This is a response to a post from E. Lee Saffold to the thread about whether President Bush is a Christian. We were getting way off topic, so I decided to post the message here.

E Lee,

Yes, you have made your arguments before. As I have explained in detail in the past, your argument in regard to tongues not being available because you say there are no apostles around to lay hands on people is not logical, I even specifically asked you not to make the logical error nicknamed begging the question, and you went ahead and made that error. What I want you to do is no just make arguments, but to be logical.

>>>>"Prove from scripture that 1. There is a 'miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost' and that it is different from the 'non-miraculous' gift of the Holy Ghost."

Why would you want me to prove something from the scriptures that I do not believe it teaches? I have never made any such distinction in any of my arguments about this subject. Just because I call this gift of the Holy Spirit "miraculous" does not mean that I believe that there is any such gift that is "non-miraculous".<<<<

It was not my intention to mistate your view. Sorry if I did that. I just assumed that you still believed that people could receive the Holy Spirit today. Let me ask you directly then. Do you believe that true Christians receive the Holy Ghost today? If so, how do you distinguish between the receiving of the Holy Ghost that occurred in the book of Acts and that which occurs today?

Since you believe that no apostles lay hands on believers today, and that the Holy Ghost was received through thelaying on of hands, do you believe that you yourself have not received the Holy Ghost?

If you believe that receiving the Spirit IS possible today without the hands of the apostles, give scripture to back that up.

(Can you see why I made the assumption that you believed in a particular 'miraculous' filling of the Holy Ghost?)

>>>I have never said that "speaking in tongues "could only" be given through the laying on of the apostles hands.<<<

It seems like you did in a thread months back, but then modified your stance, but don't quote me on that.

>>>> For it could be done any way that God chooses to do it. I have said that it is the only way it was done in the New Testament with the necessary exception of the apostles (for they could not lay hands upon themselves). >> And the household of Cornelius for the distinct purpose as stated by the apostle Peter who witnessed it himself to demonstrate to the Jewish Christians that the gentiles also had been granted repentance unto life.<<<

The Bible doesn't say that this occured for a 'distinct purpose.' We can see from context that God used this event to show Peter andothers that Gentiles could be Christian. But the passage does not say that the way the Holy Spirit was poured out in this passage was a one-time exception. YOU are the one reading that into the passage. The Bible says that all scripture is profitable for doctrine. This passage is profitable for doctrine in regard to the outpouring of the Spirit.

>>. It says that the Holy Spirit was given "through the laying on of the apostles hands" (Acts 8:14-18).<<<

I believe that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands. But you should not ADD your own ideas when you are interpreting scripture. What that passage does NOT TEACH is that the Spirit is given ONLY through the laying on of the apostles hands. This is where you err. Don't add your ideas to the scripture.

If I say 'My wife cooks me food', it is illogical to conclude from that that ONLY my wife cooks me food. My wife does cook me food, but so do people in many food stands in this country.

If you get from the Acts 8 story that the Holy Ghost ONLY was given through the laying on of the apostles; hands, then your conclusions were illogical. Simon saw that the Holy Ghost was given through the laying on of the apostles hands. But the passage does NOT say that the Holy Ghost was given ONLY through the laying on of the apostles hands.

In fact, when you quoted verses from the passage, you showed that Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles hands the Holy Spirit was given, and offered the apostles money so that whoever he laid hands on might receive the Holy Ghost. But, you (conveniently?) left out an important verse.

Look at the verses:

Acts 8:19-21 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. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

So why did Peter say that Simon could have no part in this matter? Why couldn't Simon gain the ability to to lay hands on people and have them receive the Holy Ghost. Was it because Simon was not an apostle? Peter didn't say that. The reason Peter gave was that Simon's heart was not right in the sight of God. I've already pointed out these things in previous posts. Yet you still repeat the same things, even when the error is pointed out.

Let's look at some other verses in the passage:

Acts 8:16-18 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.

Here we see that the Holy Ghost was given when the apostles laid their hands on them. Does this verse say that the Holy Spirit was given ONLY through the laying on of the apostles hands? No.

If my wife cooks me food, does that prove that ONLY my wife cooks me food? No. If you come away from this passage saying that the Holy Ghost was ONLY given through the laying on of the apostles hands, with the exception of Acts 2 and 10, then what you are doing is EISEGETING. The Acts 8 passage says nothing about the Holy Ghost being given ONLY through the apostles hands.

From what you have said so far in this discussion, your views seem to leave little room for believers receiving the Holy Ghost today (unless they are old and an apostle laid hands on them a really long time ago.)

Consider the following verse: Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Do you believe that God only gives the Holy Ghost to the obedient, ONLY IF an apostle lays hands on him.

Ephesians 1:13 connects receiving the seal of the Spirit with faith. Another verse, which you actually quoted, connects receiving the Spirit with believing.

Keep in mind that Acts 8 may have occurred before eldership was set up in the church. Later, we see that elders laid hands on Timothy when he received a spiritual gift. (Prophets and teachers laid hands on Paul and Barnabas.)

Also, keep in mind that the Acts 8 case was unique in many ways. The church was moving out from the customary area of evangelizing Jews to the new area of evangelizing Samaritans. Also, Philip was just an evangelist, which doesn't mean he had the authority to set up a church my himself and get everything established. Apostles had more of a gift for that sort of thing. (Apostles could be evangelists also. I suspect all the 12 and Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, and Silas may have also been evangelists.) In later epistles, establishing elders and a lot of the other establishment work of new congregations was done by apostles. This Acts 8 passage may also indicate the limitations of the work of an evangelist.

Timothy was told to do the work of an evangelist, but he is not directly called an evangelist in scripture like Philip is. Scripture seems to indicate that he may have been an apostle as well (I Thes. 1:1, 2:6.) At the very least, he appears to have been appointing elders as an extension of Paul's apostolic ministry.

So when you look at the fact that Philip did not lay hands on these people to receive the Holy Ghost, don't develop a doctrine which limits how the Holy Ghost may be given.

E. Lee wrote, >>>So, all can see that you do not take up my arguments. <<<

What I meant by listing three options was for you to pick one that fit, not necessarily that you held to all three views. Go back and read them with 'or's in between each argument. It was not my intention to misrepresent your views. I may have made an assumption or two as well, since I assumed that you believed that it was possible for modern believers to receive the Holy Ghost in some sense of the word (and hence assumed that you felt that there was a miraculous version of receiving the Holy Ghost in the scriptures.)

>>>>Instead you simply "make up" your own and take them up and answer them as if they were mine. Anyone can do that, Brother Link and most false teachers use this tactic because they cannot deal with the truth<<<<

Do I hear a pot calling the kettle black? Since making up other people's arguments (like you did recently with Sam Loveall about the life preserver metaphor) is one of the techniques that is so common in your own writings, does that make you a false teacher in addition to a slanderer? Your basis for accusations is your own illogical eisegesis of the Bible.

You know, I have showed you these things before, probably more than once. Probably more than twice. The conclusions you draw from Acts 8 are not supported by the text. Why don't you deal with this fact in one of your posts.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Answers

Brother Link:

You have said:

“E Lee, Yes, you have made your arguments before. As I have explained in detail in the past, your argument in regard to tongues not being available because you say there are no apostles around to lay hands on people is not logical, I even specifically asked you not to make the logical error nicknamed begging the question, and you went ahead and made that error. What I want you to do is no just make arguments, but to be logical.”

I have shown that the scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit was given through the lying on of the apostle’s hands. And that there were only two exceptions to this in the New Testament which was those who had been baptized in the Holy spirit, the apostles themselves on the day of Pentecost and the Household of Cornelius. The argument is very logical and it does not become illogical just because you “say” that it is illogical. You have accused me of “begging the question” but you have offered no evidence that demonstrates that my argument is either illogical or begging the question. You expect us to believe that just because you make the claim. In fact, your claim itself is illogical. I also notice that you ignored most of my arguments in my last post. In particular you ignore the simple fact that you are claiming that spiritual gifts continue today but you have made not one single argument to support that claim.

Then you quote yourself and my response to you as follows:

“>>>>"Prove from scripture that 1. There is a 'miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost' and that it is different from the 'non-miraculous' gift of the Holy Ghost. Why would you want me to prove something from the scriptures that I do not believe it teaches? I have never made any such distinction in any of my arguments about this subject. Just because I call this gift of the Holy Spirit "miraculous" does not mean that I believe that there is any such gift that is "non- miraculous". <<<<”

Then you say: “It was not my intention to mistate your view. Sorry if I did that. I just assumed that you still believed that people could receive the Holy Spirit today.”

Now, I do not think that you intended to misrepresent my view. I do however believe that on occasion you make assumptions concerning my view, based on arguments that you may have heard from others that hold a similar view to mine. And doing so causes the misrepresentation. If you would respond to my actual arguments instead of what you think I should be saying you would not make this error. You did assume that I still believed that people could receive the Holy Spirit today. And I want to point out that the operative word here is “could”. I have repeatedly said that God “could” and he CAN do anything that he wants to do. But this is far different from what he HAS done and what he has promised that He WILL do. God has the power to do anything that he chooses but we can only know of what he has done and we can only EXPECT what he has promised that he WILL do. All else is pure speculation concerning what he will do. My contention is that we cannot expect that God will inspire men today as he did in the first century since he has not promised us this inspiration. And since he accomplished his purpose of revealing and confirming His inspired word by means of the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. When someone says that God will give others the gift of tongues today they must show where God promised to do such in His word. For we cannot know what God will or will not do except by what he has revealed to us in his word. So when you speak of what God “could” do today you imply that I am denying that God “could” do anything that he wants to do. But I do not deny this at all. I simply deny that God has promised that he would do these things today and that he has kept his promise that tongues would cease and therefore we have reason to not expect to receive such a gift today.

Then you want to ask me more directly as follows:

“Let me ask you directly then. Do you believe that true Christians receive the Holy Ghost today?”

I do not believe that we have any living inspired men or women today. Inspiration and divine guidance was given to all who received the Holy Spirit in New Testament times so that they could preach the gospel with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven and confirm with miraculous powers that the gospel was from God. If you believe that we have such inspired persons today then prove it. I do not.

Then you ask:

“ If so, how do you distinguish between the receiving of the Holy Ghost that occurred in the book of Acts and that which occurs today?

The only difference here is that it occurred in the in the book of Acts and it has not occurred in our day. These things occurred in the first century in fulfillment of prophecy. And the promise of the Father and of Christ and was recorded in the book of Acts but it has not happened in our day. For we have no inspired men among us today. Rather we are guided by the same Holy Spirit through the same inspired men chosen of God for this purpose through their inspired words in the inspired word of God that they “once for all delivered to us”. (Jude 3).

It should be obvious to you that since I do not believe that we have any inspired men today. That I make no such distinction as you describe between the miraculous and non- miraculous and this is not the first time that I have said this in this forum. In fact, I was asked, via e-mail, by some others to discuss this with them because of the simple fact that I have made this point before. I believe that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts was the fulfillment of the prophesy of Joel 2:28. And I believe that the “gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38, 39 was promised without distinction to those who obeyed the gospel (Acts 5:32) during this period of the outpouring of the Spirit. This issued in the gospel age with the Holy Spirit being given for the purpose of revealing and confirming the word of God. (Mark 16;15-20; Heb. 2:3,4). And that the “gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38 was the Holy Spirit himself given through the laying on of the apostles hands rather than a “non-miraculous” measure of the spirit received “automatically” at baptism. Therefore it is only logical that I would not make any distinction in the New Testament between a “non-miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit” and a Miraculous one. In fact, I cannot conceive of the idea of the Third Member of the Godhead actually dwelling within anyone’s body as being anything other than MIRACULOUS. And if I believed that such was given to us today I would most assuredly expect it to be supernatural and miraculous in every sense of the word. I am convinced that many passages of scripture that are used to refer to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit have been misinterpreted over the years as being in some way referring to a non- miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit. These verses are written to people who did in fact have the Holy Spirit which they received through the laying on of the apostles hands in fulfillment of the prophesy of Joel 2:28. And beginning with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and the exact same outpouring upon the house of Cornelius and the rest received through the laying on of the apostles hands (Acts 8:14-24).

Then you ask:

“Since you believe that no apostles lay hands on believers today, and that the Holy Ghost was received through the laying on of hands, do you believe that you yourself have not received the Holy Ghost?”

For one that complains so often about repetition it is a little bit strange that you have now asked me the same question three times in different forms. But, I will respond yet again. But do not blame me for the repetition that you have sought yourself.

No, Brother Link, I am not an inspired man and neither are you. You cannot find a person in the scriptures that received the Holy Spirit that was not inspired. That was the very reason that the Holy Spirit was given. Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide the early church. He therefore gave the Holy Spirit to men that they might through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit preach the gospel without error and deliver and confirm the faith once for all. “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? Which having at the first spoken through the Lord, was CONFIRMED unto us by them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs, and wonders, and manifold powers and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will. (Heb 2:3,4). The Holy Spirit was sent by Christ after His ascension into heaven to inspire and empower men to establish, edify, and guide the Church. “But unto each one of us was this grace given according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, when he ascended on high he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now this, he ascended, what is it but that he descended into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended far above the heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some apostles; some prophets; and some, evangelist; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:8-14). The Holy Spirit through inspired men who had received the Holy Spirit for this very purpose guided the early church. Today the church is guided by the same Holy Spirit through those same inspired men by their words found in the inspired book, the Bible. But we have no inspired men living today and I am definitely not inspired and I know that you are not either. All of those who received the Holy Spirit in the New Testament were inspired men. And I do not know of anything in the scriptures that teach that a man can receive the Holy Spirit without being inspired. Those who by the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit received specific powers to enable them to do the work which he assigned them until the completed work of revealing and confirming the word of God was finished. Now, that is today, we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit through these same inspired men through their words written in the inspired word of God. We need no other guidance for the word of God is complete and sufficient for all good works. (2 Tim. 3:16,17).

Once again, I answer you that I do not believe that there are any apostles today that can lay hands on us that we might receive the Holy Spirit. And therefore I not only do not believe that I have received the Holy Spirit. I also do not believe that you or anyone else has received the Holy Spirit today. If you claim to have received the Holy Spirit the burden of Proof will rest upon you to prove it. Paul demonstrated that he had the Holy Spirit by the miracles that he did. We have asked you to demonstrate these things several times and you just cannot do it, now can you?

Then you say:

“If you believe that receiving the Spirit IS possible today without the hands of the apostles, give scripture to back that up.”

Those who believe that people today can expect to receive the Holy Spirit are the ones that have the burden of proof to show from the scriptures that we can expect such today. One cannot set out to give positive proof of a negative proposition. If you believe that such occurs in our day and that God has promised that such would occur today then it is your burden to prove it to be true. I am saying that you cannot prove such a doctrine from the scriptures. Since the scriptures do not teach us that God will give inspiration to us today by giving us the gift of the Holy Spirit. This “gift of the Holy Spirit” was for the purpose of inspiring men to reveal and empowering them to confirm the word of God. And through these chosen inspired men and their words in the inspired book the Holy Spirit has been guiding the church beginning in the first century and continuing until this very day. This has been accomplished and we need no others therefore we do not have any inspired men today.

I have shown that God gave the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the apostle’s hands. (Acts 8:14-24; Acts 19:1-6). I have argued that the Baptism of Holy Spirit was for the apostles and the household of Cornelius and no others received this baptism of the Holy Spirit and hence none but the apostles and the First Gentile converts received the Holy Spirit by this means. I have also shown that there is no place where any one received the Holy Spirit and the apostles were not present. Now, if you wish to assert that God will give every Christian the Holy Spirit in the exact same way that he gave it to the apostles and the house of Cornelius then it is your responsibility to prove that assertion and mine to deny it. But you have not made any such assertion and have therefore made no effort to prove it. When you do we will examine your arguments in detail.

Then you ask: “(Can you see why I made the assumption that you believed in a particular 'miraculous' filling of the Holy Ghost?)”

No, I do not see anything in what I have ever said to you in the past that would cause you to make this “assumption” that I believed in a “particular” miraculous filling of the spirit as opposed to a ‘non miraculous one” at all. But I do believe that you should not have any excuse for making this assumption in the future. I am aware that many of my own brethren believe in a “non-miraculous” measure of the Holy Spirit received automatically in baptism but I do not believe in any such thing as an “ordinary” or non-miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit. For there is nothing “ordinary” or “natural” about the extraordinary, supernatural, receipt of the Holy Spirit, the Third Member of the Godhead, given to a human being as a gift from God and literally “dwelling” within Him. Such is without doubt, in my mind at least, far from being “non-miraculous”. So, there is no need to argue with me as if you expect that I should be talking about how we all receive a “non-miraculous” measure of the Holy Spirit automatically in baptism. Though, I am more than willing to accept such a conclusion if it were proven to be the truth. In which case I would then make the distinction between the two. But because I do not believe in such an “ordinary measure of the Holy Spirit” received automatically in baptism I cannot make such a distinction. Those who received the gift of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament receive the Third Member of the Godhead as a gift. And afterwards the Holy Spirit indwelled inspired and endowed these men with miraculous “gifts” according to his will and to achieve His purpose of revealing and confirming the word of God. (Mark 16:17-20; Eph. 4:8-11; Heb 2:3,4). The Holy Spirit is continuing through these inspired men to guide us today through their inspired word. He has not since the completion of this purpose inspired any other men.

Then you quote me as follows:

>>>I have never said that "speaking in tongues "could only" be given through the laying on of the apostles hands.<<< It seems like you did in a thread months back, but then modified your stance, but don't quote me on that.”

As I stated before to you the operative word is “could only”. I have never said that the Holy Spirit “could only” be given through the lying on of the apostle’s hands. I said that with the exception of the apostles themselves and the first gentile converts at the House of Cornelius, both of whom were the only ones to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that this is the ONLY way that it was done in the New Testament. But as to what God “could do” today if he wants to I have said nothing except to make it abundantly clear that He can do anything that he wants. But neither you nor I can tell anyone to expect him to do such things today unless we have word from God that he has promised to do such things today. We have no such word from God on the matter. And no man has a right to make promises to people for God that God has never made in His word. It should be abundantly clear to anyone reading the New Testament that the examples we have of persons “receiving the Holy Spirit” are of only two types. One is the direct reception of the Holy Spirit upon being baptized in the Holy Spirit. This happened, as far as we have in the inspired record, only to the apostles on Pentecost and the gentiles at the House of Cornelius. The second is those who received the Holy Spirit through the “laying on of the apostles hands” (Acts 8:14-24; Acts 19:1-6). If you were not an apostle or among the first gentile converts at the house of Cornelius the only other way, given in the scriptures, for you to receive the Holy Spirit was through the laying on of the apostles hands. And there is no record of anyone receiving the Holy Spirit without an apostle PRESENT when it happened. The power for anyone other than Christ to give the Holy Spirit to others was a “gift of God” that He gave only to the apostles. (Acts 8:14-24). The fact that Phillip, the evangelist did not have these powers in Samaria is evident from the very fact that it was necessary to send Peter and John to Samaria that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Phillip was already there but he, though full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:6) did not have those powers which were reserved for the apostles only. Also the fact that Simon did not automatically receive this power when he received the Holy Spirit was proof that neither he, nor anyone else other than the apostles had “part nor lot” in this matter. And he was not therefore simply denied this power because his heart was not right before God. He was also denied this power because he had no “part nor lot” in it. If you can imagine someone receiving the Holy Spirit in such a miraculous way through the laying on of the apostle’s hands and not being satisfied with the gift as it was given but wanting even more power, power that was not given to Him. You can then see that there was much more wrong in Simon’s heart toward God than the mere fact that he offered money to the apostles to give this gift to Him. The apostle mentions the offering of the money as the outward conclusive evidence of the condition of his heart.

And the apostles at Jerusalem knew that the Samaritans would not receive the Holy Spirit until the apostles laid their hands on them. Because they sent “Peter and John” to the Samaritans “that they might receive the Holy Spirit”. I asked you in my last post, and you ignored it, why did the apostles at Jerusalem send Peter and John to the Samaritans? Why did they not expect the Holy Spirit to just come upon the Samaritans in the same way that he came upon the apostles at Pentecost? They did not expect it simply because they knew that it was God’s design that through the laying on of the apostles hands that the Holy Spirit was given. (Acts 8:14-24). This was the very reason that the apostles went to Samaria and if they believed, as Brother Link does, that it could be expected to happen in some other way they would not have been concerned about the matter. They would have simply just trusted that God would send the Holy Spirit directly upon the Samaritans. But they clearly did not expect any such thing. For they knew that it was through the laying on of the apostle’s hands that the Holy Spirit was given (Acts 8:14-17; 19:6) and therefore they sent the apostles to Samaria. “Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that the Samaritans had received the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who when they were come down prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:14-17). Now one can see from this passage that the Holy Spirit was not received “automatically” upon one’s baptism into Christ. It was something that occurred afterward when the apostles laid their hands upon them. These Samaritans had been baptized into Christ and received the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38). Yet they had not received the Holy Spirit because we are told “for as yet he had fallen upon none of them.” Thus they were Christians and their sins had been forgiven but they did not have the Holy Spirit until the apostles came from Jerusalem and “laid their hands upon them”. In the same way, we in this century have been immersed into Christ and received the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38) but as yet the Holy Spirit has not fallen upon any of us only we have been baptized into Christ. We are today, as were the Samaritans before the apostles came to them and prayed for them and laid their hands upon them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. And unless and until an apostle comes to us to lay his hands upon us we will remain in our uninspired condition. But we do not need this inspiration today because we have the same guidance of the Holy Spirit through the same inspired men who guided the church in the first century through their words in the inspired book we call the Bible.

Now, if you claim to be an inspired man who has received the Holy Spirit in the exact same way as the apostles or and the household of Cornelius then prove it. For you even admit that you do not have the gift of tongues and you have not claimed thus far to have any miraculous powers. You most certainly have never demonstrated such powers, as did the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 2:1-4). No, Brother Link, you have not proven to anyone in this forum that you have the Holy Spirit. It takes more than simply “claiming” to have the Holy Spirit to actually have Him.

Then you quote my words and respond again.

“>>>> For it could be done any way that God chooses to do it. I have said that it is the only way it was done in the New Testament with the necessary exception of the apostles (for they could not lay hands upon themselves). >> And the household of Cornelius for the distinct purpose as stated by the apostle Peter who witnessed it himself to demonstrate to the Jewish Christians that the gentiles also had been granted repentance unto life.<<<”

To which you respond as follows:

“The Bible doesn't say that this occured for a 'distinct purpose.' We can see from context that God used this event to show Peter andothers that Gentiles could be Christian. But the passage does not say that the way the Holy Spirit was poured out in this passage was a one-time exception. YOU are the one reading that into the passage. The Bible says that all scripture is profitable for doctrine. This passage is profitable for doctrine in regard to the outpouring of the Spirit.”

The simple fact that this occurred only one time in the New Testament is evidence in itself that it happened only one time, after Pentecost. And if you were to claim that it happen other times we would have to ask you for the evidence that proves that it did. And the fact that it was unexpected by Peter and that it was done for the “distinct purpose” of demonstrating that the gentiles “could be Christians” (Acts 11:15-17) is evidence that it was an exception for a specific purpose. And take notice that God, even in this instance waited until Peter was present before he Baptized the Household of Cornelius in the Holy Spirit. There is not place in the New Testament where we have any record of anyone receiving the Holy Spirit without an apostle present. Especially is this true since we are told that it was “through the laying on of the apostles hands that the Holy Spirit was given and that the apostles were sent to Samaria for this very reason (Acts 8:1-17). And that Paul wanted to go to Rome that he might impart unto them some spiritual gift it is evident that He thought his presence was essential to do so. (Rom. 1:11). And the occasion of the Ephesians in Acts 19:1-6 shows that it was the apostles custom to determine if new converts had received the Holy Spirit since they believed and if not they would lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. And we have the example of the Ephesians receiving the Holy Spirit after Paul laid his hands upon them. (Acts 19:1-6) So the baptism of the House of Cornelius in the Holy Spirit is clearly an exception and it was such an exception that Peter was impressed with the fact that the gentiles had received the Holy Spirit “even as on us at the beginning”. So no one has “read this into the scripture”, it is simply that which is conveyed by the scriptures to us by clear statement of Peter (Acts 11:15-17). And the visions that Peter saw in connection with this event make it quite clear that God intended to teach something to Peter, and the rest of the Jewish brethren, about the acceptance of the gentiles. (Acts 10:9-15). Anyone reading the entire context of this event from Acts 10 and 11 can clearly see the purpose of God in the baptism of the household of Cornelius and we do not see it repeated in any other place in the scriptures. It was without doubt as much an exceptional event as was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

This is the first section of my reply. I have been trying to post this for several days. My next section follows this one immediately. If breaking it up into sections will help me get it posted I will be thankful!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 27, 2001

Brother Link;

I now submit the second half of my reply to you in order to get it submitted in it's entirety.

Then you accuse me of adding my own ideas into the scriptures as follows: “>>. It says that the Holy Spirit was given "through the laying on of the apostles hands" (Acts 8:14-18).<<< I believe that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands. But you should not ADD your own ideas when you are interpreting scripture. What that passage does NOT TEACH is that the Spirit is given ONLY through the laying on of the apostles hands. This is where you err. Don't add your ideas to the scripture. If I say 'My wife cooks me food', it is illogical to conclude from that that ONLY my wife cooks me food. My wife does cook me food, but so do people in many food stands in this country. If you get from the Acts 8 story that the Holy Ghost ONLY was given through the laying on of the apostles; hands, then your conclusions were illogical. Simon saw that the Holy Ghost was given through the laying on of the apostles hands. But the passage does NOT say that the Holy Ghost was given ONLY through the laying on of the apostles hands.”

I did not say that it was given “only” through the lying on of the apostle’s hands. In fact, I have pointed to the apostles and the House of Cornelius as the only exceptions to the rule. I did say that in the New Testament, apart from the apostles and the house of Cornelius this is the ONLY way that the Holy Spirit was received. That is far different from claiming that the scriptures say that it was “only” through the laying on of the apostles hands that the Holy Spirit was given. Now, the simple fact that I point to the apostles and the House of Cornelius as examples of exceptions is proof that I am not claiming that the Holy Spirit was received ONLY through the laying on of the apostles hands in the New Testament. But, if you were not an apostle or one of the early gentile converts in the New Testament then the only other way that the Holy Spirit was given was through the laying on of the apostles hands. It is the only other way that we find in the New Testament that men received the Holy Spirit.

Then you say:

“In fact, when you quoted verses from the passage, you showed that Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles hands the Holy Spirit was given, and offered the apostles money so that whoever he laid hands on might receive the Holy Ghost. But, you (conveniently?) left out an important verse.”

Now, Brother Link, you claim just here that I “conveniently” left out some verses. How ignorant can you be? How about proving that I did this for any intentional convenience. For the verses that you quote support my position quite well and I would have included the entire chapter if I had the time to do so. What proof do you have that I did this for convenience sake?

But let us “look at the verse” as you say below: “Look at the verses: Acts 8:19-21 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. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. So why did Peter say that Simon could have no part in this matter? Why couldn't Simon gain the ability to to lay hands on people and have them receive the Holy Ghost. Was it because Simon was not an apostle? Peter didn't say that. The reason Peter gave was that Simon's heart was not right in the sight of God. I've already pointed out these things in previous posts. Yet you still repeat the same things, even when the error is pointed out.”

I have answered this nonsense in every place that you have made this contention and all you do is ignore my response and claim months later that I have not answered it. Now, Peter told Simon two things in this verse. First he tells him that he had no “part nor lot” in this matter. It was not for him to have this ability. And second he is told that his heart was not right with God because he sought to purchase the “gift of God” with money. There is nothing in this passage that even remotely implies that Peter was telling him that the reason that he could not get this power was simply because he sought to buy it with money. You have “read this into the passage”. Peter made it clear that he could not have this power because he had no “part nor lot” in it. Then he condemned him for trying to buy something from God as if money would persuade God to give something to Simon that he had no “part nor lot” in. You imply, but you cannot prove, that anyone other than the apostles could obtain this power that on whomsoever they laid their hands they would receive the Holy Spirit.

One thing Simon had in common with those who seek these powers today is that he wanted “power” that God did not intend or promise to give to Him. He never received this power for it was not for Him. Even after he changed his attitude and asked Peter to pray for Him he still did not get the “power” that he sought. You and others seek power from God that he has not promised to give you and your heart is not right with God to seek such things. It was not just the offering of “money” that caused Simons heart to not be right with God it was also the fact that he sought to have a “part or lot” in a matter that God had not given him any part or lot in. It was also a heart lacking in gratitude for the gift that he had just been given. He had a heart that thirsted for “power”. He wanted it for his own reasons and for his own benefit. God does not grant such evil desires. This is exactly the same attitude of those who seek these powers today. They seek to have what God has never intended to give them and they delude themselves and others into thinking that God is giving these powers to men today. All such are as much in the “gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity” as was old Simon.

Then you want to look at other passages:

“Let's look at some other verses in the passage: Acts 8:16-18 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. Here we see that the Holy Ghost was given when the apostles laid their hands on them. Does this verse say that the Holy Spirit was given ONLY through the laying on of the apostles hands? No.”

And neither did I say any such thing. The passage does plainly say, however, “it was through the laying on of the apostles hands that the Holy Spirit was given”. This was the way it was done and unless one was baptized in the Holy Spirit this was the only means of receiving the “gift of the Holy Spirit”. Only two groups of people were ever baptized in the Holy Spirit in the New Testament record. These were the apostles and the household of Cornelius. This verse states plainly that the laying on of the apostles hands is how it was done for the Samaritans. And it is also how it was done for the Ephesians. “And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:6). Now the only other way that we have in the New Testament for the Holy Spirit to come upon anyone is the direct outpouring at Pentecost, which was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel. And the outpouring on the house of Cornelius, which Peter says, was “even as us in the beginning” implying that this had not occurred since Pentecost until it happened in front of Peter at the house of Cornelius. And it is important to notice that God did not send the Holy Spirit upon the house of Cornelius until he first sent for Peter. This is a further indication that he was doing this very thing for the purpose of demonstrating to Peter, who had not yet understood it, that He had granted repentance unto life to the gentiles as well. And this is exactly the reason that Peter was assigned to this event (Acts 11:15-17).

Then you use the illustration:

“If my wife cooks me food, does that prove that ONLY my wife cooks me food? No. If you come away from this passage saying that the Holy Ghost was ONLY given through the laying on of the apostles hands, with the exception of Acts 2 and 10, then what you are doing is EISEGETING. The Acts 8 passage says nothing about the Holy Ghost being given ONLY through the apostles hands. Spirit ”

Now that is your assertion but it is not something that you have proven to be true at all, now is it? Just because you say that I am EISEGETING does not necessarily make it true. You have to `prove such assertions if we are expected to believe them. Just claiming such has no value in a reasonable discussion.

A more appropriate illustration would be since your wife tends to the duties of a wife for you, which includes cooking food. And that you told me that unless you go out to dinner or you choose to cook dinner for her, your wife cooks for you. If I then made the statement that except for the times that you went to dinner or choose to cook for her the only other process for getting food at your house is for your wife to cook it for you. Would your draw the conclusion from such a statement that I was claiming that ONLY your wife cooks you food? While this illustration, as well as the one you gave are not exactly parallel. It is a fact that I have said that unless you were an apostle or a member of the household of Cornelius. The only means left for you to receive the Holy Spirit, as far as the record goes in the New Testament, is for an apostle to lay his hands upon you. But you unjustly conclude from this that I have said that this passage says that the ONLY way that anyone received the Holy Spirit in the New Testament was through the laying on of the apostle’s hands. I have said no such thing and it is nothing more than deliberate misrepresentations for you to argue against arguments that I have not made. Now, since I do not believe that anyone other than the apostles on Pentecost and the House of Cornelius was ever baptized in the Holy Spirit. It naturally leaves the lying on of the apostle’s hands as the only other means recorded in the New Testament of receiving the Holy Spirit for anyone else. This is the sense in which I would use the word “only” in connection with my argument. But I have not said that the passage in Acts 8:14-24 says that the Holy Spirit was given ever at any time in the New Testament ONLY in this way. But it is the way it was done for anyone who was not an apostle or a member of the Household of Cornelius as far as the New Testament record is concerned. There is no other recorded way that it happened for anyone else in the New Testament.

Any honest person that has read my previous post can see that I have mentioned the exceptions to the rule so many times. Too many times, in fact, for you to justly claim that I have said that the Holy Spirit in the New Testament was given “only” through the laying on of the apostle’s hands in every recorded case.

Then you say:

“From what you have said so far in this discussion, your views seem to leave little room for believers receiving the Holy Ghost today (unless they are old and an apostle laid hands on them a really long time ago.)”

I have not said anything about that but I have in this post made it clear to you that I do not believe that there are any any inspired men today. I certainly am not inspired and neither are you. And we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For such is abundantly provided for us through the word of God. We are today exactly as were the Samaritans before the apostles laid their hands upon them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. WE are Christians and we have obtained the forgiveness of our sins which was always the ultimate objective of Christianity. And the very reason that the Holy Spirit was given to the early Church was to reveal and confirm the word of God that convicts us of our sins and leads us out of them. We have no need for the inspiration that comes from receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit today.

Then you say:

“Consider the following verse: Acts 5:32 and we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.”

Now, it should be obvious to any thinking person that this verse says nothing about how these people who obeyed the Lord received this the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is very likely that these persons received the Holy Spirit in the same way that the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit. In fact, it was the apostles at Jerusalem that sent Peter and John to the Samaritans when they heard that they had received the word of God so that they might also receive the Holy Spirit. They had only “obeyed” the Lord in baptism but the Holy Spirit did not fall upon any of them until the apostles laid their hands upon them. (Acts 8:14-24). And since we see that it was customary for the apostle Paul to ask, “have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?” and if they had not received the Holy Spirit he would lay his hands upon them and they would receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 19: 1-6). It is very logical and reasonable to believe that the Holy Spirit was given to them that obeyed God through the lying on of the apostle’s hands. But this verse that you have quoted, alone, gives us no information whatsoever concerning how the Holy Spirit was received or why. Therefore this verse has no bearing whatsoever upon our discussion. For it says nothing to us concerning the subject under discussion which is “ how the Holy Spirit was given and if it continues to this day”. Neither does it say that the Holy “Will be given to all who obey him in every generation”. This you read into the verse. It says, “And we are witness of these things and so is the Holy Spirit whom God HATH GIVEN (past) to them that obey him.” (Acts 5:32).

And this is without doubt; however, evidence of the very purpose that the Holy Spirit was given to those that obeyed him. It was given to “confirm” the witness of those who obeyed him concerning the resurrection of Christ. Let us see just how that the Holy Spirit provided “witness”. Let us begin by reading this verse again:

“And we are his witnesses of these things; and so also is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him.” (Acts 5:32).

Let us also look at the larger context of Acts 5:32. The Sadducees had become sorely troubled because the apostles taught in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. “And as they spake unto the people, the priest and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, being sore troubled because they taught the people and proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” (Acts 4:1,2). Peter and John (the same two apostles that laid hands upon the Samaritans that they might receive the Holy Spirit) healed the lame man (Acts 3:1-8). The healing of the lame man resulted in the people gathering in Solomon’s Porch. (Acts 3:11). Peter used this opportunity to preach, and among other things, he preached the resurrection of Christ and stated that they were “witnesses” of the resurrection. (Acts 3:15). The rest of Chapter three is a record of Peter’s sermon. Chapter four begins with the reaction of the Sadducees to Peter’s sermon and states that what disturbed the Sadducees was the apostle’s preaching the resurrection of Christ. (Acts 4:2). The Sadducees put Peter and John in jail and the next day questioned them as to the power and name by which they had healed the lame man. Peter’s reply is found in Acts 4: 8-12 and his reply attributed the power that healed the lame man to Christ, who had been raised from the dead. They then threatened Peter and John and demanded that they stop preaching in the name of Christ. (Acts 4:17). Peter and John returned to their own company and gave a report of what happened. Then they had prayer; the place was shaken; they (the apostles) were filled with the Holy Spirit and spake the word with boldness. (Acts 4:31). And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus,” (Acts 4:33). Passing over the selling of land and the death of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5:12 says, “And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. But the rest durst no man join himself to them: howbeit the people magnified them; and the believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women; insomuch that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that as Peter came by, at the least his shadow might overshadow some one of them. And there also came together a great multitude from the cities around about Jerusalem, bringing sick folk, and them that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.”(Acts 5:12-16). The Sadducees put the apostles in prison, but an angel opened the door and told them to go speak all the words of this life. The high priest, the captain and the chief priest heard this and sent the captain to bring the apostles before the council, and they were questioned by the council and commanded not to teach any more in this name. Peter told the council that the apostles would obey God rather than men. He again states that Christ was raised from the dead. (Acts 5:30). And then Acts 5:32 concludes his defense before this council. (Acts 5:32). . Now, with this background let us ask and answer a few questions about Acts 5:32.

1. It says “and we are witnesses of these things…” What things? The resurrection of Christ which was the reason that the apostles were brought before the council to defend themselves in the first place. 2. “…And so also is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him.” What was the Holy Spirit a witness of? The same thing the apostles were witnesses of which was the resurrection of Christ. 3. How was the Holy Spirit a witness of the resurrection of Christ in this context? Through the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit working with the apostles. And this conforms to what Mark tells us happened. “And these signs shall accompany them that believe: In my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall in no wise hurt them; and they shall lay hands upon the sick and they shall recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went forth, and the Lord working with them, and CONFIRMING the word by the signs that followed. Amen.” (Mark 16:17-20). And it conforms with what the Hebrew writer told us happened, “how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? Which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was CONFIRMED unto us by them that heard: God also BEARING WITNESS with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to his own will. (Heb. 2:3,4).

This was also what the Lord had promised the apostles in John 15:26, 27. So this reference to the “witness” of the Holy Spirit along with the apostles of the resurrection of Christ is a clear reference to the witness of the Holy Spirit in the apostles Peter and John. And is not a statement intended in it’s context to indicate that all who obey the Lord would receive the Holy Spirit, “automatically” upon their baptism throughout all generations until the end of time as some would like very much for it to teach. The context does not allow any such interpretation of this passage. Nor does it say anything about how or when anyone would receive the Holy Spirit. Nor is there anything in this passage that gives us any information concerning how long these miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit would continue. So this verse, Brother Link, has no bearing at all upon the question that we are discussing except to indicate just how the Holy Spirit did his work of revealing and confirming the word of God and witnessing with the apostles, who incidentally were actual witnesses of the resurrection. We are not actual witnesses of the resurrection of Christ today. We believe upon the witness of these apostles combined with the witness of the Holy Spirit with the apostles in these very recorded miracles that were done to establish that Christ did in fact rise from the dead. This is what the verse is talking about and your effort to make it apply to our discussion is nothing short of severing it completely from it’s context. This kind of wrongful handling of the word of God is a shame.

Then for about the fifth time you ask the following question?

“Do you believe that God only gives the Holy Ghost to the obedient, ONLY IF an apostle lays hands on him.”

The passage to which you referred to above is not talking about all of the obedient in all time. It is referring to the apostles and those who had been obedient at that time and had received the Holy Spirit. Since it was the same apostles, Peter and John, that had laid their hands upon the Samaritans that they might receive the Holy Spirit. It is also reasonable that they may have been referring not only to themselves but also those upon whom they may have laid their hands that they might receive the Holy Spirit. It is not in the least bit unreasonable to think that this laying on of the apostles hands DID NOT have it’s beginning in Samara, for the apostles came there with this intent to lay hands upon them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. How would they even know that this could happen in this way and expect it so confidently if they had not already done such in Jerusalem?

But to answer your question, I have shown that God gave the Holy Spirit to the “obedient” apostles at their baptism in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. And that he gave the Holy Spirit to the “obedient” household of Cornelius at their baptism in the Holy Spirit and that he gave the Holy Spirit to others like the Samaritans and the Ephesians through the laying on of the apostles hands.

Ephesians 1:13 connects receiving the seal of the Spirit with faith. Another verse, which you actually quoted, connects receiving the Spirit with believing.

These verses do not tell us “how” the Holy Spirit was received. When Peter said, “If then God gave unto them (the house of Cornelius) the like gift as he gave unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God”. (Acts 11:17) he war referring to the apostles and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost and that did not come upon them merely by “believing” alone. In fact the word “believed” in this verse is used in its comprehensive sense including merely all that was related to being a Christian. It in no way in its context justifies even remotely the idea that the “moment one believes” he can expect to receive the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 1:13 says nothing about when or how those who “heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation” were “sealed” with the Holy Spirit of Promise. But this was written to the Ephesians and we read in Acts 19:1-6 the account of how some Ephesians received the Holy Spirit. Let us read it together shall we?

“And it came to pass, that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to EPHESUS, and found certain disciples: And he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? (NOTE: Isn’t this a strange question to ask if it were a foregone conclusion that one received the Holy Spirit automatically upon believing or merely by faith only?) And they answered and said unto him, nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given. And he said into what then were ye immersed? And they said unto John’s immersion. And Paul said John immersed with the immersion of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. And when they heard this, they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. (now notice that these EPHESIANS believed on Jesus after Paul explained things to them and they were even IMMERSED in the name of Jesus Christ but still NO HOLY SPIRIT). And when Paul LAID HIS HANDS upon them, the HOLY SPIRIT CAME UPON THEM; and (as evidence that they had received the Holy Spirit) they spake with tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:1-6). Now please note the comments in parenthesis above are mine. I have done this to make points along as we read this verse together. Please notice that these disciples were in EPHESUS and this is how these particular disciples at EPHESUS were “sealed” with the Holy Spirit of Promise. I do not have time at the moment to go into the details of the prophecies and promises of the gift of the Holy Spirit. This subject can become quite complex and the study of it could fill volumes. But this is sufficient to show that the verse that tells us how some Disciples at Ephesus actually received the Holy Spirit was through the Laying on of the apostles hands. And that when Paul wrote this letter to the Ephesians these disciples may have been among those who received it. And if they were, just how and when do you think they would perceive that they were “sealed with the Holy Spirit”? I can assure you that it is very likely that they would not in the least see this passage as you see it!

Then you state something which I have already proven to you numerous times to be false to it’s very core.

“Keep in mind that Acts 8 may have occurred before eldership was set up in the church. Later, we see that elders laid hands on Timothy when he received a spiritual gift. (Prophets and teachers laid hands on Paul and Barnabas.)”

Now you could not prove to save your life that prophets laid hands on Paul and Barnabus for them to receive the Holy Spirit. If that were true you would have an apostle, who already received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost receiving the Holy Spirit yet again when some prophets laid their hands on them. And Your assertion that Timothy received a spiritual gift by the laying on of the elders hands has been refuted before by pointing out the following verse which you conveniently ignore as if I have said nothing about it at all. Notice that the diligent and intelligent Bible student will not ignore all that the scriptures have to say about a subject. Let us respectfully read these two passages together.

“Neglect not the gift that is in the, which was given thee by prophecy, WITH the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” (1 Timothy 4:14). Now read where Paul speaks of the same subject to Timothy again, only this time he explains that this gift was given trough the laying on of Paul (the apostles) hands. “For which cause I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the GIFT OF GOD which is in thee THROUGH THE LAYING ON OF MY HANDS.” (1 Timothy 1:6). Now this passage is just one of four that teach that the Holy Spirit and gifts were given through the laying on of the apostles hands. (Acts 8;14-24; Act 19:1-6; Romans 1:11; 2Tim. 1:6).

Then you say:

“Also, keep in mind that the Acts 8 case was unique in many ways. The church was moving out from the customary area of evangelizing Jews to the new area of evangelizing Samaritans. Also, Philip was just an evangelist, which doesn't mean he had the authority to set up a church my himself and get everything established. Apostles had more of a gift for that sort of thing. (Apostles could be evangelists also. I suspect all the 12 and Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, and Silas may have also been evangelists.) In later epistles, establishing elders and a lot of the other establishment work of new congregations was done by apostles. This Acts 8 passage may also indicate the limitations of the work of an evangelist.”

Now all I can say of this above statement from you is that it is a bunch of pure speculative hogwash that you could not prove to be true to save your life. I notice a complete absence of scripture to support your assumptions, which are so numerous, and pathetic that any casual reader of the scriptures could easily ascertain their shallowness. If you consider this a valuable argument then I highly recommend that you make some effort to prove it to be completely true. Otherwise it also has no bearing on the subject. Acts 8 was not unique in any fashion. In fact the apostles at Jerusalem expected the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit in this way as is indicated by there sending the apostles to Samaria that they might receive the Holy Spirit. And the apostles knew exactly what to do, which could lead one with your speculative frame of mind to think that they just might have been doing this very thing in Jerusalem prior to going to Samaria. I have not made that as an argument because I do not want to speculate as you have done above. But if you are going to allow speculation to be proof then why not allow some speculation that does not favor your favorite theory?

Then you say: “Timothy was told to do the work of an evangelist, but he is not directly called an evangelist in scripture like Philip is. Scripture seems to indicate that he may have been an apostle as well (I Thess. 1:1, 2:6.)”

Now look at this nonsense! Timothy was told to do the work of an evangelist but “he is not called an evangelist scripture.” Does that prove that he did not do the work he was “told to do?” Then you, with pathetic ignorance affirm that it seems that he was an “apostle as well”. Nothing is more pathetic of one who purports to be knowledgeable in the scriptures. Let us just read these passages that you claim supports the ridiculous notion that “Timothy was an apostle as well”:

The first one that you give reads:

“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy unto the Church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you and peace.” (1 Thess 1:1).

Does anyone see in this verse ANYTHING that says or even remotely implies that “Timothy was an apostle as well”? I do not see it. I suppose that he thinks that because he is included in a salutation of a Letter written by Paul, who was without doubt an apostle, that this would make Timothy an apostle. Hog wash!

But I can see that he uses another verse that it appears that he hopes by combining it with this verse to finally draw the conclusion that “Timothy was an apostle as well”. Let us read this verse and extract just what might be the “genius” of Brother Link’s newfound theory. It reads, “nor seeking the glory of men, neither from you nor from others, when we might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ.” (2Thess. 2:6). He seems here to think that because Timothy is mentioned in the salutation along with the apostle Paul. And that as Paul writes this letter he speaks of them as a group when he says that they could have “claimed authority as apostles of Christ” that this statement included Timothy and therefore Timothy by this time was an apostle as well as Paul. This is common among false teachers to deliberately ignore anything that says the opposite of what they want so very much to have you believe. He overlooks that Paul could have said this in reference to the time when Paul and Timothy and Silas first made their entrance among the Thessalonians. And just so that you all can see that Timothy was not an apostle during that time let us review the account of the period of time Paul is speaking about in this passage. I will quote from Acts the 17th chapter to show just what Paul is talking about and you will easily be able to see the ignorance that caused brother Link to draw such an pathetic and poorly investigated view. It is one that has not the slightest support from the Holy Scriptures. Paul was talking, in context of 1 Thessalonians 2:6 about their first entering in among the Thessalonians. He sates this in 1 Thessalonians 2:1, “For yourselves, Brethren know our ENTERING IN AMONG YOU that it hath not been found in vain.” Since this is what Paul is referring to let us read about the account of their first “entering in among the Thessalonians” and see if Timothy was an apostle during that time. Let us read God’s word together. Reading from the 17th chapter of Acts the following:

“And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, [one] Jesus. And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things. when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go. And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews. 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. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still. And they that conducted Paul brought him unto Athens: and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed.” (Acts 17:1-15).

Now, anyone with a brain can read this account of the time that Paul was referring to in 1 Thessalonians 2:6 and see clearly that Timothy during this time did not function as an apostle but rather as an fellow laborer in support of the work of the Apostles.

So we can see that Timothy was not an apostle therefore Paul is using the term “authority as apostles of Christ” in the sense of his apostolic authority and how his fellow-laborers would share with him in any burdens that he might have chosen to place upon the Thessalonians. But to remove it from all doubt let us notice that Brother Link also deliberately ignores the fact that in this very same letter Paul refers to Timothy in this way:

“Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left behind at Athens alone; and send Timothy, OUR BROTHER AND GOD’S MINISTER in the gospel of Christ to establish you, and to comfort you concerning the faith.” (1 Thess. 3:1,2).

Notice that Paul does not call Timothy an apostle but “our brother and God’s Minister in the gospel of Christ” which is about as close to describing an evangelist as it gets, short of actually using the term “evangelist” itself! But notice that Timothy is nowhere called an apostle in the Scriptures. And Brother Links reason for Timothy not being thought of as an evangelist is simply because he is not called one directly like Phillip was. But Timothy is not called an apostle in any place either but this fact does not cause Brother Link any pause to think that if he is not called an apostle he just might not be one of those either. But he is instead called a “Minister of God in the gospel of Christ” in the very letter that brother Link thinks indicates that Timothy was an apostle. (1 Thessalonians 3:1,2). Go read it for yourself and give it a good bit more thought than Brother Link gave this absurd notion before he passed it on to you as possibly true.

Then Brother Link has not stopped in his speculative excitement at his “discovery” that Timothy was an apostle to notice the absurd position he has placed himself. He has failed to notice that his “theory” has Timothy, whom he claims was an apostle, receiving a spiritual gift by the laying on of the hands of the elders! When men are busy speculating they usually make these types of pathetic mistakes that show their miserable inability to even begin to comprehend the simple teaching of God’s word. I have not seen such poor handling of the word of God in a long time, Brother Link. You should verily be ashamed of yourself.

Then you give us this brilliant reversal of all that you had said previously as follows:

“ At the very least, he appears to have been appointing elders as an extension of Paul's apostolic ministry.”

Well, no kidding Sherlock, how did you dredge up that pearl of wisdom? He was without doubt doing that and this is one of the reasons that Paul as an apostle wrote two letters to Timothy to help him do just that. Titus was also helping to appoint elders in every city that Paul the apostle told him to appoint them. “ For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou mightest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I gave thee charge.” (Titus 1:5). Timothy and Titus were doing the same work and neither of them were apostles but they were in fact working with the apostle Paul.

Now, notice brethren, that the man that just finished with the above- mentioned nonsense that Timothy “may have been” an apostle. And concluding with, “ he was at least appointing elders as an extension of Paul’s ministry”. And all of that completely contrary to the scriptures is now concerned that I might actually draw some conclusions about the fact that Phillip did not lay hands on the Samaritans that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Notice his words:

“So when you look at the fact that Philip did not lay hands on these people to receive the Holy Ghost, don't develop a doctrine which limits how the Holy Ghost may be given.”

I have already described the inferences that I believe can be drawn from this fact and it is therefore not essential to repeat it. But anyone reading what I had to say about that can hardly conclude that I have “developed a doctrine”. I have not “developed a doctrine” instead I have simply understood the doctrine of Christ concerning that matter. All Scripture is profitable for “doctrine” (2 Timothy 3:16,17) but brother Link does not want us to use the scriptures and what they say to us as a doctrine. He would rather that we pay more attention to his absurd speculations when we want to “develop a doctrine”! Ha! Sorry, Brother Link, as interesting as your speculations often are we prefer the word of God and the doctrine of Christ.

Then Brother Link chooses to end his post as follows:

“Your basis for accusations is your own illogical eisegesis of the Bible.”

Well, Brother Link, that is a fine opinion and an assertion as such things go. But it is nothing more than that. For you offer no evidence that would give the discerning any reason to believe that assertion. I suppose that you gave us your exegesis that lead you to draw the absurd conclusion that Timothy was an apostle as an example of a more logical “eisegesis”. If that is an example of how you believe we should determine the meaning of God’s word then I will just stick with my exegesis. “You know, I have showed you these things before, probably more than once. Probably more than twice.”

Yes, Brother Link, You have expressed you nonsense often and I have answered you as many times as you have shown me such nonsense. Just as you asked me the same question in this post at least four times you have repeated your nonsense more than once. And I have just as often answered it.

Then you say:

“The conclusions you draw from Acts 8 are not supported by the text.”

Yes they are.

Then you say:

“Why don't you deal with this fact in one of your posts.”

I have.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 27, 2001

E. Lee,

I see now why I misunderstood your stance. I suppose I did make an assumption. Many RM people I've met believe that those who are baptized (according to a certain set of criterrea) are promised the Holy Spirit. The promise is to those who are afar off, even as many as the Lord God will call.

But if you think the true disciples of Christ now do not have the Holy Spirit, you are mistaken. You seriously need to study the scriptures. The Bible does not teach that the Bible replaced the Holy Spirit, and that by applying our intellects to the writingsof those who did have the Spirit, we can properly follow God.

Paul wanted to impart a SPIRITUAL GIFT to the Romans, but according to Romans 5, the saints already had the Spirit. According to Romans 8, it is by the Spirit that we can mortify the deeds of the body and live. Paul wrote that we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father. Are you saying you don't have the Spirit in your crying 'Abba, Father?'

What about the seal of the Spirit? Are you saying you don't have that?

if you don't have the Spirit, would you say then that he love of God is not shed abroad in your heart by the Holy Ghost which is given unto you? Pray that you receive the Spirit.

If the Spirit of Himthat raised up Christ from the dead, Paul wrote in Romans 8, dwell in you,then He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you. If you don't have the Spirit, do you actually think you are going to participate in the resurrection of the just?

The Spirit was given to Paul not only so he could write the New Testament. In Romans 8, we see that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus set him free from the law of sin and death.

You know, Jude said that false teachers did not have the Spirit.

Consider these verses:

"1 Corinthians 2:11-15 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

Are youa natural man?

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

This is what Paul wrote to saints in Corinth, but would you say that saints no longer have the Spirit, and are not the temple of God?

Consider this passage: "2 Corinthians 1:21-22 21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; 22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."

Would you say, E. Lee, that you do not have the earnest of the Spirit? Are you unsealed?

2 Corinthians 5:5-6 5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. 6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

If you are without the earnest of the Spirit, can you have confidence about what will happen when you are absent from the body?

1 John 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

Do you dwell in Him?

1 John 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

Do you keep God's commandments? The apostles said that God gave the Holy Spirit to them that obey Him.

There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that salvation would become different after the Bible was written. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that the Bible took the place of the Spirit in salvation. Saints are saved now just as they were in the first century. The Gospel didn't change.

I once heard an anecdote about a little boy who was asked to say the members of the Trinity. He said the Father, the Son, and the Holy Bible.

Lee, your beliefs about the Spirit are quite shocking. I would suggest you go through a concordance and look up the words 'Spirit' and 'Holy Ghost' to learn more about the role of the Spirit in thelife of a believer. I suspect many other people in the Christian church and Church of Christ movements would be shocked at your beliefs. Some in the CoC make a distinction between the Acts 2:38 reception of the Spirit, and Acts 8. I can undertand the reasoning behind this. Pentecostals (with the exception primarily of non- Trinitarian Oneness people who also use the label 'Pentecostal') make a distinction between receiving the Spirit at salvation, and subsequent empowerment. The reason is that if someone does not have the Holy Spirit, he is not a saint.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

Brother Link:

Now, try to respond to what I wrote. You have ignored every argument that I made. If you want to discuss an issue with me then at least attempt to take up my arguments. All you have do thus far is to ignore everything that I have said.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

E. Lee,

You complain that I ignore your arguments. Now I'd like you to get out a yardstick and measure the pages of text that you've posted. Do you know how long it takes to read through your posts to answer your ideas in an organized concise way? Your arguments are so repetitive, and unnecessarily long that you shouldn't expect someone to have the time to answer all of your arguments in one sitting. I answered one of your points. In fact, I answered another one of your points before you made it, and you still went ahead and made the same error of 'begging the question.' Why don't you sit down and outline the points you want to make before you write a message. Put all the answers on the same topic together, and avoid repetition. And most of all avoid all the pages of blame rhetoric that you use. Stick with the issues.

The thing that makes your messages so long (and sometimes a drag to read) is the blame you throw around. You waste a lot of time making arguments like this:

"Just because you say that I am EISEGETING does not necessarily make it true"

No duh. Instead of using the 'because you say X doesn't make it so argument' just present your case. If I have to wade through pages of this kind of stuff, don't expect me to respond soon. Stop complaining. I did respond to one of your points already- the most shocking one, and posted it on another thread. I think it was good that I pointed that bit of your teaching out to other people on the thread because you seem antagonistic to whatever I write, and I thought you might listen to someone else. Also, I think the issue of the role of the Spirit in salvation is a big enough topic for a thread of it's own without too much of a focus on teh role of the Spirit in miracles and speaking in tongues. You have a very distorted view of the work of the Spirit, which is so essential for Christians.

Anyone who read my message carefully can see that I wrote that you did say that what happened with Cornelius was an exception. If you don't believe that, use 'find' and look up the string 'excep' throughout the message I'm posting. There is no reason to get out of shape.

In a related thread, you wrote, "In fact, I have pointed to the apostles and the House of Cornelius as the only exceptions to the rule. "

As I pointed out earlier, you err in calling what happened to Corenlius an exception to the RULE. How are you eisegeting? You make a 'rule' out of your interpretation of Acts 8- that the apostles needed to lay hands on people in order for them to receive the Spirit.

You make Acts 10 an EXCEPTION. Lee, wasn't Acts 8 an unusual situation? Think about it. The Gospel was going to the Samaritans for the first time recorded in scripture since Pentecost! Doesn't it make sense that God would impart the Spirit through the apostles, whom Christ had sent forth as His own delegates?

You err in creating a RULE and making Acts 10 an exception. If you want to exegete a RULE in the first place, you have to INCLUDE Acts 10. You shouldn't just pick and choose in regard to what is a rule and what is not.

Peter knew to baptize Cornelius and those with him when he saw that they had received the Spirit. But the Bible does not say that was the exclusive reason that Corenlius was filled with the Spirit. To come up with that conclusion you must do some EISEGESIS-reading your own views into scripture. In fact, Peter pointd to John the Baptists prophecy of Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit in explaining this event. This prophecy was not limited only to Corenlius and his house. If Peter saw what happened to Cornelius as a one time EXCEPTION, why did he quote a prophecy that refered to others beside Cornelius?

Lee, define your terms. What do you mean by 'inspired men.' If you mean that everything an inspired man does, says, and writes is inspired like scripture, then even the apostles were not 'inspired' in this sense. Apostles like Paul and Barnabas could disagree. Cephas went to Antioch and behaved wrongly. Paul often had to correct churches through his letters, even thoug they had received the Spirit. Paul even had to give instructions on how to use charismatic gifts in a constructive way. These 'inspired' men (as you call them) in Corinth, were behaving in a childish manner.

If someone has received the Spirit, does that mean he can necessarily do miracles or speak in tongues. Not according to scripture. Look at I Corinthians 12. The Lord distributes the gifts as he wills. If you read chapter 12, you will see that the gifts are _distributed_ as the Lord wills. The Bible doesn't teach that every saint did miracles like the apostles. So for you to demand that someone do miracles if he is filled with the Spirit is unscriptural. Also, Jesus didn't do miracles on demand, or just because someone wanted to see them. He didn't walk across Herod's swimming pool or do miracles for the guards that hit Him in the head. If you want evidence of miracles, then start with what God has given you. Read the Bible for what it says, without bringing your own ideas into it. Read the Bible with that spirit of revelation that Paul wrote about.

It seems like you are the one ignoring some of my questions in this thread as well. You've had time to write several messages, but could you answer this question for me?

The false teachers of Jude were men that did not have the Spirit. Do you also not have the Spirit?

If the Spirit of Him that raised up Christ form the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead will also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you?

If you don't have the Spirit, do you think you will participate in the resurrection.

As for the impartation of 'charismata'- spiritual gifts, Timothy received a spiritual gift with the laying on of hands of the elders of the church.

Paul wanted to impart to the Romans a charisma, spiritual gift. But they already had the the Holy Ghost. Paul wrote in Romans 5 that the love of God was shed abroad in 'our hearts' by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us. (Notice he did not say 'my heart' and he did not list a co-author.) So while the Romans had the Holy Spirit, Paul could still impart a spiritual gift to them to help them be established.

Let me ask you, if you do not have the Holy Spirit, is the love of God shed abroad in your heart?

If you do not have the Spirit, how can you mortify the deeds of the body?

Would you care to answer these simple questions for me? These questions do not take up several pages, and quotes of my questions with yes or no answers would suffice for now.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

E. Lee,

Something else. You look at Acts 1, 8, 10, and 19, etc. adn you create a 'rule' that the Holy Spirit was only given through the aposltes hands. You take Acts 2 and 10 and make them into exceptions. I've pointed out why I believe you are begging the question. Let me give you an analogy to show why I think you are wrong.

Suppose I wanted to look at some evidence of scritpure and come up with a rule. Correct me if I am wrong, but the only people who are specifically shown to have baptized after Pentecost are apostles, those on whom the apostles laid their hands, or those who had heard Christ talking to them in a post-resurrection spiritual experience.

Think about it. Who baptized besides the apostles in Acts? Specifically, we have Philip and Ananias baptizing. The apostles laid hands on Philip. Jesus told Ananias to go find Paul, and then Ananias baptized him.

So what if I came up with a 'rule' that if anyone wnated to be baptized, he had to be baptized by a) an apostle b) someone an apostle had laid hands on c) someone Jesus had talked to through a spiritual experience.

Let us compare that to your view. You read that the Spirit was given to the Samaritans through the laying on of hands in Samaria and come up with a 'rule' that the Holy Spirit was given ONLY through the laying on of the apostles hands.

You know what hte problem with both of these views is- it takes some historical events and invents rules. The scripture doesn't give such 'rules' but the interpreters eisegete them in. The example I gave above about the threetypes of people who can baptize is an example of eisegesis. If I pointed out that these were the people who baptized in scripture, that's fine. But if I try to make a RULE that only these three types of people were the ones who could baptize legitimately, then that would be wrong. If I try to make a rule that limits the way God operates, then that would be wrong. If you try to say that God only gives out His Spirit through the apostles hands (because you arbitrarily turn Acts 10 into an 'exception') then you are in error.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

Lee,

I'd like to make a few comments that strike at the foundation of the arguments in your 'first part' post up above.

1. Acts 2 promises the Holy Spirit to those who meet the conditions, to as many as the Lord our God should call.

Peter quotes a passage about God pouring out His Spirit in the last days. If the first century was 'the last days' then these are even moreso 'the last days.' The passage also contains some eschatological language about the moon turning to blood, etc. which are used in reference to the coming of the Son of Man. Do you believe the SOn of Man has not yet returned?

2. The idea that we are supposed to just follow the New Testament and live as Christians who do not have the Spirit ourselves is not in the Bible. The type of Christian life the Bible talks about is one that involves having the Holy Spirit. Christians have the downpayment of the Holy Spirit at this present time. We have received the Spirit of adoption. The Holy Spirit plays a role in salvation.

You need to prove from the Bible that God has changed his m.o. and decided to stop giving the Spirit to Christians. You need to prove that God stopped shedding His love abroad in saints hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to them. The Spirit of God, Paul wrote, would give life ot the mortal bodies of the Romans. Do you hold that God will resurrect saints saved after the first century without the Holy Spirit? Show evidence that God changed the plan of salvation (started 'another Gospel'?) which involved saving Christians without giving them the ernest of the Spirit, or the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father.

Paul wrote if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. Prove from the scripture that this has changed.

3. If the New Testament teaches that to God divides up spiritual gifts severally as He wills, then it is reasonable to believe that God will give these gifts to saints according to His will nowadays. Unless you have evidence FROM SCRIPTURE otherwise, there is not reason to believe that God will not give these gifts. Would you agree that experience is no basis for doctrine? If you have not seen any miracles in your own experience, that does not mean that God does not give out the Spirit.

4. It is illogical to think that the Holy Spirit only came on people through the laying on of the hands of the 12 apostles plus Paul and Barnabas (with two one time exceptions.) I've given you several reasons. Here is another- the Spirit of God came on many, many people in the Bible without the agency of the apostles. Zecharias, John the Baptist, Saul, Samson, Ezekiel, etc. If in the Old Testament, the Spirit of God could come upon unregenerated men without the agency of the apostles, how much more is he free to come on regenerated saints of God without the agency of the apostles.

Some other points:

You wrote, >For you even admit that you do not have the gift of tongues and you have not claimed thus far to have any miraculous powers.<

You are mistaken. Maybe you are mixing me up with Akelley. I never said that I don't speak in tongues. I do recall telling you, in response to a diatribe, that I had not even told you whether I spoke in tongues or not.

I wrote, >>>"Keep in mind that Acts 8 may have occurred before eldership was set up in the church. Later, we see that elders laid hands on Timothy when he received a spiritual gift. (Prophets and teachers laid hands on Paul and Barnabas.)" <<<

Lee responded, Ø Now you could not prove to save your life that prophets laid hands on > Paul and Barnabus for them to receive the Holy Spirit. If that were > true you would have an apostle, who already received the Holy Spirit > at Pentecost receiving the Holy Spirit yet again when some prophets > laid their hands on them.<

Why would I want to prove something that I neither believed nor argued for? What I'm trying to get is why you would think that either Paul or Barnabas received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is clear that Paul did not. He may have received the Holy Ghost through Ananias' ministry. Ananias came to him so that he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost, remember? (Another example that doesn't fit with your interpretation) Barnabas could have been one of the 70 traditionally thought of as 'apostles,' and he could have been among the 120 in the upper room, but the Bible doesn't teach that he was one of them.

These two new apostles were probably commended to the grace of God as well as separated for ministry through the apostles hands.

Holding firmly to the idea that the gift that Timothy received BY with the laying on of hands of the elders, and the gift that Timothy received Through the laying on of the apostle Paul's hands were the same gift is just plain unreasonable. There is not enough evidence to support the idea that this was the same gift, and it is pretty reasonable to see them as two gifts. Why? One gift came through Paul's hands and the other gift came BY prophecy with the laying on of the elders hands. I wouldn't' rule out the remote possibility that this is referring to the same event. But Timothy appears to have been a very gifted man considering all the responsibility he was given.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2001

Lee,

I'd like to make a few comments that strike at the foundation of the arguments in your 'first part' post up above.

1. Acts 2 promises the Holy Spirit to those who meet the conditions, to as many as the Lord our God should call.

Peter quotes a passage about God pouring out His Spirit in the last days. If the first century was 'the last days' then these are even moreso 'the last days.' The passage also contains some eschatological language about the moon turning to blood, etc. which are used in reference to the coming of the Son of Man. Do you believe the SOn of Man has not yet returned?

2. The idea that we are supposed to just follow the New Testament and live as Christians who do not have the Spirit ourselves is not in the Bible. The type of Christian life the Bible talks about is one that involves having the Holy Spirit. Christians have the downpayment of the Holy Spirit at this present time. We have received the Spirit of adoption. The Holy Spirit plays a role in salvation.

You need to prove from the Bible that God has changed his m.o. and decided to stop giving the Spirit to Christians. You need to prove that God stopped shedding His love abroad in saints hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to them. The Spirit of God, Paul wrote, would give life ot the mortal bodies of the Romans. Do you hold that God will resurrect saints saved after the first century without the Holy Spirit? Show evidence that God changed the plan of salvation (started 'another Gospel'?) which involved saving Christians without giving them the ernest of the Spirit, or the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father.

Paul wrote if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. Prove from the scripture that this has changed.

3. If the New Testament teaches that to God divides up spiritual gifts severally as He wills, then it is reasonable to believe that God will give these gifts to saints according to His will nowadays. Unless you have evidence FROM SCRIPTURE otherwise, there is not reason to believe that God will not give these gifts. Would you agree that experience is no basis for doctrine? If you have not seen any miracles in your own experience, that does not mean that God does not give out the Spirit.

4. It is illogical to think that the Holy Spirit only came on people through the laying on of the hands of the 12 apostles plus Paul and Barnabas (with two one time exceptions.) I've given you several reasons. Here is another- the Spirit of God came on many, many people in the Bible without the agency of the apostles. Zecharias, John the Baptist, Saul, Samson, Ezekiel, etc. If in the Old Testament, the Spirit of God could come upon unregenerated men without the agency of the apostles, how much more is he free to come on regenerated saints of God without the agency of the apostles.

Some other points:

You wrote, >For you even admit that you do not have the gift of tongues and you have not claimed thus far to have any miraculous powers.<

You are mistaken. Maybe you are mixing me up with Akelley. I never said that I don't speak in tongues. I do recall telling you, in response to a diatribe, that I had not even told you whether I spoke in tongues or not.

I wrote, >>>"Keep in mind that Acts 8 may have occurred before eldership was set up in the church. Later, we see that elders laid hands on Timothy when he received a spiritual gift. (Prophets and teachers laid hands on Paul and Barnabas.)" <<<

Lee responded, Ø Now you could not prove to save your life that prophets laid hands on > Paul and Barnabus for them to receive the Holy Spirit. If that were > true you would have an apostle, who already received the Holy Spirit > at Pentecost receiving the Holy Spirit yet again when some prophets > laid their hands on them.<

Why would I want to prove something that I neither believed nor argued for? What I'm trying to get is why you would think that either Paul or Barnabas received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is clear that Paul did not. He may have received the Holy Ghost through Ananias' ministry. Ananias came to him so that he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost, remember? (Another example that doesn't fit with your interpretation) Barnabas could have been one of the 70 traditionally thought of as 'apostles,' and he could have been among the 120 in the upper room, but the Bible doesn't teach that he was one of them.

These two new apostles were probably commended to the grace of God as well as separated for ministry through the apostles hands.

Holding firmly to the idea that the gift that Timothy received BY with the laying on of hands of the elders, and the gift that Timothy received Through the laying on of the apostle Paul's hands were the same gift is just plain unreasonable. There is not enough evidence to support the idea that this was the same gift, and it is pretty reasonable to see them as two gifts. Why? One gift came through Paul's hands and the other gift came BY prophecy with the laying on of the elders hands. I wouldn't' rule out the remote possibility that this is referring to the same event. But Timothy appears to have been a very gifted man considering all the responsibility he was given.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2001

Lee,

I'd like to make a few comments that strike at the foundation of the arguments in your 'first part' post up above.

1. Acts 2 promises the Holy Spirit to those who meet the conditions, to as many as the Lord our God should call.

Peter quotes a passage about God pouring out His Spirit in the last days. If the first century was 'the last days' then these are even moreso 'the last days.' The passage also contains some eschatological language about the moon turning to blood, etc. which are used in reference to the coming of the Son of Man. Do you believe the SOn of Man has not yet returned?

2. The idea that we are supposed to just follow the New Testament and live as Christians who do not have the Spirit ourselves is not in the Bible. The type of Christian life the Bible talks about is one that involves having the Holy Spirit. Christians have the downpayment of the Holy Spirit at this present time. We have received the Spirit of adoption. The Holy Spirit plays a role in salvation.

You need to prove from the Bible that God has changed his m.o. and decided to stop giving the Spirit to Christians. You need to prove that God stopped shedding His love abroad in saints hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to them. The Spirit of God, Paul wrote, would give life ot the mortal bodies of the Romans. Do you hold that God will resurrect saints saved after the first century without the Holy Spirit? Show evidence that God changed the plan of salvation (started 'another Gospel'?) which involved saving Christians without giving them the ernest of the Spirit, or the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father.

Paul wrote if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. Prove from the scripture that this has changed.

3. If the New Testament teaches that to God divides up spiritual gifts severally as He wills, then it is reasonable to believe that God will give these gifts to saints according to His will nowadays. Unless you have evidence FROM SCRIPTURE otherwise, there is not reason to believe that God will not give these gifts. Would you agree that experience is no basis for doctrine? If you have not seen any miracles in your own experience, that does not mean that God does not give out the Spirit.

4. It is illogical to think that the Holy Spirit only came on people through the laying on of the hands of the 12 apostles plus Paul and Barnabas (with two one time exceptions.) I've given you several reasons. Here is another- the Spirit of God came on many, many people in the Bible without the agency of the apostles. Zecharias, John the Baptist, Saul, Samson, Ezekiel, etc. If in the Old Testament, the Spirit of God could come upon unregenerated men without the agency of the apostles, how much more is he free to come on regenerated saints of God without the agency of the apostles.

Some other points:

You wrote, >For you even admit that you do not have the gift of tongues and you have not claimed thus far to have any miraculous powers.<

You are mistaken. Maybe you are mixing me up with Akelley. I never said that I don't speak in tongues. I do recall telling you, in response to a diatribe, that I had not even told you whether I spoke in tongues or not.

I wrote, >>>"Keep in mind that Acts 8 may have occurred before eldership was set up in the church. Later, we see that elders laid hands on Timothy when he received a spiritual gift. (Prophets and teachers laid hands on Paul and Barnabas.)" <<<

Lee responded, Ø Now you could not prove to save your life that prophets laid hands on > Paul and Barnabus for them to receive the Holy Spirit. If that were > true you would have an apostle, who already received the Holy Spirit > at Pentecost receiving the Holy Spirit yet again when some prophets > laid their hands on them.<

Why would I want to prove something that I neither believed nor argued for? What I'm trying to get is why you would think that either Paul or Barnabas received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is clear that Paul did not. He may have received the Holy Ghost through Ananias' ministry. Ananias came to him so that he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost, remember? (Another example that doesn't fit with your interpretation) Barnabas could have been one of the 70 traditionally thought of as 'apostles,' and he could have been among the 120 in the upper room, but the Bible doesn't teach that he was one of them.

These two new apostles were probably commended to the grace of God as well as separated for ministry through the apostles hands.

Holding firmly to the idea that the gift that Timothy received BY with the laying on of hands of the elders, and the gift that Timothy received Through the laying on of the apostle Paul's hands were the same gift is just plain unreasonable. There is not enough evidence to support the idea that this was the same gift, and it is pretty reasonable to see them as two gifts. Why? One gift came through Paul's hands and the other gift came BY prophecy with the laying on of the elders hands. I wouldn't' rule out the remote possibility that this is referring to the same event. But Timothy appears to have been a very gifted man considering all the responsibility he was given.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2001

Let us look at some quotes from some apostles to the Thessalonians about Timothy being an apostle, quotes you mentioned in a message above:

"nor seeking the glory of men, neither from you nor from others, when we might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ." .

Who is the 'we' in this verse? Think about it. One person is not a 'we.' Paul was not a 'we.' Paul called himself 'I' in his letters. Who are the 'we' that might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ? Was it Paul and Peter? No, Peter wasn't travelling with Paul according to what we see in Acts and other passages. You quoted the 17th chapter of Acts in your message above which contains a verse which helps us know who the 'we' were who are referred to in this verse, who labored in Thesalonica, Who are the 'we' that this epistle refers to as 'apostles?'

"Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy unto the Church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you and peace." (1 Thess 1:1).

Wow, Paul, Silvanus ( a variant name for Silas, footnotes for the Bible say), and Timothy.

Here is another verse you quote, Lee, in an attempt to disprove that Timothy was an apostle, but it adds more weight to the argument that Silas and Timothy were apostles of Christ- yes, Christ had sent them as well as Paul.

"And then immediately the brethren went away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still. And they that conducted Paul brought him unto Athens: and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed.

See, this is more proof that the 'we' that could have claimed authority as the apostles were actually Paul, Timothy, and Silas. Thanks for the quote, Lee.

E Lee wrote, >> "nor seeking the glory of men, neither from you nor from others, when we might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ." (2Thess. 2:6). He seems here to think that because Timothy is mentioned in the salutation along with the apostle Paul. And that as Paul writes this letter he speaks of them as a group when he says that they could have "claimed authority as apostles of Christ" that this statement included Timothy and therefore Timothy by this time was an apostle as well as Paul. This is common among false teachers to deliberately ignore anything that says the opposite of what they want so very much to have you believe. He overlooks that Paul could have said this in reference to the time when Paul and <<<

Here you use a typical logical fallacy, the ad hominem attack. You slanderously insinuated that I was a false teacher, and then you quoted Acts 17. Ironically, Acts 17 contained no information to indicate that Timothy was not an apostle, and helped prove that the 'we' apostles was actually Paul, Barnabas, and Timothy.

Lee then quoted Acts 17, including the following quote which actually mentioned Timothy, and made comments:

And then immediately the brethren went away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still. And they that conducted Paul brought him unto Athens: and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed."

Lee's comments >Now, anyone with a brain can read this account of the time that Paul was referring to in 1 Thessalonians 2:6 and see clearly that Timothy during this time did not function as an apostle but rather as an fellow laborer in support of the work of the Apostles. <

Here is another ad hominem type attack. Insult whoever disagrees with you. That's a way to win friends and influence people. Lee, have you noticed that the chapter, including the quote above which mentions Timothy shows ABOSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that Timothy was not an apostle. Rather, it shows that Timothy was among the 'we' that Paul wrote of as 'apostles of Christ' in Thesalonica. No matter how much you insult those who disagree with you, it doesn't change the facts.

Lee continues,

>>> So we can see that Timothy was not an apostle therefore Paul is using the term "authority as apostles of Christ" in the sense of his apostolic authority and how his fellow-laborers would share with him in any burdens that he might have chosen to place upon the Thessalonians.<<<<<

Beep Beep Beep. What's that? Oh, it's my BS detector going off. (bologna sandwich detector) Where do you get your conclusion about the 'sense' in which Paul is using the term from the scripture?

Lee continues: >> But to remove it from all doubt let us notice that Brother Link also deliberately ignores the fact that in this very same letter Paul refers to Timothy in this way:

"Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left behind at Athens alone; and send Timothy, OUR BROTHER AND GOD'S MINISTER in the gospel of Christ to establish you, and to comfort you concerning the faith." (1 Thess. 3:1,2)."

It's pretty clear from reading the letter that Paul seems to be the one talking about the 'we' writing the letter. He even says 'I Paul' at one point. Since Paul is writing, it is not unreasonable to read this verse as saying that the 'we' apostles left behind one of their number, Timothy,

If I were a part of a division of soldiers. I might say that 'we' the division of soldiers, left behind a squadrion in a certain area. The squadron would still be a part of the 'we'division of soldiers.

I found it surprising that you did not even pay attention to the 'we' issue in this verse. Instead you write,

>>>Notice that Paul does not call Timothy an apostle but “our brother and God’s Minister in the gospel of Christ” which is about as close to describing an evangelist as it gets, short of actually using the term “evangelist” itself!<<<<

That's a pretty lame argument. 'Brother' and 'Fellow minister' refers to evangelists but not apostles, you think? Weren't apostles brethren? Jesus said to the disciples that one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. Apostles were brethren to. Paul also calls himself a 'minister. There is certainly nothing about the terms that specifically points to an evangelist in particular. A teacher can also be a brother and a minister in the Gospel of Christ, for example.

I wrote earlier, >>“ At the very least, he appears to have been appointing elders as an extension of Paul's apostolic ministry.”<<

Lee responded sarcastically, >>>Well, no kidding Sherlock, how did you dredge up that pearl of wisdom? He was without doubt doing that and this is one of the reasons that Paul as an apostle wrote two letters to Timothy to help him do just that. Titus was also helping to appoint elders in every city that Paul the apostle told him to appoint them<<<

I want you to really think about this. This probably should go in anther thread if we are going to discuss it. But if you think about it, you don't really have an airtight case for the continual appointing of ministers in RM churches, especially if you don't believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to people today except through the Bible.

Pay close attention. Many CoC people believe that elders lay hands on called men, who become evangelists, and that evangelists lay hands on elders.

Well, in the Bible, we see in Acts that it was men called _apostles_ who appointed elders. In Titus we see that someone else was ordaining elders UNDER THE DIRECTION OF AN APOSTLE. Timothy was also under the direction of the apostle Paul (though we may disagree on whether or not he may have been an apostle.) So there was even people with apostolic authority in the appointing of these elders.

If you ignore certain verses, you can make a case for Timothy appointing elders and say that he is an evangelist. But this ignores the fact that he was receieving instructions from Paul about these things.

There is just as strong a case for the idea that men could only be made elders through the agency of an apostle is there is that men could only speak in tongues (with x number of exceptions) if the aposltes laid hands on them. In fact, there are not any exceptions in the NT for men being made elders except through the agency of an apostle. If you are going to be consistent, you should consider this.

(I don't believe in either of these postulations. I believe that God works inthechurch today, and that the Holy Spirit can, through the gifts of the Spirit, reveal that someone is supposed to be in a ministry. In Acts 13, the Spirit worked ina way other than the 'general rule' sending men out to minister without even using an apostle or elder to lay hands on them, from what we can gather from the chapter.)

Furthermore, you can't show a line of apostolic succession even from one evangelist to the next leading down from the apostles to the first RM evangelists or elders.

You appear to be arguing above that the gift Timothy got through with the laying on of the elders hands was the same gift he got with the laying on of Paul's hands. Now think about it. How do many RM people believe that evangelists get sent out- by the laying on of hands of elders, right? But you seem to think that Timothy got the gift through Paul's hands. So it would be through the apostles hands, according to your theory, that Timothy got the gift. So if he were made an evangelist through an apostles hands, what evidence is there for the idea of someone being an evangelist without an apostle having laid hands on him. Where in the Bible is there an evangelist who did not have an apostles hands laid on him? Be consistent in your theology, or just be reasonable about it instead.

E. Lee writes,

>> Now look at this nonsense! Timothy was told to do the work of an evangelist but “he is not called an evangelist scripture.” Does that prove that he did not do the work he was “told to do?” <<<

Why don't you think about things before you respond. I didn't say that Timothy did not do the work he was told to do. The passage does not say that Timothy was an evangelist.

Think about it this way. A bomb goes off ina distant village. There is no doctor there, but the mayor says to a paramedic who went home for the holiday, 'I know you are not a doctor, but I would like to ask you to _do the work of a doctor_ for th etime being because there is such a great need.'

This is a conceivable way of interpreting Paul's instructions to Timothy. (I'm not saying it is the correct way, but a possible way of viewing the passage.)

I suspect that Timothy was an evangelist. I don't see how the 12 or any of the apostles who went out with Paul could be not be evangelists. But the scripture clearly calls Philip an evangelist.

I see holes in some of the RM views of evangelists. The word refers to someone who proclaims the good news- who preaches the Gospel. But some RM people think that an evangelists job naturally involves appointing elders, setting up a church. From what I hear ofthe ICC churches, the 'evangelist' can even function like a traditional church pastor, as the boss of the church.

In the Bible we see that the apostles or those acting under the 'orders' of an apostle appointed elders. Philip, the one called 'the evangelist' just went to a town, preached the Gospel, and left. Just like the meaning of 'evangelist' his work was to preach the Gospel. Apparently, at least in this case, he didn't even lay hands on the people and see them filled with the Holy Ghost. He didn't have all the gifts of an apostle.

I think that an Ephesians 4:11 apostle would almost have to be an evangelist. After all, they are 'sent forth.' Paul, barnabas, and the 12 were sent on missions to preach the Gospel. The story of the 12 being called apostles is in a chapter which tells about them being 'sent' to preach. Paul is called an apostle after he is 'sent' to preach. Apostle is often literally translated as 'sent one.'

If we look at Philip, we see that he was an evangelist, and he preached the Gospel. But if we look at Timothy, who was given guidelines for elders, he is not JUST an evangelist. You may not agree that he was an apostle, but you must admit that he was working under the instructions of an apostle. Notice that Paul left Titus on Crete to appoint elders to. There is nothing to indicate that thesemen appointed elders out of the virtue of being evangelists.

If you don't believe that the Spirit interacts with people today, talking to them, making the specific will of God for certain situations known for the church, and you see church structure as completely a matter of following Biblical principles with ones mind, then you don't have an airtight case for the continuance of ministries in the church. RM churches don't claim the type of apostolic succession that the Roman atholics have.

There is just as much evidence that elders could only be appointed by or under the guidance of apostles, as there is that only those the apostles had laid their hands on could do miracle.

The scripture shows that Timothy received a gift BY prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the elders. God showed His will through a gift of the Spirit. We are dependant on God even today. We can't just depend on our own intellects completely (leaning to our own understanding) and interpret the Bible with carnal minds, and expect to figure everything out like a math equation. Without the power of the Spirit working in us, we cannot even overcome the law of sin in our members. How can we expect for the church to be governed without the working of the Spirit?

The reason that Christians have the potential to understand Spiritual things is because the Spirit of God dwells within us.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2001