ECF's and Post Conversion Reception of the Spirit

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by DAII

What Mizpeh cleverly distorts in her thread title is that both Tertullian and Cyprian quotes state/believe this is not uniquely post-conversion but both believe the seal comes after the laying of hands after baptism.

No evidence of tongues and most likely baptisms with the "wrong" salvific formula. [red herring]

More deceitful[/COLOR] semantics from a deceived believer with a radical 20th century theology.

Not sure how or why the need to try to conveniently quote the "patristic" writers a la carte when you believe them to be eternally damned for their very doctrines.

Very, very, very STRANGE

I haven't distorted anything, Dan. This thread is not about the evidence of tongues. Nor is it about a formula for baptism.

I'm not being deceitful in quoting them either. I quoted them without any distortion whatsoever.

The point according to these "early church fathers" is that believers don't automatically receive the Spirit at faith or repentance. And it really doesn't matter what I believe since my only reason for starting this thread was to show that many of the early believers (circa 200ad) didn't believe the way "one-steppers" do today when it comes to WHEN a person receives the Spirit of Christ!

Dan, if the seal comes AFTER the laying on of hands at water baptism (according to Tertullian and Cyprian) then what do you consider "conversion" to entail? Surely they considered the laying on of hands at water baptism to be something done AFTER faith and repentance. Lastly, who are you going to quote to verify your doctrine, Dan? I have a radical 20th century theology? You're funny! I'm bringing it all the way back to the 200's!!! You might make it back to the Reformation at the earliest.

I could also take you on a little history trip back to the same era and what they believed the new birth entailed. Oh, wait...I already did that and you never responded!

NOW, this is one reason why many folks don't like discussing theology with Dan. He is unfairly quick to accuse people of "distortion", "deceitfulness", and other unsavory, unChristian things. It's not like we don't have an answer, a very plausible, scriptural answer, but Dan can't seem to discuss theology in a kind, irenic fashion. And if he continues to call me a deceiver and a distortioner, there is no way I'll continue to discuss this subject with him. It wouldn't be worth my time.

[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.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

NOW, this is one reason why many folks don't like discussing theology with Dan. He is unfairly quick to accuse people of "distortion", "deceitfulness", and other unsavory, unChristian things. It's not like we don't have an answer, a very plausible, scriptural answer, but Dan can't seem to discuss theology in a kind, irenic fashion. And if he continues to call me a deceiver and a distortioner, there is no way I'll continue to discuss this subject with him. It wouldn't be worth my time.

Exactly! The last time he spoke to me here, he called me a heretic. LOL! Where do you go from there in a conversation?

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Exactly! The last time he spoke to me here, he called me a heretic. LOL! Where do you go from there in a conversation?

You go far away.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Cindy

You go far away.

Yep, sounds like a great idea!

[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]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Exactly! The last time he spoke to me here, he called me a heretic. LOL! Where do you go from there in a conversation?

Dan has forgotten how to play nice.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by DAII

What Mizpeh cleverly distorts in her thread title is that both Tertullian and Cyprian quotes believe this not uniquely post-conversion but both believe the seal comes after the laying of hands after baptism.

No evidence of tongues and most likely baptisms with the "wrong" salvific formula.

More deceitful semantics.

I wouldn't call Mizzie "deceitful" over this. It's more like "quote mining," which while not always an out-and-out deception, is still a bit misleading at best.

The quote from Hippolytus clearly describes the rite of "Confirmation" within the Roman Catholic Church. And, though this seems to be an attempt to "quote" the "ECFs" that are named, the bulk of the post consists of the words and analysis of J. Rodman Williams. Williams himself goes on to say:

"In three Persons—Christian faith holds equally fast to the conviction that "there are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This belief in the Trinity is expressed devotionally in the words of the hymn:

Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty!

God in three persons, blessed Trinity!"

We can pretty much get whatever we want from this source. The title of this thread should read: "J. Rodman Williams On the ECFs"

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I wouldn't call Mizzie "deceitful" over this. It's more like "quote mining," which while not always an out-and-out deception, is still a bit misleading at best.

The quote from Hippolytus clearly describes the rite of "Confirmation" within the Roman Catholic Church. And, though this seems to be an attempt to "quote" the "ECFs" that are named, the bulk of the post consists of the words and analysis of J. Rodman Williams. Williams himself goes on to say:

"In three Persons—Christian faith holds equally fast to the conviction that "there are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This belief in the Trinity is expressed devotionally in the words of the hymn:

Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty!

God in three persons, blessed Trinity!"

We can pretty much get whatever we want from this source. The title of this thread should read: "J. Rodman Williams On the ECFs"

Pel, it would be nice if you would address the topic of the post which is "post conversion reception of the Spirit" instead of bringing in red herrings.

All the quotes I listed in the opening post come from threads at CARM that were started by someone who is ecclectic in his theology. He's not a Oneness Pentecostal as far as I can tell from the other things he has written. I should have verified the quotes first. Here are the threads if you are interested:

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...he-Holy-Spirit

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...he-Holy-Spirit

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...he-Holy-Spirit

But thanks for checking them out more closely, Pel. I'll be more careful who I quote next time. Nevertheless, are you saying that these early church fathers believed that reception of the Spirit happens the moment someone believes the gospel? When exactly did the Roman Catholic Church begin? Was there such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church in the early 200 ad? Just because something sounds "Catholic" doesn't necessary mean that the doctrine started with the Roman Catholic Church.