SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Why did the apostles have to come down?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
running2win
Member



Joined: 2007/5/15
Posts: 231
Bowmansville Penssylvania USA

 Re:

Eddie, I wasn't actually reffering to scripture but rather the experiences of mighty men of God in the past. I also wasn't thinking about the laying on of hands but the preaching and leading souls to God after they would make an appeal. I think I didn't explain myself very well. Sorry about that.

Quote:
I want to leave the Scriptures where they are, ans ask God to bring my experience up to the Scriptures, not the other way around, and try to "lower" the Scriptures down to my experience.



Oh brother your words are exactly what has been burning in my heart for the last year and a half. This is exactly what we need in this day and age. The church now knows nothing of what the New Testament church was really like and so we come up with all these shallow explanations of the things that went on there instead of asking "God why doesn't my life look like that?". [b]WE NEED WAY MORE THAN WHAT WE HAVE![/b] Let me tell you brothers a little bit of my life story. A year ago in January I went to a three week bible seminar type of thing where Denny Kenaston preached his "Attributes of God" series(that's just for reference, it's not what changed my life). Being there at the "Three Week Bible Institute" I made the decision that I was going to go all the way with God no matter what. I came home and went back to work doing everything in my power to be holy and blameless in the sight of God trying not to grieve God by even the smallest little remarks that might be cutting or the smallest act of irreverence. I listened to literal hundreds of sermons from SI learning everything I could about what a disciple should be. I quickly found out that I don't have what it takes to be what the christians were back in Acts. So I started studying the lives of men like the Wesleys, Edwards, Moody, Whitefield, Campbell and so on, to see what made the difference in their lives. I found that in every one of them without exception God brought them to a place where he poured out his spirit on them like he did the disciples on the day of Pentecost. I started tearing through the scriptures to see how it lined up there and found that they were full of the same thing. Everywhere I looked I found it. I also found that God is not a respecter of persons. WHOAH! That means God can make a Finney out of any one of us! If we want it bad enough and for the right and proper reasons. "Ye shall seek me and SHALL find me when ye shall search for me with all your heart." "Out of your belly shall flow RIVERS of living water." Brothers I found that I have to pump so hard that I get exausted to the point of giving up and all I would get were trickles. That was enough to convince me that I need God to "bring my experience up to the scriptures" like our brother said. We all know that the church needs revival but do we realize that it needs to start in us? Oh God make us EVERYTHING that we can be for YOU!!! Again I say brothers, I'm not an experience seeker but rather I seek after God Himself to make me what I ought to and can be as a christian. Oh please consider these things with an open mind.


_________________
Jeff Mollman

 2007/5/23 9:00Profile
PassingThru
Member



Joined: 2005/5/7
Posts: 175


 Re:

Quote:

In what chapter and verse did the one whom the Apostle Philip lay hands on and pray for fail to receive the Holy Spirit? Sorry Eddie



I thinks Acts 8:14-17 shows that Philip didn't have the capacity to impart the 'Fullness of the Spirit' upon them, even if he had the fullness himself. Otherwise the Apostles in Jerusalem wouldn't have sent Peter and John.

[color=000099]
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, [b]that they might receive the Holy Ghost[/b]:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
[/color]

In my understanding these were fully saved men before Peter and John's arrival. There is no reason to believe that Philip baptized unsaved men, nor that he preached anything less than the full Christ centered gospel. These men responded to the full gospel with repentance, and believed.
[color=000099]
Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, [b]and the name of Jesus Christ[/b], they were baptized, both men and women.
[/color]
On the existence of a second experience, the first salvation experience these men had, prior to the Peter and Johns arrival, would already be a big deal in most of our churches today :-
[color=000099]
Act 8:6 And the people with one accord [b]gave heed unto those things which Philip spake[/b], hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
Act 8:7 [b]For 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.[/b]
Act 8:8 And [b]there was [u]great[/u] joy[/b] in that city.
[/color]
I respect that others have different convictions on this, but to me it's clear that Acts Chapter 8 documents a second experience, regardless of whatever terminology we use to explain it.

PassingThru

 2007/5/23 9:54Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
the Samaritan incident shows that it is possible to receive Christian baptism and still not have the Spirit.



Anyone who tries to take a dogmatic approach to Baptism and the Holy Spirit from the book of Acts will drive themselves mad. Acts is not meant to provide us a step by step instruction manual of receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized (and which must come before the other.)

For example, in Acts 8:4-25 the Samaritans:
1. Believed
2. Were Baptized
3. Received the Spirit by the laying on of Hands at a later date.

Is this how it must always occur?
Not according to Acts 8:26-40, the Ethiopian eunuch:
1. Believed
2. Was Baptized
3. Did not receive the Spirit by the laying on of Hands (not recorded)

Does this mean the Ethiopian eunuch never received the Spirit? Acts 8:39 says, “Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. The Spirit was there…are we to assume that since John or Peter was not present the eunuch didn’t receive the Spirit?

But what about Cornelius in Acts 10?. He:
1. Believed
2. Received the Spirit (without the laying on of hands)
3. Was Baptized

Acts 10:47-48:
“47"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.”

So Acts tell us the following:
1. It is possible to be baptized and not receive the Spirit.
2. It is possible to receive the Spirit without being Baptized.

We cannot look at one of these events, ignoring the others and say 'This is how it always happens.'

So can we now take a step out of Acts for a moment and move to one of Paul’s epistles…namely the letter to the Ephesians. Read what Paul wrote here:
“In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.” (Ephesians 1:13-14)

Why is the Spirit given? He is a seal, a promise, a pledge of our inheritance. This is given because God has redeemed us and made us His own possession.

 2007/5/23 10:48Profile
ADisciple
Member



Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 835
Alberta, Canada

 Re:

Quote:

JaySaved wrote:

Anyone who tries to take away a dogmatic approach to Baptism and the Holy Spirit from the book of Acts will drive themselves mad. Acts is not meant to provide us a step by step instruction manual of receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized (and which must come before the other.)




JaySaved, I think you meant "take a dogmatic approach," and not "take away a dogmatic approach"?

I fully agree. (That to take a dogmatic approach trying to find an "always the same" pattern will end in failure.) It is a living God with whom we have to do: He is always the same, He changes not: He is always unsearchable, His ways past "mapping out."

Running2Win, I appreciated your post. Considering the hour we are in, we DO need way more than we presently have in our experience. I think we need way more than the Church, generally speaking, has ever experienced, throughout history, and even in the Book of Acts.

More than the Book of Acts or what the early apostles had attained to? Yes, our day is certainly calling for it! The Day of the Lord which is at our doorstep is certainly calling for it! God's glory is certainly calling for it! Or is God too small for this kind of hope?

This is maybe starting to get beyond the original intention of this thread. But I remember reading years ago something Leonard Ravenhill wrote: that England entered WW II expecting to fight it with WW I weapons. There they were, heading into battle with horse-drawn artillery, and suddenly were up against tanks! He gave a few other illustrations along this line, and then said this a picture of the Church of our day! We are trying to fight today's battle with yesterday's provision. The measure of the Spirit we have is yesterday's provision. We need more! And God has more, way more! He has what we need for OUR day! And we need to be very open-hearted toward Him so that He will have vessels through whom He can reveal Himself afresh.

Frank Bartleman, one of the leaders of the Pentecostal move back in the early 1900's, said something that has stuck in my heart. God had put in the hearts of a few a hunger for more, and they were seeking Him for more. But they were being severely reproached and resisted by others in the Church who felt they already had it all. But Bartleman would not be turned. He said, "Believe in your own heart's hunger, and go on with God." History tells us God loved that kind of attitude, and met them.

AD


_________________
Allan Halton

 2007/5/23 11:58Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
JaySaved, I think you meant "take a dogmatic approach," and not "take away a dogmatic approach"?



Yes, thanks for catching that.

 2007/5/23 13:01Profile
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

Quote:

Anyone who tries to take a dogmatic approach to Baptism and the Holy Spirit from the book of Acts will drive themselves mad. Acts is not meant to provide us a step by step instruction manual of receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized (and which must come before the other.)

For example, in Acts 8:4-25 the Samaritans:
1. Believed
2. Were Baptized
3. Received the Spirit by the laying on of Hands at a later date.

Is this how it must always occur?
Not according to Acts 8:26-40, the Ethiopian eunuch:
1. Believed
2. Was Baptized
3. Did not receive the Spirit by the laying on of Hands (not recorded)

Does this mean the Ethiopian eunuch never received the Spirit? Acts 8:39 says, “Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. The Spirit was there…are we to assume that since John or Peter was not present the eunuch didn’t receive the Spirit?

But what about Cornelius in Acts 10?. He:
1. Believed
2. Received the Spirit (without the laying on of hands)
3. Was Baptized

Acts 10:47-48:
“47"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.”

So Acts tell us the following:
1. It is possible to be baptized and not receive the Spirit.
2. It is possible to receive the Spirit without being Baptized.

We cannot look at one of these events, ignoring the others and say 'This is how it always happens.'



I don't think anyone is arguing that it has to be done in a certain order, but the argument is that they are all different events and that a certain amount of time may be inbetween the 3.

*) Faith to be Justified
*) Baptism in Water
*) Receiving the Spirit

I don't know if I agree with the argument, but I believe that is the argument.

Here is what the argument believes to be possible.

John believes in the work of Christ and is now justified. 3 weeks later John gets baptized in water. 4 weeks after that John receives the Spirit.


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2007/5/23 14:18Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Why is the Spirit given? He is a seal, a promise, a pledge of our inheritance. This is given because God has redeemed us and made us His own possession.


So... unless the Spirit has been given we are not redeemed?

Romans 8 seems to suggest that the criteria which indicates 'being his own possession' is 'having the Spirit'; But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. (Romans 8:9 NKJV)A 'seal' was a way of putting your name on something to show that you acknowledged it as yours. If we do not have the seal what would that mean? You are reasoning as though 'we must have the seal' because we are 'his', but that is the reverse of the argument. Those who ARE 'his' are given the seal.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/5/23 17:40Profile
ADisciple
Member



Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 835
Alberta, Canada

 Re:

Quote:

philologos wrote:
Quote:
Why is the Spirit given? He is a seal, a promise, a pledge of our inheritance. This is given because God has redeemed us and made us His own possession.


So... unless the Spirit has been given we are not redeemed?

A 'seal' was a way of putting your name on something to show that you acknowledged it as yours. If we do not have the seal what would that mean? You are reasoning as though 'we must have the seal' because we are 'his', but that is the reverse of the argument. Those who ARE 'his' are given the seal.



So what does the seal mean, then? Having the seal, what is it that we actually have, as far as redemption is concerned?

"...In whom also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession..." (Eph. 1. 13,14).

"And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption" (Eph. 4.30).

What I am asking is, what is the relationship between the seal of the Holy Spirit and the redemption of the purchased possession (which is yet to come)?

The seal is the "guarantee" of redemption. In what sense, then, am I presently redeemed? Or, to put it another way, in what sense am I now "saved" when Peter talks of the salvation "ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Pet. 1.5).

(Maybe this thread is going in a different direction, and I'm not sure of the site rules on that: should this be a new thread?)

AD


_________________
Allan Halton

 2007/5/23 20:31Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
A 'seal' was a way of putting your name on something to show that you acknowledged it as yours. If we do not have the seal what would that mean? You are reasoning as though 'we must have the seal' because we are 'his', but that is the reverse of the argument. Those who ARE 'his' are given the seal.



I agree. How is this any different than what I was saying? The Holy Spirit is the seal as Ephesians tells us. The seal is given to those who belong to Christ. You cannot belong to Christ without the Spirit...without the seal.

 2007/5/24 15:16Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I agree. How is this any different than what I was saying? The Holy Spirit is the seal as Ephesians tells us. The seal is given to those who belong to Christ. You cannot belong to Christ without the Spirit...without the seal.


You seem to be saying that when a person is Christ's they have the seal of the Spirit. I am saying that when a person has the seal of the Spirit, they are Christ's.

Yours sounds like a logical deduction drawn from a bibical text. Mine begins with the experience.

It makes no sense to say that you cannot belong to Christ without the Spirit. The scripture defines 'belonging to Christ' in terms of having the Spirit. The question is 'how does a man or woman know that they have the Spirit?' and that was the Biblical question of the early church. Not are you Christ's but 'when you believed did you receive the Spirit?'. Having 'received the Spirit' is the definition of belonging to Christ.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/5/24 16:42Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy