If believing is enough

[Sam]

Later in that 8th chapter it tells of another evangelistic encounter in the ministry of Philip. He was called to leave a successful revival and do some personal evangelism. Someone has called this "from Samaria to the Sahara."

-He was divinely directed to go toward the south (v. 26)
-Philip obeyed (v. 27)
-He encountered an Ethiopian eunuch on his way home from Jerusalem (v. 27)
-This could be a fulfillment of Isaiah 56:3-6
-The Ethiopian was reading what we would call Isaiah chapter 53 (v. 28, 32-33)
-The Spirit directed Philip to "go near and join (stick like glue) thyself to his chariot" (v. 29)
-Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading, the man replied in the negative, and invited Philip to come up and sit with him (v. 30-31)
-Philip started at Isaiah 53 and "preached unto him Jesus" (v. 35)
-Water baptism must have been part of the message because when they came to some water (possibly wadi el-hesi which is north of Gaza) the Eunuch requested baptism (v. 36)
-Philip said he could be baptized but only if he believed with all his heart (v. 37)
-The Eunuch said, "I believe that Jesus the Christ/Messiah is the Son of God (v. 37)
-Verse 37 is not in some (per)versions of the Bible.
-Based on the Eunuch's confession of faith, Philip agreed to baptize him. They both went down into the water (did not sprinkle or pour from a water jug) and Philip baptized him. Based on how Philip baptized previously he must have used the name of Jesus (v. 38 with v. 16)
-According to some of the manuscripts and according to quotes by some early church leaders verses 38-39 read as follows:
"And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord fell upon the eunuch, and the angel of the Lord snatched (Greek word harpazo) Philip away, that the eunuch saw him no more and he went on his way rejoicing."

to a one-stepper:
Philip led him to the Lord,
the eunuch made a confession of faith,
Philip baptized him in Jesus' name,
the eunuch received the HGB in the water,
the Lord snatched Philip away,
the Ethiopian wen on his way rejoicing.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Believing or Faith in the bible does not mean what many people think. It does not mean a mere mental recognition that something is true. If that were the case the devils were believers.

What does it mean, Prax?
Do you believe in 'saving faith'? and what is saving faith as opposed to the run-of-the-mill faith? Did Simon have faith according to the Bible when the scripture said:

12 But when they believed [the Samaritans] Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

I've been told that the Samaritans didn't really have saving faith because if they had they would have received the Holy Spirit when they believed. (an evangelical's summation). So when Luke wrote the Samaritans believed, He did not mean they had 'saving faith' because no one is saved without having the Spirit of Christ. To say that IMO would cast doubt on every place in the NT where it is said someone believed. How can one tell if the faith they have is enough to save them or not?

These people in Acts 8 believed the gospel and didn't have the Spirit. This doesn't jive with what PCI or the Baptists or any of the easy believism folks say. How did Philip know these folks had not received the Spirit? Why wasn't it assumed that they recieved the Spirit WHEN they believed if that is when regeneration takes place?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

So if they were baptized, that must have been water baptism, as the Holy Ghost baptism had not come on them yet. Correct?

Correct.

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Is this the baptism of the Spirit or the initial infilling of the Spirit? is there a difference? Some folks make an issue of these terms. Which one is equated with receiving the Spirit, because neither baptism nor infilling is used in the passage.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

Can the First resurrection be obtained without the infilling of the Holy Ghost?

A person cannot experience the First Resurrection unless he has been born spiritually into the kingdom of God. There are verses and passages of scripture that affirm a man is spiritually reborn prior to Holy Ghost baptism accompanied with and signified by speaking in tongues.

Nowhere does Scripture say a man must speak in tongues in order to experience spiritual birth. You cannot and must not build doctrine on what the Word of God does not say.

The emphasis all the way through Scripture is on faith and belief. Over and over and over again including the book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

If believing is enough then why this narrative in Acts 8?



Why did they Apostles need to lay hands on them?
What was the evidence that the Holy Ghost was given?

Good!

[SDG]

I do not see or hear tongues in Acts 8. A glaring truth my PAJC friends have forgotten to discuss ... in this thread .... nor have they addressed Philips failure to preach the saving gospel message by waiting and putting these souls in jeopardy .... but have harped on their belief that receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit must fit their doctrinal view ... yet there is no evidence that coincides with this passage .

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I do not see or hear tongues in Acts 8. A glaring truth my PAJC friends have forgotten to discuss ... in this thread .... nor have they addressed Philips failure to preaching the saving gospel message by waiting and putting these souls in jeopardy .... but have harped on their belief that receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit must fit their doctrinal view ... yet there is no evidence that this passage coincides.

Phillip did not have the Keys he took them as far as he could. Peter was given the Keys. And he used them in this chapter.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Phillip did not have the Keys he took them as far as he could. Peter was given the Keys. And he used them in this chapter.

Extrabiblical Roman Catholic theology ... not buying it .... his keys were related to his understanding that Jesus Christ was the Son of God ...

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I do not see or hear tongues in Acts 8. A glaring truth my PAJC friends have forgotten to discuss ... in this thread .... nor have they addressed Philips failure to preach the saving gospel message by waiting and putting these souls in jeopardy .... but have harped on their belief that receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit must fit their doctrinal view ... yet there is no evidence that coincides with this passage .

Simon saw something that led him believe the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit. There was some visible sign.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

Philip preached:

5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

What makes you think what Philip preached was any different than what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2?

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Simon saw something that led him believe the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit. There was some visible sign.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

Philip preached:

5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

What makes you think what Philip preached was any different than what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2?

Peter did not preach "tongues" on the Day of Pentecost.