Did everyone?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Bump

Your answer is in verse 16 which says the Spirit had not "fallen" upon them. The Spirit "fell" on these of Samaria in a non-saving way as it "fell" on prophets in the OT (Ezekiel 11:5). The Spirit "fell on," "came on," and "filled" people in the NT as it "fell on," "came on," and "filled" prophets in the OT. The leaders of Jerusalem had to come offer the right hand of fellowship with the half-breed Samarians because the full-blooded Jews would not have accepted them into the body had they not. The bestowal of Spiritual gifts to the saved believers of Samaria only stamped God's approval on them as well. Who then could argue that they were to be allowed into the fold? Much like Cornelius in Acts 10.

Luke was using terms connected to Spirit manifestation in the OT to follow the manifestations of the Spirit as the signs and wonders confirmed the word in the NT (Mark 16:20), very likely because he knew his audience would recognize them as such. He was following the expansion of the Church by pointing out the signs and wonders which expanded with it. These signs and wonders had nothing to do with salvation. They were only indicative of the growing Church of God.

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by Adino

The Spirit of Christ is absolutely essential. Without it we are none of His. Do not equate receiving the living Spirit of Christ with being "filled with the Holy Ghost." I see evidence that the former is salvific, while the latter is a work of the already possessed Spirit in the life of the believer as it fully takes control.

The word Christ means anoint.Christ is not part of Jesus name.They called him Jesus Christ or Jesus anointed.Jesus was anointed of the Holy Ghost.So,the Holy Ghost in us anoints us.If we are filled with the Holy Ghost we are anointed and if we are not filled we are not anointed.Acts.10
[38] How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I guess I just tell people that it is a gift promised from God and that power comes with it and that it is wonderful. I guess I just don't think that I have to resort to pressure tactics to get people to receive a gift from God. Truth will set people free and not everything has to be salvational to get folks to buy into it.



The church I pastor is in Sandusky, OH. You would be welcome any time!!

www.newlife-church.org

Long way off,I'm in Texas.Use to live in Buffalo,New York

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Adino

Your answer is in verse 16 which says the Spirit had not "fallen" upon them. The Spirit "fell" on these of Samaria in a non-saving way as it "fell" on prophets in the OT (Ezekiel 11:5). The Spirit "fell on," "came on," and "filled" people in the NT as it "fell on," "came on," and "filled" prophets in the OT. The leaders of Jerusalem had to come offer the right hand of fellowship with the half-breed Samarians because the full-blooded Jews would not have accepted them into the body had they not. The bestowal of Spiritual gifts to the saved believers of Samaria only stamped God's approval on them as well. Who then could argue that they were to be allowed into the fold? Much like Cornelius in Acts 10.

Luke was using terms connected to Spirit manifestation in the OT to follow the manifestations of the Spirit as the signs and wonders confirmed the word in the NT (Mark 16:20), very likely because he knew his audience would recognize them as such. He was following the expansion of the Church by pointing out the signs and wonders which expanded with it. These signs and wonders had nothing to do with salvation. They were only indicative of the growing Church of God.

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.

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

So are you saying that everyone has the Holy Ghost since the verse you have quoted numerous times states that God will pour his spirit out on ALL flesh??

No,what I'm saying is on the day of pentecost the about 120 that were filled with the Holy Ghost were giving prophecy to the ones who understood in their own tongue.That is why they spoke in tongues,because God was speaking to them.The tongue talking was referred to as prophecy.

Acts, chapter 2
1: And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2: And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3: And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5: And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6: Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7: And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8: And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9: Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10: Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11: Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12: And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13: Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
14: But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16: But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17: And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Joelel

Jesus told them here in the first chapter 5:ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence,so they obeyed and was filled as we see in the second chapter,4: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.We see very clear baptized in the Holy Ghost and filled with the Holy Ghost is the same thing.

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.

[Adino]

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.

Ignoring the language of Luke is your prerogative, Bro.. Evidence is strong that those of Samaria were not receiving the indwelling Spirit, but an impartation of some spiritual gift as the elders came to lay hands on them (1Timothy 4:14; Romans 1:11). It was this ability to impart which Simon wished to purchase from the elders. The man who RECEIVES the Spirit at faith subsequently RECEIVES blessings from that self-same Spirit as God sees fit.

Accept it or not, there are alternative plausible ways of interpreting the passages you have grown accustomed to viewing through a lens handed down to you from 20th preachers in early American pentecostalism.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Joelel

Jesus told them here in the first chapter 5:ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence,so they obeyed and was filled as we see in the second chapter,4: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.We see very clear baptized in the Holy Ghost and filled with the Holy Ghost is the same thing.

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.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Adino

Ignoring the language of Luke is your prerogative, Bro.. Evidence is strong that those of Samaria were not receiving the indwelling Spirit, but an impartation of some spiritual gift as the elders came to lay hands on them (1Timothy 4:14; Romans 1:11). It was this ability to impart which Simon wished to purchase from the elders. The man who RECEIVES the Spirit at faith subsequently RECEIVES blessings from that self-same Spirit as God sees fit.

Accept it or not, there are alternative plausible ways of interpreting the passages you have grown accustomed to viewing through a lens handed down to you from 20th preachers in early American pentecostalism.

It is not I that is ignoring what is plainly stated. You have read into this something that is not there. How many ways can one view it when it plainly states that the Holy Ghost had not fallen on them, but then goes on to clarify that after prayer the RECEIVED the Holy Ghost.

Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

I am sorry, but either they didn't have it, and received it, or they didn't have it, and received it.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

It is not I that is ignoring what is plainly stated. You have read into this something that is not there. How many ways can one view it when it plainly states that the Holy Ghost had not fallen on them, but then goes on to clarify that after prayer the RECEIVED the Holy Ghost.

Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

I am sorry, but either they didn't have it, and received it, or they didn't have it, and received it.

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?