Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Campion; bibletruth

I’m not quite sure of your point Campion, but I think we’re in the same boat. Bibletruth: I think the following verses from Acts pretty well debunk your theory, demonstrating that baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost are two different things.

Philip was preaching the Gospel in Samaria and obviously had the authority to baptize. He did not have the authority to give the Holy Ghost. Hence Philip told those whom he had baptized to go see Peter and John, who were authorized to give the converts the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:12-20

12. But 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.
13. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
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.)
17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
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.


19 posted on 09/27/2010 7:41:40 PM PDT by Dexter Morgan (Everyone hides who they are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Dexter Morgan
Dexter - what you have here in Acts is a perfect example of Jewish baptism by the 12 apostles (not Paul).

Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ - this is exactly what Philip was commissioned to perform via the believing Jews in Jerusalem (Peter, James, Matthew, John, etc); and from Christ in the closing chapters of the Gospels. Philip was commissioned as any faithful Jewish believer in Jesus to preach the things concerning the kingdom of God, and in the name of Jesus Christ; this is the Gospels were he and the Jerusalem saints were to do: i.e., preach the kingdom of God in the name of Jesus Christ. And to baptize as per Jewish baptism. Remember, Jesus was a Jew! So when Jesus referred to baptism, He only meant Jewish baptism as prescribed in the Old Testament: water.

These are all truths that cannot be denied.

But, when God and the glorified Jesus Christ raised up the apostle Paul in Acts 9; Paul neither went into Jerusalem to confer with Peter, James:

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Paul did not receive his commission from Peter (Cephas), James, Matthew, John, or any of the 12 apostles; he received his grace gospel directly from the glorified Christ Jesus; and was taught by God via Christ Jesus for some 14 years [Galatians 2:1] before Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Peter and James. See also 2 Cor 12:2

We further see in Galatians that Peter and those Jewish believers in Jesus were to continue to preach the kingdom of God to the circumcision (Jews).

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Now at this point, Paul's ministry was the gospel of grace and without water baptism; although he did baptism some, but Paul explicitly said:

1 Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

This is where Spirit baptism come into the picture via Paul's grace gospel to the Gentiles. Praise God for HIS grace message via the Apostle Paul for the uncircumcision which was committed unto Paul for my sake.

24 posted on 09/27/2010 8:19:05 PM PDT by bibletruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Dexter Morgan
Philip was preaching the Gospel in Samaria and obviously had the authority to baptize. He did not have the authority to give the Holy Ghost.

Here is where knowledge of the Greek language is critical for doctrinal formation. Your believe that Peter and John had some kind of apostolic authority to give the Holy Spirit is off base. Often times in Greek (especially questions) statements are made in such a way that answers or refinement is implied. This is such a case.

The statement "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them ..." is constructed in the Greek in such a way as to imply that additional idea that "BUT HE SHOULD HAVE." The HS had not as of yet fallen (but He should have) ...

Very similar to Pauls "Shall we continue to sin that grace may abound?" The implied answer is "No" and the Greek construct confirms this.

The Holy Spirit had not fallen on the people of Samaria when they believed ... but He should have. The critical question here is "why?" I believe you will find the answer if you continue in Acts ... The apostles themselves needed to witness the same falling of the HS on the Samarians so they would be convinced their conversion was real. This is in keeping with the gospel speading out from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, whole world. You can see the conclusion of the entire episode when Peter went back to the other apostles in Jerusalem and told them "the spirit fell on them like us in the beginning" Acts 11.15 ...

The other factor that explains the delay in the baptism of the HS to the Samarians is historical ... the Samarians were despised by Jews ... recall the disciples were dismayed that Jesus was talking to the Samarian woman at the well. This episode was was essential to the growth of the early church.

Hence Philip told those whom he had baptized to go see Peter and John, who were authorized to give the converts the Holy Ghost.

The text does not say that at all, you are reading your belief into it ... it says the apostles HEARD that Samaria had received the Word, and they sent John and Peter to check it out for themselves.

It is apparent to me that the conversion of the Samarians was a unique event in Acts like no other ... and that was for a specific purpose ... to confirm to the apostles that Samarians (and Gentiles) were to be included in the body of Christ.

50 posted on 09/28/2010 7:34:34 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson