ECF's and Post Conversion Reception of the Spirit

[mizpeh]

Tertullian and Post Conversion Reception of the Holy Spirit
Terullian, in his treatise On Baptism, states quite clearly that "in the water, under (the witness of) the angel, we are cleansed and prepared for the Holy Spirit" (chaps. 5 and 6). "Thus, too, does the angel, the witness of baptism, 'make the paths straight' for the Holy Spirit, who IS ABOUT TO COME UPON US..." (chap. 6). He makes it very clear that the reception of the Gift of the Holy Spirit is post conversion (and water baptism). He further clarifies this when he says "Not that in the waters we obtain the Holy Spirit" (chap 5), but that "we are cleansed and prepared for the Holy Spirit" (op cit).


Hippolytus and Post Conversion Reception of the Holy Spirit

Immediately after water baptism, Hippolytus says in "The Apostolic Tradition" “the Bishop shall lay his hand upon them invoking and saying: ‘0 Lord God, who didst count these [thy servants] worthy of deserving the forgiveness of sins by the laver of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with thy Holy Spirit and send upon them Thy grace, that they may serve Thee according to Thy will’” (22).


Cyprian and the Post Coversion Reception of the Holy Spirit

Only brief reference need be made to Cyprian since he says essentially the same thing as Tertullian in reference to baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit. Cyprian writes in his Epistles about the situation of the Samaritans (Acts 8) who had “believed with a true faith” and had been baptized, and afterwards “prayer being made for them and hands being imposed, the Holy Spirit was poured out.” He adds that the same thing “now too is done among us, so that they who are baptized in the Church are brought to the prelates of the Church, and by our prayers and by the imposition of hands obtain the Holy Spirit, and are perfected with the Lord's seal” (72, 9). [http://www.renewaltheology.net/]




Cyprian said:

“…that those who have been dipped abroad outside the Church, and have been stained among heretics and schismatics with the taint of profane water, when they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to "lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost," unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, "Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." For we find also, in the Acts of the Apostles, that this is maintained by the apostles, and kept in the truth of the saving faith, so that when, in the house of Cornelius the centurion, the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Gentiles who were there, fervent in the warmth of their faith, and believing in the Lord with their whole heart; and when, filled with the Spirit, they blessed God in divers tongues, still none the less the blessed Apostle Peter, mindful of the divine precept and the Gospel, commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel” (Epistle LXXI- To Stephen [Bishop of Rome] )

[jfrog]

I'm fairly certain that Catholics believe that the Holy Ghost is received at Baptism or immediately thereafter. The quote on tertullian can be read as him believing the Holy Ghost comes immediately after baptism. There is nothing problematic with him saying this. Note that even if he meant long after baptism it does not show he felt speaking in tongues or any other sign would accompany the reception of the Holy Ghost. So this quote does not support your view of reception of the Holy Ghost.

In the Apostolic Tradition Hippolytus cites a number of practices regarding baptism that you do not agree with. One of the passages that stood out the most to me was: "2When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes." (21) http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html

Of course, other than all the other doctrines and practices he cites that you don't agree with, he does cite the one that does prove that he prayed over people to recieve the Holy Ghost long after they were baptized. Of course the whole account is rather detailed and he never mentions that the convert will speak in tongues in that process. All he says the convert will say is: "And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit."" (21). So while Hippolytus at first appears to support your position, after reading his rather detailed account, tongues are still absent... I guess he doesn't support your view so much after all...

I'll get to the third one later.

[Praxeas]

ECF? Is that some sort of traded fund or commodity?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I'm fairly certain that Catholics believe that the Holy Ghost is received at Baptism or immediately thereafter. The quote on tertullian can be read as him believing the Holy Ghost comes immediately after baptism. There is nothing problematic with him saying this. Note that even if he meant long after baptism it does not show he felt speaking in tongues or any other sign would accompany the reception of the Holy Ghost. So this quote does not support your view of reception of the Holy Ghost.

In the Apostolic Tradition Hippolytus cites a number of practices regarding baptism that you do not agree with. One of the passages that stood out the most to me was: "2When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes." (21) http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html

Of course, other than all the other doctrines and practices he cites that you don't agree with, he does cite the one that does prove that he prayed over people to recieve the Holy Ghost long after they were baptized. Of course the whole account is rather detailed and he never mentions that the convert will speak in tongues in that process. All he says the convert will say is: "And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit."" (21). So while Hippolytus at first appears to support your position, after reading his rather detailed account, tongues are still absent... I guess he doesn't support your view so much after all...

I'll get to the third one later.

These quotes are from believers who lived BEFORE the Roman Catholic Church took control. So your reference to Catholics doesn't really apply.

The point these quotes make is that some folks in the early days of the church (200's AD), believed and taught that reception of the Spirit comes sometime AFTER faith/conversion. Similar to Acts 8 and different from the "one-stepper" view.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

These quotes are from believers who lived BEFORE the Roman Catholic Church took control. So your reference to Catholics doesn't really apply.

The point these quotes make is that some folks in the early days of the church (200's AD), believed and taught that reception of the Spirit comes sometime AFTER faith/conversion. Similar to Acts 8 and different from the "one-stepper" view.

Then there was Cornelius (Acts 10). The thorn in baptismal regenerationist theology.

Good to see Mizzy quoting her BR brethren and "the father of the Trinitarian doctrine.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by DAII

Then there was Cornelius (Acts 10). The thorn in baptismal regenerationist theology.

Good to see Mizzy quoting her BR brethren and "the father of the Trinitarian doctrine.

Acts 10 has to mesh with Acts 8 and Acts 19, and Acts 9, and John 1:12.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

These quotes are from believers who lived BEFORE the Roman Catholic Church took control. So your reference to Catholics doesn't really apply.

The point these quotes make is that some folks in the early days of the church (200's AD), believed and taught that reception of the Spirit comes sometime AFTER faith/conversion. Similar to Acts 8 and different from the "one-stepper" view.

And the point of my quote was to make it clear that some folks believed baptism had to be performed naked. "2When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes." (21) http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html

In other words... so what if the ECF's believed something? All it does is show that something was believed early in church history. It doesn't show that such a doctrine it is right or wrong.

Of course it is nice to have some support from the ECF's if for nothing else to show that your ideas, thoughts and doctrines aren't totally new or in a vaccum. That being said, your quotes do offer evidence that your thoughts of the Holy Ghost being received at or after baptism are not totally new. Of course I don't know anyone that has ever seriously entertained the idea that such thoughts on the reception of the Holy Ghost were totally new. What has been questioned is the origin of the no tongues no Holy Ghost doctrine. It is clear the ECF's did not believe tongues accompanied the reception of the Holy Ghost or else they would have written about it.

So in conclusion, the ECF's clearly do not support your doctrines about the Holy Ghost anymore than they support one-steppers doctrines about the Holy Ghost.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by jfrog

And the point of my quote was to make it clear that some folks believed baptism had to be performed naked. "2When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes." (21) http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html

In other words... so what if the ECF's believed something? All it does is show that something was believed early in church history. It doesn't show that such a doctrine it is right or wrong.

Of course it is nice to have some support from the ECF's if for nothing else to show that your ideas, thoughts and doctrines aren't totally new or in a vaccum. That being said, your quotes do offer evidence that your thoughts of the Holy Ghost being received at or after baptism are not totally new. Of course I don't know anyone that has ever seriously entertained the idea that such thoughts on the reception of the Holy Ghost were totally new. What has been questioned is the origin of the no tongues no Holy Ghost doctrine. It is clear the ECF's did not believe tongues accompanied the reception of the Holy Ghost or else they would have written about it.

So in conclusion, the ECF's clearly do not support your doctrines about the Holy Ghost anymore than they support one-steppers doctrines about the Holy Ghost.

It doesn't matter to me what the ECF's wrote either because:

1) I don't think they spoke for the whole church back then.
2) It's obvious they believe some things that aren't taught in scripture.

The main reason I post threads like this is because some folks think that the three step view is relatively "new" and that the one step view has been around longer. The early church views on salvational issues are generally more like a three stepper (not in totality) than a one stepper. I'm not appealing to the ECF's in attempt to verify what I believe, but I'm only trying to show that what three stepper's believe on the new birth and specifically in this thread about the timing of Spirit baptism is not some "new-fangled" doctrine thought up in the early 1900's.

[mizpeh]

ECF = Early Church Fathers

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

ECF = Early Church Fathers

Oh....(sheepish grin)