Originally Posted by renee819
[QUOTE]And back to your statement,
“I think a strong argument can be made that Acts 8 is not the normative experience for all believers for all time.”[/QUOTE]
Renee wrote,
Quote:
|
Right! Because the Church went into 'darkness' and now more “Light” has been shown, but many still want to cling to, JUST BELIEVE. However, as I have shown, a BELIEVER, that does not go any farther, is just that, A BELIEVER. But they are not 'born again' until the obey “as the scriptures has shown.”
|
Jason wrote
Quote:
|
I answered this in my previous post. But to my point in Acts 8, simply put, that is the only place in scripture where we see that someone is baptized and we are told they did not receive the Holy Ghost. I am putting forth the assertion that this is because it was a special circumstance in that God wanted to pour out the Holy Ghost in an external way on the Samaritans in the presence of the Jews, and particularly in the presence of Peter and John, so that there would be unity within the church (and the same for the Gentiles in chapter 10). I do find it interesting that later in the chapter Phillip preaches Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch and baptizes Him, and when the eunuch comes out of the water Phillip is gone. Was this man left without the Holy Spirit? Did he have to go back to Ethiopia and "seek/tarry" for the Holy Ghost? I don't believe so. Nor do I believe that the statement that he went on his way rejoicing implies He received the Holy Ghost as David Bernard has said. I would ask you, if that is your view, on what textual/hermeneutical grounds can we say the eunuch received the Holy Ghost because he experienced joy, when earlier in the chapter we are told the Samaritans experienced joy and DID not have the Holy Spirit? Again I say, it seems to be that God was doing something special and unique, for His purposes, in the city of Samaria, and Acts 8:12-17 does not represent the normative conversion pattern in church history, or even in the first century church.
|
Jason, why doesn't it, “
represent the normative conversion pattern in church history, or even in the first century church”
They
repented----although it doesn't tell us that they did.
They were
baptized in Jesus name
And
received the Holy Ghost---although it does not tell us the details of them speaking in other tongues. However, by the context and other scriptures, we know that they did.
You can't go by, what is not written, as if it didn't happen.
Speaking of patterns, in
Acts 10, we are not told that Cornelius household repented. But no one receives the Holy Ghost before they repent.
They received the Holy Ghost and then was baptized.
Why is this? Because it is all one package to be born again of the water and the Spirit.
So we see at some point these
repented, it only takes a few minutes.
They
received the Holy Ghost
And
were baptized in Jesus name.
In
Acts 19, these had been taught about Jesus several years before, and were baptized under John.
Paul called them disciples, so evidently they had already
repented. They were Believers.
Paul
baptizes them in Jesus name,
And they
received the Holy Ghost speaking in other tongues.
Jason wrote,
Quote:
|
Nor do I believe that the statement that he went on his way rejoicing implies He received the Holy Ghost as David Bernard has said. I would ask you, if that is your view, on what textual/hermeneutical grounds can we say the eunuch received the Holy Ghost because he experienced joy, when earlier in the chapter we are told the Samaritans experienced joy and DID not have the Holy Spirit?
|
The reason that I believe that the eunuch received the Holy Ghost, as well as the Phillipian jailer, is this.
There was only one gospel, and from Peter to Paul they all taught the same gospel.
Quote:
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed
|
.
At Philippi, Paul taught the jailer, “the word of the Lord.”
At Samaria, Phillip “preached Christ to them”
I don't believe they taught different messages to them. And to the eunuch Phillip started in the OT, but preached Christ to him.
Now it would have been a strange salvation message, if Peter taught one thing, Paul another and Phillip 2 different messages. One to the Samaritans, and another to the eunuch.
They all taught the one true gospel. And we should be teaching the very same thing.
Threaded Mode
