PDA

View Full Version : Holy Spirit Baptism?



reformedct
Dec 20th 2008, 07:08 PM
hey guys, i just had a question that has been kinda bugging me that im lookin for answers on

ok basically concerning baptism of the Holy Spirit

were the disciples of Jesus (not including Judas) already born again by the Spirit? did they already have the indwelling Spirit? or did the Spirit just reveal things to them somehow?

And when they tarried in Acts and began to speak in toungues,

was this their first time being baptized and recieving the Spirit, or did they already have it and it just manifested itself more strongly?


And finally, how does this all relate to the church today? i find it interesting, there was a passage in Acts where Paul came across some believers and asked them had they recieved the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and then they said they never heard of it and he prayed over them and they spoke in toungues.

So how does this work for us today? Are all believers baptised by the Spirit when they are born again? or do they get saved but then there is another experience of pouring out the Spirit in them? or when they get saved do they just have a little of the SPirit and then later on they get filled?


Please provide scripture if you know any

it would be interesting to hear from someone with the reformed view such as mine, because even i admit i do not understand this.

I think Jesus breathed on the apostles and said recieve the Spirit, but then told them to tarry and he would send the Comforter.

please help out thanks!

godsgirl
Dec 20th 2008, 10:04 PM
In scripture the disciples received the Holy Spirit in John 20=at this time the Holy Spirit indwelt them and they were born again. They were baptised in the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4 At this time they were filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit and as they were filled, rivers of living water flowed out from them-with tongues as the initial evidence of this blessing. Things are not any different now, for those who will accept there is the baptism in the Spirit--it is from Jesus and is for Christians. So while all Christians have the indwelling Spirit-not all Christians are baptised in the Spirit-but they could and should be.
Jesus is our baptiser in the Spirit and He is the Same forever.

reformedct
Dec 20th 2008, 10:36 PM
In scripture the disciples received the Holy Spirit in John 20=at this time the Holy Spirit indwelt them and they were born again. They were baptised in the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4 At this time they were filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit and as they were filled, rivers of living water flowed out from them-with tongues as the initial evidence of this blessing. Things are not any different now, for those who will accept there is the baptism in the Spirit--it is from Jesus and is for Christians. So while all Christians have the indwelling Spirit-not all Christians are baptised in the Spirit-but they could and should be.
Jesus is our baptiser in the Spirit and He is the Same forever.

makes sense to me!

threebigrocks
Dec 20th 2008, 10:51 PM
The Spirit was promised to be sent to each man, to live and reside within each one of us:

John 16
7"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

That couldn't happen until Christ "went away". He had to die and be raised up in order for that to happen.

The Spirit did work through, but didn't indwell, a man of faith until Christ returned to where He was sent from.

We today, in this time after Penticost, don't need to wait. That indwelling comes to us when we are truly born again. It can come at our moment of confession and repentance or it may not, depending on where our heart is.

Our fruit of faith is testimony that we do indeed have the Spirit working in us, to give knowledge and wisdom as we mature. It is through the Spirit how we receive the gifts of the Spirit.

There is no formal baptism of the Spirit. If you are indwelt with the Spirit, how much more baptized in Him can you really be? ;)

Bladers
Dec 20th 2008, 11:13 PM
To really understand this reformedct, you need to divide it into three sections that we find in the bible.

The Holy Spirit is With you, In you, and Upon you.


1) With you - The Holy Spirit is with you before salvation to convict you. (John 14:17)
2) In you - He comes in you at salvation to indwell, and to seal you. (John 20:22)
3) Upon you - He comes upon you to empower you for service, to be witnesses (Acts 1:8)

godsgirl
Dec 21st 2008, 03:48 PM
The Spirit was promised to be sent to each man, to live and reside within each one of us:

John 16
7"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

That couldn't happen until Christ "went away". He had to die and be raised up in order for that to happen.

The Spirit did work through, but didn't indwell, a man of faith until Christ returned to where He was sent from.

We today, in this time after Penticost, don't need to wait. That indwelling comes to us when we are truly born again. It can come at our moment of confession and repentance or it may not, depending on where our heart is.

Our fruit of faith is testimony that we do indeed have the Spirit working in us, to give knowledge and wisdom as we mature. It is through the Spirit how we receive the gifts of the Spirit.

There is no formal baptism of the Spirit. If you are indwelt with the Spirit, how much more baptized in Him can you really be? ;)


While this is a common understanding of the Baptism in the Spirit it is NOT Biblical.
The Bible shows plainly that these are two seperate events.

Jesus called the "baptism in the Spirit" the PROMISE of the Father.

"for this promise is to you, to your children, and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

divaD
Dec 21st 2008, 04:09 PM
While this is a common understanding of the Baptism in the Spirit it is NOT Biblical.
The Bible shows plainly that these are two seperate events.

Jesus called the "baptism in the Spirit" the PROMISE of the Father.

"for this promise is to you, to your children, and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."



1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


How do you then explain this verse? This doesn't look like a seperate event to me, where some are baptized into one body, and some are not. It clearly states that by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body. You're trying to claim that if one doesn't receive of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a seperate event, evidenced by the speaking of tongues, that person is not baptized into one body by one Spirit, thus meaning that person is not a member of the body of Christ, even tho verse 27 of that ch tells us otherwise.

threebigrocks
Dec 21st 2008, 04:16 PM
While this is a common understanding of the Baptism in the Spirit it is NOT Biblical.
The Bible shows plainly that these are two seperate events.

Jesus called the "baptism in the Spirit" the PROMISE of the Father.

"for this promise is to you, to your children, and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

The promise is baptism of the Spirit? Not understanding that at all. God calls many, drawing them to Him through His Son. That is the only way to salvation, to heed the call of the Father and believe on His Son whom He sent.

The promise isn't the baptism of the Spirit. That is what was given to us in order to gain wisdom, understanding and have comfort now. If that is the promise, what about our redemption? Do we gain that redemption, fully and not in faith, now? No. Right now, for us we have all things through faith. The promise is to come when we are resurrected as Christ was into eternity, body and spirit.

What do you think the promise is? Why do we have hope in that promise? If we already can have it now, then what's the point of faith? Let's use scripture as we look at this.

godsgirl
Dec 22nd 2008, 01:48 AM
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


How do you then explain this verse? This doesn't look like a seperate event to me, where some are baptized into one body, and some are not. It clearly states that by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body. You're trying to claim that if one doesn't receive of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a seperate event, evidenced by the speaking of tongues, that person is not baptized into one body by one Spirit, thus meaning that person is not a member of the body of Christ, even tho verse 27 of that ch tells us otherwise.


That verse is very plain-by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body.

The Holy Spirit places us into the body of Christ at the moment of salvation.
I don't understand your confusion.

The Holy Spirit baptises us into the Body The Holy Spirit is our baptiser and the body of Christ is the element.
Jesus baptises us in the Holy Spirit,, Jesus is our baptiser and the Holy Spirit is the element.
We are baptised in water--another Christian is our baptiser and water is the element.

and yes, He is the One who called the baptism in the Spirit "the Promise of the Father-in Acts 1, and Luke 24:49

divaD
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:16 AM
I don't understand your confusion.



I'm basically confused when looking at this from the charismatic perspective. Are you saying that this baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is not the same as the baptism of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues?
How many different baptisms of the Holy Spirit are there? That's what I'm confused about. :)

Veretax
Dec 22nd 2008, 12:41 PM
I'm basically confused when looking at this from the charismatic perspective. Are you saying that this baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is not the same as the baptism of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues?
How many different baptisms of the Holy Spirit are there? That's what I'm confused about. :)


Charismatics tend in my experience to want to separate what happens at salvation from the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit". At least that's what I've been told by the few I have known in my lifetime. I don't find it to be biblically sound though.

Now the question was asked whether the disciples were saved before Christ died on the cross. That's a question that I'd like to say yes they were, but lately I'm thinking that they probably were not. Why do I say this? What is salvation? Is it not by faith in the grace Christ shed on the Cross? The disciples didn't seem to understand that he both had and would die and then rise. It was not until they saw him risen that they began to understand what he had been saying.

The other thing you see at pentecost is a slight change in the ministration of the Holy Spirit. Before Christ God's spirit would come upon certain people (usually prophets, but sometimes kings or judges) for a specific ministry, but based on my understanding of the OT. The average person did not have access in this same way. (Now I know some will say that I'm speaking of dispensationalism, but I really don't believe that has anything to do with it.)

I believe the bible teaches that you must be born of water and spirit. You cannot be born of the spirit unless you are a believer, and I do not believe God waits to baptize his people. There really is nothing in the bible doctrinally that this has to stand on, but some vague references to a few sign gifts (a few of which actually happened before they believed as I recall (Cornelius's Family)).

Slug1
Dec 22nd 2008, 01:30 PM
To really understand this reformedct, you need to divide it into three sections that we find in the bible.

The Holy Spirit is With you, In you, and Upon you.


1) With you - The Holy Spirit is with you before salvation to convict you. (John 14:17)
2) In you - He comes in you at salvation to indwell, and to seal you. (John 20:22)
3) Upon you - He comes upon you to empower you for service, to be witnesses (Acts 1:8)


The Bible shows plainly that these are two seperate events.

Acts 19:1-7 is a great example of this so the separation between the two are clearly defined in the Bible.

watchinginawe
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:05 PM
Charismatics tend in my experience to want to separate what happens at salvation from the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit". At least that's what I've been told by the few I have known in my lifetime.:yes: I agree. Most pentecostals (I could use "Bible Believers", or whatever label I wanted to better frame my opinion ;)) believe that Holy Spirit baptism is a subsequent work of grace in the walk of the Christian. Continuing or further grace for the Christian is part of the Gospel message IMO. Setting aside tongues and any other controversial manifestation of the Spirit, I think most everyone agrees that we don't receive one and only one download of everything that the Lord has in store for us at the moment of salvation. We aren't beamed up to heaven and for most of us we still face a life in this world as Christians. We start off as babes born full of new life; but also with a dependance on our new Father to come to full maturity. In that process, we receive what we will receive for our growth in the same way we receive God's grace for salvation.

What gets me about this topic is the "I will not seek nor will I accept" attitude of many believers. Perhaps some base that response on scripture.
I don't find it to be biblically sound though.Voila! Just like I proposed! :lol:

Scripturally, I believe more twists and turns to scripture are offered in discounting Holy Spirit baptism than supporting it. :hmm: Said another way, those who discount a subsequent Holy Spirit baptism always start at the same place as those who believe in a subsequent Holy Spirit baptism. That agreement is that Holy Spirit baptism plays a prominent role in scripture and in the first century Church as recorded in the Book of Acts. In other words, Holy Spirit baptism is certainly scriptural. The discussion always centers around whether this "subsided" after the deaths of the original Apostles or not. Others suggest that the Book of Acts should not be employed in doctrine. Still others say that the scriptural accounts of Holy Spirit baptism "waned" as the Church was established as shown in Acts. However, the last recorded incident of Holy Spirit baptism occurred just after the last recorded incident of water baptism. ;)

Acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
...
8 And there was great joy in that city.
...
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

We see in the above that the Gospel was preached (v. 5) and the people at the revival had received the word of God (v. 14)! They were also baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (v. 16).

But there is an expectation for those who had received the word of God to subsequently receive the Holy Ghost (v. 15).

There is a lot here to be discerned about the Holy Ghost, but we will just leave it as scriptural support for subsequent baptism of the Holy Ghost. For when the Apostles were come down, we see:

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

We see why maybe the revival was hindered and required the Apostles' presence. There was one attending named Simon whose heart wasn't right regarding power:

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

The point I would like to make about the above account of Simon is contained in verse 20. What is the "gift of God" that Peter talks about? Is it salvation that he is referring to or something else? This is a fine point but gets to the heart of the matter.

Is there a gift of God that is not received of us? Do we have a "I will not seek nor will I accept" attitude towards anything after salvation?

Anyway, the scripture supports Holy Spirit Baptism. The question is does the scripture support a different way now than then.

God Bless!

Veretax
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:22 PM
I'm sorry if you have a problem with the label "Charismatic" I didn't give them that label they claim that label for themselves. Frankly I take exception to it because I am of the belief that at salvation each of us is given Spiritual Gifts (the word from which Charismatic comes from btw).

One and only one download? I've never heard anything like that before, where is this found in scripture? (never heard the phrase beamed up to heaven either.)




<img src="images/aux-s/18yes.gif" border="0" alt="" title="yes" smilieid="61" class="inlineimg" /> I agree. Most pentecostals (I could use &quot;Bible Believers&quot;, or whatever label I wanted to better frame my opinion <img src="images/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" smilieid="5" class="inlineimg" />) believe that Holy Spirit baptism is a subsequent work of grace in the walk of the Christian. Continuing or further grace for the Christian is part of the Gospel message IMO. Setting aside tongues and any other controversial manifestation of the Spirit, I think most everyone agrees that we don't receive one and only one download of everything that the Lord has in store for us at the moment of salvation. We aren't beamed up to heaven and for most of us we still face a life in this world as Christians. We start off as babes born full of new life; but also with a dependance on our new Father to come to full maturity. In that process, we receive what we will receive for our growth in the same way we receive God's grace for salvation.<br />
<br />
What gets me about this topic is the &quot;I will not seek nor will I accept&quot; attitude of many believers. Perhaps some base that response on scripture. Voila! Just like I proposed! <img src="images/smilies/lol.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Laugh out Loud" smilieid="22" class="inlineimg" /> <br />
<br />
Scripturally, I believe more twists and turns to scripture are offered in discounting Holy Spirit baptism than supporting it. <img src="images/smilies/scratch_chin.gif" border="0" alt="" title="hmm" smilieid="16" class="inlineimg" /> Said another way, those who discount a subsequent Holy Spirit baptism always start at the same place as those who believe in a subsequent Holy Spirit baptism. That agreement is that Holy Spirit baptism plays a prominent role in scripture and in the first century Church as recorded in the Book of Acts. In other words, Holy Spirit baptism is certainly scriptural. The discussion always centers around whether this &quot;subsided&quot; after the deaths of the original Apostles or not. Others suggest the the Book of Acts should not be employed in doctrine. Still others say that the scriptural accounts of Holy Spirit baptism &quot;waned&quot; as the Church was established as shown in Acts. However, the last recorded incident of Holy Spirit baptism occurred just after the last recorded incident of water baptism. <img src="images/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" smilieid="5" class="inlineimg" /><br />
<br />
<font color="blue">Acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. </font><br />
<font color="blue">...</font><br />
<font color="blue">8 And there was great joy in that city. </font><br />
<font color="blue">...</font><br />
<font color="blue">14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: </font><br />
<br />
<font color="blue">15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: </font><br />
<br />
<font color="blue">16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) </font><br />
<br />
<font color="black">We see in the above that the Gospel was preached (v. 5) and the people at the revival had received the word of God (v. 14)! They were also baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (v. 16).</font><br />
<br />
But there is an expectation for those who had received the word of God to subsequently receive the Holy Ghost (v. 15).<br />
<br />
There is a lot here to be discerned about the Holy Ghost, but we will just leave it as scriptural support for subsequent baptism of the Holy Ghost. For when the Apostles were come down, we see:<br />
<br />
<font color="blue">17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.</font> <br />
<br />
<font color="black">We see why maybe the revival was hindered and required the Apostles' presence. There was one attending named Simon whose heart wasn't right regarding power:</font><br />
<br />
<font color="blue">18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, </font><br />
<br />
<font color="blue">19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. </font><br />
<br />
<font color="blue">20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.</font><br />
<br />
<font color="black">The point I would like to make about the above account of Simon is contained in verse 20. What is the &quot;gift of God&quot; that Peter talks about? Is it salvation that he is referring to or something else? This is a fine point but gets to the heart of the matter. </font><br />
<br />
<font color="black">Is there a gift of God that is not received of us? Do we have a &quot;I will not seek nor will I accept&quot; attitude towards anything after salvation?</font><br />
<br />
Anyway, the scripture supports Holy Spirit Baptism. The question is does the scripture support a different way now than then.<br />
<br />
God Bless!<br />
<br />


Simon Magus. You know they made a movie about that fellow, i saw it once a while ago, not certain how factual it was, but my understanding was this fellow saw the marvelous works of the apostles, and he wanted the power they had, why (he was a magician by trade), but peter rebuked him for it. It sounds to me like the man was not saved judging based on the account.

I somewhat agree, I believe the "baptism of the holy spirit" (btw what does baptism mean if to be immersed......thus baptism of the holy spirit is to be immersed in the spirit, or as Paul said to be filled/full?) I believe this happens at the moment of Salvation, and I also believe that at that moment we have access to all of the gifts (spiritual) that God decided we needed. I don't believe he gives a new, or another new, or a repeat of these gifts, although as we grow we may learn how to use the gifts we were given initially better. (I've read that some people may not use a gift because they don't recognize they have it, but I'm not sure how scriptural that is.)

watchinginawe
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:50 PM
One and only one download? I've never heard anything like that before, where is this found in scripture? (never heard the phrase beamed up to heaven either.) Is it your suggestion that I was offering those comments as being scriptural? :dunno: I hope you aren't disagreeing with me just to disagree.
... I believe the "baptism of the holy spirit" (btw what does baptism mean if to be immersed......thus baptism of the holy spirit is to be immersed in the spirit, or as Paul said to be filled/full?) I believe this happens at the moment of Salvation, and I also believe that at that moment we have access to all of the gifts (spiritual) that God decided we needed. I don't believe he gives a new, or another new, or a repeat of these gifts, although as we grow we may learn how to use the gifts we were given initially better. (I've read that some people may not use a gift because they don't recognize they have it, but I'm not sure how scriptural that is.)Your original point was that you didn't believe that subsequent Holy Spirit baptism was scriptural. I think my post addresses that issue scripturally. Do you believe that the Samaritans in the scripture I offered received Salvation by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles? Or were they already saved and baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; and then they received a subsequent "gift of God"? Or do you think the events recorded in the 8th Chapter of Acts were a special circumstance? I'm not sure what you suggest in regards to the scriptural example I offered.

I will lay it out a little clearer. You suggested:
Charismatics tend in my experience to want to separate what happens at salvation from the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit".
...
I don't find it to be biblically sound though.So, for the folks in Chapter 8 of Acts, was there a separation of events? If not, are you suggesting that those that received the word of God and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus were not yet saved? Were they saved when they received the Holy Ghost? :hmm: If the later, isn't that still a "separation of events"?

God Bless!

threebigrocks
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:53 PM
Matthew 25
14"For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. 15"To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.
16"Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents.
17"In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more.
18"But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
19"Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them.
20"The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, 'Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.'
21"His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
22"Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, 'Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.'
23"His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
24"And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25'And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.'
26"But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
27'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.
28'Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.'
29"For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
30"Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Faithfulness, increase of faith. If we are proven faithful with little, we will be given more. It's the same faith, but the fruits give increase. Same Spirit.



That's all I have to say about that. ;)

watchinginawe
Dec 22nd 2008, 04:05 PM
Faithfulness, increase of faith. If we are proven faithful with little, we will be given more. It's the same faith, but the fruits give increase. Same Spirit.

That's all I have to say about that. ;)Well, you've said a good thing!

We should simply be willing vessels to receive what is given. Indeed, in verse 28, more talents are given to the one that was initially given ten.

God Bless!

IamBill
Dec 22nd 2008, 04:20 PM
:)
I don't know much about all the isums, ites, these-ums, those-ums and all the other divisions people talk about(nor interested).

But I do know that Two, Very distinct things happened to me that day, I was all alone, I didn't know anything about any of this.
From what I have read over the years, not many experience it the way I did. I come to realize that it was very distinct 'for me' so that years later *I* would KNOW that(EDIT: when introduced to these phrases/questions) I was indeed Baptized by the Holy Spirit, and I was then Indeed Re-Born.

They were two Very physically distinct events.

IF 'tongues' were involved, I didn't hear them. and if the terms I use are off, I'm sorry, they are descriptive of things indescribable.
:pp

Veretax
Dec 22nd 2008, 04:47 PM
Is it your suggestion that I was offering those comments as being scriptural? I hope you aren't disagreeing with me just to disagree.


No I'm not disagreeing just to disagree. I thought you were making that point, am I wrong on that?




Your original point was that you didn't believe that subsequent Holy Spirit baptism was scriptural. I think my post addresses that issue scripturally. Do you believe that the Samiritans in the scripture I offered received Salvation by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles? Or were they already saved and baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; and then they received a subsequent "gift of God"? Or do you think the events recorded in the 8th Chapter of Acts were a special circumstance? I'm not sure what you suggest in regards to the scriptural example I offered.



Okay your referring to what happened in Acts 8, and yes it did seem that the Holy Spirit came upon them when their hands were laid upon them. The question then is, why did they not already have the Holy Spirit?

12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.


14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.


So no I'm not disputing with you that it came in this case by the laying on of Hands. There is indeed a separation between the two events, and we know because of Simon Magus that they were said to have believed. (Aside: what I was wondering before I reread this passage in acts A was was whether they were baptized only in the name of Jesus, not of God or the Holy Spirit as the great commission commands, if that had something to do with it, but the passage here, does not give that indication so my inclination was wrong on that passage before I read it...) I kept reading though. In the next chapter what happened? Saul is confronted by Christ on the road to Damascus, and as we know he was blinded. God Sent Ananias to heal him and then the following happened:

17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. 19 So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus. 20 Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God


Now, we know from earlier that Paul saw him in a vision coming to lay hands on him, and the greek phrase is identical to the one in chapter 8. So in this case hands were laid on paul Before he was baptized (by water presumably), but its interesting, he Immediately was preaching Christ in the synagogues after this. So here's the puzzler, did Saul/Paul believe before he was healed? Its not clear from acts when the belief happened, but clearly he was baptized because he believed, so I'd have to think that even before hands were laid on him, that he believed. This would seem consistent with what happened in chapter 8 they believed and were baptized, but the Holy Spirit did not come upon them until peter laid hands on them.


However, acts has many more chapters yet, and if you turn to chapter 10 you read about Cornelius, and this nugget Comes out:

Acts 10:44-47

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.








I will lay it out a little clearer. You suggested:So, for the folks in Chapter 8 of Acts, was there a separation of events? If not, are you suggesting that those that received the word of God and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus were not yet saved? Were they saved when they received the Holy Ghost? If the later, isn't that still a "separation of events"?

God Bless!


In this case the Holy Spirit fell onto these gentiles as Peter Spoke (before he had the chance to lay hands on them). thus Peter said 47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

So given that this happened after chapters 8 and 9, I have to believe that the Holy Spirit of God is poured out when God wants to pour it out onto men.

IN Chapter 11 peter is confronted about going into the uncircumcized and as he explains what happens here is how he testified:

Acts 11:15-18

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" 18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life."


I find it interesting that Peter says that they received the Holy Spirit when they belieevd on the Lord Jesus Christ. I can't help but wonder, if what peter is saying is that simple, why was the laying on of hands necessary at all? 11 Continues describing more of the dispersion because of persecution and how the Word spread to Antioch, and a great number were saved there, and Barnabus was sent and encouraged by it. In this case it sounds like that the Spirit was now starting to spreadd on its own without the Apostles having to be involved. I don't have time to completely review acts this morning, but Peter says they received the Holy Spirit when they believed.

In other words, Peter Recognized that this was of God that the gentiles received the Holy Spirit. A quick read into chapter 16, and you don't see any specifics of particular conversions as things begin to happen around and Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, but ultimately It is interesting that the people with cornelius believed as Peter spoke the truth, and when they believed they received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (the sign gift that God's Spirit had fallen upon the gentiles)

Veretax
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:04 PM
Matthew 25
14"For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. 15"To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.
16"Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents.
17"In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more.
18"But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
19"Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them.
20"The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, 'Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.'
21"His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
22"Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, 'Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.'
23"His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
24"And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25'And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.'
26"But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
27'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.
28'Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.'
29"For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
30"Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Faithfulness, increase of faith. If we are proven faithful with little, we will be given more. It's the same faith, but the fruits give increase. Same Spirit.



That's all I have to say about that. ;)

This is an area that I've pondered recently. A talent was a measure of currency back in Christ's day was it not? But to us in english, it could also mean a talent, like for playing an instrument, or using a tool or some other style of craft. I think there was a thread a month or so ago about the difference between Talents and Spiritual Gifts.

What's interesting from this parable, is we only hear about the increase of the talents that came when these servants invested their talents. We don't know what each servant did, except for the wicked one, and the master seems more concerned with their increase that they earned while he was gone then how they did it.

It also doesn't sound like the master (presumably God/Christ) gave them more talents but that they earned them by using them, thus in essence doubling their portion. except for the wicked servant that is who refused to use it, and what happened? that Talent was taken away from him and given to the one with ten right? I'm not so sure that I'd apply this to the baptism of the Holy spirit, nor am I sure that it is even referring to spiritual gifts. What is clear is that these servants knew what they were given, and some went and used it to gain an increase and some refused.


So before you can apply this as you are about the baptism of the holy spirit you have to know whether there is a difference between talents and spiritual gifts. I'm of the belief that there is a difference, but I'm open to the possibility that there is a difference. Of course even inferring this as talents as in the sense I describe could be in error given that it may only be referring to the investing of money (money = talent).

What do the rest of you think on this?

watchinginawe
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:18 PM
No I'm not disagreeing just to disagree. I thought you were making that point, am I wrong on that?I am sure the fault is mine, but I am really surprised that the point I was making is really that obscure.
Okay your referring to what happened in Acts 8, and yes it did seem that the Holy Spirit came upon them when their hands were laid upon them. The question then is, why did they not already have the Holy Spirit?
...
So no I'm not disputing with you that it came in this case by the laying on of Hands. There is indeed a separation between the two events, and we know because of Simon Magus that they were said to have believed. (Aside: what I was wondering before I reread this passage in acts A was was whether they were baptized only in the name of Jesus, not of God or the Holy Spirit as the great commission commands, if that had something to do with it, but the passage here, does not give that indication so my inclination was wrong on that passage before I read it...)I think you agree then that there is scripture regarding this.
I kept reading though. In the next chapter what happened? Saul is confronted by Christ on the road to Damascus, and as we know he was blinded. God Sent Ananias to heal him and then the following happened:
...
So here's the puzzler, did Saul/Paul believe before he was healed? Its not clear from acts when the belief happened, but clearly he was baptized because he believed, so I'd have to think that even before hands were laid on him, that he believed. This would seem consistent with what happened in chapter 8 they believed and were baptized, but the Holy Spirit did not come upon them until peter laid hands on them.We do know what Paul asked of the disciples in Ephesus though:

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

We could say that verse 2 suggests "since you are believers", or "when you believed", etc. But I don't think their belief was in question here, so "since" was probably a good translation of the events. Anyway, Paul thought it important to ask.
So given that this happened after chapters 8 and 9, I have to believe that the Holy Spirit of God is poured out when God wants to pour it out onto men. :yes: For sure. I will leave it at that. Great point! We can probably add to that "how" as well.

I am out of time and must go. You bring up a lot of good points and ask a lot of good questions in your post and maybe some of these will be covered.

God Bless!

Veretax
Dec 22nd 2008, 06:51 PM
I am sure the fault is mine, but I am really surprised that the point I was making is really that obscure.I think you agree then that there is scripture regarding this.We do know what Paul asked of the disciples in Ephesus though:

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

We could say that verse 2 suggests "since you are believers", or "when you believed", etc. But I don't think their belief was in question here, so "since" was probably a good translation of the events. Anyway, Paul thought it important to ask.:yes: For sure. I will leave it at that. Great point! We can probably add to that "how" as well.

I am out of time and must go. You bring up a lot of good points and ask a lot of good questions in your post and maybe some of these will be covered.

God Bless!

Yeah I remember that in acts 19 (having just read it.). Paul doesn't specify what it was they believed in this passage though Going back to 18 it seems that these jews who believed in Apollos message did so before He had an awareness of Christ. At least that's what I would inferred. I believe similar things happened to some closer to Israel not long after pentecost, they may have believed in John's Baptism but had not believed yet in Christ.

So I go back to what was John the Baptist Preaching? He was preaching making the way straight for the Lord for the Kingdom of Heaven was coming as I recall. So when Paul came to ephesus he encountered some of these who had believed on the news that Apollos preached.


Acts 19 1-7

1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.

Paul in essence proclaimed that the Messiah: Christ Jesus had come, and then baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus.


Now here's a side note. I recall from other ordination services that when a pastor or a deacon etc is called that the elders would "lay hands" on them and pray over them, but I'm curious, what was the prescription for laying on hands? As I've witnessed quite a few baptisms administered by a Pastor of late, it seems that the pastor has to grab hold of the person in order to immerse them. So my question is whether the laying on the hands and baptizing are separate or not. I don't have an answer there, because aside from events that I mention in the first line of this paragraph, I've not seen much "laying on of the hands."

reformedct
Dec 22nd 2008, 06:55 PM
i guess basically what im asking is if there are two types of christians:

the plain, common Christian

and the Baptised Christian 2.0 hahaa

or is it the same Spirit but different manifestations of power?

also i dont think being baptised in the holy spirit only means speaking in toungues. some people in acts began to prophecy and other things

Slug1
Dec 22nd 2008, 07:04 PM
So my question is whether the laying on the hands and baptizing are separate or not. I don't have an answer there, because aside from events that I mention in the first line of this paragraph, I've not seen much "laying on of the hands."Last summer in June we had baptisms for our chruch. About 28 were baptised in a pool that day. One to be baptised that day was the 8 year old daughter of a friend of mine. Then about 2 months later we had a visiting prophet come to our church and she was led to pray over this child and lay on hands and together that prayed. The child was Baptised in the Holy Spirit and I watched and listened to this child lay on the floor and speak in tongues for about 45 minutes. Another child was selected by God to be a translator of parts that she was speaking and they were direction for our youth in the church.

Based on scripture and my personal witnessing of both water baptism and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit they are two separate events.

edit: and there isn't any particular order as we see it's faith in God that saves us in the example with Cornelious, his family, and his friends. They received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit before their water Baptism which clinched if for Peter that not "only" Jews were children of God.

Just_Another_Guy
Dec 22nd 2008, 07:17 PM
hey guys, i just had a question that has been kinda bugging me that im lookin for answers on

ok basically concerning baptism of the Holy Spirit

were the disciples of Jesus (not including Judas) already born again by the Spirit? did they already have the indwelling Spirit? or did the Spirit just reveal things to them somehow?

And when they tarried in Acts and began to speak in toungues,

was this their first time being baptized and recieving the Spirit, or did they already have it and it just manifested itself more strongly?


And finally, how does this all relate to the church today? i find it interesting, there was a passage in Acts where Paul came across some believers and asked them had they recieved the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and then they said they never heard of it and he prayed over them and they spoke in toungues.

So how does this work for us today? Are all believers baptised by the Spirit when they are born again? or do they get saved but then there is another experience of pouring out the Spirit in them? or when they get saved do they just have a little of the SPirit and then later on they get filled?


Please provide scripture if you know any

it would be interesting to hear from someone with the reformed view such as mine, because even i admit i do not understand this.

I think Jesus breathed on the apostles and said recieve the Spirit, but then told them to tarry and he would send the Comforter.

please help out thanks!

I think the spirit had always been present within the disciples..but I think they were in a sleeping state before the resurrection. I think this is why Paul states in his epistle.."arise sleeping Christ." as the spirit itself is eternal and not limited to time, thus it has always been present even within Old Testament prophets. Think of this verse..

John 6:44-45
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me."

Now think about what Jesus stated to each of the disciples..he actually specifically called them by stating "follow me."

So if the disciples didn't have the spirit within them, they wouldn't have followed him. One could say that they weren't entirely in an enlightened state yet until after his death..when God completely awakened the spirit within him.

Just_Another_Guy
Dec 22nd 2008, 07:29 PM
i guess basically what im asking is if there are two types of christians:

the plain, common Christian

and the Baptised Christian 2.0 hahaa

or is it the same Spirit but different manifestations of power?

also i dont think being baptised in the holy spirit only means speaking in toungues. some people in acts began to prophecy and other things

Do you mean water baptism? If that's what you mean, than I would say that the water baptism itself doesn't do much..it's more of a symbol. If men were truly filled with the spirit by water baptism then John the baptist would have been enough to save everyone.

So we can be renewed or awakened with the spirit at any point in our lives.

note: Not trying to get in any argument about the necessity of water baptism...if you want to talk about that there are plenty of other threads..

godsgirl
Dec 23rd 2008, 02:16 AM
I'm basically confused when looking at this from the charismatic perspective. Are you saying that this baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is not the same as the baptism of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues?
How many different baptisms of the Holy Spirit are there? That's what I'm confused about. :)


Yes, I am saying that being(baptised) into the body of Christ-which is what 1 Corinthians 12:13 is speaking of is quite different than being baptised in the Holy Spirit which is what Acts 2:4 is talking about.
1. We are baptised BY the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:13

Jesus is the One who baptises In the Spirit....Mark 1;7

watchinginawe
Dec 23rd 2008, 02:03 PM
Yeah I remember that in acts 19 (having just read it.). Paul doesn't specify what it was they believed in this passage though Going back to 18 it seems that these jews who believed in Apollos message did so before He had an awareness of Christ. At least that's what I would inferred. I believe similar things happened to some closer to Israel not long after pentecost, they may have believed in John's Baptism but had not believed yet in Christ. I like how you looked back to Chapter 18 to see how 19 is set up. You are exactly right there IMO.

But these were disciples of Christ IMO. Apollos preached Christ and was fervent in the spirit but only knew to baptize with John's baptism. Apollos taught diligently the things of the Lord:

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
...
Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Spiritual instruction is prevalent in Paul's epistles so it is no surprise that the Apostle begins assessing these disciples and where they are Spiritually.
Now here's a side note. I recall from other ordination services that when a pastor or a deacon etc is called that the elders would "lay hands" on them and pray over them, but I'm curious, what was the prescription for laying on hands? As I've witnessed quite a few baptisms administered by a Pastor of late, it seems that the pastor has to grab hold of the person in order to immerse them. So my question is whether the laying on the hands and baptizing are separate or not. I don't have an answer there, because aside from events that I mention in the first line of this paragraph, I've not seen much "laying on of the hands." The laying on of hands goes back even to the Old Testament. It is a gesture of conferment. I like your suggestion regarding baptism, so instead of saying they are separate events I will just add that laying on of hands can be additional and subsequent events to baptism.

Here are two passages of scripture regarding the laying on of hands to ministers. Notice though that man confers nothing in this:

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

We also have this from Paul to Timothy (see verse 6):

II Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

3 I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;

4 Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy;

5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
...
II Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

God Bless!

Veretax
Dec 23rd 2008, 02:11 PM
I like how you looked back to Chapter 18 to see how 19 is set up. You are exactly right there IMO.

But these were disciples of Christ IMO. Apollos preached Christ and was fervent in the spirit but only knew to baptize with John's baptism. Apollos taught diligently the things of the Lord:

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
...
Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Spiritual instruction is prevalent in Paul's epistles so it is no surprise that the Apostle begins assessing these disciples and where they are Spiritually. The laying on of hands goes back even to the Old Testament. It is a way of conferment. I like your suggestion regarding baptism, so instead of saying they are separate events I will just add that laying on of hands can be additional and subsequent events to baptism.

Here are two passages of scripture regarding the laying on of hands to ministers. Notice though that man confers nothing in this:

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

We also have this from Paul to Timothy (see verse 6):

II Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

3 I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;

4 Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy;

5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
...
II Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

God Bless!



Right, sorry, didn't mean to infer that baptism and laying of the hands were or were not the same thing, I'm just curious why it was that some did not receive the baptism until peter came (Phillip I think it was who spoke), but not by Phillip. In the case of Cornellius the Baptism happened before Peter got a Chance to finish what he was saying and then lay hands on them as had happened prior. Clearly this is of God I'm not denying that fact. What I am curious about though is why laying on of hands is not done for new converts as it was in the days of the apostles. Unless and this could be my problem, that I don't have a proper understanding or picture of what laying on hands means. Admittedly its not a passage I've put much thought into recently.

godsgirl
Dec 24th 2008, 12:28 PM
Laying on of hands is a point of contact-but it is not a necessary part of being touched by God. Jesus is the One who baptises in the Spirit-not us.

Butch5
Dec 24th 2008, 11:06 PM
That verse is very plain-by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body.

The Holy Spirit places us into the body of Christ at the moment of salvation.
I don't understand your confusion.

The Holy Spirit baptises us into the Body The Holy Spirit is our baptiser and the body of Christ is the element.
Jesus baptises us in the Holy Spirit,, Jesus is our baptiser and the Holy Spirit is the element.
We are baptised in water--another Christian is our baptiser and water is the element.

and yes, He is the One who called the baptism in the Spirit "the Promise of the Father-in Acts 1, and Luke 24:49

Hi GG,

The promise was made to the disciples, how do you connect it to all Christians?

Butch5
Dec 24th 2008, 11:24 PM
i guess basically what im asking is if there are two types of christians:

the plain, common Christian

and the Baptised Christian 2.0 hahaa

or is it the same Spirit but different manifestations of power?

also i dont think being baptised in the holy spirit only means speaking in toungues. some people in acts began to prophecy and other things

Reformed,

The gifts from pentecost are no longer given to Christians today. Now, that is not to say that God doesn't use them today, but they are not regularly distributed.
consider what Paul said,


1 Corinthians 13:8-13 ( KJV ) 8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Most of the supernatural gifts fell under two categories, either knowledge or utterance (spoken). Notice Paul says that prophesies will fail, tongues will cease, and knowledge will vanish away. This covers pretty much all of the supernatural gifts. They all ended. Paul contrasts these with three that remain, faith, hope, and love. Paul says the first group ends and the second group remains. We receive the Spirit when we are baptized, if God chooses to manifest the Spirit in some way, He is more than capable, however this is not the norm.

Slug1
Dec 25th 2008, 04:09 AM
Reformed,

The gifts from pentecost are no longer given to Christians today. Now, that is not to say that God doesn't use them today, but they are not regularly distributed.
consider what Paul said,


1 Corinthians 13:8-13 ( KJV ) 8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Most of the supernatural gifts fell under two categories, either knowledge or utterance (spoken). Notice Paul says that prophesies will fail, tongues will cease, and knowledge will vanish away. This covers pretty much all of the supernatural gifts. They all ended. Paul contrasts these with three that remain, faith, hope, and love. Paul says the first group ends and the second group remains. We receive the Spirit when we are baptized, if God chooses to manifest the Spirit in some way, He is more than capable, however this is not the norm.You forgot to bold v10 which hasn't happened yet... so v8-9 haven't happened (vanished) yet... so we still are given knowledge, tongues, and prophecy in part until v10 happens.

Now Jesus said: John 14:12 " I assure you: The one who believes in Me will also do the works that I do. And he will do even greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.

So how are we to do "greater" works then Jesus Christ if what Paul said means what you said it means? Plus what is "greater" that we haven't already seen revealed in the Bible? There are a few times the apostles are told not to write what they were told/informed/saw. So, we have no idea what that covers so we don't know all that God will have us do or know. Unless at the proper time He begins to reveal this information to us through Words of Knowledge or through prophets.

Yukerboy
Dec 25th 2008, 04:34 AM
You forgot to bold v10 which hasn't happened yet... so v8-9 haven't happened (vanished) yet... so we still are given knowledge, tongues, and prophecy in part until v10 happens.

I must have missed the tongues in part being mentioned in the scripture. Knowledge, I see in part, prophecy I see in part. No tongues.


Now Jesus said: John 14:12 " I assure you: The one who believes in Me will also do the works that I do. And he will do even greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.

So how are we to do "greater" works then Jesus Christ if what Paul said means what you said it means?

Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Works is a result of faith.

Did Christ see what we are certain of? If so, then there was no faith. Christ had love. He labored in love. However, he could not have faith or hope, for he has seen the tangible results of those.

Butch5
Dec 25th 2008, 05:40 AM
You forgot to bold v10 which hasn't happened yet... so v8-9 haven't happened (vanished) yet... so we still are given knowledge, tongues, and prophecy in part until v10 happens.

Now Jesus said: John 14:12 " I assure you: The one who believes in Me will also do the works that I do. And he will do even greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.

So how are we to do "greater" works then Jesus Christ if what Paul said means what you said it means? Plus what is "greater" that we haven't already seen revealed in the Bible? There are a few times the apostles are told not to write what they were told/informed/saw. So, we have no idea what that covers so we don't know all that God will have us do or know. Unless at the proper time He begins to reveal this information to us through Words of Knowledge or through prophets.

Verse 10 hasn't happened yet? What is verse 10?

Veretax
Dec 25th 2008, 02:51 PM
Verse 10 hasn't happened yet? What is verse 10?


Verse 10 is talking about that when which is perfect shall come.

Now, I have always believed that this is talking about the completion of the bible. When the bible was completed there would be no further need for new revelation from God.

However, I have heard the argument recently that this could be referring to God's perfect judgment on Jerusalem, and it may have merit being considered also. It may have been referencing the coming destruction of the Temple. We know from Joel that they were told that they (israel) was ignoring the word brought by the prophets, so Joel prophesied that God would bring his word in a tongue they did not understand and still they would not believe.

Paul points out that Tongues are a sign to the unbeliever, but specifically it was a sign to Israel. It was a sign of the coming judgment as prophesied by Joel and Christ spoke before he was crucified. After the Judgment came on Jerusalem the need for Tongues as the sign of God's coming judgment would cease. Now it also says Knowledge and prophecy would fail and vanish away, but in those two cases they are tied to this event Paul references is coming.

Butch5
Dec 25th 2008, 03:39 PM
Verse 10 is talking about that when which is perfect shall come.

Now, I have always believed that this is talking about the completion of the bible. When the bible was completed there would be no further need for new revelation from God.

However, I have heard the argument recently that this could be referring to God's perfect judgment on Jerusalem, and it may have merit being considered also. It may have been referencing the coming destruction of the Temple. We know from Joel that they were told that they (israel) was ignoring the word brought by the prophets, so Joel prophesied that God would bring his word in a tongue they did not understand and still they would not believe.


Paul points out that Tongues are a sign to the unbeliever, but specifically it was a sign to Israel. It was a sign of the coming judgment as prophesied by Joel and Christ spoke before he was crucified. After the Judgment came on Jerusalem the need for Tongues as the sign of God's coming judgment would cease. Now it also says Knowledge and prophecy would fail and vanish away, but in those two cases they are tied to this event Paul references is coming.

Hi Veretax,

Your first explanation is correct. It is the completion of the revelation. That is the context of what Paul is speaking of, notice the comparison of of his maturing from childhood to manhood. Paul is speaking of knowledge, he says when that which is perfect, or complete, or mature, is come. In other words, when the knowledge of the revelation is mature. So, when the revelation was mature prophecy, tongues and knowledge would cease, yet the other three would remain. So, the question is, has the knowledge of the revelation reached maturity? Jude answers this question.

Jude 1:3 ( KJV ) 3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

The faith was delivered in full to the saints, therefore the knowledge of the revelation is perfect,or complete, or mature. Thus verse 10 has come to pass which would then mean that the supernatural gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, have ceased. These signs were given by the laying on of the apostles hands, to show that the message they brought was truly from God.

watchinginawe
Dec 25th 2008, 11:42 PM
Consider what is in effect NOW and what THEN (the future):

I Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

So why is the greatest of these charity?

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

It had already been covered in the chapter. Love remains even after all things pass away. Now, if the perfect has already come, then faith and hope now no longer abide as they are no longer necessary. But we know that isn't true, so it is not THEN yet, and it is still NOW, and thus now abideth faith, hope, and charity.

Thus, anything done in love is the more excellent way that Paul offers as an introduction to the chapter.

God Bless!

SoldierOfChrist
Dec 25th 2008, 11:49 PM
Hi Veretax,

Your first explanation is correct. It is the completion of the revelation. That is the context of what Paul is speaking of, notice the comparison of of his maturing from childhood to manhood. Paul is speaking of knowledge, he says when that which is perfect, or complete, or mature, is come. In other words, when the knowledge of the revelation is mature. So, when the revelation was mature prophecy, tongues and knowledge would cease, yet the other three would remain. So, the question is, has the knowledge of the revelation reached maturity? Jude answers this question.

Jude 1:3 ( KJV ) 3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

The faith was delivered in full to the saints, therefore the knowledge of the revelation is perfect,or complete, or mature. Thus verse 10 has come to pass which would then mean that the supernatural gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, have ceased. These signs were given by the laying on of the apostles hands, to show that the message they brought was truly from God.

I'm always amazed that these two scriptures (1 Corinthians 13:8, Ephesians 2:20) can be taken out of context and apparently override everything that Christ said to the contrary! Every church I know that denies the Spirit uses those scriptures to support their belief. Cessationism is a weak argument supported by a couple scriptures taken out of context and completly ignoring what Christ said.

Isaiah 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Isaiah 29:14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.



Now, I have always believed that this is talking about the completion of the bible. When the bible was completed there would be no further need for new revelation from God.

Does that mean we need the Bible to save us?

It is the Spirit that saves us not the book, the book is useful for guidance and instruction but cannot save one hair on your head. You do not need the bible to be save you at all you need the spirit. It reminds me of them taking the ark to battle and losing it, as they had thought it would be the ark that would give them victory and not God.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Mark 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

Michael

divaD
Dec 26th 2008, 12:10 AM
Now, if the perfect has already
come, then faith and hope now no longer abide as they are no longer necessary. But we know that isn't true, so it is not
THEN yet, and it is still NOW, and thus now abideth faith, hope, and charity.


How do you make the connection of verse 13 with verse 10? We're already told in verse 8 that charity never faileth. So even if that which is perfect has already come, this wouldn't cause charity to fail. If that which is perfect is the completed Bible, this wouldn't cause faith nor hope to fail either, unless you want to conclude that God's completed Word doesn't cause faith and hope to remain in relation to His promises written in thereof.

watchinginawe
Dec 26th 2008, 12:43 AM
How do you make the connection of verse 13 with verse 10? We're already told in verse 8 that charity never faileth. So even if that which is perfect has already come, this wouldn't cause charity to fail.That is Paul's point: Charity never faileth. The connection of verse 13 to verse 10 is that verse 13 is a conclusion of the state of things NOW (for sure, at the time of Paul's writing; and as I beleive, even unto this day).
If that which is perfect is the completed Bible, this wouldn't cause faith nor hope to fail either, unless you want to conclude that God's completed Word doesn't cause faith and hope to remain in relation to His promises written in thereof.The flaw is assuming that "that which is perfect" is "God's completed word". I don't believe that "God's completed word" causes faith and hope to fail. I do, however, believe that they won't be needed when "that which is perfect" comes. We will then know in full. There will be no need for faith or hope.

Paul said this about hope:

Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

And Paul offers in the passage under study in I Corinthians 13:

I Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

If we yet hope, then that which is perfect hasn't come IMO, for then we will know even as also we are known.

:wave: I have a confession.

I currently, AT BEST, know in part.

God Bless!

Butch5
Dec 26th 2008, 04:20 AM
That is Paul's point: Charity never faileth. The connection of verse 13 to verse 10 is that verse 13 is a conclusion of the state of things NOW (for sure, at the time of Paul's writing; and as I beleive, even unto this day).The flaw is assuming that "that which is perfect" is "God's completed word". I don't believe that "God's completed word" causes faith and hope to fail. I do, however, believe that they won't be needed when "that which is perfect" comes. We will then know in full. There will be no need for faith or hope.

Paul said this about hope:

Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

And Paul offers in the passage under study in I Corinthians 13:

I Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

If we yet hope, then that which is perfect hasn't come IMO, for then we will know even as also we are known.

:wave: I have a confession.

I currently, AT BEST, know in part.

God Bless!

Given the context of the chapter what then, is, that which is perfect?

watchinginawe
Dec 26th 2008, 05:34 PM
Given the context of the chapter what then, is, that which is perfect?For context, we go to the start of Chapter 12 where Paul begins this passage on Spiritual instruction. These are the things that are needful UNTIL that which is perfect is come:

I Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

Paul goes on to discuss how the Spirit works in the body of Christ and that how all of us are part of one body through the Spirit. Paul also talks about the different administrations (ministries) of the Church as well. In my opinion, all that he talks about in these chapters are in effect as long as the body of Christ remains on Earth in our imperfect state.

What then is the perfect? Perfect also means complete, whole, mature, done, ended, etc. In other words, finished.

So what is "that which is perfect" that will come? That which finishes and does away entirely with the imperfect. Basically, the end. Until then, faith, hope, and charity abide as well as the instruction that Paul gives the Church while we are here.

I Corinthians 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

The word "end" in verse 24 above is the root of the word "perfect" in I Corinthians 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

God Bless!

Butch5
Dec 26th 2008, 10:57 PM
For context, we go to the start of Chapter 12 where Paul begins this passage on Spiritual instruction. These are the things that are needful UNTIL that which is perfect is come:

I Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

Paul goes on to discuss how the Spirit works in the body of Christ and that how all of us are part of one body through the Spirit. Paul also talks about the different administrations (ministries) of the Church as well. In my opinion, all that he talks about in these chapters are in effect as long as the body of Christ remains on Earth in our imperfect state.

What then is the perfect? Perfect also means complete, whole, mature, done, ended, etc. In other words, finished.

So what is "that which is perfect" that will come? That which finishes and does away entirely with the imperfect. Basically, the end. Until then, faith, hope, and charity abide as well as the instruction that Paul gives the Church while we are here.

I Corinthians 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

The word "end" in verse 24 above is the root of the word "perfect" in I Corinthians 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

God Bless!

I don't see how you draw that conclusion. We have to read all the way to chapter 15 to understand what Paul means in chapter 12? When Paul says, the gifts will end, He is discussing knowledge, not the end of time. Also, let me ask you this, the supernatural gifts were given by the laying on of the apostles hands, how could the gift continue after the death of the apostles?

watchinginawe
Dec 26th 2008, 11:44 PM
I don't see how you draw that conclusion. We have to read all the way to chapter 15 to understand what Paul means in chapter 12? When Paul says, the gifts will end, He is discussing knowledge, not the end of time.How far would you have me read to conclude that what is perfect is the canon of scripture? :dunno: I don't think Paul's mention is shrouded in mystery if one considers that "when that which is perfect is come" has not yet happened. If Paul was sitting in your living room and stated this at this moment, it would still be relevant. Paul is exactly speaking to us on this topic.
Also, let me ask you this, the supernatural gifts were given by the laying on of the apostles hands, how could the gift continue after the death of the apostles?Paul is instructing on the gifts and administrations in this passage. Paul does not offer that requirement of Apostles laying on of hands. How far do you want me to read to reach that conclusion?

Does the Spirit still exist in the believer and the body of Christ? (Please, I hope we agree. :yes:) If so, then God gives these, not apostles hands. We also know that Spiritual instruction is needed concerning the Spiritual gifts.

I Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
...
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

What you suggest for understanding of the passage, the thing that we should not be ingorant of, is that the Spiritual gifts would no longer be relevant to the believer after the last Apostle died? :dunno:

God Bless!

Veretax
Dec 27th 2008, 02:09 AM
The question becomes what is that which is perfect that is coming? I think it is short-sighted to say its a who as in Christ. It is clearly a thing. The greek interlinear I use reads something like this:


"whenever yet may-be-coming the maturity, the out of part shall be being discarded."

The word telios for which it translates maturity literally means to bring to an end or to complete, its the same word James uses in the beginning of his epistle as well. The question then is what is paul referring to? what thing could he be referring too. If it was Christ, then we would not need hope or faith at that point, because both would be realized, correct? If that's the case why not just simply say hey, when Christ returns all these which are in part will be done away with. Why would that even need to be said? Seems kind of obvious to me.



If knowledge and prophecy have not vanished away then why do we not see more prophecy and more scripture being added to the canon? Can anyone explain that to me?

Bob Carabbio
Dec 27th 2008, 04:38 AM
"were the disciples of Jesus (not including Judas) already born again by the Spirit? did they already have the indwelling Spirit? or did the Spirit just reveal things to them somehow?"

NO - before the resurrection, the Holy Spirit indwelled NOBODY, but did "come upon" folks. 1 Chr 12:
18 Then the spirit came upon Amasai, who was chief of the captains, and he said, Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be to thine helpers; for thy God helpeth thee. Then David received them, and made them captains of the band.

However Jesus told 'em: - John 14:
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.


"And when they tarried in Acts and began to speak in toungues,
was this their first time being baptized and recieving the Spirit, or did they already have it and it just manifested itself more strongly?"

The disciples received the INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit in John 20:
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

But then Jesus also told 'em to: - Luke 24:
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

So we have the disciples Indwelled by the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 (the Holy Spirit IN the Christian), and "Endued with power" in Acts 2:4 (the Holy Spirit ON the Christian).

"So how does this work for us today? Are all believers baptized by the Spirit when they are born again?"

In modern pentecostal language (AoG terminology), believers are NOT "Baptized in the Holy Spirit when they're "saved", but they ARE "indwelled".


"or do they get saved but then there is another experience of pouring out the Spirit in them?"

That would be the parallel to the Biblical account as noted above - i.e. the "enduement of power" (Baptism in the Holy Spirit) is a secondary experience.

"or when they get saved do they just have a little of the Spirit and then later on they get filled?"

Not related - when one is INDWELLED by the holy Spirit when he's "saved" he's got ALL of Him he'll ever get. The "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" is a "clothing" with power, not an indwelling. You don't even have to be particularly "spiritual" to be "Endued with power" - or even human - ask Baalam's Ass who spoke in tongues that were recognized as a human language by the Prophet, and were an accurate prophetic utterance that saved the prophet's life. Num 22:21-35. And Caiaphas Was Gifted with, and delivered a true Prophesy even as he was plotting the MURDER of God's Son.

"I think Jesus breathed on the apostles and said recieve the Spirit, but then told them to tarry and he would send the Comforter."

I don't think it was the COMFORTER that came in Acts 2:4 (HE came in John 20:22), but other than that I'd agree with your statement.

From the folks in the Reformed paradigm I've talked to, the MAJORITY view is that "nothing happened" in John 20:22 - except a "Prophesy" of what WOULD happen in Acts 2:4. I disagree.

Many in the reformed paradigm would also would consider ME delusional anyway, because I speak in tongues (and have for 35 years).

watchinginawe
Dec 27th 2008, 04:52 AM
The question becomes what is that which is perfect that is coming? I think it is short-sighted to say its a who as in Christ. It is clearly a thing. The greek interlinear I use reads something like this:

"whenever yet may-be-coming the maturity, the out of part shall be being discarded."

The word telios for which it translates maturity literally means to bring to an end or to complete, its the same word James uses in the beginning of his epistle as well. The question then is what is paul referring to? what thing could he be referring too. If it was Christ, then we would not need hope or faith at that point, because both would be realized, correct? If that's the case why not just simply say hey, when Christ returns all these which are in part will be done away with. Why would that even need to be said? Seems kind of obvious to me.The obvious is probably the right thought though. That really is Paul's point. It is not a statement shrouded in mystery, it is obvious as you suggest. Ask yourself, do we still currently know in part or do we know even as we are known? Put me down for the obvious answer.

The whole of Chapter 13 is offered as the "more excellent way".

I Corinthians 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

So Paul continues his instruction in Spiritual matters by showing a "more excellent way" regarding the exercising of Spiritual gifts. Paul exalts love above all other things. Paul is not taking the opportunity to tell the Corinthians that the Spiritual gifts would be done away with in a generation. Where is that? No, this is instruction to the Church. Read through chapter 12 and see who Paul is addressing. Paul is addressing us. So it isn't the Corinthians who verse 13:10 is addressed to only, but to the Church and even us today.
If knowledge and prophecy have not vanished away then why do we not see more prophecy and more scripture being added to the canon? Can anyone explain that to me?Regarding the canon of scripture, I simply don't see that addressed at all in the passage. Regarding why we don't see more gifts of the Spirit, I would suggest that we (the Church) are ignorant concerning Spiritual gifts.

God Bless!

godsgirl
Dec 27th 2008, 02:19 PM
Hi GG,

The promise was made to the disciples, how do you connect it to all Christians?


First of all=Jesus is our baptiser in the Spirit and He is the Same Forever, John told us-"the One who's shoes I am unworthy to unlatch, it is He who baptises in the Spirit"

Jesus called the baptism in the Spirit "the promise of the Father"--in Acts 1 and Peter said the following,

"for this promise is to you, to your children and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."


So, I connect it to all Christians because I have God's Word on it.

Butch5
Dec 27th 2008, 05:47 PM
The question becomes what is that which is perfect that is coming? I think it is short-sighted to say its a who as in Christ. It is clearly a thing. The greek interlinear I use reads something like this:


"whenever yet may-be-coming the maturity, the out of part shall be being discarded."

The word telios for which it translates maturity literally means to bring to an end or to complete, its the same word James uses in the beginning of his epistle as well. The question then is what is paul referring to? what thing could he be referring too. If it was Christ, then we would not need hope or faith at that point, because both would be realized, correct? If that's the case why not just simply say hey, when Christ returns all these which are in part will be done away with. Why would that even need to be said? Seems kind of obvious to me.



If knowledge and prophecy have not vanished away then why do we not see more prophecy and more scripture being added to the canon? Can anyone explain that to me?

You are correct, also consider,

Paul even says right there in context, now I know in part, What does he know in part?

1 Corinthians 12:27-31 ( KJV ) 27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto you a more excellent way.

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 ( KJV ) 1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.



4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.



In the end of Chapter 12 Paul lists the Spiritual gifts, both the natural and supernatural, then he says, but I will show you a better way. What is the better way? Love. Paul says that love will prevail above all of the gifts. He says, prophecies, tongues, and knowledge will cease but love will remain. Paul gives and analogy, of what He is talking about. He says we know in part and we prophesy in part, this equates to the analogy, when I was a child, I thought like a child, I understood as a child. Then he says when that which is perfect,(or mature) is come, that which is in part will be done away with. This equates to his becoming a man and putting away childish things. His being mature is that which is perfect. Likewise, that which is perfect, is his "knowing", consider his next analogy,


1 Corinthians 13:12 ( KJV ) 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Now I know in part, but then, (when? when that which is mature has come.) He says he shall be known as he is now known. So it will be so clear that he will be known as others now know him.

Butch5
Dec 27th 2008, 06:17 PM
Watchingin awe---How far would you have me read to conclude that what is perfect is the canon of scripture? :dunno: I don't think Paul's mention is shrouded in mystery if one considers that "when that which is perfect is come" has not yet happened. If Paul was sitting in your living room and stated this at this moment, it would still be relevant. Paul is exactly speaking to us on this topic.Paul is instructing on the gifts and administrations in this passage. Paul does not offer that requirement of Apostles laying on of hands. How far do you want me to read to reach that conclusion?

You need to look at it in context, This letter was written to the Corinthians, while parts of it may be applicable to you, it was not written to you. When Paul says, when that which is perfect is come. He saying that it hasn't come at the point the that He is writing. It could have come the very next day. So, no,it would not be relevant if Paul was sitting in my living room. Paul is telling them that the gifts will be done away with and that faith hope and love will continue. If you study the gifts you will see that they were given by the laying on of the apostles hands.


Watchingin awe---Does the Spirit still exist in the believer and the body of Christ? (Please, I hope we agree. :yes:) If so, then God gives these, not apostles hands. We also know that Spiritual instruction is needed concerning the Spiritual gifts.

I Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
...
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.


Then pelase explain why each man does not have these gifts. Where are the prophet of God, Where are the healers,


Watchingin awe---What you suggest for understanding of the passage, the thing that we should not be ingorant of, is that the Spiritual gifts would no longer be relevant to the believer after the last Apostle died? :dunno:

Yes, as Paul states, Phrophcies, tongues and knowledge, will cease. If these continue till Christ comes, why would, faith and hope continue after Christ returns. Paul says after Prophecies, tongues, and knowledge end, faith, hope, and love will continue. Why would we still need faith and hope when the object of our faith and hope has already been realized?

Butch5
Dec 27th 2008, 06:24 PM
Ask yourself, do we still currently know in part or do we know even as we are known? Put me down for the obvious answer.

He is not talking about you, He is writing to the Corinthians. You are taking Paul's statement out of the time context in which is was written. Paul didn't write that statement in Dec. 2008. He said we know in part, we apostles and you Corinthians know in part. When that which is perfect comes, that which is perfect could have come the very next day. However,it is clear that Paul was not talking about the end of time because He said of that which is perfect, I will know as I am known. I think we can assume from Paul's statement that He expected to know in full while he was alive. I will know, as I am known.

awestruckchild
Dec 27th 2008, 06:33 PM
:)
I don't know much about all the isums, ites, these-ums, those-ums and all the other divisions people talk about(nor interested).

But I do know that Two, Very distinct things happened to me that day, I was all alone, I didn't know anything about any of this.
From what I have read over the years, not many experience it the way I did. I come to realize that it was very distinct 'for me' so that years later *I* would KNOW that(EDIT: when introduced to these phrases/questions) I was indeed Baptized by the Holy Spirit, and I was then Indeed Re-Born.

They were two Very physically distinct events.

IF 'tongues' were involved, I didn't hear them. and if the terms I use are off, I'm sorry, they are descriptive of things indescribable.
:pp

I had a very distinct episode of receiving the Holy Spirit a few weeks after I first believed too. Is your testimony anywhere in the forum? I would like to read it.

watchinginawe
Dec 27th 2008, 07:53 PM
Ask yourself, do we still currently know in part or do we know even as we are known? Put me down for the obvious answer.

He is not talking about you, He is writing to the Corinthians. You are taking Paul's statement out of the time context in which is was written. Paul didn't write that statement in Dec. 2008.Paul addresses the body of Christ.

I Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

It is still that way 2000 years later, even in 2008; whether be Corinthians or Georgians. ;)
He said we know in part, we apostles and you Corinthians know in part.The body of Christ on earth knows in part. We wait for our perfection.
When that which is perfect comes, that which is perfect could have come the very next day.Absolutely! That which is perfect could come tomorrow morning too!
However,it is clear that Paul was not talking about the end of time because He said of that which is perfect, I will know as I am known. I think we can assume from Paul's statement that He expected to know in full while he was alive. I will know, as I am known.As I already offered, the epistle does not leave us wanting for an explanation. The "that which is perfect shall come" is covered in Chapter 15. As I offered, the greek word used in I Corinthians 15:24 "the end" is the root word of that used in I Corinthians 13:10 "that which is perfect".

I Corinthians 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
...
I Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

But there are other references also. Consider Paul's introduction of the Epistle (consider verses 7 and 8 carefully):

I Corinthians 1:1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;

5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;

6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:

7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And again in Chapter 4:

I Corinthians 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

:hmm: That one there sounds a little like "I will know, even as I am known".

The coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is the expectation of the Apostle and the Church, not some kind of temporal knowledge in this life.

God Bless!

Butch5
Dec 28th 2008, 06:47 AM
Paul addresses the body of Christ.

I Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.


It is still that way 2000 years later, even in 2008; whether be Corinthians or Georgians. ;)The body of Christ on earth knows in part. We wait for our perfection.Absolutely! That which is perfect could come tomorrow morning too!As I already offered, the epistle does not leave us wanting for an explanation. The "that which is perfect shall come" is covered in Chapter 15. As I offered, the greek word used in I Corinthians 15:24 "the end" is the root word of that used in I Corinthians 13:10 "that which is perfect".

I Corinthians 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
...
I Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

But there are other references also. Consider Paul's introduction of the Epistle (consider verses 7 and 8 carefully):

I Corinthians 1:1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;

5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;

6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:

7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And again in Chapter 4:

I Corinthians 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

:hmm: That one there sounds a little like "I will know, even as I am known".

The coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is the expectation of the Apostle and the Church, not some kind of temporal knowledge in this life.

God Bless!


Yo didn't answer the question, if Paul is talking about the end of time, when Christ returns, why would we still need faith and hope?

watchinginawe
Dec 28th 2008, 05:53 PM
Yo didn't answer the question, if Paul is talking about the end of time, when Christ returns, why would we still need faith and hope?There are varying opinions of the need for faith and hope in eternity. Regardless, Paul offers that these abide NOW. Not then.

I Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

You might have missed my previous comments regarding these and I don't think I want to ammend them so I will let them stand as they are. I believe we still are in the time where faith, hope, and charity abide.

BTW, here is another reference to the Lord's coming in this epistle (see verse 26):

I Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

The imminent return of our Lord and Saviour was expected in the first century Church as it should be still in the Church today. The instruction on the Lord's Supper written to the Church is still relevant today. The Spiritual instruction Paul also offered the Church is still relevant and gives us is a help while the Church is still not gathered.

God Bless!

LookingUp
Dec 29th 2008, 12:31 AM
hey guys, i just had a question that has been kinda bugging me that im lookin for answers on


ok basically concerning baptism of the Holy Spirit

were the disciples of Jesus (not including Judas) already born again by the Spirit? did they already have the indwelling Spirit? or did the Spirit just reveal things to them somehow?

And when they tarried in Acts and began to speak in toungues,

was this their first time being baptized and recieving the Spirit, or did they already have it and it just manifested itself more strongly?


And finally, how does this all relate to the church today? i find it interesting, there was a passage in Acts where Paul came across some believers and asked them had they recieved the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and then they said they never heard of it and he prayed over them and they spoke in toungues.

So how does this work for us today? Are all believers baptised by the Spirit when they are born again? or do they get saved but then there is another experience of pouring out the Spirit in them? or when they get saved do they just have a little of the SPirit and then later on they get filled?


Please provide scripture if you know any

it would be interesting to hear from someone with the reformed view such as mine, because even i admit i do not understand this.

I think Jesus breathed on the apostles and said recieve the Spirit, but then told them to tarry and he would send the Comforter.

please help out thanks!Hi reformedct. These are some good questions. A friend and I were just looking into some of these very things. I’m going to post some of what he shared with me and also write some of my own thoughts.

“At all times, the Holy Spirit, being a full part of the Godhead, possesses all power. But God, in His sovereign judgment, has appointed a time and season to all things, including the works of the Spirit. For example, the Spirit plays the role of the restrainer, but only for a time. He still has the power of restraint, at all times, but according to God's plan, He does not always employ this power, as evidenced in 2 Th 2.

The Spirit has many roles or works. And there is a time for each of them. One office the Spirit holds is as a convictor of sin. When dealing with a sinner, the office of convictor is the only role God uses the Spirit in. If that sinner yields to this conviction, the Spirit's time to take on a quickening role comes into play. After quickening, the Spirit dispenses spiritual gifts. It is this stage in which the Spirit acts as the Comforter. The regenerative work of salvation has already occurred by this point.”

The Spirit came “on”, “upon”, “among” and even “in” (Num. 27:18) Old Testament saints, but He did not indwell and regenerate them as He has done since the glorification of the Lord. “But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive, for the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39).

After the Lord was glorified, John 20:22 tells us the following, “…He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” I see no reason it is not possible that these disciples were regenerated (born again) at this time, since the Lord was glorified. This would be the Holy Spirit doing the work of regeneration – the point at which the believer is baptized by the Holy Spirit, not the point at which the believer is baptized by Jesus with the Holy Spirit (described below).

We are told that the Comforter (Holy Spirit doing work as Comforter) would not come until the Lord went away. “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper (Comforter) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you” (John 16:7). Did the Lord “send” the Comforter when He breathed on His disciples? Had he gone away yet at which point they no longer saw Him (John 6:10)? I answer “no” to both of those questions, therefore I do not think He “sent” the Comforter in John 20:22. This is what the Lord had to say about the Comforter in Acts 1, “Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, ‘Which,’ He said, ‘you heard of from Me, for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.’ …you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

I have often wondered if there is a difference between baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and baptism by Jesus with the Holy Spirit.

He will baptize you WITH the Holy Spirit. (Mt 1:8)
You will be baptized WITH the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5) [by Jesus]
You will be baptized WITH the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16) [by Jesus]

By the Spirit we are baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13)
For all who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ (Gal. 3:27)

In the first three, it is the Lord who does the baptizing and in the other, it is the Spirit who does the baptizing. The first three do not mention being baptized “into” as the other two.

Baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ is perhaps when the Spirit baptizes one into His death & resurrection (regeneration). Baptism by Jesus with the Holy Spirit is perhaps the moment He sends the Comforter dispensing spiritual gifts. It appears the two can take place with one immediately following the other or with the baptism with the HS not following at all (I’ll explain more below).

I am not convinced that the Lord is still baptizing believers with the Holy Spirit even if we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ. Or, at the most, we still receive the Comforter (baptized with the HS), but not to the degree they did in the 1st century. First of all, the events at Pentecost were unique to any other time that we know of. It was clearly (imo) a Jewish experience. After that, we see that they could be baptized by the Holy Spirit (regenerated) without having been baptized with the Comforter (Acts 8:12, 15, 17). “For He had not fallen on them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Well, if they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, we know that they were regenerated, yet we are told the HS had not yet fallen on them that they might receive the HS (Comforter).

And look at the account of Paul’s conversion. Surely, Paul did not lack faith for the entire three days of his physical blindness. The Spirit must have done His regenerative work when Paul came to faith. Yet, the Holy Spirit did not fill Paul until three days after his encounter with the Lord (Acts 9:17). This must have been the time the Comforter was given to him.

Acts 19 also shows us that baptism by the Holy Spirit is a distinct event from baptism with the Holy Spirit. Vs. 5 tells us they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Vs. 6 says, “and when Paul had laid his hand upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them…”

It is an ongoing debate of whether the gifts are still operative like they once were in the 1st century. So far, it seems clear that baptism by Jesus with the Holy Spirit is the point at which the Spirit dispenses gifts, which can take place long after baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ (born again/regeneration) or not at all.

Butch5
Dec 29th 2008, 04:19 PM
There are varying opinions of the need for faith and hope in eternity. Regardless, Paul offers that these abide NOW. Not then.

I Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

You might have missed my previous comments regarding these and I don't think I want to ammend them so I will let them stand as they are. I believe we still are in the time where faith, hope, and charity abide.

BTW, here is another reference to the Lord's coming in this epistle (see verse 26):

I Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

The imminent return of our Lord and Saviour was expected in the first century Church as it should be still in the Church today. The instruction on the Lord's Supper written to the Church is still relevant today. The Spiritual instruction Paul also offered the Church is still relevant and gives us is a help while the Church is still not gathered.

God Bless!

Well, have at it. If you want to believe that the supernatural gifts are still being given, you can. I think Paul makes it quite clear that they have ended. Especially since they were distributed by the laying on of the apostles hands, and there are no apostles today.

Veretax
Dec 29th 2008, 07:35 PM
Hi reformedct. These are some good questions. A friend and I were just looking into some of these very things. I’m going to post some of what he shared with me and also write some of my own thoughts.

“At all times, the Holy Spirit, being a full part of the Godhead, possesses all power. But God, in His sovereign judgment, has appointed a time and season to all things, including the works of the Spirit. For example, the Spirit plays the role of the restrainer, but only for a time. He still has the power of restraint, at all times, but according to God's plan, He does not always employ this power, as evidenced in 2 Th 2.

The Spirit has many roles or works. And there is a time for each of them. One office the Spirit holds is as a convictor of sin. When dealing with a sinner, the office of convictor is the only role God uses the Spirit in. If that sinner yields to this conviction, the Spirit's time to take on a quickening role comes into play. After quickening, the Spirit dispenses spiritual gifts. It is this stage in which the Spirit acts as the Comforter. The regenerative work of salvation has already occurred by this point.”

The Spirit came “on”, “upon”, “among” and even “in” (Num. 27:18) Old Testament saints, but He did not indwell and regenerate them as He has done since the glorification of the Lord. “But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive, for the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39).

After the Lord was glorified, John 20:22 tells us the following, “…He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” I see no reason it is not possible that these disciples were regenerated (born again) at this time, since the Lord was glorified. This would be the Holy Spirit doing the work of regeneration – the point at which the believer is baptized by the Holy Spirit, not the point at which the believer is baptized by Jesus with the Holy Spirit (described below).

We are told that the Comforter (Holy Spirit doing work as Comforter) would not come until the Lord went away. “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper (Comforter) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you” (John 16:7). Did the Lord “send” the Comforter when He breathed on His disciples? Had he gone away yet at which point they no longer saw Him (John 6:10)? I answer “no” to both of those questions, therefore I do not think He “sent” the Comforter in John 20:22. This is what the Lord had to say about the Comforter in Acts 1, “Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, ‘Which,’ He said, ‘you heard of from Me, for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.’ …you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

I have often wondered if there is a difference between baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and baptism by Jesus with the Holy Spirit.

He will baptize you WITH the Holy Spirit. (Mt 1:8)
You will be baptized WITH the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5) [by Jesus]
You will be baptized WITH the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16) [by Jesus]

By the Spirit we are baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13)
For all who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ (Gal. 3:27)

In the first three, it is the Lord who does the baptizing and in the other, it is the Spirit who does the baptizing. The first three do not mention being baptized “into” as the other two.

Baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ is perhaps when the Spirit baptizes one into His death & resurrection (regeneration). Baptism by Jesus with the Holy Spirit is perhaps the moment He sends the Comforter dispensing spiritual gifts. It appears the two can take place with one immediately following the other or with the baptism with the HS not following at all (I’ll explain more below).

I am not convinced that the Lord is still baptizing believers with the Holy Spirit even if we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ. Or, at the most, we still receive the Comforter (baptized with the HS), but not to the degree they did in the 1st century. First of all, the events at Pentecost were unique to any other time that we know of. It was clearly (imo) a Jewish experience. After that, we see that they could be baptized by the Holy Spirit (regenerated) without having been baptized with the Comforter (Acts 8:12, 15, 17). “For He had not fallen on them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Well, if they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, we know that they were regenerated, yet we are told the HS had not yet fallen on them that they might receive the HS (Comforter).

And look at the account of Paul’s conversion. Surely, Paul did not lack faith for the entire three days of his physical blindness. The Spirit must have done His regenerative work when Paul came to faith. Yet, the Holy Spirit did not fill Paul until three days after his encounter with the Lord (Acts 9:17). This must have been the time the Comforter was given to him.

Acts 19 also shows us that baptism by the Holy Spirit is a distinct event from baptism with the Holy Spirit. Vs. 5 tells us they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Vs. 6 says, “and when Paul had laid his hand upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them…”

It is an ongoing debate of whether the gifts are still operative like they once were in the 1st century. So far, it seems clear that baptism by Jesus with the Holy Spirit is the point at which the Spirit dispenses gifts, which can take place long after baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ (born again/regeneration) or not at all.


Is the Lord (Jesus) and the Comforter (Holy Spirit) not both God? I believe that they are both fully God the same God, just different ministrations for how they operated so to speak. I also believe, that to say that there is a difference between Jesus and the Holy Spirit in giving the Spirit/being baptized or whatever you want to call it, is to stretch the truth. Jesus is God, The Father is God, and the Spirit is God. all the Same God. There fore whether it was done by Christ here on earth, or by the Spirit it matters not it was all done by God.

VerticalReality
Dec 29th 2008, 08:49 PM
Well, have at it. If you want to believe that the supernatural gifts are still being given, you can. I think Paul makes it quite clear that they have ended. Especially since they were distributed by the laying on of the apostles hands, and there are no apostles today.

If the poster in question has experienced the reality of these gifts why would he not believe in them? I believe this is the extreme that a good portion of many churches today go to. So many churches today simply go by intellectual understanding rather than experiential knowledge.

If watchinginawe has experienced the reality and power of these gifts why would he not believe in them? Most do not believe in the gifts simply because they have not experienced them or witnessed them in operation. In other words, most do not believe in them because their entire Christian walk is spent surrounded by folks who teach the same things they believe . . . that the gifts are no longer operative.

Well, if the gifts are indeed operative and one must have faith in order to operate in them . . . not believing they exist would certainly disqualify anyone from experiencing their reality.

I put this debate about on the same level as an atheist arguing with a Christian about the existence of God. What will the atheist normally tell the Christian is the reason why they don't believe in God? They will usually say it is because they do not have what they consider evidence, and they are simply relying on their own understanding to determine what they believe. The Christian, on the otherhand, if they are a true Christian, will be able to testify of their very real relationship with God, and they will produce very tangible fruit that is evidence of this relationship.

In this debate regarding gifts of the Spirit you have one side arguing what they believe based upon what they intellectually understand from the Scriptures, whereas the other side is testifying of a tangible experience they have witnessed firsthand that they also believe aligns with Scripture. Many who believe on the gifts do not just believe only because we feel like the bible speaks of them. Many of us who believe on the gifts do so because, 1) the bible speaks of them, and 2) we have actually witnessed physical manifestation and fruit of the very things we see in the Scriptures.

Now, me personally . . .

If I were going to a surgeon tomorrow to get operated on I would probably pick the surgeon that has not only received an intellectual understanding of the surgery he's about to perform, but I'm also going to want this surgeon to have at least a little bit of tangible experience as well.

Christianity is not a brain exercise where we need to see how smart we can get with regards to the bible. Christianity is a very close and intimate relationship with our Lord that produces a lot more than intellect.

reformedct
Dec 29th 2008, 08:55 PM
"were the disciples of Jesus (not including Judas) already born again by the Spirit? did they already have the indwelling Spirit? or did the Spirit just reveal things to them somehow?"

NO - before the resurrection, the Holy Spirit indwelled NOBODY, but did "come upon" folks. 1 Chr 12:
18 Then the spirit came upon Amasai, who was chief of the captains, and he said, Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be to thine helpers; for thy God helpeth thee. Then David received them, and made them captains of the band.

However Jesus told 'em: - John 14:
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.


"And when they tarried in Acts and began to speak in toungues,
was this their first time being baptized and recieving the Spirit, or did they already have it and it just manifested itself more strongly?"

The disciples received the INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit in John 20:
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

But then Jesus also told 'em to: - Luke 24:
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

So we have the disciples Indwelled by the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 (the Holy Spirit IN the Christian), and "Endued with power" in Acts 2:4 (the Holy Spirit ON the Christian).

"So how does this work for us today? Are all believers baptized by the Spirit when they are born again?"

In modern pentecostal language (AoG terminology), believers are NOT "Baptized in the Holy Spirit when they're "saved", but they ARE "indwelled".


"or do they get saved but then there is another experience of pouring out the Spirit in them?"

That would be the parallel to the Biblical account as noted above - i.e. the "enduement of power" (Baptism in the Holy Spirit) is a secondary experience.

"or when they get saved do they just have a little of the Spirit and then later on they get filled?"

Not related - when one is INDWELLED by the holy Spirit when he's "saved" he's got ALL of Him he'll ever get. The "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" is a "clothing" with power, not an indwelling. You don't even have to be particularly "spiritual" to be "Endued with power" - or even human - ask Baalam's Ass who spoke in tongues that were recognized as a human language by the Prophet, and were an accurate prophetic utterance that saved the prophet's life. Num 22:21-35. And Caiaphas Was Gifted with, and delivered a true Prophesy even as he was plotting the MURDER of God's Son.

"I think Jesus breathed on the apostles and said recieve the Spirit, but then told them to tarry and he would send the Comforter."

I don't think it was the COMFORTER that came in Acts 2:4 (HE came in John 20:22), but other than that I'd agree with your statement.

From the folks in the Reformed paradigm I've talked to, the MAJORITY view is that "nothing happened" in John 20:22 - except a "Prophesy" of what WOULD happen in Acts 2:4. I disagree.

Many in the reformed paradigm would also would consider ME delusional anyway, because I speak in tongues (and have for 35 years).


lol i actually speak and pray in toungues. im not against manifestations of the Spirit.

But basically to sum it up, prior to Acts, no one was indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but had the Spirit come upon them?

Veretax
Dec 29th 2008, 09:21 PM
If the poster in question has experienced the reality of these gifts why would he not believe in them? I believe this is the extreme that a good portion of many churches today go to. So many churches today simply go by intellectual understanding rather than experiential knowledge.


I'm going to stop reading there. You never EVER come from experience to truth. You ALWAYS come from truth and then compare it to your experience. To do the former is to ignore scripture.


Also as has alraedy been pointed out in this thread I believe. Pagans can speak in tongues. that doesn't mean it is of the Spirit. People in Pauls day apparently were trying to cast out demons too, that didn't mean the people doing it were believers.

VerticalReality
Dec 29th 2008, 09:48 PM
I'm going to stop reading there. You never EVER come from experience to truth. You ALWAYS come from truth and then compare it to your experience. To do the former is to ignore scripture.

Who said anything about going from experience to truth, and what makes you think folks who believe in the gifts have done so? I think it safe to say that if all are honest with themselves those who believe in the gifts have VERY strong arguments scripturally for their belief in them. Additionally, it may profit you a little further to read the entire response before forming your conclusions about it.



Also as has alraedy been pointed out in this thread I believe. Pagans can speak in tongues. that doesn't mean it is of the Spirit. People in Pauls day apparently were trying to cast out demons too, that didn't mean the people doing it were believers.


Pagans and Satanists also pray and worship. That doesn't now negate the prayer and worship of Christians.

VerticalReality
Dec 29th 2008, 10:15 PM
I would also like to add, Veretax, that your comment that experience should never lead us to truth is not exactly accurate either. As a matter of fact, Jesus used physical things to bring others to faith in who He was quite a bit. How many times did Jesus say something along the lines of, "I'm doing this so you will believe." Many were drawn to Jesus initially to have a physical issue resolved, and then that physical experience allowed Jesus to impart truth to them. The truth of what He said was confirmed by the experience that those people had. The church in Acts operated the same way. They had the power of God operating through them to heal and deliver folks the same as Jesus so that what they preached was confirmed as truth. The experience of these people confirmed the truth that was being preached.

Look at the blind man in John 9 that stood before the Pharisees as they accused Jesus of basically being of the devil. What did the blind man say to them? He said that God does not hear sinners, and he basically told them even at the risk of being banished from the synagogue that no man can do the things Jesus did if he is not from God. The man knew Jesus was from God because of the miracles He performed. He didn't know it because he read it in the bible or in the OT Scriptures. He knew it because the power Jesus operated in confirmed it.

Even Jesus said to the disciples that they should atleast believe on Him for the works He did. He was telling them that they should atleast believe on Him based upon the experiences they had witnessed from Him.

So this idea that experience never should lead to truth doesn't match the Word of God very well either.

Butch5
Dec 29th 2008, 10:21 PM
If the poster in question has experienced the reality of these gifts why would he not believe in them? I believe this is the extreme that a good portion of many churches today go to. So many churches today simply go by intellectual understanding rather than experiential knowledge.

If watchinginawe has experienced the reality and power of these gifts why would he not believe in them? Most do not believe in the gifts simply because they have not experienced them or witnessed them in operation. In other words, most do not believe in them because their entire Christian walk is spent surrounded by folks who teach the same things they believe . . . that the gifts are no longer operative.

Well, if the gifts are indeed operative and one must have faith in order to operate in them . . . not believing they exist would certainly disqualify anyone from experiencing their reality.

I put this debate about on the same level as an atheist arguing with a Christian about the existence of God. What will the atheist normally tell the Christian is the reason why they don't believe in God? They will usually say it is because they do not have what they consider evidence, and they are simply relying on their own understanding to determine what they believe. The Christian, on the otherhand, if they are a true Christian, will be able to testify of their very real relationship with God, and they will produce very tangible fruit that is evidence of this relationship.

In this debate regarding gifts of the Spirit you have one side arguing what they believe based upon what they intellectually understand from the Scriptures, whereas the other side is testifying of a tangible experience they have witnessed firsthand that they also believe aligns with Scripture. Many who believe on the gifts do not just believe only because we feel like the bible speaks of them. Many of us who believe on the gifts do so because, 1) the bible speaks of them, and 2) we have actually witnessed physical manifestation and fruit of the very things we see in the Scriptures.

Now, me personally . . .

If I were going to a surgeon tomorrow to get operated on I would probably pick the surgeon that has not only received an intellectual understanding of the surgery he's about to perform, but I'm also going to want this surgeon to have at least a little bit of tangible experience as well.

Christianity is not a brain exercise where we need to see how smart we can get with regards to the bible. Christianity is a very close and intimate relationship with our Lord that produces a lot more than intellect.

Well, since you decided to pick me from the crowd, first let me say, If you read all of my posts, you would see that I said, the gifts are not regularly distributed. I said, if God chooses to use them, He is more than able. I also said that the gifts were given by the laying on of the apostles hands, which can easily be seen with a quick study. So, those who say they have experienced them, may very well have, I can't say. However I can say what the Scripture says, and Paul said, prophecies, tongues, and knowledge, would cease when maturity came. That's not say God cannot and does not use these today, however, they are not regularly given if He does.

VerticalReality
Dec 29th 2008, 10:26 PM
Well, since you decided to pick me from the crowd, first let me say, If you read all of my posts, you would see that I said, the gifts are not regularly distributed. I said, if God chooses to use them, He is more than able. I also said that the gifts were given by the laying on of the apostles hands, which can easily be seen with a quick study. So, those who say they have experienced them, may very well have, I can't say. However I can say what the Scripture says, and Paul said, prophecies, tongues, and knowledge, would cease when maturity came. That's not say God cannot and does not use these today, however, they are not regularly given if He does.

At Pentecost nobody was laying hands on anyone. With Cornelius nobody was laying hands on anyone as well. Ananias laid hands on Paul and he was baptized. However, Ananias was not an apostle. Also, when Paul and Barnabas were set apart for the work of the Holy Spirit it was prophets that laid hands on them. I think a lot of times we apply rules where there are none.

SoldierOfChrist
Dec 29th 2008, 11:08 PM
If the poster in question has experienced the reality of these gifts why would he not believe in them? I believe this is the extreme that a good portion of many churches today go to. So many churches today simply go by intellectual understanding rather than experiential knowledge.

If watchinginawe has experienced the reality and power of these gifts why would he not believe in them? Most do not believe in the gifts simply because they have not experienced them or witnessed them in operation. In other words, most do not believe in them because their entire Christian walk is spent surrounded by folks who teach the same things they believe . . . that the gifts are no longer operative.

Well, if the gifts are indeed operative and one must have faith in order to operate in them . . . not believing they exist would certainly disqualify anyone from experiencing their reality.

I put this debate about on the same level as an atheist arguing with a Christian about the existence of God. What will the atheist normally tell the Christian is the reason why they don't believe in God? They will usually say it is because they do not have what they consider evidence, and they are simply relying on their own understanding to determine what they believe. The Christian, on the otherhand, if they are a true Christian, will be able to testify of their very real relationship with God, and they will produce very tangible fruit that is evidence of this relationship.

In this debate regarding gifts of the Spirit you have one side arguing what they believe based upon what they intellectually understand from the Scriptures, whereas the other side is testifying of a tangible experience they have witnessed firsthand that they also believe aligns with Scripture. Many who believe on the gifts do not just believe only because we feel like the bible speaks of them. Many of us who believe on the gifts do so because, 1) the bible speaks of them, and 2) we have actually witnessed physical manifestation and fruit of the very things we see in the Scriptures.

Now, me personally . . .

If I were going to a surgeon tomorrow to get operated on I would probably pick the surgeon that has not only received an intellectual understanding of the surgery he's about to perform, but I'm also going to want this surgeon to have at least a little bit of tangible experience as well.

Christianity is not a brain exercise where we need to see how smart we can get with regards to the bible. Christianity is a very close and intimate relationship with our Lord that produces a lot more than intellect.

Very well said! It is just like an atheist arguing with a Christian about the existence of God.

This is the fullfillment of Isaiah 29:13 With their lips they do honor him but their heart is far from him. It is love not intellect.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Was Paul one of the twelve? Did Paul lay on hands?

Did Joel write this correctly? Should he have said not the last days but just after the last days or just before the last days?

Acts 2:17 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:
Acts 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

These are the last days? 5 were wise 5 were foolish.

Michael

Butch5
Dec 30th 2008, 04:18 AM
At Pentecost nobody was laying hands on anyone. With Cornelius nobody was laying hands on anyone as well. Ananias laid hands on Paul and he was baptized. However, Ananias was not an apostle. Also, when Paul and Barnabas were set apart for the work of the Holy Spirit it was prophets that laid hands on them. I think a lot of times we apply rules where there are none.

Well, first of all, at Pentecost no one yet had the Spirit until He came. Second, how do you know that no one laid hands on anyone at the house of Cornelius? Thirdly, the event at Cornelius' house was essentially the gentile Pentecost. OK, they received their gifts directly from the holy Spirit, where else did this happen? Ananias laying hands on Paul had nothing to do with the gifts, neither did Paul and Barnabas being set apart for work.

Let me ask you this, in Acts 8 we have Phillip performing miracles and signs and wonders, the Scriptures say all the people in one accord came unto Phillip. All of these people were being saved, yet not a sign or miracle from any of them? Not one? Then the apostles show up and lay hands on them and they receive the holy Spirit.

Consider Paul's words to the church at Rome,

Romans 1:8-12 ( KJV ) 8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. 9For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; 10Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. 11For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; 12That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.

Why did Paul have to go to Rome in order for them to receive spiritual gifts. Notice that the Apostles did not start this church, they didn;t have the gifts. Now consider what Paul says about the church at Corinth, which he started,

1 Corinthians 1:3-7 ( KJV ) 3Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 4I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; 5That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; 6Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: 7So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

This church was overflowing with spiritual gifts, Paul had been here. Consider his words to Timothy,

1 Timothy 4:14 ( KJV ) 14Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Who was the presbytery? He doesn't say, but he does say this in his second letter.

2 Timothy 1:6 ( KJV ) 6Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

VerticalReality
Dec 30th 2008, 04:42 AM
Well, first of all, at Pentecost no one yet had the Spirit until He came. Second, how do you know that no one laid hands on anyone at the house of Cornelius? Thirdly, the event at Cornelius' house was essentially the gentile Pentecost. OK, they received their gifts directly from the holy Spirit, where else did this happen? Ananias laying hands on Paul had nothing to do with the gifts, neither did Paul and Barnabas being set apart for work.

What I get from this is that you make exception where Scripture doesn't give one.

You say, "Yes, they received this without the laying on of the apostles hands at Pentecost, but . . . "

or . . .

"Yes, they received this without the laying on of the apostles hands at Cornelius' house, but . . . "

The Scriptures do not give those "but" entries. Additionally, we are talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit here. When a person is baptised by the Holy Spirit then that is when the ability to operate in power and use gifts is given as the Spirit wills. Your point of view here makes it sound as if the gifts of the Spirit are as the apostles will rather than the Spirit.

When Paul was baptised it was not through the laying on of hands from an apostle. At Cornelius' house it says that Peter was simply preaching the Word and the Holy Spirit fell on them during the midst of this. The Holy Spirit didn't wait for Peter to lay his hands on anyone. Peter was still preaching away.

There is no recipe given in the Scriptures stating that only apostles can do this or that.

Veretax
Dec 30th 2008, 01:02 PM
Who said anything about going from experience to truth, and what makes you think folks who believe in the gifts have done so? I think it safe to say that if all are honest with themselves those who believe in the gifts have VERY strong arguments scripturally for their belief in them. Additionally, it may profit you a little further to read the entire response before forming your conclusions about it.



Pagans and Satanists also pray and worship. That doesn't now negate the prayer and worship of Christians.


You are making assumptions about what I am saying. I have never said that God cannot work miracles, that he cannot use the Gifts today. I believe he can if he so chooses.

Now, you should be careful reading what I have said. Experiences of men are easily misinterpretted. Remember what Christ said about the pharisee and the publican? Or when he talked about the Widow's mite? Just because someone does something that in your eyes looks great doesn't mean it is of or even accepted by God (Read: Cain and Abel). This is why I do not base my faith on experiences, I do not base my understanding of God on it either. I always look at scripture and see what God will teach me from the bible. You always start with the bible. If you start anywhere else then you are on shaky ground to begin with. The bible is the Word of God, not our experiences. Which is why I trust what the Bible says over what men say or do.

The bible warns many times about false prophets, and according to revelation it seems that even in the last days many could be deceived. This is why we must guard our hearts and compare scripture with scripture without looking to any one experience we had, or looking at what any man has done or said. Now can we learn some from experience? Yes, it is possible, but I again say that because we are flawed sinful people, it is better to let God lead us by his spirit through his word, and establish ourselves upon that, then trust in some experience we may or may not have had.

Secondly, why is it when I say that according to Paul in 1 Corinthians that Tongues, Prophecy, and Knowledge would cease you assume I am saying that all the gifts would cease at the same time. I do not believe the scripture is saying that. May the spirit instruct you in this point. The greek in that passage literally has the idea that prophecy and knowledge would vanish away, but that tongues would cease basically on their own.

We also must remember why these utterance gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge would likely cease to be necessary. What I am saying is that Tongues was a sign to the unbeliever, specifically the Jews. It was a sign of impending judgment upon Jerusalem. Once Titus destroyed Jerusalem in around 70AD there was no longer a need for Tongues as a sign. Knowledge and Prophecy was likely still needed during the early church until at the very least that the last that the Lord had wanted to be written was written. (I personally believe that was the Revelation of John). You need to understand that throughout the OT and NT Prophecy is really of two types. 1. Regurgitation or reptition and 2. New Scripture.

From Malachi to John the Baptist God was basically silent to his people. There was know new prophecy, nothing new was being spoken. Then John Came, and the people from all over Israel came to hear him, and be baptized, why? Because they had been waiting for the promised forerunner to come to herald the coming of the Messiah. Then Jesus came, did the things he did on this earth, and prophesied his judgment on Jerusalem, suffered, and died on the Cross. When he rose he visited many of the disciples, and at Pentecost when they are in the upper room were when they saw the sign of the Holy Spirit descending upon them.

What was the purpose of the NT? It was to explain how Jesus was the fullfillment of OT prophecy, and the salvation for sinners. Salvation is simple, so simple a child can understand and put their faith in him. So through the apostles they reached out to jerusalem, to all of Israel, Samaria, and then the whole world that they were able to reach. Through them the good news spread, and we must remember that they didn't have telegarph, telephone, radio, television, or the internet back then.

So it was that through one Spirit God gave those gifts to the Early church both to guide as well as to confirm within them salvation. This is why Prophecy and Knowledge in particular were necessary in the early church. and yet, I say that still Paul and other Apostles needed to write letters to the churches to instruct them on things they had become aware. Paul makes it pretty clear in his letter that when that which is perfect/mature/complete is come all those three things would pass away, but faith, hope and love would abide or remain. Clearly this is not an end times reference, because once we see Christ in the flesh at the end, faith and hope are fulfilled and really, only love would conceivably continue. But at some point the knowledge which God would have us know was made known and spread to the world. At that point, once God told John to put that final ending on revelation warning about adding or taking away from the promises of the book, I believe that sealed the revelation of God's word and ended the need for new prophecy or knowledge.

This is not to say that we don't still know things or prophesy, but we are speaking here about new knowledge and prophecy, new revelation, and I am of the belief that God works more through his scripture today then he does through such things.



Ultimately you are disagreeing with me on this. You want to argue about experience. I don't care about experience. I care about the Truth, and only Scripture is given by inspiration of God...


2 Timothy 3 (NKJV)
1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:
2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,
4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,
7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith;
9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.
10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance,
11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


I ask you. What completes us and makes us whole? Is it the study of scripture or the study of experience? Clearly Paul is saying that Scripture is given to us. Why? that we may be complete and thoroughly furnished and equipped for every good work.

Thus if you want to argue with me over the gifts, you must do so from the Scripture for I do not have any common experience with you, and the only thing I can say we likely have in common is that we both have access to scripture. It is scripture upon which I lay my feet a firm foundation, and only scripture shall I allow to guide my understanding and belief in The Lord.

So, having said all this I rest my case.

VerticalReality
Dec 30th 2008, 02:51 PM
You are making assumptions about what I am saying. I have never said that God cannot work miracles, that he cannot use the Gifts today. I believe he can if he so chooses.

Where did I make these assumptions? I was just responding to your post and what you stated in it.


Experiences of men are easily misinterpretted.

People's understanding of Scripture can also be easily misinterpreted. The key is not in the method. The truth can be revealed in a number of ways. There is no prescribed method that it is delivered. A person can be shown the truth through experience, and the Word of God declares that this has happened a number of times. If I have an experience and then discover that it also aligns with the Word later on . . . what difference does it make which one came first?


Remember what Christ said about the pharisee and the publican? Or when he talked about the Widow's mite? Just because someone does something that in your eyes looks great doesn't mean it is of or even accepted by God (Read: Cain and Abel). This is why I do not base my faith on experiences, I do not base my understanding of God on it either. I always look at scripture and see what God will teach me from the bible. You always start with the bible. If you start anywhere else then you are on shaky ground to begin with. The bible is the Word of God, not our experiences. Which is why I trust what the Bible says over what men say or do.

Did you fall in love with the bible or with Jesus? That's a serious question. I don't want you to take it the wrong way.

Why is it that folks can accept the message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified even though they have never physically read it in the bible? On such an occasion they are not allowing Scripture to determine for them what is truth. In fact, most folks when they come to the Lord really do not have any knowledge whatsoever of the Scriptures. I know that I didn't. I simply fell in love with Jesus. It was then that I began to get into His Word and grow in my knowledge of Him. However, my acceptance of the truth was very much based on experience and not what I was reading in the bible.


The bible warns many times about false prophets, and according to revelation it seems that even in the last days many could be deceived. This is why we must guard our hearts and compare scripture with scripture without looking to any one experience we had, or looking at what any man has done or said. Now can we learn some from experience? Yes, it is possible, but I again say that because we are flawed sinful people, it is better to let God lead us by his spirit through his word, and establish ourselves upon that, then trust in some experience we may or may not have had.

So if we have an experience with the Lord, and then we get in His Word and we see that what we have experienced is indeed detailed for us . . . why should we then disqualify our experience? Myself and others who believe in the gifts (all of them) do so because we have experienced them, and we also see that in the Word it is confirmed. I don't think you are going to find many on this site, especially those who are well known and been around here a while, that are going to blindly accept things without seriously meditating and seeking the truth about what the Word of God says. We have all done so quite extensively, and we believe that our experience does indeed match what the Scriptures proclaim. Therefore, why should we doubt that truth of what we are speaking here? Again, this is just as the atheist debating with the Christian about the existence of God. The atheist is trying to tell another person who has experienced the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ that He doesn't exist. How can one who has not experienced something tell someone who has that their experience is false? It's not like those on this site that believe in all the gifts have nothing in the Scriptures that back what they state. This again reminds me of the blind man in John 9. Even though his experience of being healed was obvious and it proclaimed the truth of who Jesus Christ was . . . it still didn't stop the Pharisees from trying to say that the blind man wasn't truly blind previously and his experience was false. They still accused Jesus of being a sinner and of the devil regardless of what experiences He brought to others. Their interpretation of the Scriptures were not accurate.


Secondly, why is it when I say that according to Paul in 1 Corinthians that Tongues, Prophecy, and Knowledge would cease you assume I am saying that all the gifts would cease at the same time. I do not believe the scripture is saying that. May the spirit instruct you in this point. The greek in that passage literally has the idea that prophecy and knowledge would vanish away, but that tongues would cease basically on their own.

Where have I made these assumptions that you claim? Whether you believe in some or none . . . you still seem to be stating that those here who have experienced the gifts of prophecy, knowledge or tongues are basing what they believe simply on a deceptive experience rather than the Word of God, and that just is not the case.


We also must remember why these utterance gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge would likely cease to be necessary. What I am saying is that Tongues was a sign to the unbeliever, specifically the Jews.

Can tongues no longer still be a sign to an unbeliever? Where would the Word proclaim this to be the case?


It was a sign of impending judgment upon Jerusalem. Once Titus destroyed Jerusalem in around 70AD there was no longer a need for Tongues as a sign.

Where would that proclamation be located?


Knowledge and Prophecy was likely still needed during the early church until at the very least that the last that the Lord had wanted to be written was written.

What would you use to establish the belief? What Scriptures proclaim that this is the case?


What was the purpose of the NT? It was to explain how Jesus was the fullfillment of OT prophecy, and the salvation for sinners. Salvation is simple, so simple a child can understand and put their faith in him.

So simple that they do not have to sit down and read the bible about Him to believe it. They simply need to have a true encounter with the Living God by faith.


So it was that through one Spirit God gave those gifts to the Early church both to guide as well as to confirm within them salvation. This is why Prophecy and Knowledge in particular were necessary in the early church.

And what Scripture says they are no longer necessary?


Paul makes it pretty clear in his letter that when that which is perfect/mature/complete is come all those three things would pass away, but faith, hope and love would abide or remain.

I agree with watchinginawe's interpretation that Paul is saying "now" abide in faith, hope and love. They were to abide in those things at that time. This is not some declaration that the others have/will pass away at some unnamed point in the near future and only faith, hope and love will remain.


But at some point the knowledge which God would have us know was made known and spread to the world. At that point, once God told John to put that final ending on revelation warning about adding or taking away from the promises of the book, I believe that sealed the revelation of God's word and ended the need for new prophecy or knowledge.

Yet nothing in the Word declares this to be so. You are adding in your interpretation. Why is this your interpretation? Scripture does not come out and declare what you are stating here, so how are you forming these conclusions?


This is not to say that we don't still know things or prophesy, but we are speaking here about new knowledge and prophecy, new revelation, and I am of the belief that God works more through his scripture today then he does through such things.

And why are you of this belief?


Ultimately you are disagreeing with me on this. You want to argue about experience. I don't care about experience. I care about the Truth, and only Scripture is given by inspiration of God...

I'm not so sure. It seems by your comments, especially considering that the Scriptures do not declare the things you are stating, that you base what you believe more on experience than you realize.


I ask you. What completes us and makes us whole? Is it the study of scripture or the study of experience? Clearly Paul is saying that Scripture is given to us. Why? that we may be complete and thoroughly furnished and equipped for every good work.

Why do you suppose that Jesus told the Pharisees, then, that they thought they had eternal life in the Scriptures but were mistaken? So, obviously, it is not the Scriptures that make us whole. It is not the Scriptures that makes us complete. The Scriptures can certainly equip us. However, it is Jesus that completes us. He is the Author and Finisher of our faith, and this is what the Pharisees lacked. Those Pharisees searched those Scriptures inside and out . . . yet they were as lost as could be.


Thus if you want to argue with me over the gifts, you must do so from the Scripture for I do not have any common experience with you, and the only thing I can say we likely have in common is that we both have access to scripture. It is scripture upon which I lay my feet a firm foundation, and only scripture shall I allow to guide my understanding and belief in The Lord.

So lay out for me here the clear Scriptures proclaiming and teaching your beliefs . . .

Can you find me one clear verse that states these gifts are no longer needed? If you cannot find one single undisputed Scripture to back your case . . . what are you allowing to help form your interpretation of those Scriptures?

You might find it to be the experience that you talk down to here.

Brother Mark
Dec 30th 2008, 03:09 PM
I'm going to stop reading there. You never EVER come from experience to truth. You ALWAYS come from truth and then compare it to your experience. To do the former is to ignore scripture.

Did Paul come to truth because of his experience on the Damascus road or did truth lead him to the experience?

What about Peter and the Gentiles? Was it his experiential vision from God that led him to truth?

I see plenty of times in scriptures where experiences leads one to truth.

Mysteryman
Dec 30th 2008, 03:38 PM
You are making assumptions about what I am saying. I have never said that God cannot work miracles, that he cannot use the Gifts today. I believe he can if he so chooses.

Now, you should be careful reading what I have said. Experiences of men are easily misinterpretted. Remember what Christ said about the pharisee and the publican? Or when he talked about the Widow's mite? Just because someone does something that in your eyes looks great doesn't mean it is of or even accepted by God (Read: Cain and Abel). This is why I do not base my faith on experiences, I do not base my understanding of God on it either. I always look at scripture and see what God will teach me from the bible. You always start with the bible. If you start anywhere else then you are on shaky ground to begin with. The bible is the Word of God, not our experiences. Which is why I trust what the Bible says over what men say or do.

The bible warns many times about false prophets, and according to revelation it seems that even in the last days many could be deceived. This is why we must guard our hearts and compare scripture with scripture without looking to any one experience we had, or looking at what any man has done or said. Now can we learn some from experience? Yes, it is possible, but I again say that because we are flawed sinful people, it is better to let God lead us by his spirit through his word, and establish ourselves upon that, then trust in some experience we may or may not have had.

Secondly, why is it when I say that according to Paul in 1 Corinthians that Tongues, Prophecy, and Knowledge would cease you assume I am saying that all the gifts would cease at the same time. I do not believe the scripture is saying that. May the spirit instruct you in this point. The greek in that passage literally has the idea that prophecy and knowledge would vanish away, but that tongues would cease basically on their own.

We also must remember why these utterance gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge would likely cease to be necessary. What I am saying is that Tongues was a sign to the unbeliever, specifically the Jews. It was a sign of impending judgment upon Jerusalem. Once Titus destroyed Jerusalem in around 70AD there was no longer a need for Tongues as a sign. Knowledge and Prophecy was likely still needed during the early church until at the very least that the last that the Lord had wanted to be written was written. (I personally believe that was the Revelation of John). You need to understand that throughout the OT and NT Prophecy is really of two types. 1. Regurgitation or reptition and 2. New Scripture.

From Malachi to John the Baptist God was basically silent to his people. There was know new prophecy, nothing new was being spoken. Then John Came, and the people from all over Israel came to hear him, and be baptized, why? Because they had been waiting for the promised forerunner to come to herald the coming of the Messiah. Then Jesus came, did the things he did on this earth, and prophesied his judgment on Jerusalem, suffered, and died on the Cross. When he rose he visited many of the disciples, and at Pentecost when they are in the upper room were when they saw the sign of the Holy Spirit descending upon them.

What was the purpose of the NT? It was to explain how Jesus was the fullfillment of OT prophecy, and the salvation for sinners. Salvation is simple, so simple a child can understand and put their faith in him. So through the apostles they reached out to jerusalem, to all of Israel, Samaria, and then the whole world that they were able to reach. Through them the good news spread, and we must remember that they didn't have telegarph, telephone, radio, television, or the internet back then.

So it was that through one Spirit God gave those gifts to the Early church both to guide as well as to confirm within them salvation. This is why Prophecy and Knowledge in particular were necessary in the early church. and yet, I say that still Paul and other Apostles needed to write letters to the churches to instruct them on things they had become aware. Paul makes it pretty clear in his letter that when that which is perfect/mature/complete is come all those three things would pass away, but faith, hope and love would abide or remain. Clearly this is not an end times reference, because once we see Christ in the flesh at the end, faith and hope are fulfilled and really, only love would conceivably continue. But at some point the knowledge which God would have us know was made known and spread to the world. At that point, once God told John to put that final ending on revelation warning about adding or taking away from the promises of the book, I believe that sealed the revelation of God's word and ended the need for new prophecy or knowledge.

This is not to say that we don't still know things or prophesy, but we are speaking here about new knowledge and prophecy, new revelation, and I am of the belief that God works more through his scripture today then he does through such things.



Ultimately you are disagreeing with me on this. You want to argue about experience. I don't care about experience. I care about the Truth, and only Scripture is given by inspiration of God...


2 Timothy 3 (NKJV)
1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:
2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,
4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,
7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith;
9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.
10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance,
11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


I ask you. What completes us and makes us whole? Is it the study of scripture or the study of experience? Clearly Paul is saying that Scripture is given to us. Why? that we may be complete and thoroughly furnished and equipped for every good work.

Thus if you want to argue with me over the gifts, you must do so from the Scripture for I do not have any common experience with you, and the only thing I can say we likely have in common is that we both have access to scripture. It is scripture upon which I lay my feet a firm foundation, and only scripture shall I allow to guide my understanding and belief in The Lord.

So, having said all this I rest my case.


Not once in scripture does it tell us do the written Word. Faith comes by hearing not reading.

Adam didn't read not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God told him not too.

The Israelites didn't read where it said that God sent ten commandments. God told Moses, and Moses told Israel . God did give Moses two stones with the ten commandments on them. This was a reminder of the spoken Word, not the other way around.

When we read the seven church epistles, we must understand that they were spoken well in advance of there being any written church epistles.

Faith came by God revealing the truth to those who had ears to hear and eyes to see (spiritually), not literally.

Our faith is based upon the fact that it is God who reveals unto us the truth of the spoken Word, not the written Word.

The written Word is a good source of reference, but can not be considered truth. Let me explain by an example :

Jesus stood up and read from the scripture of the book of the prophet Esaias (Elijah). He turned to the place where it was written - "The Spirit of the Lord us upon me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord" -- And he closed the book and then -- Luke 4:21 - "And he began to "say" unto them, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears" " --- < There are no scriptures that declare that Jesus Christ was going to say this statement - that "this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears" ! Prophecy , yes, of the comments made by the prophet Elijah. But no prophecy of who or when this scripture would be fulfilled in their ears. Faith comes by "hearing" , not reading !

Also notice what Luke 4:22 states - "And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth"

You can not base your faith upon the written Word ! It must be based upon the spoken Word ! Men of God sent to preach the Word of God, so that the scriptures hold true ! Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of truth !

Veretax
Dec 30th 2008, 04:37 PM
Mysterman, Brother Mark, Vertical Reality,

Wow, I must really have pricked your Conscience. Did I say God cannot teach us things through what happens in life. No I didn't say that, what I said was doctrinally there is only one thing consistent upon which we can base doctrine. that's the Bible. Period. You were born in one place, I in another, some are born in other countries, into want and squallor, others into modest but adequate means. each of us has an entirely different set of experiences and while its possible for a few to have similar they are by no means a reliable means of proving doctrine, only by the bible can I prove doctrine from God.

And as for written, versus spoken. Are you kidding me? God's word is God's word, whether uttered, or read. To say that his words on paper have no effect or cannot bring one to faith is cheapening his word and treating it like a toilet rag.

How would we have any scripture to know any of this is true after 2000+ years of history if it had not been written down? We wouldn't, and we also would have no way to verify what is and is not reliable.

have you ever played the game Telephone as a kid? we used to do that on occasion. We'd form a long line and one person would whisper something in the first person's ear and each in turn down the line, and then the last person would blurt out what he had been told. The problem was what was told to the first often changed. In fact by the time the last person gets a message it may be a wholly different message and opposite of what the first person said. this is why having the bible in script, in writing is key. Without it absent the movement of God's Spirit, there would be no way to know anything concerning spiritual things in our day.

(Aside by seven church epistles are you saying, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 & 2nd Thesalonians, Galatians. etc or are you referring to the letters to the seven churches in revelation? Because if you mean the later, in many cases Paul himself says, SEE how large my letters are? He literally wrote these letters or had someone (perhaps Luke) transcribe them for him. To say otherwise I think is a misreading of every single letter in the NT)

Here is where we disagree. You seem to think (Mysteryman) that the words of God translated on paper have no effect on a reader. I disagree, i believe the words of God whether spoken or read silently have power. Now, if you really believe that the words have no power then we have a problem, because if they have no power then how would simply speaking of them change anything in anyone's life?

There is a lot about Paul that we don't know from the Bible. It is clear that he recognized Christ as the Lord in his vision, and submitted to his will thereafter. He like many jews had been blinded to plain scripture that they had been raised with. They had as Paul himself wrote refused to hear it and this was even prophesied. I believe based on the Bible that Paul was well learned in the scriptures, but he did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah until he met him literally that I would agree too. His actions seem pretty clear in that regard. Paul had noone as it seems literally come to him and speak the truth that we know of that is. But even if so, knowing how Saul of Tarsus was acting before the Damascus road, he probably would not have listened.

However, ultimately, it was not the experience, but the revelation of the Truth that brought paul to Conversion.

Vertical,

Yes it is possible to misinterpret Scripture, I myself have found errors in my own beliefs over time, that's why I endeavor daily in the word because I want to know what God has to say through his word. However, while many true things can be found outside of scripture there is only one reliable testimony concerning Christ and that is in the Bible. Ultimately it must all come back to scripture.

Now you seem to think that I am saying something I'm not. If a person has smoething happen, then comes to scripture that points out why or what had just happened. That's fine in my view. We don't have a lot of control over what actually happens to us in this world. However, what I am against is saying well this happened here thus it must be of the Lord. We always need to bring scripture into the picture and see whether it is true by scripture.

My issue is not which comes first, my issue is basing your belief on the scripture regardless of experience. We should not base our beliefs based on what happens to us. The foolish man built his house upon the sand and when the tempest came his house fell, but the wiseman built his house upon the rock, and when the tempest came it stood firm. The rock in our lives should be the bible. Everything we do where we may try to draw some doctrine or belief concerning God should be compared to scripture to see if its true, and in so doing we should read scripture by scripture exegetically without imposing our own prior conceptions upon it. (And I admit its easy at times to get lazy and read it eisegetically.)







Why is it that folks can accept the message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified even though they have never physically read it in the bible? On such an occasion they are not allowing Scripture to determine for them what is truth. In fact, most folks when they come to the Lord really do not have any knowledge whatsoever of the Scriptures. I know that I didn't. I simply fell in love with Jesus. It was then that I began to get into His Word and grow in my knowledge of Him. However, my acceptance of the truth was very much based on experience and not what I was reading in the bible.



Where do the Words of Christ come from, if not from Scripture? We don't have the Apostles or other witnesses available to us today to verify it, but we do have the testimony that they have given in the OT and NT. The words by which we are saved are Christ's. Please understand, I am not saying that salvation is by the bible, that's not what I'm saying. what I am saying is when we look for doctrine, and instruction in righteousness we should look to Scripture first, not to our experiences. Everything we do should be tested by Scripture.


Now if you and others on this board are doing as I say, going to scripture to see what god says about X or Y experience, then fine, you are doing what should be done, and if so I'm not sure why you are disputing this point with me. However, your straw man argument about atheists, for lack of a more loving way to say it seems silly to me. I literally had to compell myself to keep from laughing as I read it now for the third time. It does not help disprove or prove the point you are trying to make. Frankly, I don't know why your trying to use your own wisdom to try to convince me of your point when I've said repeatedly I lean on the scriptures. Prove it to me from scripture then. For I am not an atheist. I am a Christ walker, a bible-believer. I follow him and his words and not my own intellect or understanding of scripture alone.

However again we must be careful not to read into scripture what we want to see, because it should speak on its own authority without us getting into the way.

I've said all I care to say on this matter. Frankly, you are already convinced that I am wrong, and a man convinced against his will remains unconvinced even in the presence of proof to the contrary. Believe what you want, I've said all I care too at this point.

Mysteryman
Dec 30th 2008, 05:10 PM
Mysterman, Brother Mark, Vertical Reality,

Wow, I must really have pricked your Conscience. Did I say God cannot teach us things through what happens in life. No I didn't say that, what I said was doctrinally there is only one thing consistent upon which we can base doctrine. that's the Bible. Period. You were born in one place, I in another, some are born in other countries, into want and squallor, others into modest but adequate means. each of us has an entirely different set of experiences and while its possible for a few to have similar they are by no means a reliable means of proving doctrine, only by the bible can I prove doctrine from God.

And as for written, versus spoken. Are you kidding me? God's word is God's word, whether uttered, or read. To say that his words on paper have no effect or cannot bring one to faith is cheapening his word and treating it like a toilet rag.

How would we have any scripture to know any of this is true after 2000+ years of history if it had not been written down? We wouldn't, and we also would have no way to verify what is and is not reliable.

have you ever played the game Telephone as a kid? we used to do that on occasion. We'd form a long line and one person would whisper something in the first person's ear and each in turn down the line, and then the last person would blurt out what he had been told. The problem was what was told to the first often changed. In fact by the time the last person gets a message it may be a wholly different message and opposite of what the first person said. this is why having the bible in script, in writing is key. Without it absent the movement of God's Spirit, there would be no way to know anything concerning spiritual things in our day.

(Aside by seven church epistles are you saying, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 & 2nd Thesalonians, Galatians. etc or are you referring to the letters to the seven churches in revelation? Because if you mean the later, in many cases Paul himself says, SEE how large my letters are? He literally wrote these letters or had someone (perhaps Luke) transcribe them for him. To say otherwise I think is a misreading of every single letter in the NT)

Here is where we disagree. You seem to think (Mysteryman) that the words of God translated on paper have no effect on a reader. I disagree, i believe the words of God whether spoken or read silently have power. Now, if you really believe that the words have no power then we have a problem, because if they have no power then how would simply speaking of them change anything in anyone's life?

There is a lot about Paul that we don't know from the Bible. It is clear that he recognized Christ as the Lord in his vision, and submitted to his will thereafter. He like many jews had been blinded to plain scripture that they had been raised with. They had as Paul himself wrote refused to hear it and this was even prophesied. I believe based on the Bible that Paul was well learned in the scriptures, but he did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah until he met him literally that I would agree too. His actions seem pretty clear in that regard. Paul had noone as it seems literally come to him and speak the truth that we know of that is. But even if so, knowing how Saul of Tarsus was acting before the Damascus road, he probably would not have listened.

However, ultimately, it was not the experience, but the revelation of the Truth that brought paul to Conversion.

Vertical,

Yes it is possible to misinterpret Scripture, I myself have found errors in my own beliefs over time, that's why I endeavor daily in the word because I want to know what God has to say through his word. However, while many true things can be found outside of scripture there is only one reliable testimony concerning Christ and that is in the Bible. Ultimately it must all come back to scripture.

Now you seem to think that I am saying something I'm not. If a person has smoething happen, then comes to scripture that points out why or what had just happened. That's fine in my view. We don't have a lot of control over what actually happens to us in this world. However, what I am against is saying well this happened here thus it must be of the Lord. We always need to bring scripture into the picture and see whether it is true by scripture.

My issue is not which comes first, my issue is basing your belief on the scripture regardless of experience. We should not base our beliefs based on what happens to us. The foolish man built his house upon the sand and when the tempest came his house fell, but the wiseman built his house upon the rock, and when the tempest came it stood firm. The rock in our lives should be the bible. Everything we do where we may try to draw some doctrine or belief concerning God should be compared to scripture to see if its true, and in so doing we should read scripture by scripture exegetically without imposing our own prior conceptions upon it. (And I admit its easy at times to get lazy and read it eisegetically.)







Where do the Words of Christ come from, if not from Scripture? We don't have the Apostles or other witnesses available to us today to verify it, but we do have the testimony that they have given in the OT and NT. The words by which we are saved are Christ's. Please understand, I am not saying that salvation is by the bible, that's not what I'm saying. what I am saying is when we look for doctrine, and instruction in righteousness we should look to Scripture first, not to our experiences. Everything we do should be tested by Scripture.


Now if you and others on this board are doing as I say, going to scripture to see what god says about X or Y experience, then fine, you are doing what should be done, and if so I'm not sure why you are disputing this point with me. However, your straw man argument about atheists, for lack of a more loving way to say it seems silly to me. I literally had to compell myself to keep from laughing as I read it now for the third time. It does not help disprove or prove the point you are trying to make. Frankly, I don't know why your trying to use your own wisdom to try to convince me of your point when I've said repeatedly I lean on the scriptures. Prove it to me from scripture then. For I am not an atheist. I am a Christ walker, a bible-believer. I follow him and his words and not my own intellect or understanding of scripture alone.

However again we must be careful not to read into scripture what we want to see, because it should speak on its own authority without us getting into the way.

I've said all I care to say on this matter. Frankly, you are already convinced that I am wrong, and a man convinced against his will remains unconvinced even in the presence of proof to the contrary. Believe what you want, I've said all I care too at this point.

The Word of God tells us to search the scriptures to see if those things are so. What we are to search for, are those things that are spoken and see if the scriptures back it up. However, the written Word was not available as it is to us today. Thus within the first century they could only go back to the OT . What this meant was, anything spoken about could not be read in the OT line by line. They could only go back to the prophesies spoken about. Since nothing has change from a spiritual point of view. We still have what was given to us. But ministers teach and preach. What they should be teaching and preaching is what the Word of God does say and not assume what it does not say. Thus, if someone you or I have been listening too, comes up with a theory, we need to check to see if it is so or not.

The gifts of the Spirit are to continue as they did within the first century, until such time that Christians are no longer here on earth. Then and only then will there be no need for the gifts of the Spirit. That is because they will not cease until there are no spirit filled Christians to operate them.

One can not suggest that they ceased , or that they are only to those whom God chooses to operate them.. Spirit filled Christians do operate them and that is the only reason that they have not ceased.

And it still takes men of God who do operate the nine manifestations , to tell others to conintue to operate them until such time that they will cease. So speaking in tongues should be promoted as well as a spirit filled Christian to operate them daily within their daily spiritual walk.

What I read from your post, is that you rely upon the written Word, not the spoken Word. God is still sending men of God to explain the truth of the Word of God. The Word does not tell us to rely upon the written Word. Faith does not come by reading, as I explained in my earlier post today. Faith comes by hearing.

I can not tell you as to how many people I have talked too, that still believe as you do, that the written Word is elevated above the spoken Word.

We need to realize that the spoken Word is still above any written material we have in our possession today. For the most part, we only have copies of copies and translations and other translations from differing translators. Some people even use the Strong's concordance as if it is a translation to try and prove their theory's. Even the Strong's concordance reminds us that this concordance is in no way a translation.

The spirit of God needs to convict your spirit that certain things are true or false. In Romans 8:14 it states - "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"

If anyone puts their theory , that the written Word is above being led by the Spirit of God, then they are very mistaken by their own theory.

VerticalReality
Dec 30th 2008, 05:26 PM
Wow, I must really have pricked your Conscience.

Or perhaps we are trying to show you something we feel you are missing.


Did I say God cannot teach us things through what happens in life. No I didn't say that, what I said was doctrinally there is only one thing consistent upon which we can base doctrine. that's the Bible. Period.

Actually, what you stated is . . .


You never EVER come from experience to truth. You ALWAYS come from truth and then compare it to your experience. To do the former is to ignore scripture.

. . . and what we are doing is showing you quite extensively how the very Scripture you speak of disagrees with the above statement. The Scriptures declare quite a few times how folks came to a knowledge of the truth through an experience.


And as for written, versus spoken. Are you kidding me? God's word is God's word, whether uttered, or read. To say that his words on paper have no effect or cannot bring one to faith is cheapening his word and treating it like a toilet rag.

So then by this you agree that God can reveal truth outside of someone reading the bible. Therefore, a person's experience may indeed lead them to the truth. Can you deny the truth of Paul's conversion? What bible was he reading that brought him to the truth? How about Peter in the example given you by BrotherMark? You say that God's Word can be uttered rather than just read. Well, how is a person supposed to know according to your theory whether or not the Word uttered is really in the bible? When I came to the Lord and asked Him to save me I had no knowledge whatsoever that what the preacher was preaching was actually in the bible. However, my experience did, in fact, lead me to truth.


How would we have any scripture to know any of this is true after 2000+ years of history if it had not been written down? We wouldn't, and we also would have no way to verify what is and is not reliable.

Did you have to verify what was being said when you came to the Lord? I didn't have to. My experience and encounter with the Living God was enough for me to know and follow after truth.


have you ever played the game Telephone as a kid? we used to do that on occasion. We'd form a long line and one person would whisper something in the first person's ear and each in turn down the line, and then the last person would blurt out what he had been told. The problem was what was told to the first often changed. In fact by the time the last person gets a message it may be a wholly different message and opposite of what the first person said. this is why having the bible in script, in writing is key. Without it absent the movement of God's Spirit, there would be no way to know anything concerning spiritual things in our day.

Here's the thing, Veretax. You act as if folks here are trying to deny or cast aside the Word of God as if it is not important. This is far from the case. We know and understand completely the value of God's Word. However, what is being shown to you here, even with the very Word we all hold dear, is that experience does indeed lead someone to truth. This is in direct conflict with the quoted reference above that you insisted upon.


Here is where we disagree. You seem to think (Mysteryman) that the words of God translated on paper have no effect on a reader. I disagree, i believe the words of God whether spoken or read silently have power. Now, if you really believe that the words have no power then we have a problem, because if they have no power then how would simply speaking of them change anything in anyone's life?

You also see, then, that if the Word of God is spoken and not read then the person hearing it really has no way of verifying whether or not it is truly in the bible unless they indeed read it . . .

However, without sitting down and reading the Word a person can be led to truth by His Spirit. It happened to me, and in reality, it has probably happened to a good majority of people who have been saved.


There is a lot about Paul that we don't know from the Bible. It is clear that he recognized Christ as the Lord in his vision, and submitted to his will thereafter. He like many jews had been blinded to plain scripture that they had been raised with.

So why didn't these Scriptures lead them to truth?


They had as Paul himself wrote refused to hear it and this was even prophesied.

So then it took something outside of the Scriptures to lead them to the truth if they did in fact accept it.


I believe based on the Bible that Paul was well learned in the scriptures, but he did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah until he met him literally that I would agree too. His actions seem pretty clear in that regard. Paul had noone as it seems literally come to him and speak the truth that we know of that is. But even if so, knowing how Saul of Tarsus was acting before the Damascus road, he probably would not have listened.

Why wouldn't he have listened? It was because it was going to take something outside of just the Scriptures to lead him to the truth.


However, ultimately, it was not the experience, but the revelation of the Truth that brought paul to Conversion.

Revelation of truth is an experience. Revelation comes from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is something outside of the Scriptures giving us revelation on what is in those Scriptures. Even interpreting the Scriptures correctly takes an experience with the Living God.



Vertical,

Yes it is possible to misinterpret Scripture, I myself have found errors in my own beliefs over time, that's why I endeavor daily in the word because I want to know what God has to say through his word. However, while many true things can be found outside of scripture there is only one reliable testimony concerning Christ and that is in the Bible. Ultimately it must all come back to scripture.


So then you agree that just because some folks misinterpret Scripture it doesn't take away from the Scripture itself. The same can be said of an experience. Just because some may misinterpret an experience it doesn't then mean that all experience cannot lead to truth.


Now you seem to think that I am saying something I'm not. If a person has smoething happen, then comes to scripture that points out why or what had just happened. That's fine in my view. We don't have a lot of control over what actually happens to us in this world. However, what I am against is saying well this happened here thus it must be of the Lord. We always need to bring scripture into the picture and see whether it is true by scripture.

So then you now go back on your initial statement that experience cannot lead to truth? I mean if the experience happens and then a person finds out later that it is contained in the Word of God . . . did that experience not represent truth?


My issue is not which comes first, my issue is basing your belief on the scripture regardless of experience. We should not base our beliefs based on what happens to us. The foolish man built his house upon the sand and when the tempest came his house fell, but the wiseman built his house upon the rock, and when the tempest came it stood firm. The rock in our lives should be the bible.

If the rock is the Scriptures then why did the Pharisees houses fall? They knew the Scriptures back to front. The Rock is not the Scriptures. The Rock is the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the firm foundation that will not be moved. John 5 declares that the Pharisees searched the Scriptures thinking that by this they had eternal life. If the Scriptures were the rock the Pharisees' house wouldn't have fell.


Everything we do where we may try to draw some doctrine or belief concerning God should be compared to scripture to see if its true, and in so doing we should read scripture by scripture exegetically without imposing our own prior conceptions upon it. (And I admit its easy at times to get lazy and read it eisegetically.)

I have no problem with this statement, and I don't think anyone here would. The issue is whether or not your interpretation is true. You have already stated that it may not be. However, there are some of us here who believe we have evidence of our faith and interpretation of the Scriptures, which is why we still believe that all of the gifts of the Spirit are still operative. We do not just blindly accept that these gifts are a reality even though there is Scripture refuting this. We believe the Scriptures agree 100% with what we believe, and just as Jesus did many times we also believe He has confirmed the truth of His Word experientially as well through the power of His Spirit.


Where do the Words of Christ come from, if not from Scripture?

Did Jesus ever utter words not recorded in Scripture or do you believe that the only words He said were jotted down in the gospels? If you believe that He did indeed speak words outside of the bible, do you then believe that those words were now flawed or not of God because they were not recorded? When Jesus says He is the Word . . . He is not saying He is the bible.


We don't have the Apostles or other witnesses available to us today to verify it, but we do have the testimony that they have given in the OT and NT. The words by which we are saved are Christ's. Please understand, I am not saying that salvation is by the bible, that's not what I'm saying. what I am saying is when we look for doctrine, and instruction in righteousness we should look to Scripture first, not to our experiences. Everything we do should be tested by Scripture.

One does not exclude the other if they are in agreement, however, and this is the point being made. It doesn't matter if experience happens first or the Word. As long as they are in agreement, and one testifies to the other then both lead to truth.


Now if you and others on this board are doing as I say, going to scripture to see what god says about X or Y experience, then fine, you are doing what should be done, and if so I'm not sure why you are disputing this point with me. However, your straw man argument about atheists, for lack of a more loving way to say it seems silly to me. I literally had to compell myself to keep from laughing as I read it now for the third time. It does not help disprove or prove the point you are trying to make. Frankly, I don't know why your trying to use your own wisdom to try to convince me of your point when I've said repeatedly I lean on the scriptures. Prove it to me from scripture then. For I am not an atheist. I am a Christ walker, a bible-believer. I follow him and his words and not my own intellect or understanding of scripture alone.

It's already been shown to you from the Scriptures how experience can indeed lead to truth. That is the argument you have brought to the table . . . that a person can never go by their experience. You stated in the quoted reference above that you "never EVER come from experience to truth". However, the very Word itself refutes such a claim. There has been many times in the Word where it is recorded that folks came to a knowledge of the truth because of an experience.


I've said all I care to say on this matter. Frankly, you are already convinced that I am wrong, and a man convinced against his will remains unconvinced even in the presence of proof to the contrary. Believe what you want, I've said all I care too at this point.

The problem here is that you have yet to show any proof backing what you state. You have stated that you rely totally on the Scriptures to form what you believe . . . yet the Scriptures do not testify to what you're stating here. There is no Scripture that you can reference to us that clearly declares that any of the gifts have vanished. There isn't anything in there. Therefore, if it is not the Word that clearly lays this declaration out then you are also basing what you believe on something outside of what the Word declares. In other words, you are just as much basing what you believe on your experience as we who believe in all the gifts are.

Brother Mark
Dec 30th 2008, 05:40 PM
And as for written, versus spoken. Are you kidding me? God's word is God's word, whether uttered, or read. To say that his words on paper have no effect or cannot bring one to faith is cheapening his word and treating it like a toilet rag.

I love the scriptures and they have helped me immensely. But I also like to keep these scriptures in mind.

John 5:38-39
39 "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me;
NASB

It is not in the word that we have eternal life. But it is through an experience with The Word that we have eternal life.

Veretax
Dec 30th 2008, 06:04 PM
The Word of God tells us to search the scriptures to see if those things are so. What we are to search for, are those things that are spoken and see if the scriptures back it up. However, the written Word was not available as it is to us today. Thus within the first century they could only go back to the OT . What this meant was, anything spoken about could not be read in the OT line by line. They could only go back to the prophesies spoken about. Since nothing has change from a spiritual point of view. We still have what was given to us. But ministers teach and preach. What they should be teaching and preaching is what the Word of God does say and not assume what it does not say. Thus, if someone you or I have been listening too, comes up with a theory, we need to check to see if it is so or not.

On this we agree, during the days of the apostles aside from the Letter's that certain churches doubtless received they had to rely on prophecy that was being reiterated, either that they heard from Paul or the Apostles, or perhaps read. However, I'd like to step aside a moment and ask you a question.


Do you distinguish between Knowledge and Prophecy as they being what we presently know from scripture form new revelation, prophecy, predictions etc? I find them to be different yet related, and when i think of Knowledge and Prophecy having ceased or vanished, I am always of the mind that it is referring to new revelation, not continuing of spreading what has already been said. Do you agree or disagree on this point?


As for your last line. Exactly, I endeavor daily to compare what i hear to scripture so i know whether these things are so. One church I went to was elevating a particular translation to such venerated status as to imply that even folks who don't speak english should be using it alone. When I came to this realization, I knew I had to part company, because I do not believe that is scriptural. So yes, I understand and agree that we compare what people say to the scripture to see if it matches. This is basically what I've been argueing in the last few posts I thought. Maybe I've not been making enough sense hrms...



The gifts of the Spirit are to continue as they did within the first century, until such time that Christians are no longer here on earth. Then and only then will there be no need for the gifts of the Spirit. That is because they will not cease until there are no spirit filled Christians to operate them.


Now we have a disagreement here on whether they ceased or not. And the stumbling block is how we are interpreting this passage right?


1 Corinthians 13:8-13 (NKJV)
8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Here's what I don't understand. If the gifts do not vanish or cease as you proclaim. Then why does Paul need to even mention these parts? It seems like a waste of words and time to go on about that they will cease when we (The BodY) are no longer on this earth given that when that occurs we will be with Christ. I also do not believe that all the gifts will be gone then. Most will though I will agree. We likely won't need gifts of healing for example like we do today because we will have the incorruptible body then.

So what I'm wrestling with is how you can say that they according to Paul, from his perspective, would vanish away, and case (These three, Tongues, Prophecy, and Knowledge) at some point after he wrote this and not before in essence the Day of the Lord? Have I missed something in your explanation here?




What I read from your post, is that you rely upon the written Word, not the spoken Word. God is still sending men of God to explain the truth of the Word of God. The Word does not tell us to rely upon the written Word. Faith does not come by reading, as I explained in my earlier post today. Faith comes by hearing.

I can not tell you as to how many people I have talked too, that still believe as you do, that the written Word is elevated above the spoken Word.



No you misunderstand me. I do have teachers, and I do learn things from other preachers or even in bible studies with friends, but when I come to discuss here on the forum, you don't know about these things, and I am not here proclaiming the LSC (A pastor I once had) said this or BE (Another pastor I had) said that. What they said and the authority and authenticity with which they spake it is irrelevant if it is not supported by scripture, so why argue about what they say when we have the scripture in front of us. I however do not believe that I necessarily need to have a teacher to find these things if I am in the word daily. I'm a firm believer that God will guide each of us to truth in the bible if we seek it. I do not subscribe to the idea that I have to have a particular minister from a particular school who believes in particular things to tell me whether what scripture says is right. I have the bible in plain understandable english, and with it the Holy spirit with me to guide me into the truth as it is. That I have a teacher or preacher to listen to is merely a plus to help strengthen that which I already know.

(BTW Hearing a message does not require it to be spoken, so i disagree with you there. But as far as Salvation goes, very few people I imagine will understand scripture on their own without someone to Guide them and that is demonstarted by the recording of Phillip with the Ethiopian Eunuch. However, after we are saved and have his spirit I see no reason that we need only hear God's word from the mouth of a man, though hearing such can still be of benefit. However, I will consider what you have said as I do my daily devotions, if for only one reason, because I desire to know what is true.)



The spirit of God needs to convict your spirit that certain things are true or false. In Romans 8:14 it states - "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"

If anyone puts their theory , that the written Word is above being led by the Spirit of God, then they are very mistaken by their own theory.

Funny Cause I feel pretty convicted that I'm right about this.

John 4:23-24 (NKJV)
23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.
24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Spirit and Truth, there is a balance here. Jesus even told the Disciplies that the Holy Spirit would thus Guide them to Truth. What truth? (Clearly the Spirit and Truth are separate things)


John 16:13 (NKJV)
13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.


(So yes Jesus identifies him as the Spirit of Truth, who will yet guide us to Truth, that's an interesting way he puts that.. I believe Truth is scripture which in turn is the word of God.)

Slug1
Dec 30th 2008, 06:33 PM
It's through our faith and surrender to God that allows Him to empower us through His Holy Spirit.

Even if the Bible didn't exist as a book and all that is in the Bible was spoken and handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation... our faith in God would not change and how God uses us would not change. God still uses man to do His will and to do this requires empowerment... for example, how else does my friend lay hands on a person and heal them if not for the Holy Spirit leading him to pray over a person? It sure isn't him doing the healing and he sure isn't over 2000 years old and is an apostle from the NT.

Just as it says in scripture that tongues is for the unbeliever... this "also" covers Christians who don't believe in what God can do in a Christians life if they surrender and allow Him to be in control.

Imagine a Christian or a non-Christian experiencing a prophet being used as the Lord speaks through them while there still is a lack of belief in the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. So the scriptures tell us that tongues is for those who don't believe, so that once there is surrender to this and belief once a person (Christian or non-Chrisitian) witnesses the Gift of Tongues... then God can speak to them through a prophet and these "believers" will not call it false.

I've met so many Christians who have said that God has never spoken to them directly or that He "doesn't" speak directly anymore (I was one once) and in my experience none of them believe in the Gift of Tongues (like me at that time in my walk with Jesus)... so it's understandable why God has never spoken to them directly (like He didn't speak to me directly a few years ago).

Three years ago I was one and for about a year (on this board no less) I questioned and didn't believe until I witnessed Tongues and this experienced did to me what it's supposted to do. Now when the anoited prophet in our church begins to pray in Tongues and the Lord speaks... I listen and don't call false. Especially when I'm called out by name and receive an answer to a prayer that was only between me and God behind closed doors and no one knew about what I was praying for. Or like last week when I was praying over the phone with my prayer partner (we do daily prayers for our church) and this person begins to go off in tongues and then tells me what the Lord says... another answer to a prayer that no one knew as I privately prayed about a situation in my backroom at home.

Even with my very first experience hearing the Lord speak and give direction to our church through our prophet... I had questions cause I'd still at that moment never witnessed a person translate their own tongues. So I prayed and was led by the Holy Spirit to this scripture and my question was answered and my doubt removed:

1 Cor 14:5
5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:5%20;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-28678a)] he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

Believe me, nothing is more edifying then to be praying about something without ceasing as the Bible tells us to do and the Lord speak through a prophet and verbally tells you (me) that the prayer has been heard and answered and I now need to stop asking in my prayers and now I have to start listening instead. Very edifying for me and everyone present there that night.

LookingUp
Dec 30th 2008, 06:35 PM
I love the scriptures and they have helped me immensely. But I also like to keep these scriptures in mind.


John 5:38-39
39 "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me;
NASB

It is not in the word that we have eternal life. But it is through an experience with The Word that we have eternal life.Hello All,

I haven't read all the posts but I wanted to mention something. In regards to Jn 5, if there had not been Scriptures to read, those who did come to faith would not have recognized the Lord and would not have come to faith in Him (Gal. 3:24). Those to whom the Lord spoke in Jn 5 did not pursue the righteousness of God, which reading the Scriptures with a heart seeking God would have done. They searched the Scriptures and pursued a law of righteousness, but did not pursue it by faith but as though it were by works (Rom. 9:31-32). That is what they thought they had found in the Scriptures that led to eternal life. In seeking their own righteousness, they skipped right over eternal life; they stumbled over the stumbling stone (Rom. 9:33).

The "experience" we all should be having as a result of reading the written word is not some supernatural phenomena that we get to enjoy. The pursuit of these kinds of experiences reminds me of what I mentioned above; the pursuit of one’s own righteousness instead of God’s – it was all about them and little to do with seeking the things of God. The “experience” we should all be having as a result of reading His word is the reality of dying to oneself and living a spirit filled life in Christ. The example of one who led a spirit filled life is Christ Himself. “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of other. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant and being made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2). Living a life like this describes the supernatural experience one will have as a result of reading His word.

If I am unable to live a life of love in Christ, I am at risk of sounding like a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal (1 Cor. 13). I can desire spiritual gifts but I will not pursue them; I will pursue love (1 Cor. 14).

Veretax
Dec 30th 2008, 06:46 PM
Actually, what you stated is . . .



You never EVER come from experience to truth. You ALWAYS come from truth and then compare it to your experience. To do the former is to ignore scripture.

. . . and what we are doing is showing you quite extensively how the very Scripture you speak of disagrees with the above statement. The Scriptures declare quite a few times how folks came to a knowledge of the truth through an experience.


Truth => Experience

NOT

Experience => truth



There are many things we learn outside of scripture. I'm a programmer by trade and I learned it primarily by reading. I also had some instruction which (yes was spoken), but many of the techniques I have learned have come from things I have read. However, when it comes to doctrine concerning Spiritual Things, I do not say, well because I've seen X in my life Y must be true. No, I go into the scripture and then see what scripture says and if scripture says Y is true, and X in my life affirms it, then scripture is true, and X in my life merely brought that idea into my mind. But I do not rest my beliefs upon experience alone that is dangerous.

Does that not clarify what I believe? Or are you intent on pounding me with your boasting of experience?









So then by this you agree that God can reveal truth outside of someone reading the bible. Therefore, a person's experience may indeed lead them to the truth. Can you deny the truth of Paul's conversion? What bible was he reading that brought him to the truth? How about Peter in the example given you by BrotherMark? You say that God's Word can be uttered rather than just read. Well, how is a person supposed to know according to your theory whether or not the Word uttered is really in the bible? When I came to the Lord and asked Him to save me I had no knowledge whatsoever that what the preacher was preaching was actually in the bible. However, my experience did, in fact, lead me to truth.



I knew the bible pretty well even before I was saved, but I knew it academically. I did not know it as Truth until that day in February 1990 when a camp conselor took me aside and showed me several scriptures that I had not to my knowledge read or understood before, and through him the Lord opened my eyes and I then saw the truth and realized that what I had been doing to that point had been pointless (for lack of a better word). Thus you experience is different then mine, I knew much about the bible and Christ and could even recite verses as some do on this board, but I had no faith, i did not believe, and in the end knowing it profited me not. It wasn't until I had that faith in Christ that the words truly came alive to me.

But as far as Salvation, if i did not believe the words of scripture can bring someone to salvation, to belief and faith in Christ, then witnessing to strangers would seem a very useless prospect. yet I tell you I have witnessed to strangers whom I have not even had the chance to meet in person some of them (via the www) and several of them indeed came to believe in God. I've also on the contrary witnessed in person to people who were right in the same room as me, and yet the words were as seed fallen on dead soil. So clearly I do not reason or confirm my beliefs by experience, I do so by comparing it to scripture (as far as spiritual things are concerned anyways), but again, that is not to say we cannot learn things outside of the bible, clearly we do, but I do not base doctrine on something I read or heard outside of the bible, not until I've checked what I've heard to see if scripture agrees.


Secondly, how does a person know what we say from the bible is true. You should already know the answer to this one, it happens because the Holy Spirit testifies along with us. Without the spirit involved man's logic and reading alone does not save. That much I know from how the Lord brought me to belief in him. It wasn't through my logic or works.



Did you have to verify what was being said when you came to the Lord? I didn't have to. My experience and encounter with the Living God was enough for me to know and follow after truth.



We had bible's with us to look up and confirm the scriptures. When I've gone out witnessing often I'll have my bible and perhaps a tract or two with me as well. So verifying it, to me was important, because I had sat under preaching for many years and those words from that preacher did not break into my heart. It was not until that moment at that Snow camp when I was speaking alone with a Counselor did 2 and 2 make 4 and the perfection of the Gospel, its simplicity, and my inability to do anything to merit or earn it was finally demonstrated such that I could then case my faith upon Christ and rest on what he did.




Here's the thing, Veretax. You act as if folks here are trying to deny or cast aside the Word of God as if it is not important. This is far from the case. We know and understand completely the value of God's Word. However, what is being shown to you here, even with the very Word we all hold dear, is that experience does indeed lead someone to truth. This is in direct conflict with the quoted reference above that you insisted upon.

Experience leading to truth? If the result is to know the Truth as it is in scriptures then yes I agree with that, but not if you look at Experience and say well I had this experience therefore this is True absent guidance from scripture. What I perceive is your emphasis on experience, where as mine is on truth. Truth is what matters not experience. Though I will agree that the Lord will use many things in our lives to draw us to, or back to him, I again say I do not base my beliefs or doctrine on experience. Truth in the scripture may be proven by experience, but truth can never be proven by experience absent scripture which is truth.

(That didn't come out quite right... ponders for a second....)



Scripture is Truth, and while Experience my confirm scripture, it is the Scripture which is true not the experience. It is scripture I rely upon.








You also see, then, that if the Word of God is spoken and not read then the person hearing it really has no way of verifying whether or not it is truly in the bible unless they indeed read it . . .

However, without sitting down and reading the Word a person can be led to truth by His Spirit. It happened to me, and in reality, it has probably happened to a good majority of people who have been saved.



When we are talking about Salvation, the scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit testifies along with us, so it is not just our witness, But God's spirit along with us. We are merely instruments to bring the truth, God is the one who does the convincing ultimately.

(I'm really not sure how we got on this tangent now that I look back through what I've written.)





So why didn't these Scriptures lead them to truth?



So then it took something outside of the Scriptures to lead them to the truth if they did in fact accept it.



In Paul's case it did, Everyone is called, but not everyone recognizes the call. Unless God get's our attention I do not believe that we as a natural man (as scripture says) will understand scripture entirely or correctly. I do believe the Salvation message is there and that it is simple to understand, but clearly God has to be at work to draw someone to him for them to be able to believe.







Why wouldn't he have listened? It was because it was going to take something outside of just the Scriptures to lead him to the truth.



Revelation of truth is an experience. Revelation comes from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is something outside of the Scriptures giving us revelation on what is in those Scriptures. Even interpreting the Scriptures correctly takes an experience with the Living God.




Yes, I agree here, God has a hand in the salvatory process if you will. His Spirit does play a part. However, I don't equate the Revelation of Truth as Paul had, with the same type Revelation as new prophecy or knowledge.






So then you agree that just because some folks misinterpret Scripture it doesn't take away from the Scripture itself. The same can be said of an experience. Just because some may misinterpret an experience it doesn't then mean that all experience cannot lead to truth.




Ultimately, and I think you will agree on this, as I think its the point that we've both been dancing around and agree on yet come at it differnetly is what is the agent that brings us to truth. Is it scripture? Is it Experience?

As I just read at the end of John. The Holy Spirit is called by Christ literally as the "Spirit of Truth". So if we come to truth, must it not come by the Spirit?





Did Jesus ever utter words not recorded in Scripture or do you believe that the only words He said were jotted down in the gospels? If you believe that He did indeed speak words outside of the bible, do you then believe that those words were now flawed or not of God because they were not recorded? When Jesus says He is the Word . . . He is not saying He is the bible.




Of course Jesus said other things. We know there were many things not written, because in those years of his ministry there are many seconds and minutes not directly accounted. And yes I believe everything Christ said was true. In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. That's Christ. However, I also take it on faith that we have preserved in the bible is exactly what God wanted us to have for instruction and doctrine. In 2 Tim 3:16 he doesn't say taht all


2 Timothy 3:15-16 (NKJV)
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Clearly the Scriptures are able to make one wise unto salvation. So to say you cannot find salvation in the scriptures I do not agree with. However, we do know that the Pharisees missed what Christ was saying, missed who he was. They boasted of their knowledge as if that alone made them righteous and they missed the point that salvation is by faith in Christ Jesus (15)







One does not exclude the other if they are in agreement, however, and this is the point being made. It doesn't matter if experience happens first or the Word. As long as they are in agreement, and one testifies to the other then both lead to truth.


On this point I think we agree. The point is to make sure what we've experienced is true, not whether it came first. In my life I've found that certain things will happen and will bring to remebrance certain scriptures I had forgotten or not understood before. So as I have said Experience can teach us things, but to confirm that teaching we need to compare it to scripture to make sure they agree, I think you are right that as long as they agree there is not a problem, and I apologize its taking me this far into your post to understand that we arguing over something we both already believe. (bangs head on desk)





It's already been shown to you from the Scriptures how experience can indeed lead to truth. That is the argument you have brought to the table . . . that a person can never go by their experience. You stated in the quoted reference above that you "never EVER come from experience to truth". However, the very Word itself refutes such a claim. There has been many times in the Word where it is recorded that folks came to a knowledge of the truth because of an experience.


No what I said is I would never go by experience alone. (And I believe there is a difference between the Salvation 'experience' as you want to call it and general experience)






The problem here is that you have yet to show any proof backing what you state. You have stated that you rely totally on the Scriptures to form what you believe . . . yet the Scriptures do not testify to what you're stating here. There is no Scripture that you can reference to us that clearly declares that any of the gifts have vanished. There isn't anything in there. Therefore, if it is not the Word that clearly lays this declaration out then you are also basing what you believe on something outside of what the Word declares. In other words, you are just as much basing what you believe on your experience as we who believe in all the gifts are.

I and others have posted scripture, but we differ on interpretations, and sinec we do not agree on the interpretation of that passage in 1 Cor 13 we are at an impass in the discussion in either direction.

Slug1
Dec 30th 2008, 06:56 PM
Truth => Experience

NOT

Experience => truth


Peter had to "experience" tongues through Cornelious and all there in the home to remove that final doubt about gentiles. So even here we see God using Tongues to turn a faithful Christian into a believer ;)

Witnessing Tongues is for both non-Christians and Christians... to turn us all from unbelief to belief... not unfaithful to faithful. It's belief and surrender to what God can do.

Veretax
Dec 30th 2008, 06:59 PM
Peter had to "experience" tongues through Cornelious and all there in the home to remove that final doubt about gentiles. So even here we see God using Tongues to turn a faithful Christian into a believer ;)

Witnessing Tongues is for both non-Christians and Christians... to turn us all from unbelief to belief... not unfaithful to faithful. It's belief and surrender to what God can do.



I thought the point of what happened to Corneilius was to demonstrate to the jewish Christians that the Spirit of God had now fallen and was in essence now available for the Gentiles to partake? I didn't think faith had anything to do with it, but then, part of the clean/unclean vision Peter had has never totally been understood by me, and its probably cause as a westerner I don't have the same beliefs concerning various food types :/

Slug1
Dec 30th 2008, 07:11 PM
I thought the point of what happened to Corneilius was to demonstrate to the jewish Christians that the Spirit of God had now fallen and was in essence now available for the Gentiles to partake? I didn't think faith had anything to do with it, but then, part of the clean/unclean vision Peter had has never totally been understood by me, and its probably cause as a westerner I don't have the same beliefs concerning various food types :/Right... I think :lol:

Witnessing Tongues is for non-believers. This isn't limited to non-Chrisitians but it's for those who don't "believe". In Peters case he still had a doubt about Gentiles being a child of God as the Jews were. In essence, there was something he didn't believe in, so God used Tongues for it's purpose which is to make non-belivers, believers.

So, it's not limited to turn an unfaithful person into a faithfull person but instead to turn non-believing people (both Christian/non-Christian) to belief in the power of God.

When this happens... in the case of a Christian then God is able to begin to manifest through them also. Empower them with any of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit as such a Christian has surrendered thier non-belief to belief. I mean, in my friends case... his ministry given to him by God is a Healing Ministry. Just how is he to do this if he had no belief in the Gifts of the Holy Spirit?

Mysteryman
Dec 30th 2008, 07:24 PM
Quote Veretax:
Do you distinguish between Knowledge and Prophecy as they being what we presently know from scripture form new revelation, prophecy, predictions etc? I find them to be different yet related, and when i think of Knowledge and Prophecy having ceased or vanished, I am always of the mind that it is referring to new revelation, not continuing of spreading what has already been said. Do you agree or disagree on this point?

Veretax, Prophecy becomes knowledge after the prophecy becomes established. It does not become realized until one believes . Just because something is written that we read about within the Word, does not mean that people who read the Word will believe it. For instance, Paul said that he spoke in tongues more than ye all. Seems logical that he was implying that he wanted them to speak in tongues more than they were.

Quote Veretax:
Now we have a disagreement here on whether they ceased or not. And the stumbling block is how we are interpreting this passage right?


1 Corinthians 13:8-13 (NKJV)
8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Here's what I don't understand. If the gifts do not vanish or cease as you proclaim. Then why does Paul need to even mention these parts? It seems like a waste of words and time to go on about that they will cease when we (The BodY) are no longer on this earth given that when that occurs we will be with Christ. I also do not believe that all the gifts will be gone then

Veretax , most of this is common sense. Only those filled the Spirit are going to operate the nine manifestations. Once the body of Christ is gathered up, the manifestations are no longer available because there are no Spirit filled Christians left to operate them. They have been all gathered up. The reason they will cease is because of this fact. "When that which is perfect has come", is talking about the gathering up of the saints. Many do not even believe in the gathering up of the saints. Thus , we have differences within the church. These differences are the very thing that causes division within the church.

The Word of God is of no private interpretation. This is another dilemma that we have to deal with. Many believe that they did not do any private interpretation of scripture when in fact that is exactly what they have done. Private interpretation interjects some form of belief that is not scriptural. This is where we need to be very careful if we are going to read what is written verses what is spoken and come to the same exact conclusion.

Butch5
Dec 30th 2008, 10:14 PM
What I get from this is that you make exception where Scripture doesn't give one.

You say, "Yes, they received this without the laying on of the apostles hands at Pentecost, but . . . "

or . . .

"Yes, they received this without the laying on of the apostles hands at Cornelius' house, but . . . "

The Scriptures do not give those "but" entries. Additionally, we are talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit here. When a person is baptised by the Holy Spirit then that is when the ability to operate in power and use gifts is given as the Spirit wills. Your point of view here makes it sound as if the gifts of the Spirit are as the apostles will rather than the Spirit.

When Paul was baptised it was not through the laying on of hands from an apostle. At Cornelius' house it says that Peter was simply preaching the Word and the Holy Spirit fell on them during the midst of this. The Holy Spirit didn't wait for Peter to lay his hands on anyone. Peter was still preaching away.

There is no recipe given in the Scriptures stating that only apostles can do this or that.

So you just overlook what I posted??

Look, we are "not" talking about the baptism of the holy Spirit. I was discussing the cessation of the gifts when you chimed in. At Pentecost, no one had spiritual gifts, until God sent the holy Spirit. OK, you mention Cornelius' house, the holy Spirit fell on them and the spoke in tongues. What other gifts did they receive??? If God chooses to bestow a gift personally, He is more than able. You spoke of Paul's baptism, where is there any mention of the gifts?

So we have two places where God sent the holy Spirit with the gift of tongues, once to the Jews and once to the gentiles.

Please show me where everyone got their spiritual gifts.

VerticalReality
Dec 30th 2008, 10:41 PM
Look, we are "not" talking about the baptism of the holy Spirit.

Sure we are. That is the topic of this thread, and you cannot operate in genuine gifts of the Spirit if you have not been empowered to do so. Therefore, this is very much about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When we are empowered by His Spirit it is then that the gifts, such as tongues and so forth, flow through us.


I was discussing the cessation of the gifts when you chimed in. At Pentecost, no one had spiritual gifts, until God sent the holy Spirit. OK, you mention Cornelius' house, the holy Spirit fell on them and the spoke in tongues. What other gifts did they receive??? If God chooses to bestow a gift personally, He is more than able. You spoke of Paul's baptism, where is there any mention of the gifts?

Paul operated in numerous gifts. Tongues, healing, discernment, wisdom, knowledge, etc.


So we have two places where God sent the holy Spirit with the gift of tongues, once to the Jews and once to the gentiles.

So two places is not enough to say the Holy Spirit gives the gift? I'm not sure what your point is.


Please show me where everyone got their spiritual gifts.

Where who got they got their spiritual gifts?

Butch5
Dec 30th 2008, 11:44 PM
VerticalReality---Sure we are. That is the topic of this thread, and you cannot operate in genuine gifts of the Spirit if you have not been empowered to do so. Therefore, this is very much about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When we are empowered by His Spirit it is then that the gifts, such as tongues and so forth, flow through us.


Can we stay on topic? When you entered the conversation it was about the cessation of the gifts, not about being baptized with the HS.


VerticalReality---Paul operated in numerous gifts. Tongues, healing, discernment, wisdom, knowledge, etc.

Yes he did, that is not being disputed.




VerticalReality---So two places is not enough to say the Holy Spirit gives the gift? I'm not sure what your point is.

The holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues. This does not mean that the holy Spirit gave gifts. My point is that you have not shown how NT people received these gifts. I have shown you several Scriptures that show they the gifts were given by the laying on of hands, you rejected the idea, yet you have not shown how the gifts were given.



VerticalReality---Where who got they got their spiritual gifts?


Those in the NT who received Spiritual gifts.

VerticalReality
Dec 31st 2008, 12:26 AM
Can we stay on topic? When you entered the conversation it was about the cessation of the gifts, not about being baptized with the HS.

I am on the topic, Butch. If you are trying to stray the topic from the baptism of the Holy Spirit it is you who is off topic and needs to get back on it. Besides, they go hand in hand. You cannot operate in the gifts of the Spirit without the baptism of the Holy Spirit.


The holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues. This does not mean that the holy Spirit gave gifts.

Tongues is a gift of the Spirit.



My point is that you have not shown how NT people received these gifts. I have shown you several Scriptures that show they the gifts were given by the laying on of hands, you rejected the idea, yet you have not shown how the gifts were given.


I've given numerous Scriptures. Additionally, 1 Corinthians 12 declares that the gifts are given as the Spirit wills . . . not as the apostles will through the laying on of hands.


Those in the NT who received Spiritual gifts.

The Word declares that the church received the gifts as the Spirit willed it.

Butch5
Dec 31st 2008, 03:51 PM
VR---I am on the topic, Butch. If you are trying to stray the topic from the baptism of the Holy Spirit it is you who is off topic and needs to get back on it. Besides, they go hand in hand. You cannot operate in the gifts of the Spirit without the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

No, you're not. The topic of the OP may be the Baptism of the Spirit, but that is not what I was discussing when you entered the conversation. I was discussing the cessation of the gifts.




VR---Tongues is a gift of the Spirit.

Yes it was, it was also for a specific purpose, as were the other gifts, however you have not expalined why it was only the house of Cornelius that receieved the gift in this manner.





VR---I've given numerous Scriptures. Additionally, 1 Corinthians 12 declares that the gifts are given as the Spirit wills . . . not as the apostles will through the laying on of hands.

I didn't say it was as the apostles willed. However, please show how the Spirit distrubutes the gifts.



VR---The Word declares that the church received the gifts as the Spirit willed it.

Throught what method?

godsgirl
Dec 31st 2008, 05:38 PM
Those who receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit, although they can speak in tongues, do not necessarily receive the "gift" of tongues. The gifts are for the church gathered. Receiving the ability to pray in tongues at our baptism in the Spirit is not a receiving of the gift of tongues. Some people who pray in tongues quite often are never used in the gift of tongues. Two different things altogether.

And yes the Bible says the Holy Spirit distributes the gifts....

But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills ( 1 Cor. 12:11)


Tongues will cease when that which is perfect is come, and we know as we are known. Until then, we see through a glass darkly.

VerticalReality
Dec 31st 2008, 05:43 PM
No, you're not. The topic of the OP may be the Baptism of the Spirit, but that is not what I was discussing when you entered the conversation. I was discussing the cessation of the gifts.

Butch it doesn't matter if you think I'm off topic. The topic of this thread is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that is where the topic is going to stay.


Yes it was, it was also for a specific purpose, as were the other gifts, however you have not expalined why it was only the house of Cornelius that receieved the gift in this manner.

Tongues is still for a specific purpose. Received the gift in what manner? They received the gift the same as everyone else. The Holy Spirit came upon them, empowered them and they spoke in tongues. The same thing still happens today.


I didn't say it was as the apostles willed. However, please show how the Spirit distrubutes the gifts.

I already have. The Spirit comes upon a person and empowers them.


Throught what method?

The Scriptures do not give a method.

Butch5
Dec 31st 2008, 08:51 PM
VR---Butch it doesn't matter if you think I'm off topic. The topic of this thread is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that is where the topic is going to stay.

If you don't want to speak on the topic why did you interrupt?



VR---Tongues is still for a specific purpose. Received the gift in what manner? They received the gift the same as everyone else. The Holy Spirit came upon them, empowered them and they spoke in tongues. The same thing still happens today.

You keep going back to tongues, there were many other gifts, please address these.



VR---I already have. The Spirit comes upon a person and empowers them.

Other than when God sent the HS for a specific purpose i.e Pentecost and Cornelius' house (the gentile Pentecost), please show how the gifts were distributed.

Why did the Church at Rome not have these supernatural gifts?

Why did all of those who were saved, hearing Phillip's preaching, not have the supernatural gifts?

How did Timothy receiver his supernatural gift?




VR---The Scriptures do not give a method.

It does, the gifts are given by the Spirit, through the laying on of the apostles hands. Notice the gifts Paul mentions here are the supernatural gifts, not the gifts. Paul says that "everyone" receives one or more of these gifts, everyone. If these gifts are still around today why don't we see them in abundance? Do we have people prophesying today? Do we have people walking around performing miracles, I think you have one of two options, either there are not many Christians in the world or these gifts have ceased as Paul said.


1 Corinthians 12:4-11 ( NKJV ) 4There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by £ (qv://steplinkto1 0000034905/)the same Spirit, 10to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

The Spirit Distributes these gifts, but how?

Acts 8:4-17 ( KJV ) 4Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. 5Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. 8And there was great joy in that city. 9But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. 11And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. 12But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.



14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Why do you suppose they sent Peter and John? After all, Phillip was performing great signs and wonders, he was casting out demons, he was healing the sick, why didn't he just lay hands on the people so that they would receive the holy Spirit? What reason was there to send Peter and John? Phillip was not one of the 12 apostles, so while he was able to perform the signs and wonders, he, apparently was not able to bestow the supernatural gifts. So, when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard of this they sent Peter and John to bestow the Spirit and thus the gifts.

We also have Paul reminding Timothy how he (Timothy) received his gift, it was by Paul laying his hands on him.

1 Timothy 4:14 ( KJV ) 14Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.




2 Timothy 1:6 ( KJV ) 6Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

Paul explicitly says, that the gift is in Timothy, by Paul laying hands on him. If only the Spirit can give the gifts, then it my be that the Spirit did through the apostles.

VerticalReality
Dec 31st 2008, 10:20 PM
If you don't want to speak on the topic why did you interrupt?

I am speaking on the topic of this thread. Now do me a favor . . .

If you have any further questions about the topic of this thread or the direction of it address them to me in the Chat to the Moderators forum. Otherwise, let us continue talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the empowerment that comes along with it.


You keep going back to tongues, there were many other gifts, please address these.

All gifts are given as the Spirit wills and all gifts are used through the empowerment of the Spirit.


Other than when God sent the HS for a specific purpose i.e Pentecost and Cornelius' house (the gentile Pentecost), please show how the gifts were distributed.

The Holy Spirit is always sent for a specific purpose.


Why did the Church at Rome not have these supernatural gifts?

Romans 12:3-8
For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

Looks to me like the church in Rome did have these gifts.


Why did all of those who were saved, hearing Phillip's preaching, not have the supernatural gifts?

Where does it say they didn't receive gifts from the Spirit? Acts 8 doesn't speak anywhere of spiritual gifts.


How did Timothy receiver his supernatural gift?

All gifts are given as the Spirit wills. However, the gift of God that Timothy received through the laying on of Paul's hands was the gift of the Holy Spirit.


It does, the gifts are given by the Spirit, through the laying on of the apostles hands.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the gifts are given through the laying on of the apostles' hands.


If these gifts are still around today why don't we see them in abundance?

Maybe because you aren't surrounding yourself with folks who believe for them.


Do we have people prophesying today?

Yes.


Do we have people walking around performing miracles

Yes.


I think you have one of two options, either there are not many Christians in the world or these gifts have ceased as Paul said.

Or option #3 - Not many folks believe God for these gifts.



The Spirit Distributes these gifts, but how?


Acts 8 is not talking about receiving gifts of the Spirit . . . it's talking about receiving the Spirit period.


Why do you suppose they sent Peter and John? After all, Phillip was performing great signs and wonders, he was casting out demons, he was healing the sick, why didn't he just lay hands on the people so that they would receive the holy Spirit? What reason was there to send Peter and John? Phillip was not one of the 12 apostles, so while he was able to perform the signs and wonders, he, apparently was not able to bestow the supernatural gifts. So, when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard of this they sent Peter and John to bestow the Spirit and thus the gifts.

What reason was there to send Ananias to Paul in Acts 9? Ananias was not an apostle. Why didn't God send Peter or John or James?



Paul explicitly says, that the gift is in Timothy, by Paul laying hands on him. If only the Spirit can give the gifts, then it my be that the Spirit did through the apostles.


That gift being the Holy Spirit.

Butch5
Dec 31st 2008, 11:19 PM
I am speaking on the topic of this thread. Now do me a favor . . .

If you have any further questions about the topic of this thread or the direction of it address them to me in the Chat to the Moderators forum. Otherwise, let us continue talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the empowerment that comes along with it.



All gifts are given as the Spirit wills and all gifts are used through the empowerment of the Spirit.



The Holy Spirit is always sent for a specific purpose.



Romans 12:3-8
For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

Looks to me like the church in Rome did have these gifts.



Where does it say they didn't receive gifts from the Spirit? Acts 8 doesn't speak anywhere of spiritual gifts.



All gifts are given as the Spirit wills. However, the gift of God that Timothy received through the laying on of Paul's hands was the gift of the Holy Spirit.



Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the gifts are given through the laying on of the apostles' hands.



Maybe because you aren't surrounding yourself with folks who believe for them.



Yes.



Yes.



Or option #3 - Not many folks believe God for these gifts.



Acts 8 is not talking about receiving gifts of the Spirit . . . it's talking about receiving the Spirit period.



What reason was there to send Ananias to Paul in Acts 9? Ananias was not an apostle. Why didn't God send Peter or John or James?





That gift being the Holy Spirit.


Well, I wasn't discussing the baptism of the holy Spirit, I was discussing the cessation of the Gifts, so I guess there is no point in continuing.