3 steppers

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

The bible was written by a jew for jews thats what the tongues did was to proof they recieved Jesus they need a sign they were the unbelivers just like it states how to use tongues in Corithians TONGUES ARE FOR A SIGN TO THEM THET BELEIVE NOT..Now if they still did not accept jesus after the tongues that just proofs my point even more...

No it was written by SEVERAL JEWS though Luke was probably a greek.

Most of the Epistles were to GENTILE churches, not Jewish ones. Timothy was half greek. Titus was probably a gentile. Gentiles also spoke in tongues in Acts...yet according to you only the Jews needed a sign. You didn't think this through very well

[KWSS1976]

Jesus was a Jew he inspiried the writers to write what they wrote therfore he is the author......and I did not say that the jews were the only ones there was jews,gentiles and samritians

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

Prax, I am trying to find an answer as to why these people did not already have the holy spirit. This is a common text that Apostolic/Pentecostals will use to say that Holy Spirit infilling doesn't happen at true faith. I am trying to come to some agreement with the three-steppers as to what this text actually means. This text is very problematic because of Simon.

You have not shown how it is problematic because of simon.

I honestly want to understand the text. I do know that the three-step doctrine has way to many problems to be valid scripturally so I must view this text in that light and not take it as some sort of proof text.

No you must take this text in the light that it was written, nothing more or less. What I said were just observations OF what was written, not an interpretation or addition. I noted simply what the text says

Here is some commentary that states that Phillip in this text is not one of the Apostles.

So what? HE was a Jew. He was there. He was approved by the Apostles as a man full of the Holy Spirit. There is no indication anyone was surprised the Samaritans received the word, unlike the Gentiles.

Another point this commentary makes is that Simon believed but wasn't saved as he had no faith. Obviously, "believe" in this text might not mean the same as "believe = faith".

Or simply believing is not enough. But the hard part for you is the equivocation where "believe" everywhere else DOES mean faith. That tells me the commentary is interpreting this verse based on a doctrinal presumption. They believed and they were baptized, but remember they were not regenerated by the Spirit

The text says that many were rejoicing and believed. Are we to actually believe that the Apostles laid hands on everyone in the town so that they might receive. I doubt it. I am sure that there were many who believed the gospel but didn't actually have faith in Christ.

We aren't told how many believed, so you are presuming there were too many for the Apostles to lay hands on when in fact the text says they did.

please show me this doctrine that a person who believes the gospel does not have faith in scriptures. Why even say they believed the gospel and they were baptized if they did not have faith. Please prove faith and believe are two different things.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Jesus was a Jew he inspiried the writers to write what they wrote therfore he is the author......and I did not say that the jews were the only ones there was jews,gentiles and samritians

No. Jesus was a Jew who told some Jews to go and tell everyone what HE said. But the ones that WROTE the bible were a bunch of a Jews and one Gentile and they wrote it TO Gentiles.

You said it was written by a jew TO jews.....

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

I read an interesting paper by Robert Sabin on this Samaritan account. I have it out on loan right now so can't quote from it.

Our english word receive has basiccaly one menaing to us. To get something in our possesion.

The word recieve is used in the KJv translation to convey the meaing of over a dozen different greek words. Each of those greek words had a specific meaning and usage in the greek language.

Even in Acts 8 we se the usage of two different words vs 14: Samaria (received dechomai strongs 1209) the word.
vs 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might (receive lambano strongs 2983) the holy Spirit.

I don't know greek from applebutter but Bro. Sabin contends the word lambano has something to do in it's menaing as to manifesting something one already possesses.

It seems to me that acts 15 and acts 10 we do see the same thing occuring> that God was giving a sign to UNBELIEVING Jews who thought thsy were the only ones who could be a part of thsi Nt church.

The Jews could not believe the gentiles at Cornelius household nor the Samaritan dogs could be saved. Henceforth we see God showing them something that had happened to them 10 years ago when they were in the upper room celebrating the feast of Harvest.

He caused then to speak in tongues. He "fell upon them" he caused them to manifest the gift of salvation that they ALLREADY had recieved by faith when they received the word.

Seems to follow the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor 14 that tongues are now for a sign to unbelievers, not to believers

as much as I love Sabin, he's not a Greek scholar either and though received or the proper action of to do with something in posession is possible the context does not allow it. Context is the important aspect. The HS had not fallen upon any of them. As fallen can mean...

2) metaphorically
2a) to fall upon one, i.e. to seize, take possession of him

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You have not shown how it is problematic because of simon.

No you must take this text in the light that it was written, nothing more or less. What I said were just observations OF what was written, not an interpretation or addition. I noted simply what the text says

So what? HE was a Jew. He was there. He was approved by the Apostles as a man full of the Holy Spirit. There is no indication anyone was surprised the Samaritans received the word, unlike the Gentiles.

Or simply believing is not enough. But the hard part for you is the equivocation where "believe" everywhere else DOES mean faith. That tells me the commentary is interpreting this verse based on a doctrinal presumption. They believed and they were baptized, but remember they were not regenerated by the Spirit

We aren't told how many believed, so you are presuming there were too many for the Apostles to lay hands on when in fact the text says they did.

please show me this doctrine that a person who believes the gospel does not have faith in scriptures. Why even say they believed the gospel and they were baptized if they did not have faith. Please prove faith and believe are two different things.

exactly... al it comes down to is they can't answer the points made by Luke in Acts. Notice also he pretty concedes the point as well because he said to me..... "we have to make these passages reconcile with the rest of the bible" So he has to realize the issue at hand.

Also the whole point of Acts 19 and Pauls question is just as deadly to this mentality. The Bible clearly shows the expectation of the Apostles and nowhere does it say not to expect anything different.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You have not shown how it is problematic because of simon.

No you must take this text in the light that it was written, nothing more or less. What I said were just observations OF what was written, not an interpretation or addition. I noted simply what the text says

So what? HE was a Jew. He was there. He was approved by the Apostles as a man full of the Holy Spirit. There is no indication anyone was surprised the Samaritans received the word, unlike the Gentiles.

Or simply believing is not enough. But the hard part for you is the equivocation where "believe" everywhere else DOES mean faith. That tells me the commentary is interpreting this verse based on a doctrinal presumption. They believed and they were baptized, but remember they were not regenerated by the Spirit

We aren't told how many believed, so you are presuming there were too many for the Apostles to lay hands on when in fact the text says they did.

please show me this doctrine that a person who believes the gospel does not have faith in scriptures. Why even say they believed the gospel and they were baptized if they did not have faith. Please prove faith and believe are two different things.

Prax, I am asking questions here. I am reading a text that I have no problem with lining up with my beliefs. However, it is considered a proof text for many three-steppers that belief doesn't mean anything. I am just stating that for the rest of the bible and salvation there are questions that we have to deal with.

I am not a scholar but I can read the rest of the bible and I know that the three-step doctrine doesn't line up.

The assumptions around here are that faith isn't really faith. Believing isn't really believing and we have to throw out half the bible because of these few "historical narratives" in Acts.

We don't know exactly what the text means so we have to interpret it in light of what we do know. Of course what you know and believe is very different than what I know and believe.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

Prax, I am asking questions here. I am reading a text that I have no problem with lining up with my beliefs. However, it is considered a proof text for many three-steppers that belief doesn't mean anything. I am just stating that for the rest of the bible and salvation there are questions that we have to deal with.

I am not a scholar but I can read the rest of the bible and I know that the three-step doctrine doesn't line up.

The assumptions around here are that faith isn't really faith. Believing isn't really believing and we have to throw out half the bible because of these few "historical narratives" in Acts.

We don't know exactly what the text means so we have to interpret it in light of what we do know. Of course what you know and believe is very different than what I know and believe.

Belief does mean something but it doesn't mean you received the HS thus Pauls question of Did you.... when you? If belief is automatic reception you cannot ask that question. As Belief and subsequent understanding of reception are two different things.

[KWSS1976]

Like what we were saying everyone uses there refrences and books and authors but yall will probley say somthing negative about this as it explains what was going on in Acts

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=393

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

exactly... al it comes down to is they can't answer the points made by Luke in Acts. Notice also he pretty concedes the point as well because he said to me..... "we have to make these passages reconcile with the rest of the bible" So he has to realize the issue at hand.

Also the whole point of Acts 19 and Pauls question is just as deadly to this mentality. The Bible clearly shows the expectation of the Apostles and nowhere does it say not to expect anything different.

You are reading things into the text.

1) Paul doesn't ask them if they spoke in tongues.

2) Paul ask them if they received the Holy Ghost when they believed. He is trying to find out if they really had heard the gospel.

3) Even if I concede the point that the Baptism is a second event after conversion then you guys still have a problem because you don't think these "believers" are saved.

4) Baptism with speaking in tongues is not mentioned anywhere else in scripture other than these isolated events. Why wasn't it mentioned in anywhere from Romans - Revelations? If this is such an important doctrine then why isn't it emphasized anywhere else but these isolated incidents.

5) Typical mainline Pentecostals believe in the Baptism as evidenced by speaking in tongues. However, they still at least try to line that up with scripture by maintaining that salvation is by faith.

6) Now we have biblical interpretation rules that say that we must let scripture interpret scripture. Do we want to throw out these rules as well?
Acts is a historical narrative. It is like reading a newspaper not like reading a textbook. It is a story and we must read and interpret it as such.