The indwelling presence

[Carl Emerson]

At the present time, have you ever encountered anyone who can do the same signs and miracles, to the same extent as Simon saw Phillip/Peter/John was doing?

If you are referring to healing the sick -then yes. Mind you we don't know the extent...

 

[Carl Emerson]

If someone offered me money for prayer and ministry, I would equally refuse.

 

[Guojing]

There is no reason to believe Philip could not have passed on this empowering himself. To single out Peter and John as somehow more empowered than Philip does not have scriptural support. All 12 were empowered with the Baptism in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

As I stated, this Phillip in Acts 8 was not of the 12, but the 7 deacons in Acts 6. We know that from Acts 8:1.

If that Phillip could have passed on the Holy Spirit in Samaria, then this passage from Acts 8 won't make sense.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Why do the 12 need to send Peter and John to do what Phillip the deacon could have done so himself?

 

[Guojing]

If someone offered me money for prayer and ministry, I would equally refuse.

If you read my point properly, Simon is not offering them money "for prayer and ministry", but for something else.

 

[Guojing]

If you are referring to healing the sick -then yes. Mind you we don't know the extent...

Even if you did, you would agree that "That fact that no one is offering these people anything to "pass on that power", shows the difference between what the original 12 had, and what anyone now claim to have."

Whether they would have refused or not, does not matter, if no one was even bothered to offer them money.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Even if you did, you would agree that "That fact that no one is offering these people anything to "pass on that power", shows the difference between what the original 12 had, and what anyone now claim to have."

Whether they would have refused or not, does not matter, if no one was even bothered to offer them money.

We obviously see things very differently.

God can use whoever He wants to mediate a receiving of empowerment.

He clearly used folks beyond the twelve to minister in His Power and rebuked the twelve for attempting to prevent it.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Even if you did, you would agree that "That fact that no one is offering these people anything to "pass on that power", shows the difference between what the original 12 had, and what anyone now claim to have."

Whether they would have refused or not, does not matter, if no one was even bothered to offer them money.

No I don't agree - we determine a genuine gift by the fruit - not by seeing if someone offers money for it.

When my partner in ministry Neville Logan walked into a hospital waiting room and prayed for a gang member with a severely broken nose that was instantly healed - the response was not to offer money for the gift but a lady threw down the paper she was reading and yelled "who the h... are you anyway"

That is what happens in real life.

Folks find being faced with evidence of God's power quite confronting.

 

[Guojing]

No I don't agree - we determine a genuine gift by the fruit - not by seeing if someone offers money for it.

When my partner in ministry Neville Logan walked into a hospital waiting room and prayed for a gang member with a severely broken nose that was instantly healed - the response was not to offer money for the gift but a lady threw down the paper she was reading and yelled "who the h... are you anyway"

That is what happens in real life.

Folks find being faced with evidence of God's power quite confronting.

Alright, we can have different views about that, no problem.

But would you agree that, given what went down in the Acts 8 account, Phillip the deacon could not have done with the original 12 could, the post that I explained here? The indwelling presence

 

[Carl Emerson]

I cant see any proof of this from scripture - Philip was focussed on evangelising. It is conjecture to suggest he couldn't lay hands on folks with the same result a Peter and John.

 

[Guojing]

I cant see any proof of this from scripture - Philip was focussed on evangelising. It is conjecture to suggest he couldn't lay hands on folks with the same result a Peter and John.

You don't agree that these 3 verses are literally explaining to you precisely why the 2 of them needed to be sent to Samaria?

So how would you understand the 3 verses I quoted?

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Why did the 12 apostles needed to send Peter and John to Samaria then?

If Phillip the deacon could have done the same, wouldn't vs 16, "he was fallen upon none of them", make no sense to you?

If your conjecture was correct instead, "Philip was focussed on evangelising", you would have expected that maybe the Holy Spirit would have been on some of them, not all, but none?

 

[Guojing]

You will get everything the holy spirit has to offer at conversion. When you accept Christ you are sealed by the holy spirit unto the day of redemption. There is no second baptism of the holy spirit after conversation. Also 100 years from now you will be no more saved than you are right now.

You are using Paul's gospel for that, which is absolutely correct. =)

 

[Guojing]

People use the term Pauls gospel,and while he did say," My gospel" on occasion,it was the same gospel Christ gave the disciples.

He said my gospel 3 times, and the phrase you used you are sealed by the holy spirit unto the day of redemption, came from Ephesians 4:30.

But as you can see from my explanation of the Acts 8 account, that was not correct sequence of events, before Paul was saved by the ascended Christ, so it cannot be the same gospel Christ gave to the 12.

 

[Guojing]

If you go back to acts,there is the meeting between Paul and the disciples in Jerusalem. Paul went there to see if he was preaching the same gospel as they. And he said they added nothing extra, it was the same gospel. Just remember the poor.
If he wasnt preaching same doctrine as disciples,there would have to be two different gospels.
God bless

3 comments on this reasoning of yours.

1. "And he said they added nothing extra, it was the same gospel": your conclusion does not follow from your premise. They added nothing extra to Paul does not mean Paul had nothing extra to add to theirs
2. If Paul was preaching the same gospel as them from the beginning, there will not even be a need for the Jerusalem Council event.
3. My point was using Acts 8, which was before Paul was even saved.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You don't agree that these 3 verses are literally explaining to you precisely why the 2 of them needed to be sent to Samaria?

So how would you understand the 3 verses I quoted?

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Why did the 12 apostles needed to send Peter and John to Samaria then?

If Phillip the deacon could have done the same, wouldn't vs 16, "he was fallen upon none of them", make no sense to you?

If your conjecture was correct instead, "Philip was focussed on evangelising", you would have expected that maybe the Holy Spirit would have been on some of them, not all, but none?

The weren't sent because the spirit had not been given, it was discovered that they had not been empowered by the Spirit upon them when they arrived and met them.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You will get everything the holy spirit has to offer at conversion. When you accept Christ you are sealed by the holy spirit unto the day of redemption. There is no second baptism of the holy spirit after conversation. Also 100 years from now you will be no more saved than you are right now.

The disciples received the Holy Spirit when Jesus breathed on them, and at Pentecost they received the permanent empowering of the Spirit on them for ministry.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Did they get it then,or was Jesus just saying it like a man on death bed blessing a son? We dont understand everything,but Paul and Peter both tells us we we are sealed when we are born again.

They received the Holy Spirit and were given the authority to forgive.

John 10
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Yes...the Spirit of the Fear of the Lord seals us at the point of being born again.

Jeremiah 32:40

40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.

 

[Guojing]

The weren't sent because the spirit had not been given, it was discovered that they had not been empowered by the Spirit upon them when they arrived and met them.

How do you get that bold conclusion from vs 15 and 16?

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

For example, what does this verse say literally to you?

Surely you will read it as the holy spirit fell upon NONE of them?

 

[Carl Emerson]

How do you get that bold conclusion from vs 15 and 16?

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

For example, what does this verse say literally to you?

Surely you will read it as the holy spirit fell upon NONE of them?

They were not yet Baptised in the Spirit but were born again and had received the indwelling presence.

 

[Guojing]

They were not yet Baptised in the Spirit but were born again and had received the indwelling presence.

So you are saying that, after reading those 2 verses, you somehow want to believe they can receive the "indwelling presence" of the Holy Spirit, but yet not have the HS fall on them?

Are you getting that belief from vs 16 or reading that into the verse?

 

[Carl Emerson]

So you are saying that, after reading those 2 verses, you somehow want to believe they can receive the "indwelling presence" of the Holy Spirit, but yet not have the HS fall on them?

Are you getting that belief from vs 16 or reading that into the verse?

Same as Jesus and the disciples...

I interpret verses in the light of the whole of scripture.