The Reason Cornelius Received the HS in Acts 10. (moved from soteriology)

[Apollos1]

MTK –

While I do not agree with your conclusions - good post – well thought out and organized! I appreciate your effort.

MTK: Luke's usage of language is very helpful at this point as well as the Greek in antecedant usage. While it is true that the Spirit is the author of all Scripture . .. this does not mean that authorial usage cannot be unique. As such the Spirit inspired men of different education and background.

Agreed.

MTK: So, Luke has some of the best usage of Greek in BOTH secular and religious usage AND Koine and Classical writ . . . while John, has bad grammar and weird Hebraic idiomatic cross-overs, and Paul is notorious for run-on and incomplete sentences and thoughts.

Distinction in words or writing does not make the author’s understanding or pneumatology different from another author’s. Acknowledging differences in writing style is not the same as stating what you did (post #130) - that an inspired author’s “concepts” (Luke versus John) are “not the same”. This simply can not be true as inspired writers had a mutal source of information as I previously stated.

MTK: The classic example of authorial usage is the whole "faith vs. works" debate in salvation . . . at first glance James and Paul seem to be at odds with one another. But when one considers authorial intent/usage, hermeneutically the problem disappears. Same with Luke's doctrine of the Spirit (he has a distinctive pneumatology more in line with the Judaic expectation of the Spirit of the time then he does with Paul and John's formulation of the Spirit).

Since Luke was writing for Greeks I have difficulty thinking that his writing was “more in line” to any Judaic expectations (as might be more expected in Matthew) if indeed the Jews had any. But this point will not prove to be important in our consideration of HS baptism.

As for usage and intent, any information about the Spirit by Luke will be in harmony with all other inspired writers in whatever way Luke may “pen” that information.
- - - - - - - - - -

MTK: The key with Luke is tracing the move of the Spirit BEGINNING IN THE GOSPEL. The Spirit comes on people consistently and they prophesy or speak with great inspiration.
Luke 1 John the Baptizer will be filled (plesthesetai from pletho) with the Spirit and will be in the spirit and power of Elijah . . . he will be a prophet.Luke 1 Elizabeth is filled with the Spirit and prophesiesLuke 1 Zacharias . . . again same thingLuke 2 Simeon has the Spirit "upon" (ep) him and he speaks propheticallyJesus comes along as the prototype human . . . walking in the ways which we should walk . . . He is likewise filled with the Spirit and after the tempation goes into the synagouge opens the Isaiah scroll and prophesies its fulfillment in Him. Luke 11 Luke edits the common saying found in Matthew (Father gives good GIFTS Matt 7) to say gives "the Holy Spirit to those who ask"

So we see a theme . . . or authorial INTENT associated with the Spirit per Luke's usage.

This is a book (Luke) about the life of Christ (one of –3- synoptics). And while Luke shares information about the Spirit, it is difficult to accept this premise of a “Spirit” theme, although Luke must have intended to include such information as is found. But then, this point will not prove to be important in consideration of HS baptism other than Luke included information in his writings that is useful in determining who was to receive and did receive the HS.

MTK: For our purposes this shows that the effulgence (showing of the Spirit) or effusion (pouring out of the Spirit) of the Spirit is NOT just for the select few . . . but for those who ask (Luke 11) and for all who are within God's purpose (Elizabeth, Zachariah, Simeon, etc).

The showing and giving of the Spirit is nothing new. We could both go well back into OT history and find examples… such as Numbers 22:28. The recipients did not always have to ask. Luke shows that the giving of the Spirit was always for the purpose of God – specifically, to reveal and confirm God’s will/word (see Acts 2:22,43, 8:6-7,13, Acts 10, Acts 14:3, 15:12. (You will recall that I employed John 14:26 and 16:13 to show purpose, that the HS was to guide the Apostles into ALL truth.)

Would it not be requisite though, for those that ask to receive the Spirit to be asking in accordance with the purpose of God? How else could the Spirit be given? And as such then, given only to those as selected by God? The examples you list from Luke – ALL were selected by God and for a purpose. So isn’t Luke showing us that of those that may ask for the Spirit, it must be in accordance with God’s purpose and then given only to whom He selects? I believe that Christ did just this when He selected the Apostles (only) to be the first ever recipients of, not just the Spirit, but recipients of HS baptism (immersion)! (Cornelius in Acts 10 being the only exception to receiving HS baptism – but even as the exception, selected by God for His purpose!)
- - - - - - - - - -
Continued below...

 

[Apollos1]

(Continued...)

MTK: So we come to Luke 24.

Luke 24:46-49 a Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 "You are witnesses of these things. 49 "And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." NASU

Now concerning antecedant, the "you" is "the eleven and those who were with them" of verse 33 . . . plus the two DISCIPLES (not apostles) from the road to Emmaus.

Agreed. Jesus appears to and addresses a group that includes the Apostles and “extras”.

MTK: This verse, 49, represents the connective thought to Acts 1:4-5 4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." NASU

Not exactly. While there is a definite “connective thought” made to Theophilus by Luke in Acts 1 back to Luke 24:49, this “thought” does not set the CONTEXT for Acts 1. Luke sets the CONTEXT for Acts 1:1-14 at the very start of the chapter in verses 1 and 2. Luke provides information in the first 14 verses that can not be found in the latter part of Luke 24 also – Luke has progressed in both thought, information, and focus in Acts 1 - therefore the context has changed from that of Luke 24. The context of Acts 1:1-14 ends with the ascension of the Lord and the return of the Apostles (each listed by name so we know precisely who had been with Jesus) from Olivet to the “upper chamber” where Mary and some “brethren” were, in Jerusalem.

At Acts 1:15 a new context begins with the selection process of Matthias. It is here at verse 15 that the “120” appear.

MTK: Now the "them" in this pericope is the apostles of verse 2. But being the connective to Luke 24, we add the two accounts and see that it includes the other disciples.

I have just shown above why Luke 24 does not set the CONTEXT for Acts 1 – it can’t. Here is how Luke sets the context in Acts 1… (ASV)

1 The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,
2 until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God:
4 and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, said he, ye heard from me:
5 For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

Starting from the point at which he had ended his gospel previously, Luke begins his second writing (Acts). Luke sets the context for the reader showing those selected by Jesus for His purpose, the apostles, had been given commandment - "through the Holy Spirit". The “extras” of Luke 24 have been left behind – Luke did not bring them along. The “120” are yet to appear – Luke is yet to introduce the 120 to us. This leaves us with “the eleven” – who are soon to be 12 again beginning at verse 15.

MTK: Evidence of this is in 1:15 where the "bretheren" is a gathering of about 120 disciples INCLUDING the Apostles. This number of individuals is the number that the Baptism of the Spirit is poured out upon in Acts 2:4; for the antecedant for "they" of verse 4 is the 120.

Acts 1:15 - And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (and there was a multitude of persons gathered together, about a hundred and twenty)…

“In these days…” Luke makes reference to the 10 days between the ascension and Pentecost. Forty days (1:3) have passed from the crucifixion on Passover to His ascension (1:9). Passover to Pentecost is 50 days – this leaves only 10 days.

It is at this time (not before) that the “120” appear. How can Luke be speaking of people (in verse 4) that are yet to be introduced in his writings??!! To say that the “120” of verse 15 is the antecedent for the pronoun “they” of verse 4 is to ignore context and a violate the rules of grammar. The rules of grammar dictate that to determine the context of a pronoun (in this case “they”), one MUST refer BACK to the nearest antecedant (which is in this case the Apostles of verse 2). “ANTEcedent” means before – not after. The “120” showed up too late to help you make them an antecedent!
- - - - - - - - - -

MTK: Notice Luke's language of "promise" (epaggelia). This is what seals the deal for the Baptism of the Spirit being for all. Here is the progression:
Luke 24:49 "And behold, I am sending forth the promise (epaggelia) of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." NAS
Acts 1:4-5. 4 And gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised (epaggelia), "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. NAS

(this verse making the Baptism of the Spirit a synonym with "promise of the Father")


HS baptism is synonymus with the “promise of the Father” here – agreed! But as for HS baptism being for everyone, I believe that I am the one that has sealed the deal for it being for the Apostles only as shown above.

MTK: Acts 2:33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise (epaggelia) of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. NASU

Notice here in particular, Peter connects what is both seen and heard (tongues, fire and wind and ecstatic response) as the evidence of the Baptism of the Spirit.

“Having received…” It was Peter and the Eleven (see 2:14) addressing the gathered crowd. So yes, the Apostles confirm here that they had received the promise of the Father – HS baptism. I agree that it was HS baptism delivered at Acts 2:1-4 (although I would not use “ecstatic response” in a description of the evidence.)

MTK: Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, " Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise (epaggelia) is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." NASU

This verse is the key . . . we see that it is certain people in Luke's Gospel, it is then the peculiar respect of Messiah Yeshua's ministry (Luke 4 "The Spirit is UPON Me . . .") and then extends to the initial disciples (all of them . . . not just the Apostles) and then Peter declares the promise . . . the Baptism of the Spirit . . . for ALL who would come to the Lord.
So, Spirit Baptism is NOT a unique event to only the Apostles . . . or just those in the early church . . . but for ALL under the new covenant during this age unto the culmination of the ages in judgement.

I do not view Luke’s gospel in the same was as you. I think you view the people and events as being the vehicle and purpose for the giving of the Spirit. The reason and end result was to get the Spirit to people. (Which you have agreed does not save!)

I view this as the Spirit had been given before and was being given presently, to those selected by God for His purpose… that purpose being that His Word (all truth) would be revealed and delivered once and for all – for the obedience of faith to SAVE man’s soul. This being the intended end result.

What the HS miraculously revealed on Pentecost to only the Apostles brought about the salvation of men and the creation of the church. This was God’s eternal intention, purpose, and end result for HS baptism. (cf. Ephesians 1:4, 3:10)

HS baptism was synonymous with the “promise of the Father” but was never referred to as the “gift” of the HS as now read in Acts 2:38. This “gift’ of (or from) the HS was the “gift” of salvation now revealed by the HS, made possible through the blood of Christ, and remitted in water baptism. The “promise” of this “gift” (per context of the verse) is indeed for all – just as promised to Abraham in Genesis 22:18… through the seed of Abraham - salvation for all nations.

 

[Schroeder]

HS baptism was synonymous with the “promise of the Father” but was never referred to as the “gift” of the HS as now read in Acts 2:38. This “gift’ of (or from) the HS was the “gift” of salvation now revealed by the HS, made possible through the blood of Christ, and remitted in water baptism. The “promise” of this “gift” (per context of the verse) is indeed for all – just as promised to Abraham in Genesis 22:18… through the seed of Abraham - salvation for all nations.[/color]

just wanted to say something here. in gal 3:14 what does it say about the SPirit, that it was the RPOMISE. SO is this the HS baptism or are you going to change around your useage of "words" again. Promise mentioned in acts is HS baptism SO is it the same in gal 3:14,22. JUST WONDERING. And by the way the words gift and promise are both used to mention the Spirit later on and do not really distenguise between a HS baptism and the SPirit. seeing how they are the same. The SPirit does a lot of things. And this salvation for ALL through abraham is said to be through BELIEF. to those that BELIEVE. doesnt mention anything else to it.

I might add that in acts 2:38 it says "and to all those far off" I believe this phrase refers to the gentiles because it is used later on for them in this way. eph 2:13 "but now in Christ YOU WHO ONCE WERE FAR AWAY have been brought near through the blood of Christ" I find it interesting that this is stated "through the blood of Christ" after "who once were far away", which in acts 2:38 is AFTER the promise of the HS. Seems it iis the SPirit that brings one to the blood which makes since IF THEY ARE EGUAL. and that over and over it says through FAITH and or BELIEF we are saved and or receive the SPIRIT. and more specific to acts 10 when the gentiles were shown to the jews to be equal. acts 2:39 with eph 2:13, acts 10:45. putting these passages together seems to desolve your idea. which doesnt have anything to hold it together anyways.

 

[Apollos1]

Originally Posted by Apollos…

HS baptism was synonymous with the “promise of the Father” but was never referred to as the “gift” of the HS as now read in Acts 2:38.
This “gift’ of (or from) the HS was the “gift” of salvation now revealed by the HS, made possible through the blood of Christ, and remitted in water baptism.
The “promise” of this “gift” (per context of the verse) is indeed for all – just as promised to Abraham in Genesis 22:18… through the seed of Abraham - salvation for all nations

Schroeder: just wanted to say something here. in gal 3:14 what does it say about the SPirit, that it was the RPOMISE.

The “promise of the Spirit” (to Abraham) referred to in Galatisn 3:14 is that all nations (including the Gentiles) would be blessed through his seed. Salvation is the blessing and the seed is Christ.

Sch: SO is this the HS baptism or are you going to change around your useage of "words" again.

?????

Sch: Promise mentioned in acts is HS baptism SO is it the same in gal 3:14,22.

The “promise” mentioned is salvation both in verse 14 and 22.

SCH: And by the way the words gift and promise are both used to mention the Spirit later on and do not really distenguise between a HS baptism and the SPirit. seeing how they are the same.

This is a vague remark. Because you believe it, it is your responsibility to show from scripture that HS baptism and all other activities that involve the Spirit are the same or equal. They are not!

SCH: The SPirit does a lot of things. And this salvation for ALL through abraham is said to be through BELIEF. to those that BELIEVE. doesnt mention anything else to it.

Still vague – but you must “believe” everything the Lord said – you don’t get to pick and choose. The Bible definition of “faith” is obedience from the heart. You do not get to define that either.

SCH:I might add that in acts 2:38 it says "and to all those far off" I believe this phrase refers to the gentiles

Agreed.

SCH: because it is used later on for them in this way. eph 2:13 "but now in Christ YOU WHO ONCE WERE FAR AWAY have been brought near through the blood of Christ" I find it interesting that this is stated "through the blood of Christ" after "who once were far away", which in acts 2:38 is AFTER the promise of the HS. Seems it iis the SPirit that brings one to the blood which makes since IF THEY ARE EGUAL. and that over and over it says through FAITH and or BELIEF we are saved and or receive the SPIRIT. and more specific to acts 10 when the gentiles were shown to the jews to be equal. acts 2:39 with eph 2:13, acts 10:45. putting these passages together seems to desolve your idea. which doesnt have anything to hold it together anyways.

Did you have a point to make? You are rambling once again… I would say – Acts 10:48, then Acts 2:38, and take a look at Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5. There you have it! Putting these passages together makes my point as ineffective as yours.

 

[Schroeder]

The “promise of the Spirit” (to Abraham) referred to in Galatisn 3:14 is that all nations (including the Gentiles) would be blessed through his seed. Salvation is the blessing and the seed is Christ.

Yes but it is THROUGH THE SPIRIT. you mentioned the PROMISE of the Spirit is synonymous to the baptism of the SPirit. that is why I brought it up. and that the GIft is SALVATION. BUT i have shown that they are both used together as the same thing.

The “promise” mentioned is salvation both in verse 14 and 22.

True but AGAIN it is THROUGH the Spirit. the PROMISE mentioned in acts 2:38 is the HS. which you stated refered to the HS BAPTISM. But you wont place that idea here when it mentions the ""PROMISE" of the SPirit. Well you put it as the "promise" of the FATHER. where do you READ THIS at could you give me the VERSE.

This is a vague remark. Because you believe it, it is your responsibility to show from scripture that HS baptism and all other activities that involve the Spirit are the same or equal. They are not!

IF there is ONLY ONE SPIRIT eph 4 then they would have to be the same and or equal. How are they different.

Still vague – but you must “believe” everything the Lord said – you don’t get to pick and choose. The Bible definition of “faith” is obedience from the heart. You do not get to define that either.

The LORD said BELIEVE in me and you will have eternal life. he said the WORK of GOD is this to BELIEVE on the one he has sent. SO I suppose YOU have the right to ADD to it. OR to decide that he only spoke of PART of the TRUTH. I say he spoke the WHOLE TRUTH in these two passages and one should put scripture into context with that. ROm 10:8-13 speaks of THIS FAITH we proclaim. nothing of Obediance(your idea of it). rom 4-5 speaks of this FAITH as well and abraham had OBEDIANCE becasue he BELIEVED first. he did not do anything to PROVE his belief to CONVINCE GOD HE DID.

SCH:I might add that in acts 2:38 it says "and to all those far off" I believe this phrase refers to the gentiles

Agreed.

a rareity

Did you have a point to make? You are rambling once again… I would say – Acts 10:48, then Acts 2:38, and take a look at Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5. There you have it! Putting these passages together makes my point as ineffective as yours.

Why do you only pick out ones that have the word baptism in it.

 

[Apollos1]

Hey Schroeder –

Apollos said - The “promise of the Spirit” (to Abraham) referred to in Galatians 3:14 is that all nations (including the Gentiles) would be blessed through his seed. Salvation is the blessing and the seed is Christ.

Schroeder said - Yes but it is THROUGH THE SPIRIT. you mentioned the PROMISE of the Spirit is synonymous to the baptism of the SPirit. that is why I brought it up. and that the GIft is SALVATION. BUT i have shown that they are both used together as the same thing.


CONTEXT alert!!! The CONTEXT of Acts 1 and 2 (select verses) shows a “promise” in relation to HS baptism to the Apostles only. The CONTEXT in Acts 2:38 shows a “promise” in relation to the “GIFT” of the HS. The CONTEXT of Galatians 3 shows the “promise” under discussion to be salvation – the promise “of” (given by) the Holy Spirit to Abraham – as clarified in verse 16. The HS is not promised in Galatians 3, but rather the HS made the promise to Abraham (ei. the promise OF the HS). The is the same “promise” of salvation referred to in verse 22.

Schroeder, would you please tell me what you think the “GIFT” of the HS is in Acts 2:38 ? – and why.
- - - - - - - - - -

SCH: True but AGAIN it is THROUGH the Spirit. the PROMISE mentioned in acts 2:38 is the HS. which you stated refered to the HS BAPTISM. But you wont place that idea here when it mentions the ""PROMISE" of the SPirit. Well you put it as the "promise" of the FATHER. where do you READ THIS at could you give me the VERSE.

Prove that the “promise” mentioned in Acts 2:39 must be HS baptism and nothing else. Given the context, that Peter is speaking about the “gift” of the HS, the “promise” to all is this “gift” of the HS. So again, prove what you think the “gift” of the HS is.
- - - - - - - - - -

SCH: IF there is ONLY ONE SPIRIT eph 4 then they [HS baptism and all other activities that involve the Spirit] would have to be the same and or equal. How are they different.

First, this is not what Ephesians 4 is about. The CONTEXT is UNITY. The “Spirit” as mentioned here represents UNITY as the church’s one source of revelation. Don’t you have anything better than this to offer? (I am no longer going to let you “squirt” out a verse and claim it supports something you believe – because most don’t!)

Second, I don’t believe all acts, gifts, and giving of the HS are equal - John 3:34, 1 Cor.12:4-5. HOW are you going to prove they ARE. Let me save you the time – you can’t! Therefore, the “gift” does not necessarily equal HS baptism does not necessarily equal “laying on of the Apostle’s hands”. You are going to have to do better than this. As I said, because you believe otherwise, it is your responsibility to show from scripture that HS baptism and all other activities that involve the Spirit are the same or equal.
- - - - - - - - - -

SCH: The LORD said BELIEVE in me and you will have eternal life. he said the WORK of GOD is this to BELIEVE on the one he has sent. SO I suppose YOU have the right to ADD to it. OR to decide that he only spoke of PART of the TRUTH. I say he spoke the WHOLE TRUTH in these two passages and one should put scripture into context with that. ROm 10:8-13 speaks of THIS FAITH we proclaim. nothing of Obediance(your idea of it). rom 4-5 speaks of this FAITH as well and abraham had OBEDIANCE becasue he BELIEVED first. he did not do anything to PROVE his belief to CONVINCE GOD HE DID.

I can not believe you have regressed back to this – we have already discussed this. “Believe” means to believe ALL – everything the Lord says. YOU want to pick and choose!

In John 6:28-29 the Jews asked what they must do… to do the work of God. Jesus told them that to do God’s work, THEY MUST believe! This is not something God does for you. How theologically “lazy” can you get?

And Romans 10 says faith comes from – not from God – but from the WORD (vs. 17) !!! Oh my! It appears you will not get to pawn off your faith responsibilities on God afterall.

And Romans 4 is speaking about works of MERIT and attempting to earn salvation – not about the works of GOD as in John 6:29 – a BIG difference. Please pay attention to CONTEXT! This is your biggest problem in coming to a proper understanding of scripture. You never grasp CONTEXT !!!
- - - - - - - - - -

-SCH: I might add that in acts 2:38 it says "and to all those far off" I believe this phrase refers to the gentiles
-Apollos: Agreed.
-SCH: a rareity

Agreed !
- - - - - - - - - -

SCH: Why do you only pick out ones
[Acts 10:48, then Acts 2:38, and take a look at Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5. There you have it!]
that have the word baptism in it.

Isn’t that what we are discussing… WATER BAPTISM ???

“Baptism does also now save us…” - 1 Peter 3:21 KJV

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

MTK –

While I do not agree with your conclusions - good post – well thought out and organized! I appreciate your effort.

MTK: Luke's usage of language is very helpful at this point as well as the Greek in antecedant usage. While it is true that the Spirit is the author of all Scripture . .. this does not mean that authorial usage cannot be unique. As such the Spirit inspired men of different education and background.

Agreed.

MTK: So, Luke has some of the best usage of Greek in BOTH secular and religious usage AND Koine and Classical writ . . . while John, has bad grammar and weird Hebraic idiomatic cross-overs, and Paul is notorious for run-on and incomplete sentences and thoughts.

Distinction in words or writing does not make the author’s understanding or pneumatology different from another author’s. Acknowledging differences in writing style is not the same as stating what you did (post #130) - that an inspired author’s “concepts” (Luke versus John) are “not the same”. This simply can not be true as inspired writers had a mutal source of information as I previously stated.

MTK: The classic example of authorial usage is the whole "faith vs. works" debate in salvation . . . at first glance James and Paul seem to be at odds with one another. But when one considers authorial intent/usage, hermeneutically the problem disappears. Same with Luke's doctrine of the Spirit (he has a distinctive pneumatology more in line with the Judaic expectation of the Spirit of the time then he does with Paul and John's formulation of the Spirit).

Since Luke was writing for Greeks I have difficulty thinking that his writing was “more in line” to any Judaic expectations (as might be more expected in Matthew) if indeed the Jews had any. But this point will not prove to be important in our consideration of HS baptism.

As for usage and intent, any information about the Spirit by Luke will be in harmony with all other inspired writers in whatever way Luke may “pen” that information.
- - - - - - - - - -

MTK: The key with Luke is tracing the move of the Spirit BEGINNING IN THE GOSPEL. The Spirit comes on people consistently and they prophesy or speak with great inspiration.
Luke 1 John the Baptizer will be filled (plesthesetai from pletho) with the Spirit and will be in the spirit and power of Elijah . . . he will be a prophet.Luke 1 Elizabeth is filled with the Spirit and prophesiesLuke 1 Zacharias . . . again same thingLuke 2 Simeon has the Spirit "upon" (ep) him and he speaks propheticallyJesus comes along as the prototype human . . . walking in the ways which we should walk . . . He is likewise filled with the Spirit and after the tempation goes into the synagouge opens the Isaiah scroll and prophesies its fulfillment in Him. Luke 11 Luke edits the common saying found in Matthew (Father gives good GIFTS Matt 7) to say gives "the Holy Spirit to those who ask"

So we see a theme . . . or authorial INTENT associated with the Spirit per Luke's usage.

This is a book (Luke) about the life of Christ (one of –3- synoptics). And while Luke shares information about the Spirit, it is difficult to accept this premise of a “Spirit” theme, although Luke must have intended to include such information as is found. But then, this point will not prove to be important in consideration of HS baptism other than Luke included information in his writings that is useful in determining who was to receive and did receive the HS.

MTK: For our purposes this shows that the effulgence (showing of the Spirit) or effusion (pouring out of the Spirit) of the Spirit is NOT just for the select few . . . but for those who ask (Luke 11) and for all who are within God's purpose (Elizabeth, Zachariah, Simeon, etc).

The showing and giving of the Spirit is nothing new. We could both go well back into OT history and find examples… such as Numbers 22:28. The recipients did not always have to ask. Luke shows that the giving of the Spirit was always for the purpose of God – specifically, to reveal and confirm God’s will/word (see Acts 2:22,43, 8:6-7,13, Acts 10, Acts 14:3, 15:12. (You will recall that I employed John 14:26 and 16:13 to show purpose, that the HS was to guide the Apostles into ALL truth.)

Would it not be requisite though, for those that ask to receive the Spirit to be asking in accordance with the purpose of God? How else could the Spirit be given? And as such then, given only to those as selected by God? The examples you list from Luke – ALL were selected by God and for a purpose. So isn’t Luke showing us that of those that may ask for the Spirit, it must be in accordance with God’s purpose and then given only to whom He selects? I believe that Christ did just this when He selected the Apostles (only) to be the first ever recipients of, not just the Spirit, but recipients of HS baptism (immersion)! (Cornelius in Acts 10 being the only exception to receiving HS baptism – but even as the exception, selected by God for His purpose!)
- - - - - - - - - -
Continued below...

I am not thinking that we are going to get much of anywhere. It seems that you are not quite informed about proper hermeneutics (a comment not meant to offend . . . just to point out) . . . and this is really where the issue lies.

Every author has a purpose . . . and while it is the same Spirit which inspires the writing . . . that does not mean that He has done so with no regard for the context and such of the author. Hence we have different writing styles . . . Luke being GREAT Greek and John being . . . not so great.

If you cannot see this . . . then it really matters little to continue because you are not going to see the issue at all.

I will attempt this one more time . . . but if you cannot see it from here then we will just have to agree to disagree. K?

First the principle:

Authorial usage and intent.

Say I say the word "fly" . . . what do I mean?
1. A bug
2. A slang term for my zipper
3. Go really fast
4. Soar through the sky
5. Something done to a baseball
6. A slang term for beautiful (Man she be fly Dawg!)
7. A fishing lure

I could mean any one of those things . . . so how do we determine what I mean? Context.

If I say that I am going down to the river with my pole and gear . . . and that I know of a fishing hole where the trout are big (YUM!) and then mention the word fly in connection with my pole and string . . . what do I mean . . . meaning becomes clear by context . . . SO . . . I mean a fishing lure.

That is the hermeneutical principle of context determining meaning. This helps with MANY problematic issues in dealing with a book made up of 50+ authors, done on three or four continents, in three languages and spanning several cultures over a period of about 1400 years.

Two examples:

The most common . . . James vs. Paul in the usage of dikaiosune or dikaio (justify/righteous). Paul says:

Rom 3:28
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works
NASU

Rom 4:2
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
NASU

BUT James says:

James 2:14
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
NASU

James 2:17
7 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
NASU

James 2:18
18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
NASU

James 2:21
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
NASU
(This verse being key because JAMES USES THE SAME WORD AS PAUL and the same character)

James 2:24
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith
NASU
(again the same word)

SO we have contradiction? Your assertion:

Acknowledging differences in writing style is not the same as stating what you did (post #130) - that an inspired author’s “concepts” (Luke versus John) are “not the same”. This simply can not be true as inspired writers had a mutal source of information as I previously stated.

Fails. Cause if you are right . . . then the scriptures are contradicting itself . . . and are therefore in error.

OR . . . you realize AUTHORIAL INTENT. James' intent is different than that of Paul. James is not seeking to lay out a theological diatribe on soteriology . . . he is concerned with practice. Paul on the otherhand IS concerned with a theological treatise. Paul uses the term in a FORENSIC sense . . . as a technical term . . . James uses the word in a different sense. His concern in action to others seen by his quoting of the SECOND greatest commandment (according to Christ) here:

James 2:8
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,"
NASU

James has skipped the first greatest commandment (love the lord thy God with all thy heart, etc) . . . and when you do a linguistic search on the usage of dikaiosune/dikaio you see that there are TWO historical emphases . . . one being in relation to GOD and what HE does to one . . . and one being in relation to WHAT PEOPLE SEE. Due to the author's INTENT . . . we see per context that Paul and James are MEANING two different, THOUGH NOT CONTRADICTORY, things.

Another example, esp. with the topic at hand. Spirit Baptism. Luke uses the phrase "baptised EN the Holy Spirit" AND SO DOES PAUL . . . here:

1 Cor 12:12-13
12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
NASU

We know that Luke's usage has nothing to do with Salvation . . . the Apostles had already been regenerate 40-50 days earlier than the day of Pentecost (John 20:21) . . . The Samaritans were already believers before they recieved the SAME ministry . . . Paul is called BROTHER by Ananias before he is Baptised in the Spirit . . . the Ceasarian Gentiles apparently recieved Spirit Baptism at the same time as faith (or at least logically subsequent) . . . and the Eph disciples are either the same type of believers as Apollos in chpt 18 . . . or they STILL don't recieve the Spirit AT FAITH IN CHRIST because they don't recieve the Spirit until AFTER baptism . . . something Paul would surely have NOT done unless he felt their faith genuine.

BUT Paul says in his own writings that Spirit Baptism happens when we are grafted into the Body of Christ (IE faith in Christ) . . . so here we have again . . . error . . . OR the consideration of authorial intent.

Paul's pneumatology, historically speaking, is DIFFERENT than ANYTHING that had been on the scene. Judaism expected the Spirit in the advent of Messiah . . . but they expected JOEL 2. A prophetic release of the Spirit (seen by the writings of the Essenes and other intertestamental writings . . . the Rabbi's Targums and others) was what was anticipated . . . NOT a renewal of the heart and innerworking of the Spirit, like Paul's pnematology . . . which John follows in his later writings. Luke associates the Spirit NOT with salvation or faith . . . but with power and speech and mission.

BTW, this:

It is at this time (not before) that the “120” appear. How can Luke be speaking of people (in verse 4) that are yet to be introduced in his writings??!! To say that the “120” of verse 15 is the antecedent for the pronoun “they” of verse 4 is to ignore context and a violate the rules of grammar. The rules of grammar dictate that to determine the context of a pronoun (in this case “they&#8221, one MUST refer BACK to the nearest antecedant (which is in this case the Apostles of verse 2). “ANTEcedent” means before – not after. The “120” showed up too late to help you make them an antecedent!

Is a HUGE error in what I said . . . I said that the "them" of CHAPTER 2 is the 120 OF CHAPTER 1 . . . so it IS the ANTE-cedant . . . for CHAPTER 1 VERSE 15 COMES BEFORE CHAPTER 2 VERSE 4!

My point stands . . . those who recieved the Baptism of the Spirit in chapter 2 verse 4 are the 120 of chapter 1 verse 15.

 

[Schroeder]

CONTEXT alert!!! The CONTEXT of Acts 1 and 2 (select verses) shows a “promise” in relation to HS baptism to the Apostles only. The CONTEXT in Acts 2:38 shows a “promise” in relation to the “GIFT” of the HS. The CONTEXT of Galatians 3 shows the “promise” under discussion to be salvation – the promise “of” (given by) the Holy Spirit to Abraham – as clarified in verse 16. The HS is not promised in Galatians 3, but rather the HS made the promise to Abraham (ei. the promise OF the HS). The is the same “promise” of salvation referred to in verse 22.

Schroeder, would you please tell me what you think the “GIFT” of the HS is in Acts 2:38 ? – and why.

thing is we need to place context into the passage not into or through your theology, which it seems to me what you do. You keep making statements without anything to back it up. acts 1 doesnt have anything about the Spirit, so we will go to 2. it says they all were filled with the Spirit and spoke in other tongues AS the SPirit enabled them. Now If it was AS the SPirit enabled them then i would assume it is the SAME SPirit spoken of in 1 cor 12:11. As for this "promise" i dont see it in acts 1-2 at all. are you getting this idea from another gospel. You mention john 14 i believe. though you havent actually PROVEN this was just to the apostles. This counselor is for all. jesus was it was to be given and to be with them FOREVER. which in matt. 28 he says again in a different way. he says Lo i will be with you untill the end of the ages. the Spirit is Christ its God it is the HS baptism that comes into us to guide us.

the Promise "OF" abraham is salvation to aLL it is a reference to JEOL prophecy as well. the SEED as it speaks of is CHRIST, whcih will be in all of us as the SPIRIT. whicc is what gal 3 speaks of. in verse 14 and 22 it says the PROMISE of the spirit. VERSE 14 says the PROMISE of the SPirit. so how is it NOT promised when it says it right there. There is only ONE SPIRIT no matter how you say it or call it. Gal 3 STRONGLY shows that through BELIEF we are saved. It speaks not a thing of obediance or water baptism. And just the wording in verse 22 strongly suggest that what was PROMISED(used in verse14) would be GIVEN to those who BELIEVE. NOW if you use the words here in this verse and what other verses say CONCERNING the SPirit and how we get it, they match up. Read eph 1:13-14 and all the others. And its funny your say the PROMISE of salvation is spoken of in gal 3:22 and it does not mention obediance an dor water baptism but ONLY BELIEF. which is what is spoken of in rom 3-5 about abraham.

Prove that the “promise” mentioned in Acts 2:39 must be HS baptism and nothing else. Given the context, that Peter is speaking about the “gift” of the HS, the “promise” to all is this “gift” of the HS. So again, prove what you think the “gift” of the HS is.
- - - - - - - - - -

First, this is not what Ephesians 4 is about. The CONTEXT is UNITY. The “Spirit” as mentioned here represents UNITY as the church’s one source of revelation. Don’t you have anything better than this to offer? (I am no longer going to let you “squirt” out a verse and claim it supports something you believe – because most don’t!)

It is unity I AGREE but this unity is ONLY through the SPIRIT. Christ said we would worship in SPIRIT and truth. this is the Church.

Second, I don’t believe all acts, gifts, and giving of the HS are equal - John 3:34, 1 Cor.12:4-5. HOW are you going to prove they ARE. Let me save you the time – you can’t! Therefore, the “gift” does not necessarily equal HS baptism does not necessarily equal “laying on of the Apostle’s hands”. You are going to have to do better than this. As I said, because you believe otherwise, it is your responsibility to show from scripture that HS baptism and all other activities that involve the Spirit are the same or equal.

WELL then this is why you have so much trouble in your theology. You have not proven they arent. It is VERY funny you say because YOU believe succh a thing.. IT sounds as though what you BELIEVE is absolute so every other idea is false if it does not go with your thinking. NOT the best way to go. I dont recall you PROVEN that the HS is not the same as the spririt. OR that they are not egual. etc. PLEASE show the exact PASSAGE or verse which makes this CLARIFICATION. just read acts 2:4, they were filled with the HOLY SPIRIT and began to speak in other tongues as the SPIRIT enabled them.

I can not believe you have regressed back to this – we have already discussed this. “Believe” means to believe ALL – everything the Lord says. YOU want to pick and choose!

In John 6:28-29 the Jews asked what they must do… to do the work of God. Jesus told them that to do God’s work, THEY MUST believe! This is not something God does for you. How theologically “lazy” can you get?

NO i believe what JESUS says in John 3:16 and many other places which says if you BELIEVE on him you will have eternal life. YOU WILL NOT say that this is only a HALF TRUTH. If it is not then it is the FULL truth and therefore NOT picking and choosing. And I might add it goes with ALL of scripture, such as eph 1:13-14.
As for John 6:29. It is in a sense. IF GOd does not "work" on your heart you will not seek him out. You hear the gospel( which is GOd sending someone to you to speak those truths of Christ) and BELIEVE it or OBEY the leading of your heart you will be saved.

And Romans 10 says faith comes from – not from God – but from the WORD (vs. 17) !!! Oh my! It appears you will not get to pawn off your faith responsibilities on God afterall.

The word is OF GOD. the word is Christ. My faith or belief came becasue God loved me enough to let me hear the Gospel message. Or to see someone who believed in it and showed it to me through there life.

And Romans 4 is speaking about works of MERIT and attempting to earn salvation – not about the works of GOD as in John 6:29 – a BIG difference. Please pay attention to CONTEXT! This is your biggest problem in coming to a proper understanding of scripture. You never grasp CONTEXT !!!

YOur funny. your context is based on your theology not on scripture itself. The difference is not that big. we cannot do anything to win our salvation BECAUSE it is through GOd. His work. Rom 4 describes a "work" as doing something to OBTAIN something for that "work" And if one must do the ACT of water baptism to OBTAIN forgiveness(even though Christ already did this "work" on the cross rom 5:18-19) and salvation THEN IT IS A WORK OF MERIT. You say since i did not get water baptized i will NOT obtain forgiveness or salvation. BUt I say i am saved through GRACE becasue Christ did the "work" reguired of God becasue he is the only one who could. I BELIEVED had faith in the message of Christ work on the Cross. SO just as Jesus told thomas who doubted him risen saying blessed are those who believe when they see but greater is those who believe and do not see.

 

[Apollos1]

MTK –

I would have hoped for your direct reply to things presented in my last post. Such was not the case.

A word about “authorial intent”…

In literary studies, the question of the validity of the methods of determining authorial intent has been debated since the early twentieth century. There is no need to debate “intent” here. It has been argued, and I mostly agree, that authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding a work of literature. You certainly seem to be preoccupied with what many call the “intentional fallacy”.

When I desire to know what Peter, Paul, James, or any other NT writer is trying to say, I consider where they were writing it, when, to whom they were writing, and consider both the words and context of the passage. “Authorial intent” appears to me the presumptuous attempt to take the “intellectual highroad” in hopes of impressing someone with the irrelevant. I am not impressed! (My opinion.)
- - - - - - - - - -

MTK: It seems that you are not quite informed about proper hermeneutics (a comment not meant to offend . . . just to point out) . . . and this is really where the issue lies.

No offense taken – you are entitled to your perspective even if inaccurate. I view this as part of your posturing to better present your thoughts on “authorial intent”.
- - - - - - - - - -
MTK: Every author has a purpose . . . and while it is the same Spirit which inspires the writing . . . that does not mean that He has done so with no regard for the context and such of the author. Hence we have different writing styles . . . Luke being GREAT Greek and John being . . . not so great.

Of course they do. But we must ask ourselves – must we know and/or “recreate” the author to understand his writings? While this may be occasionally helpful, I say this is not requisite. Wait, a thought is coming…. I am thinking of 2 verses between Matthew and Revelation…

1 Cor. 1:17 – “…but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.”and
1 Cor.2:4 – “And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5 that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”

How well do I have to know Paul’s “intent” to understand his plain statements? It appears his “intent” is already known by what he said!

A unique characteristic of Biblical writings, having different authors, purposes, and styles, is that information presented anywhere on any given single topic harmonizes in any other given place – as the Word is the ONE will of God as revealed and confirmed by the ONE source of revelation, the Holy Spirit. All of the sophistry anyone should bespeak in regards to writing “intent”, proficiency, or writing style will not change this reality of scriptural harmony – including those things about the HS (pneumatology).

MTK:If you cannot see this . . . then it really matters little to continue because you are not going to see the issue at all.

I believe I see your “issue”. I do not agree with it! But it should not keep you from responding directly to any points I make to you in my replies. Paul put it this way to the Ephesians (3:4)… “When you read, you can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ…”. When I read what Paul wrote, he says I can understand what was given to him via revelation.
- - -
MTK: That is the hermeneutical principle of context determining meaning. This helps with MANY problematic issues in dealing with a book made up of 50+ authors, done on three or four continents, in three languages and spanning several cultures over a period of about 1400 years.

I agree that CONTEXT is the key to determining meaning. I would put the Bible at about 37 authors, being written over more than 1500 years, and covering a period of time of about 4,000 years.
- - - - - - - - - -

MTK: Two examples:
James vs. Paul in the usage of dikaiosune or dikaio (justify/righteous).
[Romans 3 & 4 –versus- James 2][Isn’t that supposed to be dikaioo ?]


(This verse being key because JAMES USES THE SAME WORD AS PAUL and the same character)

SO we have contradiction?

A “contradiction” may be perceived when CONTEXT is not known. In Romans Paul addresses the Jews in the church at Rome over the matter of “Law keeping” and attempts to “earn” salvation. Paul uses Abrahams to illustrate how faith “justified” him in the eyes of God – not works of the law that would allow “boasting” or a claim of earning justification. Paul is not rejecting all “works” for appropriating justification. His teaching is understood in the context that it is given. What else do you think one needs to know about Paul to understand?

James addresses the other end of the faith-works “spectrum” – those who would say “faith only” is enough. James plainly states that faith without works is dead. James is not talking about “boastful” works here (cf. Eph. 2:9). If one considers that -3- types of “works” are seen in the NT (works of God, works of the Law, and works of merit), then a better understanding of what James and Paul are talking about can be acknowledged in respect to faith and works. The faith that saves is the faith that obeys – as opposed to the faith that brags or attempts to merit.

MTK: Your assertion:
Quote:
Acknowledging differences in writing style is not the same as stating what you did (post #130) - that an inspired author’s “concepts” (Luke versus John) are “not the same”. This simply can not be true as inspired writers had a mutual source of information as I previously stated.

MTK: Fails. Cause if you are right . . . then the scriptures are contradicting itself . . . and are therefore in error.

The thought is valid. A “contradiction” perceived by the READER is the mistake of the READER, not the WRITER! When the information and/or CONTEXT of each passage is understood, there should be no incorrect perception on the part of the reader.

Let me say this again and I hope you understand this time. An author’s writing style is not the same as his concept of what he is writing about! His style should reflect/explain his understanding/concept of the subject and it should provide context for it regardless of the “style” the writer chooses to express his understanding. Paul and John’s “concept” of the HS is the same – of necessity! That which they knew about the HS was that which the HS had revealed to them. Paul and John by inspiration used different words to describe and express the understanding given them by the HS. Both mutually reveal aspects and actions of the Spirit, as well as revealing some things that the other does not. This does not mean the “concept” of either writer in regards to the HS is different.

MTK: OR . . . you realize AUTHORIAL INTENT.

I recognize the purpose and context. Any writer worth his ink will get the ideas and thoughts he wants to convey to the reader expressed in the words he writes.

(What is peculiar in our discussion at this moment is that you understand and respond to the things I have written to you, without knowing who I am. You understand and respond without knowing “authorial intent” from me. How is that possible?)

Continued below...
- - - - - - - - - -

 

[Apollos1]

Continued…

MTK:James [2:8] has skipped the first greatest commandment (love the lord thy God with all thy heart, etc) . . . and when you do a linguistic search on the usage of dikaiosune/dikaio [Isn’t the spelling = dikaioo ?] you see that there are TWO historical emphases . . . one being in relation to GOD and what HE does to one . . . and one being in relation to WHAT PEOPLE SEE. Due to the author's INTENT . . . we see per context that Paul and James are MEANING two different, THOUGH NOT CONTRADICTORY, things.

That’s all fine and good, but I already knew what the author meant by considering the context that the information was presented within. I don’t believe Paul was too concerned with the “historical emphasis” of the word dikaioo when he was writing Ephesians 3:5. And I doubt a linguistic search crossed his mind.
- - - - - - - - - -

MTK: Another example, esp. with the topic at hand. Spirit Baptism. Luke uses the phrase "baptised EN the Holy Spirit" AND SO DOES PAUL . . . here:

1 Cor 12:12-13
12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. NASU


Translators know that verse 13 in the Greek reads the same as “baptized with the Holy Spirit” as in Acts 1:15. Yet they have deliberately treated the construction as a dative of agent at 1 Cor. 12:13.

All men are reconciled to God through Christ in the one body (cf. Ephesians 2:16.)
“For” (kai gar) adds verse 13 as a second explanation of what was discussed in verse 11. But “by one spirit” (en heni pneumati) does not make reference to HS baptism here. How can we know?

First, external evidence…
There are only -2- cases of HS baptism known about…
Acts 2 – The “rule” – HS baptism as promised by Jesus to the Apostles.

(John 14-16 says more about the person, character, coming, work, and witness of the Holy Spirit than in any of the other gospels – yes, including Luke! Judas has already departed. This is after the last supper. Preparing the apostles for His soon coming death, Jesus has this 3 chapter long conversation – this is with the ELEVEN!
John sets forth in very clear terms that the Holy Spirit will be their Comforter, bear witness of Christ’s Deity, convict the world, be their Guide, and glorify the Christ! The promise of the coming Spirit (and HS baptism) can only be confused by those who can not see the truth, however “crudely” some may think John expressed it.)

Acts 10 – The exception that proves the “rule”. At Acts 11:15 Luke’s “pneumatology” reveals that this event with Cornelius was not the norm – it was the exception – being noted only as happening once before “at the beginning” – Acts 2.

Second… Contextual evidence…
In 1 Corinthians 12:3 & 9… “en pneumati” has already occurred in this chapter. There the actions are seen as being done “under the influence” of the HS. The HS is not seen as an element. This context of word use is certainly more immediate than that of Acts 1:5. Why not accept this?

In collaboration of this thought THAYER says in reference to this verse…
5.“univ. the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of anyone; the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc. …by the reception of one Spirit’s efficiency. 1Co. xii. 13”.
Therefore to render it “under the influence of the HS” the Corinthians were led to be baptized into the one body – would be quite appropriate.

Such would also harmonize Paul’s remarks of unity as found in Ephesians 4 – unity of revelation (HS) / unity of practice (one baptism) / unity of organization (one body/the church). The part of the HS in unity is revelation, not practice.

Third, Internal evidence (as relates to Paul)…
As I have mentioned before, the preaching and practice of Paul will confirm the “one baptism” to be water baptism, not “spirit” baptism. (Acts 19:1-6), 1 Cor. 1:12-14, 6:11, Romans 6, Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5.
- - - - - - - - - -

MTK: We know that Luke's usage [of en pneumatic] has nothing to do with Salvation . . .
Neither does any of Paul’s usage – for this was never the purpose or work of the HS.

…the Apostles had already been regenerate 40-50 days earlier than the day of Pentecost (John 20:21) . . . Debatable…

The Samaritans were already believers before they recieved the SAME ministry . . .
The same? Not at all. The Samaritans were saved with water baptism – and later received the HS (not HS baptism) by the laying on of Apostolic hands – so it was not the same. Apparently the Eunuch received neither – but did go down into the WATER!

Paul is called BROTHER by Ananias before he is Baptised in the Spirit . . .
He was his JEWISH brother.

…the Ceasarian Gentiles apparently recieved Spirit Baptism at the same time as faith (or at least logically subsequent) . . Considering Acts 1:15 I would say they obtained faith (by the word) AFTER the HS fell upon them, and then were commanded to be baptized in water. The “exception” to the rule.

…and the Eph disciples are either the same type of believers as Apollos in chpt 18 . . . or they STILL don't recieve the Spirit AT FAITH IN CHRIST because they don't recieve the Spirit until AFTER baptism . . . something Paul would surely have NOT done unless he felt their faith genuine.
The Ephesians of Acts 19 after receiving water baptism (in the name of the Lord – see also Acts 2:38, 8:16, and 10:48) received the HS by the laying on of Apostolic hands – as in Acts 8:17.


BUT Paul says in his own writings that Spirit Baptism happens when we are grafted into the Body of Christ (IE faith in Christ)
He does??? Where ???

. . . so here we have again . . . error . . . OR the consideration of authorial intent. …
It seems to me you are not paying close enough attention to detail or a religious bias is clouding your discernment. These scriptures about who received the HS and how they received the HS are too clear to confuse.
- - - - - - - - - -

Last time Apollos said... It is at this time (not before) that the “120” appear. How can Luke be speaking of people (in verse 4) that are yet to be introduced in his writings??!! To say that the “120” of verse 15 is the antecedent for the pronoun “they” of verse 4 is to ignore context and a violate the rules of grammar. The rules of grammar dictate that to determine the context of a pronoun (in this case “they”), one MUST refer BACK to the nearest antecedant (which is in this case the Apostles of verse 2). “ANTEcedent” means before – not after. The “120” showed up too late to help you make them an antecedent!

Is a HUGE error in what I said . . . I said that the "them" of CHAPTER 2 is the 120 OF CHAPTER 1 . . . so it IS the ANTE-cedant . . . for CHAPTER 1 VERSE 15 COMES BEFORE CHAPTER 2 VERSE 4!

My point stands . . . those who recieved the Baptism of the Spirit in chapter 2 verse 4 are the 120 of chapter 1 verse 15.

I admit I made this error about what you said. You were quite busy jumping back and forth from Luke 24 to Acts 1, attempting to transfer the context of Luke 24 to Acts 1, sticking the “120” in between, and then landing at a pronoun in Acts 2. You got me! SO………

Your claim is that at Acts 2:4 the pronoun “they” (“them” as you state above is in verse 3) refers back to the “120” mentioned at Acts 1:15 – which would be the antecedent. Just one problem… this is wrong! Let’s see why…

If you will look back in post #142 I reminded you of a rule of grammar. I stated that - The rules of grammar dictate that to determine the context of a pronoun, one MUST refer BACK to the nearest antecedent. You did not reject this rule, so it appears you agree.

Looking at Acts 2:1-4, all of the pronouns - “they’s” and “them’s” - must refer back to the nearest antecedent.
Which is >>>see Acts 1:26 >>> “…and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Why MTK, it appears that the “120” did not come too late after all – they came too early!!! The nearest antecedent to Acts 2:1-4 is Acts 1:26 – the APOSTLES.

So according to Luke’s “pneumatology” the APOSTLES were the ones, the only ones, that received HS baptism on Pentecost. And this harmonizes wonderfully with what John had to say about who would receive the HS.

There is even more evidence that the Apostles only received HS baptism – if you would care to see it…

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Continued…

MTK:James [2:8] has skipped the first greatest commandment (love the lord thy God with all thy heart, etc) . . . and when you do a linguistic search on the usage of dikaiosune/dikaio [Isn’t the spelling = dikaioo ?] you see that there are TWO historical emphases . . . one being in relation to GOD and what HE does to one . . . and one being in relation to WHAT PEOPLE SEE. Due to the author's INTENT . . . we see per context that Paul and James are MEANING two different, THOUGH NOT CONTRADICTORY, things.

That’s all fine and good, but I already knew what the author meant by considering the context that the information was presented within. I don’t believe Paul was too concerned with the “historical emphasis” of the word dikaioo when he was writing Ephesians 3:5. And I doubt a linguistic search crossed his mind.
- - - - - - - - - -

MTK: Another example, esp. with the topic at hand. Spirit Baptism. Luke uses the phrase "baptised EN the Holy Spirit" AND SO DOES PAUL . . . here:

1 Cor 12:12-13
12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. NASU


Translators know that verse 13 in the Greek reads the same as “baptized with the Holy Spirit” as in Acts 1:15. Yet they have deliberately treated the construction as a dative of agent at 1 Cor. 12:13.

All men are reconciled to God through Christ in the one body (cf. Ephesians 2:16.)
“For” (kai gar) adds verse 13 as a second explanation of what was discussed in verse 11. But “by one spirit” (en heni pneumati) does not make reference to HS baptism here. How can we know?

First, external evidence…
There are only -2- cases of HS baptism known about…
Acts 2 – The “rule” – HS baptism as promised by Jesus to the Apostles.

(John 14-16 says more about the person, character, coming, work, and witness of the Holy Spirit than in any of the other gospels – yes, including Luke! Judas has already departed. This is after the last supper. Preparing the apostles for His soon coming death, Jesus has this 3 chapter long conversation – this is with the ELEVEN!
John sets forth in very clear terms that the Holy Spirit will be their Comforter, bear witness of Christ’s Deity, convict the world, be their Guide, and glorify the Christ! The promise of the coming Spirit (and HS baptism) can only be confused by those who can not see the truth, however “crudely” some may think John expressed it.)

Acts 10 – The exception that proves the “rule”. At Acts 11:15 Luke’s “pneumatology” reveals that this event with Cornelius was not the norm – it was the exception – being noted only as happening once before “at the beginning” – Acts 2.

Second… Contextual evidence…
In 1 Corinthians 12:3 & 9… “en pneumati” has already occurred in this chapter. There the actions are seen as being done “under the influence” of the HS. The HS is not seen as an element. This context of word use is certainly more immediate than that of Acts 1:5. Why not accept this?

In collaboration of this thought THAYER says in reference to this verse…
5.“univ. the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of anyone; the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc. …by the reception of one Spirit’s efficiency. 1Co. xii. 13”.
Therefore to render it “under the influence of the HS” the Corinthians were led to be baptized into the one body – would be quite appropriate.

Such would also harmonize Paul’s remarks of unity as found in Ephesians 4 – unity of revelation (HS) / unity of practice (one baptism) / unity of organization (one body/the church). The part of the HS in unity is revelation, not practice.

Third, Internal evidence (as relates to Paul)…
As I have mentioned before, the preaching and practice of Paul will confirm the “one baptism” to be water baptism, not “spirit” baptism. (Acts 19:1-6), 1 Cor. 1:12-14, 6:11, Romans 6, Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5.
- - - - - - - - - -

MTK: We know that Luke's usage [of en pneumatic] has nothing to do with Salvation . . .
Neither does any of Paul’s usage – for this was never the purpose or work of the HS.

…the Apostles had already been regenerate 40-50 days earlier than the day of Pentecost (John 20:21) . . . Debatable…

The Samaritans were already believers before they recieved the SAME ministry . . .
The same? Not at all. The Samaritans were saved with water baptism – and later received the HS (not HS baptism) by the laying on of Apostolic hands – so it was not the same. Apparently the Eunuch received neither – but did go down into the WATER!

Paul is called BROTHER by Ananias before he is Baptised in the Spirit . . .
He was his JEWISH brother.

…the Ceasarian Gentiles apparently recieved Spirit Baptism at the same time as faith (or at least logically subsequent) . . Considering Acts 1:15 I would say they obtained faith (by the word) AFTER the HS fell upon them, and then were commanded to be baptized in water. The “exception” to the rule.

…and the Eph disciples are either the same type of believers as Apollos in chpt 18 . . . or they STILL don't recieve the Spirit AT FAITH IN CHRIST because they don't recieve the Spirit until AFTER baptism . . . something Paul would surely have NOT done unless he felt their faith genuine.
The Ephesians of Acts 19 after receiving water baptism (in the name of the Lord – see also Acts 2:38, 8:16, and 10:48) received the HS by the laying on of Apostolic hands – as in Acts 8:17.


BUT Paul says in his own writings that Spirit Baptism happens when we are grafted into the Body of Christ (IE faith in Christ)
He does??? Where ???

. . . so here we have again . . . error . . . OR the consideration of authorial intent. …
It seems to me you are not paying close enough attention to detail or a religious bias is clouding your discernment. These scriptures about who received the HS and how they received the HS are too clear to confuse.
- - - - - - - - - -

Last time Apollos said... It is at this time (not before) that the “120” appear. How can Luke be speaking of people (in verse 4) that are yet to be introduced in his writings??!! To say that the “120” of verse 15 is the antecedent for the pronoun “they” of verse 4 is to ignore context and a violate the rules of grammar. The rules of grammar dictate that to determine the context of a pronoun (in this case “they&#8221, one MUST refer BACK to the nearest antecedant (which is in this case the Apostles of verse 2). “ANTEcedent” means before – not after. The “120” showed up too late to help you make them an antecedent!

Is a HUGE error in what I said . . . I said that the "them" of CHAPTER 2 is the 120 OF CHAPTER 1 . . . so it IS the ANTE-cedant . . . for CHAPTER 1 VERSE 15 COMES BEFORE CHAPTER 2 VERSE 4!

My point stands . . . those who recieved the Baptism of the Spirit in chapter 2 verse 4 are the 120 of chapter 1 verse 15.

I admit I made this error about what you said. You were quite busy jumping back and forth from Luke 24 to Acts 1, attempting to transfer the context of Luke 24 to Acts 1, sticking the “120” in between, and then landing at a pronoun in Acts 2. You got me! SO………

Your claim is that at Acts 2:4 the pronoun “they” (“them” as you state above is in verse 3) refers back to the “120” mentioned at Acts 1:15 – which would be the antecedent. Just one problem… this is wrong! Let’s see why…

If you will look back in post #142 I reminded you of a rule of grammar. I stated that - The rules of grammar dictate that to determine the context of a pronoun, one MUST refer BACK to the nearest antecedent. You did not reject this rule, so it appears you agree.

Looking at Acts 2:1-4, all of the pronouns - “they’s” and “them’s” - must refer back to the nearest antecedent.
Which is >>>see Acts 1:26 >>> “…and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Why MTK, it appears that the “120” did not come too late after all – they came too early!!! The nearest antecedent to Acts 2:1-4 is Acts 1:26 – the APOSTLES.

So according to Luke’s “pneumatology” the APOSTLES were the ones, the only ones, that received HS baptism on Pentecost. And this harmonizes wonderfully with what John had to say about who would receive the HS.

There is even more evidence that the Apostles only received HS baptism – if you would care to see it…

Looking at Acts 2:1-4, all of the pronouns - “they’s” and “them’s” - must refer back to the nearest antecedent.
Which is >>>see Acts 1:26 >>> “…and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Why MTK, it appears that the “120” did not come too late after all – they came too early!!! The nearest antecedent to Acts 2:1-4 is Acts 1:26 – the APOSTLES.

NOT. The choosing happened IN THE MIDST OF THE 120 . . . for Matthais was chosen FROM the 120. The mentioning of the 11 is NOT for the consideration of an account of who is present (to the exclusion of the group that they are already in) . . . for that is already taken care of. The mentioning of the 11:

Acts 1:26
26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
NASU

Is simply a statement of whom Matthias was added to . . . THAT IS ALL. The 11 are part of the larger group of the 120. My point stands.

I don't respond to all your points because I don't want to tangent. This issue, who recieved the Baptism of the Spirit is key to our progression . . . and if we cannot find connsonance here . . . then we won't anywhere . . . and the whole issue will be pointless.

dikaio is simply the English spelling . . . making omega OO is only for phonetic reasons.

I think you are thinking that I am saying that, by stating that the pneumatologies are different, that they are in contradiction to one another . . . I AM NOT. To the contrary I see them as beautifully complimentary . . .

And whether you realize it or not . . . you ARE realizing authorial intent . . . though you seem to reject these words. Authorial intent simply keeps the thought structures as a whole, and in logic with each other.

 

[Schroeder]

Translators know that verse 13 in the Greek reads the same as “baptized with the Holy Spirit” as in Acts 1:15. Yet they have deliberately treated the construction as a dative of agent at 1 Cor. 12:13.

All men are reconciled to God through Christ in the one body (cf. Ephesians 2:16.)
“For” (kai gar) adds verse 13 as a second explanation of what was discussed in verse 11. But “by one spirit” (en heni pneumati) does not make reference to HS baptism here. How can we know?

It says that "all to DRINK" which is a reference to John 7:38-39. Whicih speaks of the receiving of the SPIRIT which is ALWAYS stated as BEFORE "water" baptism and ALWAYS when we BELIEVE. AND rom 8 shows as does others that IF we have the SPIRIT in us WE are OF GOD. We are ALREADY saved. THIS destroys your theology of water baptism.

First, external evidence…
There are only -2- cases of HS baptism known about…
Acts 2 – The “rule” – HS baptism as promised by Jesus to the Apostles.
 
(John 14-16 says more about the person, character, coming, work, and witness of the Holy Spirit than in any of the other gospels – yes, including Luke! Judas has already departed. This is after the last supper. Preparing the apostles for His soon coming death, Jesus has this 3 chapter long conversation – this is with the ELEVEN!

SO if it merely says SPirit it is just the receiving of it, though this happens when we BELIEVE and scripture says If we have it we are SAVED. SO the point is mute. But you can read the word baptism and draw a lot of conditions or conclusions from it EVEN if it makes contradictions to scripture.

John sets forth in very clear terms that the Holy Spirit will be their Comforter, bear witness of Christ’s Deity, convict the world, be their Guide, and glorify the Christ! The promise of the coming Spirit (and HS baptism) can only be confused by those who can not see the truth, however “crudely” some may think John expressed it.)

Way do you BELIEVE he is only speaking of them receiving this SPirit baptism. makes no sense to say this here and not say this in other placers he speaks ONLY to them like matt. 28.

Acts 10 – The exception that proves the “rule”. At Acts 11:15 Luke’s “pneumatology” reveals that this event with Cornelius was not the norm – it was the exception – being noted only as happening once before “at the beginning” – Acts 2.

AGAIN I pointed this out BEFORE, he recalls WHAT JTB SAID not what occurred in acts 1-2. He said and I remember what JTB said that he baptized with water BUT Chrisdt would baptize with the SPIRIT. AND JTB was speaking of this occuring to ALL peoples not just the few you keep trying to assume.

Second… Contextual evidence…
In 1 Corinthians 12:3 & 9… “en pneumati” has already occurred in this chapter. There the actions are seen as being done “under the influence” of the HS. The HS is not seen as an element. This context of word use is certainly more immediate than that of Acts 1:5. Why not accept this? 
 
In collaboration of this thought THAYER says in reference to this verse… 
5.“univ. the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of anyone; the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc. …by the reception of one Spirit’s efficiency. 1Co. xii. 13”. 
Therefore to render it “under the influence of the HS” the Corinthians were led to be baptized into the one body – would be quite appropriate.

YOu would certainly like it this way. BUT you wouldnt know context if it bite you on the leg. YOu get it SOOO close then your theology gets in the way and throws you off course. ALl your "context" is filtered through your preconcieved idea or theology of water baptism.

Such would also harmonize Paul’s remarks of unity as found in Ephesians 4 – unity of revelation (HS) / unity of practice (one baptism) / unity of organization (one body/the church). The part of the HS in unity is revelation, not practice.
 
Third, Internal evidence (as relates to Paul)…
As I have mentioned before, the preaching and practice of Paul will confirm the “one baptism” to be water baptism, not “spirit” baptism. (Acts 19:1-6), 1 Cor. 1:12-14, 6:11, Romans 6, Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5.

The Church does not have practices,like ordances or sacraments, these did nnot please GOd before and will not know. PAUL NEVER spoke about water baptism. He even said he was NOT SENT to do it. he told us what he taught in 1 cor 1. He spoke of the CROSS and Christ crucfied.

The same? Not at all. The Samaritans were saved with water baptism – and later received the HS (not HS baptism) by the laying on of Apostolic hands – so it was not the same. Apparently the Eunuch received neither – but did go down into the WATER!

He went down becasue he ASKS to not becasue he was commanded to. And even then was asks if he truelly believed, he was already saved. as spoken of in rom 10:8-13. scripture NEVER speaks of anyone being saved becasue of "water" baptism.

The Ephesians of Acts 19 after receiving water baptism (in the name of the Lord – see also Acts 2:38, 8:16, and 10:48) received the HS by the laying on of Apostolic hands – as in Acts 8:17.

So why were they NOT saved at the point of being water baptized. Why did they not receive the HS at that p[oint as well if that is what you say acts 2:38 says. As fact what you say of acts 2:38 is never shown in scripture.

 

[Apollos1]

MTK –

Last time I stated…

Your claim is that at Acts 2:4 the pronoun “they” (“them” as you state above is in verse 3) refers back to the “120” mentioned at Acts 1:15 – which would be the antecedent. Just one problem… this is wrong! Let’s see why…

If you will look back in post #142 I reminded you of a rule of grammar. I stated that - The rules of grammar dictate that to determine the context of a pronoun, one MUST refer BACK to the nearest antecedent. You did not reject this rule, so it appears you agree.

Looking at Acts 2:1-4, all of the pronouns - “they’s” and “them’s” - must refer back to the nearest antecedent.
Which is >>>see Acts 1:26 >>> “…and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Why MTK, it appears that the “120” did not come too late after all – they came too early!!! The nearest antecedent to Acts 2:1-4 is Acts 1:26 – the APOSTLES.

So according to Luke’s “pneumatology” the APOSTLES were the ones, the only ones, that received HS baptism on Pentecost. And this harmonizes wonderfully with what John had to say about who would receive the HS.

There is even more evidence that the Apostles only received HS baptism – if you would care to see it…
Looking at Acts 2:1-4, all of the pronouns - “they’s” and “them’s” - must refer back to the nearest antecedent.
Which is >>>see Acts 1:26 >>> “…and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Why MTK, it appears that the “120” did not come too late after all – they came too early!!! The nearest antecedent to Acts 2:1-4 is Acts 1:26 – the APOSTLES.

Your response was –

NOT. The choosing happened IN THE MIDST OF THE 120 . . . for Matthais was chosen FROM the 120. The mentioning of the 11 is NOT for the consideration of an account of who is present (to the exclusion of the group that they are already in) . . . for that is already taken care of. The mentioning of the 11:

Acts 1:26
26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
NASU

Is simply a statement of whom Matthias was added to . . . THAT IS ALL. The 11 are part of the larger group of the 120. My point stands.

I don't respond to all your points because I don't want to tangent. This issue, who recieved the Baptism of the Spirit is key to our progression . . . and if we cannot find connsonance here . . . then we won't anywhere . . . and the whole issue will be pointless.

LOL !!!

You have resorted to “circumstance” to try to prove a point that you can not sustain!

-The choosing of Matthias took place “in the midst” of the 120 – okay. So what?
-Matthias was chosen from out of the 120 – okay. So what?
-“The mentioning of the 11 is not for the consideration of an account who is present…”. Oh, you are struggling here! It is FOR the consideration of whom Luke turns the reader’s attention to and FOR the creation of Luke’s next context – the ELEVEN ! The context of Acts 1 is, in order: the Apostles, the Apostles at the ascension, the Apostles with the 120 for the selection of Matthias, and the Apostles (the ELEVEN). Not hard to follow.

Clearly at Acts 1:26 we read “…and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
Here are YOUR main two problems MTK:

1.) The passage does not say – and Matthias was numbered with the 120.

2.) There is a rule of grammar that you have already accepted and defended !
Namely, that a pronoun MUST refer back to the nearest ANTECEDENT !!!

Acts 2:1 – “And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place.”

“THEY” is the pronoun in Acts 2:1.

The “ELEVEN” is the nearest antecedent in Acts 1:26.

Conclusion: “THEY” refers back to the “ELEVEN” !!!

So what is the problem with your accepting what is right and proper - other than your BIAS ???
- - - - - - - - - -

Further evidence:

Acts 2:7 – ALL that spoke were Galilaeans. Can we suppose that all “120” were??? That is not plausible. But we can reasonably know that the Apostles were from Galilee, can’t we ??? – see Matthew 4.

Acts 2:14 – “Peter, standing up with the ELEVEN….”

Acts 2:37 – “They said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles…”

Acts 2:42 – “And they continued steadfastly in the Apostle’s teaching and fellowship…”

This context of the APOSTLES for teaching and miracles continues to chapter 6 of Acts, and intermittently continues throughout the book of Acts. Do I need to provide all the verses from here through chapter 6 of Acts? You are not going to be able to show even ONE verse that shows teaching or miraculous manifestation outside the context of the APOSTLES !!!

The reality of what Luke illustrates is that it was the Apostles, and only the Apostles that received HS baptism on Pentecost. What do you have MTK? You don’t even have an antecedent at this point! I am hoping you still have your honesty.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

MTK –

Last time I stated…

Your claim is that at Acts 2:4 the pronoun “they” (“them” as you state above is in verse 3) refers back to the “120” mentioned at Acts 1:15 – which would be the antecedent. Just one problem… this is wrong! Let’s see why…

If you will look back in post #142 I reminded you of a rule of grammar. I stated that - The rules of grammar dictate that to determine the context of a pronoun, one MUST refer BACK to the nearest antecedent. You did not reject this rule, so it appears you agree.

Looking at Acts 2:1-4, all of the pronouns - “they’s” and “them’s” - must refer back to the nearest antecedent.
Which is >>>see Acts 1:26 >>> “…and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Why MTK, it appears that the “120” did not come too late after all – they came too early!!! The nearest antecedent to Acts 2:1-4 is Acts 1:26 – the APOSTLES.

So according to Luke’s “pneumatology” the APOSTLES were the ones, the only ones, that received HS baptism on Pentecost. And this harmonizes wonderfully with what John had to say about who would receive the HS.

There is even more evidence that the Apostles only received HS baptism – if you would care to see it…
Looking at Acts 2:1-4, all of the pronouns - “they’s” and “them’s” - must refer back to the nearest antecedent.
Which is >>>see Acts 1:26 >>> “…and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Why MTK, it appears that the “120” did not come too late after all – they came too early!!! The nearest antecedent to Acts 2:1-4 is Acts 1:26 – the APOSTLES.

Your response was –

NOT. The choosing happened IN THE MIDST OF THE 120 . . . for Matthais was chosen FROM the 120. The mentioning of the 11 is NOT for the consideration of an account of who is present (to the exclusion of the group that they are already in) . . . for that is already taken care of. The mentioning of the 11:

Acts 1:26
26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
NASU

Is simply a statement of whom Matthias was added to . . . THAT IS ALL. The 11 are part of the larger group of the 120. My point stands.

I don't respond to all your points because I don't want to tangent. This issue, who recieved the Baptism of the Spirit is key to our progression . . . and if we cannot find connsonance here . . . then we won't anywhere . . . and the whole issue will be pointless.

LOL !!!

You have resorted to “circumstance” to try to prove a point that you can not sustain!

-The choosing of Matthias took place “in the midst” of the 120 – okay. So what?
-Matthias was chosen from out of the 120 – okay. So what?
-“The mentioning of the 11 is not for the consideration of an account who is present…”. Oh, you are struggling here! It is FOR the consideration of whom Luke turns the reader’s attention to and FOR the creation of Luke’s next context – the ELEVEN ! The context of Acts 1 is, in order: the Apostles, the Apostles at the ascension, the Apostles with the 120 for the selection of Matthias, and the Apostles (the ELEVEN). Not hard to follow.

Clearly at Acts 1:26 we read “…and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
Here are YOUR main two problems MTK:

1.) The passage does not say – and Matthias was numbered with the 120.

2.) There is a rule of grammar that you have already accepted and defended !
Namely, that a pronoun MUST refer back to the nearest ANTECEDENT !!!

Acts 2:1 – “And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place.”

“THEY” is the pronoun in Acts 2:1.

The “ELEVEN” is the nearest antecedent in Acts 1:26.

Conclusion: “THEY” refers back to the “ELEVEN” !!!

So what is the problem with your accepting what is right and proper - other than your BIAS ???
- - - - - - - - - -

Further evidence:

Acts 2:7 – ALL that spoke were Galilaeans. Can we suppose that all “120” were??? That is not plausible. But we can reasonably know that the Apostles were from Galilee, can’t we ??? – see Matthew 4.

Acts 2:14 – “Peter, standing up with the ELEVEN….”

Acts 2:37 – “They said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles…”

Acts 2:42 – “And they continued steadfastly in the Apostle’s teaching and fellowship…”

This context of the APOSTLES for teaching and miracles continues to chapter 6 of Acts, and intermittently continues throughout the book of Acts. Do I need to provide all the verses from here through chapter 6 of Acts? You are not going to be able to show even ONE verse that shows teaching or miraculous manifestation outside the context of the APOSTLES !!!

The reality of what Luke illustrates is that it was the Apostles, and only the Apostles that received HS baptism on Pentecost. What do you have MTK? You don’t even have an antecedent at this point! I am hoping you still have your honesty.

We are not going to get anywhere. The logic of the passage just doesn't flow this way. The eleven are the part of the larger gathering of the 120. No where does Luke separate them as APART from the larger gathering . . . IOW Luke NEVER says "and the apostles split to be by themselves" or anything like this. Until it does, the antecedant remains the largest group of which the eleven are part of.

You are by yourself on this one chief . . . against virtually the majority of scholarship in the known biblical realm.

Pax to you Apollos . . . see you around.

 

[Apollos1]

MTK -

What a truly sad response from you...

MTK said :
We are not going to get anywhere. The logic of the passage just doesn't flow this way. The eleven are the part of the larger gathering of the 120.

It is hard to “get anywhere” when people refuse to honestly admit what the scriptures plainly teach.

Prior to my last post you were all about ANTECEDENTs and the order of pronouns and nouns and how they must relate.

Now that you have been clearly shown that a pronoun “THEY” as found in Acts 2:1

MUST

refer back to its nearest ANTECEDENT – which is “the ELEVEN” as found in Acts 1:16,

suddenly what you supported before is no longer important and you begin to make the flimsiest excuses as to what Luke wrote and what Luke meant.

How disingenuous is that ????

MTK: No where does Luke separate them as APART from the larger gathering . . . IOW Luke NEVER says "and the apostles split to be by themselves" or anything like this.

This is exactly what Luke does ! Luke does this in verse 26 of chapter 1 where Luke states…

““…and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

If you know the difference between ELEVEN and One-hundred and twenty, then you can know Luke is now speaking about - - - - the ELEVEN! Who else could Luke possibly be talking about at this point?

MTK: Until it does, the antecedant remains the largest group of which the eleven are part of.

LOL ! Now you may want to make up the rules as you go along, but I am not in the second grade anymore and won’t accept such pedantics.

You can be honest enough to follow established rules of grammar or you can change the rules and change the meaning of passages to suit your fancy – and your theology. But you and I know you will never have the truth that way.

How sad for you!

And of course, you did not attempt to deal with the "Further Evidence" I presented above. That in and of itself is quite telling as well!

MTK: You are by yourself on this one chief . . . against virtually the majority of scholarship in the known biblical realm.

Sorry – your attempt to claim “scholarship” won’t get you out of this pickle. You are caught with your pants down!
B-U-S-T-E-D !!! So go out and find some courage to deal with it!

See you around? I don’t know, will I???
I deal in TRUTH – and that makes many people uncomfortable!

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

MTK -

What a truly sad response from you...

MTK said :
We are not going to get anywhere. The logic of the passage just doesn't flow this way. The eleven are the part of the larger gathering of the 120.

It is hard to “get anywhere” when people refuse to honestly admit what the scriptures plainly teach.

Prior to my last post you were all about ANTECEDENTs and the order of pronouns and nouns and how they must relate.

Now that you have been clearly shown that a pronoun “THEY” as found in Acts 2:1

MUST

refer back to its nearest ANTECEDENT – which is “the ELEVEN” as found in Acts 1:16,

suddenly what you supported before is no longer important and you begin to make the flimsiest excuses as to what Luke wrote and what Luke meant.

How disingenuous is that ????

MTK: No where does Luke separate them as APART from the larger gathering . . . IOW Luke NEVER says "and the apostles split to be by themselves" or anything like this.

This is exactly what Luke does ! Luke does this in verse 26 of chapter 1 where Luke states…

““…and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

If you know the difference between ELEVEN and One-hundred and twenty, then you can know Luke is now speaking about - - - - the ELEVEN! Who else could Luke possibly be talking about at this point?

MTK: Until it does, the antecedant remains the largest group of which the eleven are part of.

LOL ! Now you may want to make up the rules as you go along, but I am not in the second grade anymore and won’t accept such pedantics.

You can be honest enough to follow established rules of grammar or you can change the rules and change the meaning of passages to suit your fancy – and your theology. But you and I know you will never have the truth that way.

How sad for you!

And of course, you did not attempt to deal with the "Further Evidence" I presented above. That in and of itself is quite telling as well!

MTK: You are by yourself on this one chief . . . against virtually the majority of scholarship in the known biblical realm.

Sorry – your attempt to claim “scholarship” won’t get you out of this pickle. You are caught with your pants down!
B-U-S-T-E-D !!! So go out and find some courage to deal with it!

See you around? I don’t know, will I???
I deal in TRUTH – and that makes many people uncomfortable!

You are coridal when you get your way . . . and then condescending when you don't? Try reading Gal 5:22, 23 dude. Perhaps if you were better seasoned with these your doctrinal strutting would be easier to maintain.

Sorry bro, unless you can show me where the antecedant distinguishes between the eleven and the 120 as contextually distinct groups . . . you are just blowing hard into the wind.

I am all about antecedents . . . and the group of the 11 is NO WHERE separated from the 120.

If you continue your smear . . . then your arrogance will be apparent . . . if you humbly agree to disagree . . . then we part peacefully.

PAX

 

[Apollos1]

MTK -

I guess I should not be surprised that you have become so defensive...

MTK: You are coridal when you get your way . . . and then condescending when you don't?

Oh, I am being cordial enough. I amcertain you are feeling the heat! But I never cared much for those that run when they get caught. You are entilted to do that, but pardon my chiding as you go. But then, you were all for discussion until the roadblock went up, huh?

MTK: Try reading Gal 5:22, 23 dude. Perhaps if you were better seasoned with these your doctrinal strutting would be easier to maintain.

Back-handed insults are the easiest to slip by. You nearly slipped this one past Galatians 5:22.

The truth should be "strutted" whenever the occasion arises. But I see this occasion between us more as 1 Corinthains 4:21 and Philippians 1:16.

MTK: Sorry bro, unless you can show me where the antecedant distinguishes between the eleven and the 120 as contextually distinct groups . . . you are just blowing hard into the wind.

Odd, how those rules of grammar are so easily set aside when it conflicts with one's theology. Why is that MTK?

The antecedent is ELEVEN - that is how Luke makes a distinction between Eleven and 120. The difference is 108 if you include Matthias with the ELEVEN - lol! That just can't be "blown" away, can it?


MTK: I am all about antecedents . . . and the group of the 11 is NO WHERE separated from the 120.

Well, not any more you are not!

Tell me, does Acts 1:26 say:

"...and Matthias was numbered with the eleven..." -OR-

...and Matthias was numbered with the one-hundred and twenty... ??????

If you can read the difference - there IS a difference! It is that simple.


MTK: If you continue your smear . . . then your arrogance will be apparent . . . if you humbly agree to disagree . . . then we part peacefully.

This is not a smear, and I am being quite peaceable. Why characterize this situation as something it is not. I am merely pointing out that after you got caught by the truth on an errant point of your theology, you got in a hurry to go somewhere else. I pointed that out, admonished you for not being honest in your dealing with this matter, and I noted your refusal to deal with some other points (such as the "Further Evidence" above) - all apearing to be quite disingenuous.

I realize your urgent need to go - your ego must be bruised. But I am not the type to let something as important as the truth slide by unattended. I expected more and I am trying to get it before you run off.

 

[Schroeder]

It is hard to “get anywhere” when people refuse to honestly admit what the scriptures plainly teach.

kettle calling the pot black. Look at the post I wrote to you above. in acts 11 you keep saying Peter looks back to their SPirit baptism, as though it PROVES your point of it being a fullfillment of Jeols prophecy. I have on a few occasions here told you THAT IS NOT WHAT IT is saying. He says that when he began to speak the spirit fell on them as it did them. "then I remembered what the lord had said: John baptized with water BUT you will be baptized with the holy SPirit." SO what he recalled was what JTB taught that we would be baptized NOT with water but with the HOLY SPIRIT. NOTICE PLEASE NOTICE that he says "so God gave them the gift as he gave us, WHO BELIEVED in the lord Jesus Christ,..." NOW If then it states this holy Spirit baptism as such, a gift given when we believe, THEN WHY would not passages such as gal 3:2,14,22, eph 1:13-14, 2 cor. 5:5 and all the others that says when we believe we receive the SPirit or have eternal life etc. NOt be of the baptism of the SPIRIT. Or at the lest is a reference in some sort of way to it. This passage in acts 11:15-17 CLEARLy shows this connection.

Prior to my last post you were all about ANTECEDENTs and the order of pronouns and nouns and how they must relate.
 
Now that you have been clearly shown that a pronoun “THEY” as found in Acts 2:1
 
MUST
 
refer back to its nearest ANTECEDENT – which is “the ELEVEN” as found in Acts 1:16,
 
suddenly what you supported before is no longer important and you begin to make the flimsiest excuses as to what Luke wrote and what Luke meant.
 
How disingenuous is that ????

NO more then your i would say.

This is exactly what Luke does ! Luke does this in verse 26 of chapter 1 where Luke states…
 
““…and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
 
If you know the difference between ELEVEN and One-hundred and twenty, then you can know Luke is now speaking about - - - - the ELEVEN! Who else could Luke possibly be talking about at this point?

no the point is there is no real proof for either one of you. And it doesnt make either point stand

LOL ! Now you may want to make up the rules as you go along, but I am not in the second grade anymore and won’t accept such pedantics.
 
You can be honest enough to follow established rules of grammar or you can change the rules and change the meaning of passages to suit your fancy – and your theology. But you and I know you will never have the truth that way. 
 
How sad for you!
 
And of course, you did not attempt to deal with the "Further Evidence" I presented above. That in and of itself is quite telling as well!

LOL you should heed your own words. You dont do it for me when I show FURTHER evidence.

Sorry – your attempt to claim “scholarship” won’t get you out of this pickle. You are caught with your pants down!

B-U-S-T-E-D !!! So go out and find some courage to deal with it!

See you around? I don’t know, will I???
I deal in TRUTH – and that makes many people uncomfortable!

So much for NOT being in the second grade anymore. And I think the uncomfortable part is your silly name calling and degrating of others. That second grade stuff you think you have outgrown.