- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Here again you repeat what I just refuted, albeit with more verbiage. It wasn't a "corporate" event when Paul met a few disciples in Acts 19 and "when Paul laid hands on them, the Spirit fell on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied." The whole church didn't prophesy at that moment, it was clearly an outpouring upon some select individuals, just like the OT outpourings. For instance in Moses' day an outpouring was given to 70 elders who immediately began to prophesy upon receiving the outpouring. If you want to call it "corporate" in virtue of the obvious fact that we are all members of one body, I suppose you're free to do that, but in the context of this discussion it tends to obscure the clearly individualistic nature of those outpourings.ViaCrucis said:The Mini-Pentecost with the Gentiles in Cornelius' household was a sign, indeed, consider how St. Peter takes the event, he is taken aback by what happens. And when he retells the story to the other leaders of the Church he compares it with what happened with them on Pentecost.
Look at how the Acts is outlined, it is outlined as the Lord gives to His apostles in the first chapters of the text, "You will be My witnesses, beginning in Jerusalem..." The Acts follows this, the Spirit is poured out on Pentecost, upon those in the upper room in Jerusalem, then they beginning there go out and preach throughout Judea and Samaria. Then with Cornelius, it becomes clear that God intends the Gospel for all people, for all nations, for all tribes and tongues of men on earth--and so the Word goes forth to the Gentiles as well.
This mini-Pentecost with Cornelius doesn't change the historical significance and reality of these events. Scripture never shows such miraculous outpourings of the Spirit to be repeatable, individual experiences. It is never an individual experience, they are always corporate events.
The Spirit has already, once and for all, been poured out for all; upon the whole Church. Our reception of the Spirit comes by our Baptism into Christ, by which our sins are forgiven and we receive the gift of the Spirit. Just as the Apostle said on Pentecost in his sermon, "Repent and be baptized every one of your in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
-CryptoLutheran
And your claim that the Spirit was outpoured upon the whole church once and for all - in addition to contradicting Acts 10 where the Spirit fell again - really doesn't make much sense. I wasn't born yet, back on Pentecost. How can the Spirit have been poured out on those who did not yet exist? This is eisegesis, not exegesis - what's driving your conclusions is some kind of a theology of "the church age" which supposedly began at Pentecost, you superimpose this dispensationalism upon Acts instead of letting the text speak for itself.
The reality is - as the Reformers were quick to point out - the NT church isn't under a different age than the OT church. There is ONE Covenant of Grace spanning both testaments (see Galatians 3) which preceded the law (verse 17) - and the law did not even alter or modify it in the slightest (verse 15-b).
OT saints were NOT saved by the law, they were saved by Christ's sacrifice retroactively. I don't get a better cross than Abraham got and therefore I don't get better grace (better outpourings) than what the OT saints got. Paul is clear on this point. In Galatians 3 he argues that we receive the promised Holy Spirit as HEIRS of Abraham. To inherit isn't to get something better than what your parents/ancestors had - it is rather for them to pass on to you what they ALREADY possessed and enjoyed.
There is no "new covenant" therefore - the covenants operated on the terms of the (Abrahamic) Covenant of Grace and served to further explicate the terms of that covenant. This is called progressive revelation. In particular the so-called "new covenant" was not even made with the Gentiles in the first place, it was made with the "house of Israel and the house of Judah" (as the author of Hebrews affirmed). But it is documented in the NT because the terms CLARIFY AND EXPLICATE the High-Priest element of the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace.
Your notion of a new "church age" is a delusion refuted by the Protestant Reformers 500 years ago.
Upvote
0