New Birth

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

The biggest dent for water baptism being for literal remission of sins is acts 10 when gentiles got the Spirit before water baptism.

There are several instances of salvations described in Acts. Only one of them involved people receiving the Spirit prior to being baptised. The others have people being baptised prior to receiving the Spirit. This should tell us that the Gentile experience in Acts 10 is unique. In fact, it IS unique because it breaks from the pattern Luke established in Acts 2 and 8.

It is also unique in that these were Gentiles. God had to sovereignly and directly intervene just to get a preacher to even talk to the Gentiles. The preacher and his ministry team had no expectation of any conversions taking place. They were absolutely astonished that the Gentiles received the Spirit. Up to that point all Christians thought that Gentiles would have to be Jews (ie cease being Gentiles, and be circumcised and enter the 'covenant') before Messiah would do them any good ie before they could be saved.

So God had to go outside what the church was willing to do. By giving them the Spirit, the church had no way to deny that Gentiles could be saved apart from being circumcised. Peter then asked 'can any man forbid water that they should be baptised?' All of those who came with Peter would have forbade such a thing, if they had not witnessed the Holy Spirit being given to uncircumcised (in flesh) Gentiles. Seeing that nobody had anything to say, Peter 'commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord.'

Thus, the one single time in scripture where people received the Spirit prior to being baptised in water, is a singularly unique event, with unique and extraordinary circumstances. Extreme situations call for extreme measures. The situation was extreme, for no Christians would bring the gospel to uncicumcised Gentiles to be saved. So God had to act. God poured out his Spirit on these Gentiles, proving they did not have to become Jews in order to be saved, but that God was willing to take them as they were.

And what exactly were they? Devout people. Cornelius loved YHVH so much, prayed so much, gave alms, lived a righteous life in the fear of the one true God, and God sent an angel to him to tell him his alms and prayers had come up as a memorial before God. He got God's attention! And God sent Peter some visions to seal the deal.

To use this as somehow doctrinally normative for an ordo salutis is the epitome of 'spoof texting' and ignoring both the immediate and the larger contexts of the narrative.

That people do indeed receive the Spirit prior to baptism says more about our methods of evangelism than it does about God's plan of salvation.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Esaias

There are several instances of salvations described in Acts. Only one of them involved people receiving the Spirit prior to being baptised. The others have people being baptised prior to receiving the Spirit. This should tell us that the Gentile experience in Acts 10 is unique. In fact, it IS unique because it breaks from the pattern Luke established in Acts 2 and 8.

It is also unique in that these were Gentiles. God had to sovereignly and directly intervene just to get a preacher to even talk to the Gentiles. The preacher and his ministry team had no expectation of any conversions taking place. They were absolutely astonished that the Gentiles received the Spirit. Up to that point all Christians thought that Gentiles would have to be Jews (ie cease being Gentiles, and be circumcised and enter the 'covenant') before Messiah would do them any good ie before they could be saved.

So God had to go outside what the church was willing to do. By giving them the Spirit, the church had no way to deny that Gentiles could be saved apart from being circumcised. Peter then asked 'can any man forbid water that they should be baptised?' All of those who came with Peter would have forbade such a thing, if they had not witnessed the Holy Spirit being given to uncircumcised (in flesh) Gentiles. Seeing that nobody had anything to say, Peter 'commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord.'

Thus, the one single time in scripture where people received the Spirit prior to being baptised in water, is a singularly unique event, with unique and extraordinary circumstances. Extreme situations call for extreme measures. The situation was extreme, for no Christians would bring the gospel to uncicumcised Gentiles to be saved. So God had to act. God poured out his Spirit on these Gentiles, proving they did not have to become Jews in order to be saved, but that God was willing to take them as they were.

And what exactly were they? Devout people. Cornelius loved YHVH so much, prayed so much, gave alms, lived a righteous life in the fear of the one true God, and God sent an angel to him to tell him his alms and prayers had come up as a memorial before God. He got God's attention! And God sent Peter some visions to seal the deal.

To use this as somehow doctrinally normative for an ordo salutis is the epitome of 'spoof texting' and ignoring both the immediate and the larger contexts of the narrative.

That people do indeed receive the Spirit prior to baptism says more about our methods of evangelism than it does about God's plan of salvation.

I'm not sure that 2 instances make a pattern?

Now there is a different pattern that isn't mentioned very often. It's a real pattern and is present in every example. In every case of someone receiving the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts an apostle was present.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I'm not sure that 2 instances make a pattern?

Two witnesses? There's also Acts 19 and the disciples of John at Ephesus, that makes a third. Other than the Gentiles in Acts 10 and the original disciples in Acts 2 (who had already been baptised previously anyway) there are no records of anyone receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts. So, out of 4 cases, three follow a pattern of baptism then Holy Spirit, and one is reversed - the extraordinary case of Acts 10.

Now there is a different pattern that isn't mentioned very often. It's a real pattern and is present in every example. In every case of someone receiving the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts an apostle was present.

Did Paul give the Spirit to himself?

Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Was Ananias an apostle?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I'm not sure that 2 instances make a pattern?

Now there is a different pattern that isn't mentioned very often. It's a real pattern and is present in every example. In every case of someone receiving the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts an apostle was present.

I received the Holy Spirit in my apartment with a sister in the Lord present.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Two witnesses? There's also Acts 19 and the disciples of John at Ephesus, that makes a third. Other than the Gentiles in Acts 10 and the original disciples in Acts 2 (who had already been baptised previously anyway) there are no records of anyone receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts. So, out of 4 cases, three follow a pattern of baptism then Holy Spirit, and one is reversed - the extraordinary case of Acts 10.




Did Paul give the Spirit to himself?

Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Was Ananias an apostle?

Why didn't you include the case of Paul in the list of examples of people receiving the Spirit in Acts? Is it because if he is included as an example of someone receiving the Holy Spirit then it's an example where tongues are absent. Or is it because Saul appears to have received the Holy Spirit before baptism in that passage. We can't say definitively but if we are to believe that Saul received the Holy Spirit in the Acts 9 passage then there is a much stronger case of saying it happened before baptism than after baptism.

In other words, you can't use Paul's example to prove apostles weren't present in every biblical example of someone receiving the Holy Spirit without also giving me an example where someone didn't speak in tongues upon receiving the Holy Spirit. Or without giving me even more evidence that receiving the Holy Spirit can come before baptism just as easily as after.

In fact, even if Paul is included as an example I'd have 4/5 examples where an apostle is present and 1/5 where he isn't. Judging by your previous thoughts that should count as a pattern. Paul's case can be viewed as special given his conversion and apostleship hinged upon it. So out of 5 cases where someone receives the Holy Spirit an apostle was present at 4 and only one is different - the extraordinary conversion of Paul.

Basically I can make a much stronger case that the Holy Spirit normally only comes when an apostle is present than you can make for it normally only coming after baptism or even normally only coming with tongues.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I received the Holy Spirit in my apartment with a sister in the Lord present.

But was that the biblical way of doing it? Shouldn't an apostle have been present to make your conversion experience more like those in the book of Acts? Isn't that what being apostolic is about? Trying to believe and practice everything the same way the early church believed and practiced it?

Since you are telling me it happened different for you than the pattern in the book of Acts would indicate, next you will be telling me that apostles aren't the only unimportant part of the pattern. Next you will be saying that tongues are also as unimportant as apostles when it comes to receiving the Holy Spirit.

[Esaias]

Mr Frog, there are four cases in the book of Acts wherein is described people receiving the Spirit. Acts 2 (Pentecost), Acts 8 (Samaritans), Acts 10 (Gentiles), and Acts 19 (disciples of John Baptist). There are simply no other descriptions of people receiving the Spirit in the book of Acts.

Out of those four descriptions, three follow the pattern of water baptism and then Spirit baptism. Only one is reversed, the special case of the Gentiles (which is an extraordinary case for reasons I outlined previously).

As for Paul, his actual reception of the Spirit is not described. However, Ananias said he was sent by the Lord to Paul to minister recovery of his sight and that he might be filled with the Spirit.

Therefore, the idea that an apostle was present in every instance of people receiving the Spirit is simply not true. Unless you want to prove Ananias was an apostle?

[jfrog]

1. If the moment of Paul receiving the spirit is not recorded then you cannot say an apostle was not present. So in every case where someone was recorded as receiving the Holy Spirit an apostle was present.

2. Even if Paul received the spirit without an apostle present the pattern is established in the other cases and he is an exception due to his miraculous conversion experience.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Mr Frog, there are four cases in the book of Acts wherein is described people receiving the Spirit. Acts 2 (Pentecost), Acts 8 (Samaritans), Acts 10 (Gentiles), and Acts 19 (disciples of John Baptist). There are simply no other descriptions of people receiving the Spirit in the book of Acts.

Out of those four descriptions, three follow the pattern of water baptism and then Spirit baptism. Only one is reversed, the special case of the Gentiles (which is an extraordinary case for reasons I outlined previously).

As for Paul, his actual reception of the Spirit is not described. However, Ananias said he was sent by the Lord to Paul to minister recovery of his sight and that he might be filled with the Spirit.

Therefore, the idea that an apostle was present in every instance of people receiving the Spirit is simply not true. Unless you want to prove Ananias was an apostle?

[aegsm76]

jf - so what is your end game with this?
That the Holy Ghost with tongues was only given during the time of the apostles?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by jfrog

But was that the biblical way of doing it? Shouldn't an apostle have been present to make your conversion experience more like those in the book of Acts? Isn't that what being apostolic is about? Trying to believe and practice everything the same way the early church believed and practiced it?

Esaias is making a good point about Paul's Spirit baptism. Was Ananias an apostle?

Another obvious point could be made that Philip, the evangelist, should have sent for the apostles from the moment he started preaching to the Samaritans if it was a rule that no one could receive the Spirit except by laying on of hands of an apostle. No one should have gone out to win the lost without an apostle with them.

Since you are telling me it happened different for you than the pattern in the book of Acts would indicate, next you will be telling me that apostles aren't the only unimportant part of the pattern. Next you will be saying that tongues are also as unimportant as apostles when it comes to receiving the Holy Spirit.

no, I won't be telling you that because I don't think that you have proved your point about the apostles and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.