to rebut what I said.

    The opinions and comments are the responsibility of the author and are based on the author's experience in this area. They do not necessarily reflect agreement of any kind by Jay, or anyone else. I hope this explanation helps more than it stirs up.
67. Jay Guin says:

    February 11, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    Steve Wilson,

    Cessationism is the idea that "miraculous" manifestations of the Spirit ended when the apostles died and could no longer lay hands on converts — or when the NT (allegedly the "that which is perfect" of 1 Cor 13) was completed.

    The theory dates back at least to Augustine, bishop of Hippo, (5th Century) who later rejected it as he found and documented many miracles in his own diocese.

    In the Churches of Christ, its roots trace back to A. Campbell, who argued against the teachings of the Quakers that we could receive new revelations equal to the scriptures and against the Calvinist doctrine of prevenient grace (that people can only come to faith by the direct operation of the Spirit on the convert's heart, and only the elect receive such direct operation).

    Campbell's rhetoric created the impression that he denied any present operation of the Spirit other than through the word, which isn't entirely true but is close to true. Barton Stone vigorously argued to the contrary, but Campbell's view came to be dominant.
68. Jay Guin says:

    February 11, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    Guestfortruth,

    When we emphasize baptism to the near exclusion of Jesus, we've distorted the gospel in a very dangerous way.

    I love my wife, and I work to support her. Both are husbandly duties. If I do one to the exclusion of the other, although I'm fulfilling a husbandly duty, I'm a lousy husband.
69. Laymond says:

    February 11, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    Just a few of many.

    Pro 19:23 The fear of the LORD [tendeth] to life: and [he that hath it] shall abide satisfied; he shall not be visited with evil.

    Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.

    Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

    2Cr 7:1 ¶ Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

    Hbr 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

    1Pe 2:17 Honour all [men]. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

    Rev 15:4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.
70. Laymond says:

    February 11, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    Laymond,

    Do you question whether we receive the HS upon our immersion into Christ? Did Peter get that wrong?

    No I don't think Peter got it wrong. I just don't see "the gift of the HG, as the holy ghost. I see it as something given by the Holy Spirit, say like forgiveness of sins. I believe this is what Peter was referring to.
71. Price says:

    February 11, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    Laymond/Houston, we have a problem….:) Either the Bible is self-contradictory or we have an error in our understanding of what it is saying…We can't be asked to FEAR God and then be told NOT to FEAR Him… My thought is this…and I don't think I have to remind you that I'm not divinely inspired…:)

    I would not Fear my Father except to consider taking him on physically. When I was in right relationship with him, I would have never feared him…Even when I messed up, I didn't fear him except…when I was rebellious…

    Is it possible to Love someone and Fear them at the same time? From my point of view, Yes. As long as I am seen by God through the lens of Jesus Christ what have I to fear? I am fully justified, declared righteous..If however I were to abandon my faith, declare that Jesus was NOT the son of God nor Lord of my life then I believe I would ultimately have a great deal of reason to fear…

    So, to the believer who is honestly trying to do as God instructs, realizing of course the tremendous amount of Grace needed to overcome our inability to do it perfectly…I don't see a reason to fear…All this hell fire and brimstone stuff is representative of a lack of understanding of Grace in my opinion…but should the thought ever enter my mind about becoming rebellious to God…then yeah, there is plenty of reason to fear the consequences of that rebellion…

    Do you see it differently ??
72. Price says:

    February 11, 2011 at 10:06 pm

    Laymond….on what scriptural basis do you believe that the Holy Spirit does not indwell the believer ?? You may have already provided the scripture but I can't find it if you indicated what it was…Thanks.
73. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 11, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    Laymond and Grizz

    First, let me apologize for interrupting your exchange on the Holy Spirit and our immersion into Christ. But you are discussing a very interesting question which relates to Acts 2:38:

    Acts 2:38 "…. receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

    In the Greek, "gift" is the accusative case, which means it is the object of the verb "receive." Receive what? Receive the gift.

    "Of the Holy Spirit" is genitive case, which we might also call possessive in English. There are two uses of genitive in the Greek, identity or ownership. There is debate over which one of these meanings applies in Acts 2:38.

    "gift of the Holy Spirit" – identity – as in "I will give you the gift of money." I am identifying the gift. In this case, "gift of the Holy Spirit" would be the Holy Spirit, Himself. "You will get the gift that is identified as being the Holy Spirit." The Greek does not differentiate; it could mean that.

    "gift of the Holy Spirit" – ownership (possessive) – as in "You will receive a gift from the Holy Spirit because it has been entrusted to the HS to distribute." That is an English meaning paraphrase because the actual word "from" isn't in the Greek. However, the same grammar construction is in John 4:10, when Jesus tells the woman at the well, "….. aware of the gift of God…." This seems to suggest that the gift is from God rather than God Himself.

    This is a technicality, and as long as we are controlled by the Spirit, the right understanding of Acts 2:38 is secondary. I happen to think the better interpretative translation is the "gift that the Holy Spirit is in charge of." If you look up the word gift (dorea) as it is used by Paul, it refers to forgiveness, grace of God through Christ, and "thanks be to God for His indescribable gift." And if you dig deeply enough, the "gift" is indeed pretty unfathomable, incomprehensible, indescribable (other translations).

    Therefore, Laymond, technically I tend to agree with your statement,

    —–I just don't see "the gift of the HG, as the holy ghost. I see it as something given by the Holy Spirit, say like forgiveness of sins.—–

    I agree, although I think it means even more than that. But Laymond and Grizz, from what I understand, what you both are saying is right, just expressed in a little different way.

    Thanks.
74. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 11, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    But, Laymond, I should add that the "gift" of the Holy Spirit involves the indwelling Holy Spirit as well. The love of God was poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us. Rom 5:5. So we may agree or may not on that one.
75. Grz311 says:

    February 12, 2011 at 6:59 am

    OH! I seee…Sorry, Laymond. I hadn’t ever thought of it that way.

    Are there any guys (or gals) fluent enough in the Greek to let us know if the grammatical evidence flows either way? How about you, Laymond? Do you know enough Greek to dig into that for us?

    I have my suspicions but don’t really have the ‘chops’ in Greek to be definitive about them.

    I am very familiar with the SC-RM terms often used to explain it, like empower versus indwelling, etc., but am not a big fan of contrived terminology. Of course, some might think saying ‘contrived terminology’ is a bit ironic given the meaning. (I like such terms even less when I use them!)

    Thanks for responding … again.

    Blessings from the Father,

    Grizz
76. Grizz says:

    February 12, 2011 at 7:05 am

    T Dr,

    I think I get what you are saying. And I think I agree. Unless, of course I am just attracted to the muddy waters.

    Blessings and thanks,

    Grizz
77. Grz311 says:

    February 12, 2011 at 1:59 am

    OH! I seee…Sorry, Laymond. I hadn't ever thought of it that way.

    Are there any guys (or gals) fluent enough in the Greek to let us know if the grammatical evidence flows either way? How about you, Laymond? Do you know enough Greek to dig into that for us?

    I have my suspicions but don't really have the 'chops' in Greek to be definitive about them.

    I am very familiar with the SC-RM terms often used to explain it, like empower versus indwelling, etc., but am not a big fan of contrived terminology. Of course, some might think saying 'contrived terminology' is a bit ironic given the meaning. (I like such terms even less when I use them!)

    Thanks for responding … again.

    Blessings from the Father,

    Grizz
78. Grizz says:

    February 12, 2011 at 2:05 am

    T Dr,

    I think I get what you are saying. And I think I agree. Unless, of course I am just attracted to the muddy waters.

    Blessings and thanks,

    Grizz
79. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 12, 2011 at 8:54 am

    Grizz, Amen on the muddy waters. I think that's where I am most of the time.
80. Price says:

    February 12, 2011 at 9:04 am

    Dr. T…makes sense…If God empowers one to actually DO something then obviously it is a gift given.. God won't turn somebody into Him…but, the enlightenment, discernment, guidance, etc., are from an indwelling person…Makes total sense to me… Thanks for bringing it down to my level of understanding…

    Jay, is there a link or suggested reading regarding Augustine's comments on the Holy Spirit ?? I've been documenting that sort of thing lately…good info to have. Thanks
81. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 12, 2011 at 9:19 am

    Price, I agree.

    The indwelling HS is even more than empowering to DO, it is empowering to BE. It's a little different way of expressing the same idea, but the emphasis is on who we are rather than what we do (human beings rather than human doings @ Rick Warren), although they are obviously correlated (i.e., fruit of the Spirit, Gal 5). Jesus first was ("I AM") and He did the will of the Father. But it is still the indwelling power from the inside to the outside, like metamorphosis in Romans 12:1-2.

    Good comments, brother. Thank you.
82. Price says:

    February 12, 2011 at 9:45 am

    More about Jesus let me learn,
    More of His holy will discern;
    Spirit of God, my teacher be,
    Showing the things of Christ to me…..More, More about Jesus….

    Great song !!
83. Randall says:

    February 12, 2011 at 9:46 am

    Jay,
    Above you said: "In the Churches of Christ, its roots trace back to A. Campbell, who argued against the teachings of the Quakers that we could receive new revelations equal to the scriptures and against the Calvinist doctrine of prevenient grace (that people can only come to faith by the direct operation of the Spirit on the convert's heart, and only the elect receive such direct operation). "

    While you characterization that the CofC was reacting against Calvinism is correct it should be noted that the concept of "prevenient grace" or prevailing grace is associated with classical Arminianism. Here's this discussion from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace
    Prevenient grace (also referred to as prevenial) is a Christian theological concept rooted in Augustinian theology.[1] It is embraced primarily by Arminian Christians who are influenced by the theology of Jacob Arminius or John Wesley. Wesley typically referred to it in 18th century language as prevenient grace. In modern English, the phrase preceding grace would have a similar meaning.

    Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer. Whereas Augustine held that prevenient grace cannot be resisted, Wesleyan Arminians believe that it enables, but does not ensure, personal acceptance of the gift of salvation.
    FWIW,
    Randall
84. Randall says:

    February 12, 2011 at 9:47 am

    Here's the wiki site again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace
85. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 12, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Price, how appropriate to recall that song! Thank you.

    Randall, great explanation. Clarifies some things for me. Thanks.
86. Laymond says:

    February 12, 2011 at 10:33 am

    Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

    Act 8:17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
    Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
    Act 8:19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

    Grizz, if these two passages are talking of the very same thing (which I doubt), if I am not mistaken it was all said during the "first century" right. And has nothing to do with today's baptism. I have yet to attend a baptism, where one came up from the water speaking in tongues, or healing those who are ill. Let's just assume a believer did acquire the power of the "Holy Spirit" at baptism, do you think there would be any sick or dead Christians. or would that be misuse of the power, I seem to recall Jesus and first century Christians used it in just that way. Are Bennie, and other faith healers the only true Christians left?
87. Laymond says:

    February 12, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Dr. Theo. yes God dwells in us through a good conscience, and in our minds. (or the heart of man) But the same "Holy Ghost" that indwelled the apostles and the people they passed it to, has passed.
88. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 12, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Laymond

    Some years ago I learned that my place in this creation did not authorize me to define what the Creator God or His Spirit did, or didn't do, at any time or place or circumstance, whatsoever. And when I said that "I was only saying what God said in His word," that was speaking with incredible arrogance of someone who held their interpretation as an idol above the Logos. That's just what I have learned.

    Concerning the Samaritans in Acts 8, I wrote a long answer to a question about baptism and the HS and laying on hands, etc. It is found in the Baptism An Exploration "So that no one may boast" thread, posted on 02/08/2011 @10:50 pm. Again, that only reflects my opinion.

    Thanks.
89. Laymond says:

    February 12, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Price, I believe you understand it perfectly, nothing to fear as long as we stay in line, step out of line behind Jesus, and then watch out. whether we like it or not, I understand the bible to say it just that way. If there were nothing to fear, why all the warnings of backsliding into your old ways?
90. Laymond says:

    February 12, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Well Price, it actually depends on what you mean by indwelled by the "Holy Ghost" if you mean as the apostles were, then that period is over, just as Paul said. if you mean we carry God in our heart, that period will never be over as long as we believe, and obey.
91. Laymond says:

    February 12, 2011 at 11:29 am

    "Are there any guys (or gals) fluent enough in the Greek to let us know if the grammatical evidence flows either way"

    Grizz, I hope you read what Theo said on the subject, I couldn't have said it better.
92. Price says:

    February 12, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Laymond, I'm not sure if you understood me…so just to clarify…I'm not talking about "stepping out of line"…we all sin…and sometimes on purpose…I'm talking about a complete departure from God…A rejection of Christ…I think that is much different from "back sliding."

    Regarding the Holy Spirit… The Bible doesn't say that if you do not have the Spirit of Christ (as a figment of your imagination) you do not belong to Him…It says if you do not have Him IN YOU… There just isn't any way that I see that scripture allows one to develop a theory that God can be in our mind as faith versus indwelling us…that's just not supported by scripture that I can tell… He either IS or IS NOT not indwelling the believers… Scripture says that he is a promise to everyone that believes so that should include us but you claim that Paul said that is no longer true..Really?

    I also think you are mistaken in that EVERY person who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is given some MIRACULOUS gift.. Of the gifts that Paul names in scripture, some gifts are very similar to natural abilities that some might have like evangelism or teaching…Not every one was given the gift of prophecy even back in the first century…some were given the gift of interpretation.. Some were given the gift of hospitality, etc….I believe it is incorrect to suggest that EVERY person MUST speak in tongues or heal people from sickness…So to rule out the indwelling by rejecting that concept is an over reaction in MHO…

    Just out of curiosity…what do you think about the men commonly referred to as the Early Church Fathers…do you consider them to be for the most part reliable? Or, do you think they were heretics and liars? I don't think anyone believes them to be divinely inspired but overall…what do you think of them and their writings about the church ?
93. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 12, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    One of the biggest problems that make people talk on different channels about the indwelling Holy Spirit is looking in the book of Acts to find out what that is all about. Luke's purpose is not to write about the indwelling Spirit. In the gospel Luke (1:1-4) said he used eyewitnesses, careful investigation, and orderly presentation so that Theophilus may "know the certainty" and in Acts the context is "convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3) of the (presumedly) disorganized and unauthenicated stories Theo has heard about.

    The book of Acts is full of events evidenced by something that can be seen, heard, or touched – evaluated by and reported from eyewitnesses, sometimes himself. This is evidence. This is testimony. This is confirmed by many observers. This is proof like the kind introduced into a court of law.

    Luke used the words for "signs" and "wonders" more than he does the word "miracle." "Sign" is a miracle with a purpose of authenticating that message and/or the messenger or the event that is happening has the authority of God. "Wonder" is a miracle that attracts attention. The highest use of the word for "sign" is in Acts and the gospel of John. Both writings deal with authority. What purpose would there be for Luke to teach about the indwelling Spirit?

    Two choices, which one fits into Luke's stated purpose for writing? CHOICE ONE: "Well, Jack here used to be a grouchy old man with a big anger problem that he couldn't control, but over the years from AD33 to AD39, he has evidences a lot of change, and now he's pretty mellow and acts a lot more like Jesus would thanks to the power of the indwelling HS. CHOICE TWO: Forty-year-old Jack had been crippled from birth was begging at the gate and Peter and John said they didn't have any money but in the name of Jesus stand up. The people were amazed and came running up and Peter preached about Jesus. They took the apostles to the Sanhedrin where Peter was again filled with the HS for the purpose of knocking their socks off with a sermon about Jesus.

    This is a silly example, but I hope you get the point. Which of the above choices fits into the purpose of providing courtroom evidence to Theo of the authority of God in the church? Virtually the entire book of Acts fits into the approach illustrated by CHOICE TWO.

    If anyone wants to say "that was for the apostles" (which I used to do but now don't do even that) there is no justification whatsoever for including the indwelling Holy Spirit in that. The Promise of the Father included the indwelling HS and part of the "gift." The Promise of the Father does not include miraculous manifestations including speaking in tongues. The Promise of the Father does include baptism within the Holy Spirit into the forgiveness of sins. It does NOT include speaking in tongues which occurred as a sign to the Jews present at the time. Hello, anybody home, McFly?? (Just checking to see if anyone is still awake!)

    Spiritual gifts as in 1 Corinthians are not discussed in Acts. The words for "gift" are different. Luke uses dorea and does not use charismata. Tongues as gifts in Corinth are not the same as tongues in Acts.

    One can go through Acts and find evidence that Luke understands the difference between Holy Spirit manifestations and Holy Spirit indwelling, but these are hidden, often in the choice of vocabulary words, verb tenses, adjectives, and definite articles. We have to go to Luke, John, Ephesians, etc. to understand what the gift of the Holy Spirit and the New Creation involves, but when we do the result is totally consistent with the book of Acts. But, again, it was not Luke's purpose to write about that!!

    What's the value of taking study to picky detail? It's worth the effort if it can help straighten our illogical thinking and poor understanding of important topics such as baptism and the operation of the Holy Spirit.

    A lot more can be said.
94. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 12, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    Consistent with the idea that Luke emphasized almost exclusively the external, visibly observed, manifestations of the Holy Spirit that were relevant to a specific purpose and occasion, Luke uses quite a few Greek words in a very precise and reproducible manner. One example is the use of two words, both of which are translated into English as “filled.” These words both derive from the same Greek word and they have overlapping meanings, but also some differences which are important.

    Pleroo – to fill up to the top or brim; to make complete; to fill up to volume

    References to the use of the word— (Luke 2:40) …strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; //(Luke 3:5) …every valley shall be filled and every …; //(Luke 8:23) …they were filled with water; //(John 12:3) …the house was filled with the odor; //(Acts 5:28) …and behold you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching; //(Rom. 1:29) …being filled with all unrighteousness; //(Rom. 15:14) …filled with all knowledge, able also to …; //(Eph. 1:23) …the fullness of him that fills everything in every way; //(Eph. 3:19) …filled with all the fullness of God; //(Phil. 1:11) …filled with the fruits of righteousness; //(Col. 1:9) …might be filled with the knowledge…
    Eph. 5:18 … but be filled with the Spirit. (command- imperative, present, passive, plural, meaning continuous action- durative; consistent with being filled up to volume from the inside with the indwelling HS)
    Luke uses this word once in reference to HS (maybe to show us he could have used it elsewhere if he had wanted to)
    (Acts 13:52) And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit. (Imperfect tense–continuous action, started in past continued to present; no external manifestations mentioned, just a fruit of the Spirit; consistent with the indwelling HS)

    Pleroo is used in the context of being filled up from the inside (Eph. 5:18) by the (image of pouring) of the indwelling Holy Spirit in a continual fashion consistent with transformation, sanctification, maturation, and growing into the full knowledge of Christ. No immediate manifestations that are signs are associated, only the fruit of being controlled by the Spirit (Gal. 5). We can develop from passages outside and inside Luke-Acts that this filling begins with being baptized within the Holy Spirit into the forgiveness of sins.

    Pletho – to fill, influence; what wholly takes possession of the mind is said to fill it

    References illustrating the metaphoric use with people – (Luke 4:28) … all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.; //(Luke 5:26) …and they glorified God and were filled with awe,; //(Luke 6:11) …but they were filled with fury and discussed with one another …; //(Acts 3:10) …and they were filled with wonder and amazement …; //(Acts 13:45) …saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy,; //(Acts 19:29) So the city was filled with confusion …
    Note the use of pletho has a subtly of different meaning – people are filled but more by an outside stimulus that causes a temporary taking over of their behavior – could be for good behavior or could be for bad. The verb tense is usually Aorist, which in the indicative generally refers to an action that occurred at a point in the past and was completed, but the results of that action might continue for some time. The Jews were filled with wrath or jealousy at a particular time, but it caused their bad behavior to continue, like wanting to kill somebody.
    For comparison, Jerusalem was filled (pleroo, gradually filled to saturation from the inside) with the teaching of Christ in Acts 5:28, but the city was filled (pletho, controlled) with confusion in Acts 19:29.

    Pletho is used by Luke in reference to the action of the Holy Spirit.
    Filled with the Holy Spirit: (Luke 1:15) …and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth; //(Luke 1:41) … and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit; //(Luke 1:67) … Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied …; //(Acts 2:4 … all of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and …; //(Acts 4:8) … Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit ..…; //(Acts 4:31) … they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word …; //(Acts 9:17) … and be filled with the Holy Spirit (Saul); //(Acts 13:9) …Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas …
    Note that in these cases of use of pletho (filled) it was for a particular purpose related to boldness, uttering a prophecy, giving an inspired sermon, performing a miracle, etc. These were empowerments to do something at that time related to the kingdom of God, either to come or testifying that it had come by evangelism.
    This is not the action that is associated with the indwelling Holy Spirit that grows us into the likeness of Christ.
    It is pretty safe to say that these “fillings” would be considered “miraculous.” The power came on the people and took them over for a particular purpose from God.

    Is there anyone who would like to say that this miraculous “filling” died out with the apostles? Does the church not need it anymore because the Bible has been written? Has anyone had to preach a bold sermon about the gospel before an adversarial crowd? Sure would be handy if the "being filled with the Spirit" could still exist. Are you sure this available power should be “defined out of existence” because we don’t need it anymore? Why, because it happened in the first century?? Anyone who wants to define being “filled with the Spirit” as Luke uses pletho (empowered by the Spirit for a special purpose) out of existence for their lives, go ahead. But don’t include me in that category. I pray, “Bring it on, Lord!”

    The last interesting thing to point out is the use of both words in Acts 2:1-4. The sound of a rushing wind “filled” (pleroo, filled up to volume) the whole house, and they were “filled” (pletho, taken over) with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues. For what purpose? As a sign to the Jews and for evangelism – so all the different dialects could hear the gospel in their own language. More information later on that. (Maybe).

    But for now, there are two words for "filled" with the Holy Spirit, one is associated with a continuous action of being filled up to volume associated with the indwelling Spirit, and the other associated with a special empowerment at a specific time for a specific purpose. It fit into Luke's purpose for writing Luke-Acts to use the second meaning.

    The two words shouldn't be confused, or else the interpretation will be confused, and then the doctrine will be confused, and we will not be talking about the same thing like in the tower of Babel. Not recommended. Not good for unity.

    To be continued, unless somebody complains.
95. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 12, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    Hopefully Jay will not have to close his site because of a barrage of complaints about these posts. But, if Jay has gotten complaints, he has shielded me. Thank you, Jay.

    Continuing with Luke’s use of certain verbs in connection with the operation of the Holy Spirit in Acts.

    Epipipto — usually translated as “came (come) upon” or “fell upon”

    Definition: to embrace, to seize (with more or less violence), to fall upon; to seize and take possession of him (of the Holy Spirit, in its inspiration and impulse); to fall upon by extraordinary events that come upon someone (as in fear, quarrels, and the Holy Spirit).

    Epipipto carries a similar connotation to “pletho” (filled) except it is an even stronger verb action (seize, total control from a force external to the person).

    References: (Luke 1:12) When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and gripped with fear (seized with fear); //(Acts 10:10) …he fell into a trance (…there came upon him a trance);
    //(Acts 13:11)Immediately mist and darkness came over him …; //(Acts 19:17) …they were all seized with fear …; //(Rev. 11:11) …and terror struck those who saw them.

    On two occasions were people in Acts “come upon by the Holy Spirit” – Samaritans and Cornelius. (Acts 8:16) … because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them …; //(Acts 10:44) … the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message …; //(Acts 11:15) Just as I was starting to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them …

    Discussion of the conversion of the Samaritans is on the thread, Baptism An Exploration: “So that no one may boast” Post on 02/08/2011 @10:50pm

    Discussion of the conversion of Cornelius and household is on 3 posts on the same thread as above: [1] 02/08/2011 7:38am, [2] 02/08/2011 @3:47pm, [3] 02/11/2011 @4:15pm

    It would be handy to have all the information in the same location, but I will not consume space by copying those posts.

    In both Samaritans and Cornelius, epipipto was used in connection with a sign by an external manifestation that was unmistakably God’s message to the Jews that this marked one of the major territorial (and cultural) advances in the gospel as Jesus had said (1:8) and that God intended that everyone involved should have fellowship with one another in the body of Christ – both Jew and Samaritan and Jew and Gentile. Thus the Spirit “came on” the subjects associated with the apostles laying on of hands in Acts 8 because both Samaritans and Jews needed to see the connection. The Spirit “came on” the Gentiles without any intervention from Peter, because otherwise they could have thought Peter had something to do with it. Cornelius had already bowed to him. When Peter would have defended himself at Jerusalem they would have attributed the sign to Peter and not to God. I interpret that the Samaritans had been previously baptized in water and within the Holy Spirit before the Holy Spirit “came on” them from the outside for manifestations and that Cornelius received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the external manifestations at the same time and before water baptism. Each conversion is a little different, but the similarity is they were all baptized within the Holy Spirit. How do we know? Acts 1:5,&8 says baptism of the Holy Spirit is part of the Promise of the Father and Peter said in Acts 2:39 the Promise was for everyone. God said it and we believe it. Right? Luke had another purpose for writing Acts than to identify exactly when the baptism in the Holy Spirit occurred in every conversion. He related one conversion is very great detail, Cornelius, including what happened and the sequence. How many do we need?

    So now we have the Promise of the Father in the first century, the gift of the Holy Spirit in the First Century, the baptism within the Holy Spirit into the forgiveness of sins in the First Century and they are all linked together. And we have being “filled with the Holy Spirit” for being witnesses and giving testimony about Jesus Christ. Now, why was it that one or more of these died out? Because they’re not needed anymore? Hmmm.

    To be continued. Other conversion accounts, including the 12 Ephesians. Speaking in tongues in Acts and in Corinth. And more, unless someone complains.
96. Laymond says:

    February 12, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    I think they were human beings, just as capable of being wrong as you or I.
97. Theophilus Dr says:

    February 12, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    If I can get these out fast enough, maybe it will be while people are still asleep from trying to make it though the previous post.

    I suggest that folks occasionally review Jay’s post that started this thread. There are more similarities than differences between his post and the current ones. I say that “from a distance” so as to not implicate Jay in any responsibility whatsoever for the present discussions.

    Jesus told his disciples in John 14-16 about another Counselor, the Holy Spirit, that would guide them, remind them, be with then, and be in them. Jesus associated the Counselor being “in them” with Jesus, Himself, being in them (John 14:20), linking the presence of Jesus abiding (indwelling) with that of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had to physically go away to the Father before the other Counselor could come. Then the Father would send the Counselor in His (Jesus’) name. Jesus then prayed for unity, John 17. After His resurrection, Jesus met with his in Luke 24:47-49 saying, “…and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” (Literally “from out of high” meaning from out of the presence of God in heaven.)

    Luke recorded Jesus’ words again in Acts 1 “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for that which my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with [within] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with [within] the Holy Spirit.” 8 “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

    What is linked together here? They are his witnesses, the gospel will be preached to all nations starting at Jerusalem, Jesus will send what the Father had Promised and what He had taught them about (John 14-16), they would receive power (dunamis) from the presence of God, the Promise will involve the baptism within the Holy Spirit, and it is associated with repentance and forgiveness of sin. So, was Jesus just talking to his apostles and not to us? Do we have no Promise and no power because He wasn’t talking to us? Did that die out with the apostles? That must also mean we are not witnesses for Jesus either in the sense that we don’t have to spread the gospel to the uttermost parts of the world. By what basis can we pick and choose? Either we have the Promise and everything that goes with it, or we don’t.

    The Promise was fulfilled and delivered beginning on the day of Pentecost. They were filled (pletho) with the HS and spoke in other languages. Peter identified this in his sermon as the fulfillment of God’s promise and said that signs and wonders would accompany, with they did. This event when tongues of fire hovered over them was identified by Peter in chapter 11 as the baptism within the Holy Spirit. The tongues were part of the sign to the Jews and they were “filled” so the message could be spread. Jesus had poured out the Holy Spirit (2:33), as evidence by the accompanying signs (specifically tongues). External manifestations of tongues and baptism within the Holy Spirit probably (most likely) occurred at the same time. So Peter preaches and gets to Acts 2:38-39. Remember, in Acts 1, we had repentance, baptism within the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sin, receive Holy Spirit power, as part of the Promise. What is in Acts 2:38-39? 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

    So the Promise and the baptism and the power was not just for the apostles; Peter extended it to all the audience in the “first gospel sermon.” So it applied to people at Pentecost as well. What about everyone else? What about “for all whom the Lord our God will call?” Is there an expiration date somewhere on that package?

    Everything in the Promise is for everyone, everywhere, for all time. Just like the Promised Holy Spirit was poured out on all people. Peter extended the provisions of the Promise exactly as God had said.

    After over 50 years of my reading Acts 2:38 as a command for water immersion, it came as a real shock to realize that is not what it means. Water is not part of the Promise of the Father; Spirit is. “John baptized you in water, BUT …… “ Acts 2:38-39 is the offer of the Promise, and only baptism within the Holy Spirit can forgive sins. I cannot read “water” into Acts 2:38 any longer. But then they took them and water baptized them, right? Yes. Baptism within the Spirit and then baptism within water is the same sequence as occurred in the Cornelius account. Then why water baptize; why even bother? Because to not water baptize a believer when God has baptized them within the Spirit is for the church to OPPOSE God. Not recommended. See post on Cornelius.

    Continued (maybe) with summary of other conversions in Acts.
98. Jay Guin says:

    February 12, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    I agree with the grammatical analysis of Dr T. But I think the context makes it quite clear that "gift of the Holy Spirit" is the personal indwelling of the Spirit.

    Peter's sermon builds on Joel's prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit — prophesied in other OT passages as well and urgently anticipated by the Jews as a sign of the Messianic age.

    (Act 2:16-18 ESV) 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: 17 "'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.

    Peter continues —

    (Act 2:33 ESV) 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

    "Promise of the Holy Spirit" is grammatically parallel to 2:38. "Holy Spirit" is genitive. "Promise" is accusative." And Peter is not speaking of salvation or forgiveness in this verse, but that which has been outpoured — the Spirit himself.

    (Act 2:38-39 ESV) 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

    Peter then promises forgiveness PLUS the "gift of the Holy Spirit." He then refers back to 2:33 and declares that the "PROMISE is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." What is the promise? Well, that which has been outpoured, the Spirit.

    2:39 recalls —

    Isa 44:3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.

    God had long ago promised "my Spirit" to the Jews' descendants, not a single generation, but all of "Israel" forever.

    Similar is —

    (Isa 59:20-21 ESV) 20 "And a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression," declares the LORD. 21 "And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore."

    Some argue that "gift of the Spirit' means "gifts of the Spirit," but the word is singular and there is nothing said indicating that those responding to Peter's plea spoke in tongues or did miracles. Moreover, "gift" translates DOREA, not CHARISMATA, the word used of gifts of the Spirit elsewhere in the NT.

    It is, however, the same word as —

    (Joh 4:10 ESV) Jesus answered her, "If you knew the GIFT of God, and who it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water."

    And it's the same Greek phrase as in —

    (Act 10:45 ESV) And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the GIFT of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.

    Again, we see the prophetic language of outpouring.

    Finally, if it's not the personal indwelling, what exactly is the "gift"? It's not forgiveness, as that's promised earlier in Acts 2:38.

    Therefore, it's not surprising that commentators outside the Churches of Christ uniformly take "gift of the Holy Spirit" to refer to the personal indwelling.
99. Jay Guin says:

    February 12, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Price,

    Check out: /2009/07/church-of-christ-d…

    You might enjoy the entire Church of Christ Deism series: /index-under-construction/h…
100. Jay Guin says:

     February 12, 2011 at 7:04 pm

     Price,

     Thanks for the hymn quote. (I think the congregation of my youth always skipped the "Spirit of God, my teacher be" verse, because I sure can't remember it. I had to pull a hymnal off my shelf to convince myself it really is in there!!)

     For those not familiar with the hymn, or who'd just enjoy a great a cappella rendition
     
     

     (The contralto is incredible.)
101. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 12, 2011 at 7:09 pm

     Jay, right on! I agree 100%. If people's tolerance is high enough, I would like to eventually develop a discussion on the "gift" of the Holy Spirit and why Paul says the gift is incomprehensible.

     I agree the "gift" is the indwelling Holy Spirit. But there is additional description of what God has given to us, and that discovery boggles the mind. Especially when one has such a small one, as I do.
102. Jay Guin says:

     February 12, 2011 at 7:16 pm

     Dr T,

     You are such a tease! What is the incomprehensibility of the Spirit that you wish for us to comprehend?
103. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 12, 2011 at 7:30 pm

     I'm still trying to figure that one out. 🙂 Might get to it by tomorrow. But that raises a question:

     Should I continue pontificating or will this approach generate an excessive abundance of "interest?"
104. Jay Guin says:

     February 12, 2011 at 7:49 pm

     "Excessive abundance of interest"? Theobloggers and DISQUS can handle the traffic.
105. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 12, 2011 at 8:34 pm

     I keep going until you say the thermostat is set too high.
106. Randall says:

     February 12, 2011 at 8:51 pm

     @Dr T,
     you said" Should I continue pontificating or will this approach generate an excessive abundance of "interest?"

     Go ahead and keep on. I know there are others besides myself that are following and interested in what you might add.
     Hesed,
     Randall
107. Grizz says:

     February 12, 2011 at 9:19 pm

     Laymond,

     Some things to remember:
     – on the day of Pentecost there were 120 present when the Spirit came as tongues of fire
     – when Peter taught concerning the promise in v.38, he continued by saying the gift was for "as many as the Lord shall call unto Himself"
     – in the case of Cornelius in ch. 10, check out what Peter (again) saw and said in vv.44-48…noting that everyone who heard Peter preach received the Spirit that day – (including those present on Pentecost who were there?)
     – there is nothing in ch.10 about tongues of fire or the hands of the apostles
     – unlike ch.2 and ch.10 where everyone there received the Spirit and there were tongues, ch. 8 says nothing about tongues while including something about the apostles' hands – a departure in two separate ways from the record of the other two events
     – before leaving these three events, note what Peter says about Cornelius and the other believers in his household: (v.15) "…the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as upon us at the beginning." (a seeming reference to ch.2) and also (v.17) "…God gave them the same gift as to us also …" and do not forget to complete the context that explains why this happened (v.18) – as a sign of what God granted to these Gentiles in Cornelius' household.

     – next, turn to ch.13 in which we find nothing about tongues or laying on of apostles' hands but we do find this summary statement: (v.52) "And the disciples were continually filled (a) with joy and (b) with the Holy Spirit."

     – moving on to ch.19, in vv.1-7 Paul seems to associate the receiving of the Holy Spirit with immersion into Jesus and only after they were immersed in Jesus' name did he lay hands on them, after which we are told "the Holy Spirit came on them" – leaving some room to question whether it was a result of or just an accompaniment to the laying on of Paul's hands.

     The conclusions we may draw from this are likely about as varied as are those who draw conclusions at all about this, but some things are undeniably recorded:
     1. there was more than one way in which the HS was received
     2. there was more than one way in which the HS was imparted
     3. not everyone who received the HS had the apostles' hands laid on them
     4. there was in both Peter and Paul some recognition of a connection between the HS being received and immersion into Christ

     There is more in these passages, but we should be able to agree that at least this much is undeniable. Again, the apostle Peter testified that this "gift of the HS" which was "promised" was not just for the people present on Pentecost and/or in Cornelius' household when Peter preached there.

     My observation in all of this is that variances of the sort noted in these above-mentioned passages do NOT equal contradictory facts, but rather speaks of the spectrum of ways God accomplishes His promises.

     Blessings,

     Grizz
108. Price says:

     February 12, 2011 at 9:22 pm

     Jay…a hearty Thank You for the link to the quotes from the ECF's… fascinating !! Oh, I must admit to a good chuckle envisioning your instinctive incredulity as you reached for that songbook…:)

     I can't remember the last time I've been as challenged to study and to consider differing points of view on a blog…Excellent !! I am personally aware of several who follow the discussions and are encouraged and challenged as well…I believe a fresh wind is blowing over your work…Blessings.
109. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 12, 2011 at 9:28 pm

     Thank you, Randall. I am pouring out a synopsis of ideas have taken me over 30 years to learn. I just didn't want to generate a backlash of rebuttals and protests for Jay to have to deal with.

     I have found that once one has been freed from having to construct a defensive explanation of why “water” has to be read into each of the conversions in Acts, they can then just read the verses for “what they say.” One is also free from having to figure out exactly when each convert was “saved” or when God baptized them within the Holy Spirit. If one believes the Promise, one knows that baptism occurred, and one also knows that water baptism also occurred, and the timing and sequence really isn’t critical for salvation of the convert as recorded in Acts. Any evidence for this? Yes, it is between interpretive and speculative, but …. it’s a possibility.

     Acts 1:6 So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.”

     I used to think these verses were included in Acts to help make me feel better when I asked stupid questions. Jesus had opened their mind (Luke 24:45), and this was a question they might have asked years before – surely they knew better now. There are a lot of explanations – Will you beat up on Rome now; will you be an earthly king, etc. But Jesus seemingly didn’t answer their question, but instead gave then an answer to a different question. Maybe. What could be the “code” behind their question? Establishing the kingdom to Israel would mean keeping the old form of atonement for sin, which involved something the priest did and something humans had control over based on their obedience to commands in the physical realm. God forgave sins after the humans did their works as acts of obedience. I think Jesus is saying that this is all going to change. It’s a nice way of saying, “It’s none of your business.” Because in the new system to be shortly implemented, forgiveness of sins and salvation will be under the sovereign authority of the Father — when, who, and how. So don’t go constructing your legalistic system again. You will find out what your responsibilities are. Because the Holy Spirit will be changing you big time in a few days, so go wait for it. Then you won’t be asking that question anymore.

     The Holy Spirit was poured out. But, do we still ask that question?

     That is obviously only a thought from reading my interpretation into the passages, so it may even go past speculation. But it’s interesting to consider.

     In between the large phases (from Jews to Samaritans and then to Gentiles), the gospel spread incrementally and Luke did not record that signs accompanied these smaller steps. The gospel spread to include priests (Acts 6:7) and, after the Samaritans, a man who was faithful to God but who by Jewish law/tradition couldn’t even get past the gate to the inner courtyard where the women could go (Acts 8:26-39). There were no external manifestations by the eunuch. He was baptized within the Holy Spirit (as Promised) and water baptized by Phillip and “went on his way rejoicing” which could be indicative of the indwelling Spirit, although not identified as such by Luke. Each of these were steps casting the net of the gospel wider and wider toward fulfillment of “to the uttermost parts of the world.” Christianity was a universal religion, whereas Judaism was an ethnic religion. Luke is showing Theophilus that Christianity was for everyone, even someone rejected by Judaism.

     In keeping with this, after Cornelius, other converts included women and ranking Roman officials and workers within a Roman jail. God’s authority was not found in post-Pentecostal Judaism, but was in the church, the body of Christ. And the authority was to hold to the Christ-centered message of the gospel, to offer the message to everyone, and to accept all whomever God had baptized into the unity of Christian fellowship. No external manifestations from the Holy Spirit were recorded by converts between the accounts of Cornelius and the 12 Ephesians. We can know that baptism within the Holy Spirit occurred in each case because we believe the Promise. We can assume that water baptism occurred in each case when people were outside the fellowship (Apollos?) because they just did that and because the church wanted to be obedient to God. External manifestations were not part of the Promise and they were not under the control of people. So they wouldn’t be expected to occur, except when Luke reported it.

     There is no clear answer why Apollos wasn’t baptized in water and why the 12 Ephesians were, since they both knew only the baptism of John. Apollos may have already been considered “on the team” and “on board” with the authority of the church in Jerusalem, so he just needed some remedial instruction. The 12 Ephesians in Acts 19 were a group of men whose doctrinal practices were incorrect enough for Paul to notice that they were “off track.” This difference was identified as the lack of the Holy Spirit, and they were re-baptized in water because they were outside the authority of the church. Not clear exactly when God baptized them within the Holy Spirit, but it was likely at the same time. Paul did the laying on of hands to show that God was working through the church at Jerusalem and through the apostles and not through splinter denominational groups. They spoke in tongues and prophesied when the Spirit came upon them. “Came upon” (from the outside) in these verses is two words in the Greek, used together with similar meaning to epipipto, although not the exact same word. There were apparently a sect of Jews in Ephesus who lived under the authority of John the Baptist and not Jesus. This account is recorded to show that there is no other authority than the gospel based upon the name of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit that He poured out. Again, the message is authority for fellowship and unity based on Jesus Christ.

     The book of Acts is about authority and unity in the church. The authority is the gospel of Jesus Christ and that was preached and represented all the way through. Acts records the expansion of the church, but each step is done emphasizing unity in the body of believers. Those out of line with that (12 Ephesians) have to be brought back.

     Many of these interpretations are similar to those proposed by Dr. Oliver Howard in a lectureship many years ago, which I think is available in writing on Cecil Hook’s site, Let Freedom Ring.

     Now one can ask the question, how did the people in the “upper room” (however many that was = another discussion) get water baptized, if water baptism was necessary for forgiveness of sins and before they could be baptized within the Holy Spirit. They had probably been baptized by John (every one? We don’t know) but was that good enough? Were they like Apollos or like the 12 Ephesians? Did they all water baptize one another before Pentecost to prepare for baptism within the Spirit or did they baptize each other when everybody else got water immersed in Acts 2:40-41? These are things one has to worry about in defending water immersion being mandatory in order for sins to be forgiven. But since the timing and authority of salvation is God’s authority and not mine, I am freed from having to figure that out so as to defend my own salvation doctrine. Like a breath of fresh air (i.e., wind, pneuma, spirit).

     Taken together, all of these conversions provide a consistent thread throughout Acts of the themes of the authority of Jesus, unity in fellowship, and universality of the gospel. It is less than ironic that Christians have instead used the book of Acts as a goldmine for the formation of human interpretive doctrines that divide the body of Christ.

     Next post (assuming there is one): Tongues in Acts and in Corinth, and “miraculous” spiritual gifts in general
110. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm

     Jay, maybe "excessive abundance of interest" is similar to "irrational exuberance?"
111. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 13, 2011 at 4:07 am

     People have historically wanted to link the spiritual gifts with the “gift” and external manifestations, especially tongues, in Acts. In the cessationist theory, if tongues in Corinth can be linked to tongues in Acts and the baptism with the Holy Spirit, then that provides a handle to grab all of them and toss them out as invalid today. In the Pentecostal/Holiness doctrine (which, thankfully, is becoming more Christ-centered) baptism with the Holy Spirit is linked to tongues in the two times it is specifically identified by Luke, and by hooking tongues in Corinth to that, it validates tongues in the church today. When the two are separated, no one is happy about it. But neither interpretation is Christ-centered nor based on good exegesis of scripture, and so it should be no surprise that the result is division in the body of Christ.

     As previously pointed out by both Jay and myself, the word for “gift” is not the same in Acts as it is in 1 Corinthians 12,14 or Romans 12, or 1 Peter 4. Luke does not use the word “charismata.” There are events recorded in Acts that could be regarded as an exercise of a spiritual gift, such as Agabus giving prophecies, but Luke never identifies them as such. It was not in his purpose to so do. So to call anything in the book of Acts a “spiritual gift” is inaccurate, imprecise, and erroneous. It is confusing and leads to incorrect interpretations of other things in Acts. What more can I say; it makes a mess!

     That particularly applies to speaking in tongues. If we compare tongues on Pentecost with tongues in Corinth, what do we get? Tongues on Pentecost were associated with being filled (pletho, controlled) by the Holy Spirit; pletho is not used in reference to spiritual gifts. Tongues on Pentecost were known languages not needing human interpretation; tongues in Corinth were not understandable without interpretation. The Spirit filled all in the upper room at Pentecost and they all spoke in tongues; in Corinth not everyone spoke in tongues. There is no indication that tongues were a problem for the church; in Corinth tongues were a big problem. There was no termination point given for tongues in Acts; in Corinth, tongues would “extinguish themselves” when the “perfect” came (1 Cor 13:8). There are other comparisons, but perhaps the most important one is the purpose of speaking in tongues. In the book of Acts, tongues were used as a sign of God’s authority behind an event, including the expansion of the gospel past the key markers said by Jesus (1:8) and the proof to the 12 Ephesians. On Pentecost, tongues were used as an important means to spread the gospel across different languages. Tongues in Corinth were for only one purpose, and that was to edify (build up) the church. That’s it. Tongues in Acts were a sign to the Jews, and tongues in Corinth were specifically said NOT to be a sign. How can we know that?

     The church in Corinth was finding immature ways to compete with one another and divide the body over just about anything. Who baptized whom, lawsuits, the Lord’s Supper, and spiritual gifts. What was the problem? People who spoke in tongues were placing themselves as being better and more favored by God than someone who didn’t. There may have even been tongue wars about how much and the supposedly quality of the tongues. It was divisive. Paul told them to get it in line and stop being divisive; put tongues and interpretation in their proper place on the totem pole, which is last and not first. Prophecy is first because it best accomplishes the purpose of spiritual gifts – edification of the church. In a mathematical sense, tongues + interpretation = prophecy. If that’s the case, why not be more to the point and just seek the gift of prophecy?

     Paul quoted a passage from the Law in 14:21, relating to God speaking to the Jews through foreign tongues because they wouldn’t otherwise be convinced of what God wanted. Then in vs22 Paul said tongues are a sign for unbelievers and prophecy is for believers. Paraphrased, when tongues are used as a sign, it is a sign for unbelievers, not unbelievers as in pagans but Jews who needed a sign to be convinced of God’s authority and plan of action. Think of the instances of tongues in Acts (assume the manifestation at Samaria was tongues). All four were used as a sign to the Jews – at Pentecost there was a collection of Jews who needed a new message; in Acts 8, the Jews needed to accept the Samaritans (and vice versa); at Cornelius a big event was needed to show the Jews they should accept the Gentiles; and in Ephesus, some Jews needed to see the authority of Jesus Christ.

     In Corinth (paraphrasing 14:22-25) Paul said tongues are for edification in the church and are not to be used as a sign in the church. You guys are using them in the assembly as a sign of one-upsmanship on each other, as a supposed sign of more authority from God. No wonder an unbeliever would come into one of your assemblies and think you are crazy! You are using tongues for the wrong thing and making a mess out of it. If you use prophecy as it was intended to be used to build up the church, then an unbeliever will come in and be convicted of sin. In one case you let the Spirit flow in the assembly and in the other case you toss the Spirit out the window.

     Applications so far:
     (1) Tongues in Acts were used as a sign to the Jews. Tongues were not a sign in Corinth. So don’t label tongues in Acts as “gifts,” because doing so creates just about as much interpretive confusion as it did in Corinth.

     (2) Tongues were a sign to the Jews in Acts and were not related functionally to the baptism within the Holy Spirit. Sometimes they occurred at the same time and sometimes they did not. Tongues or manifestations didn’t happen at all salvation experiences or didn’t happen later as a “second experience.” Tongues are unrelated to salvation or to the indwelling Holy Spirit. Don’t make a doctrine out of speaking in tongues.

     (3) Although tongues in Acts had a specific purpose that was unique to that time in recorded history, there is no indication in Luke or Acts that God couldn’t do anything He wanted to again and at any time. And He doesn’t have to clear it with me. There may be a form of human logic that says signs are no longer needed after the First Century, but there is nothing in scripture to base that on. One who forms a cessationist doctrine from that is telling God what He can do or not. Not recommended.

     (4) Do not call anything in Acts a “spiritual gift.” Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent if Luke doesn’t use the word, charismata.

     (5) Spiritual gifts are given to the body of Christ to serve one another in love and in so doing to build up the body.

     Next: The so-called “miraculous” spiritual gifts and what is a “miracle” anyway?
112. Bruce Morton says:

     February 12, 2011 at 11:24 pm

     Jay:
     You paint with too broad of a brush when you talk about churches of Christ having "focused the gospel on baptism rather than Jesus." I can think of MANY brothers and sisters who have NOT fit your description. Including many who have taught and preached well, and preached about baptism with a focus on Jesus. Over many generations.

     When I read bombastic statements such as yours, I am assuming you are not using sensational journalism. You really believe what you write. I can think of nothing darker than misrepresentation — which is what you have done.

     In Christ,
     Bruce Morton
     Katy, Texas
113. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 13, 2011 at 1:13 am

     I used to hear sermons about the “Nine miraculous spiritual gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12.” I am thankful that one preacher actually listened to me when I pointed out his errors. In chapter 12, the Greek text in vs 1 doesn’t have “miraculous” (dunamis), and doesn’t have “gift” (charismata). Paul said, “I don’t want you to be ignorant about spiritual [matters].” The NIV “translates” the verse as “spiritual gifts,” and that is just another place where the NIV “helps” the readability of the text by making interpretive additions that are flat wrong.

     Consider the following and compare with what had been traditionally taught as doctrine.

     (1) In chapters 12-14, the word for “miracle” (dunamis) is used for one manifestation. How does that stack up with “Nine miraculous spiritual gifts?”

     It may be translated “workers of miracles,” but the word is dumanis, “powers.”
     12:10 … to another operations of powers …
     12:28 …. placed in the church first apostles …… thereupon powers …..

     So what is that?? Someone who has been given an ability from the Spirit to have an operation of the power of God for the service in love of one another so the church can be built up. Anyone who thinks that passed away in the First Century, please keep that notion to yourself.

     (2) In chapters 12-14, there is only one manifestation of the Spirit that is specifically called a “gift” in which the manifestation and charismata are used together. One out of nine. Now, charismata is used as a general identification of all the gifts together in 1 Cor 12, just as in Romans 12 and 1 Peter 4.

     (3) The Greek word charismata is used 5 times in chapters 12-14:
     12:4 there are distributions of graces, yet the same Spirit
     12:9 to another graces of healing by the one Spirit
     12:28 God indeed placed … thereupon graces of healing
     12:30 not all have the graces of healing
     12:31 be zealous for the greater graces
     Whenever any English translation, such as the NIV, has the word “gift” in another verse (as Ch 13:2), it had been added into the text.

     So what is the only manifestation to be specifically called a “gift?” It is the gift of healing, or of cures, or of health. The gift of health? Anyone who thinks that passed away in the First Century, please keep that notion to yourself. Healing is mentioned three times, and in all three the word charismata is also used. Pretty consistent.

     I don’t know for sure the significance of that. Each of the other manifestations are abilities an individual has in order to serve another in the body. If the body isn’t being built up, a “gift” is not being used. A person may be “gifted” in an unusual talent, but if they are not using that ability in a service of love to another for building up the body, it is not a spiritual gift. But healing or health is actually called a “gift.” What about that? A gift is not a gift unless it is transferred. If I have a gift for you, but I won’t give it to you, do I really have a gift? Or it a “gift” only when I give it to you? In the case of healing, the gift may not be the ability of a person to heal other people, it may be the healing itself that is received as a gift by the person in need. Who knows for sure, since it the Spirit that assigns the gifts or manifestations, and not me.

     Well, tongue speaking has been a problem and we’re not going to allow that. Okay, that’s your prerogative, but just don’t say the scripture told you to do that.

     Those miracles died out in the first century because they weren’t needed anymore. Why? Doesn’t the church need to be built up anymore? Are we there, yet?

     We don’t want to be like those Corinthians. So we think we’re not if we don’t speak in tongues and if we claim that everything ceased? Then we turn around and end up making the same mistakes that Corinth did, or even worse. That will be for another discussion.

     In 12:1 Paul said he didn’t want then to be ignorant of spiritual matters. That implies that he thought they were being pretty ignorant. What about us? Are we so much smarter?

     What about “when the perfect shall come?” 13:10. The cessationist theory said that the NT hadn’t been written yet, so the word in Corinth had to be spoken by prophets and all these “miraculous” things had to be done, including miracles, to confirm the word, but when the written word was finished (the perfect of 13:10) all this miraculous stuff wouldn’t be needed anymore and would pass away like chapter 13 said. The best I can say about this “logic” is that it comes under the category of “ignorance” in 12:1. Outline 1 Cor 13 and compare it to an outline of Eph 4 and it will be evident that “the perfect” corresponds with full maturity in the knowledge of Christ. Basically, one doesn’t even need to go out of chapter 13 to find the definition. The “perfect” is the love of God. Has that arrived? Are we there yet? How’s that working for us? 1 Cor 13 says until the church is perfected in love, there is a place for spiritual gifts to help members of the body serve one another in love so we can be built up together into the fullness of Christ. When will that “pass away?” How about when Jesus comes again.

     Now, let’s go on a trip about miracles. I probably should be embarrassed to refer to this series of posts, but there is an exchange between Theophilus dr and Guestfortruth about miracles and the supernatural on the tread Baptism An Exploration: “So that no one may boast” 02/10/2011 multiple posts between 10:20am to 4:22pm. I probably stepped on some toes, but this is a particularly risky area for someone to overextend themselves.

     We use the word “miracle” in all sorts of ways. “Well, it’s a miracle!” “He made a miracle catch in the end zone.” It’s probably even in the name of some rock group. We commonly use miracle in the context of something very unusual or something that can’t be explained in any other way. The problem, as pointed out in the previous posts, is that these are human definitions and not God’s.

     Basic, short cut, bottom line. A miracle is anything that involves the power of God. Period. If it breaks a law of nature, fine; if it doesn’t, fine. If we can understand it, fine; if we can’t, fine. Our understanding changes, the power of God doesn’t.

     Prayer unlocks the power of God. There is substantial evidence that miracles depend on our faith. God may choose through His grace to intervene otherwise, but consider just a few verses. The word dunamis is translated either miracle, like what Jesus did, or power, as in Eph 1:19, which is what Paul says we have. Neither died in the First Century.

     Read Matt 9:2, 22, 29 & Mark 10:52 among many, many passages that link miracle power to faith. Read Matt 13:58 & Mark 6;6, which are particularly unnerving to me. Lack of faith prohibited Jesus from doing miracles, except heal a few people. What? Heal people? That’s a big deal for us!! What else could He do if we just had faith? What will Jesus say about me? And He was amazed at his lack of faith?

     How does this jive with “it died out in the First Century?” Anyone who wants to think that, please keep it to yourself.

     The last point of many that could be discussed here. What is the greatest miracle? Healing? Raising somebody from the dead? No.

     Events in the physical realm can theoretically be modified by Satan, if it were to suit his purposes. It’s late and I will post this without looking up all the references. Pharaoh’s magicians could duplicate Moses’ plagues. Yes, up to a point, and yes, Moses’ snake ate theirs. But it was close enough to reverse Pharaoh’s mind. Paul said Satan would masquerade as an angel of light and food even Christians. The antichrist or deceiver would do counterfeit miracles that fooled the elect. When the Jews accused Jesus of doing miracles by the power of Beelzebub, Jesus didn’t say, “Oh come on, you know Beelzebub could do these things.” No, he said that Beelzebub wouldn’t do them because to do so didn’t serve his evil purpose. That’s why we test every spirit and why we have discernment from the Holy Spirit. But the point isn’t to start a witch hunt to see which “faith healer’ is counterfeit. The point is there is a greater miracle that Satan cannot duplicate. Cannot. Cannot!

     In Luke 5 the friends of a paralytic man lowered him through a roof into the presence of Jesus. They wanted Jesus to perform a miracle on the man. Did Jesus do that? What was the miracle? Rise up and walk? No.

     20 When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” That’s the miracle.

     The Jews made one of the more important statements in scripture.

     21The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

     Catch that? Every event in the physical realm could be duplicated, enough to fool the elect, but there is one that is out of the supernatural spiritual realm that the Satan absolutely cannot touch. The forgiveness of sin. Then Jesus healed the paralytic. Were the Jews convinced? No, they plotted to kill Jesus.

     We get hung up on physical events for miracles. God is doing miracles all the time, and we just blow that off and take it for granted. Oh sure, forgiveness of sin, now show me somebody who was really healed!

     We need to make our definition of miracle and supernatural coincide with what the revealed Word says.

     Now, are spiritual gifts in 1 Cor miraculous? How about Rom 12 or 1 Pet 4? Can we separate the spiritual gifts into our categories as to which ones sound miraculous and which don’t? All of the spiritual gifts are distributed by the Holy Spirit for the growth of the body of Christ into the love of God. All spiritual gifts are miraculous, be definition, if they are used for the purpose stated in the NT. They come from God, so they are miraculous.

     What about you. Do you have the spirit of the living God dwelling in you? Is that a miracle? Is that from God? Do you have continual forgiveness of your sins? Is that a miracle?

     Change your definition and look in the mirror and see a living miracle. If the Spirit of God is living in you, you are a miracle.

     Next, we should begin developing the gift of the Holy Spirit and the New Creation and the unfathomable gift of God. It is a miracle.
114. Laymond says:

     February 13, 2011 at 8:08 am

     The conclusions we may draw from this are likely about as varied as are those who draw conclusions at all about this, but some things are undeniably recorded:
     1. there was more than one way in which the HS was received
     2. there was more than one way in which the HS was imparted
     3. not everyone who received the HS had the apostles' hands laid on them
     4. there was in both Peter and Paul some recognition of a connection between the HS being received and immersion into Christ

     Grizz, there is one small word that even you have used more than once that sets this all in prospective. The small word -WAS – no one I know disputes the "Giving and receiving" of the HG in the first century church.
     This is another example of a Christian looking at the bible and saying "look, they are talking about me, again", there is no way I can show/prove I have this same thing given in the first century, I just know it
115. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 13, 2011 at 8:40 am

     The Spirit of God doesn't subject Himself to our human analysis in the physical realm. That's why it's "supernatural." We can (and should) study the revealed Word and ask the Spirit to open its truth to us. But in every case, the "proof" we seek will fall short, because some of the answer is beyond us. Some things are yet to be finally revealed.

     So, Laymond, I think you are absolutely correct. Everything will come down to faith. Either we believe or we don't. And I think that's what God intended.
116. Laymond says:

     February 13, 2011 at 9:29 am

     Dr. Theo, I have a question, I hope it is not to personal, do you have a Catholic background.
117. Laymond says:

     February 13, 2011 at 10:11 am

     " But in every case, the "proof" we seek will fall short, because some of the answer is beyond us. Some things are yet to be finally revealed."

     Dr. Theo. if every baptized Christian is indwelled by the "Holy Ghost" is the following just an empty promise?

     Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

     (all things)
118. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 13, 2011 at 10:53 am

     Answer to #2, "is John 14:26 an empty promise?" Certainly not. Rather I believe it is fulfilled by the indwelling Holy Spirit at work in each Christian. I think in some cases we have to ask the questions, and God through the Spirit provides the answers. Sometime I don't know even enough to ask the right questions. Sometimes the answers are there and I am not yet tuned into the right wavelength to get the message. Since the spiritual realm is so much greater than I am, I think there will always be something that I don't understand.

     The Bible is the revelation. Yes. Everything we need to know is in the Bible. Of course. The Bible doesn't change; my understanding of what the Bible means for me changes as I look at through more through the eye of continual spiritual maturity.

     So perhaps I should speak for myself and say that "there are parts of the answer that are beyond me, because my questions only get larger as I understand more."

     Answer to #1, I was born and raised in the Church of Christ and have never attended or been a member of anything else.
119. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 13, 2011 at 2:54 pm

     Summary and then continuing …. The New Creation and the gift

     Jesus taught about the Holy Spirit to his disciples (and recorded for us), and Jesus returned to the Father so another Counselor could come and abide in his followers. In Luke 24 and Acts 1, Jesus bridged the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the gospels into the establishment of the church, and designated the how God’s sovereign authority would rule over salvation and over the establishment, spread, and continuation of the church. Jesus said the Promise of the Father would be fulfilled and that the apostles would be the first to receive it. The Promise was carried out by the Holy Spirit, who came in power on the Day of Pentecost, and the Promise was effected through baptism within the Holy Spirit into the forgiveness of sins, receiving power from out of above, and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is described as the indwelling Holy Spirit as well as other ways to be covered later. Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and book of Acts as a legal-quality proof to Theophilus that the things he had heard about Jesus were indeed true. In Acts, Luke reported events from a perspective of an eye-witness account as if testifying in a court room. Like Jack Webb said, “Just the facts, ma’am.” Therefore, Luke wrote about external manifestations as signs to the Jews of God’s authority behind the gospel message being spread to the world, while adhering to the example of Jesus for the church, living in love, peace, and unity. The manifestations (signs, tongues, healings, etc) were all from the power of the Spirit coming on or filling a person from the outside, controlling their behavior for a particular purpose at that time. Luke’s account does not contain his own theological commentary and it does not describe the working of the indwelling Holy Spirit, the baptism of the Holy Spirit (except to confirm to the Jews that it had occurred), or the nature of the gift of the Holy Spirit. However, we can get the understanding from scripture outside of Acts, and the picture that is developed is consistent with Luke’s account in every way.

     Signs accompanied the message on four occasions, Pentecost, Samaria, Cornelius, and 12 Ephesians. These signs coincided with the phases of gospel spread that Jesus said (1:8), and in Acts 19 to show a sect of the Disciples of John to get in line with gospel authority. In all cases the manifestations were a sign to the Jews. The authority from Jesus to his apostles was consistent with Ephesians 4:3, to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace. The church was united around the “apostles doctrine.” We need to find out what that was instead of making our own doctrinal assignments in its place.

     Spiritual gifts in the church (charismata) are not mentioned by Luke, and the tongues on the day of Pentecost were not the same as tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14. To mix them is eisegesis.

     There is nothing in scripture that says that anything of the power of God, working inside or outside, indwelling or control of behavior, ceased at any time, after the First Century or any other time. There is every indication in scripture that the exerting of the power of God in our lives depends on faith. Saying anything doesn’t exist anymore is not recommended. A miracle is any action or event that involves the power of God, and the greatest miracle is forgiveness of sins so that the Spirit of God can live in our hearts.

     Before the Day of Pentecost, the Promise of the Father was developed in Luke 24:47-49 and Acts 1:4-8. From these verses, the Promise of the Father consisted of repentance, baptism within the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sin and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Promise of the Father was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when Jesus poured out the Promised Holy Spirit (2:33) and the Promise was offered by Peter to those at Pentecost and all people for all time. “For all whom the Lord our God will call.” The gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the Gentiles (10:45). The gift (dorea) of the Holy Spirit is not a charismatic gift (charismata). The gift of the Holy Spirit involves the indwelling Holy Spirit within the Christian, but there is more description to come. Further development of the New Creation involves the baptism within the Holy Spirit, the new birth (born from out of above and clothed in power), baptized into one body, anointed with the Holy Spirit for the called out or elect, indwelling Holy Spirit, born of imperishable seed, and the incredible dunamis/eperchomai parallel from Acts 1:8.

     Baptism within the Holy Spirit is sometimes translated as baptism in …, baptism with …, or baptism of the Holy Spirit. The preposition is “within” as being surrounded by a medium. This is entire consistent with the mean of baptism, which is immersion. This is parallel with “baptism within water.” In both cases, water and HS are dative, and it is locative rather than instrumental. It is the location of the immersion, not the instrument used for the immersion. The baptizer is Jesus. So the repentant believer is immersed within the Holy Spirit by Jesus. What next?

     Jesus tells Nicodemus, “You must be born again.” Nicodemus related birth to a natural birthing process. Jesus draws a parallel between a natural birth and a spiritual birth. Being ‘born from above” (John 3:1-12) refers to the new believer being generated from out of the heavenly throne room of God. That is the generation, but from out of what. From out of the Spirit (vs 5&8). (I can no longer read a mandate for water baptism into these verses). The sequence is that the believer is baptized within the Holy Spirit and generated from out of the Holy Spirit in the presence of God as a New Creation. Anything else? 1 Cor 12:13, “For within one Spirit we were all immersed into one body.” From baptism within the Holy Spirit, the New Creation is placed into the body, the church. God has added the believer and for the church not to accept them in fellowship (and water baptism) is to oppose God (Acts 11). Guess what? “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder” applies to more than husband-wife marriage. What right do we have to “put asunder” the joining of a believer into God’s fellowship by refusing to extend the same fellowship of love? Who is going to answer for that attitude? More later.

     Next: anointing of the elect and the responsibility that carries, indwelling, divine fellowship
120. guy says:

     February 13, 2011 at 3:59 pm

     Grizz,

     i think your 1-4 list is a good list, but i don't think it necessarily goes as far as you treat it. Perhaps it does, i just don't think it must.

     Consider the series Jay did on baptism polls and people who die on the way to baptistries and such. Many concluded (i don't know whether you agreed with this or not) that even if God is able to make exceptions, there is still normal way in which things are supposed to go. Forgiveness of sins happens at baptism as a norm even if God can make exceptions because of prevailing circumstances.

     If you find that position plausible at all, it seems to me an analogous understanding of your 1-4 list could be applied. That is, perhaps the laying on of the apostles' hands is the normal means by which the Spirit was received, but God made exceptions at certain times for a reason. But even if God is able to make exceptions for certain reason (for example, as you point out, that God meant to include Gentiles in receipt of Christ's blessings), that wouldn't change that there is a normal means by which the Spirit was imparted, and that the normal means being necessary is what should normally be expected. If so, then the 1-4 list doesn't necessarily refute the position that we can only normally expect the Spirit being received if and when the normal means are available–laying on of the apostles hands.

     –guy
121. Grizz says:

     February 13, 2011 at 4:53 pm

     Laymond,

     Your point has the appearance of being valid, but your application nullifies the one thing YOU noted.

     When I speak of things I did 5 years ago, I speak of what I was doing then. WAS. Having noted hat was happening then, I am NOT in any way discounting anything I am doing now.

     In the same way, noting that historical documentation happened in a "was" time frame does NOT in any way discount what is presently happening.

     If you had another point that could stand up to this kind of basic scrutiny, what was it?…er, um…is it?

     Grizz
122. Grizz says:

     February 13, 2011 at 4:55 pm

     Laymond,

     The scriptures tell us that the Spirit gives one person this gift and another person a different gift. This does not disqualify the Spirit from giving two people the same gift, but only opens the door for different believers to have different gift-sets.

     Why should I assume that any gift MUST BE the same gift anyone else has?

     Grizz
123. Jay Guin says:

     February 13, 2011 at 5:00 pm

     Grizz,

     In most churches that have an a.m. and p.m. services, there are as many who can't attend on Sunday night as who can't attend on Sunday morning due to job requirements. A nurse or factory worker is as likely to work the morning shift as the evening shift.

     But I do agree that a major point of communion is to take it together. Sadly, in today's 24/7 world, there are many jobs that make it impossible for a congregation to all be in one space together at once.

     There are congregations experimenting with communion in small groups — combining the Lord's Supper with a love feast in private homes, and thereby capturing more of what communion meant in the early years of Christianity.
124. Grizz says:

     February 13, 2011 at 5:18 pm

     guy,

     I can see where you are coming from and consider it an interesting observation. My question is why would we think laying on of hands was/is the "normative" method of imparting the Spirit? The distribution is not significantly different between the ways we see recorded that the Spirit was imparted, and who is to say that there is not another more normative method that my short analysis did not pick up?

     It is nice that we agree on a few undeniables, but as you said, going much further than that gets more dicey.

     Blessings,

     Grizz
125. Grizz says:

     February 13, 2011 at 5:31 pm

     Jay,

     I did not realize I had said much of anything about the LS. For what it is worth, here's my two pennies' worth…

     – Acts 2 and Acts 20 and 1 Cor 11 and other passages leave me convinced that the day of the week is a non-issue born of seeking to be so distinctively right that we got a lot of things like this wrong.

     – I am comfortable taking the LS with as few as 2 and as many (in my experience as 35,000. I have now had opportunity to enjoy the communion of the memorial declaration just about whenever you might imagine – day, night, indoors, outdoors, with many, with few, every day of the week, up to a personal high of four times in one 24-hr period with different groups of believers.

     Being a hairy feller makes the leap to hairy tick a short one for some who are inclined to parcel out labels. I can take the heat.

     My preference is for small, articulate groups where the remembrance is enriched with shared meanings and testimonies and the fellowship thrives on the moment. I guess I like it mushy – emotionally speaking. I like the atmosphere charged with the expectation that someone might hear our declaration and oppose us either verbally or even physically for being believers in the resurrected Christ. It has never happened for me stateside, and only sort of once overseas. When it is that real, that immediate, that vital to the group proclaiming His death for us all together, though…phew! I love that.

     Truth is, I believe it is more likely that a good church-attender would be inclined to oppose a small group LS observance in a pizza joint than a non-believer. Oddly enough i find the non-believers more sympathetic.

     Ironic, huh?

     Grizz
126. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 13, 2011 at 5:32 pm

     Jesus taught about the Holy Spirit to his disciples (and recorded for us), and Jesus returned to the Father so another Counselor could come and abide in his followers. In Luke 24 and Acts 1, Jesus bridged the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the gospels into the establishment of the church, and designated the how God’s sovereign authority would rule over salvation and over the establishment, spread, and continuation of the church. Jesus said the Promise of the Father would be fulfilled and that the apostles would be the first to receive it. The Promise was carried out by the Holy Spirit, who came in power on the Day of Pentecost, and the Promise was effected through baptism within the Holy Spirit into the forgiveness of sins, receiving power from out of above, and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is described as the indwelling Holy Spirit as well as other ways to be covered later. Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and book of Acts as a legal-quality proof to Theophilus that the things he had heard about Jesus were indeed true. In Acts, Luke reported events from a perspective of an eye-witness account as if testifying in a court room. Like Jack Webb said, “Just the facts, ma’am.” Therefore, Luke wrote about external manifestations as signs to the Jews of God’s authority behind the gospel message being spread to the world, while adhering to the example of Jesus for the church, living in love, peace, and unity. The manifestations (signs, tongues, healings, etc) were all from the power of the Spirit coming on or filling a person from the outside, controlling their behavior for a particular purpose at that time. Luke’s account does not contain his own theological commentary and it does not describe the working of the indwelling Holy Spirit, the baptism of the Holy Spirit (except to confirm to the Jews that it had occurred), or the nature of the gift of the Holy Spirit. However, we can get the understanding from scripture outside of Acts, and the picture that is developed is consistent with Luke’s account in every way.

     Signs accompanied the message on four occasions, Pentecost, Samaria, Cornelius, and 12 Ephesians. These signs coincided with the phases of gospel spread that Jesus said (1:8), and in Acts 19 to show a sect of the Disciples of John to get in line with gospel authority. In all cases the manifestations were a sign to the Jews. The authority from Jesus to his apostles was consistent with Ephesians 4:3, to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace. The church was united around the “apostles doctrine.” We need to find out what that was instead of making our own doctrinal assignments in its place.

     Spiritual gifts in the church (charismata) are not mentioned by Luke, and the tongues on the day of Pentecost were not the same as tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14. To mix them is eisegesis.

     There is nothing in scripture that says that anything of the power of God, working inside or outside, indwelling or control of behavior, ceased at any time, after the First Century or any other time. There is every indication in scripture that the exerting of the power of God in our lives depends on faith. Saying anything doesn’t exist anymore is not recommended. A miracle is any action or event that involves the power of God, and the greatest miracle is forgiveness of sins so that the Spirit of God can live in our hearts.

     Before the Day of Pentecost, the Promise of the Father was developed in Luke 24:47-49 and Acts 1:4-8. From these verses, the Promise of the Father consisted of repentance, baptism within the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sin and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Promise of the Father was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when Jesus poured out the Promised Holy Spirit (2:33) and the Promise was offered by Peter to those at Pentecost and all people for all time. “For all whom the Lord our God will call.” The gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the Gentiles (10:45). The gift (dorea) of the Holy Spirit is not a charismatic gift (charismata). The gift of the Holy Spirit involves the indwelling Holy Spirit within the Christian, but there is more description to come. Further development of the New Creation involves the baptism within the Holy Spirit, the new birth (born from out of above and clothed in power), baptized into one body, anointed with the Holy Spirit for the called out or elect, indwelling Holy Spirit, born of imperishable seed, and the incredible dunamis/eperchomai parallel from Acts 1:8.

     Baptism within the Holy Spirit is sometimes translated as baptism in …, baptism with …, or baptism of the Holy Spirit. The preposition is “within” as being surrounded by a medium. This is entire consistent with the mean of baptism, which is immersion. This is parallel with “baptism within water.” In both cases, water and HS are dative, and it is locative rather than instrumental. It is the location of the immersion, not the instrument used for the immersion. The baptizer is Jesus. So the repentant believer is immersed within the Holy Spirit by Jesus. What next?

     Jesus tells Nicodemus, “You must be born again.” Nicodemus related birth to a natural birthing process. Jesus draws a parallel between a natural birth and a spiritual birth. Being ‘born from above” (John 3:1-12) refers to the new believer being generated from out of the heavenly throne room of God. That is the generation, but from out of what. From out of the Spirit (vs 5&8). (I can no longer read a mandate for water baptism into these verses). The sequence is that the believer is baptized within the Holy Spirit and generated from out of the Holy Spirit in the presence of God as a New Creation. Anything else? 1 Cor 12:13, “For within one Spirit we were all immersed into one body.” From baptism within the Holy Spirit, the New Creation is placed into the body, the church. God has added the believer and for the church not to accept them in fellowship (and water baptism) is to oppose God (Acts 11). Guess what? “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder” applies to more than husband-wife marriage. What right do we have to “put asunder” the joining of a believer into God’s fellowship by refusing to extend the same fellowship of love? Who is going to answer for that attitude? More later.

     Next: anointing of the elect and the responsibility that carries, indwelling, divine fellowship

     Of the 5 Greek words translated “anoint” or “anointing” only chrio refers to the official anointing of a king or priest and is used in the New Testament only in connection with the anointing with the Holy Spirit – Jesus (Luke 4:18, Acts 4:25-27, Acts 10:38) and the believer. Paul said we are anointed by the Promise of God in the form of the His Spirit in our hearts (2 Cor 1: 20-22). John said that God’s anointing that we received remains in us and teaches us all things, that we can be confident because we have been born of Him, and that by God’s love we are called His children. (1 John 2:27-3:1). An anointing of a king or priest only had to be done once; Jesus was anointed once; so we are anointed once when the Holy Spirit takes up residence in our hearts when we are born from out of God as His child. The scripture doesn’t say that the anointing comes and goes or that the Spirit leaves and comes back. I view those verses as part of the Promise of the indwelling Spirit to me, without trying to read a doctrine into it.

     God’s divine power through His glory and goodness has given us everything we need through His promises so that we may participate (share, fellowship, or commune) with the divine nature. We share something with God because of our anointing (2 Peter 1:3-5) and because we are the called and the elect (2 Peter 1:10). The Counselor, the Spirit of Truth, will be with us and within us (John 14:15-17). So, we are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God (1 Peter 2:9).

     This anointing sounds pretty nice until one gets to the responsibilities that go along with it. These responsibilities go along with being children of God. Christians who bear the Spirit of God have inherited some work to on this earth; Christians are to carry out the anointing of Jesus.

     In Luke 4:18 the Spirit of the Lord anointed Jesus to preach good news to the poor, proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor (Isaiah 61:1-2 adds – to bind up the brokenhearted). Jesus started doing these things to show how it’s done, but then he sent out the 70 (or 72) in Luke 10, and began sharing some of the responsibility with his disciples. Hasn’t God always been unhappy about injustice? In the OT, God said that people were cheating each other and using faulty scales and deceit. In Matthew 25, the examples of service that pleased God were not those who called Lord, Lord or did miracles, but those who ministered to the hungry, thirsty, to strangers and to those needing clothes, to the sick, and to those in prison. The righteous asked, “When did we do that?”

     Matthew 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’”

     We have been anointed, but grace carries responsibility. We were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 1:11; 2:10)

     What are the good works prepared in advance for us to do – carry out the anointing of Jesus, which is also the anointing we assume when we are given the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:11-14).

     Who will correct the injustice and the blindness (physical and/or spiritual) and release those oppressed by Satan in this world? The US government? Castro? Bill Gates? Islam? No, it is the responsibility of the church, the body of Christ. No wonder Satan is working overtime to divide the body of Christ. United we stand, divided we fall (Aesop). There is no way that a divided body of Christ can fulfill its anointing. The whole world? China, North Korea, Iran, everywhere? It’s staggering. It would seem that Satan understands the anointing Christians have better than the Christians themselves. Who is willing this battle now, the church, or Satan?

     Considering that the only way that the anointing of Jesus upon His church can be fulfilled is by a united body of Christ, what about those who claim to be in the body, but divide the body with their behavior or even their doctrine? Think about this one. Any person or any group who claims they have the only doctrine for salvation or for fulfilling the anointing of Christ, and who claims that other groups in the body of Christ are NOT, wrong, and are not saving people, have to assume the entire responsibility of the world upon themselves. We have a choice – to recognize the universal body of Christ and be a part of the global effort of the church against injustice and to rejoice in what other groups are doing in the name of Jesus Christ on the front against Satan, or to say that they are not in the body of Christ because they don’t teach “water baptism is necessary for salvation” (or something else) and therefore whatever they are doing doesn’t count for diddly, are saying that they accept the responsibility for doing it right, themselves, in the entire world! It’s one or the other. Christian groups must either recognize the body of Christ or else do it all themselves. We are not going to change the anointing. Well, how can we do that? We’re just trying to evangelize the Presbyterians around our church building because they don’t (fill in the blank). We’re too busy trying to straighten out our “progressive brothers.” Come and talk after you have finished straightening out all of the injustice and oppression in China! If you have narrow views of the church, then you are agreeing to extraordinary responsibility. You can’t have it both ways.

     How can one stand before God and justify receiving the anointing by God’s grace and then use God’s grace as a freedom to divide the body to dilute the church’s power toward fulfilling the anointing?
     The Holy Spirit is more than the warm fuzzies; the Holy Spirit is dunamis power for a reason.

     Okay. Soap box is down.

     Next: Born of imperishable seed and the incredible eperchomai parallel
127. Jay Guin says:

     February 13, 2011 at 5:36 pm

     Laymond,

     You asked for an interpretation of —

     (Joh 14:26 ESV) 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

     I think there's a dual meaning here. As is so often true of prophetic utterance, there are multiple meanings and fulfillments.

     There's sense in which this promise was particular to the people in that room, who were empowered with a special recollection of Jesus' teachings, to allow them to be the evangelists they were called to be and to write the scriptures.

     But there's a broader, deeper truth, as revealed in 1 John.

     (1Jo 2:20-21 ESV) 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

     (1Jo 2:27 ESV) 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie–just as it has taught you, abide in him.

     "Anointing" is a reference to the Spirit.

     (2Co 1:21-22 ESV) 21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

     Now, notwithstanding John's promise in 1 John 2, the Spirit does not teach differential equations or World History 101. I speak from experience.

     So what does "all things" mean in this context? Well, the key is in understanding "the truth" in 2:21. And "truth" means the truth about Jesus and the truth that is Jesus. It is, more or less, the gospel. /index-under-construction/t…

     But it's not merely the propositional truths that are within the gospel. It's the circumcision of the heart that comes by the Spirit. You see, Christianity is not merely getting certain propositional truths right; it's also about getting the heart right.

     Therefore, the "truth" of the Spirit is the gospel (which all Christians know) as well as God's transformative work in the Christian.

     (Heb 8:10-11 ESV) 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

     The "truth" that God gives via the Spirit is written on our hearts and minds by God himself. And tells us that the truth is not merely the words that are preached but the transformation that must accompany faith.

     (2Jo 1:1-4 ESV) The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth, 2 because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us forever: 3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Father's Son, in truth and love. 4 I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we were commanded by the Father.

     Of course, this tells us a lot about what kinds of "truth" are important to God. The Spirit isn't so much about Calvinism, Arminianism, Infralapsarianism, etc. as being about faith in Jesus and love for each other, sacrificial service, and unity — as explained in the rest of 1 John and the rest of Jesus' lesson in John 13-17.

     "All things" are all things necessary to be pleasing to God, and they are all found in Jesus.
128. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 13, 2011 at 5:37 pm

     Jay,

     Sorry about this, but I unintentionally copied my previous post in addition to the latest one. So the post of today at 1:54pm is in the thread twice. If you can, you might want to delete the first part of my latest post, down to the part that says

     Next: anointing of the elect and the responsibility that carries, indwelling, divine fellowship

     and leave the rest of it.

     (then again, you might want to delete all of it). ?
129. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 13, 2011 at 7:51 pm

     The New Creation and Created to be Like God

     In a way that we don’t totally understand (and therefore differ in opinion), the New Creation has been chosen by God as being God’s offspring. The Greek word genos means offspring, kindred, family, generation (Acts 17:28-29). When were we made to be God’s offspring? At the new birth, the birth from out of above, out of the presence of God, as the New Creation. We are offspring of God because the New Creation is of God’s “seed.”

     “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.” (…having been regenerated not from out of corruptible seed but of incorruptible through the enduring word of God) 1 Peter 1:23. The Logos (creative eternal Word of God) was God (John 1:1), and the universe was created by the Logos (John 1:3, Psalm 33:6-9). The New Creation was born from above out of God’s immortal seed through the eternal Logos of God.

     Consider the following parallel:
     The Logos became flesh in Jesus Christ who physically dwelled on the earth (John 1:14) in human form having also been born of God (1 John 5:18).
     Through the creative Logos of God, the Gift of His immortal seed resides within our hearts, as we physically dwell on the earth in human form having also been born of God. (1 Peter 1:23).

     Therefore, as a New Creation, the believer has been chosen as God’s offspring and the New Creation is from out of God’s imperishable (immortal) seed. What God has given to us is His immortal essence within His Holy Spirit power that has come upon us, the same power that raised Jesus from the dead (Ephesians 1:19-20). God’s presence and power is eternal. We will also be eternal, (1 Cor 15:50-54) and God’s gift to us already is eternal, which is why the Holy Spirit indwelling power is called a “downpayment” for the completion of an eternal promise to be fulfilled.

     How can “we bear the likeness of the man from heaven,” (1 Cor 15:44-49) this is, Christ, who is, Himself, God? (“If you have seen me, you have seen the Father,” John 14:9; “He is the image of the invisible God” Col. 1:15).

     We will bear His likeness because we have been made in the image of God (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24).

     So how is the New Creation “made in the image of God?”
     1. Consider the parallel between a physical birth and maturation and a spiritual birth and maturation.
     In a physical birth, the new infant is born from out of water, born out of perishable seed, feeds on milk, then meat, grows into physical maturity, and as he/she does so they display the physical characteristics of the parents.
     In a spiritual birth, the New Creation is born from out of above (or out of the power of the Holy Spirit), born from out of imperishable (immortal) seed, feeds on milk of the word, then meat of the word, grows into spiritual maturity, and as he/she does so they display the spiritual character (image) of God the Father (Christ, the image of the invisible God, Col 1:15).
     Consider the implications of the words, born (or generate) and seed.
     “Seed” is often used in Scripture to refer to physical genetic ancestry –e.g. the “seed” of Abraham (Romans 11:1), or the “seed” of David (Romans 1:3).
     The Greek word for “born” is “gennao” and for “offspring” is “genos.” From these words are derived English words like generate, generation, and genetics.
     Either of two Greek words may be used for “seed”- “sperma” or “spora.” Either word denotes genetic material that “codes” the characteristics of the parents– the DNA, the genes of the parents.
     As a child matures, he/she will physically express the characteristics inherited from the parents. The child will often grow to resemble one or both of his/her parents in numerous ways. In biology, this is the phenotypic expression of the genotype.
     The New Creation will also spiritually grow and mature, expressing the outward Christ-like characteristics that derive from the inner spiritual nature.
     The natural child after birth grows physically into the image of his/her parents because the child has been given the perishable genes of the parents.
     We, as a New Creation, have been created anew and grow spiritually into the image of the Father because we have been give the immortal genes of God.

     The ultimate Gift of the Holy Spirit– poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit as the love of God and given when we are born from above as the New Creation—is the Gift of the spiritual and immortal genes of God.

     Born of God and God’s seed – 1 John 3;9 (NIV) No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.

     Next: The incredible eperchomai parallel. “And you will receive power when the Holy Sprit comes upon you” Acts 1:8

     The Greek word eperchomai is a very strong word that means to come upon, attack, influence, impend; it carries a connotation of a significant life-changing event. Eperchromai is used in the NT only twice in reference to the Holy Spirit, and both uses are by Luke.

     What are the contexts in which the Promise of the Father has been used? Baptized and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39), baptized within the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5), Holy Spirit power (Acts 1:8), born from out of above (John 3:3), clothed with power from out of high (Luke 24:49), born of God from God’s seed (1 John 3:9), Spirit of God and sons of God (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 3:25), born again of imperishable seed (1 Pet 1;23).

     Summary and paraphrase of the above passages: According to the Promise from the Father, the Holy Spirit will come upon us from out of the heavenly presence of God and overtake us with miraculous power when we are born from out of above as the New Creation, with the spiritual genes and DNA of God, and as God’s sons (or offspring).

     Both of the two verses in the New Testament where eperchomai is used in reference to the Holy Spirit relate to a new birth.

     The birth of the new creation – “And you will receive power (dunamis) when the Holy Spirit comes upon (eperchomai) you.” Acts 1:8

     The birth of Jesus Christ – “The power (dunamis) of the Holy Spirit will come upon (eperchomai) you and the power of the Most High will overshadow (baptize) you…” Luke 1:35.

     Because of the Promise, the Holy Spirit comes upon (eperchromai) you within power (dunamis) from out of High (above) to be baptized as the New Creation born (gennao) from the genes of God (immortal seed) will be called Sons of God.

     The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

     The only two uses of eperchomai in the NT in reference to the Holy Spirit and the parallels between the Promise to the New Creation and the Promise to the birth of Jesus Christ — is this random?? No, I think Luke knew exactly what he was saying, and if Luke didn’t, the Holy Spirit did.

     The conclusion from this remarkable parallel must be that, when we are spiritually born from out of the presence of God in the heavenly realms with the Gift of the Holy Spirit, we have been given the same spiritual genes of God that Jesus Christ had when He was on this earth. It was the expression of these spiritual genes by Jesus that made Him be the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). It is the expression of these genes when we are controlled by the Spirit that transform us into the likeness of Christ.

     “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift.” 2 Cor 9:15

     How can members of the body of Christ not be in unity, once they realize each Christian has this gift?

     Recognizing that genetic principles are in the Bible, a great number of new insights into many passages open up.

     Comments?
130. Price says:

     February 13, 2011 at 8:49 pm

     Dr. T.. I am amazed at how much I was also conditioned to hear "water" with the word "baptize"…..I now keep hearing the expression "John baptized with water, but you will baptize with the Spirit." I am amazed that the church somehow moved from valuing the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to what seems to be a purposeful avoidance of Him. Some have even created a theology by the most creative means that entirely eliminates the possibility of an indwelling Spirit. If I understand your comments, this particular view of the Holy Spirit being relegated to the first century is in direct opposition to the very intent of baptism….a new creation, born of Spirit..

     Given the intense effort to remove Him from our lives, it will be a slow move back to Him and will undoubtedly and unfortunately be met with great resistance. What I can't understand is …for what purpose..or more simply..Why?
131. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 13, 2011 at 9:36 pm

     I was conditioned also. That is one reason why it so amazing to remove that filter that always read "water." It's like a domino effect; when one makes a realization like that, it opens one's vision to see other things too that we have conditioned ourselves to see, or not see. It also changes perspective. Compared to having the genes of Jesus Christ within me, arguing about instrumental music seem less than even "unimportant," it is siding with the accuser of the brethren. How can we carry the genes of God and play along with the accuser of the brethren?

     "Well, I'm not being an accuser, it's this progressive brother who is ……" You know, I have learned a great deal about interactions in the church by watching the dynamics going on in my wife's Bible class for 2 year olds.

     There are two big areas in which the enemy wants to keep us from growing. One, is coming to a greater knowledge about the Holy Spirit, who is the power of God indwelling the church. Two, is the power of prayer. Many Christians would rather watch a football game than spend time in prayer. We in the CoC have a long history of a doctrine that quenches the Spirit. I don't know what else to do other than to keep talking and teaching about it.

     To some extent, people have a fear reaction to something they don't understand because of what other people are claiming or what flamboyant theatrics are being shown on the TV. But that's not keeping our eyes on Jesus.

     Yes, I have come from a position (many years ago) of "defend the faith" of cessationism to an opinion that it is a tool of Satan against the power of God in the church. God help us if we continue to fall for it.

     Matthew 1:23 …and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel –which means, "God with us." (cf Isa. 7:14). When Jesus was physically here, it was "God with us." Through the Holy Spirit, it is "God within us."

     I appreciate you, Price. Anyone who makes it through all these posts probably ought to get a T-shirt!
132. Price says:

     February 13, 2011 at 9:48 pm

     Dr. T., et al Unfortunately, I wasted a lot of years not paying attention…The Lord has been gracious to allow me the privilege of being around men of the Word who challenge me to study. I have come even to appreciate those with whom I disagree (not as much as I should) as they also challenge me to be as certain of my convictions as I possibly can and yet be flexible enough to continue to learn and actually consider another point of view.. Thank you all for helping me to grow….
133. Randall says:

     February 13, 2011 at 9:52 pm

     Someone said:
     There are two big areas in which the enemy wants to keep us from growing. One, is coming to a greater knowledge about the Holy Spirit, who is the power of God indwelling the church. Two, is the power of prayer. Many Christians would rather watch a football game than spend time in prayer. We in the CoC have a long history of a doctrine that quenches the Spirit.

     Amen Dr. T.

     Hesed,
     Randall
134. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 13, 2011 at 10:56 pm

     Thank you Price and Randall.

     Part of the growth of the church into the full knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ is the sum of many individuals learning more and more. But, perhaps even more important, is people who are older passing along to those who are younger the things they have learned from the Holy Spirit working through the Word and working through life experiences. This is like training the next generation. If a person who is 60 years old can impart his(her) knowledge to someone 30 years old, in another 30 years that person will be further along spiritually than their teacher. And, over time, the church as a whole continues to step upward and upward toward Jesus.

     But Satan attempt to thwart this grow by instilling fear and a status quo "protect the doctrine attitude," which circles the wagons around the living water instead of making it available to those who thirst for it.

     One way that we honor our father and mother is to grow beyond them spiritually. It is not a competition, it is a testimony to their preparation of their children. We honor them.

     My children did not have to spend time and energy coming out of the bondage of legalism like I did. I hope I have prepared them to grow spiritually beyond where I am now.
135. guy says:

     February 13, 2011 at 10:59 pm

     Grizz,

     Why think apostles-laying-on-hands is normative? Well, because the instance in Acts 10 admits of exceptional reasons. Because, as you point out, Peter connects that exceptional case with his own case in Acts 2, rather than just any old case ever. Thus both Acts 2 & 10 seem exceptional in nature. Because of the particular way Luke records Acts 8:18, and because Acts 19:1-7 seem to reinforce Acts 8:18 as a statement about how things normally go.

     –guy
136. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 13, 2011 at 11:18 pm

     Guy said, "Acts 10 admits of exceptional reasons." Acts 19:1-7 seem to reinforce Acts 8:18 as …. normally go"

     If apostles laying on hands is normative, apparently Ananias didn't know that in Acts 9:17 when he laid hands on Saul so he could see and be filled with the Holy Spirit. The laying on of hands occurred in Samaria and Ephesus, but if there were any exceptional situations, it was these two. Cornelius and Pentecost are parallel in most ways. If there was ever a normative conversion it would be that of Cornelius. There is no conversion covered in greater detail and to make sure we understand the message Luke covers it three times. It is the conversion of a Gentile, which applies to us more than any other others you mentioned. Why does Acts 10 admit to being an exception?
137. Jay Guin says:

     February 14, 2011 at 12:00 am

     Readers who subscribe to comments by email,

     Did you receive the post from Dr T at /2011/02/baptism-an-explora… which begins,

     "The New Creation and Created to be Like God."

     I didn't come through my email, and I trying to figure out why.
138. Grizz says:

     February 14, 2011 at 12:09 am

     T-Dr, and Price, and everybody reading this part of the discussion…

     I appreciate your comment because it brings a third perspective into the consideration of how the HS comes/falls/is imparted/etc.. My question to both you and Price though, is why do we seem to be compelled to find a "normative" operation of God's grace in giving the Spirit or imparting the Spirit or having the HS gift us or 1st century Christians? What is so fascinating that we just have to have it about finding something 'normative'? Maybe I am missing something important here.

     Can anyone help me out?

     Grizz
139. Grizz says:

     February 14, 2011 at 12:14 am

     Jay,

     I, too, missed that post in my email. While you are trying to figure it out I guess I will be visiting the blogsite more often instead of primarily using email to track the discussion. I keep my emails for reference though, so bummer. T-Dr has a great way of putting things and making me consider alternatives I had missed. Reference notes like that are great tools for spurring a growth spurt.

     Thanks for asking the question, since I might not otherwise have noticed how much I missed.

     Grizz
140. Jay Guin says:

     February 14, 2011 at 12:16 am

     Dr T,

     Amen.

     Among other important consequences is the fact that our immortality is not innate (as the Greeks believed) but given by God via the Spirit. /2008/08/surprised-by-hell-… The Spirit gives us enough of God's nature to make us, like him, immortal.

     Also important is that the "new creation" — which we become when we are saved — is a return to the image of God in which we were created in Gen 1. It's God fixing what was broken in the Garden.

     (Eph 4:24 ESV) 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

     (Col 3:10 ESV) 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
141. guy says:

     February 14, 2011 at 12:28 am

     Dr. T —

     Re: Cornelius:

     (1) It is just because it is given so much attention that suggests its an exception. If it were normal, why the fuss?
     (2) Because Cornelius was the first Gentile convert. Luke makes this clear. Luke also makes clear that this was the sticking point in the craw of all the Jews who heard about the conversion.
     (3) Because Luke records Peter saying Cornelius received the Spirit in the same way as he had 'at the beginning.' Peter doesn't connect Cornelius' receipt of the Spirit with just any old process of conversion Peter had ever encountered. Peter connects it with a very particular event years prior. If this is the normal way Spirit-receiving went, Peter could've easily referenced any conversion in recent memory.

     Re: Acts 9:17

     (1) The text doesn't specify at what point in time Paul actually received the Spirit. Perhaps Paul did not receive the Spirit simultaneously with the laying on of Ananias' hands.
     (2) Perhaps being "filled with the HS" is not always equivalent to the same experience/phenomenon as the initial reception mentioned in Acts 2, 8, 10, & 19.
     (3) Perhaps this case is exceptional for much the same reason Acts 2:1f is exceptional–we're witnessing the induction of another apostle, not a normal convert.

     i'm not sure that any of (1)-(3) is true, but it at least demonstrates that there are multiple ways of reading Acts 9 such that it is in no way inconsistent with the position that laying on of apostles' hands is the normal means by which the HS was received.

     –guy
142. guy says:

     February 14, 2011 at 12:31 am

     Grizz,

     It's an interesting question that i'll think about. My initially reaction is just to explain that motivation by pointing to other instances where normativity seems intuitive. Do you think it's somehow mistaken to conclude that baptism is the normal point in time at which forgiveness of sins is imparted? Do you think it's somehow mistaken to conclude that faith or repentance are normal requirements for prospects? Why would normativity be fitting in those cases but not in this one?

     –guy
143. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 14, 2011 at 12:32 am

     Grizz, like you, I think there is only so far we can go in "analyzing" something normative from the conversions in Acts, because each account adds something a little different to the picture. Luke's purpose was to present an orderly, systematic, and convincing body of court-worthy evidence to Theophilus. I think Luke did this with minimal space and minimal redundancy. The redundancy with Cornelius is unusual, which adds credence to the idea that this conversion is very important to our understanding. But, the only thing for certain among all the conversions that would be "normative" is that (1) God was always faithful to his Promise, and He is still faithful today and (2) God exercises sovereign control over His salvation, and humans do not, and (3) no part of God's power has "ceased."
144. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 14, 2011 at 12:56 am

     Guy,

     This is an interest lesson in perspective, because I would take most of your statements and draw the opposite conclusion.

     (1) Cornelius is given so much attention because it is the rule and not the exception, and Luke wants to make sure the details are well reinforced.
     (2) Of the 4 conversions mentioned, in terms of relevancy today: (a) is the situation at Pentecost routinely repeatable today? Some denomination doctrine would say "yes." I would disagree that it is "routine." (b) How many Samaritans do we have today? (c) How many disciples of John do we have today? (d) How many Gentiles do we have today? Just answer (d) and you don't even have to answer (a,b,c).
     (3) The conversion of Cornelius was maybe 10 years following Pentecost. Were the Jews in Jerusalem listening to Peter say "on us at the beginning" remember over 10 years ago or remembering recently because the same thing kept happening? Were those listening only the ones that had been in the upper room? Obviously we don't know, and this one is probably a moot point.

     Acts 9:17
     (1) Could go either way. All the events are in the same verse.
     (2) The word for "filled" in Acts 9:17 is pletho, the same word used in Acts 2:4 for "filled"
     (3) Why would Saul have been inducted as an apostle on the road to Damascus. What we do not know is at what point Jesus baptized Saul within the Holy Spirit. That was up to God.

     I could argue that the evidence falls on the side that laying on of hands was for a special situation in Acts. God handled the timing of the Spirit at Cornelius without hands and God told Ananias what to do with hands. God gave evidence that He was in charge of both. Nothing is normative in the physical realm. The only normative thing is that God is in charge.
145. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 14, 2011 at 1:15 am

     Jay said, Also important is that the "new creation" — which we become when we are saved — is a return to the image of God in which we were created in Gen 1. It's God fixing what was broken in the Garden.

     I totally agree. But God has more than restore us. God had fellowship with Adam when they walked around together; Adam sinned while God was not present. Since God was not within Adam, Adam apparently did not have the genes of God to become like God. Maybe he was already like God, but the problem with that is that he had the capacity to sin, which God did not have. We can sin, but that is when the genes of Adam are given reign. God was "outside" of Adam even in the Garden, even before Adam had sinned. God is "inside" of us, and will remain because our sins are continually forgiven. So God did more than fix what was broken; He did better; He made anew.

     Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!

     Maybe that should be our "pattern." Instead of the restoration movement, maybe we should have the regeneration movement.
146. Price says:

     February 14, 2011 at 8:31 am

     Hey Grizz…good question about why seek normative in reference to receipt of the Holy Spirit…For ME..it's just a need to try and know what God is doing in and among His people. There are so many individual "beliefs" that circulate back and forth and it seems that everybody has an opinion that differs by some varying interpretation.. I wanted to be able to respond as accurately as I possibly could to the question of "what is baptism" and be able to speak with some reasonableness regarding the Holy Spirit… I wasn't brought up with a lot of teaching on the person of the Holy Spirit… Like I said before, He was more of an IT than a person….

     Things really got out of balance when I began to experience the Holy Spirit in my life. He wasn't, according to some people, supposed to be around anymore but there were things going on that couldn't be explained any other way. The cessationists want to dismiss it as chance or misrepresentation or deceit/decption and I'm sure there are many instances of that…but not all. I've been witness to the Lord moving and being. I began to talk to others about their experiences. Most folks were very hesitant to speak about God "showing up" in their lives fearing ridicule by their contemporaries..That seemed odd to me. What I found out is that God is still being God..More and more people are feeling "safe" to speak about it and as they do they encourage more to seek more from their relationship from the Lord than two songs and a prayer on one single day or the week…

     The more I studied and spoke to men AND Women about the Holy Spirit, I came to the conclusion that we have misrepresented the nature and indwelling of the Holy Spirit and have crippled the church as a result of our dependence on the water. Not to dismiss the baptismal experience…but to redefine it for what it was in the early church and apparently what it was intended to be for "all who believe."

     My desire would be that it would be normative for all of us to long for and experience a relationship with the Father, Son, AND Holy Spirit…

     The debate back and forth usually is the result of having to address those that do not want an active Holy Spirit. I say do not want because it appears to me that there is quite enough scriptural support for and hundreds of years of testimony by respected leaders of the early church without refutation that a reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion that the Spirit did in fact survive John's pen.
147. Price says:

     February 14, 2011 at 8:46 am

     Guy…you mentioned Acts 19 as a normative case…I find this passage to be one of the most odd passages one can read regarding baptism…Here we have people being baptized IN WATER for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4 John's baptism) in believing faith of Jesus whom John explained….and yet apparently that wasn't good enough…really ? What about their baptism is so radically different from what we do today in the baptistry? Someone baptizes in water the repentant prospect who professes their faith in Jesus for the remission of their sins…. and then we tell them that the Holy Spirit that we receive is of no account…don't expect anything different to happen… Life in the our church community couldn't be expected to improve with the help of an indwelling God…really ?

     Now, with my new found "eyes" I read Acts 19:1-7 and I didn't read where Paul baptized them in water… did I miss something ?? He apparently baptizes them in the Holy Spirit…. because they had not heard of the Holy Spirit…Interesting…

     The question I have is this….would Paul had NEEDED to lay hands on them if they had been PROPERLY baptized with an unnderstanding of the Holy Spirit…the text seems to suggest that there would have been no deficiency had the Holy Spirit been included….

     Was every single member and new convert in the Corinthian church indwelt by the Holy Spirit as a result of some Apostle laying hands of them? Seems odd that given the nature of travel and time involved that it would have been difficult for Paul or any Apostle to "run over" and lay hands on them..and yet they ALL had a gift…

     I'm sorry Guy but the more I look at this situation, the more it seems clear that our teaching on the subject of the Holy Spirit has been way off…IMHO
148. Laymond says:

     February 14, 2011 at 10:06 am

     I know this thread is getting long, but I feel compelled to say a few things here.

     ", but the problem with that is that he had the capacity to sin, which God did not have. "

     Yes Adam did have the capacity to sin, so did Jesus. And, no God did not possess that capacity. But lets look at why God did not possess that failing as the rest of us do. God did not create a democracy, and as I believe it is said, there was no sin before the law.
     The rules/laws God created did not apply to him, God lives under no rules, man's or his own.

     1Cr 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
     (does that tell you anything about Jesus?

     Another statement I need clarified. "God was "outside" of Adam even in the Garden, even before Adam had sinned. God is "inside" of us, and will remain because our sins are continually forgiven."

     Is this the "once saved always saved" theory. I thought we had to confess and repent, and ask for forgiveness. Even after we were baptized, Don’t get me wrong, I to believe if God lived inside the Christian, we would never have to ask forgiveness. Because God does not sin, and does not live in sin.
149. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 14, 2011 at 10:21 am

     Well said, Price. Some of the discussion about Acts comes from faulty illogical reasoning, even from a human perspective. Deductive reasoning is taking a general principle, like a scientific physical law, and applying it to individual situations. The law of gravity says if I drop this baseball, it will fall down to the floor. It also applies when I drop this BB. Inductive reasoning is taking observations and expanding them to say that this individual observation (or small set) explains the overriding principle. One person says, the law of gravity applies only to a baseball, and other other says, no, only to a BB. We need to do BOTH deductive and inductive reasoning in Biblical interpretation, and the answer has to be consistent with both. By themselves, inductive reasoning can yield results that are much more flawed than deductive, because in inductive a small error in analysis or sampling is multiplied by a large factor. One way to compensate for that is to take enough samples of the population you can statistically predict that the samples represent the overall principle. Even statistics can give wrong results, as the old saying, "figures don't lie, but liars figure."

     There are four four examples of conversion that Luke chose to include in Acts and write in greater detail, because that was consistent with his purpose. Trying to take one or two of the four examples, none of which are exactly the same, even among this small (and selected) sampling, and then expanding what we think it might mean (not even sure about that) inductively into a "normative way" that the HS worked in Acts, the First Century, or today is asking for chaos! This is less than not smart.

     It's like the story of the blind people feeling a part of the elephant and concluding an elephant is ….. and they would describe the part their hand was on as if the entire elephant was like that.

     Can we take our finite understanding of samples that Luke chose by intent to include in Acts – samples that we ourselves have already done some selecting and interpreting – and expand our interpretation to say we know how God works? Ludicrous.

     That type of faulty reasoning is one reason the CENI hermeneutic was developed. That hermeneutic became our "law" and we deductively applied it to all situations and interpretations. The hermeneutic was faulty, and we are still paying for that. Arguments about water baptism and instrumental worship and when the LS can be taken are all based on a faulty hermeneutic.

     What should we try to do? (within a 1000 word post, which really chops my style, Jay). Look for all the examples – the biggest sampling possible. Only choose consistent details to describe the "normative" sample. Carefully induce the overall principle. Then take the principle and deductively apply that back to all of the samples. Is everything consistent; does is make sense at all levels of logic? Then that might be a working hypothesis, at least until new information new understanding of the scripture is revealed. Then we have to redo the entire process.

     That's how I approach Bible study now, particularly with the book of Acts.

     If you take two examples of the HS acting (Acts 8 and 19) and inductively form one conclusion of that is "normative," and then take the other two examples (Acts 2 and 10) and inductively draw a different conclusion as to "normative," that should be a clue that your logic if faulty and if you pursue that logic you are likely going to end up in the ditch.
150. Price says:

     February 14, 2011 at 10:38 am

     Laymond….I am as repulsed by the once saved always saved MENTALITY as anyone, if I understand that mentality to be a license to do as ones pleases, knowing that it is not right, and expecting God to honor some sort of perceived "get out of jail free" card.. That is a sham of a theology in my opinion and is rightfully rejected. But, that's not what I believe we're talking about here.

     I believe that Paul does a fantastic job in Romans 6-8 of outlining the New Covenant and it's responsibilities… Yes, because of the sacrifice of one man, Jesus Christ, we are by Grace through Faith…SAVED..He did the work..not me… All I did was have faith in the one who did it…

     That Amazing Grace has, according to Romans 6, made me FREE from sin…I'm DEAD to sin. Paul uses the illustration of burial to paint a mental image of how far we are removed from sin…How can a dead person sin? He can't.. We're that far from sin… Should we enter into that mentality discussed first above…Paul says.."May it never be." But, that doesn't in any manner discount the New Covenant..God's Promise, of Grace..We are indeed Saved…

     Should we be repentant of known mistakes that we make..sure…Are we condemned by them..NO..Romans 7 speaks clearly to our being dead to the Law..or Rules…same thing…Too many people get hung up on whether we're talking about the specific Law of Moses versus living in accordance with what God wants us to do…What's the difference.?? Same God…
     We aren't held to a standard of laws or rules of conduct..We are held to the principal of LOVE…We are freed by Grace that was GIVEN to us by belief…If we turn repentance into a law, we are creating a new law that God didn't create..Will we turn from wrong doing..Yes…we will..Are we suddenly LOST in Sin during that exact moment of wrong doing…NO..We are covered like a blanket by the Blood of Christ !!

     Paul ends up in Romans 8 talking about the magnificent coming of Grace…If the Spirit is in us…We are HIS…No worries..Nothing can separate us from Him..NOTHING…There is therefore now NO CONDEMNATION for those that are IN Christ….We don't jump into and out of Christ moment to moment…We are HIS, protected..disciplined, sanctified, justified…all by HIM…Man, if that's not GOOD NEWS..I don't know what is…And, how does one respond to that Grace…with Love for the One who provides it… .

     Paul chastises the Galatians in Chapter 3 for turning back to the flesh (works) when we were given this Grace, not by earning it ourselves (either at first of subsequently) but by the Spirit…It's so easy to go back to DOING..when all that He asks is that we BE..by allowing Him to BE in us… There is so much more freedom where the Spirit of Christ is…In fact, one might be able to discern where He is or isn't by the necessary lack of freedom in any given situation…Romans 8 again.."I have not given you a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear but the Spirit of adoption sons, Through Whom we cry Abba Father."

     If there is a rule…Jesus said is was Love…And, God, Perfect Love, casts out fear (of punishment)…NO FEAR !!! We're Saved..Period…No one can snatch us out of His hand…
151. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 14, 2011 at 10:47 am

     Reply to Theophilus Dr ..

     Great job!! Wonderful logic!! That means that everything you said in detail accurately describes the general view of everyone who reads this thread!!

     Oh, really? How can you say this? How do you know? This is such an arrogant and prideful statement!! It is based on faulty inductive logic.

     The immediately preceding commentary can be applied to the process of faulty inductive reasoning of taking a few examples, interpreted according to my limited understanding, and expand my self-conclusion into concluding that I know how God works.

     "Well, I just know what's in His Word." "I speak where the Bible speaks and am silent …." "I speak the truth and nothing but the truth." "I know you are wrong about baptism, my progressive brother, because I know what God said about it."

     Oh, really? How can you say this? Could it be based on faulty conclusions expanded from samples that have been filtered through presuppositions that change the validity of the sample? Could it be based on the arrogant and prideful assumption that the big number one (1, uno, not God, but ME) has it right, so I can make a global policy announcement, and you, my progressive brother, don't comply with it?

     The above description applied to me at one time. I was blinded, and people still are today.

     Where's Ananias when you need him?

     "Immediately something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again." Acts 9:18

     "I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe." Eph 1:18-19.

     The "power" in this verse is dunamis, the same word translated as "miracle."
     Notice that power is linked to faith.

     John 9:25 "Once I was blind, but now I see."

     God help us.
152. guy says:

     February 14, 2011 at 11:06 am

     Theo,

     Re: Cornelius:

     (1) Christianity had oral and practical presence. Luke wasn't writing in a vacuum. Christians had been around and practicing before Luke and others wrote. And apostles and teachers had been teaching orally before writing. And Theophilus in particular had already been taught about related things (Luke 1:4). Even non-Christians eventually wrote and described features of the church. With a background of oral teachings, explaining rules and norms in details is unnecessary. What would be puzzling would be exceptional cases and circumstances. Why isn't this case like the norm, like the rule? i don't know what else to say there–i think the fact Luke spends so much time with this makes the very opposite point of what you're claiming.

     (2) Cornelius isn't repeatable today anymore than Pentecost-Acts 2. Just because we have Gentiles today doesn't make the relevant circumstances the same. The relevant circumstances Luke points out was that the church was Jewish to that point, and still had all the ethnic separatism that comes with that fact. Cornelius and his household were the first Gentiles to be approached by a major church leader. Despite God taking the initiative to approve Cornelius' inclusion, many Jewish Christians remained skeptical and resistant to what this event stood for (such that Paul had to spend a significant portion of his ministry and words just working on this ethnic unity project). The point is merely because there are Gentile converts today doesn't imply that the features of Cornelius' conversion are repeatable, nor even does that alone suggest we should expect to see them again.

     (3) i'm not completely sure i follow some of your line of questioning. i take it Peter was referring to Pentecost. If so, then i take it he hadn't seen this kind of thing happen since that day. That alone suggests that at least of all conversions Peter witnessed in between the two events, this hadn't happened.

     Re: Acts 9

     (1) Yes. Point being, the text is ambiguous and thus not a proof text for either position.

     (2) i don't deny that, but there are occasions where the phrase is used that i take it clearly don't refer to initial receptions of the Spirit since they seem to refer to people who had already experience such initial receptions.

     (3) i don't know why, and i'm not necessarily saying he was. i'm only saying this is another case of an apostle. That alone may call for an exceptional process–in Paul's case in particular for several reasons.

     To be clear, i'm still not 100% committed to the position that the laying on of apostles' hands was normative (though if i'm honest, my true percentage is above half). The only thing i mean to claim here is that these other texts are not necessarily inconsistent with that position.

     –guy
153. guy says:

     February 14, 2011 at 11:14 am

     Price,

     i'm honestly not understanding your first line of questioning.

     It's true, i take Acts 19 to refer to a water immersion. Probably because the same word is used of John's baptism in the same text. But mostly because i don't see why i shouldn't. The only reasons i can think of are either Protestant type fears or late 19th century pentecostal sort of motivations.

     Even if it was inconvenient, this doesn't make it impossible for all in Corinth to have had hands laid on them by Paul. Paul typically stayed places quite a long time when he planted churches. And we don't have membership totals. It might not be as unrealistic as you make it seem.

     –guy
154. guy says:

     February 14, 2011 at 11:18 am

     Grizz, Price, Theo,

     i'm now engaging all of you. i'm really enjoying this discussion. It's forcing me to stay sharp and deal with details i honestly hadn't thought through. However, i'm afraid i'm over committed. i am a grad student and this is far and away my hardest semester. i may have to back off the three way discussion and the frequency of participation i'm currently giving it. But trust me, it's tempting to check this thing every ten minutes. Nonetheless, i'll check in and reply when it's more expedient, but i definitely don't want you to feel ignored or that i'm not interested or value your input.

     Best,

     –guy
155. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 14, 2011 at 11:32 am

     Laymond said

     "this thread is getting long"

     Is there a saying something like, "A thread is as strong as its weakest post?" I hope not. A "weak post" in this case seems to be a post that is over 1000 words, and most of my posts would be qualified.

     Laymond said,

     "and as I believe it is said, there was no sin before the law"

     Technically, you are correct. Disobedience was not defined as "sin" because it the law that precisely gave the criteria of right and wrong. We go backward and call things "sin" before the law, but it is looking at these instances from that perspective. So I think you are correct. So let's say instead," Adam had the capacity to be disobedient to God's command."

     Laymond said,

     "Another statement I need clarified "God was "outside" of Adam even in the Garden, even before Adam had sinned. God is "inside" of us, and will remain because our sins are continually forgiven." Is this the "once saved always saved" theory?"

     This may be reading too much literal interpretation into the Garden account, but Adam and God seemed to take up separate space. God and Adam has fellowship but it seems like, friend to friend. The serpent chose a time to tempt "the woman" when God was not present. God called for Adam as if Adam was not around (Gen 3:10). Again, this account may not be intended for such a literal examination, but it does not seem that God's presence would have been "within" Adam, whereas God is present within us through His Spirit, which as said earlier in a >1000 word post, by the genes of God in our heart.

     The scripture uses the words "abide" and "continual." Many of these verses almost presume that we will be in a relationship with God and with our brethren. We "walk in the light" and we have continual forgiveness of sin. WE are primarily the ones who want to develop a doctrine over the "what if someone doesn't" question.

     If I walk in the light, it is because I want to. If I love my brother and sister, it is because I want to because of what God did for me. If I confess my sin, not only to God but to a brother/sister whom I offended, I am keeping my relationships in the light because I want to. For me, "once saved always saved" is a humanly concocted doctrine that does matter to me, other than a passing intellectual interest. I just don't have to worry about that. And, brother, you don't have to, either.

     I used to worry. I once heard a person say that they hoped my grandfather was saved because he died suddenly from a heart attack and they didn't know if he had a chance to say a quick prayer for forgiveness before he hit the floor. What unbiblical theology.

     I used to think that it was "presumptuous" for someone to say that they knew they were saved. So if some asked if you were saved, you were supposed to say, "I hope so." Give me a break!! This was during the time that I believed the miraculous HS died out in the First Century, so go figure.

     Is an belief that the indwelling Holy Spirit is in our hearts and that we have a continual washing of our sins by the blood of Jesus a "once saved always saved" doctrine? No. But, also, it might be.

     I don't deal much in the business of attaching human-derived doctrinal labels anymore. I am an iconoclast when it comes to idolizing human labels that limit our understanding of God and His power and what was done by His grace through the blood of Jesus Christ our Lord.

     Heb 12:2 "Let us set our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith.."

     Okay, I think the formula is "explanation + sermon = <1000 word post"
156. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 14, 2011 at 11:39 am

     Thank you for your participation, Guy. I understand the time commitment that goes with keeping up with threads and posting. My wife said last night, as I was hammering away at the keyboard, that she was "going to have to find some chores for me to do."

     Guy, sounds like you already have the chores laid out before you.

     My prayers are with you in your continued study and search for the truth.
157. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 14, 2011 at 2:35 pm

     There are so many threads and so many comments that this "Plank #1" thread will soon fall off the bottom "current comment" list. Wouldn't that be terrible!

     "Default" used to be primarily a banking term, but it's more common general vocabulary use now probably comes from computers.

     "Default" is what source of data the computer goes to first to tell the computer how to boot up. "Default" hard drive, or "default" CD drive. The word has come into vocabulary usage, when referring to thinking or action, as meaning what we might think of first to do, what we are trained to do first, our "reflex."

     I could say, for example, that once my "default thinking" was more legalistic, critical, and judgmental in nature than it is now. That could also refer to the battle between the spirit and flesh for control. Under the bondage of the genes of Adam, we "default" to control by the flesh and realize the mistake later. Or we may learn to "catch" ourselves and think, "No, that's not right." As we continue to walk in the light and crucify the flesh, we will ideally "default" to the spiritual nature. Then we think as Jesus would as the "default" and so we have grown just a little bit more into "the mind of Christ." (1 Cor 2:16).

     The "default" baptism before Pentecost was water baptism. Sure, one needed to have a sincere repentant heart, but all of the OT was like that. John the B said (obviously paraphrased), "Hey, listen up, you brooding snakes. The default is going to change. I am using the present default for baptism, which is within water; but He (Jesus) will be changing the default to baptism within the Holy Spirit."

     The "default" meaning for baptism after Pentecost is, therefore, baptism within the Holy Spirit and not baptism within water. That means, unless water is clearly identified with baptism in the context of the verse(s), the default meaning is "within the Holy Spirit" and not "water." We have been water conditioned.

     That approach starts with Acts 2:38. Repent and be baptized, every one of ……" Water is not specified. The "default" meaning for baptism is not water, it is baptism within the Holy Spirit. That was confirmed by Jesus (1:8) After going to the default meaning for baptism in vs 38, we can start interpreting water baptism into vs 41 without changing the theology of salvation and introducing something into the process that we do or that we have control over.

     "Well, we're just doing what God said." That's a big negatory, good buddy. We think that is what God said only after Acts 2:38 has been passed through our filter that "reads" the default meaning of John's baptism into the passage (eisegesis). Think "Jesus."

     John said, " …… but He will change the default … "

     This illustration is almost like a parable; just another way to look at it.
158. Grizz says:

     February 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm

     T-Dr,

     Nice theory. The first problem I have with your 'default' theory is that Jesus in Acts 1:8 did NOT reference 'baptisma' of any kind whatsoever. Your theory also does violence to what Jesus himself said, taught and lived. And whatever will you dom with all those passages that do not mention water but which do, however, mention "going", "proceeding", and "being" immersed at the very hour they received the gospel? If the 'default' where there is no mention of water is HS, then why did they go-proceed – have to "be" anywhere but where they already stood, sat, or reclined as Paul and others spoke to them the gospel?

     Poor Philip was just an incredibly unskilled communicator even with the HS to help him and guide him – for what other conclusion can we draw if your 'defaultt' was anything like the truth of what is being recorded by Luke and the rest of the writers after Acts 2? That Ethiopean was so specific about needing water for what? Your 'default' would say that he perceived a need for water without any good reason.

     Your 'default' also further confuses things when we get to Paul's letter to the saints in Corinth – especially if you believe the apostles' hands were the only ones that could impart the Spirit (not counting the resulting exceptions of Philip in Acts 8 and and Ananias in Acts 9 and all of those whom Paul lists in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, etc.). Your 'default' also makes it rather complicated to explain Romans 6 at all and 1 Peter 3 as well.

     If all of these passages are 'exceptions to the default position of the NT record' – as they must be for your theory to have any merit – and if Jesus never did actually reference your theoretical 'default' but left it to the apostles … was John 3:5 a temporary thing for folks before Pentecost? What other teachings of Jesus shall be marginalized as irrelevant to the time after Acts 2?

     T-Dr, I must be missing something or maybe you left something out, but as it stands, I cannot find the merits of your 'default' theory. Your logic and even the spirit of what you wrote cannot stand the slightest scrutiny, which is all I have given here, unless there is a significant amount of evidence you have not even begun to present.

     What am I missing, T-Dr?

     Or, possibly, what is it that you think supports your theory but was not fit to be offered in that support here?

     Grizz
159. Price says:

     February 14, 2011 at 4:05 pm

     Guy…first, you should be studying so quit goofing off and get with the program son…:) LOL
     I obviously didn't do a very good job with my comment on Acts 19. I hope I can do a better job here…..What I was pointing out is that the believers to whom Paul went were in fact baptized in water for the forgiveness of sins with a faith in Jesus as the son of God…However, the passage clearly indicates that they were not familiar with the Holy Spirit nor whatever it was that Paul meant by "have you received" the Holy Spirit… With me so far…I'm thinking that this is the exact same baptism that most churches offer today… (1) Water (2) Fully immersed (3) for the forgiveness of sins (4) preceded by faith in Jesus….(5) the new "member" is baptized by a believer…sound familiar? I think it's the exact same thing….I see no difference but perhaps it's just me…

     What I wanted to point out is that Paul was totally unsatisfied with this baptism…It wasn't sufficient by his standards… Why? Because the Holy Spirit was not included. So He "baptizes" them in the Holy Spirit by laying his hands on them… Perhaps you can point to a specific passage but I can't remember any words of Jesus instructing his disciples to lay hands on new believers in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit…I do remember him saying that they would "baptize" them in the Holy Spirit in contrast to being baptized in water…Whatever the method it is obvious that these new believers were in fact baptized with the Holy Spirit….

     My only point here is that there are many today that insist that a "proper" baptism is done ONLY when one recognizes that the baptism is for the "remission of sins." Well, in this first century example, that exact baptism was considered by Paul and God to be insufficient. An additional baptism in the H.S. was required. What does that say about the baptisms that are being done by those who believe that the Holy Spirit didn't survive the pen of John ??

     Now, I'm convinced that God is bigger than our ignorance but from a "systematic theology" pov…how can one be so dogmatic about water baptism when in this instance, an example identical to ours except we name (and then deny) the H.S……wasn't sufficient ??
160. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 14, 2011 at 4:06 pm

     Thanks, Grizz. I appreciate your response; you have pointed out a number of things, many of which are clarifications I should make. Analogies are helpful except when they are confusing. Then the discussion shifts to the terminology of the analogy instead of the subject.

     The first one is just an error on my part. You are correct about Acts 1:8. I must have had a brain nap when I put verse 8 instead of verse 5 where baptized (you shall be being dipized) is found. Sorry about that; thank you for pointing that out.

     The other problem I think is using a term such as "default" that may have a slightly different meaning to different people. This serves as an unintentional example of a form of inductive reasoning, which I have complained about in some interpretations. God has a way of helping me receive the result of my own applications. The mistake is my assumption that everyone would understand "default" in the same way that I was thinking. This was a presupposition, and it brought about a faulty conclusion. The good thing about this error, and of your pointing it out, is that it can serve as an example (to me) of what not to do if one expects successful communications.

     In computer terms (and I am not a computer expert), "default" doesn't have to mean "only." On my computers there is a list of peripherals that can be chosen for boot-up and a priority of the order of the list can be specified.

     So in interpretation, what one would think of first in reading a word, in this case baptism, is not the "only," meaning, such that everything else is excluded from consideration.

     Since baptism within the Holy Spirit was part of the Promise of the Father Acts 1:4-8), and Peter said the Promise was for everyone (Acts 2:39) I have to conclude that baptism within the Holy Spirit occurred at each conversion. Each one, because God said so, even though Luke specifically identifies the baptism as the Spirit in only two cases – Pentecost and Cornelius. I think, also, that all of the converts in Acts were water baptized at some point. So, looking at a conversion account, if the "default" is Spirit, that is just what I look for first, and since I think water baptism also occurred, I look for that also.

     Some examples of not having Spirit as the "default"

     I used to read "water" into every conversion and I knew that it couldn't be Spirit because that's what the Pentecostals said, and I knew they had to be wrong. It wasn't a matter of default (which meaning to look for first), for me there was only one meaning, and that was "water." That was from my conditioning. I know now that was not correct.

     I used to believe that there were 10 examples of conversion in the book of Acts and that in every single one of these examples, the believer was water baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. Then I notices passages like Acts 13:48, "and all those who were appointed for eternal life believed," and I wondered why this one was on the list because it sounded like a conversion to me. So I asked how the 10 conversions were arrived at, and the answer was, "Those are the ones we know were saved because they were baptized." The circular nature of this argument was impressive. So I looked through Acts for references where people believed, were added to their number, became obedient to the faith, etc., and there turned out to be over 30 examples of conversion. That was filtered down to 10 by a presupposition, and then that argument of the 10 conversions was used in Bible studies to "prove" the necessity of water baptism.

     "Water" was also read into most of those 10 accounts. But, since we "knew" the the Spirit's work was completed at the end of the First Century, what else was left for baptism to mean, but water?

     Someone today will not believe anything about baptism within the Holy Spirit if they have a theology that says the Holy Spirit quit doing that after the conversion of Cornelius. But they don't understand the promise of the Father.

     This may be already over 1000 words, so I will continue in another post.
161. Price says:

     February 14, 2011 at 4:17 pm

     Grizz…don't mean to butt into your discussion with Dr. T..but I did have a question…didn't Jesus say in Acts 1:5 exactly what you are saying He didn't say in 1:8 ?? Doesn't 1:5 refer to 1:8 ?? He uses baptizo in 1:5 to refer to both water baptism and Spirit baptism that the disciples are to receive… Seems consistent with Peter's recollection of Jesus' words that he recalls when presenting his report to the church in Jerusalem concerning Cornelius… I don't know about anybody else but Jesus' words in Acts 1 seem to be a departure from the water baptism that He promoted earlier in His career.
162. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 14, 2011 at 5:07 pm

     So, now that I understand that both baptism within the Holy Spirit and baptism within water are functionally valid, how do I sort them out. John baptized within water ….. BUT …… I take this "but" as a signal of change to come that Jesus will usher in, and while John had only one baptism, there will be two after Jesus baptizes within the Holy Spirit, but the priority is Jesus' baptism over John's. (12 Ephesians in Acts 19). To me "default" doesn't mean water baptism doesn't exist, it means it is in 2nd place when I am interpreting what baptism means after Pentecost, and baptism within the HS has first priority.

     Looking at several examples, the Samaritans were baptized but it didn't say within what. I used to say water baptism was the only choice. Now, I know baptism withing the HS occurred so I look for that first. I know it occurred but do not see where Luke specifically said when it occurred, so now I think the baptism Luke mentioned was likely referring to water. In Cornelius the baptism within the HS and the baptism within water were separated in the account. Baptism within the HS was first, which fits with the idea of looking for that first. Water is mentioned specifically by name in the second baptism that occurred. What about Acts 2:38? I used to read water into Acts 2:38 and nothing else. I now read baptism within the Holy Spirit first, and if that satisfies the context I look for water baptism second, which might be in vs 41. The Phil jailer was baptized. First look for Sprit, and then water. What Luke refers to sounds like water. Not a problem. That doesn't mean that water baptism is mandatory for the forgiveness of sins. Some cases, like the Ethiopian, the baptism is clearly water and it would be hard to interpret it otherwise, although I have heard some people try to do that.

     So, looking for evidence of Spirit baptism first is not saying water didn't have any place in any of the conversion accounts, because that's not true.

     In passages like Gal 3:27 and Romans 6, water is not mentioned. One could say Spirit isn't either. I look for Spirit in the passages first because baptism within the Spirit was the Promise of the Father, water baptism was not.

     I don't think that the manifestations of the Spirit in 1 Cor 12 had anything to do with an apostle laying on their hands.

     Is this helpful, or worse?
163. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm

     Thanks, Price. I think you and I are on similar channels. Hopefully, Grizz and I can get closer to the same channel once we get a difference in meaning of "default" worked out. I think we have to do that first in order to see questions of a more specific nature.

     I appreciate both Price's and Grizz's comments and questions. If Grizz had these questions, a lot of other people probably did too.
164. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 14, 2011 at 6:15 pm

     I thought of two applications of considering baptism within the Holy Spirit first, before water baptism, which is second. (that order is what I am calling, "default.")

     (1) It I read Acts 2:38-39, and if I read "baptism within the Holy Spirit," then that is what "baptized in vs 38 means. There's no room for anything else. Water baptism simply isn't in that passage and I cannot read water into it. That doesn't mean water baptism is unimportant or that they ignored water baptism or that they didn't water baptize people sometime (vs 41 maybe), but that does mean that I will no longer tell people that water immersion is mandatory for the forgiveness of sins and to be saved. Or else they are neither forgiven nor saved.

     (2) Ephesians 4:5 – one Lord, one faith, one baptism

     I used to "know" that there was only one baptism and that was baptism was water. Now, because of what John the B said, and because of what Jesus said, and because of what Peter quoted that Jesus had said, I have a different understanding. The verse doesn't specifically mention water or Spirit with the word for baptized, so how will I go about interpreting what this verse means? Default – first, baptism within the Holy Spirit and, second (if there is still some space for one), baptism within water. Paul clearly says "one," so one is one and it has to be baptism within the Spirit, the baptism that had been said the "one Lord" would do. That means water baptism isn't mentioned at all in this verse. So be it. I cannot read water into the verse.
165. guy says:

     February 15, 2011 at 12:05 am

     Price,

     You wrote:
     "Well, in this first century example, that exact baptism was considered by Paul and God to be insufficient. An additional baptism in the H.S. was required. What does that say about the baptisms that are being done by those who believe that the Holy Spirit didn't survive the pen of John ??"

     This assumes precisely what is in question. Perhaps this additional requirement was never intended to last beyond the early church. If so, then the fact that lacking this additional requirement made a baptism insufficient back then does not have any bearing on the sufficiency or insufficiency conditions of present baptisms.

     –guy
166. somebody says:

     February 15, 2011 at 12:50 am

     Guy,
     You said: "What He said He would do and for whom is what is in question. This is a matter of studying and discerning what it is He will do *for me.*"

     Read John 7:37-39. In context of what you and Price have been talking about, this clearly states without ANY doubt that ANYONE who believes in Him would receive HIS SPIRIT once he is glorified. Your a Christian Guy. So guess what? This passage is talking about YOU and EVERYONE who is a Christian. Romans 8:11 clearly states that we all have the Spirit of Christ IN US (Christians), and without the Spirit IN US, we DON'T HAVE LIFE! My question to you, Guy, is that if Christ is not in you to help you do what he commands, then do you keep his commands by yourself? You may want to read Ephesians 3:14-21 to understand that we receive the Spirit by FAITH, and by receiving the Spirit, God strengthens us in our inner being to do his will and comprehend his love for us with our brothers and sisters. I'm enjoying the dialogue here and am definitely learning a lot. Would love a reply if you get a chance. Hope the Lord continues to bless you in your study!
167. guy says:

     February 15, 2011 at 1:09 am

     Nobody Special,

     (1) i've said elsewhere that there are reasons to think that seemingly universal statements can have contextual limits. "Anyone" and "all" can have limits. If i exist outside those limits, then those terms don't necessarily include me, nor were they meant to.

     (2) To be completely honest, i don't know what to think about John or Paul. i've tried here to stick just with Luke. i don't take it for granted that different NT authors necessarily use terms in precisely the same way, nor that they mean to say the same things about the one term, nor that they intend to emphasize or explain the same features of one term. (The only thing i think inspiration requires is that none of them say anything incompatible.) Thus, i'm not certain John is talking about precisely the same thing Luke is talking about. Maybe so. But i'm not sure. i don't consider it outside the realm of possibility or even plausibility that Paul or John may be talking about a phenomenon or even a feature of a phenomenon that Luke is not. If so, then maybe one continues today while others don't. Or maybe none. Or maybe all. But i've tried to stick with Luke, because i feel less clear with Paul and i really haven't spent nearly as much time thinking through John's writings as the other two.

     (3) Just quoting a passage and saying "It says we have this.." again just assumes what is in question. i don't know that that "we" necessarily includes me. Perhaps that "we" is temporally limited.

     (4) i clearly don't share some of your intuitions which (perhaps i'm misunderstanding) bear the flavor of a sort of Calvinistic depravity/inability in need of enabling by the Spirit. In fact, i think most Reformation-esque readings of Paul on this point just plain got Paul completely wrong. i understand those interpretations may seem obvious and well-thought out to you, but they simply don't seem that way to me. So arguments based on them don't really rattle any of my intuitions nor do i see that they serve as evidence against any of what i've said since i don't accept the grounds on which they're based.

     (5) i want to reiterate as i've said a number of times in this discussion, that i'm not 100% convinced of any view in this discussion. i suppose i'm clearer about knowing which positions i reject than knowing what i accept. i am not here to prove or persuade anyone that cessationism is true. For all i know its not. i lean mostly in that direction, but i'm not completely convinced by it either. i only say this because i feel i'm consistently being addressed as though my job is to defend cessationism in this discussion. i never claimed that was my intention.

     –guy
168. Grizz says:

     February 15, 2011 at 10:17 am

     Price,

     In Acts 19 we are NOT told that the disciples (of John) Paul encountered were baptized into Jesus, but rather they had been baptized in John's baptism, knowing nothing of the HS. Paul explained to them that John's baptism was a preview that presaged belief in the one to come after John, that is Jesus. They were "upon hearing " that new information, immersed into Jesus' name. Paul then also laid hands on them and the HS "came on them" (v.6).

     Was "came upon them" a baptism? The word itself is NOT used in reference to this "came upon" anywhere in this passage. It seems, Price, that where most folks see two baptisms here (one from John and one from Jesus), you see three baptisms (one from John + two from Jesus // or one from John + one each from Jesus and Paul).

     Is that a fair representation of what you meant?

     Grizz
169. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 15, 2011 at 10:51 am

     Grizz

     I received a thought during prayer this morning that I should address the "I have taken offense" tone in your response to my original "default" post. It occurred to me that someone who really enjoys the classical expression of the KJV language might not appreciate the "overly modernized" paraphrasal of John the B's statement and might consider that verbiage to be disrespectful and therefore offensive. Considering the diverse likes and dislikes of a public forum, clearly, it would have better to not take so much freedom of expression with the text. Even though I'm sure you know this, I intended no such disrespect and I apologize to you for whatever offense you may have felt.

     Jesus said to expect that conflict and offense will occur in normal proceedings in this world, but the difference between Christians and the world is how we handle it — upon the name of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace.

     This subject has been covered in essence by Jay
     /2010/12/baptism-an-explora…

     and it is not surprising that his description is more succinct and clearer than mine. So, just substitute Jay's post for the ones I made.

     I appreciate your discussion as well as the others participants on this site, and I pray God's richest blessings on all of you as you continue your walk with Him.
170. Grizz says:

     February 15, 2011 at 10:59 am

     T-Dr,

     First of all, I already understood what you meant by "default". If there was any doubt about that in my mind, this post clarified it to be exactly what I thought you meant. So this second bit in two parts is helpful as confirmation, but the meaning was already understood without it.

     Second, Jesus and His apostles used two different terms (neither is baptism) regarding the HS, and Luke tells us that Jesus referenced both as being a baptism (Acts 1:5,8) in a single context. I think we are both together in meaning at this point.

     Third, The two terms used by Jesus and Paul (at least) are eperchomai and pletho/pleroo.

     Eperchomai, as I understand it, is used in passages translated "came upon". This is the sense that a disease or sleep or a calamity comes upon someone or in which the Holy Spirit comes upon the believer. The word carries within it the sense of an overwhelming filling so that the cup (so to speak) is filled to overflowing – which in the case of eperchomai in the HS results in prophesying and/or speaking in tongues with a fair amount of consistency.

     The other term used, pletho/pleroo, is most often translated not as 'come upon' but rather as "being filled". The sense and meaning, as I now grasp it, is a permeating, drenching, from the inside into every aspect of one's being until all is affected, total filling from the inside. Whereas eperchomai takes the perspective of the HS coming upon someone and overtaking them, pletho/pleroo takes the perspective of a welling up from within a person, a permeating inward drenching of the person within the inner man/woman.

     Taken into consideration together, the picture is one where the HS overtakes a person and like a disease or a deep sleep takes over a person. As it does so, that disease or sleep or Spirit begins to pervade every molcule and aspect of the person's being and fill it with the influence and power of the HS.

     In this sense I would say that what happens with the HS is much more significant than the actual submersing into and raising out of water of the body – EXCEPT for the fact that it is God working through the HS at that point of water burial to create within the believer an entirely new life that will then characterize the way the person lives when they arise from the water grave.

     T-Dr, this is where I think we part in our understandings of what is happening. You see two separate but perhaps inter-related baptisms. I see only one baptism with multiple effectual results, primary among which results are that the life that descended into the waters physically is reborn by the HS as God's newly created life, spiriually made new and raised to walk in that newness.

     I would dare say that both of us agree that the newly God-created life has been worked on by the HS; but I would characterize this as the point where we begin to see things differently – you seeing the need for a baptism of the Spirit for this freshly immersed and new sibling in Christ, while I see God sending His Spirit in to do the new creating and assigning Him (the Spirit) to stay there and begin filling out the life of faith in that new creation.

     To me it seems as if you see the HS come in to create, but then leave until the eperchomai occurs, when the HS comes back in power. I just do not see the HS leaving in the middle.

     Does that help you see where I understand things a bit differently than do you?

     Grizz
171. Price says:

     February 15, 2011 at 12:09 pm

     Grizz… What we do know from Acts 19 is this…correct me where I'm off or confused… (1) These folks were baptized into John's baptism…and that included water.. without question John baptized with water… (2) These disciples after being introduced to the one that was to come after John (thank you for that correction to my understanding) were then baptized in the name of Jesus…What we don't know is how they were baptized..Water isn't mentioned here at all…right ? One can assume it but it is not mentioned..(3) Paul lays hands on them and they receive the Holy Spirit. Jesus defines this earlier as a baptism in the Holy Spirit but that word is not used here in reference to Paul laying hands on them… So far so good ??

     The one question I have before truly getting a clear picture of what has happened here, if that is possible for me to do, is this….

     The verb tense of 2nd Aorist in regard to the laying on of hands… It seems that the various translations all consider it a thing that "had been done" versus something that "was" being done… So, the question really is this…Was the baptism in Jesus name when Paul laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit…If not, then what in the passage clearly indicates that this is not so and that they were in fact baptized in Water previous to Paul's laying hands on them… If somehow that is true, that they were baptized by John, then in water again in Jesus' name and then a third "baptism" in the Holy Spirit then yes, in a way there were 3 baptisms… However, I'm not really sure how to see it at this point…

     I admit to having trouble with the assumption of the 2nd baptism being in water without specific reference to it in light of the focus of the Holy Spirit and Jesus' own words about baptizing in the Holy Spirit in Contrast to Water…
172. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 15, 2011 at 12:25 pm

     Thank, Grizz. Actually, we agree almost totally on the spiritual nature of what occurs for the believer. I might "tweak" the meanings of the Greek words just a little bit – pletho (filled) carries the connotation of "control or temporary overcoming at a particular time and pleroo (filled) the connotation of "brought up to volume from the inside." With respect to the HS operation, Luke uses pletho (and mostly Aorist) in all verses except Acts 13:52, where pleroo (imperfect tense)is used in the context of joy, a fruit of the Spirit associated with continual action of the indwelling Spirit (which Luke never specifically identifies).

     This is a tangent, but the following illustrates the very precise way that Luke used the Greek

     “When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink.” (Luke 5:6-7).

     The boats were filled up from the inside, so the word for "filled" must be "pleroo," right? No. The word for “filled” is "pletho" (in the Aorist tense). Why is that word used, since the boats’ volumes were filled?

     The answer is the boats were so overfilled that the boats lost control of the situation. It was the fish that now controlled the boats, and the weight of the fish caused the boats to start to sink.

     This is the sense of being controlled by something else that Luke uses pletho for "filled" in Acts.

     "Epipipto" is used with the Samaritans and Cornelius, which means "seized" and carries a connotation sort of "in between" pletho and eperchomai, but it is stronger than pletho and implies manifestations used as a sign, and it doesn't have the total life changing consequences of eperchomai.

     Your description of eperchomai is right on. To me, the significance is that in reference to the HS the word is used only twice in the NT, Acts 1:8 and Luke 1:35, and the parallel between the announcement of the birth of Jesus Christ and the birth of the New Creation are, again to me, stunning. I believe that the baptism within the HS, new birth from above, baptized within one Spirit into one body, the anointing by the HS when the indwelling Spirit takes abode in our hearts, and the gift of the HS, which are the genes of God that He gave to Jesus Christ on earth, all occur simultaneously in the spiritual time of "the twinkling of an eye." This occurs because of the Promise of God and His grace through Jesus Christ, who is the baptizer. Exactly when this happens is under the authority of the Father (Acts 1:7) and we do not have any control whatsoever over when God gives His salvation.

     Grizz said, "To me it seems as if you see the HS come in to create, but then leave until the eperchomai occurs, when the HS comes back in power. I just do not see the HS leaving in the middle".

     I see the HS coming in with power and creating and the eperchomai occurring all at the same spiritual instant. The HS comes into the heart to dwell and the HS doesn't leave in the middle. I think we are together to this point.

     Grizz said, " …you seeing the need for a baptism of the Spirit for this freshly immersed and new sibling in Christ, while I see God sending His Spirit in to do the new creating and assigning Him (the Spirit) to stay there and begin filling out the life of faith in that new creation."

     What I see is "the need for a baptism within the HS" as being the time when "God sends His Spirit in to do the new creating ….stay there …. begin filling … new creation." And we have "a new sibling in Christ" at that point. All this occurs at the same time. All this is action in the spiritual realm which is applied to the believer (imparted) by God's grace through Jesus and according the the Promise of the Father.

     And it happens when God says it does, because it His salvation, and it under His authority. We do not determine "the time or the place."

     Is this laying the groundwork for identifying where we differ?

     This statement may be a key: "….baptism of the Spirit for this freshly immersed and new sibling in Christ,…."

     I am assuming this means water baptism occurred before baptism within the Spirit. This may be where you thought I was saying that the Spirit did something, then they were baptized in water, then the Spirit came back and finished the work. To me this implies that the Spirit's work will not be done or completed without immersion in water and that the new sibling in Christ was baptized into the body by water baptism.

     I think that you are tying all of the action of God in the spiritual realm, accomplished by the HS sent by God to baptize, birth, dwell, give genes, etc., must occur at the same time as the person is baptized within water by us. (humans doing a physical act in the physical realm). So God's salvation occurs only when we water baptize someone for the forgiveness of sins. (I am trying to express what I think you are saying, and this is likely inaccurate in some way, or maybe all ways.)

     So a person isn't saved without water immersion.

     Is this where we differ. We agree about the spiritual part, down to the Greek words. But in one case the spiritual part is absolutely linked to water baptism and in the other case (mine) it is not absolutely linked.

     Maybe you should refine my attempt to say what you think. That's always a risky business, at best.
173. Price says:

     February 15, 2011 at 12:25 pm

     You said…"perhaps" this additional requirement was never intended to last beyond the early church… I couldn't let my belief depend on a "perhaps"…seemed way to important that that…For me….I would have had to have a more specific reason to relegate the promise of Jesus to only those of the 1st century…I couldn't find a reliable argument to hang my hat on to do that… The argument from I Cor 13 is just so beyond reasonable that I just couldn't accept it… so without a logical argument against, I'm really forced to accept it as a reality… What convinces you that He is no longer available to you as He was to the first century believers…Maybe I've missed something that you could bring to my attention…
174. guy says:

     February 15, 2011 at 12:35 pm

     Price,

     i didn't say that "perhaps" is the extent of the justification. All i was pointing out was that the arguments you make beg the question. That is, they assume that the present is supposed to be like the past in precisely this way (work of the HS). That is the very premise in question.

     i never made any argument from 1Cor 13 in this discussion, so i'm not sure what you're after in bringing it up.

     And for about the 87th time, i never said i was *convinced* "He is no longer available to you." i've repeatedly stated i'm unconvinced either way.

     –guy
175. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 15, 2011 at 1:17 pm

     Sometimes we effectively make a decision by not making a decision. I am trying to decide whether or not to do something. I can't make a decision, so I do nothing. I have made a decision.

     A man sits in the train station while the train is boarding. "I'm not convinced whether I should stay or get on the train. I'm not going to decide until I'm convinced." When the train leaves, he has made a decision and the "I'm not convinced" is in this case the same as "I don't believe that train exists anymore."

     What if the man in the station had faith? Faith is getting on the train anyway because he trusts the schedule and he trusts the conductor. And being "left behind" in the train station doesn't get the man anywhere.

     "Be it done to you in accordance to your faith."

     "Faith is the evidence of things not seen."

     Personally, I am convinced that I must have faith in the power of God. I need to devote all my energy to faith rather than maintaining a seat of judgment about whether or not the train exists any more. I can't do both.

     In regards to faith, "I'm not convinced" and "It doesn't exist" both end up with same result – both are sitting in the same train station.
176. guy says:

     February 15, 2011 at 2:39 pm

     Dr. Theo,

     i agree with your sentiment when it comes to beliefs necessary for conversion.

     But do you believe God requires taking a definitive position with respect to all matters of doctrine–such that He views all suspension of belief about any particular doctrinal matter as equivalent to taking a position? For instance, is being unconvinced about who specifically authored the book of Hebrews–does that constitute a deficiency in a disciple's faith? If not, then why is it necessarily the case that being unconvinced on this present matter constitutes a faith-deficiency?

     Suppose someone just converted to Christianity yesterday and hasn't even read enough most of what the Bible says about Spirit. Then suppose you ask that new convert, "What do you believe about the Spirit–are you a cessationist?" Suppose that new convert says "Wow, i have no idea." Has she exhibited some deficiency in faith?

     If not, then what if some time later that same convert has read a great deal of passages about the Spirit, but doesn't find any explanation of those passages to be entirely persuasive. Suppose you ask that same person the same question. The convert responds, "Well, i've done quite a bit of reading but i genuinely don't find any explanations of the matter completely persuasive." Has she exhibited some deficiency in faith? Would it be better for her to just choose a position *despite* the results of her study and prayer on the matter?

     i feel i either must be misunderstanding your post, or else i find it highly unlikely that you actually believe what your post suggests.

     –guy
177. Price says:

     February 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm

     Guy…there is a fine line between drawing conclusions that are accurate and those that aren't…I seem to have drawn one that is inaccurate but for the life of me I don't see where I did.. the entire time you have commented on this topic you have offered opinions that suggest that you do not believe in His indwelling today. Uncertainty to the contrary notwithstanding.

     When you say you are not convinced, you have indicated, at least to me, fairly or unfairly, that what you mean is that you are not "persuaded." And since you have taken what appears to me to be a position that He does not indwell the believer then I must assume, however inaccurately, that you have not been persuaded otherwise. Not trying to be accusative in any way..however, it is fairly obvious from your comments how you have "leaned" in the past and continue to "lean."

     The reason I suggested that I Cor 13 was a lousy foundation to base a cessationist theology on was that I don't know of any other passage, save Ephesians 4:13 that is offered to support it. What passage of scripture is it that causes you to be doubtful of His indwelling if it is not ! Cor 13 ?? I am learning quite a bit from these discussions so nothing at this point would surprise me.
178. guy says:

     February 15, 2011 at 3:29 pm

     Price,

     Yes, i admit to leaning toward cessationism, but i'm not convinced of it either. i do find problems with it. But i find problems with certain views about modern active HS as well. i lean toward the former, but i'm really not sure that either is right. The general opinion on this site tends toward the latter; in fact, some speak as though it's obvious. Well, as i've said before, it's not obvious to me. And because i don't share the presumption for the general view here, i suppose i come across as adopting the opposite view. But that's not where i am. If i were on a board where the general sentiment was cessationism, i'd probably point out the difficulties i have with fully adopting that view.

     The point is, as you say, i'm not persuaded by either view. i've tried to explain that multiple times. i don't know what else to say at this point except to just ignore comments that accuse me of being convinced of a view or assuming that i mean to prove a view. So for the last time, what is my position? As i continue to look at and think about the body of evidence, i don't see it conclusively pointing one way or the other. i can see how some of it can be taken to point one way and some of it can be taken to point the other. That's as far as i am and no farther.

     i don't believe 1Cor 13 teaches that once the NT was completed miraculous gifts vanished, if that's what you're thinking about. But not because of this cessationism debate. But because i think that position assumes there's something magical or special about the particular number of books that are in the NT canon. And i more or less just don't share some common evangelical sentiments about what the Bible is or how it works. And because of that difference, i don't believe "the perfect" in 1Cor 13 is referring to the NT.

     i think it's worth pointing out that there are actually an array of positions and not just two. i just say this because i know i, myself, have spoken as though there's just cessationism or present-active-HS. But really that misrepresents the players involved. Pentecostals and Calvinists believe in a present active HS but i don't think it's at all fair to say they share the same view of the operation of the HS. Similarly, there's differing camps within cessationism. Some people are cessationists only in the sense that they believe the particular phenomenon of miraculous gifts being distributed to individual disciples in the early church has ceased, yet they still believe that the HS indwells people presently. Some people are cessationists in the sense that they believe all miraculous activity on God's part has ceased, though perhaps the HS indwells people in a non-miraculous way. Others are cessationists in that they believe there is no modern HS indwelling at all (but perhaps God can still act miraculous or perhaps not). And surely there are other varieties of both views, just wanted to make the general point that the catalog is larger than this discussion may have made it seem.

     –guy
179. Price says:

     February 15, 2011 at 3:34 pm

     Guy, I went back and reread my earlier post to you and I clearly (in my mind) didn't say that YOU made the argument from I Cor 13…I said that THE argument from I Cor 13 didn't convince ME…. the question that I asked, "what convinces YOU that He is no longer available to you as He was to the first century believers" was asked simply out of respect for whatever it is that keeps you "unconvinced either way" Logically, if you are not convinced that He is available to present day believers then something causes you to not accept it ..OK..fair enough.. I was just curious about what passage of scripture caused you to be suspicious of the possibility….that kept you from being convinced FOR His availability.. That seems like a fair question to ask.

     And to clarify one other thing in case I gave the wrong impression…I meant to explain that there was a great deal of importance to ME being able to answer this question FOR ME. I wasn't suggesting that it should be equally important to you or that you should do as I do…or believe as I believe..
180. guy says:

     February 15, 2011 at 3:42 pm

     Price,

     True–yes. i did assume because you brought up 1Cor 13 in a comment to me that you thought that's where i was going or had gone or would go. That's what i get for assuming–my apologies.

     And now i get you–that is a fair to ask. Textually speaking, the comments i've made in the Acts discussions convey some of my reasons for doubt. Regarding general evidence–it hasn't really come up here, but i've mentioned it in other posts–i don't see any modern day equivalent to what i see described in Acts.

     i don't want to give the impression that i think this general question is unimportant. i do study it because i think it is important.

     Got a class to go to–not sure when i'll be available again.

     Best,

     –guy
181. Price says:

     February 15, 2011 at 4:37 pm

     Guy, good luck with your class… and thanks for the response. Yes, I am aware of the "catalog" of thought..that's why I like to ask and see what specific scripture someone is basing their sound and reasoned argument on….which presupposes that I know what that is…LOL…And, I do in fact greatly appreciate what I believe you are saying about being a eye witness to the the working of God in our lives today. That's what did it for me.

     10 years ago I had my first real encounter with God. I mean, like really showing up. I was called out by name and very detailed accounts of my life described by someone who didn't know me. It was spoken to a former CoC preacher, much my elder, who was shocked to say the least. The look on his face when he told me was beyond description. From that moment on, I've seen the God of the first century in many situations…many. Stuff that I formerly would have quickly called you something ugly had you told me about it…But, I can tell you with unclouded certainty that I've had my "burning bush" moments… So, now I read my Bible with much greater appreciation for the awe and wonder of those early disciples. I am persuaded that the ECF's were carefully recording what they were eye witnesses to… My prayer would be that God would show up in your life as well and remove all uncertainty as to His active presence in your life…However, I do understand what it's like not to have had those "moments." It used to have a negative effect on my prayer life… I mean, why pray if no one is listening…Why knock if no one is at home, right ? Well, trust me God is listening…Ever had someone tell you specifically what you prayed on what day you prayed it ?? Yeah…burning bush.. They suggested I read Psalms 139.. He knows…He cares…He's able…

     I also went around trying to get respected members of the church to tell me if they had had any God moments…there are a bunch of incredible stories from very sane and reliable persons just waiting to be told…if you can get them to talk about them… Many just would rather keep it to themselves rather than everyone around them thinking they're a fool or heretic or worse. But trust me on this…the stories are abundant…

     Praise God…He lives forever with His saints to reign !!!
182. Guestfortruth says:

     February 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm

     Jay,

     I think that happend because the preacher is focus in number of members! and I mention about the Doctrine "Once in grace always in grace" because, some among us have taught that taking very literal Mark 16:16 "baptized will be saved" and they think like that teenager said " It's an insurance" . They argument is that they have been save as the bible mention and they never can fall of the Grace. Is that part of the Calvinism? And about distorted the Gospel It happens because some have change the way of preaching about the plan of Salvation, some skip repentance and baptize people because they want cuantity of members and not Faithful members to Christ or being popular in the latest fads.
183. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 15, 2011 at 5:00 pm

     Great testimony, Price. Thank you for sharing.
184. Grizz says:

     February 16, 2011 at 10:30 am

     T-Dr,

     Hmm… No 'offended tone' was intended, but you saw something and I wish I could clarify that something for you. Unfortunately, I don't have much to offer besides (1) I did not think I was offended and (2) I do not know what I might have been expressing subconciously, either through choice of words or phrasing. I just don't know what it was that was coming through there.

     I am not a great devotee of the KJV. I am also not too enamored of the Textus Receptus from which it was translated and transliterated. In point of fact, I used to use the NASB for all my studying, having found first the NIV and then the RSV caused me to spend a lot of extra time trying to figure out why the translators chose the words or phrasings they chose. That was time better spent in study, IMHO, and so I used the NASB. Then the ESV was published and I obtained a copy and became very impressed with how little time I had to spend tracing dwn terms or wondering why a particular phrase was used to translate a corresponding phrase in the Greek. It was even easier than the NASB with which I had become extremely familiar. So now I am most enamored of using the ESV as my 'default' study tool in English.

     On my bucket list is learning enough Hebrew and Greek to attempt even a poor man's translation of the scriptures – as an exercise in considering the Bible personally and face-to-face with the oldest texts we have discovered and uncovered in what we think were probably the original languages (for good reason, I believe). If I ever do finish the thing I'd probably call it the Old Grizz-ly Bible. Maybe then I would self-publish just enough copies for my family … if any of them even wanted one, sort of a legacy from me to them. I doubt there would be much call for any further publishing from an informal, indistinguished and amateur translator. For now I use the ESV and have a very limited collection of verses with which I think I may have stumbled upon enough information to have formed a decent-enough-for-my-personal-use translation of those verses.

     Whatever happens with my fond dreams of amateur translating, it is the ESV and not the KJV that serves as my 'default', which might be something helpful to know.

     Blessings dear one,

     Grizz
185. guy says:

     February 16, 2011 at 10:30 am

     Price,

     i'm puzzled. i never claimed God is not presently active in the world or in the lives of Christians. i don't see where that point is in dispute. What i thought the discussion is about is whether we (present day church) share a very particular feature or kind of activity that was characteristic of the early church. *NOT* whether God is presently active *at all.*

     –guy
186. Grizz says:

     February 16, 2011 at 11:07 am

     Price,

     You ask a great question.

     For me, the least of any who would dabble in translation, the word joining verses 5 and 6 is the prime point that indicates that baptism in Jesus' name and Paul's subsequent laying on of his hands were two separate things. That word is 'kai', which is translated 'and', 'also', 'even', or 'indeed'.

     The verses read (in the ESV) :

     5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 AND when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, AND they began speaking in tongues AND prophesying.
     (emphasis mine, Grizz)

     They were baptized AND Paul laid hands on them AND they began speaking in tongues AND prophesying. Seems like five things happened there (to me )…
     1 – they were baptized in Jesus' name
     2 – Paul laid hands on them
     3 – when he did that, the Holy Spirit "came on" them
     4 – they began speaking in tongues
     5 – they began prophesying
     For me at least, the strongest relationship between any two of those happenings is/was the relationship between point 2 and point 3. 'When' indicates timing to me, coupling the laying on of hands by Paul with the HS coming on them. All of these things seems closely related in time and in relative dependency between the actions, but there seems a particular emphasis on Paul's laying on hands and the disciples' having the HS 'come on' them.

     'AND' is a small word, but generally is understood to join together two separate but related phrases. One thing accompanies another. For example, I might say, " I took a shower AND got dressed." Showering and getting dressed are two things that happened in close proximity, but are understood to have happened separately, though the happening was within a close time frame. I could have easily also said, "I drove my car that day AND dropped my kids off at school." Again, there is a relationship between the two activities, but they are not exactly the same thing. One of those activities was likely to have facilitated the other, but they remain two distinct things that I did. This is, as I understand it, the dependent use of the conjunction 'and'.

     What I cannot declare to you definitively is whether or not my understanding of the use of this conjunction ('kai' in the Greek, translated by the pros as 'and' in this passage) relies on too much watching of Sesame Street's "Conjunction Junction, What's Your Function?" episodes when my kids were little. Of course, the translators may also have suffered from Sesame Street overload! (smile)

     For me, though, at least until shown otherwise, the 'and' word makes all the difference.

     Does that at least help you see the most glaring of my reasons for understanding the baptism and the laying on of Paul's hands as separate, but related, events?

     Grizz
187. Grizz says:

     February 16, 2011 at 11:20 am

     T-Dr,

     You understood me pretty well. The only quibble I would have is with the way you express a part of that – almost as though I were an accuser of the unbaptized – not because of any words of accusation uttered by me to that effect but rather because of my understanding being what it is at all. Can you get through the mud (in how I expressed this observation) to see what I mean?

     With all of that I would confirm to you that I do believe that whether the immersion in water comes before (Acts 19), during (Pentecost), or after (Cornelius) the reception of the HS, that immersion in water is what serves as the water-grave in which one is buried who by faith appeals to God for a clean conscience based on the already accomplished working of Jesus on the cross so as to be newly created by the HS as a new life indwelt and empowered to live in Christ, perpetually cleansed by His blood as long as we continue in the truth (though not perfectly, i.e., not without sin).

     Grinning,

     Grizz
188. Price says:

     February 16, 2011 at 11:25 am

     Guy…I really don't mean to sound judgemental because I used to be judgemental and I really don't like judgemental people…I mean I REALLY don't like judgemental people…….but it sounds to me like you enjoy sitting on the fence…Take a postition and defend it.. The Word says be prepared to give a defence for the hope that is within you… There is no crime in changing your mind but there is something special about actually making up your mind on something…it accelerates learning…

     You keep commenting about how you aren't saying this or that…well. say something and mean it !! Nobody is going to condemn you except some irrelevent people so whatever you decide on is good…it's a decision that you've made..

     it's sort of like knowing something.. They say you don't really know it until you can teach it.. Why? Because you've had to answer questions…you've had to actually form an opinion and articulate that opinion in a way that others can understand…

     I sense that you have leadership qualities in you… so, be a leader..get off the fence. It's OK to be wrong and appear ignorant..At least that's what I keep telling myself !! When I defend a decision against criticism I end up having the opportunity to adjust my thinking based on some inconsistency in what I believe, or I have to totally change my mind about something because someone points out a flaw in my belief, or I'm on solid ground in my thinking and somebody else needs to adjust their belief..It's all GOOD..Even if I have to completely abandon my thoughts and start all over… that's how we learn from one another…

     Only those people who are terrified of being wrong get angry and lash out.. It's a sign of weakness. Being able to be corrected on a matter is a sign of maturity.. You'll experience both of these types in your Christian walk and perhaps even on this blog..

     However, feel free to totally ignore everything I just said as the ramblings of a middle-aged man with good intentions and a ready apology… 🙂
     I
189. guy says:

     February 16, 2011 at 11:37 am

     Price,

     i've had to constantly reiterate what i'm not saying because i feel i've been frequently misunderstood or misrepresented.

     So far as i know, we've only discussed this one topic. Have i expressed to you riding the fence on other topics? On what grounds do you take it that my being undecided on this issue implies that i generally enjoy sitting on the fence? Go read all the posts Jay did on pacifism and you'll see i'm fairly decided about some things.

     How can i genuinely adopt a position when i'm not rationally convinced it's true? Should i fake it? Should i lie to myself? Should i just claim to believe something on a whim? Should i pretend i'm convinced when i'm not? How is that any different from hypocrisy? And why should i feel obligated that i have to take a position right here, right now? Would it really accelerate my learning to adopt a belief by a means i find irrational?

     Price, i really don't see the relevance of this anymore–not to the topic we're discussing. Whether i'm decided or undecided, my comments stand or fall on their own merits. And i don't see why whether i, as a person, can be categorized by a view has any bearing on that fact.

     –guy
190. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 16, 2011 at 11:40 am

     Thank you, Grizz. Sounds like you are planning a fun trip, and the scenery of new insights opening up from the scripture will be spectacular. I think a publication of some sort would be great, not only of the translation itself but along with the verses have a "commentary/testimonial" of the new discoveries about God that you made in the process. May God bless you greatly in this journey.

     In the meantime, it seems you have chosen the best translations to use, as far as being relatively easy to read without excessive license to add to or modify the text so much as to change its accuracy.

     Depending on one's personality, there are different places where the major publishing hurdle might be located. It may be getting started, writer's block in continuing, or something technical. I have hurdles everywhere, an obvious one being excessive verbosity. A picture only tells 100 words for me, and I have to fill the other 900. I have said that if someone had an insomnia problem, they could be prescribed one of my manuscripts to read, and they would be zonked by the bottom of the first page. That could even put the drug companies out of business.

     Going from a almost-final draft to something ready to be publicly distributed in some form is huge. I probably have 1000 pages of manuscripts about all sorts of Biblical subjects that I have written that are full of analytic soporific profundity, but it seems very likely the message will not get past an array of 1's and 0's coded on a spinning platter in a computer.

     Most manuscripts deal with unity of believers – why and how? – some with little pithy statements like

     Christians with the humility of Christ don't have a problem with unity.

     and

     UNITY is the answer;
     what's your question?

     Grizz, I have enjoyed our interactions and reading your posts. It would be fun to sit in the park and share together the lessons the Lord has taught us.

     Brother, I pray God's richest blessings from His love and grace as you continue to walk with Jesus.

     (anybody still awake? 🙂

     d
191. Grizz says:

     February 16, 2011 at 11:41 am

     Price,

     Regarding your testimony concerning "God moments"… I am right there with you. Ironically, that has a lot to do with me believing as I currently do. Call it whatever anyone will, I believe God is working right now as much as He ever has. That there is a special way Christ's disciples relate to that working seems to me indisputable. I still cannot say I fully comprehend it, but I do fully accept it by faith. I describe it as my unreasonably but logically reasoned faith. I do have reasons to believe God and to believe that He is working yet today, as much as ever. Yet I also understnd how this faith seems unreasonably assured in me when others look at it.

     I answer in this faith to my Lord, Creator of everything that is and Savior of all who truly would answer His call. What I call unreasonably reasoned, others might just as well call reasonably unreasoned. We will all answer to the Father, not to one another. The servant answers to His Master, not to his fellow servants. The same God and Father can make us both to stand in Him in faith.

     Blessings,

     Grizz
192. Price says:

     February 16, 2011 at 12:03 pm

     Grizz…right there with you with the ESV.. It's been the best for me too !! Regqarding our "experiences"…I guess we just have to go with what we know..I know what I know and I try not to actually judge others who have not experienced what I have.. I hope they will…But, it's good to hear of your walk with the Lord having similarities with mine. That encourages me.. Thank you for sharing…

     Regarding the Acts 19 passage… I was hoping you would have been a little more forceful in your Greek …LOL… What I know makes me probably less informed that someone who knows nothing so I was hoping for more clarification…but, yes I do see how you pull it together.. It does make sense that it could be that way… However, you do assume, as I have always assumed in the past, that the baptism is a baptism in water. Am I correct in saying that the passage does not in any way require water to be read into it ?

     Dr. T has me re-reading everything with this new concept in the forefront of my mind.. Not to reject water for the sake of rejecting it but to consider the substitution of Spirit for water or even perhaps a combo of sorts…
193. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm

     I am thinking this will be my final post on this site, although I have read other people say that and most of the time they come back (this site and others).

     Guy said, "whether we (present day church) share a very particular feature or kind of activity that was characteristic of the early church"

     This is a good question.

     Just a few (clarifying?) questions to consider.

     Is it possible that the present day church shares a great deal more with the early church than what you are looking for?

     Would you recognize the "early church" activity if you saw it? According to what criteria would it "pass the test" of saying it was the same as in Acts? What types of things have you seen that have not "passed the test.?"

     If Luke didn't include every act of the Holy Spirit during the First Century in the book of Acts (because it didn't fit his purpose for writing) how do you know what to call "characteristic of the early church"? Maybe things happen all around that are not recognized because they don't involve a lame man jumping for joy.

     In mathematics or other forms of logic (including approaches to biblical interpretation), a positive statement is easier to support than a negative one. Saying something is present involves proof centered on one thing. Saying something is not there involves proving that every contingency is negative.

     So which approach are you using? Are you looking for something positive, or, are you assuming the negative until proven otherwise (back to criteria question).

     The filter of "what I am looking for" is big. In John 12:29, God has spoken in an audible voice. Some of the Jews said, "Naaahhh! It was just thundering." They missed hearing the voice of God and explaining it away as a natural event. Can I do the same?

     People who consider themselves to be completely unbiased independent objective evaluators of the evidence are deluding themselves. The best evaluators are those rare people who really recognize their presuppositions rather than just thinking that they do.

     Last question, …. who is "we (present day church)"?

     Is "we" limited to members of the Church of Christ, or does it also include others who (in general) have a greater expectation and faith for the expression of the power of God? What if "be it done to in accordance with your faith" were to apply here. What you saw might be dependent on where you looked.

     Does the "we" also include regions of Africa, South America, Asia, where people's faith has been "purified" by the fire of persecution? Are you defining these areas as being "not considered" because you are not present to witness it yourself?

     A minister in Africa (I can't recall his name) was asked how they have so many miracles and healings and other acts of God in their meetings. His response was, "In America, when you read "by His stripes we were healed," you have to analyze it … what is the Greek …. how many stripes …. where were they located …. how do the stripes work …. etc.? We just know for certain God will do it because He said so. So, we just pray and believe."

     That hit me, since I tend to be the analytical type.

     Guy, God bless you on your journey. I hope that through God's grace that He gives you a Damascus Road experience, if that's what you need.
194. Grizz says:

     February 16, 2011 at 1:16 pm

     T-Dr,

     I trace my proclivity for using many words to something someone told me when I was getting over some particularly painful shyness as a pre-teen. They told me, "Extricate the quadriped from the vehicle and constabulate it into something nutricious, and when the auroras arise in the heavens I will return and compensate thee amply." Eventually I realized that they were telling me to fix the flat on my mom's car and bring them a sandwich they would pay for upon delivery.

     If I had figured it out more quickly, I could have explained that I could not drive, I already had a sandwich with me that they could have, and why wait until tomorrow for payment that would have only required a simple thank you and no exchange of money at all? Alas, it took me too long to figure out what they meant and the moment passed.

     I have since then ever enjoyed word-teasers…sometimes enjoying them way too much.

     I'd love to share that park bench some day. I have a feeling I would learn a lot.

     Blessings,

     Grizz
195. Price says:

     February 16, 2011 at 1:19 pm

     Dr. T..Would appreciate you sending me an email. Would like to maintain your friendship…[email protected] I'm also on FB Price Futrell
196. Grizz says:

     February 16, 2011 at 1:37 pm

     Price,

     I am not convinced by T-Dr's theory of a new default for baptism. So I do not have to read anything in – not water and not the Spirit – to see both. I see both because Jesus taught using both and not an either/or approach at all. I do not really 'get it' why we would take an either/or approach when the NT writers did not take that approach.

     Consider Acts 19 as an example. There is both water and Spirit within the context. John's baptism had both, but not in the same way as did Jesus' baptism. In John's baptism, the HS worked from outside them to move man toward repentance through conviction. In Jesus' baptism the HS indwells and infuses throughout the life of the one baptized and raises up an empowering and maturing force by which to learn to consistently know the victory of overcoming sin and overcoming the flesh.

     John's baptism was a putting away.
     Jesus' baptism is a putting on and being filled to overflowing with.

     Who convicts us of sin and the need to repent? The HS. That is God working on us to see the need for change and making that change.

     Who indwells and empowers us to seal us and guide us to maturity in Jesus? The HS. That is God coming into and empowering from within the metamorphosis into Christ-like-ness.

     Both/and. Not either/or.

     Something has changed, certainly. What John looked forward to, Jesus could point to in Himself and call us to look at. Future hope versus present and continuing reality. Paul says as much in Acts 19. That, as I read it, is what changed.

     Did I miss anything that you can point out? I am not yet aware of it, but would appreciate any help seeing it you might offer.

     Blessings,

     Grizz
197. David says:

     February 16, 2011 at 1:58 pm

     Dr T.

     I appreciate all of your comments throughout Jay's blog. I have learned a lot from you and some of the others who participate here….so my questions are sincere……..and if I have misunderstood you…..please tread lightly on my toes!!

     1. Why would Peter say to be baptized into the forgiveness of sins if the people were already filled with the HS? Can you be filled with the HS and not yet have your sins forgiven?

     2. Why would Peter tell the people that they would receive the gift of the Spirit after submitting to baptism?….when they supposedly were already baptized by the Spirit?

     3. When you read Acts 2:38, do you not hear water baptism? Aren't the people the objects who were told to be baptized? Isn't Acts 2:38 telling the people to be baptized with water? Can you tell people to be baptized with the Spirit?
198. guy says:

     February 16, 2011 at 2:44 pm

     Dr. Theo,

     These are excellent questions and comments. i wanna try to address them, but have limited time. Let me try at least one or two while i've got a minute.

     You wrote:
     "If Luke didn't include every act of the Holy Spirit during the First Century in the book of Acts (because it didn't fit his purpose for writing) how do you know what to call "characteristic of the early church"?"

     i find this question relevantly parallel to this question: If Luke didn't include every sermon preached by an apostle in the first century in the book of Acts, how do we know what to call the characteristic message or doctrine of the early church?

     If this proves anything, it proves way too much. If this is the standard to meet, then we know absolutely nothing of what was characteristic of the early church on account of what *may* have happened or been said but didn't make it into the text. If that's true, then we are not at liberty to take any position on the grounds that the early church did it, said it, believed it, etc. We'd be left with skepticism.

     We can only operate based on the information we do possess. If every conclusion has to contain a caveat like, "..that is, IF Luke recorded all the relevant material," then so be it. i don't see that as a very big "if"–not because i take it for granted that he did, but because how else could we possibly proceed or understand the text or use what we've got? No doctrine could pass this test conclusively and so we'd have nowhere to start. (Further, i take it from Luke's own introductions to his works, he didn't want to misrepresent what was characteristic of the early church, but definitely wanted to write in a way that Theophilus would understand.) Based on all that i don't find it in the slightest inappropriate to treat Luke's work as though i can draw some conclusions from it about what was characteristic of the early church.

     You wrote:
     "Last question, …. who is "we (present day church)"?

     i don't see how my ability or lack thereof to give a comprehensive or precise answer to this question has any major bearing on the matter at hand. Suppose more people a truly Christians than i currently believe. Even if *some* of the people i recognize to be Christians are, in fact, Christians, then i can at least look at those people and their conversion for evidence about this matter of the HS working now just as it did in Acts.

     i'll try to come back to some of your other very good questions and comments later, but now i gotta try and read another chapter and then go to class for the rest of the night!

     –guy
199. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 16, 2011 at 2:51 pm

     I couldn't stay away for long; all one has to do is read some new posts and varooom, you're in.

     I have "met" so many friends on this post and you have all been a blessing from God's grace. Price, my email is [email protected]. Although "dr" as "doctor" is accurate, the letters also happen to be the initials of my name. That's really why they are in there. My background, and testimony, covers a wide range of theological interpretation of scripture. I "grew up" in red-neck legalism and was zealous to defend it. I told people they were not saved because they hadn't been water baptized for the right reasons in the right way at the right place, and I marveled at how Satan had duped so many so-called Christians. Miracles had ceased, the HS was the word, holy rollers were demon possessed and faith healers were all frauds, the biggest of which at the time was Oral Roberts. I can relate to Paul when he said he persecuted the church in good conscience.

     We moved several states away when I continued graduate school, and God provided new people and experiences to mold us (my wife and I have the same background). Over some incredible encounters with God, I changed from a legalistic who was wondering if the things he had been taught were really correct to take a faculty position at Oral Roberts University. God has a sense of humor. I learned a lot of things during 12 years at ORU, mostly from other faculty and people of very different background than mine who we prayed with and in whom I witnessed the power of God like nothing I had seen before. There was a lot of doctrinal presentation and pressure to conform, as in any religious school supported from a particular believing contingency, and I learned a lot by spending much time studying the scripture to find out the real truth, since I knew what I was hearing wasn't the whole picture. I learned that the body of Christ was universal and not built on my doctrinal views, and I learned that there are many groups with diverse interpretations about the Holy Spirit and about baptism who develop binding "only my way" doctrines from the book of Acts that separate the body of Christ. "No other name by which you are saved" is the only exclusional statement. Any other doctrine that separates the body of Christ has to have error in it. What about, "if anyone preaches any other gospel …." ?

     I came to understand the importance of unity in the body of Christ and why it is a mandate for us to maintain. I now serve as an elder in a CoC. But that background probably explains the derivation of some of my thinking. Unity in Christ. Unity in Christ. Unity in Christ.

     Grizz, with respect to Spirit and water, I agree that it both/and. I used to believe it was water that was the trigger for God to do something mysterious. Then I believed it was mandatory water but I understood more of what was behind the water baptistery. The more I understood about baptism within the Holy Spirit, the more I realized that it was this baptism that was important for forgiveness of sins. It took me 50 years to figure this one out. And it was only a few years ago that I realized that the conversion of Cornelius told me why we needed to water baptize to be obedient to God. So, yes, it's both.

     I used to teach Jesus, but the punch line was obedience to be baptized for the forgiveness of sin or else it wouldn't happen. I don't teach that any more. And I don't hold that as a test of fellowship, or even of a upper or lower quality or grade of fellowship. God's salvation doesn't depend on my actions. My obedience depends on my actions. To skip or omit water baptism is disobedience and opposition to God. That's what Peter said. It is the church who is opposing God in disobedience for not water baptizing, not the new convert.

     Three stages – (1) we do something so that God can save you (2) God does the saving and the Spirit does the convicting, but God said that the final trigger to complete the process is something we do. (3) Salvation is under the authority of God, including baptism within the Holy Spirit, and we have to be obedient to God's command and follow immediately with water baptism.

     Which of the three gives all glory to God and which one(s) do we "share" the throne with God? I can only teach (3); I cannot do (1) or (2).

     That actually frees me up. I used to read Gal 3:27 and always be thinking, even in the back of my mind, "Now how do I justify that means water baptism?" I don't have to do that anymore. It's both, so I am free to study what the passage might mean to me instead of to support my "doctrine." Acts 19 – I am free to look at it without a doctrinal proof text in mind. The believer is obedient to God through faith in accepting Christ and God's response is baptism within the Spirit, the gift, the genes, etc. OUR response is necessary also, because we obediently baptize them within water to witness to the whole world that Jesus is Lord of His church and we are submissive to him.

     So it's both/and. It makes a difference in what I teach. I teach obedience to Jesus for salvation and demonstrate my obedience by baptizing in water.

     We need to discuss this under the shade of a tree while enjoying God's creation.

     I have marathon meetings this afternoon and tonight and probably can't check posts and be tempted to do what I said I wouldn't do until much later.

     Grace and Peace

     dr
200. Price says:

     February 16, 2011 at 3:21 pm

     Grizz…I think you have done a remarkable job of looking at Dr. T's theory without throwing something through the screen…Most people who hear something that challenges a core belief erupt into a communication style that does not reflect well on their faith…I appreciate your attitude…and forebearance.

     What I did was what works well for me when I'm trying to evaluate a specific theory or platform…and that is to adopt it. I have a difficult time actually hearing what the person is trying to say if I am constantly interrupting with my defenses against it…So, in order to try and see if it makes sense or not, I adopt the philosophy briefly and try to actually defend it. If I can't defend the position or the argument that I have to make is unreasonable, then I abandon the theory…That way, I'm able to say that I really did give it a fair evaluation. That isn't a style that I'm suggesting be adopted by anyone else but me..but I do realize how effective it is for ME..

     As I considered T's theory I decided to try, as best I could, to remove water from baptism. The passage of scripture which seemed most reasonable in defense of this postion was Jesus' own prophetic words that Peter recalls in his defense of meeting with Cornelius and that was "John baptized with water, but you will baptized with the Holy Spirit" Acts 1:5, 11:16. The Apostle under divine inspiration applies this prophetic statment of Jesus to Cornelius receiving the "baptsim" of the Holy Spirit. The leaders in Jerusalem agreed and praised God.. So, at least in this instance… baptism is the word used for the Holy Spirit coming upon and filling Cornelius..Now, I admit quickly to not being bright enough to discern the differences ya'll were discussing earlier about being overtaken or overflowing…To me it's all pretty much the same thing…It's God, in the form of His Spirit, filling a man..How does one explain that ??

     So, then I must conclude that Jesus anticipated that baptism would be by the Spirit instead of water because he contrasted John's water with the baptism of the Spirit and it applied to Cornelius and not just to the Apostles. If it applied to Cornelius then I can argue fairly that it applies to me.

     Then, I stepped back and looked at the "Great Commission"…Jesus says to baptize..what He clearly does not say is to baptize in water. Is that because he figured everybody understood and it wasn't necessary to be redundant or did He foresee what He about to tell them in a few days? It didn't seem to make much sense to me for Him to say baptize in water on one day and then the next day tell them they would baptize with the Spirit instead of water…Again, I'm no theologian, I'm just going on gut instinct here… Yet, Peter complicates the story by going ahead and baptizing them in water even after he says he remembered that Jesus says he would baptize with the Spirit.. Peter doesn't address that part of it which to me is very curious…It's almost like Peter baptizes in water because that's HIS default position..it's what he's been doing all along and he doesn't know any better until Cornelius "happens" and then he gets it….sort of…but he goes ahead and uses water too !! What ??

     Acts 2 in just a second….
201. Price says:

     February 16, 2011 at 4:02 pm

     Acts 2 for me is very curious… Peter uses the term baptize in 2:38… Apparently he doesn't understand about baptizing in the Spirit like it happened with Cornelius…that's a ways off…I think they were baptized in water…He does acknowledge some understanding of the Joel prophecy and includes the gift of the Holy Spirit as part of what they would receive at their baptism.. What I'm not sure of at all is whether they did or not at that specific time.. No "sign" is mentioned that someone might notice as they did with Cornelius…Their activities as a "church" or at least as a group of believers doesn't include any "empowerment" references…It seems just like a regular Spirit-less group… not that they weren't saved but certainly no indication of being empowered with ANY gift.. What really got my goat was the example given a few chapters later of the Samaritans…

     Now, one thing there I have to add here from my perspective…I believe that John's baptism did in fact in some way pardon or forgive sins…Jesus doesn't say that it didn't..He had plenty of opportunity. In fact He and His disciples participated in baptism of some sort, presuably, at least by me, it was this same type of baptism…So, I believe the Samartans were forgiven or pardoned or something but that they were also "powerless" and that according to Peter and John was unacceptable given the possibility. So they somehow were used by God to be conduits for the Samaritans to receive the H.S. That was the preferrable conclusion..not just forgiveness of sins which many today see as the end all…Pretty obvious that Peter and John didn't think that…It is odd that Peter has yet to remember the words of Jesus that he will remember with Cornelius…It seems reasonable to conclude that Peter was still in water baptism mode..These folks were first baptized in water but no H.S. Is that similar to the Acts 2 believers? Anyway, I figured that it was a reasonable position that I could adopt for today as well that there was more to just having my sins forgiven. If the H.S. was available to empower the Christian in a way that HE CHOOSES, then my preference would be to be gifted or supernaturally empowered for some purpose..

     The Cornelius episode seems to ME to be the conclusion to Peter's being informed on what's going on. Cornelius receives the H.S. BEFORE water baptism and NOW he gets it…

     Acts 2: Water baptsim no empowerment…coming later.. not sure how.
     Acts 8: Water baptized no empowerment. Going to lay hands on them to solve the problem. Somehow they got the hands/Spirit thing going.
     Acts 10: H.S. empowered before water baptism. THEN Peter recalls the words of Jesus about the focus being the Spirit and NOT the Water…He finally gets it…and then…baptizes them in water anyway. Come on Peter !!

     So, is the Spirit baptism defensible ? I think so.. Does it make water baptism unnecessary..I don't think so. It was apparently important to the group and God didn't say don't do it….Which should be the real focus? I believe Jesus answered that question Himself… He is the one that changed the focus…not Peter..

     Who's it for…Peter said the promise was for "all who believe." That includes me. So, that's where I'm at. But, unlike some on here and elsewhere, I'm not convinced that it's salvific to understand how all of it works…just that by faith it does in fact work and I'm the beneficary because of Jesus and the Grace of God. I can sit down and fellowship with anybody that doesn't agree with that as long as they don't condemn me to hell.
202. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 16, 2011 at 4:29 pm

     Price, I think your analysis is very reasonable (at the risk of discrediting it by agreeing).

     Why should we analyze it anyway. We can be confident that the early just water baptized and didn't ask questions. They didn't teach that someone wouldn't be saved w/o water baptism, but they just did it. Because it was expected. Maybe we should do that too. Below is a passionate plea to water baptize because God told the church to do it and lets go on to more important things. It may sound like a reversal in thought for me, but it's not intended that way.

     Just do it.
     /2011/02/baptism-an-explora…

     Maybe Heb 6 says to move on from water washings into maturity for a reason.

     Fix your eyes on Jesus, don't stare at you own navel. (paraphrase).

     Water baptism? Don't teach the wrong thing about it and don't make it a test of fellowship, but just do it. It turns out the same but God gets all the glory for obedience, including ours.
203. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 16, 2011 at 5:04 pm

     Guy

     I understand about the "rest of the night." In a few minutes I have to head for meetings for the rest of the night (or seems that way).

     Two things about Luke possibly not writing about all the miracles in Acts. He didn't say nothing else happened (i.e., possibility not excluded, in fact he does say that many other signs were done by the apostles) and he included what was necessary to prove the case to Theophilus. There were undoubtedly other conversions also, but these got included because they showed something important to his point. There are several layers of examination of the specific descriptions in Acts. One, is the surface of exactly what happened. The second is why it happened and what big picture is Luke intending. Looking for one's perception of an "exact match" to an occurrence described by Luke may provide accurate information or it may miss because it doesn't understand the larger teaching. The importance of this depends on looking for something to match to current event (looking for a positive match) or assuming there won't be a match (negative proof). Look at what is included for the positive proof; worry about what wasn't included for the negative "proof." Luke may not have needed it for his positive proof so it wasn't included. But one would need it for their negative proof. That probably sounds like glossolalia.

     The "we" is relevant to the scope of your question. If it is "do I see something in my life" then miracles in Rwanda may not be relevant. If the questions is "does it happen today in the church" then one should look beyond the scope of their little universe to answer the question, because the question expanse exceeds their own universe so that a negative answer doesn't mean anything.

     Tomorrow.

     Blessings
204. Randall says:

     February 16, 2011 at 5:37 pm

     John 3
     7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You [4] must be born again.’ 8 The wind [5] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

     Perhaps we can't quite define exactly when the pneuma/wind/Spirit will move as it is under the sovereign control of God. We certainly are not the ones in control though the affects are evident – just like with the wind.
205. Jay Guin says:

     February 16, 2011 at 10:58 pm

     Dr T,

     I agree. The analysis is all very interesting and edifying, but in the end, we are commanded to water baptize our converts. (I don't have the power to baptize converts in the Spirit. I can only baptize in water and leave the rest — and the timing of the rest — up to God.)
206. David says:

     February 16, 2011 at 11:34 pm

     Alright Theo…you said, "Then, I stepped back and looked at the "Great Commission"…Jesus says to baptize..what He clearly does not say is to baptize in water. Is that because he figured everybody understood and it wasn't necessary to be redundant or did He foresee what He about to tell them in a few days? It didn't seem to make much sense to me for Him to say baptize in water on one day and then the next day tell them they would baptize with the Spirit instead of water…Again, I'm no theologian, I'm just going on gut instinct here… Yet, Peter complicates the story by going ahead and baptizing them in water even after he says he remembered that Jesus says he would baptize with the Spirit.. Peter doesn't address that part of it which to me is very curious…It's almost like Peter baptizes in water because that's HIS default position..it's what he's been doing all along and he doesn't know any better until Cornelius "happens" and then he gets it….sort of…but he goes ahead and uses water too !! What ??"
     —————————————————————————————————
     Yes exactly…..what????? Theo…..I thought God was not the author of confussion? This gut instinct stuff would lead me to think that he is. Of course my points below may be confusing. I'm way too wordy.

     1. It is the Lord who baptizes the believers with the Spirit isn't it? Not mortal men…but the Lord. Jesus didn't tell his disciples to baptize the new disciples in the Spirit…that is something the Lord does. When he tells his disciples to baptize……it is something they do, and if it isn't water baptism…then what is it? Baptize with what?? It isn't the Spirit. That is the working of the Lord. It must have meant baptize them with water.

     2. When the Ethiopian Eunich heard God's word and believed…he said…hey look here is some water….what could possibly keep me from being baptized. I think Philip was following the Great Commission and that he told the Eunich to be baptized with water. I don't think he told the Eunich to be baptized with with Spirit. (That was God's part…..the real important part.) I also have a feeling that what he preached didn't differ much if any from what Peter said in Acts 2. We have no reason to believe otherwise. Did Philip tell the Eunich something wrong? Did the Eunich not hear Philip correctly? I think the Eunich heard right…and when he saw the water…his heart leaped for joy….because he couldn't wait to follow Jesus to the water. And he fully trusted in the Lord…and as he went into the water and rose out of the water…we have no reason to believe that he felt anything in his heart other than complete trust in the working of the Lord. I don't find anything in the text that would lead me be believe Philip told the Eunich to be baptized with the Spirit and then to be baptized in water.

     3. Likewise, when Peter tells the people to be baptized into forgiveness of sins, it is something they were to do. When they were cut to the heart, he doesn't say, "Stand firm as the Spirit of the Lord descends upon you. And the promise is for you…….." Instead he tells them to turn to Jesus and be baptized. I believe it is the same thing the Eunich heard. I think they heard the same gospel. Doesn't the "be" imply action on their part? What are the options for them to "be"? I know we don't like the action thing….but it's there. How do you tell someone to be baptized in the Spirit? I think they were told to be baptized in the water and God knew what he was going to do for them when they responded in faith.

     38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

     4. Isn't the receipt of the Spirit tied to the repent and be baptized part based on how the sentences are constructed? "And" what? "And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." If what?…After what?…..Because of what? After the repent and be……..right? Based on the way chapter 2 is written, not based on a preconcieved idea of how we think it all works, but on the gospel revealed in chapter 2….what else could it mean?

     Okay that's enough.
207. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 16, 2011 at 11:37 pm

     Jay, I agree. Unless I am reading my own idea into your posts (is that eisegesis?) I think somewhere you said that water baptism was obedience by the church as a statement of fellowship. Peter said if he hadn't water baptized Cornelius, he would be to opposed God. God has accepted the believer into fellowship with Him, we would oppose God if we didn't extend fellowship to the same and signify that by water baptism. It may have the appearance of doing the same thing (water baptizing), but we in the church are responding to God's grace for the believer by being obedient ourselves rather than effectively placing something that we control between the believer and the grace of God.

     This makes discussions about whether or not a person's water baptism is valid based on the person's prior understanding that he had to do that to receive God's grace dangerously approach "preaching another gospel."
208. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 17, 2011 at 12:44 am

     David, thank you for your comments and questions. There are a number of indications that you and I are not communicating very well. (1) I didn't write the statements that it appeared you attributed to me at the beginning of your post. I don't have a problem with the statements, however, and so I really don't have a problem with answering questions about them (2) As I understand your comments, I don't fine much to disagree with. So, that means to me that either one, or both, of us is not understanding the other.

     And certainly God is not the author of confusion. But we know that Satan is the prince of the air, and to me that is where lies the author of confusion.

     Certainly it is Jesus who baptizes within the Spirit. That is what John the B said and that is what Jesus confirmed. We do not baptize in the Spirit. We baptize in water. There is a problem if we say Spirit doesn't occur without water, because then we are saying that we have control over the baptism that is done by Jesus — it doesn't happen until we say so.

     Although the word "water" was not used in Matt 28, the "great commission," I have no problem with interpreting that water baptism was the intent. But the command is to make disciples not in "baptizing them." But I think they did baptize and I think it was in water, but it was something that followed "making disciples." Jesus Himself did the baptizing in the Spirit and the timing of that was under God's authority and not humans'. What is not in this verse is "teach the people they haven't been saved until you water baptize them" This has been a working assumption for many people, and used to be mine, as well.

     Certainly Phillip baptized the Eunuch in water in Acts 8. I have read some attempts to explain this as Spirit baptism, and the logic is so distorted that it is actually humorous to read. What is it that makes you think that I have a problem with water baptism? I think every convert in the NT was, or had been, water baptized. I am assuming that includes the 120 (or so) in the "upper room" but Luke doesn't specifically say so. So where's the problem in that?

     Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is tied to "repent and be baptized" in Acts 2:38, and it is consistent with the construction of the sentence. Luke wrote in a very precise manner and specified things very precisely. No problem for me with that.

     What the conversion of Cornelius confirmed to Peter was that the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out with baptism within the Holy Spirit and not with anything Peter had physical control over. Including water baptism. Acts 2:38 says that the gift of the Holy Spirit is received after repentance and being baptized. I'm confident that all the respondents to Peter's invitation were baptized in water. But to say that water baptism is what saved them goes counter to the account of Cornelius.

     So I find little in your comments to disagree with. Maybe it comes down to communication.
209. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 17, 2011 at 1:18 am

     Guy

     I usually make things worse by continuing to try to explain them, but I think you are trying to develop a hermeneutic which is like applying scripture to yourself today. This development first involves a valid exegesis of the scripture and then involves a valid application of the scripture to yourself and today. Both of these steps are vulnerable to "reading in" some presumptions that may be transparent to us (usually are) which can invalidate the results. Moving from the first century to today is not an obvious and easy jump to make. There are rules of statistics that are actually helpful because statistics are a quantitative mathematical approach to logic. To get a valid answer, you have to ask a valid question. If the question is broader than your methodology, or if the question and methodology do not match, then the answer will not be valid. I am just challenging you to think more about the questions and what you are doing to look for answers, to make the results of your process be as valid as possible. You are on an important search and you have asked questions that need to have valid answers. And that's what I want you to find, so that you can make valid conclusions. Often we want answers that don't require a lot of time, thought, and effort. To have someone say that one's answers will not be valid because one's methodology is faulty or because one's questions are inappropriate can be pretty frustrating. Hang in there. I try to explain as best I can.
210. Grizz says:

     February 17, 2011 at 1:42 am

     Jay,

     We agree. Baptize them as commanded and leave God to determine where to do what.

     Amen

     Grizz
211. Grizz says:

     February 17, 2011 at 1:47 am

     Theo-Dr,

     You wrote: "This makes discussions about whether or not a person's water baptism is valid based on the person's prior understanding that he had to do that to receive God's grace dangerously approach "preaching another gospel." "

     I would have you take a look at what Paul DID when he met the disciples who only knew the baptism of John. He corrected their thinking and helped them complete what was left unfinished to that point. Seems like Priscilla and Aquila did something similar with Apollos, though we have no word on whether there was another immersion needed. This is, to me at least, the more interesting case.

     Blessings,

     Grizz
212. Grizz says:

     February 17, 2011 at 2:15 am

     Theo-Dr,

     Is the case of Cornelius really as different as we seem to make it? We want to make out that Peter finally gets something here, but did this happen before or after he wrote 1 Peter 3 and all that bit about water and Noah and what saves us and how it is an appeal for a clean conscience based on Jesus' work on the cross (not any work we have done).

     It seems to me we get hung up on who did the baptizing and what the person being immersed understood, but in the parable of the two sons it was the son who finally did it that obeyed, not the one who said he understood. Cornelius just isn't the exceptive norm some would like it to be. And we are not so much smarter than Peter as we may think we are.

     Water baptism is not WHAT saves them, it is WHERE GOD hears the appeal to the cross – the dying with and the rising with Jesus. It is where our faith is clearly focused on Jesus' death for us and being buried with Him as we submit to His rule and have something He commanded to be done TO all of us who would follow Him.

     Cornelius did NOT get the Spirit to help him become acceptable to God. He was already known to God as one who feared Him and yet still needed to hear the rest of the story. Peter did not misunderstand anything, as far as I can tell. He went and did what was asked of him and confirmed with his cohorts that this was according to the vision given so that THEY would be able to testify to God's approval of the preaching and baptizing and accepting them just like any Jewish believer who was baptized into Jesus would be accepted and acceptable. Peter was not hedging bets, but rather looking out for those who might stumble over what happened when they heard Gentiles were being added to the church. God didn't jump the gun, as some seem to think, but sent the Spirit to make it obvious to Peter and Company that this was according to His will.

     Folks want to put Peter with Cornelius up in opposition to Peter in his letters and it just does not wash. If God wants to make a donkey speak (think of Baalam – sp??) then what on earth makes me think He could or should not have sent the HS to Cornelius as a stamp of approval for what Peter was doing – which was just what he had been commanded to do in his vision?

     And all of this stuff about how the prophecy of Joel fits into it in Acts 2 and maybe at Cornelius' house (some think) just shows how little many 21st century armchair theologians know about 1st century Judaiism. Joel was a signal passage with respect to Messianic signs for the Jews. Peter's recognition and reference to that passage marks him as more than an armchair theological theorist. Besides, why rest the sermon in Acts 2 on Peter's grasp of anything more than saying whatever the HS gave him to speak? You see it does not matter either way. It was simply a way of helping those within earshot to understand the import of what was going on and open them to the gospel message. Along with the rest of the sermon, it worked, too.

     Just seems to me we are getting into a lot of the noise that takes the focus off Jesus and pretends that we DO something when we submit to immersion. We don't DO anything but surrender. The immersion is a confessional appeal – we admit our need to die and deserving death – we submit to being buried as Jesus was, in water instead of a grave hewn out of stone and sealed with stone, and we appeal for a life to be given based on what Jesus DID (He's the DO-er) and we are told that God gives that life, creates it right there in the water grave, so that the submitter (again, NOT a DO-er) can rise to walk in full assurance in that newly created and empowered life.

     Everything about immersion should SCREAM Jesus' name and work at us.
     Everything about immersion into Jesus should remind us of our need and His glorious grace to fill our need.

     Arguing over what the person knew before deciding to obey and submit only serves to take the focus off Jesus. So why do it?

     Ya think?

     Grizz
213. Grizz says:

     February 17, 2011 at 2:27 am

     In reference to back then versus right here and right now, I always wonder what part of the discussion will get around to what Jesus commanded the apostles in Matthew 28.

     There are two steps in making disciples, if the participles are going to be allowed to be participles. Make disciples means baptizing and it also means what? Let's let Jesus answer, okay?

     Jesus said, "…and teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you (apostles)…"

     Do we believe that or not? Do we think they were unfaithful with that part?

     What ever Jesus taught the apostles was to be passed along as they went and made disciples. For the life of me I cannot see the exception to that instruction.

     I admit that, as John tells us, there was a lot more said and done than is recorded (see Jn.21:25). The point I am getting at is that what we do have that was taught and commanded of the apostles was intended by Jesus to be passed on. Paul said as much to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:2. Even the stuff that shows up in the narrative where Jesus is teaching something clearly to the apostles that was hidden from others is passed along to us from the gospel accounts themselves. (Think of why Jesus used parables and their discussions about that.)

     Jesus told them to pass it ALL on down as part of the make disciples command. Paul did exactly that with Timothy. Whatever would make us think that was supposed to stop cold at some point?

     Anybody?

     Grizz
214. Todd says:

     February 17, 2011 at 8:42 am

     Grizz,

     I had a wonderful experience this week. I rotate among our groups weekly to check on folks and one of my leaders is a recovering checklist legalist. This week, for the first time in his teaching, he proclaimed "if you love Me you will keep my commandments" and applied it to one of the difficult teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. It was a watershed moment.
215. Todd says:

     February 17, 2011 at 8:56 am

     Just a thought: We sometimes think that John baptized during his ministry and then Jesus tacked baptism onto His commands for the apostles (and for us) as something new. If you look at the ends of John 3 and the beginning of 4 you see that baptism was how Jesus was making disciples during His earthly ministry as well – water baptism that is. There is little reason to assume He is talking about something else to Nicodemus when water baptism is what is being discussed both before and after the "of water and the Spirit" passage. Matthew 28 isn't asking the disciples to do anything new at all, it is a command to keep doing what they have already been doing and only changing the focus from a local work (limited to Israel) to a global one.
216. David says:

     February 17, 2011 at 9:16 am

     Sorry Theo. It was Price that I had quoted. I would like to say that my confusion was due to it being late last night….but no…..I should have rechecked and made sure. Thanks Theo.
217. Price says:

     February 17, 2011 at 9:31 am

     Grizz…as you know I am totally FOR water baptism…I'm just searching through the scriptures for the Spirit that most in the church today has discarded in exchange for routine… I'm with you on the significance of Jesus in the whole thing…forgetting that nullifies, in MHO, the purpose and real meaning of it all…

     Todd, you may be absolutely right about Matt 28…just considering it in light of what He says and Peter recalls about his experience with Cornelius.. There appears to be little supportable doubt that Jesus is contrasting Water baptism with Spirit baptism and in the case of Cornelius, they did not happen at the same time if we can trust the language.

     Again, in MHO, this lack of appreciation for the Spirit's significance in the New Covenant leads one to try and dismiss Him as irrevelent for today which I find to be lacking in scriptural authority.

     Oh, Grizz…Al Maxey wrote a great piece on the I Peter passage you referred to…His detailed look at it might be something for many to consider. After reading his work, and that of many others, I find that there might be a tendency to read into that passage something that it doesn't say at all… Interesting look and Al is as honest to the text as anyone I know…

     Jay you might also have posted something regarding I Peter 3 that I haven't yet had the privilege of reading…
218. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 17, 2011 at 9:47 am

     David, Not a problem. I am "right in there" with Price's statement as well. But I do think that whatever apparent disagreement we might have is based to a large extent of not fully understanding what the other is saying.
219. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 17, 2011 at 9:50 am

     Grizz

     What a great post!! "21st century armchair theologian" I love that, except were it applies to me. Ooo-f-f!

     I think what you said was right on! I gave thanks and praise to God as I read it.
220. Price says:

     February 17, 2011 at 10:03 am

     David…you may be absolutely correct in everything you are saying…I'm just exploring a new concept that seems to have a great deal of credibility but I'm just an amateur so please forgive me if I make any error in judgement…

     Regarding your 1st point… I'm not sure that I agree totally but mostly.. You say that water baptism is something that WE do…I agree that we are the ones that dunk the person. There is no doubt about that… But, we don't forgive sins, which is the primary purpose that most believe that we baptize in the first place. So, in that regard, water baptism isn't anything that we do either.. Make sense? Peter certainly didn't DO anything to Cornelius before the Spirit came upon he and his family..However, it was Peter and John that were used as conduits for the receipt of the H.S. to the Samaritans, right ? Is that much different from dunking somebody for the remission of sins? If it is I don't see it as clearly as perhaps I should. I don't even understand all that is involved with the human agency of it all. Jay suggested perhaps it some way it reflects "church" approval…I don't object to that at all… And perhaps it is with doubt that it all now happens at the same time in water baptism…receipt of the Spirit and inclusion in the local body… I'm happy as a clam about that…

     Your second point is spot on.. I have no difficulty with your understanding at all with the Eunich. Obviously, Phillip had some understanding of the Spirit's role whether or not he understood that he could be "beamed" over to another place or not… He was instructed by the Spirit to interact with the Eunuch in the first place. We aren't certain from the text that the Eunuch received any gift of the H.S.

     The third point I agree with as well. I believe fully that they were baptized in water…What I don't know is that they immediately received the Spirit. There is nothing remotely similar to the Samaritan or Cornelius account. Did Peter expect it to be immediate ?? I just noticed that Peter didn't even pick up on the baptism in the Spirit until Cornelius..that is some time past Pentecost. I really don't have to interpret but rather just consider Peter's own words that he didn't get it until Corneliuis.. So, the question is what did he understand at Pentecost?? What was different about Cornelius from the believers at 2:38 ??
     We know they are different enough to cause Peter to finally put it all together. I don't think God was ever confused…but on more than one occasion Peter certainly was.. Undoubtedly, without the benefit of 2,000 years of teaching I would have been equally confused about it all…

     You asked, "What else could it mean?" in point 4… Well, the question at hand is WHEN did Peter believe that the Holy Spirit would be received by the believers. It's hard to tell from the language. "You shall receive" is translated from a Greek verb in the Future tense.. How future ?? Did Peter expect it immediately? He was told to wait for it… Again, no mention of anything out of the ordinary with the believers unlike the Samaritans and Cornelius.. wonder why that is? Am I the only one that wonders about it ?? Just trying to walk through it all and I may be more confused that Peter ever was… certainly not being dogmatic about it… Just willing to look at it from a different view..with not much bearing on what I see as the norm for today..

     Does that make sense at all ??
221. guy says:

     February 17, 2011 at 10:22 am

     Dr. Theo,

     Wednesdays are no fun–i had class til 10pm. Anyway, getting back to your list:

     You wrote:
     "In John 12:29, God has spoken in an audible voice. Some of the Jews said, "Naaahhh! It was just thundering." They missed hearing the voice of God and explaining it away as a natural event. Can I do the same?"

     Of course i could do the same. But i understand the force of this question to rest on the presumption that every encounter i explain away was in fact genuine. But there are counterfeits. i take it that there are a great many. In fact, i take it that there are a great many counterfeits that many people take to be genuine. From the perspective of those people, my saying "it was just thundering" would be "missing the voice of God." But that doesn't make it so.

     You wrote:
     "In mathematics or other forms of logic (including approaches to biblical interpretation), a positive statement is easier to support than a negative one. Saying something is present involves proof centered on one thing. Saying something is not there involves proving that every contingency is negative."

     If by "proof" and "support" you mean deductive validity, then absolutely. The defender of the negative would always be left in agnosticism.

     But i'm not sure that kind of inference even available in this case. i take this case to be more like hypothesis confirmation. There can be evidence that, given certain conditions, might have falsified a given hypothesis. In those instances, if the hypothesis is not falsified, and it happens repeatedly, that can serve as confirmation. The hypothesis may still turn out to be false in the long run (Newtonian Physics for instance), but i don't really have other methodological means available. And at least by abduction, hypotheses probably survive a lot of tests and win out over contending hypotheses because they're true.

     And in the case of a negative hypothesis, i'm not utterly limited to the absence of counter-evidence as evidence for a negative hypothesis. It may be the nature of the case that certain conditions which would prove the positive corollary simply do not hold or at least don't hold where i have reason to believe they should hold. Further, perhaps the conditions are reproducible; if they are and yet no counter-evidence follows, i take that as general confirmation of the negative hypothesis. Or it may be that the conditions necessary to produce counter-evidence are not reproducible; in such an event i have good reason to think the negative hypothesis is true.

     –guy
222. guy says:

     February 17, 2011 at 10:42 am

     Dr. Theo,

     (1) About Luke, i don't know what to say except reiterate the point. i can't base any conclusion on speculation about what may have happened but didn't make it into the text. Whether all that Luke *didn't* record completely matches the features of what he did or not, i have no way of knowing. And as a result i can't conclude anything at all based on that. Suppose the unrecorded instances include a very different set of features that constitute the "normal" activity of the HS in a typical conversion. Okay. So what? i'm not privy to that information. Even if those conditions prevail today, how would i know it? i could say, "they do" or "they don't," but i have no standard for measurement or comparison on either position.

     If my conclusion is somehow amenable to that information, then i can't confirm *either* position. For all you know, what Luke failed to record differs from what you take to be the normal conditions. In such a case, no "present-day-active-HS" could get off the ground any easier than any cessationist case–at least as either points to empirical evidence.

     But the criteria is simply faulty. For all we know, every sermon Luke failed to record included doctrinal teaching utterly different from our own. For all we know, much of the church interaction Luke failed to record included rituals and practices utterly different from our own. If we're obliged to account for what Luke failed to record, then at the end of the day no position about any point of faith has any solid ground to stand on.

     All we have is what Luke did record. And all we can say is that present empirical evidence is either consistent or inconsistent with features of what he did record.

     (2) i take the phenomenon in question to be claiming much more than "there is at least one instance currently extant among Christians." True, that's all it takes to prove a positive case. But i take the position to be claiming much more than that. –that the HS is presently active in most if not all true conversions. If that is an accurate representation, then looking carefully at what i take to be true conversions should suffice as an investigation.

     –guy
223. Todd says:

     February 17, 2011 at 10:53 am

     Price,

     For clarity of my position:

     I believe that the indwelling of the Spirit IS the reason for baptism. If all we needed was forgiveness God could have done almost anything to extend grace. But to actually be the God Who dwells within us He had to make us clean. The blood of Jesus was the chosen remedy, water baptism the chosen medium. The exact timing of when everything happens, I think, is less important than a realization of what God is actually doing in us. (What Peter says in Acts 2:38 is an excellent explanation.) In Jesus He is extending a level of relationship to us we could not enjoy before.

     Without the Spirit's indwelling being a part of our Gospel, we are not preaching the Gospel Jesus offered and that the apostles presented. We can debate all day long and even profitably what that indwelling means, but to deny the indwelling removes a central plank from the Gospel as given.
224. Guestfortruth says:

     February 17, 2011 at 11:06 am

     Theophilus Dr.

     Is the Gospel miraculous? Romans 1:16. That's the gospel has dumanis ?. What is the way that the Holy Spirit convict the world of Sins? please explain.
225. Guestfortruth says:

     February 17, 2011 at 11:20 am

     I want to understand the Bible teaching on the Holy Spirit and His work in the lives of the individual today. First of all, we need to understand that all we can learn about the Holy Spirit comes from the Scriptures. And I am concerned about what the Bible teaches, not what someone might think or feel.
     Now, we need to understand, in the first place, that the Holy Spirit is a Divine person, one of the members of the Godhead. He is not just some kind of force or influence. But the eternal Godhead consist of God the Father, the Son (or word) and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is as much a person as Jesus Christ. Some people do not understand that. Jesus gave the Great Commission and mentioned these three persons. He said that the disciples should go and baptize “in the name of the Father, and Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).
     The Holy Spirit had a part in the creation of the universe, and the organization of the materials, and setting things in order in the natural realm. “Let us make man in our own image” refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit working in the creation of man (Gen. 1:26).
     The Holy Spirit also directed the Old Testament writers in giving the Word of God. 2 Peter 1:21 says that :” for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” “ Moved” means influenced by, directed by, the Holy Spirit. For example again, in Acts 1:16, Peter said that “the Holy Spirit by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas……” Therefore, we would understand that David wrote this by the direction of the Holy Spirit, So the Word of God is inspired by the Holy Spirit. “ All Scripture is given by inspiration of God….” (2 Tim. 3:16).
     When Jesus was about ready to leave this earth and return to the Father. He gave instructions to his apostles in John 14,15 and 16. These instructions dealt with the coming of the Kingdom and the great truths of Christianity shortly to be revealed. He said, “ I am going away, but another comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, will come and guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). So the Apostles would have divine power when they went forth preaching things concerning the Kingdom of God. The establishment of the Lord’s Church would have divine guidance. His Word would be preached without error. The New covenant would be given by the direction of the Holy Spirit.

     Likewise, Jesus said in Luke 24:49, “Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.” (After the ascension of Jesus, the Apostles returned to Jerusalem and waited for the coming of the Holy Spirit upon them.) That is, they would have “power from on high” They would be guided, influenced directly in their work by the Holy Spirit” They went forth preaching repentance and remission of sins in Christ’s name, beginning at Jerusalem. Jesus said, just before He ascended that the Apostles would receive “the promise of the Father” not many days hence.
     The “not many days” were about ten days. Jesus was alive on Earth from the resurrection until his ascension for 40 days. From Passover to Pentecost is fifty days. Therefore, for ten days the Apostles waited for the coming of this power from on high.

     This promise of being baptize in the Holy Spirit was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. The Apostles only received this baptism, not the one hundred and twenty disciples. Acts 1 and verse 2 show that the promise was made to the apostles. Acts 2 uses the pronouns “they” and “them,” referring to the Apostles from Acts 1:26. Those who received this power were Galileans (Acts 2:7), but surely not all the one hundred and twenty were Galileans. Peter stood up with the eleven defending their actions (Acts 2:14). Thus, all the evidence shows that only the apostles received this power from the Holy Spirit.

     The word “baptism” used in Acts 1:5 is surely figurative. The word literally means to dip, plunge, overwhelm. So, the apostles were immersed in, overwhelmed, by the Holy Spirit. They were completely influenced by and directed by the Holy Spirit.
     When the Apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, they began to speak with “other tongues (Gr.glosalia= languages) as the spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 1:4). I will stop right here and let the Lord define “speaking in other tongues.” Acts 2:8 shows the meaning:” And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” The Apostles then were speaking in the languages of the Jews from many different countries (Acts 2:6,11). They were able to do this by the influence of the Holy Spirit without going a School for 3 or more years. Today we have to learn those languages for at least 3 or more years. Just speaking syllables that no one can understand does not meet the bible definition of tongue-speaking. No one today has had the baptism of the Holy Spirit like the apostles in the first century. Thus no one today can speak in languages (tongue) that he has not studied.

     Jesus commanded the Apostles to go into all the world and preach to every creature. To help in carrying out this great task the lord gave them this power to speak other languages. Following this great outpouring on Pentecost day, Luke records that “many wonders and sings were done by the apostles” (Acts 2:43). Also Peter and John healed the lame man (Acts 3:1-8). In Acts 9, Peter raised Dorcas; Other Baptism of the Holy Spirit happened in Cornelius household (Acts. 10) Paul raised Eutychus from the dead in Acts 20. All this signs were done by the apostles for several years after Pentecost.

     Why were all these wonders and signs performed? The answer is to confirm the Word ( Hebrews 2:3,4; Mark 16:20). This means that they proved the word to be from God by doing supernatural things, which also proved them to be messengers of God. Magicians can perform tricks and deceive the people, but they can not raise the dead!
     Notice the reading of Hebrews 2:3,4:
     “how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?”
     The Holy Spirit also directed the recording of “all truth” for men of all ages. Paul wrote:
     “if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: (Ephesians 3:2-5).

     We learn God’s will today by reading what inspired men wrote as directed by the Holy Spirit. No one today is inspired to write scripture or to preach without studying. Today we have an inspired book to read and study.
     When the lord was ready for the Gospel to go unto the Gentiles (as recorded in Acts 10 and 11), Cornelius was told to send for peter who would tell him words where by he and his house would be save. Peter went to Cesarea with six Jews brethren. While peter was speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household as on the Apostles at the beginning (Acts 10:44; Acts 11:15). “The beginning” refers to Acts 2 when the church had its beginning on earth. This was the beginning of the Christian Age, some ten years earlier. There is not another example recorded in all the New Testament.

     Here is a summary of what I just said:
     (1) Joel foretold that God would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh,
     (2) All flesh refers to both Jews and Gentiles,
     (3) The Jewish Apostles in Act 2,
     (4) And the Gentiles in Acts 10.

     The Apostles could not always remain with the congregations to teach and instruct. So it was necessary for other Christian to have miraculous (spiritual) gifts of the Spirit to edify the new Christians. (Ephesians 4:8-12) The New Testament had not yet been written. Therefore, the Apostles laid their hands upon some Christians to impart various gifts. See Acts 8:18. In this chapter, Luke recorded Philip’s work among the Samaritans, Two Apostles, Peter and John, were sent down from Jerusalem to impart gifts. Since Only the apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, they only could impart Spiritual gifts to others. Philip could perform miracles because hands had been laid upon him by the Apostles as recorded in Acts 6:6.
226. Guestfortruth says:

     February 17, 2011 at 11:21 am

     continuation…
     There are other several occasions where Apostles imparted gifts to other Christians by the lying on their hands. Paul laid hands on twelve men ay Ephesus (Acts 19:6).Afterwards they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Paul also gave a gift to timothy by the lying on of his hands (2 Tim. 1:6). Romans 1:11 shows Paul’s desire to impart some gift to the Romans.
     But there are no Apostles living today and neither can there be! So no one can have these miraculous spiritual gifts today. In the first century some Christians that lead the Church in Rome,(Romans 12:3) They were not allowing to use the natural talents develop by their faith in the word of God as is mentioned in Romans 12:6 “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them” every member of the body is useful in the kingdom (Church) even if they did not receive the imposition of hands but they grow up by their faith (2 Thessalonians 1:3) and the case of the Church at Corinth These brethren the apostle Paul at the beginning of chapter 12 says: 1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant: in V.7 Says :” But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: This brethren did not have to Study as we do, because they have the “Holy Spirit by Measure” One person did not have all the gifts so the Church can be edified each other (1 Corinthians 12:12). Each member of the body of Christ has different gifts as given by the Holy Spirit “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.” (1 Cor. 12:11) We need to observe that all the members of the Church have not develop their faith, so some members in the church at Corinth by their faith develops some of this gifts naturally as (word of wisdom , word of knowledge , another faith)and also they receive help from the Holy Spirit message to edify each others, not all in the Church at Corinth were spirituals (1 Cor. 3:1-3). Have these gifts just given to the faithful leaders of the Church as the church at Rome? in the chapter 14, we found what was going on with this gifts given to the church and the apostle Paul tells them that they need to do everything with “spirit and understanding” (1 Cor. 14:14-15) that means Let all things be done decently and in order ( 1 Cor. 14:40 ). In 1 Corinthian 14:1 the apostle Paul says: “1 Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.” The word Prophesy (Gr. Propheteia) which literally means “to speak forth” (pro, “forth”; phemi, “to speak”). it also means proclaiming God's truth. W.E. Vine says in his Dictionary of New Testament Words that a prophet is “a proclaimer of a divine message…. one to whom and through whom God speaks.” Vine also tells us that “propheteia… signifies the speaking forth of the mind and counsel of God…. “ The apostle Paul encourage the Christian to Grow in Love (2 Corinthians 8:7, Romans 12:10). These gifts ceased when the Apostles died and when those upon whom the Apostles had laid their hands died. The purpose for all the miracles, signs and wonders was for the giving and confirmation of the Truth. When the truth had been given, the miraculous gift were no longer needed.
     Now, let use an illustration. I have seen in some towns the construction of many buildings, condominiums, etc. There is much equipment and tools round about on the job site. But when the building is completed, all the equipment and machinery will be removed. In like manner, the gifts and “power (supernatural)” of the Holy Spirit were needed until the church was established and founded upon the rock (Mark 9:1; 1 Cor. 3:11; 1 Cor. 3:9-11). After the building (church” 1 Timothy 3:15”) was completed, then the tools (miraculous gift) were no longer needed. Paul said that 1 Cor. 13:8-10. “8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.”
     “That which is perfect” refers to the completed, sufficient revelation of truth, James 1:25 refers to the “perfect law of liberty” or the New Covenant of Jesus. Some think that “the perfect” refers to Jesus’ second coming. But nowhere in the whole context of 1 Cor. 12, 13 and 14 is the second coming discussed. Notice that 1 Cor. 13:10 does not say, ”When He who is perfect is come,” but rather it says, “when that which is perfect.” It refers to the fact that partial revelation and knowledge received through the gifts and powers of the Spirit would cease when the full revelation of truth was given. Also note Ephesians 4:11-13:
     “ And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;

     After Jesus ascended, He gave gifts unto men (Eph.4:8)- until(Eph. 4:13) we all come in the unity of the faith. All can and should be united today in “the faith” of the gospel, since all truth about salvation has been given. See 2 peter1:3.

     For example: When we announce a gospelmeetings, we usually print in the tracts the place, date and hour and we says: this event continue until Friday night. After Friday, they will not continue. In like manner, Jesus gave gifts unto some until all the truth have been revealed. So after the church received that “perfect (complete) low of liberty,” the gifts ceased! God never intended that the “baptism of the Holy Spirit and miraculous gifts would continue down through the centuries”.

     Individuals make claims today of possessing miraculous power. But they need to be demonstrated! If one claim to have the baptism of the Holy Spirit, then he should be able to do what the apostles did! He could do things like raising the dead or restoring the sight to the blind. Today there is not man on earth that can go to a cementery and raise one from the dead. If so, I am ready to go with him to see it. No man on earth today can do it; and that’s not all, he will not even attempt it. That show to everyone today that individual do not have what the apostles had.
     While it is true that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit involved the ability to work miracles, wonders, and signs in the first century (Acts 2:4-12; 6:6-8; et al.), it is not the case that all the Holy Spirit’s indwelling must involve the miraculous. Not even in the first century did everyone have the ability to work miracles, wonders, and sings. Furthermore, lest one think that the Holy Spirit could not possible indwell a Christian without it involving the miraculous, consider the human spirit. All bible believer know that humans have a spirit which is given by God at conception (Ecc. 12:7; Zech 12:1; Jas 2:26). God’s initial creation of humanity with a spirit was clearly miraculous (Gen. 2:27). However, the procreation of humanity with a spirit in accordance with natural law established at creation is non-miraculously, then why can not the Spirit of God dwell in a human non-miraculously? Additionally, if all faithful Christian have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, and if the miraculous age has ceased ( which it has, 1 Cor. 13:8-13), then the Holy Spirit’s indwelling must necessarily be non-miraculous.
     This ordinary no-miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the dwelling in the Christian through obedience to the word (Rom.8:11; Gal. 3:2); not directly, personally, but as God the father and Christ the son dwell in Christians . The Spirit leads, guides the Christian through the Word; not in a special, direct way. In obedience to the word Christian bring fruit the fruit of the Spirit, in their lives (Gal. 5:22,23; cf. 2 Cor. 6:16; Col.1:27)
     .
     Now, how does the Holy Spirit today lead, guide, or direct people non-miraculously? The answer is: through and by the instructions of the Holy Spirit written in God’s word (1 peter 1:23). How does the Holy Spirit convict people of sin today? As in the past centuries by the word of God. The word is an instrument that the Holy Spirit uses to accomplish that work. As a man cuts down a three with an axe, so the spirit uses the Word to prick the heart of sinner and defend God’s kingdom when that divine message the Gospel is preached.
227. Guestfortruth says:

     February 17, 2011 at 11:22 am

     continuation….
     For example, Romans 8:4 says” For many as are lead by the Holy Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” This verse does not say, though, how we are lead by the spirit. But elsewhere we learn that the Gospel (the Spirit’s teaching) is God’s power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). The Spirits leads us as we follow God’s word, which was given by the Spirit.

     Are Christians being baptize with the Holy Spirit today? Are they being given special miraculous power? It is possible for a Christians to speak in tongues, heal the sick, and raise the dead?

     Remember that the promise to be guided into all truth was given to the Apostles, and they only received that “Power from on high” on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus. The coming of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles aided them in carrying the gospel to every creature, writing and confirming the New covenant, and establishing the church for which Jesus died. Be careful in our bible study to handle aright the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). It is wrong to teach that promise applied to everyone when it was only intended and addressed to the apostles. The idea that people down through the ages receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit is nowhere taught in the scriptures.

     After the holy Apostles and prophets received “the mystery” of how lost men would be saved in Jesus, they recorded it for men of all ages to read (Eph.3:3-5). “All truth” was revealed to them (John 16:13), and the Scriptures warn for men not to change its message (Rev.22:18).

     The only power that the Holy Spirit exerts upon the minds of people today is the power of the truth of the gospel. The Holy Spirit with the word pricks the heart of the sinner and guides the Christian in his life through the word of God (1 peter 1:23).

     The Bible says that God dwell in us (1 Jn. 4:12,15), and that Christ dwell in us (Colossians 1:27). But how do Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit dwell in us? Certainly not physically “Literally” that would be incarnation. And the only incarnation we find in the scriptures is Our Lord Jesus Christ the word becoming flesh (Jn. 1:14). It can be said that they dwell in us when we listen the message of the Holy Spirit (the divine Word) love the word, and obey its message. We thus are guided, directed, and motivated by the Spirit. Eph. 3:17 says “that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith,” and faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). And so it is by our obedience to the word of God that we have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. This dwelling is not in a miraculous sense, enabling one to perform miracles or to speak in tongues today.

     Blessings are promised to those who obey the Lord. If we confess faith in Jesus and are baptized into Christ, then blessings are promise to those in Christ. All believers are commanded to be baptizing in water, but Holy Spirit Baptism was a promise to only a few. Miraculous gift were bestowed on some disciples in the first century. Note these words in Mark 16:15-20:

     “15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they[a] will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

     Sometime people will say that this is what the Lord promised, so every baptized believer should have these powers. We must remember this rule of Bible study; that is, that not everything is taught in one bible verse. All God’s word is truth (Jn. 17:17). In this passage Jesus did not explain the matter. And we must be careful to read all that is said on the subject of the Holy Spirit. No two verses of truth contradict each other. One verse may shed more light on the subject, but it will not contradict another Bible statement.
     So if any individual today can speak in tongues instantly without studied, then they can also take up poisonous serpents and drink deadly things and raise the dead. But no one can perform these things today.

     A brother in Christ was preaching in a Gospel meeting and a man in the audience said that “ He had the baptism of the Holy Spirit”. After offering to close the service to go to the cementery to prove it, the man did not accept. He just sat there. So the brother continue with his lesson. Someone might say that it isn’t Christ-like to put someone to the test. But the message of the Holy Spirit says in John 4:1 commands:

     “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

     And John wrote to the Church at Ephesus in Revelation 2:2:

     “I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars.”
     The Lord thus commended the Ephesians for trying these imposters. They found them to be liars.
     THE HOLY SPIRIT PLEADS!
     The Holy Spirit –through the word – is pleading with the world of the unsaved to turn to God and be saved. He is also pleading with Christians to continue in faithfulness. Please make note of the fact that it is through the word that the Holy Spirit does this. The Holy Spirit appeals to the intellect and the heart of man through the power of the Gospel. When man reach beyond this, he reaches into subjectivism and emotionalism.
228. Guestfortruth says:

     February 17, 2011 at 11:23 am

     continuation…..
     However, there are some among us who have taken the indwelling a step further and have said the Holy Spirit helps them directly in their preaching/teaching and in their study. This experience it is nothing less than a claim of miraculous inspiration today, which was prophesied to cease ( 1 Cor. 13:8-12), and was done away at the end of the first century upon the death of the last apostle (Acts 8:18-19).
     As Jesus prepared His disciples for His departure, He promise to send another comforter (Jn.14:16). Later, in His discourse in the upper room, Jesus revealed Who this Comforter is, and what this comforter would do. The other comforter is “the Spirit of Truth” (v.17), or” the Holy Spirit,” and his work was to teach the apostles all things, and bring all things to their remembrance (v.26). Further, He would “reprove the world of sin, and righteousness, and of judgment” (Jn.16:8).Also, He would guide the apostles “into all truth” and show them “things to come” (Jn.16:13). With this in mind consider three statement of inspiration.
     First, consider peter’s statement:” knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” ( 2 Pet. 1:20-21). Although there is much confusion as to the meaning of “private interpretation” It is simply to understand. In this passage there is a contrast being made between the “will of man” and “holy men of God spake as they were move by the Holy Spirit” Though some want to apply “private interpretation” to man’s various interpretations today. That is simply not what the text is saying. Peter wants his readers to understand the Scriptures are nor the product of the will of man or man’s own private interpretation. The book of Jeremiah and Lamentations were not Jeremiah’s private interpretation. The Pentateuch was not Moses’ private interpretation. The letters of Paul were not Paul’s private interpretation. The same can be applied to every writer of the sacred Scriptures. Rather than writing their private interpretation, the inspired writers were moved by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit had a part in the writing of the sacred Scriptures.

     Second, consider Paul’s statement:

     “But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2:10-13).”

     Only the Spirit of God could know the deep things of God. Thus they has to be revealed in order to man to know them. Without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, one could not posses nor knows the revealed will of God. Thus, the things which the apostles and prophets of the New Testament spoke were not according to the wisdom of men but were taught by the Holy Spirit.

     Third, Consider Paul’s statement:” how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:” (Eph. 3:3-5) The mystery of the Gospel was made known to Paul by the Spirit. Thus, when one reads, he is reading what Paul understood by revelation. This was not unique to Paul but was revealed in the same manner to all of Christ’s holy apostles and prophets.

     Thus, the Holy Spirit works today through the Spirit-inspired Word. It is God’s revelation to man –for him to follow and to engraft upon his heart and mind (Jas.1:21; Heb.8:10).

     Ephesians 5:18-19 and Colossians 3:16, parallel passages, illustrate this point. To the Christians of Ephesus, Paul wrote: “And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord,” (Eph. 5:18-19). To the Christians of Colossian, Paul penned: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” (Col.3:16). The parallel is evident! In the later part of the verse(s), there is the parallel of the indwelling Word and being filled with the Spirit. Thus, being “filled with the Spirit” is the same as “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom.” Woods comments “To be filled with the Spirit.’was , in the inspired apostle’s concept, to allow “the word of Christ’ to dwell in you richly. (1)”
229. Guestfortruth says:

     February 17, 2011 at 11:24 am

     continuation…..
     Further notice the parallel though between the Holy Spirit, the Word, and baptism.

     . Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn.3:5).

     . For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel (1Cor.4:15).

     . And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11).

     . For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit (1 Cor.12:13).

     . That He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:26).

     . Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).

     . Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures (James 1:18).

     . having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever (1 peter 1:23).

     Obviously there is a common theme within these passages- baptism. What precipitated this new birth? Was is the Spirit, was it the Word, or was is the Spirit through the Word? The Holy Spirit guides a person to obedience of Baptism –being born of water- through, or by means of the Spirit-inspired Word.

     Further, it is interesting to see the correlation between the Holy Spirit, the Word, and assurance.

     . These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God (1 Jn. 5:13).

     . By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit (1 Jn. 4:13).

     . If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us (1 Jn. 1:10).

     . But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him (1 Jn.2:5).

     A casual comparison of these verses indicates that when a person keeps God’s Word, the Spirit dwells with him also. Again observe: [W]hoso keepth His word….are in Him” (2:5), and those who are in Him have His Spirit (4:13). Also, in light of these verses, take notice of the connection between Christians dwelling in Christ, and the Holy Spirit dwelling in Christians (4:13;2:5). When Christians keep faithfully God’s word, they dwell in Christ, Christ dwells in them, and the Holy Spirit dwells in them.

     Since it is the case that the Holy Spirit, through the Spirit-inspired Word, produce submission to the will of God in baptism and produces assurance, then it must be the case that He can and does produce other characteristic such as the fruit of the Spirit and wisdom. The various characteristics such as the fruit of the Spirit – love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance (Gal. 5:22-23). – are taught within the pages of the Holy writ and are, therefore, produced by the Word of God. It is not by some direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the heart of man. It is produced when one learn the truth, open his or her heart to the truth, and applies the truth to his or her life. The expression, “fruit of the Spirit,” means “produce of the Spirit.” In other words, what the Spirit produces.
     The same is true for wisdom. Wisdom is not something with which a person is supernaturally endowed. When the Word of God is written upon individual’s heart and mind, and when the difficulties of life come upon him, with experience and knowledge, he comes to know how apply what he has learned from God. That is wisdom. What is the beginning of wisdom ? is “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments. His praise endures forever (Psalm 111:10).” The human being is not endowed by some outside force of wisdom, but he has learned to apply the wisdom of God’s Word to his life. The most foolish person is the one who has learned but who refuses to apply to life what he has learned.

     This is, in part, the point Jesus make at the end of the Sermon on the Mount saying:
     “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
     26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall (Mat. 7:24-27).”

     What made the wise man wise? Both the wise man and the foolish man heard the word, but only the wise man had the mind- set to apply what he learned. There are many who hear the word, yea even memorize it, but who do not put God’s law into their mind and write them in their heart (Heb.8:10), and make them “the engrafted words” (James 1:21).

     Therefore the Holy Spirit is pleading. He pleads with the alien sinner and the Christian alike! The Holy Spirit pleads through His inspired Word.

     RECEIVE THE PROMISE OF THE SPIRIT THROUGH FAITH

     In Galatians 3, Paul made an argument concerning the Christians of Galatia. He asked: “This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (v.2). Then, in verse 5, he asked the same question:” Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” They only have two choices: 1) The works of the Law of Moses, or 2) The hearing of faith. The “hearing of faith” can refer to the act of hearing of faith or a thing heard.(1) Woods notes: The phrase, “by the hearing of faith” is, literally, by the message of faith.(margin, American Standard Translation).(2) He Continues:
     Faith here is a synecdoche for the Gospel…. The ‘gospel’ embraces the entire System of salvation. Thus, through the Christian system the Spirit came to the Galatians. But how was this system of faith made available to the Galatians? Though the preaching of the word (Rom. 10:17); ‘ So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.,) (3)
     Summing it up, Paul says: that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” (Gal. 3:14). Both, Jews and Gentiles, were recipients of the blessing of salvation through Christ as promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 and 22:18. Taylor wrote: “The promise of the Spirit through faith is the Gospel of Christ.”(4).

     With this background, some of the works that both, the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, accomplish must be point out.

     . Both, the Spirit and the Word, instruct (Neh. 9:30; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
     . Both, the Spirit and the Word, convict (Jn.16:8; Tit. 1:9).
     . Both, the Spirit and the Word, beget (2 Cor. 3:3; Jas. 1:18).
     . Both, the Spirit and the Word, save (Tit. 3:5; Jas. 1:21).
     . Both, the Spirit and the Word, sanctify ( 1 Cor. 6:11;Jn 17:17).
     . both, the Spirit and the Word, strengthen (Eph. 3:16; Acts 20:32).
     . Both, the Spirit and the Word, make free (Rom. 8:2; Jn. 8:32).
     . Both, the Spirit and the Word, lead (Rom. 8:14; Ps. 119:105).
     . Both, the Spirit and the Word, comfort (Acts 9:31; 1 Thess. 4:18).
     . Both, the Spirit and the word, Quickens (John 6:63; Psa. 119:50)
     . Both, the Spirit and the Word, have part in the new birth (Jn. 3:3-5; 1 pet. 1:22-23).
     . Both, the Spirit and the Word, Dwells in (Romans 8:11; Col. 3:16)

     The Holy Spirit and the word of God are never separate in conversion and sanctification.
230. Guestfortruth says:

     February 17, 2011 at 11:26 am

     continuation…..
     The Holy Spirit deals with two kind of persons – the alien sinners and the Christians. Only those who do not know the difference between “right and wrong” (Children who have not reached the age of accountability and those mentally incapable of doing so) are excepted. Since non-Christians are influenced by the Holy Spirit through the Word. The Holy Spirit works by influencing and impressing ideas upon the mind through teaching and words. Several passages prove that the Holy Spirit works by influencing non-Christians through teaching. For example Paul wrote: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek( Rom. 1:16).” Also, Christians are begotten with the Word of truth. James wrote: “Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first fruits of His creatures ( James 1:18).

     Does the Holy Spirit indwell non-Christians who have been influenced by the Word? Obviously not. ( Mt. 13:18-22) There is a difference between being influenced and writing truth upon one’s mind and heart. The seed of the kingdom is the word of God (Luke 11:8). The seed can be and is planted in the soil of the heart of man( Luke 8:15 ). At this point, it obviously has influence (Isaiah 55:11).However, it has not germinated. It does not grow into a healthy, vibrant plant until the seed is transformed into a living plant. So, it is with Christians (Mt. 13:23, 1 Cor. 3:5-7). But How God gives the increase? In Colossians 1:10 says” that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God”. The knowledge of God helps us to grow as mention in Ephesians 2:19-22 “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”
     The seed, i.e., God’s word is planted into the heart. The heart is influenced by the seed. However, it is not until the person submits to the will of God by engrafting the Word upon his heart that the Word truly indwell within him. When this take place, the Holy Spirit of God indwells that person as well.

     In this same way the Godhead indwells in the Christians. Christians are led, guided, and strengthened by the Holy Spirit. This is a fact that can not be denied. It is also a fact that this offers much comfort and assurance. How ever the same could be said of each person of the Godhead. The father dwells within Christian. In the seven “ones” of Ephesians 4, Paul says the “ One God and father of all” is “in you all” (Eph. 4:6). Also, the son dwells within Christians. Declaring this certainty, Paul says: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” (Gal. 2:20).

     Actually, Paul teaches that all three persons of the Godhead dwells within the Christians. Hear Paul as he imparts:
     “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you (Rom. 8:9-11).

     Since it is the case that all three persons of the Godhead dwell within the Christian, then it must also be the case that all three Persons of the Godhead dwell within the Christian in the same way. So how does the Godhead dwell within a Christian? The answer is found in Ephesians 3:17 ; “that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love.” Again, since Christ dwells in the Christian’s heart by faith, then all three Persons of the Godhead dwell in the Christian heart by faith. How does this faith come? Romans 10:17 answers:” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

     Conclusion

     When a person is influenced by the word, he is being influenced by the Holy Spirit of God. That’s the beginning of faith as mention in Romans 10:17. The Spirit, like the other Persons of the Godhead, dwell within a Christian through faith. When man reaches beyond this, he reaches into subjectivism and emotionalism.

     The Holy Spirit, through the Word is pleading with all men. The Spirit says: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.: ” (1 Tim. 2:3-4). Through another of his penmen, He assures: “ The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). The Holy Spirit appeals to the intellect and heart of man through the power of God “the Gospel” (Rom. 1:16;Ps.19:7;Ps.119:105; Rev. 2:7). There is no operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion independent of God’s word. Whatever is necessary for man to understand and obey essential to his salvation has been clearly revealed in language that may be easily understood. Man today has all the truth, given and confirmed by men inspired of the Spirit, in the Bible; they may read and understand God’s will (Eph. 3:4). Gods mind has been communicated to man’s mind by words through men guided by the Holy Spirit. In conviction and conversion the Spirit operates on man through the word; in leading and directing the Christian in his life of service the Holy Spirit. There are no new Present-day revelations of the Spirit. “ Preach the Word” (2 Tim. 4:2).

     1.- Guy N wood, Question and answers Open Forum Freed-Hardeman College Lectures (Henderson TN:Freed-Hardeman College, 1976),Volume II, 280.

     2.- The analytical Greek Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), 13.

     3.- woods, 279.
     4.- Robert Taylor, Jr., Studies in Galatians and Philipians ( Ripley, TN: Taylor Publishing, 1986), 51.
231. Price says:

     February 17, 2011 at 11:44 am

     Todd…you said….."to deny the indwelling removes a central plank from the Gospel as given. " I totally agree…absolutely…And, unlike some brothers who believe He is only in a book, I believe that He is God and can do whatever He pleases, whenever He pleases and has a particular dislike for boxes…:) Thanks for your input and helping me clarifiy certain positions.
232. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 17, 2011 at 11:57 am

     Thank you, Guestfortruth. You have obviously put in a lot of time to create these posts. Their significance in volume and detail help me relate to other people's difficultly in making in through some of my posts.
233. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 17, 2011 at 12:04 pm

     Thank you, Guy, for your interactions and posts. I had a post ready, but I think the topic has been sufficiently flagellated and it now bears significant resemblance to a deceased equine.
234. Grizz says:

     February 17, 2011 at 12:17 pm

     Todd,

     That's awesome! It is a bold step for a former legalist to begin to not only see love, but to teach others to love as Jesus loved. Legalism often hides love behind rules and expectations and traditions, but should not be thought to be bereft of love. Legalism in my experience presents love as a decision that gives birth to a feeling. Love is more than that. Love is more than feeling and thinking; it is action and expression.

     Sounds like a great step for both of you.

     Grizz
235. Grizz says:

     February 17, 2011 at 12:33 pm

     Price,

     the more we talk this through in these comments, the more I get the sense that we are finally able to unwrap the presence of the HS in our lives and to really explore what it means to be filled and be changed and be led and be sealed. We did not pay up some fire insurance premiums to get an unbreakable seal of approval without regard to how we live. We surrendered to Jesus and gave up the old inner prisoner and were set free to really live in service of our Lord and our Father.

     I think we're closer on more than it may have at first seemed and now are exploring what any differences might mean. I have read Al's piece and will probably read it again. As usual with Al, I agree with some and differ on some and appreciate his frank exploration of the passage from a point of view that is still developing. When I get too obstinate to take an honest look at things like that, go ahead and kick in the door and have an intervention with me…because I will have stopped growing, living, and being a servant from the inside out. Feeling Al's challenges to my places of comfort is a great way to be reminded that I am still alive and growing…whether or not he convinces me to change.

     Thanks for making me think, Price. We have a few points where we differ, but not so much as one might imagine. Jay challenges my thinking as much as Al ever did, and now I get to add a few more names. This kind of makes it hard to hate these electronics boxes that have connected us and facilitated the discussion.

     Blessings dear brother,

     Glenn
236. Grizz says:

     February 17, 2011 at 12:45 pm

     Guy,

     If I get what you're saying (and who can assure me of that?), then it seems to me that the case of Moses and Aaron and the magicians at the court of Pharaoh would be problematic for someone taking that approach. Moses claimed God turned the staff into the snake for him, but the magicians made no such claim. Same goes for turning the rivers to blood and a few others of the plagues Moses claimed were from God but which the magicians were able to mimmick with no such claims.

     Does this prove the negative? Does it in any way negate the truth of Moses' statements? I cannot see how it would, despite your hypotheses.

     We all need proof that seems like proof to us after the fact as much as before. Gideon is a good example of that. Fleece wet; ground dry…then fleece dry; ground wet. The subjective observer might see it all as ambiguous and failing the proof test. Gideon doubted until he decided to trust fully. Seems to me we pretty much all do that.

     So what does a negative hypotheses prove? It really only provs what a person feels still falls short. It does not really prove anything conclusive.

     Am I missing something? And did I get you or totally miss?

     Smiling,

     Grizz
237. guy says:

     February 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm

     Dr. Theo,

     Perhaps you're right. But i realize my comment didn't reflect a tone of fairness to your point.

     If i understood you correctly, you're pointing out the difficulties of proving universal negatives over against the claim of just one positive case. For instance, if i made the claim, "There is no such animal currently alive as a seven-toed, purple-headed, flying warthog." Even if i am correct, there is no way i can possibly prove this claim. i could search the whole earth and claim i didn't find one, but that still doesn't prove the case. Why? Perhaps the creature was at location A during the time i was searching at location B. And suppose you made the claim, "Yes, there is such an animal currently alive." Your task is (logically, though perhaps not practically) far, far simpler than mine. All you have to do is produce one specimen and the debate is over. In fact, perhaps all you have to do is produce evidence that can only be explained by the existence of the creature (sufficient scat or footprints or hair samples).

     If this case illustrates your point, then i agree completely about your analysis of proving universal negatives versus positive claims. My point is simply this: i don't believe the current discussion is an instance of this kind of case for at least the reasons i mentioned.

     –guy
238. Grizz says:

     February 17, 2011 at 1:32 pm

     GFT,

     I could have taught much of what you wrote 30 years ago and been satisfied that I was teaching the truth handed down to me. I did teach a lot of it back then. Today i'll just give you a few examples of where I could not continue to teach what you present here:

     In your first comment you wrote: "we need to understand that all we can learn about the Holy Spirit comes from the Scriptures."

     All we can teach, perhaps, is what we find in the scriptures. All we can learn goes well beyond book-learning and well into learning from the experience of keeping in step with the Spirit. The moment you use one illustration of a scriptural teaching on the HS, you go beyond the scriptures. If that illustration of an experience with the HS, though it agree fully with everything you know from the scriptures, still takes you further, then it is moving you from book-learning over to the realm of life-lessons-in-the-living.

     So I agree that all we can teach is from the scriptures, but not that all we can learn is from the scriptures alone. We also learn from the experience of life in step with the Spirit. This is important because without ever contradicting anything in scripture, the living through life with the Spirit is another learning place we may never teach, but from which we most assuredly learn.

     In your second comment, or first continuation of your comments, you wrote: "“That which is perfect” refers to the completed, sufficient revelation of truth, James 1:25 refers to the “perfect law of liberty” or the New Covenant of Jesus. "

     I have always been more troubled than settled by that explanation. Two questions to you should be sufficient to show you why. Here goes:

     (1) If the 'perfect law of liberty' were already confirmed as being present when James wrote that, how could there even BE a revelation of Jesus given to John on Patmos? (2) After all, if the signs, wonders, and miraculous gifts ceased when the 'perfect law of liberty' came, then revlation, a miraculous movement of man by the HS would have ceased then, too, right?

     In your third comment/second continuation after the first comment was posted, you wrote:

     "Are Christians being baptize with the Holy Spirit today?
     Are they being given special miraculous power?
     It is possible for a Christians to speak in tongues, heal the sick, and raise the dead?"

     Are Christians still being baptized in the HS today? Depends on what you mean by 'baptized in the HS'. If by that you mean what Jesus meant, then the answer is YES.

     Are they being given special miraculous power? Undoubtedly YES. How is asking God to do something contrary to the 'laws of nature' (part of the definition of a miracle) not a special miraculous power when God does what we ask? How is it not a miracle when we bury someone and then are able to raise them to life? And before you begin to object, GFT, consider who it is at work in every miraculous power expression in the scriptures. God works the miracle. Men, women, even donkeys were the conduits of transmission of God's power, but there can be no question that God is the author of signs, wonders and miraculous special powers that are expressed through people, through ecology (the flood and the closing of the dead sea over Pharaoh's armies), and any other transmitter God wishes to employ.

     Is it possible for a Christian to speak in tongues (I speak in the English tongue and ASL), heal the sick (how about doctor-verified with CATscans and x-rays and a series of MRIs immediate curing of a terminal brain cancer tumor that was biopsied and confirmed with another biopsy and then proven to have gone with yet another pair of biopsies? Does that qualify?), and raise the dead (every baptism involves a God-worked miraculous super-powerful creation of new life where the old person died and was buried – or is that not miraculous enough for you?) ?

     The answer, as seen parenthetically above, is YES-YES-YES! Did you think that the one working in the miracles was the person of faith? Then please explain Balaam's donkey!

     The one working in every instance was God – exactly the same God working in every super-powered action I have given as evidence above.

     GFT, this is enough to show you that I no longer occupy the theological position you described in your comment(s). The reason is also clear: I realized I had not understood what a sign, wonder or miracle really was AS PRESENTED IN THE SCRIPTURES. And that was the key to my earlier misunderstandings.

     Miracles and the like are NOT about the people who are there to be a conduit. Miracles are ALL about God. Period. Mankind or beast being the conduit does not change that one little bit.

     GFT, there is so much more to what God taught and still teaches about the HS than what you presented in your well-developed but ultimately mis-focused presentation. You remind me of Apollos that way. And I genunely love your spirit, brother. That is why I pray God will show you the rest of the story about the HS.

     Blessings,

     Grizz
239. Grizz says:

     February 17, 2011 at 1:38 pm

     Theo-Dr,

     I do not question your observation about us needing a metaphorical can of fix-a-flat for some of this discussion. What I question is how you knew I had a can of fix-a-flat in the first place! (grin)

     Grizz
240. guy says:

     February 17, 2011 at 1:47 pm

     Grizz,

     This exact instance came to my mind while i was writing. It's a good case–entirely relevant i think.

     What i think you miss (maybe) is still this matter of "proof." i tried to explain before that i think it matters to be very careful what is meant by that term. If you mean something like certainty, then no, i don't think negative hypotheses can be "proven." In that sense, i by no means think anyone can "prove" that there are no instances of present HS indwellings or gifts or whatever is being claimed. i think we can only be dealing with explanations that are more or less likely than others, and what we take to be sufficient rational grounds to adopt a hypothesis (or perhaps, degrees of confidence we place in certain hypotheses given the evidence).

     But where does that leave me with Pharaoh, his magicians, and Moses?

     (1) i'm not certain from the wording of the text that Pharaoh's magicians did *precisely* what Moses did. Do you really think their display matched Moses' (Aaron's) *identically*? Maybe, but i can think of reasons to be very suspicious of that conclusion. If it's at all questionable, then perhaps there was a relevant difference between the two "tricks" such that someone could tell that one was genuine. Here i'm also thinking of Acts 8; it seems that there was some obvious difference between what Philip did and what Simon had been doing in the eyes of the observers. If that's the case in Exodus, then that isolates the problem not as fuzziness of evidence, but as the condition of Pharaoh's heart.

     (2) Perhaps what Pharaoh's magicians did was identical to what Moses did as far as any observer could tell. (i definitely have doubts about that, but let's suppose.) The rub here is, i take it, that God still held Pharaoh accountable for believing Moses' message. And doesn't that mean i'm still obligated to believe similarly even if the case at hands bears resemblance to counterfeits?

     Maybe it does. If God holds me accountable, then i'm accountable whether i think the terms are "fair" or not. The fact is God is the standard of fair and just. And if He sends a billion people to hell that it seems to me should've been let off the hook for some reason, that just proves a flaw in my judgment, not God's. God certainly doesn't have to answer to my human sense of fairness. As a result, even if Pharaoh didn't have the epistemological equipment to tell the difference between the two displays, if God condemns Pharaoh, then Pharaoh deserves to be condemned, end of story.

     But i think there's more to it than that in this particular case. i don't take the text to be saying that Pharaoh based his judgment on the sameness of his magicians' abilities. In other words, i don't think the writer of Exodus is trying to tell us, "Well, if only there had been some relevant difference between the two 'tricks' such that Moses' was more impressive and only explainable by divine means, then Pharaoh would have surely believed and yielded right then and there." Rather, i take the text to portray that Pharaoh would've been hard-hearted *regardless* of how that little 'miracle competition' played out. And it is that feature of Pharaoh's character that produced the unbelief, not his lack of intelligence to carefully weigh evidence or lack of distinction between the various evidences. Pharaoh's basic defect was his will, not his intellect. And it is on account of *that* that God held Pharaoh accountable for Pharaoh's disbelief of Moses' signs.

     (Man, talking to you guys about this is way more fun and interesting than grading a bunch of freshman essays. But i better get back to the less fun task.)

     –guy
241. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 17, 2011 at 2:31 pm

     Grizz said, "Love is more than feeling and thinking; it is action and expression."

     Amen, brother. Love, peace, and unity are attributes of God that were modeled for us perfectly by Jesus. In English love, peace, and unity sound like nouns, but, for us who are traveling to be more like God, they are verbs. All three are decisions we make – will we decide to extend love, peace and unity, or not? Two people can purpose to make peace and they will. Two people can decide to look for common love for Jesus and accept one another or they can look for doctrinal details to separate over. It is a choice. And "the Bible made me do it" doesn't cut is as an excuse. It is a choice. So you are right on, brother. We DO love; we DO peace; and we DO unity. When we do these things, we grow into the nature of God.
242. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 17, 2011 at 2:48 pm

     It was more an assessment that my contribution had produced a discussion that resembled a circle. At that point it was time for me to dismount the dead horse. You are still riding with the cavalry. Thank you for the great posts!
243. Jay Guin says:

     February 17, 2011 at 7:15 pm

     Dr T,

     I agree that it's a huge mistake to judge the validity of a baptism by whether the person intends to obtain remission of sins or thinks his sins have already been remitted.

     I mean, it's just absurd to imagine that a new convert must understand such a difficult question for his faith in Jesus to "take."

     Yes, God saves those of us with imperfect theology, so long as we have faith in Jesus.
244. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 17, 2011 at 8:22 pm

     Absolutely right, Jay.

     "Yes, God saves those of us with imperfect theology"

     I think that includes every one of us. I understand that Will Rogers once said, "We're all ignorant, just on different subjects." I have modified that phrase many times, as an example — "We're all immature, just in different areas." I think it is safe to also say, "We all have imperfect theology, just on different subjects," or maybe, in my case, every subject. But we surely are quick to start pointing out the imperfect theology of someone else, as if we are perfect in that area. It's the log and toothpick trick.

     Perhaps one day the parts of the body of Christ can combine strengths and compensate for one another's imperfect theology so we can all be more like Jesus. I really think that's the way it's supposed to work, rather than casting stones in horizontal directions. Thank you for having this site dedicated to a foundation for unity.

     There will never be but one person on this earth who walked in perfect theology. I am thankful that by grace, God sees the theology of Jesus when he looks at me.

     Blessings

     dr
245. Todd says:

     February 18, 2011 at 9:18 am

     And remember what James tells us…demons have excellent theology, they just lack true praxis.
246. Laymond says:

     February 18, 2011 at 9:51 am

     Guestfortruth "Now, we need to understand, in the first place, that

     the Holy Spirit is a Divine person, one of the members of the Godhead.

     He is not just some kind of force or influence. But the eternal Godhead

     consist of God the Father, the Son (or word) and the Holy Spirit. The

     Holy Spirit is as much a person as Jesus Christ. Some people do not

     understand that. Jesus gave the Great Commission and mentioned

     these three persons. He said that the disciples should go and baptize

     “in the name of the Father, and Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt.

     28:19).

     According to F. C. Conybeare:

     Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written

     between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms,

     on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany …in his famous

     history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor

     Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of

     Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in

     the following form: ‘Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My

     name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I

     commanded you.’

     A. Ploughman’s research uncovered all of these quotations except for

     one, which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine,

     the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr.

     Erwin Preuschen in Darmstadt in 1901. Eusebius was not content merely

     to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once commented on it

     in such a way as to show how much he confirmed the wording “in my

     name”. Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he wrote the following:

     For he did not enjoin them “to make disciples of all the nations” simply

     and without qualification, but with the essential addition “in his

     name”. For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that

     the Apostle says, "God bestowed on him the name above every

     name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in

     heaven and on earth and under the earth." It was right therefore that

     he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but

     hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and

     make disciples of all the nations in my name.’ (col. 240, p. 136)
247. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 18, 2011 at 11:52 am

     Guestfortruth – – – – –

     GFT – please participate in some operations of conceptual strategy.

     A Greek Orthodox church, that I am familiar with, practices water immersion only ("that's what the Greek says") and dips a new convert three (3) times, each time for each of the names in Matthew 28:19 (again, "that's what the Greek says"). One immersion into the Father, one into the Son, and one into the Holy Spirit. I am assuming that they 'know' the Greek.

     Now, assuming they are correct that Jesus' intent in Matt 28:19 was that 3 immersions in water were necessary to equal "one baptism," is there any contradictory evidence in Acts that, in the performance of baptism, people were NOT dipped 3 times?

     GFT said (or quoted) "Actually, Paul teaches that all three persons of the Godhead dwells within the Christians." and "Since it is the case that all three persons of the Godhead dwell within the Christian, then it must also be the case that all three Persons of the Godhead dwell within the Christian in the same way. So how does the Godhead dwell within a Christian?"

     GFT, how did the three persons get into our heart to dwell? Was it related in some way to our obedience? Obedience to what and according to what command of Jesus? –to what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 ?

     GFT, safely assuming that someone would want all three of the Persons of the Godhead to dwell in them, shouldn't they be dipped 3 times in water, like the Greek Orthodox church does? (They should know the Greek.) If water baptism holds the trigger for salvation, it would seem that this should be so important that we wouldn't want to take any chances.

     Obedience would not be completed until the believer came up out of the water from the third submersion. What about those people who have only been dipped once? Well, is there any "partly saved" status in the Bible?

     But Luke didn't write anything about dipping three times. Maybe they didn't even question it, just like they didn't question water baptism, itself. The apostles just did it because everyone knew that dipping 3 times is what Jesus meant for water baptism. If the apostles didn't question it, who are we to question it. They did it so we do it — like Jesus said.

     In the case of the Samaritans, the Peter and John went to Samaria so that they might receive the Holy Spirit because they had only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Maybe they had only been water baptized twice – Father and the name of Jesus, but not in the name of the Holy Spirit. For God's own special reasons, He saved the baptism into the HS until Peter & John laid on hands. Only then had they been immersed three times.

     "But we haven't done it this way." So what? Maybe we've missed something very important. Why aren't we immersing three times in water as the "one baptism.?"

     Please reexamine the Guy N. Woods material you have and see if he might address this issue.
248. Guestfortruth says:

     February 18, 2011 at 5:20 pm

     Brother Dr.T,

     Unfourtunately, The Greek Ortodox Church even they speak modern greek they need to study the Ancient Greek Koine , They do according to their human creed and not according to the Inpired New Testament writtings, They have a Patriach leader over them as the Catholic the pope and they follow oral tradition instead of the Word of God.
249. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 18, 2011 at 6:03 pm

     GFT

     Are you saying that the Greek Orthodox church cannot accurately translate the Greek of Matthew 28:19? They may have some oral tradition, but that can also help in understanding the background of the Greek language. What is your evidence for saying that they haven't studied Koine Greek of the first century? Is this just an assumption so that you will not have to deal with the three immersions interpretation? How does having a Patriarch leader change the accuracy of their translation of Matt 28:19? Besides, anyone who thinks that they are perfect in doctrine is delusional. Argue with that, prove my point, make my day. BTW, this particular Greek Orthodox church uses only a cappella music. They must do everything the way the NT church did it. According to their translation.
250. Jay Guin says:

     February 18, 2011 at 8:43 pm

     At 247 comments (and counting), I believe the readers have set a new record for comments on a single post at OneInJesus.

     Thanks for the excellent conversation.
251. Theophilus Dr says:

     February 18, 2011 at 9:45 pm

     There's nothing like having a nice quiet topic on which everyone agrees perfectly. -:)

     Thank you, Jay.
252. Laymond says:

     February 19, 2011 at 7:58 am

     I really forgot what the original topic was, did Grizz, and I, cause all that agreement? If anybody ever finds the Gospels written in the original Hebrew language (which I believe it, had to be) the topic will be even more intresting.

Comments are closed.