Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Please Consider - An examination of Revivalist teachings and 'doctrines' Go to subcategory:
Post New Topic Post Poll Reply
Author Content
Didaktikon
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Date Posted:16/10/2013 8:47 AMCopy HTML

Hello, Ben.

I was reading the article 'Effusion in Ephesus' on the Please Consider website. I'm glad to hear it, and equally glad it provoked your thinking.

The statement is made:
"The Apostolic gospel had centred on the understanding that once a person had turned to Christ, and had been baptised into him, the sealing of God’s Spirit was automatic..." Indeed. Such is and remains the basis of the Apostolic gospel.

Yet somewhat contradictorily a following statement: "Paul then immediately fulfilled his obligation as an apostle, by performing the signs of an apostle (see Acts 8:17), in that he caused the Holy Spirit to overshadow them, through the laying on of his hands ... the grammar of the passage clearly indicates that it was the laying on of Paul’s hands, which caused the reception of the Spirit! And, of course, we read that there was more than the utterance of‘tongues’, there was prophecy as well!" Let me suggest the supposed contradiction you believe you've identified is more apparent than real. The reasons this is so are clearly spelled out in the body of the essay. Consequently, I commend another reading of the same to you.

If the Sealing of the Holy Spirit was automatic, then why did Paul need to intervene?
As I indicated in the paper proper, the men in question were disciples of John; they had received his baptism. Unfortunately they had not been adequately informed of the Christian gospel prior to Paul encountering them. Consequently, it was left to the apostle to share the "Good News" with them, with God confirming Paul's apostleship in the process.
 
The author states: "Having been properly educated, the men then willingly, and knowingly,transferred self-ownership to Jesus as the Christ,by consenting to being baptised into his name (his authority)." Doesn't this mean that they had actually repented and had submitted to baptism? It most certainly does. Wouldn't they have automatically received as claimed by the author in this article and other occasions. Not necessarily. As I pointed out in the body of the paper there were two parallel accounts of specific groups receiving God's Spirit in the book of Acts, with very specific details relating to what transpired and why. I'd suggest at the very least you consider the possibility that the apostolic age wasn't normative for describing Christianity through the subsequent ages. I can see that perhaps because of pauls intervention there was outward signs of speaking in tongues and prophesying. However as the author of this article states, it was paul himself the caused the reception of the holy spirit, this is not the case. Au contraire, my friend. Read Acts 19:6 and see if you can reconcile what it presents to what you currently believe. So why did paul do it? For the very reasons I discussed in the essay.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Effusion in Ephesus

Date Posted:19/10/2013 1:37 PMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

I read through it again, but still didn't understand. However i decided to try reading a few other related articles (again), 'The Spirit and Samaria' being one and as such i understand your argument now. Put into context, there is no contradiction. Though i'm already starting to forget things... its a lot of information to take in.

I do have a question though regarding acts 2. When the holy spirit came (acts2v3-4), more languages were heard spoken than there were apostles (12). There doesn't seem to be any clarification.

Furthermore, its argued that the reason people were drawn to the upper room was because they heard the 120 speaking in tongues (Acts2v6) and each heard their own language.

There is another possibility based on the KJV that i have thought about. It seems (from what i can tell) based on the language/structure of the text, that the apostles were speaking multiple languages simultaneously, or perhaps each person heard their own language? (Acts2v6: ... and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak his own language.)

I thought perhaps you might be able to point me in the right direction, or even provide some grammatical analysis from the greek text?

Ben
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Effusion in Ephesus

Date Posted:19/10/2013 11:44 PMCopy HTML

Hello again, Ben.

I read through it again, but still didn't understand. However i decided to try reading a few other related articles (again), 'The Spirit and Samaria' being one and as such i understand your argument now. Put into context, there is no contradiction. Though i'm already starting to forget things... its a lot of information to take in. There is, which is why the various articles on 'PleaseConsider' are linked topically. Worthy of note is that Revivalism teaches one to read bits-and-peices in isolation; consequently, the Revivalist rarely encounters anything that contradicts his beliefs in a meaningful way. But when the 'forest' is viewed as well as the individual 'trees', then the problems for her understanding truly begin ;)

I do have a question though regarding acts 2. When the holy spirit came (acts2v3-4), more languages were heard spoken than there were apostles (12). There doesn't seem to be any clarification. The passage states, "... they (i.e. the apostles) began to speak in other languages ..." Put simply, the force of the clause is each of the twelve apostles began speaking one language, then they began speaking another, and so on. In my essay on Acts 2 I describe the languages recorded at Pentecost being those of the Jewish Diaspora, so there was a definite theological reason underpinning the particularity of the languages and dialects expressed on that day. It really is a fascinating subject to delve into in detail. At least, I've certainly found it so.

Furthermore, its argued that the reason people were drawn to the upper room was because they heard the 120 speaking in tongues (Acts2v6) and each heard their own language. To begin with the theophany didn't take place in the 'upper room' of 1:13ff, but in the Temple precincts. (If you read Acts 2:6, you'll note that it doesn't mention either the 'upper room' or the '120') Furthermore, it is grammatically impossible that the '120' were in view; I describe why in my much, much longer and more detailed Acts essay, a copy of which you can consult and download here: http://image.aimoo.com/ForumImages/69dabc5d-4055-4ea0-a38a-9fcf49f1742d/080417_130435_75113496.pdf

There is another possibility based on the KJV that i have thought about. It seems (from what i can tell) based on the language/structure of the text, that the apostles were speaking multiple languages simultaneously, or perhaps each person heard their own language? (Acts2v6: ... and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak his own language.) Your former theory is the correct one, as it was a miracle of 'speaking' and not a miracle of 'hearing' at Pentecost.

I thought perhaps you might be able to point me in the right direction, or even provide some grammatical analysis from the greek text? Ask, and ye shall receive: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56503890/The-Identity-of-They-in-Acts-2-1

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Post New Topic Post Poll Reply
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.