If believing is enough
 

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?

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 was Phillip thinking letting this guy who, btw, believed and was baptized .... tag along for a while .... and still had not prayed him thru????

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

Exactly ... believing in hebraic sense means a lot more than mental assent ....

Discipleship......Jesus did it even when one was to sell Him out to death and another was going to deny Him. Wow what a concept!

Of course believing isn't enough. Who said it was?

While his soul was at eternal risk???? Philip was pretty irresponsible then ....

Haven't you heard of those that tarry for the Holy Ghost baptism for years? Do we run them off? Does the Physician run of those that are sick and in need? DA, you need to tighten it up a little........:heeheehee

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

I have but most Water and Spirit folks would say they are not rapture ready .... it must've been an oversight on Philip's part for not telling Simon his soul was in jeopardy ....

Can you be "rapture ready" without the baptism of the Holy Ghost?

DWW ... this conversation has been hashed and re-hashed .... do you want to go down this road ... and if it is .... Phillip did a poor job w/ Simon ....

Yes or No?

Now it would all depend when we receive his spirit ... and what the baptism of the Holy Ghost is .... DWW ... you've been here to long to not know where I stand on this ....

Oh boy! Another divisive, strife causing thread to use the ignore feature on!

YAY!!!!

lol

I'm just asking in light of Acts 8, that's all..........and poking you while I'm at it.........:winaa;):D:waving:thwak:boxing:clap :friend

What division? What strife? :club:tease:winkgrin

The same faith that it takes to place faith in Jesus's blood to forgive your sins ,is the same faith that is exercised when one is getting buried with Him in baptism ,and it is an extension of the same faith placed in Jesus Christ to become Spirit -Filled.

Some thought on Acts chapter 8 from a one-stepper.

-Philip preached Christ (verse 5)
-God confirmed the Word with healings and exorcisms (v. 6-7)
-There was great joy (v. 8). The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost
-Philip preached "the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (v. 12)
-As a result of Philip's preaching, folks got water baptized (v. 8-9)
-Phillip had a policy of not baptizing someone until they made a confession of faith according to verses 36-37
-The Samaritans had received the Word (v. 14) To a one-stepper, they had believed the message and received the Word ---that would be salvation.
-The folks were saved/regenerated but had not received the Holy Ghost baptism yet (v. 15-16)
-Peter was sent by someone who must have had more authority than he so he might not have been the first pope, gen. supt. or presiding bishop (v. 14)
-the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) or filling, or receiving, or Holy Ghost coming upon happened by the laying on of hands (v. 17) like Saul of Tarsus later received in Acts 9 and like the Ephesian Baptists later received in Acts 19
-Something happened when they received the HGB. Something was evident there at the HGB which was beyond the healing and the miracles they had seen before. This something caused Simon to want to buy that ability to lay hands on folks and minster the Spirit to them (v. 18-19)
-Peter said to him " to hell with your money! And you along with it." (v.20)
-Peter went on to say, ...you have neither part nor portion in this utterance (if the same word translation is used as in 1 cor. 1:5) for your heart is not right in the sight of God" (v. 21)

To a one-stepper the folks got saved and water baptized (in Jesus' name) under the ministry of Evangelist Philip. Then they received the HGB under the ministry of Peter and John.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Good!

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 .

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 ...

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.

No, he preached to them the clarification of their of misunderstanding of evidence and preached to them why they needed to partake in such an outpouring.

He saw miracles and wonders ... and the power of God ... nothing audible ... no sounds .... as in Acts 2

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

This verse doesn't say anything about miracles and wonders. The apostles laid hands of the Samaritan believers and they received the Holy Ghost. The question is how did Simon know or what did he see to lead him to believe the Samaritans had received the Holy Ghost?

I didn't say Peter preached 'tongues' on the day of Pentecost but he did explain what was happening to the disciples whom some in the crowd thought were drunk. "This is that.." Peter did say this....the disciples speaking in tongues...was that...the prophecy of Joel about the outpouring of God's Spirit in the last days. Peter did preach that tongues was the sign of receiving the Spirit.

My point though in regards to Acts 8 is that Philip preached the same message that Peter preached and that would include recieving the Spirit with the evidence of tongues.

Right. I'm all for what Peter preached! :)

Mizpeh ...... quickly here.....

I don't see where Joel's prophecy had to do with or referenced 'salvation' -- certainly can't get that from the context and it's not mentioned at all in the prophecy he gave there.

Joel 2:28-29: And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

It's interesting too that the Spirit would be poured out on "servants" and "handmaids". In other words these people were already followers of Christ i.e. believers.

It's interesting too that the Spirit would be poured out on "servants" and "handmaids". In other words these people were already followers of Christ i.e. believers.

Daniel, how did Simon know they had received the Holy Ghost when hands were laid if they did not speak with tongues?!

The bible is silent on this in this passage ... some could have spoken in tongues ... others prophesy .... I believe that tongues is physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost ....

but .... our tradition has told us that in every instance in the NT ...tongues were present ... and this one of many example where there is no CLEAR EVIDENCE or intent by the writer to make it plain to us ....

My problem is with those who teach tongue or hell .... they believe they've got all of it mapped out ... and there are many passages like these that are not black and white.

If tongues were spoken in Acts 2 and 19, would it have been inconsistent for it not to have happened every time, or is this just the explanation we always give here?!

In explaining the events of Chapter 10 in Chapter 11, Peter said that the Holy Ghost fell on them "as on us at the beginnng."

What would have let him know this if it weren't tongues?!

I really need to turn in, Daniel...I'll check in here in the morning...:)