Did everyone?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Adino

What they did not have was whatever operation of the Spirit which takes place when the Spirit "falls". The Spirit fell, came, and filled men of the OT as well. These instances were not regenerative what makes you think they are here?

<Game Show Buzzer here for WRONG answer>

John 7:37-39

37In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

That is the biggest bunch of garbage I have seen in a while. Don't try confusing this issue by saying some mumbo jumbo about the Holy Ghost falling on them being OT. The Holy Ghost fell on the day of Pentecost. It was a New Birth experience.

The FACTS are as follows:

- Phillip preached on things that pertained to the Kingdom of God.
- He must have mentioned water baptism in Jesus name during his discourse
- The folks must have repented, and submitted to water baptism
- They had not received the Holy Ghost until Peter and John came


Now the facts are that they had NOT RECEIVED the Holy Ghost, though they had repented and been water baptized. Again, they had not received the Promise yet. This answers your initial question.

The word believe has different depth in meaning.Yes they believed and was not filled but other scripture teaches as many that believe is born of God.

1John.5
[1] Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Adino

What they did not have was whatever operation of the Spirit which takes place when the Spirit "falls". The Spirit fell, came, and filled men of the OT as well. These instances were not regenerative what makes you think they are here?

We are not talking about OT. We are talking about NT. They had not received the Spirit until Peter and John came. At the laying on of hands, they received the Spirit. Why are you intent on making this say something it is not saying.

Very plain scripture that one would have to stumble over not to understand it.

They had not received the Holy Ghost until Peter and John came and prayed for them.

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by Adino

To be filled with the Spirit is to be fully controlled by the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18). Nowhere in the NT is the phrase "filled with the Holy Ghost" used to reference a saving work of God.

The phrase is used of John the baptist in Luke 1:15, his mother Elisabeth in Luke 1:41, his father Zacharias in Luke 1:67, and of a group of men in Acts 4:31 who were being "filled with the Holy Ghost" a second time, for these were the same "filled with the Holy Ghost" in Acts 2:4. I doubt you will say they were made regenerate again, so why should we say the author, who did not intend the phrase to refer to regeneration in any other passage, uses it to mean regeneration in Acts 2:4?

Luke uses the term "filled with the Holy Ghost" in reference to special empowerment in Luke 1:15, 41, 67 and in Acts 4:31. I think the evidence is clear it should be understood in the same fashion in Acts 2:4.

It is certainly possible that a man baptized (or indwelt) with the Spirit can be immediately fully controlled (i.e., "filled") by that same Spirit to the point of manifestation, though this should certainly not be considered a normative by any means.

There is a regeneration that take place during a persons whole life,but I showed you very clearly where being baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost is the same.Every step we take in obeying God's word regenerates us.Jesus is the word of God and the word or Jesus regenerates us.The word born means regenerate.The more truth we receive and obey,the more we are filled with the Holy Ghost.

2Cor.9
[10] Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness
John.3
[30] He must increase, but I must decrease.

The reason many people can't stop sinning is because they are not getting food of truth.

1 John003:009Whosoever is born (regenerated)of God doth not commit sin; for his seed (Word) remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born(regenerated) of God

Eph.5:25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;5:26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing (regeneration)of water by the word,5:27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

You must be born (regenerated) of the truth of the word.Only the truth can regenerate you.

1 John002:005 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected (full grown) hereby know we that we are in him

1 John004:007Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born (regenerated) of God (Word,Truth), and knoweth God. 004:008He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Believe means to believe his truth and obey it.

1 John005:001 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born (regenerated)of God:and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.005:002By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep (obey) his commandments.

1 John005:018 We know that whosoever is born of God (word,Truth) sinneth not (by habit); but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

John6:48. I am that bread (word ,Truth) of life.49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.50. This is the bread (word,Truth) which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh (word) of the Son of man, and drink his blood (Spirit), ye have no life in you

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

They tarried 10 days. They did not tarry in Acts 8 and Simon must have seen something to KNOW they had received the Holy Ghost. They did not tarry in Acts 10, they received the Holy Ghost and spoke with tongues. In Acts 19, well what do you know, men who were repentant and were baptized, were re-baptized and well what do you know- they received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues.

My Step-Father tarried for years and would get in the altar praying and shake his head no. He would then go home and sometimes leave bruises on the family. Bro Epley is right, he did not receive the Holy Ghost, for he was not repentant. Mom finally threw the abusive bum out.

The only reason they terried untill the day of pentecost is because the Holy Ghost was not sent to where it was given to everyone yet.The point I was making is,being baptized in the Holy Ghost and filled is the same and that took place on the day of pentecost,Acts 2:1-

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by Adino

What they did not have was whatever operation of the Spirit which takes place when the Spirit "falls". The Spirit fell, came, and filled men of the OT as well. These instances were not regenerative what makes you think they are here?

The old testament prophets were not filled with the Holy Ghost,it just fell on them from time to time.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Adino

To be filled with the Spirit is to be fully controlled by the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18).

How do you come to that conclusion by that one verse?

Nowhere in the NT is the phrase "filled with the Holy Ghost" used to reference a saving work of God.

Romans 8:9-11 teaches us that without the Spirit of Christ dwelling within us, we do not belong to Christ. Jesus stated in John 3:5 that we must be born again of the water and the Spirit to enter into the kingdom of God. We are not born with the Spirit of God within us like John the Baptist so somewhere along the line there is a point in time in which the Holy Spirit enters us or fills us or comes to dwell within us. It first happened in new convenant times in Acts 2:4 and it has continued to happen in a like manner to all who come to Christ since that time. Being baptized in the Holy Spirit is the same as being filled with the Spirit or the Spirit coming upon someone, or falling on someone, or being poured out on someone. These terms from what I can see in the NT are the same when the Spirit dwells a person for the first time.

We need and must have this 'filling with the Holy Ghost' to save us.

The phrase is used of John the baptist in Luke 1:15, his mother Elisabeth in Luke 1:41, his father Zacharias in Luke 1:67, and of a group of men in Acts 4:31 who were being "filled with the Holy Ghost" a second time, for these were the same "filled with the Holy Ghost" in Acts 2:4. I doubt you will say they were made regenerate again, so why should we say the author, who did not intend the phrase to refer to regeneration in any other passage, uses it to mean regeneration in Acts 2:4?

There were many Jewish folks in the OT who were filled with the Spirit and it was manifested for the most part by prophecy. Not all of God's people were filled with the Spirit under the Old covenant although Moses lamented this fact. I tend to think that it was not a temporary manifestation for those who had the Spirit in the OT for David prayed "take not thy Holy Spirit from me'. And the gifts and calling of God are without repentance which is written in Romans (NT) but is directed to the Jewish people for they will always be the chosen of God and the natural branches.

The distinction I believe the Bible makes is that of the INITIAL infilling. Acts 2:4 is the initial infilling of the Spirit for the disciples that were in the house in Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit 'fell' on them. This 'infilling' is now given to all men that call upon the Lord. It is part of the new covenant experience and is no longer limited to certain ones that the Lord choses as He did under the old covenant but it is for whosoever wants to drink of the living waters of life.

Luke uses the term "filled with the Holy Ghost" in reference to special empowerment in Luke 1:15, 41, 67 and in Acts 4:31. I think the evidence is clear it should be understood in the same fashion in Acts 2:4.

I agree with your point about special empowerment or anointing that God provides at various times as well.

To sum this up I find two meanings to 'filled with the Spirit'.

1) The initial indwelling of the Spirit into a believer when it is considered part of regeneration or being born again.
2) An added anointing for a specific reason...such as Stephen at his stoning, or as a blessing in which case these are not regenerative.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

How do you come to that conclusion by that one verse?

I guess, in a similar way others have. For example, commenting on Ephesians 5:18...

Conversely, the positive command is, Be filled with the Spirit. Thus a believer, rather than controlling himself, is controlled by the Holy Spirit. It may be more accurate to say that the Holy Spirit is the “Agent” of the filling (cf. Gal. 5:16) and Christ is the Content of the filling (Col. 3:15). Thus in this relationship, as a believer is yielded to the Lord and controlled by Him, he increasingly manifests the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). The Spirit’s indwelling (John 7:37-39; 14:17; Rom. 5:5; 8:9; 1 Cor. 2:12; 6:19-20; 1 John 3:24; 4:13), sealing (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30), and baptism (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27) occur at the time of regeneration and thus are not commanded. However, believers are commanded to be filled constantly with the Holy Spirit. Each Christian has all the Spirit, but the command here is that the Spirit have all of him. The wise walk, then, is one that is characterized by the Holy Spirit’s control.(Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, [Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.] 1983, 1985.)

Romans 8:9-11 teaches us that without the Spirit of Christ dwelling within us, we do not belong to Christ. Jesus stated in John 3:5 that we must be born again of the water and the Spirit to enter into the kingdom of God. We are not born with the Spirit of God within us like John the Baptist so somewhere along the line there is a point in time in which the Holy Spirit enters us.......

There is a point in time at which our heart is quickened from death to life. There is a point in time at which the Spirit of God "gives birth" to life in the heart of man. The spirit of man is born of the Spirit of God.

....or fills us or comes to dwell within us. It first happened in new convenant times in Acts 2:4 and it has continued to happen in a like manner to all who come to Christ since that time.

The Spirit of God "came on" Samson repeatedly in the OT. You must concede that there is a work of the Spirit which is NON-REGENERATIVE. Yes (it can be argued), we today have the opportunity to be INDWELT by the Spirit of God in a way not experienced by OT believers. BUT, it must be understood that the Spirit which now abides in us can work FROM WITHIN us in NON-REGENERATIVE ways. In fact, this whole issue is rather silly because even those who teach evidential tongues must concede that the Spirit which enables the miracle of tongues must FIRST indwell the believer. Cause and effect. The Spirit which indwells performs ANOTHER work by overwhelming the individual to the point of external manifestation ... such as tongues.

Being baptized in the Holy Spirit is the same as being filled with the Spirit or the Spirit coming upon someone, or falling on someone, or being poured out on someone. These terms from what I can see in the NT are the same when the Spirit dwells a person for the first time.

I disagree. It can be argued that Spirit baptism doesn't even take place on an individual basis but was the phrase used of the Spirit's initial "giving" to mankind. Any other time it appears in the NT, it appears to show the extent of the "original" baptism given to the world. Pentecostals, on the other hand, will argue Spirit baptism does take place on an individual basis at the time of conversion, but subsequent "fillings" follow in the life of the believer. In fact, I believe a confusion of these terms in American Pentecostalism eventually helped Haywood to draw tongues into the conversion experience.

R.A. Torrey, had much to do with confusing the terms early on....

"The late Dr. Ernest M. Wadsworth, for many years director of the Great Commission Prayer League, once shared a telling instance of the Torrey problem which illustrates the importance of precision in the use of doctrinal terms, especially in public ministry."

"It was a well-known fact that Dr. Torrey used the terms 'baptism' and 'filling with the Spirit' very loosely, and he had been widely quoted by some of the most erratic of the cultists as supporting their position, which led to great excesses in practice.

"At the Montrose Bible Conference, Dr. W. P. White, founder of The Biblical Seminary in New York, was on the platform as co-speaker with Dr. Torrey. When the latter said, 'What we all need tonight is a new baptism of the Holy Spirit!' Dr. White said, in a stage whisper, 'You mean "filling," do you not, Dr. Torrey?' The preacher turned on him and replied, 'What difference does it make how I say it? These men know what I mean.'

"After the meeting they went to Torrey Lodge, and soon Dr. Torrey called Dr. White into his room and thanked him for what he had whispered to him at the meeting, acknowledging that it was best to speak of the things of the Spirit in the correct terms.

"He told Dr. White that he regretted that certain Pentecostal leaders quoted him as they did, since he did not believe their teaching on the Person and work of the Holy Spirit. He admitted that he used the terms 'baptism' and 'filling' with the Spirit synonymously, but he did not think it best to call attention publicly to his mistake, and did not see the necessity for correcting the word 'baptism' in his books--even though he himself used the scriptural term thereafter." Excerpt from a paper written by Miles J. Stanford..... ( http://withchrist.org/MJS/torrey.htm )

Torrey's influence was great and his damage unknowable.

Haywood later reconnected Spirit baptism to being born of God at conversion, but instead of reinstating the distinction between Spirit baptism and Spirit filling he simply drew BOTH terms into the conversion experience. Since he continued to connect Spirit "filling" with Spirit "baptism" he connected BOTH to salvation when he reconnected Spirit "baptism" to Spirit "BIRTH." Ewart approached the issue from another way but I believe this confusion of terms came into play with Haywood. Nowhere prior to these men was it taught that a tongues experience was part of conversion.

We need and must have this 'filling with the Holy Ghost' to save us.

I disagree. Being "filled with the Holy Ghost" is a NON-REGENERATIVE work of the Spirit in the life of the indwelt believer.

To sum this up I find two meanings to 'filled with the Spirit'.

1) The initial indwelling of the Spirit into a believer when it is considered part of regeneration or being born again.
2) An added anointing for a specific reason...such as Stephen at his stoning, or as a blessing in which case these are not regenerative.

Rather convenient having dual definitions, don't you think?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Joelel

The old testament prophets were not filled with the Holy Ghost,it just fell on them from time to time.

Exodus 31:1-3....And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: 3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God....

Exodus 35:30-31....And Moses said unto the children of Israel, See, the LORD hath called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; 31 And he hath filled him with the spirit of God....

People were, indeed, "filled" with the Spirit in the OT. A non-regenerative work of the Spirit.

[Adino]

Back to the original issue:

I think, because of Haywood's ultimate influence on Oneness Pentecostal soteriology, many, following his lead, have mistakenly drawn a non-regenerative work of the Spirit into Acts 2:38. Whereas the passage speaks of the gift of eternal life, Haywood mistakenly drew non-regenerative "fillings" into the conversion equation. "Fillings" which have nothing to do with the reception of eternal life were forced into the salvation experience.

I should add here that Haywood mistakingly thought the word "power" [exousia] in John 1:12-13 had the same meaning as the word "power" [dunamis] in Acts 1:8. This error made him completely miss the point that those of John 1:12-13 who had simply received Christ by faith were those who had been born of God and given the privilege of sonship. He then went on to incorrectly connect the "dunamis" (power) to conversion.

While it is absolutely true that ALL who repent and are baptized in Jesus name DO receive the gift of eternal life..... NOT ALL who repent and are baptized in Jesus name receive a non-regenerative "filling" resulting in tongues speech.