I'd like to open up a thread specifically addressing the view that that believers now have not received the Holy Ghost, and that they follow God by reading the Bible which was written by men who received the Holy Ghost. I disagree with E. Lee Saffold's view, since the Bible speaks of Christians receiving the Spirit. Lee's view is found on the thread about the continuance of Biblical spiritual gifts.

What do other CoC and CC people think of this view?

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

Answers

Romans 8:9 "And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ."

1 Corinthians 2:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

1 Corinthians 6:19 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?"

1 Corinthians 12:7 "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good."

1 Corinthians 12:11 "All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines."

1 Corinthians 12:13 "For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body ... and we were all given the one Spirit to drink"

Galatians 4:6 "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, 'Abba, Father.'"

Ephesians 5:18 "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit."

1 John 4:13 "We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit."

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

Amen!!!

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

It seems brethren that rather than reading and answering what I wrote in the other thread brother John and Brother Link both have decided to just claim inspiration for themselves without any proof that they are inspired.

Brother John quotes serveral passages without even remotely considering their context to claim inspiration for himself and every living Christian today. There is not a single verse that he quoted that is not writen to inspired men.

WE have the guidance of the Holy SPirit today through the inspired word of God but the church is not guided today by any inspired men for we have none that are inspired by the Holy SPirit.

Before you draw any conclusions about this matter I suggest that you read what I wrote in the thread to which Brother Link refers and decide for yourself about it.

Brother John, why don't you tell us just what miraculous powers you have received from the Holy SPirit that manifestly proves that you have the Holy SPirit in the sense in which we are discussing it in the thread to which Brother Link refers.

Brother Link, I am still waiting for you to reply to the arguments that I made in that thread. You seem to be more intersted in getting others to be prejudiced against what I have said rather than making any effort to ANSWER the arguments that I have made.

I am not concerned that others disagree but I would expect someone to take up my arguments and specifically show how they are wrong rather than just calling out for others to condemn the position that I have taken without even understanding it or making even the slightest attempt to answer my arguments.

So, Brother John, do tell us. Are you claiming to be inspired by the Holy SPirit? Because the verses that you quote are written to those who were inspired. How about you Brother Link. Are you claiming also to be inspired by the Holy SPirit?

I suppose that I will have to copy and paste the response that I gave Brother Link to this thread in order to get anyone to even attempt to read it and respond directly to it.

It is patetic that one can spent a great deal of time making an argument only to have it ignored completlely by those who cannot answer it but only want to predjudice people against it so that they will not even attempt to read it with interest and answer it with candor.

Brother Link, why did you not even attempt to answer the arguments that I presented? I suspect that it is because you cannot answer them.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

Brethren:

This is the first part of what I wrote that Brother Link has refused to even attempt to answer.

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 28, 2001

Brethren:

Here is the second part of my response to Brother Link to which he alludes. He has yet to attemp an answer to the arguments made in it. He cannot answer them and for that reason he has instead sought to prejudice you against it instead. All discussions should be kept in thir context but he cannot handle the context all he has left is prejudice. I do not doubt that others will disagree but I would expect someone to respond to the specific arguments made rather merely ignoring them completely.

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 28, 2001

I am stunned.

Lee, you are defining and describing the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a way I have never seen before. You are saying that the Holy Spirit does not dwell within a Christian, and that if the Holy Spirit DID dwell within the Christian, then the Christian would be working with direct inspiration of revelation as did the writers of Scripture, and that the Christian would be manifesting miraculous gifts such as healing, toungues, etc., and that since those things don't happen today then no Christian has the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Is that a fair summation of your position?

Tell us, please, Lee, how you read or interpet or handle the verses that John has referred to in the above posting. If they do not refer to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian, then, please, what do they mean?

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

[url]http://www.christiantruth.com/articles.html[/url]

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

Lee,

I have not refused to answer your post. Look how long it is. Don't expect me to answer all that in one sitting. I commented on (the most shocking) part of your post already. I have also answered some of your other points in the Continuation of Biblical spiritual gifts thread. If you would write more concisely and cut down on the 'blame rhetoric, it might be easier to get time to respond to your posts.

I responded to one of the points you made before you made it int he thread. You arbitrarily make Acts 8 the rule, and Acts 10 the exception. In the other thread, I point out that Acts 8 was a unique time in history as well, with the Gospel going forth among the Samaritans.

I would also like to call your attention to a spiritual gift being given to Timothy with the laying on of the hands of the elders.

Also, Paul wanted to impart a spiritual gift to the Romans (Rom 1.), but later shows us that the Romans had received the Holy Ghost. (Rom 5.) There are other points in my post in the other thread, but these are some of the most pertinent.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

Brother Sam:

I appreciate your following words:

“Tell us, please, Lee, how you read or interpet or handle the verses that John has referred to in the above posting. If they do not refer to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian, then, please, what do they mean?”

I will be very happy to examine each passage mentioned by Brother John. That is a fair question and one that I expected to receive. I do, however want to point out that I am often responding and it takes a lot of time to respond. But others do not take the time to respond to the things I have written. They merely react but they do not respond to the arguments that I have made. I respond to others point by point and all I get is a reaction and little if any serious consideration of the points that I have made. I will explain as you have asked about each of the passages mentioned by Brother John. And I hope that you will respond to each of the points that I will make. Will you do that?

I cannot imagine why you are so “stunned” and why you have never heard this view before since I can show from A. Campbell and other restoration leaders that some of them held a similar view of this matter. But uninspired men can be in error, including Brother John, Brother Link, and myself. This would, as I am certain you would agree, include you as well. But if I am in error no one will ever be able to convince me or teach me the truth if they all continue to ignore my arguments. If they all simply wonder around being “shocked”, “stunned” and emotionally stirred by the arguments while at the same time making no effort whatsoever to refute them.

I appreciate Brother John for he at least made an attempt to offer passages of scripture that when read completely out of their larger context of the subject matter under discussion by their inspired authors appear on the surface to controvert the view that I have presented.

I am also wondering why you are not “shocked” that someone would argue that Timothy and Titus were both apostles? I have successfully refuted that ignorant notion but none of you have even noticed it in the least.

I will return tomorrow with a response to you concerning the verses that John presented. It will take some time for me to write about that subject. In the mean time take a few minutes to read more than just those verses plucked from their context. And you will be able to see that they most certainly do not support the idea of a “non- miraculous" indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian in any age whether it be the first century of the twenty first century.

You have not even bothered to ask Brother Link if he believes these verses are talking about a “non-miraculous” gift of the Holy Spirit, now have you? Why don’t you tell them Brother Link just what you believe that the verses that Brother John quoted are talking about? Do you believe that they are talking about a “non-miraculous” indwelling of the Holy Spirit or not? What about you Brother John? Do you believe these verses that you quoted are talking about a “non- miraculous” indwelling or not? Maybe you would like to tell us Brother Sam, after you recover from being “stunned”, do you think that the verses mentioned by Brother John is talking about a “non- miraculous” indwelling of the Holy Spirit or a “miraculous” one. If you believe that it is talking about a “non-miraculous” indwelling then please do not forget to offer some proof of it.

Now, if you guys will answer those simple questions for me I will give you explanations of what I am convinced is the meaning of each and every one of the verses quoted by Brother John. Is that fair enough? Or have you already decided that the position that I have set forth does not deserve a fair and just hearing?

I have always considered you a fair and reasonable man brother Sam. I sincerely think that you were very honest and sincere when you asked me to explain the meaning of the verses quoted by Brother Sam. Was I correct in that estimation? I hope so.

I will give you an explanation in detail of each verse that Brother John has quoted for I consider such questions as fair and reasonable. In the meantime why doesn’t someone discuss the arguments that I have made thus far. Do you think that it is reasonable for only one side of an issue to be fairly considered? If you thought that Brother John’s arguments should be considered is it not also reasonable that the arguments that I made in the first place should be considered as well? This is the way it seems to happen often in this forum. I make arguments and they are ignored and arguments are made from the opposing side and I am expected to respond to them. But when I do respond the responses are ignored and more arguments are presented that I am expected to respond to. Don’t you think that there should be some point in our discussions when the arguments that I have made receive some consideration or acknowledgement? Even if they are rejected out right at least it is only reasonable that some good reasons should be assigned for rejecting them other than the fact that you have never heard anyone express these views before?

I do not have much time left to write. I must prepare for my work tomorrow. But I promise you that I will give an exposition of each of the verses that John quoted and explain exactly what they mean. Your request is a fair one and I am more than happy to honor it.

I will also tell you that I am more than willing to be taught and corrected by you if you would like to teach me. But I cannot be taught by anyone that does nothing more than ignore my arguments. If my position is one that has so “stunned” you then surely you are convinced that I am wrong and in need of correction. Then why not begin correcting me by taking notice of my arguments and showing me just what is wrong with them. But before you do, please go to the beginning of this discussion and read it in it’s entirety and acknowledge what is good and prove that any part is error and both of us will reject it together outright. Is that fair enough? But if I were able to establish that the view, which I expressed, is true would you even remotely consider accepting it?

May God abundantly bless you in Christ.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

Lee,

I just got an 8k letter in my mailbox from this forum. It was your response in which you agreed to respond to Sam's message. Do you realize that you spent 8k thanking Sam, complaining about people not responding to your posts, and agreeing to respond to Sam's posts? Then you said you didn't have time to answer the points? You could have answered the points in 8k.

Frankly, I don't see your description of things as accurate. You wrote that people do not respond to your points, but that you are expected to respond to everyone elses points. You're not the only one in that boat. I've written pages of material in the 'Left Behind' thread and you have not responded to all of those arguments. I haven't seen the posts you agreed to send supporting the amil view.

I recall refuting your 'only by the apostles hands' view repeatedly challenging you to respond in what was one of the first threads I responded to on this forum months ago. Repeatedly you did not respond. Later posts you ahve written show a modified stance of Acts 10 being an 'exception.'

[Btw, you have not 'successfully' refuted the idea that Timothy was an apostle. I Thes. 1:1 and 2:6-7. Benjamin was the one who made the best case against it. However the verse does make a good case for Timothy being an apostle, even thought the prhase is 'as apostles of Christ.' Think about it. Would Paul want to say 'We could have made ourselves burdensome to you, as IF WE WERE aposltes of Christ?' Considering what we know about Paul, it is more likely that Paul is saying that he and Timothy WERE apostles of Christ, and because of this could have made themselves burdensome.

Titus' job isn't labeled. He isn't called an evangelist or an apostle of Christ in scripture. I don't recall if he is referred to as an 'apostle' of the churches right off. But based on the similarities between his and Timothy's ministries, it is possible that he was considered an apostle.

The scripture does nto clearly call either Timothy or Titus 'evangelists.' Paul told Timothy to do the WORK of an evangelist. The case for Timothy being an apostle seems stronger to me than the case for him being an evangelist, though I believe he was probably both an apostle and evangelist, as was Paul.

Another angle to take on Acts 8 is that Philip, being gifted as an evangelist, did not have the gift to pass on the Holy Spirit, appoint elders, etc. since that was the type of work apostles did. But there is not enough evidence to take a firm doctrinal stance on this issue.]

Something we should consider, just ot have a broader perspective, is that historically, priests and bishops of later centuries of Christianity claimed to have apostolic succession and to have taken over certain of the apostoles durites and powers. One of those was imparting the Holy Spirit. If I understand correctly, some connect this to the practices of Confirmation (RCC) or Chrismatization (Eastern Orthodox.)

In Acts, we see apostles handling money, and then elders handling money. We see aposltes laying hands on people. Then we see that Timothy received a gift with the laying on of hands of the elders. Perhaps this gift had to do with him going out on a missionary journey.

Historically, bishops or priests (~=elders= presbuteros>prester>priest) have been seen to carry on certain roles of the apostles.

Compary Timothy receiving this gift with thelaying on of hands of the elders and with prophecy, to what happened with Saul and Barnabas. The Spirit spoke, prophets and teachers laid hands on them, and they went out. God was able to work through prophets and teachers. The scriptures do not mention ordained elders in Antioch at this point.

Something else to keep in mind is that apostleship is something that the Lord reproduces in Acts after Pentecost. There were 12 apostles- possibly more if the 70 were actually considered to be a type of apostle. Then God has Paul and Barnabas _sent_ out and the Bible calls THEM apostles as well. Then these men, not from among the 12, lay hands on elders. We even see a specific case of Paul laying hands on some men and they spoke in tongues and prophesied in Acts 19. He wasn't from among the 12. God wanted Paul to be an apostle, and so he raised Him up as one. So we see in Acts that God has the power to raise up apostles.

We also see that God can send men out on missions, apostolic missions at that, without the apostles laying hands on them. Acts 13 doesn't even say that the prophets and teachers there were elders- 'ordained ministry.' But God took the initiative and the Spirit spoke.

In Acts 10, we see that men were filled with the Spirit without the aposltes laying hands on them. Again God shows himself to be sovereign. He is not limited to acting through the laying on of hands of the apostles.

We need to keep the issue of empowerment of the Spirit in perspective by looking at the rest of Scripture. Luke, the author of Acts, also wrote about Zecharias and his son John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit back before Pentecost. The 12 apostles hadn't even been appointed yet. When Zecharias was filled, he prophesied. Is this a 'miraculous' infilling with the Spirit? Since the apostles did miralces through the power of the Spirit before they received the blessing of the indwelling Spirit, I think we need to keep in mind that there is a difference between the NT indwelling of the Spirit, and empowerment by the Spirit, like we see in the OT (which also is an aspect to look at in the NT.)

Btw, Lee, I don't think 'miraculous receiving of the Spirit' is a good term. The working of miracles is listed as a spearate gift from tongues and prophesy in I Cor. 12. I don't care for that terminology. I brought it up in response to your own terminology.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

Lee:

I am often responding and it takes a lot of time to respond. But others do not take the time to respond to the things I have written. They merely react but they do not respond to the arguments that I have made. I respond to others point by point and all I get is a reaction and little if any serious consideration of the points that I have made. I will explain as you have asked about each of the passages mentioned by Brother John. And I hope that you will respond to each of the points that I will make. Will you do that?

Maybe.

Now, let me tell you why I qualify it in that way.

I do not answer every argument you make, even when you and I are the only two around. I try to pick up on the strongest arguments, or the most egregious error (as I see it). Some points you make, I agree with. Some, I don't, and respond to. Some, I don't agree with, but don't respond to because others have already done so. When others are involved in the discussion, I don't answer all the points, because it is not primarily my argument, and I don't want to do too much damage to the continuity of the argument.

But uninspired men can be in error, including Brother John, Brother Link, and myself. This would, as I am certain you would agree, include you as well.

Me, in error? Surely not!!!! ;)

I appreciate Brother John for he at least made an attempt to offer passages of scripture that when read completely out of their larger context of the subject matter under discussion by their inspired authors appear on the surface to controvert the view that I have presented.

You're gonna have to go some to convince me that he was wrong. Good luck.

I am also wondering why you are not “shocked” that someone would argue that Timothy and Titus were both apostles? I have successfully refuted that ignorant notion but none of you have even noticed it in the least.

You assume too much. If you are right on with an answer or refutation, we don't usually comment. You might consider at times that our silence is agreement with you. If you've done the job before I get there, then I don't need to repeat what you have said.

In the mean time take a few minutes to read more than just those verses plucked from their context. And you will be able to see that they most certainly do not support the idea of a “non- miraculous" indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian in any age whether it be the first century of the twenty first century.

I HAVE read these passages in context, many times, and I continue to agree with John. I look forward to your explanations.

You have not even bothered to ask Brother Link if he believes these verses are talking about a “non-miraculous” gift of the Holy Spirit, now have you? Why don’t you tell them Brother Link just what you believe that the verses that Brother John quoted are talking about?

Because that was not the question on the table at the time. The question was, What do others here believe about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. John gave an answer by quoting several passages of scripture. I agree with John about those passages. The question was asked, the answer given, and I was in agreement. Why would I have spent time just repeating what had already been said?

Do you believe that they are talking about a “non-miraculous” indwelling of the Holy Spirit or not? . . . Maybe you would like to tell us Brother Sam, after you recover from being “stunned”, do you think that the verses mentioned by Brother John is talking about a “non- miraculous” indwelling of the Holy Spirit or a “miraculous” one. If you believe that it is talking about a “non-miraculous” indwelling then please do not forget to offer some proof of it.

Maybe you, Lee, would like to take some of the sarcasm out of your writing. You use it more and more lately, and it is unbecoming.

I was stunned because I have truly never heard such an idea as yours coming from . . . well, ANYbody. The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit is one of the most strongly attested facts of basic Christianity. My proof? Well, those passages quoted by John do it for me, as well as a number of others. Those scriptures are my proof. If you think I am wrong in my understanding of those Scriptures, then please show me how.

In the meantime why doesn’t someone discuss the arguments that I have made thus far. Do you think that it is reasonable for only one side of an issue to be fairly considered? If you thought that Brother John’s arguments should be considered is it not also reasonable that the arguments that I made in the first place should be considered as well?

Since you made the argument to John, I was waiting for John to respond. Is that not also reasonable?

Even if they are rejected out right at least it is only reasonable that some good reasons should be assigned for rejecting them other than the fact that you have never heard anyone express these views before?

Again, the scriptures quoted above stand for me as good reason to reject your argument. I don't have to write a thirty-chapter volume to refute your arguments. I simply refer to the above scriptures and say, "These scriptures seem to refute your argument."

Although, there is one part of your argument that I will spend a bit of time with here. Actually, it is not "a part" of your argument, so much as it is part of the underlying concept. You seem to have incorrectly defined the position taken by most on this forum (I am presuming here; I hope not too much) about the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. It is my position (and the position of every other CC/CoC I know or have heard or read, as far as I have been able to tell) that the Holy Spirit becomes an ongoing, indwelling part of the life of the Christian at the moment of salvation. You have taken the position that if one believes that idea, then one also believes that every Christian is inspired to revelation as were the authors of Scripture, and that every Christian is then capable of manifesting the sign gifts of healings, languages, etc. That is a notion that I reject. There are certainly some who believe that, but that is not a typical Restoration Movement position. To argue that I or John believe it is to argue a point that we are not making. I think that Link would take that position, at least as far as the gifts are concerned -- I'm not where he would come down on the inspiration bit. But John and I won't go there with it. (John, do I represent you correctly?)

My position on the Holy Spirit is as follows: At conversion and baptism, when one receives salvation from God, the new Christian also receives "the gift of the Holy Spirit", as Peter says in Acts 2. Paul explores what that means in some of his writing. Among other things, it means that some part of God, in the person of the third member of the Godhead, actually takes up residence in you. Why? To convict, to encourage, to assist in understanding, to cry to God when we don't know how, to embolden, to be the conduit of the new life in Christ, to act as as a "deposit" on eternal life, to provide certain gifts given for the building up of the church, and more. The above scriptures, cited by John, are some of the passages that speak to these things.

In the first-century church, there were some other gifts given for the establishment of the church. These gifts included, in part, gifts of confirmation (e.g., tongues, healings), gifts of knowledge, gifts of revelation (the apostles had that one), and others, which were needed less and less as the church grew more mature. To say that these special gifts have ceased to be given is NOT to say that the gift of the Holy Spirit has ceased to be given. He brings to us all those other attributes that Paul talks about, in the above scriptures and others.

That is the understanding of the Holy Spirit that I have heard from teachers and ministers, and found in the scriptures, all my Christian life. I have never heard your position -- that the Holy Spirit no longer indwells the Christian in any way. I think that the use of the terms "miraculous" and "un-miraculous" in this discussion are misleading, and are being used in such a way that they misrepresent the belief of most Restoration Movement believers. The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit is in itself a divine miracle, even if "showy" miracles do not present themselves. To think that God resides in me -- that is miraculous. That is something only God could think of and only God could do.

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001

Sam,

What is your basis for believing the gifts of the Spirit cease to be given?

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001

Brother Sam:

I understand and agree with much of what you have said. I will explain about the verses quoted by John as I promised. They were for a long time my reasons for believing just as it appears that you do about the subject until I took a closer look at the context as I will explain to you in another post. I am willing to be corrected by you if indeed I am in error. But at this time I am convinced of the truthfulness of my position as I am sure that you are convinced in the same way of your own. So, I am happy that we can "reason together" about it.

I do want to point out, however, that my discussion with brother Link is on a different matter altogether. This discussion is about what I believe you would call the "miraculous measure" of the Holy Spirit continuing today.

I appreciate your willingness to hear that explaination. I do understand that often it is best to respond to only the stronger points of those with whom we disagree and I also understand that if you agree with arguments previously made that one would not respond if you think the "job has been done".

May our Lord bless you in all good things,

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001

Brother Sam:

I am at work but I thought that I would also give you an example of what I mean about the context of certain verses that we have used over the years to argue that one receives a "non-miraculous" measure of the Holy Spirit automatically at baptism or "salvation". This verse is not one quoted by John, but it is one that would be in the list of verses that have often been used by those of use who believed in a "non-miraculous" indwelling of the Holy Spirit received automatically at our baptism. I am providing it for you since I have already written about it. And after I finish my work today I will discuss one of the verses that John quoted at a time. I will not discuss them all in the same post because it would cause the post to be too lengthy. If you do not mind, I recommend that we focus on one of them at a time.The following verse is often used to sustain the position that I have described above:

“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 indicates 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 any effort to make this verse apply to a "non-miraculous" indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all Christians automatically upon their being a=saved from there sins when they were baptised is to completely ignore the overall context and the force of Peter's argument that the Holy Spirit was at that time witnessing with the apostles and others who have the gift of the spirit (possibloy by the laying on of the apostles hands though not certianly so)to the resurrection of Christ. Without noticing all of the miraculous events in the larger context of this verse we miss the point of Peter's argument and how it was to be persuasive to those who were his hearers among the council that was so strongly opposed to their preaching the resurrection of Christ. No non maraculous or "ordinary indwelling" of the Holy SPirit would be a witness to the council that Christ raised from the dead. Rather, the numerous miraculous manifestations done by the Holy Spirit through the apostles, which the members of this council could not deny, was a very powerful and strong argument thqat Christ had indeed raised from the dead and the Holy Spirit whom God had given to those apostles who had obeyed him and were also witnesses of the resurrection of Christ. Now, none of us today are actual "witnesses" of the resurrection of Christ though we believe based upon the witness of the apostles and the Holy Spirit whom God had given to them through the manifestations of God's power accompanying their preaching of the resurrection. ANd to claim that this verse applies directly to all Christians of every age and proves that all would receive the Holy Spirit is without question a misuse of the scripture.

Now, we do preach the resurrection of CHrist but our evidence of His resurrection is the testimony of those who had actually witnessed his resurrection and their testimony is corraborated or "confirmed" by the Holy Spirit through the manifestations of God's Power accompanying there testimony of these things. (Heb. 2:3,4; Mark 16:17-20). God has given to the rest of us their testimony supported by His confirming power and through the word of God we can believe that Christ is indeed the son of God. (John 20:30,31).

This is just an example of what I mean when I speak of the context shedding light upon the meaning of a verse that we have used, I believe, wrongly over the years to claim a "non-miraculous gift of the Spirit" for ourselves. But this verse does not promise any gift of the Holy Spirit to ALL Christians of every generation and century of time automatically upon their baptism into Christ and to use it to prove such is not handling the word of God rightly. The word of God is a "gift of the Holy Spirit" but it is not "the gift" of the Holy Spirit spoken of in the word of God. THe word of God is the result of the "gift of the Holy Spirit" during the early stages of the establishment of the church. But the "gift of the Holy Spirit was miraculous in its purpose, it's reception, and it's manifestation as a witness of the Holy Spirit to the reasurrection of Christ which was preached as the gospel was spread to the entire world, beginning at Jerusalem.

I also want to say to you that I did not mean to imply, when I asked you to look at the context of the verses that John quoted, that you had never done so. I realize that it certainly sounded that way. But that is not my meaning. I should have said look at the context "again". For I am certain that you are very studious and dilligent in your searching of the scriptures and did not mean to imply otherwise.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001

Lee wrote,

" “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."

Let us examine the verses you quote. It would be a mistake to insist that the two gifts Paul is talking about here are just one gift. The Bible doesn't give us enough information. What it does show us is that a gift can be given BY prophecy (with the laying on of hands of the elders.) So, if God so chooses, He can give a gift to someone by prophecy. It might be accompanied by the laying on of hands of the elders.

Compare this to what happened in Acts 13. Let us conisder this stiuation. We have Paul, who was not one of the twelve and who seems to have received the Spirit without the laying on of hands of the apostles (since Ananias went to him, among other things, so that he might receive the Spirit.) Paul's case in itself has evidence against Lee's view that the Holy Ghost only is received through the laying on of hands of the apostles. Jesus tells Paul some things about his future calling, but the Bible does not call him an apostle yet. Paul preaches the Gospel and teaches, as we see in the chapters leading up to Acts 13.

Then we see Barnabas. He is also either a prophet or teacher. Considering the Aramaic meaning of 'nabas,' and the fact that he was renamed 'son of encouragement' (more literally from Aramaic, 'son of prophecy, I've been told) Barnabas may have had the gift of prophecy. Barnabas was sent by the apostles in Jerusalem to teach a church started by scattered believers which had grown to include Gentiles. Barnabas searched for Saul, found him, and together they taught the church of Antioch for about a year.

Well, certain leaders in Antioch- prophets and teachers, were fasting and praying and ministering to the Lord. We read about this in Acts 13. The Spirit SPOKE, and said to separate Saul adn Barnabas for the work to which He had called them.

Now we see that these prophets and teachers laid hands on Saul and Barnabas. Notice that the Bible does not say it was even elders that did this. In the OT, prophets were prophets because God gifted them as prohpets. In the New Testament also, prophets and teachers are ministries that arise through gifts. Eldership is an ordained ministry. There is no indication that these prophets and teachers had 'apostolic succession' being made elders by the apostles. They were Christians who had gifts from God.

The Spirit spoke, they laid hands on Saul and Barnabas, and the two men were sent out. It is after hands were laid on them that they were called _apostles._ Acts referes to both Paul and Barnabas as 'apostles' on two occasions. Think about it- apostle means 'sent one.'

Something to keep in mind about the laying on of hands is that it is traditionally seen as a means by which God's gifts or grace is transferred to another.

The word for gift is 'charisma' and the word for 'grace' is 'charis.' Both words, under certain circumstances, can mean 'gift.' I've read that '-ma' is a type of noun ending. One seminary professor translates charisma as 'gracelet.' Repeatedly, in passages that mention spiritual gifts, we see the use of the word grace. Check out Romans 12- we have gifts differing according to the grace given unto us. I Peter 4- minister the gifts one to another as good stweards of the manifold grace of God. Chew on that one for a while. Check out the word grace in Ephesians 4 in relation to the '4-fold' or '5-fold' minsitries. I can't recall off the top of my head if it shows up in I Cor. 12.

If you notice in the account of the end of the first missionary journey, the brothers in Antioch had commended Paul and Barnabas to the grace of God. Acts 13 shows us what happened when it says that they had laid hands on these two men. Notice here the connection between grace and the laying on of hands. Also, notice that Timothy received a charisma by prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders.

Compare Paul and Barnabas' experience with that of Timothy. In Acts 13, the Spirit spoke. In the case of TImothy, the gift was given BY prophecy.

In the case of Timothy, we see a gift given not BY the laying on of hands of the elders, but BY prophecy. The gift came to Timothy, it would seem BY prophecy. not by the laying of hands of those elders. Compare this to the case with Paul and Barnabas. What did the Spirit say. He said to separate Paul and Barnabas to the work for which He had called them. The Spirit had ALREADY called them to the work.

Paul mentions later that he had received GRACE and apostleship. Just think about that. He receieved grace an apostleship without any mention of one of the 12 apostles laying hands on him. Christ was even able to not only gift someone, but make him an apostle, without using the laying on of hands of the other apostles. 'Mere' prophets and teacher laid hands on Paul. We don't even see elders laying hands on him to make him an apostle.

In the case of Timothy we learn that 1. He received a gift THROUGH the laying on of Paul's hands 2. He received a gift BY prophecy, accompanied by thelaying on of hands of the presbytry.

So what can we learn from all this. We can learn certain means through which God imparted gifts- prophecy, laying on of hands of apostles. God had people separated to ministry through the laying on of hands of prophets and teachers, in reponse to prophecy. We also see in Acts 10 that God could just fill men with the Spirit as they listen to the Gospel. What do we learn from this? God is sovereign.

The promise of the Spirit is to as many as the Lord our God shall call. We see this in Acts 2:38-39. On the occasion of Acts 9, we see there was a delay between the Samaritans being baptized and being filled with the Holy Spirit. There may have been a delay on that occassion, but the promise of the Spirit was still fulfilled.(Some Bible interpreters see the receiving of the Spirit of Acts 8 as a separate type of receiving of the Spirit from the infilling of the Spirit that Paul writes about which is related to salvation.)

What can we learn from all this? God is sovereign. We should not eisegete 'rules' into scripture and discard references that disagree with our interpretation as 'exceptions to the rule.' The rule of course being the rule we brought with us to eisegete into the texts that fit with our theory.

The fact that Timothy not only received a gift through the laying on of hands of an apostle, but also received a gift BY prophecy, is yet another piece of evidence against the idea that gifts did not only come through the laying on of the apostles hands.

Paul received spiritual gifts, and was even made an apostle himself, and there is no record of any of the 12 ever laying hands on him. From the account we see it is rather obvious that he was gifted before he met the apostles. The way Paul received the Spirit disproves the theory that the ONLY way people in the NT received the Spirit was through the laying on of the apostles hands with the exceptiosn of the events of Acts 2 and 10. So when we see that there are many ways the Lord works in Acts, that don't fit with the human limitations eisegetes would want to put on him, then we are free to recognize God's sovereignty. Acts shows us a number of ways the Lord uses to work in His church, but the events recorded in Acts do not put God in a legalistic Biblicist box, to prevent Him from working according to His own sovereign will. Acts shows us the way God works in His church. But the recording of the events in Acts do not restrict the way God works.

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001

Link, John, and Sam,

Still fighting the 'good fight', I see. And still waiting for holy fire to come down.

From another CC/CoC forum:

From: jpdubo@juno.com (J. Paul DUBOIS) Reply-to: BereanSpirit@yahoogroups.com To: BereanSpirit@yahoogroups.com

Am I really to believe that the Holy Spirit is only a retired author? jpdubo@juno.com J. Paul Du Bois, 3901 Montecito Dr #209 Denton, Tx 76210

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2001

E. Lee,

You wrote a lot of commentary on Acts,but Peter still said that the Lord had given the Holy Spirit to them which are obedient.

Let's consider the facts. God had given the Holy Spirit to John and Peter. But the council of men who were opposing them were _dis_obedient, having not obeyed the Gospel.

Let us consider Peter's words in the context of the book fo Acts. Beofre Peter spoke these words, not only the 123 apostles, but other saitns had been given the Holy Spirit. We must take his words to the Jewish leaders in light of his teaching in Acts 2 that the gift of the Spirit was to as many as the Lord would call. Many others beside the 12 had become obedient to the faith, and had been given the Holy Spirit.

Consider the considerable amount of teaching in the New Testament on the topic of the Holy Spirit being given to Christians, we should consider Peter's statement about the Holy Ghost being given to them which are obedient as something relavent to our Christian lives today.

In the New Testmaent, we see that people who were saved believed the word of rreliable witnesses who had seen Christ and other saints, and repented of their sins. They received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul writes his letters to saints who had been saved and who had received the downpayment of the Spirit. He wrote to people who had received the Spirit of adoption, whereby the cry Abba father. he wrote to those in whose hearts the love of God had been shed abroad by the Holy Ghost, wheich had been given unto them.

If the people who received the Gospel in Paul's day received the Holy Ghost at salvation, what scriptural evidence do you have to present to show that people get saved different now that the apostles are dead? What evidence do you ahve to present to show that God operates a different way in believers than the way presented in the Bible? It doesn't stand to reason that because the Bible is written that God works in the church in a way that is not revealed in the Bible.

The idea of God saving people and leaving them all their lives without the Holy Spirit is not found in the New Testament. This is not the way God worked in the Bible. The idea of men only believing the Bible and following the writings of the apostles with their own minds, without the Holy Spirit in them is not a scenario the Bible teaches. It is not the way God deals with men in the Bible. So prove this scenario from the Bible.

Remember that Paul wrote about some OT scriptures that the scriptures were given to us for an example. If the OT scriptures are given as an example, how much more are the New Testament scriptures given?

Your view of how God deals with people is a lot like what one former seminary professor described as 'Bible Deism.' think about it. Deists used to think that god created the world with natural laws, and then just let it continue on by natural law without interfering. Of course, this runs contrary to Christianity, since God did 'interfere'- (not an accurate term) by speaking to prophets, revealing scriptures, showing acts of power, and eventually sending His own Son.

What is Bible Deism? A 'Bible Deist' believes that the events in the Bible occured, but his view of how things operated after the first century or the time period he believes the 'charismatic' gifts ceased operating, is very similar to the way a Deist views things. Instead of beliving in the Biblical model of a God who interacts in His creation, He believes that the universe works on natural Law, and that God does not 'interfere' by doing miracles, etc.

This belief of yours that no one receives the Spirit now is a very extreme view, which clearly contradicts scripture. We have a downpayment of the Spirit now. God does interact with the church through the Spirit. He calls people to ministry, empowers them for service, communicates His will to individuals, puts plans in their hearts through the Spirit, corrects, convicts.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2001

E. Lee,

You wrote a lot of commentary on Acts,but Peter still said that the Lord had given the Holy Spirit to them which are obedient.

Let's consider the facts. God had given the Holy Spirit to John and Peter. But the council of men who were opposing them were _dis_obedient, having not obeyed the Gospel.

Let us consider Peter's words in the context of the book fo Acts. Beofre Peter spoke these words, not only the 123 apostles, but other saitns had been given the Holy Spirit. We must take his words to the Jewish leaders in light of his teaching in Acts 2 that the gift of the Spirit was to as many as the Lord would call. Many others beside the 12 had become obedient to the faith, and had been given the Holy Spirit.

Consider the considerable amount of teaching in the New Testament on the topic of the Holy Spirit being given to Christians, we should consider Peter's statement about the Holy Ghost being given to them which are obedient as something relavent to our Christian lives today.

In the New Testmaent, we see that people who were saved believed the word of rreliable witnesses who had seen Christ and other saints, and repented of their sins. They received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul writes his letters to saints who had been saved and who had received the downpayment of the Spirit. He wrote to people who had received the Spirit of adoption, whereby the cry Abba father. he wrote to those in whose hearts the love of God had been shed abroad by the Holy Ghost, wheich had been given unto them.

If the people who received the Gospel in Paul's day received the Holy Ghost at salvation, what scriptural evidence do you have to present to show that people get saved different now that the apostles are dead? What evidence do you ahve to present to show that God operates a different way in believers than the way presented in the Bible? It doesn't stand to reason that because the Bible is written that God works in the church in a way that is not revealed in the Bible.

The idea of God saving people and leaving them all their lives without the Holy Spirit is not found in the New Testament. This is not the way God worked in the Bible. The idea of men only believing the Bible and following the writings of the apostles with their own minds, without the Holy Spirit in them is not a scenario the Bible teaches. It is not the way God deals with men in the Bible. So prove this scenario from the Bible.

Remember that Paul wrote about some OT scriptures that the scriptures were given to us for an example. If the OT scriptures are given as an example, how much more are the New Testament scriptures given?

Your view of how God deals with people is a lot like what one former seminary professor described as 'Bible Deism.' think about it. Deists used to think that god created the world with natural laws, and then just let it continue on by natural law without interfering. Of course, this runs contrary to Christianity, since God did 'interfere'- (not an accurate term) by speaking to prophets, revealing scriptures, showing acts of power, and eventually sending His own Son.

What is Bible Deism? A 'Bible Deist' believes that the events in the Bible occured, but his view of how things operated after the first century or the time period he believes the 'charismatic' gifts ceased operating, is very similar to the way a Deist views things. Instead of beliving in the Biblical model of a God who interacts in His creation, He believes that the universe works on natural Law, and that God does not 'interfere' by doing miracles, etc.

This belief of yours that no one receives the Spirit now is a very extreme view, which clearly contradicts scripture. We have a downpayment of the Spirit now. God does interact with the church through the Spirit. He calls people to ministry, empowers them for service, communicates His will to individuals, puts plans in their hearts through the Spirit, corrects, convicts.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2001