I had an interesting conversation today with an acappella brother re: the Holy Spirit. He informed me that there are those in the acappella c of c (and maybe others, I don't know) who believe that a person only receives the Holy Spirit through the Word ... and not at the time of immersion.

I asked how these folks explain the latter part of Acts 2:38 (receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit after immersion) and he wasn't sure what their stance was on that.

He did say that many of the folks who hold this p.o.v. believe that the more you study and understand God's Word, the more of the Holy Spirit you receive?????

Any thoughts or concise explanations?

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, September 13, 2000

Answers

The Pharisees thought they had eternal life in the scriptures, but they did not have the word of God abiding in them. Hmmm.

I read an interesting post on an edg the other day from someone who was explaining, and as a theologian has written in a book, that the book of Acts only refers to the Holy Spirit in terms of empowering and things of that sort, and not of His role in soteriology (salvation.) Paul's writings contain a lot about the role of the Spirit in salvation.

I was thinking about this, and it makes sense after reading Acts. Even 'receive' the Holy Ghost seems to deal with empowerment.

Luke, the author wrote, says mentions repentance, receiving the word, and baptism as evidences of salvation. If we look at Acts 8 and Acts 19, this point of view clears up the passages somewhat.

In Acts 8, the Samaritans had repented and were baptized, but the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon any of them. The apostles laid hands on them that they might _receive_ the Holy Ghost. Is this _reception_ of the Holy Ghost the soteriological reception of the Holy Ghost that Paul mentions? How could that be? They had beleived and were baptized. Weren't these people already 'sealed' with the Spirit before the apostles came?

Again in Acts 19, certain disciples who had been baptized with John's baptism put their faith in Christ and were baptized. Hadn't they already received the soteriogical gift of the Spirit? But after their baptism, Paul laid hands on them and the Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophecy.

If we are going to read Luke consistently, then what about Acts 2:38? The onlookers had seen evidence of the on-coming of the Holy Spirit for empowerment. Is the promise of Acts 2:38 a soteriological promise? If it is, it does not seem to be consistent with Luke's usage of the concept of receiving the Spirit elsewhere in the book. Perhaps Peter was telling the crowd they could receive the empowerment of the Spirit if they would repsond in repentance and baptism.

-- Anonymous, September 13, 2000

Hmmm...

Well, let's go to the beginning of Peter's command, before even mentioning the resulting reception of the Holy Spirit (however you choose to define it). Peter said, "Repent, and be immersed, for the forgiveness of sins...

Let's see, "forgiveness" of sins...

That sounds pretty soteriological to me.



-- Anonymous, September 14, 2000

That's not the issue I was dealing with. Is the 'receiving the Spirit' Peter promises there the soteriological receiving of the Spirit Paul speaks of, or is he talking about the Lukan 'receiving of the Spirit' throughout Acts, which seems to deal with empowerment?

-- Anonymous, September 15, 2000

Lukan, Paulian, Hudsonian, Schwingelian...

One Lord. One Faith. One Baptism. One Holy Spirit.

Different manifestations? Perhaps. Perhaps different uses in God's economy. He can do anything He wants, you know.

-- Anonymous, September 15, 2000

Careful, Duane ... that's a pretty radical attitude for a CoC preacher <grin>

-- Anonymous, September 15, 2000

If I understand the bible correctly, there are certain things God cannot do. He cannot contradict what is written. He cannot defy logic. He cannot sin. He cannot lie. He cannot look on sin. He cannot add to or subtract from what is written. He cannot make a circle square.Some of these are redundant, and probably extremely incomplete.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 2000