Unbelievers Turn To Christ When Witnessing A Miracle While Professing Christians Argue About It

[Bible Highlighter]

The Epheasians received gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Not Holy Spirit baptism.
Holy Spirit baptism was promised only to the apostles, Luke 24:49.

Paul water baptized the Epheasians for the forgiveness of their sins, Acts 22:16; Acts 2:38. Before he laid His hands on them as only the apostles had the power to impart miraculous gifts, through the laying on of hands.

This water baptism performed by Paul was no mistake,
For Apollos had already baptized them in the baptism of John, Acts 18:24-28.

Paul then educates the epheasians of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Teaching them to be water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the same purpose he was water baptized, Acts 22:16.

This all occurred before they got miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.

This proves Holy Spirit baptism does not occur instantly when one believes in 1Corinthians 15:1-4.For they were already believers, Acts 19::4-5.

It also proves we are begotten by the gospel not by a miracle performed on us by the Holy Spirit.

I will share the gospel with whoever asks me.
As I believe this is a direct command, Matthew 28:18-20.

My offer is always open for you or anyone who is interested.

Love you friend, 2 Timothy 2:2

Please post this in the thread on Spirit baptism I provided or create your own thread, friend. This is off topic to this particular thread discussion.

May God bless you.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The Epheasians received gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Firstly the correct spelling of the books is "Ephesians".

Not Holy Spirit baptism.
Holy Spirit baptism was promised only to the apostles, Luke 24:49.

If we go to Acts 2 we see the following:
"
12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty).

As you can see, the group in the upstairs room awaiting the coming of the Holy Spirit was numbered at 120 people. So there were those other than the Apostles present. When we go to Acts 2, knowing that in the original Greek there were no chapter divisions, and so we know that when the Day of Pentecost arrived the 120 people were still in that room.

"2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."

Notice that all who were in the room were filled with the Holy Spirit, not just the Apostles, but the other 102 people present, including the mother of Jesus and His brothers and others. So your view that only the Apostles were baptised with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost is contrary to what Luke has actually recorded about who was present in the room when the Holy Spirit arrived.

Paul water baptized the Epheasians for the forgiveness of their sins, Acts 22:16; Acts 2:38. Before he laid His hands on them as only the apostles had the power to impart miraculous gifts, through the laying on of hands.

Here is the passage from Acts 19.
19 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

I concede that they were re-baptised, and that is because I included the actual passage, and not used other out-of-context verses.

This water baptism performed by Paul was no mistake,
For Apollos had already baptized them in the baptism of John, Acts 18:24-28.

I accept that. But if your general premise is that only the Apostles received the baptism with the Spirit, and what the Ephesian disciples received was not it, then you have not yet proved your premise.

Paul then educates the epheasians of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Teaching them to be water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the same purpose he was water baptized, Acts 22:16.

I don't see this in the Acts 19 passage. Paul didn't teach them to be water baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, he actually baptised them. Paul probably did teach them the Gospel more perfectly in the same way that Aquila and Priscilla did for Apollos, but that is not what Luke recorded here.

This all occurred before they got miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.

This proves Holy Spirit baptism does not occur instantly when one believes in 1Corinthians 15:1-4.For they were already believers, Acts 19::4-5.

The Ephesians disciples had only the baptism of John so they were unaware of the Gospel of Christ and were also unaware that there was any Holy Spirit. This is where you are using unconnected verses to try and prove your point. There are two schools of thought about the baptism with the Spirit - one is that the Holy Spirit is received at conversion, and the other is that it comes as a second event after conversion. You need to decide which school of thought you subscribe to and then justify it through relevant Scriptural reference in context.

It also proves we are begotten by the gospel not by a miracle performed on us by the Holy Spirit.

You may be correct, but you need to justify it through Scripture. Paul asks in Galatians "Did you receive the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ or the keeping of the Law?" He is implying that conversion to Christ is receiving the Holy Spirit in the same way that the Ephesian disciples received in Acts 19.

I will share the gospel with whoever asks me.
As I believe this is a direct command, Matthew 28:18-20.

My offer is always open for you or anyone who is interested.

So, your conclusion is that you will share the Gospel because it is a direct command. Sure. But how does your conclusion relate to your initial premise that only the Apostles can receive the baptism with the Spirit? You haven't made that clear.

This is not an accusation directed at you. It is a fair review of what you posted. Let's discuss from this point.

 

[Guojing]

So, your conclusion is that you will share the Gospel because it is a direct command. Sure. But how does your conclusion relate to your initial premise that only the Apostles can receive the baptism with the Spirit? You haven't made that clear.

This is not an accusation directed at you. It is a fair review of what you posted. Let's discuss from this point.

It always fascinates me how, even though Matthew 28:18-20 clearly had Jesus speaking unto them, meaning the 12 apostles, yet so many Christians, thanks to how so many churches having taught them, assumed it is also a direct command to every believer as well.

Yet, when it comes to Genesis 6:14, where God spoke to Noah, commanding him to build an ark, we automatically understand that it is only a command to Noah and not to anyone else.

 

[Fervent]

I still think that James was not referring to someone being raised from the dead through the prayers of the church elders. The question was, "Are there any sick among you?" Not, "Are there any dead bodies to be raised from the dead?" Dead people don't confess their faults to one another (which James sets out as part of the healing process).

This is one of those issues that requires a pretty substantial investigation of the context to fully flesh out. You're absolutely right that healing is the central point James is making, but he transitions this directly to the resurrection of Christ and the promise that it entails to show that in the end every sickness, death being the ultimate form of sickness, will eventually be defeated. The prayers of the elders "save" by appropriating what Christ has made available in the resurrection, but this is not necessarily going to manifest in the here-and-now. James is expressing something common in the epistles in that what Christ makes available is here but not yet, the end times have been inaugurated but not yet consummated. The suffering of sickness may remain on an individual but their hope is as good as assurance anyway because Christ is raised, and in Christ they will be raised.

 

[iLearn]

Baby Christian tends to believe quickly. Mature Christian tends to discern first. Baby Christian is easily deceived. We are called to be like the Bereans. Even if I witness a person doing amazing miracles like being able to call fires from heaven I will not believe straight away until I saw his fruits of the spirit and his humility and holiness.

 

[chad kincham]

f you are for the continuation of the gifts, then why can’t you raise the dead and cleanse lepers as Jesus’ commands? It’s because these gifts were for the apostles. So what I stated involving James 1 and 1 Corinthians 13 stands and makes perfect sense in light of we read in the Bible and what we observe in the real world around us.

Stephen was not an apostle, yet was full of faith and (Dunamis) power, and did great wonders and miracles, Acts 6:8.

Jesus said that believers in Him can do the same works He did. John 14:12.

Healing, miracles, and even raising of the dead occurs among believers today.

Andrew Wommack has a series of Healing Journeys on YouTube with documented healings, and has Charis bible college where physical healing and spiritual gifts are used and taught.

Dr Chauncey Crandall raised a dead ER patient from the dead, 40 minutes after ER docs gave up and pronounced him dead:

Dr Chauncey Crandall raised the dead:

Local news channel 7 reported it:

Channel 7 news ad:

 

[chad kincham]

How do we "see" Jesus today?
How do we hear Jesus speak to us today?
How do we know Jesus today?

Only by reading the written word.

Only through the perfect, Holy Bible

To equate that which is perfect which has no gender.
To but then face to face as face meaning Jesus' literal face is very poor exegesis.

If I were these "experts" I'd demand the college return all my tuition payments.
How do you get perfect as Jesus when the word is not referring to a person.
It is a huge stretch to go from perfect which is not Jesus to face to face as being Jesus.
They do not equate.

What does make sense is the perfect being the completed Bible that we learn about Jesus from to seeing face to face as all knowledge about Jesus will be known when we receive the completed revelation of God.

God has given us everything we need to know about Him in His completed Word,
2Peter 1:3
As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue.

Jesus said His sheep hear His voice.

I dare you to call up the Dallas Theological Seminary and tell them they can’t exegete 1 Corinthians 13 properly, since they teach biblical languages - see what they tell you.

Face to face in that is clearly referring to Jesus return, as in Jacob wrestling Elohim and seeing God FACE TO FACE and God talking to Moses FACE TO FACE as a man talks to a friend.

In fact Jesus is the Elohim in man’s form whom Jacob wrestled with face to face. - one of Jesus’ many OT appearances.

 

[NBB]

I didn't read much of this thread, but i throw my 2 cents maybe someone may listen,

People on forums are entrenched in their opinion it seems, so for what is worth here is a BIG BIG tip in the christian life, you don't know how much importance this is, if you reject this, you are missing out a lot, this is not new at all, but a lot of people doesn't know is true, more serious than this i can't get to express how important it is to:

Be filled with the Holy spirit, either baptists, eastern ortodox, pentecostal, whatever i don't care, you want to have the best friend ever close to you filling your chest and being. And this can be a second experience like pentecostals say, you don't necessarily get 'all the Holy spirit' being born again, listen please, you need to get filled like in the bible like the disciples at pentecost and people on other occasions.

Sincerely, not because i want to argue, but because i care about this a lot. Thanks

 

[New Testament Christian]

Firstly the correct spelling of the books is "Ephesians".

If we go to Acts 2 we see the following:
"
12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty).

As you can see, the group in the upstairs room awaiting the coming of the Holy Spirit was numbered at 120 people. So there were those other than the Apostles present. When we go to Acts 2, knowing that in the original Greek there were no chapter divisions, and so we know that when the Day of Pentecost arrived the 120 people were still in that room.

"2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."

Notice that all who were in the room were filled with the Holy Spirit, not just the Apostles, but the other 102 people present, including the mother of Jesus and His brothers and others. So your view that only the Apostles were baptised with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost is contrary to what Luke has actually recorded about who was present in the room when the Holy Spirit arrived.



Here is the passage from Acts 19.
19 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

I concede that they were re-baptised, and that is because I included the actual passage, and not used other out-of-context verses.


I accept that. But if your general premise is that only the Apostles received the baptism with the Spirit, and what the Ephesian disciples received was not it, then you have not yet proved your premise.


I don't see this in the Acts 19 passage. Paul didn't teach them to be water baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, he actually baptised them. Paul probably did teach them the Gospel more perfectly in the same way that Aquila and Priscilla did for Apollos, but that is not what Luke recorded here.


The Ephesians disciples had only the baptism of John so they were unaware of the Gospel of Christ and were also unaware that there was any Holy Spirit. This is where you are using unconnected verses to try and prove your point. There are two schools of thought about the baptism with the Spirit - one is that the Holy Spirit is received at conversion, and the other is that it comes as a second event after conversion. You need to decide which school of thought you subscribe to and then justify it through relevant Scriptural reference in context.


You may be correct, but you need to justify it through Scripture. Paul asks in Galatians "Did you receive the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ or the keeping of the Law?" He is implying that conversion to Christ is receiving the Holy Spirit in the same way that the Ephesian disciples received in Acts 19.


So, your conclusion is that you will share the Gospel because it is a direct command. Sure. But how does your conclusion relate to your initial premise that only the Apostles can receive the baptism with the Spirit? You haven't made that clear.

This is not an accusation directed at you. It is a fair review of what you posted. Let's discuss from this point.

Firstly the correct spelling of the books is "Ephesians".

If we go to Acts 2 we see the following:
"
12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty).

As you can see, the group in the upstairs room awaiting the coming of the Holy Spirit was numbered at 120 people. So there were those other than the Apostles present. When we go to Acts 2, knowing that in the original Greek there were no chapter divisions, and so we know that when the Day of Pentecost arrived the 120 people were still in that room.

"2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."

Notice that all who were in the room were filled with the Holy Spirit, not just the Apostles, but the other 102 people present, including the mother of Jesus and His brothers and others. So your view that only the Apostles were baptised with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost is contrary to what Luke has actually recorded about who was present in the room when the Holy Spirit arrived.



Here is the passage from Acts 19.
19 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

I concede that they were re-baptised, and that is because I included the actual passage, and not used other out-of-context verses.


I accept that. But if your general premise is that only the Apostles received the baptism with the Spirit, and what the Ephesian disciples received was not it, then you have not yet proved your premise.


I don't see this in the Acts 19 passage. Paul didn't teach them to be water baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, he actually baptised them. Paul probably did teach them the Gospel more perfectly in the same way that Aquila and Priscilla did for Apollos, but that is not what Luke recorded here.


The Ephesians disciples had only the baptism of John so they were unaware of the Gospel of Christ and were also unaware that there was any Holy Spirit. This is where you are using unconnected verses to try and prove your point. There are two schools of thought about the baptism with the Spirit - one is that the Holy Spirit is received at conversion, and the other is that it comes as a second event after conversion. You need to decide which school of thought you subscribe to and then justify it through relevant Scriptural reference in context.


You may be correct, but you need to justify it through Scripture. Paul asks in Galatians "Did you receive the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ or the keeping of the Law?" He is implying that conversion to Christ is receiving the Holy Spirit in the same way that the Ephesian disciples received in Acts 19.


So, your conclusion is that you will share the Gospel because it is a direct command. Sure. But how does your conclusion relate to your initial premise that only the Apostles can receive the baptism with the Spirit? You haven't made that clear.

This is not an accusation directed at you. It is a fair review of what you posted. Let's discuss from this point.

Let's discuss how the ephesians were saved and who received Holy Spirit baptism by email : coolmountainbell@gmail.com
Or
I have started a thread for you and me.
Go to: Who Received Holy Spirit Baptism In Acts chapters 1;2 and How Were The Ephesians Saved In Acts 19?

Bible Highlighter requested to discuss this off topic subject(s) elsewhere. I don't want to intentionally offend Him, so I am trying to honor his request.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Stephen was not an apostle, yet was full of faith and (Dunamis) power, and did great wonders and miracles, Acts 6:8.

Jesus said that believers in Him can do the same works He did. John 14:12.

Healing, miracles, and even raising of the dead occurs among believers today.

Andrew Wommack has a series of Healing Journeys on YouTube with documented healings, and has Charis bible college where physical healing and spiritual gifts are used and taught.

Dr Chauncey Crandall raised a dead ER patient from the dead, 40 minutes after ER docs gave up and pronounced him dead:

Dr Chauncey Crandall raised the dead:

Local news channel 7 reported it:

Channel 7 news ad:

According to this article here:

Chauncey Crandall Story | Testimonies | FBGT-General

Chauncey was upset that nobody believed the Word of God anymore in regards to healing (his interpretation), and he was encouraged to go to a minister in the area. He seen at the church of that minister the slaying in the Spirit.

Well, I do not believe “slain in the Spirit” is a biblical practice.
Benny Hinn’s nephew is intimately familiar with being slain in the Spirit and he says this about it:

Mythbuster: Slain in the Spirit - For the Gospel

So for me: This places Chauncey in bad company. So he clearly is not a case that would convince me. For if he was against being slain in the Spirit that would be one thing.

Granted, I am also not discounting that God cannot bring people back from the dead by prayer, either.
I actually believe the true story behind the film called Breakthrough.

But we do not see any person today claiming to being an apostle and always raising the dead as if it was a regular thing for them. Was Chauncey ever able to repeat what he did?

As for John 14:12: We have to understand that Jesus first came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not to the Gentiles before the cross (See: Matthew 15:24). So the context here is speaking to the Jews and not Gentile believers.

Jesus mentions how greater works we will do than He will do. But do we see anywhere in Scripture about this? No. While it could mean that the apostles did greater works or miracles greater than Jesus that we did not get to see written in the Holy Bible, I am more inclined to believe that the greater works that Jesus is referring to is the spreading of the good news that changes men’s hearts. That is the greater work or miracle - IMHO.

 

[New Testament Christian]

Firstly the correct spelling of the books is "Ephesians".

If we go to Acts 2 we see the following:
"
12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty).

As you can see, the group in the upstairs room awaiting the coming of the Holy Spirit was numbered at 120 people. So there were those other than the Apostles present. When we go to Acts 2, knowing that in the original Greek there were no chapter divisions, and so we know that when the Day of Pentecost arrived the 120 people were still in that room.

"2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."

Notice that all who were in the room were filled with the Holy Spirit, not just the Apostles, but the other 102 people present, including the mother of Jesus and His brothers and others. So your view that only the Apostles were baptised with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost is contrary to what Luke has actually recorded about who was present in the room when the Holy Spirit arrived.



Here is the passage from Acts 19.
19 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

I concede that they were re-baptised, and that is because I included the actual passage, and not used other out-of-context verses.


I accept that. But if your general premise is that only the Apostles received the baptism with the Spirit, and what the Ephesian disciples received was not it, then you have not yet proved your premise.


I don't see this in the Acts 19 passage. Paul didn't teach them to be water baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, he actually baptised them. Paul probably did teach them the Gospel more perfectly in the same way that Aquila and Priscilla did for Apollos, but that is not what Luke recorded here.


The Ephesians disciples had only the baptism of John so they were unaware of the Gospel of Christ and were also unaware that there was any Holy Spirit. This is where you are using unconnected verses to try and prove your point. There are two schools of thought about the baptism with the Spirit - one is that the Holy Spirit is received at conversion, and the other is that it comes as a second event after conversion. You need to decide which school of thought you subscribe to and then justify it through relevant Scriptural reference in context.


You may be correct, but you need to justify it through Scripture. Paul asks in Galatians "Did you receive the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ or the keeping of the Law?" He is implying that conversion to Christ is receiving the Holy Spirit in the same way that the Ephesian disciples received in Acts 19.


So, your conclusion is that you will share the Gospel because it is a direct command. Sure. But how does your conclusion relate to your initial premise that only the Apostles can receive the baptism with the Spirit? You haven't made that clear.

This is not an accusation directed at you. It is a fair review of what you posted. Let's discuss from this point.

I have finished my proof that only the apostles received Holy Spirit baptism.

I will later post about how the Epheasians were saved in Acts 19.
New Thread: Who Received Holy Spirit Baptism In Acts chapters 1;2 and How Were The Ephesians Saved In Acts 19?

 

[New Testament Christian]

Jesus said His sheep hear His voice.

I dare you to call up the Dallas Theological Seminary and tell them they can’t exegete 1 Corinthians 13 properly, since they teach biblical languages - see what they tell you.

Face to face in that is clearly referring to Jesus return, as in Jacob wrestling Elohim and seeing God FACE TO FACE and God talking to Moses FACE TO FACE as a man talks to a friend.

In fact Jesus is the Elohim in man’s form whom Jacob wrestled with face to face. - one of Jesus’ many OT appearances.

I don't have any problem telling the DTS they are poor interpreters of 1Corinthians 13.

You got some contact info?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Here 'ya go -


Dallas Theological Seminary
3909 Swiss Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75204
(214) 887-5000

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Here 'ya go -


Dallas Theological Seminary
3909 Swiss Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75204
(214) 887-5000

I can't wait to hear of the results of his challenge to them! I reckon he will go down in flames like the Hindenburg!.

 

[DamianWarS]

I posted this on the protected Spirit-filled forum, but realised that any discussion would be one-sided and those who could add some interesting comments may not be permitted to contribute in that forum, so I am posting my comment here in the interest of fair discussion among a wider range of opinion in this more general forum.

The point is that the miracles that happened through Peter and Paul in the book of Acts were clear-cut and witnessed by multitudes of unsaved pagans, which resulted in whole communities of pagans turning to Christ. They didn't have to demand proof that the miracles were real. The miracles themselves proved it and they saw that the power of Christ was greater than that of their pagan gods.

In our modern times, the same has happened when the Gospel has been preached and miracles have happened associated with it, and whole communities of unsaved unbelievers have turned to Christ. In the same way, it were the miracles themselves that provided the proof that Jesus Christ is alive today.

It is interesting to me that when a modern miracle of instant healing of a serious medical condition has occurred, and the community of unbelievers have turned to Christ because of what they witnessed, the professing Christians argue about the authenticity of it and demand more conclusive proof that the miracle has actually taken place. It seems to me that unconverted unbelievers tend to believe and accept the miracles more readily than professing Christians! What does that tell you?

1 Cor 12-14 shows some instruction for spiritual giftings then Act shows us the practice of some of these giftings in action and they don't follow the instruction Paul lays out as is more evident (and controversial) with tongues. For example, 1 Cor 12-14 gifts are discriminately given wherein Acts gifts seem more indiscriminately given and conflict with Paul's teaching. my interpretation of this is Paul is addressing believers in an established church and his focus is on the edification of the Church wherein Acts the focus seems more on evangelism and although it edifies it's not about the development of spiritual giftings in the individual to edify the body of believers and is more about the rapid expansion of the gospel like a ripple effect.

This, of course, is never really discussed in the Bible but there is certainly a difference between the teaching of Paul and what we see in Acts on the subject that is rarely addressed and it tends to create greater confusion and/or controversy not to mention misuse. This seems trivial to cessationists and charismatics alike who both seem to lump Acts and Paul together. The former wants to attack it at once rather than having 2 separate issues and the latter will warmly embrace it all to justify their experience-based focus. I think it's important to address these are not the same albeit analogous but have different rules.

Part of the confusion is in the language with the use of the word "gift".

Paul uses "charisma" to speak of the "gifts" of the Holy Spirit (12:4) which is the same word used in Rom 6:23 for the "[free] gift of God". "charis" is greek for grace and "charisma" seems more fitting as a "gift of grace" or more abstractly "things of grace". HELPS Word-studies says "the -ma suffix, focusing on the end-result of the endowment of grace" defining the word as "the operation of grace (divine favor), i.e. a grace-endowment to edify the Church" so there is a theme of edification here of the church. This is consistent with Paul's rather cryptic explanation of tongues in ch14 with a charge to edify the church (v5) but then calling it a sign for unbelievers too (v22) and in the same breath saying unbelievers will think a church is crazy if they walk in and everyone is speaking in tongues (v23). What seems clear is the focus Paul is pressing is not about evangelism but edification of the church but there is a counter-point of evangelism he slips in there that makes you scratch you're head but then he jumps back to edification so we land at that as the meaning. I think in Acts we see that evangelism focus happening.

In Acts the gift of the Holy Spirit is "dorea" which is the proper word for gift and the isolated word has no unique spiritual impact or meaning like charisma does. Because the product of the "dorea" in Acts seems to manifest differently than that of "charisma" in 1 Cor 12-14. To start the gift (dorea) or the HS in Acts is a subsequent experience to salvation and baptism which is not a focus we see with Paul. These broad conflicts make me want to approach these differently and with a different focus, "charisma" for the edification of the church and "dorea" for the expansion of the church.

I know the OP is not about tongues, the gifts of the HS or the gift of the HS but I see a connection. This distinction of Paul and Acts I think is important because the rules are different, with Paul "charisma" is discriminately given and has an edification role but with Acts "dorea" is indiscriminately given and has an evangelism role. When we are speaking of healing I see this as no different where healing inside the church would have a focus on edification of the body of believers and be more specific to believers ministering to other believers where healing outside the church would have an evangelism focus and be more widespread and ripple type effect. With evangelism, I believe it can be more supernaturally driven to have a wider impact among the lost, and to me, it is a consistent theme we see evident in the bible as well as in modern times where naysayers in the church have missed the point.

The product is, in the end, is the most transparent by how it gives glory to God. If there is some sort of fraud happening yet the gospel is spreading the end may not justify the means but we should still be able to rejoice in the impact it has. Paul has this focus we see in Phil 1:15-18 saying "But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."

 

[DamianWarS]

It always fascinates me how, even though Matthew 28:18-20 clearly had Jesus speaking unto them, meaning the 12 apostles, yet so many Christians, thanks to how so many churches having taught them, assumed it is also a direct command to every believer as well.

Yet, when it comes to Genesis 6:14, where God spoke to Noah, commanding him to build an ark, we automatically understand that it is only a command to Noah and not to anyone else.

The ark is a metaphor for baptism, Mat 28 and Gen 6 could be seen as an analogous charge

 

[Guojing]

The ark is a metaphor for baptism, Mat 28 and Gen 6 could be seen as an analogous charge

In the first place, have you actually baptize anyone in water? Only pastors do that.

If you don't, are you then refusing to follow what Jesus commanded "us" to do in Mat 28?

 

[bbbbbbb]

In the first place, have you actually baptize anyone in water? Only pastors do that.

If you don't, are you then refusing to follow what Jesus commanded "us" to do in Mat 28?

We only know that Philip was an evangelist and that he had four daughters who were prophetesses and that he baptized the Ethiopean eunuch. We have no indication that he was a pastor.

 

[Guojing]

We only know that Philip was an evangelist and that he had four daughters who were prophetesses and that he baptized the Ethiopean eunuch. We have no indication that he was a pastor.

So if no Christians, other than pastors, are doing any baptizing in water, are we really following what Jesus commanded the 12 to do in Matthew 28?

 

[DamianWarS]

In the first place, have you actually baptize anyone in water? Only pastors do that.

If you don't, are you then refusing to follow what Jesus commanded "us" to do in Mat 28?

Does a pastor have special power to baptize that others don't? If not, then is not the pastor identity trivial? I'm not a pastor but I won't boost in baptisms, however it is a practise for every believer.