Born at faith?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Adino

To your exhibit A -

Luke is following the expansion of the Church by following first the Gospel message preached to areas outlined in Acts 1:8, and by recording signs following which confirmed the acceptance of that word.

There are many operations of the Spirit, but one Spirit. These workings of the Spirit are all "received." The Spirit quickens. The Spirit blesses. The Spirit overwhelms. The Spirit guides. The Spirit fills to the point of manifestation. The Spirit imparts spiritual gifts.

It is the last two on this list which are of interest to the Samaria account. It was the practice of the Church leadership to lay hands on people to "impart.. some spiritual gift" (Romans 1:11; Hebrews 6:2).

1Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

It can be argued that this is the spiritual reception being spoken of in Acts 8, especially when we see Simon wanting to purchase the "gift of impartation" as it were.

Act 8:18-19 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

I would contend that the Spirit is received by the hearing of faith (Galatians 3:2,5) and we receive subsequent workings of that self-same Spirit throughout our Christian walk. This is not to say we receive the Spirit in increments, but simply to say that the Spirit which began living in us at the moment of faith becomes more and more manifest in our lives as we learn to yield more and more to its influence within us or as God sees fit to manifest himself through us.

To your exhibit B -

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise (KJV)

Eph 1:13 in whom also you, hearing the Word of Truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also believing you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, (LITV)

Eph 1:13 You, too, have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed in him you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, (ISV)

I believe you are mistaken to demand a length of time between the moment of faith and the sealing of the Spirit. We have at best, a theological sequence which does not necessitate a chronological sequence.

I point back to Galatians 3:2 and 5 which says the Spirit is received by the hearing of faith.

Gal 3:2,5 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? .... 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Adino,

But the account in Acts NEVER SAYS the believers did not receive an imparted gift when they believed.

It DOES PLAINLY READ:

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.)
17: Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Acts 8:12-17

Acoording to the TEXT they had NOT received THE HOLY GHOST.

Then in speaking THIS to the Ephesian believers:

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise (KJV)

Paul is REMINDING THEM OF WHEN AND HOW THEY RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Here is what he was reminding these very same people of.

1: And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2: He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3: And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4: Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5: When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Acts 19:1-6

When Paul told them to BELIEVE in Christ they did. Then after that they were baptized in water in Jesus name.

Then AFTER THAT the Apostle prayed for them and THEN they received the Holy Spirit.

Exactly like Acts 8 as to the sequence. They believed and did not immediately receive the Holy Spirit. It came later.

As a young Christian I was taught the doctrine you espouse. But seeing the clear examples in Acts I concluded it was in error. As long as the book of Acts stands we dont have to be in darkness concerning the preaching of the Apostles about being born again.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

...I would also say that this conversion is not different than repentance...a change of mind. How would you distinguish the two? I don't find any difference.

Ahhh.... now we're back to our earlier discussion on another thread concerning the relation of repentance and faith.

The conversion which takes place in repentance is a conversion to faith. There is not just a "change of mind" in repentance, there is a change of heart.

Eze 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

It is God who changes the heart.... not us. We may change our mind, but God changes our heart.

In repentance we meet with God. When the spiritually dead heart meets with the living God it is quickened from the dead. It passes from death unto life. It returns from the dead to live again. In repentance (i.e., in the returning to God), the heart converts from death to life, from unbelief to faith.

He that believes is passed from death unto life (John 3:15-16, 36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26).

[Michael The Disciple]

Your doctrine makes sense IF WE DIVORCE THE BOOK OF ACTS. Then we would be free to believe it.

[Adino]

According to the TEXT they had NOT received THE HOLY GHOST

They had not received the Holy Ghost in what fashion? In its indwelling? In its filling? In its manifesting power?

You bring up Acts 19 - Again, Luke is following the expansion of the Church by following the manifestation of signs which followed and confirmed reception of the word. Ephesus was the gateway of known world trade at that time and as such was a fulfilment of the outline in Acts 1:8 that the message was to be preached "to the uttermost part of the earth." That the Gospel had reached Ephesus meant that it was to continue to the world.

Clarke, I believe rightly, points out in his commentary that the question of Spirit reception here dealt not with an indwelling presence of God but with the manifestory aspects of the Spirit working in the Church. Notice, again, that a manifestation did not take place until there was a "laying on of hands."

Do not force doctrinal principle into a text which does not have the teaching of principle as its purpose.

[meBNme]

Originally Posted by pelathais

mBNm, you must have missed the thread with the Florsheim slip ons being touted as more holy than wing tips. That's where we learned about waxed tipped shoe laces and the evils of inappropriate bobby pins.

LOL, yep, missed that one, sounds.... well, silly.

Thanks, you show a very liberal spirit there.((((Dont insult me like that )))) I actually grew my beard to show that I am no longer under allegience to the Pope in Rome. As a minister in the UPCI I was forced to use only a Bible that had a New Testamentthat had been sactioned by the Roman Catholic ecumenical councils. The Old Testament, as I learned over the years wasn't even the same one that the Apostles used.

So, when I learned that all Christian clergy are commanded to shave their faces smooth like a woman it really shook me up. Looking a little further I realized that what they really wanted was for all ministers to look like young altar boys. That made me sqeemish.

So yes! A face that looks like an armpit is prefered to one that violates my God-given masculine gender role or worse, makes me look like a victim of sodomy.

So which reason do you chose for a going against nature and having a smooth face like a woman's? Just wondering.

HA HA touche! If you saw my mug you'd have no question of genderLOL
PS, what about those women with natural mustaches??

I've always wondered why it is that the people who run the UPC's (just to pick on one OP org) standards police and govern "what's right..." (and I obviously don't mean our officials, but the people our officials are afraid of) - I've wondered why these folks get a free pass to be real sour pusses and will bitterly attack their own brethren in the worst ways; but anyone who stands up to them is called "bitter" and silenced.

yeah, me too, on both sides of the issue.

You of course want me to respond to your broad brush with a swipe of my own... but what's the point? I hit a nerve, that's enough for me. I mean you no harm... but why was that nerve so close to the drill? A little "truth" decay?

Naw man, I'm just takin a jab at Hitlary....... Ok, so Im stirin the water here just a weee bit too. All this talk about libs and liberal thinking, I am wandering if there are a bunch of Edwards/clinton supporters here.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Adino

They had not received the Holy Ghost in what fashion? In its indwelling? In its filling? In its manifesting power?

You bring up Acts 19 - Again, Luke is following the expansion of the Church by following the manifestation of signs which followed and confirmed reception of the word. Ephesus was the gateway of known world trade at that time and as such was a fulfilment of the outline in Acts 1:8 that the message was to be preached "to the uttermost part of the earth." That the Gospel had reached Ephesus meant that it was to continue to the world.

Clarke, I believe rightly, points out in his commentary that the question of Spirit reception here dealt not with an indwelling presence of God but with the manifestory aspects of the Spirit working in the Church. Notice, again, that a manifestation did not take place until there was a "laying on of hands."

Do not force doctrinal principle into a text which does not have the teaching of principle as its purpose.

6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

On them ... is also key to your explanation, Adino.

[Adino]

Dan, you're right. The Holy Ghost fell on, came on, and filled people in the New Testament as it fell on, came on, and filled people in the Old Testament. These were terms of spirit manifestation which had nothing to do with regeneration.

Again, Luke is following appearances of Spirit manifestation in order to showcase the Spirit's confirmation of the word as it expanded to the world. He is using OT terminology which dealt with manifestation to do so.

[Michael The Disciple]

To receive the Holy Spirit is synonomous with having the Holy Spirit FALL.

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.)
17: Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Acts 8:12-17

It is you all who are trying to minimize the clear, straightforward teaching in Acts.

It is easy to show that to receive the Spirit is to receive the Spirit. I didnt have to change anything or quote any Scholars. To receive is the same as the Spirit falling. Acts 8 proves it.

[Adino]

Eze 11:5 And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the LORD; Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them.

How did Ezekiel "receive" the Spirit?

[scotty]

It doesn't say he "recieved the Spirit. WOW. You know a butterfly is a beautiful insect, yet you can disect it to the point the beauty of it is no longer there.

The thing that is disturbing here is the contradiction of the same from the same on this thread. I think why too much "arm chair scholaring" is being put toward recieving the or the falling or coming upon of the Holy Ghost. These are all different terms used to describe the presence of God. The truth of the thread at hand is this.

Hebrews 9:7-9 (King James Version)




7But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
8The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

There was no "infilling" the Holy Ghost prior to Jesus being Glorified. period. OT references are nothing more than stating the presence of God, not an infilling. You can show me place where the OT says it filled someone yet you can not show scripture where it "remained" or "lived" there.