|
Author
|
Topic: To be baptized in the Name….
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
My I key has been damaged and I am a 10th grade drop out.
Spelling is not my strength.
Im a wizard with Hands on.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
bluefrog
unregistered
|
posted
WILD B...If your I key is not working then why is it ? Before you start to lay your hands on me
I suggest you check my size.
One can't help but pick up on the fact that you are misspelling spirit on purpose to read spirt.
What's the deal ?
IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by bluefrog:
WILD B....Why do you keep misspelling the word SPIRT ?
Also, can you explain your thinking on laying on of hands ?
My I key is not working.
If I lay hands on you you wll know it~lol
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
bluefrog
unregistered
|
posted
WILD B....Why do you keep misspelling the word SPIRT ?
Also, can you explain your thinking on laying on of hands ?
IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
So~ is one "baptized" in the water then the Spirt?
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
Let's skip to question number 11 momentarily:
11. What greater blessings do we have than physical and material wellbeing?
Every! For we are not to love the world, or the things of the world. For if we do, the LOVE of the Father does not dwell in us. Physical and material well being is worldly. Paul was not in physical or material well being. Yet he was the mouthpiece of God. And in fact, people were offending in him because of this:
Php 1:16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
Php 1:12 But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel;
But Jesus says, "Lay not up on earth, where moth and dust doth corrupt." This said HE indicating that our life is not of these things. And this can be evidenced by the sufferings of Paul.
Scripture says man cannot serve two masters, God and mammon. Mammon can be the riches of health and well being. But sometimes God is in suffering, or lack. So this takes care of verse 12:
12. How do physical infirmities often prove to be blessings?
Stand by, for "Good" News!
But this is a distraction from the topic, and literal facing of the word - head on, which says!
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and 'they' received the Holy Ghost.
...as a blessing from God.
Ha~That is not why hands are layed on.
Stop your sillyness.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
So~ is one "baptized" in the water then the Spirt?
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
So, according to the parable of the talents, there should be some deeper transaction with each believer. Else, as is indicated by the person who received only one talent, fate might possibly befall someone as is recorded here:
- Mat 25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
- Mat 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
- Mat 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
See! HE called them servants. Of course, they are not servants who do not believe. So this implies that the one who received only one talent was, if you will, saved! HE had a relationship. He received. Yet, he buried what he received, and it did not set well with the master.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
Let's skip to question number 11 momentarily:
11. What greater blessings do we have than physical and material wellbeing?
Every! For we are not to love the world, or the things of the world. For if we do, the LOVE of the Father does not dwell in us. Physical and material well being is worldly. Paul was not in physical or material well being. Yet he was the mouthpiece of God. And in fact, people were offending in him because of this:
Php 1:16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
Php 1:12 But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel;
But Jesus says, "Lay not up on earth, where moth and dust doth corrupt." This said HE indicating that our life is not of these things. And this can be evidenced by the sufferings of Paul.
Scripture says man cannot serve two masters, God and mammon. Mammon can be the riches of health and well being. But sometimes God is in suffering, or lack. So this takes care of verse 12:
12. How do physical infirmities often prove to be blessings?
Stand by, for "Good" News!
But this is a distraction from the topic, and literal facing of the word - head on, which says!
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and 'they' received the Holy Ghost.
...as a blessing from God.
Ha~That is not why hands are layed on.
Stop your sillyness.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
Let's skip to question number 11 momentarily:
11. What greater blessings do we have than physical and material wellbeing?
Every! For we are not to love the world, or the things of the world. For if we do, the LOVE of the Father does not dwell in us. Physical and material well being is worldly. Paul was not in physical or material well being. Yet he was the mouthpiece of God. And in fact, people were offending in him because of this:
Php 1:16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
Php 1:12 But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel;
But Jesus says, "Lay not up on earth, where moth and dust doth corrupt." This said HE indicating that our life is not of these things. And this can be evidenced by the sufferings of Paul.
Scripture says man cannot serve two masters, God and mammon. Mammon can be the riches of health and well being. But sometimes God is in suffering, or lack. So this takes care of verse 12:
12. How do physical infirmities often prove to be blessings?
Stand by, for "Good" News!
But this is a distraction from the topic, and literal facing of the word - head on, which says!
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and 'they' received the Holy Ghost.
...as a blessing from God.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
Puffy, bloated, nonsense!
Semantics (Def): The meaning of semantics can be more simply illustrated by simply saying that words are the 'vehicle' for meaning. Meaning is what is attempted to be conveyed by the sentence structure which one uses to communicate.
>Now to focus on the truly important issue. As did the Pharisees and lawyers in Jesus' day, you have an objection to miraculous power; and to cover, you immediately shifted attention from the important focal consideration, by asserting the absurdity of the possibility that gentiles 'had' miraculous power. That is what happens so often in Christian circles, most avoid facing the truth head on. So let's go back and face the facts. But first let me say that by evading the scriptures, you are adapting the gospel to fit your understanding, and are 'willing' without shame, to force others to submit to your understanding. So let's look at the scriptures again:
Quiz)
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Verse 16 says, "For as yet he (The Holy Spirit of God) was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
That is as clear as 16th century air. They had been baptized 'as believers' in water, yet: "as yet, HE, was fallen upon none of them." So the Holy Spirit was not upon them in 'fullness'. That calls out the fact that Baptism in the Holy Ghost was a separate event to be sought after.
And this was rectified by:
Act 8:17 "Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."
Therefore miraculous power is by the Holy Ghost, not by the believer. But it takes a believer to be used by the Holy Ghost. But the believer does not do what only the Holy Ghost can do. So the believer had not any power, except to believe. I believe you'll find it the same in the gospels when and where Jesus walked. HE said as much about himself.
All of this can be further illustrated by the fact that it would be useless to pray if the above were not so. After all, it is the same miraculous power that answers prayer, that also manifests any other kind of miracle. And answered prayer is a miracle. It is God's response to a situation based on the request of a believer. The miracle is that it is God's response.
And that takes care of quiz question number 2!
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
"Answer to number one: They did not possess miraculous power. Jesus is the power, and His will the means. They possessed 'relationship'."
Sorry I will have to play my Sematics for 10X card for this silly response of yours.
Flipping the card over it READS.....
Sematics -
Semantics is the study of meaning in communication. The word derives from Greek σημαντικός (semantikos), "significant", from σημαίνω (semaino), "to signify, to indicate" and that from σήμα (sema), "sign, mark, token". In linguistics it is the study of interpretation of signs as used by agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts. It has related meanings in several other fields.
Semanticists differ on what constitutes meaning in an expression. For example, in the sentence, "John loves a bagel", the word bagel may refer to the object itself, which is its literal meaning or denotation, but it may also refer to many other figurative associations, such as how it meets John's hunger, etc., which may be its connotation. Traditionally, the formal semantic view restricts semantics to its literal meaning, and relegates all figurative associations to pragmatics, but this distinction is difficult to defend. The degree to which a theorist subscribes to the literal-figurative distinction decreases as one moves from the formal semantic, semiotic, pragmatic, to the cognitive semantic traditions.
The word semantic in its modern sense is considered to have first appeared in French as sémantique in Michel Bréal's 1897 book, ''Essai de sémantique'. In International Scientific Vocabulary semantics is also called semasiology. The discipline of Semantics is distinct from Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics, which is a system for looking at non-immediate, or abstract meanings.
Linguistics
In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and even larger units of discourse (referred to as texts). The basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, polysemy, paronyms, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, exocentricity / endocentricity, linguistic compounds. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of connotative sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax.
Formal semanticists are concerned with the modeling of meaning in terms of the semantics of logic. Thus the sentence John loves a bagel above can be broken down into its constituents (signs), of which the unit loves may serve as both syntactic and semantic head.
In the late 1960s, Richard Montague proposed a system for defining semantic entries in the lexicon in terms of lambda calculus. Thus, the syntactic parse of the sentence above would now indicate loves as the head, and its entry in the lexicon would point to the arguments as the agent, John, and the object, bagel, with a special role for the article "a" (which Montague called a quantifier). This resulted in the sentence being associated with the logical predicate loves (John, bagel), thus linking semantics to categorial grammar models of syntax. The logical predicate thus obtained would be elaborated further, e.g. using truth theory models, which ultimately relate meanings to a set of Tarskiian universals, which may lie outside the logic. The notion of such meaning atoms or primitives are basic to the language of thought hypothesis from the 70s.
Despite its elegance, Montague grammar was limited by the context-dependent variability in word sense, and led to several attempts at incorporating context, such as :
* situation semantics ('80s): Truth-values are incomplete, they get assigned based on context
* generative lexicon ('90s): categories (types) are incomplete, and get assigned based on context
The dynamic turn in semantics
In the Chomskian tradition in linguistics there was no mechanism for the learning of semantic relations, and the nativist view considered all semantic notions as inborn. Thus, even novel concepts were proposed to have been dormant in some sense. This traditional view was also unable to address many issues such as metaphor or associative meanings, and semantic change, where meanings within a linguistic community change over time, and qualia or subjective experience. Another issue not addressed by the nativist model was how perceptual cues are combined in thought, e.g. in mental rotation.
This traditional view of semantics, as an innate finite meaning inherent in a lexical unit that can be composed to generate meanings for larger chunks of discourse, is now being fiercely debated in the emerging domain of cognitive linguistics and also in the non-Fodorian camp in Philosophy of Language.Jaroslav Peregrin (2003). Meaning: The Dynamic Turn. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. London: Elsevier. The challenge is motivated by
* factors internal to language, such as the problem of resolving indexical or anaphora (e.g. this x, him, last week). In these situations "context" serves as the input, but the interpreted utterance also modifies the context, so it is also the output. Thus, the interpretation is necessarily dynamic and the meaning of sentences is viewed as context-change potentials instead of propositions.
* factors external to language, i.e. language is not a set of labels stuck on things, but "a toolbox, the importance of whose elements lie in the way they function rather than their attachments to things." This view reflects the position of the later Wittgenstein and his famous game example, and is related to the positions of Quine, Davidson, and others.
A concrete example of the latter phenomenon is semantic underspecification — meanings are not complete without some elements of context. To take an example of a single word, "red", its meaning in a phrase such as red book is similar to many other usages, and can be viewed as compositional. However, the colours implied in phrases such as "red wine" (very dark), and "red hair" (coppery), or "red soil", or "red skin" are very different. Indeed, these colours by themselves would not be called "red" by native speakers. These instances are contrastive, so "red wine" is so called only in comparison with the other kind of wine (which also is not "white" for the same reasons). This view goes back to de Saussure:
Each of a set of synonyms like redouter ('to dread'), craindre ('to fear'), avoir peur ('to be afraid') has its particular value only because they stand in contrast with one another. No word has a value that can be identified independently of what else is in its vicinity.
and may go back to earlier Indian views on language, especially the Nyaya view of words as indicators and not carriers of meaning.
An attempt to defend a system based on propositional meaning for semantic underspecification can be found in the Generative Lexicon model of James Pustejovsky, who extends contextual operations (based on type shifting) into the lexicon. Thus meanings are generated on the fly based on finite context.
Prototype theory
Another set of concepts related to fuzziness in semantics is based on prototypes. The work of Eleanor Rosch and George Lakoff in the 1970s led to a view that natural categories are not characterizable in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, but are graded (fuzzy at their boundaries) and inconsistent as to the status of their constituent members.
Systems of categories are not objectively "out there" in the world but are rooted in people's experience. These categories evolve as learned concepts of the world — meaning is not an objective truth, but a subjective construct, learned from experience, and language arises out of the "grounding of our conceptual systems in shared embodiment and bodily experience". A corollary of this is that the conceptual categories (i.e. the lexicon) will not be identical for different cultures, or indeed, for every individual in the same culture. This leads to another debate (see the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis or Eskimo words for snow).
English nouns are found by language analysis to have 25 different semantic features, each associated with its own pattern of fMRI brain activity. The individual contribution of each parameter predicts the fMRI pattern when nouns are considered thus supporting the view that nouns derive their meaning from prior experience linked to a common symbol.
Computer science
In computer science, where it is considered as an application of mathematical logic, semantics reflects the meaning of programs or functions.
In this regard, semantics permits programs to be separated into their syntactical part (grammatical structure) and their semantic part (meaning). For instance, the following statements use different syntaxes (languages), but result in the same semantic:
* x += y; (C, Java, etc.)
* x := x + y; (Pascal)
* Let x = x + y; (early BASIC)
* x = x + y (most BASIC dialects, Fortran)
Generally these operations would all perform an arithmetical addition of 'y' to 'x' and store the result in a variable called 'x'.
Semantics for computer applications falls into three categories:
* Operational semantics: The meaning of a construct is specified by the computation it induces when it is executed on a machine. In particular, it is of interest how the effect of a computation is produced.
* Denotational semantics: Meanings are modelled by mathematical objects that represent the effect of executing the constructs. Thus only the effect is of interest, not how it is obtained.
* Axiomatic semantics: Specific properties of the effect of executing the constructs as expressed as assertions. Thus there may be aspects of the executions that are ignored.
The Semantic Web refers to the extension of the World Wide Web through the embedding of additional semantic metadata; s.a. Web Ontology Language (OWL).
Psychology
In psychology, semantic memory is memory for meaning, in other words, the aspect of memory that preserves only the gist, the general significance, of remembered experience, while episodic memory is memory for the ephemeral details, the individual features, or the unique particulars of experience. Word meaning is measured by the company they keep; the relationships among words themselves in a semantic network. In a network created by people analyzing their understanding of the word (such as Wordnet) the links and decomposition structures of the network are few in number and kind; and include "part of", "kind of", and similar links. In automated ontologies the links are computed vectors without explicit meaning. Various automated technologies are being developed to compute the meaning of words: latent semantic indexing and support vector machines as well as natural language processing, neural networks and predicate calculus techniques.
Semantics has been reported to drive the course of psychotherapeutic interventions. Language structure can determine the treatment approach to drug-abusing patients. While working in Europe for the US Information Agency, American psychiatrist Dr. A. James Giannini reported semantic differences in medical approaches to addiction treatment. English-speaking countries used the term "drug dependence" to describe a rather passive pathology in their patients. As a result the physician's role was more active. Southern European countries such as Italy and Yugoslavia utilized the concept of "tossicomania" (i.e. toxic mania) to describe a more active rather than passive role of the addict. As a result the treating physician's role shifted to that of a more passive guide than that of an active interventionist.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
Answer to number one: They did not possess miraculous power. Jesus is the power, and His will the means. They possessed 'relationship'.
...more later!
quote:
1. Explain how it was that Gentile members of the body of Christ once possessed miraculous powers.
2. Prove from Scripture that lack of faith or spirituality is not the reason for the absence of the Pentecostal gifts today.
3. Give Scripture to show how Christ was "approved of God" among His people.
4. What relation was there between the miracles of Christ's day and the kingdom of Satan?
5. Give Scripture showing how God bore witness to the Pentecostal ministry of the twelve.
6. How did Peter and his companions know that those of Cornelius' household had received the Holy Spirit?
7. What did the Apostle Paul write in I Cor. 13 about the gifts of prophecy, tongues and knowledge?
8. What eventually happened to all those who were healed by our Lord and His followers?
9. Why?
10. Give five Scriptures indicating that healing powers were already being withdrawn in Paul's day.
11. What greater blessings do we have than physical and material wellbeing?
12. How do physical infirmities often prove to be blessings?
13. What was Paul's attitude with respect to infirmities?
14. What is the first question which concerns us with respect to the ceremony of water baptism?
15. Give Scripture showing how John the Baptist associated water baptism with Israel and the kingdom.
16. Give three Scriptures proving that water baptism was required for salvation under John the Baptist, under the "great commission" and at Pentecost.
17. Where, in Scripture, do we find the first departures from the Pentecostal program?
18. Prove from Scripture that the Pentecostal program did not cease all at once.
19. Was Paul sent to baptize; was it part of his special commission?
20. What is accomplished by the "one baptism" of this dispensation?
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
QUIZ
1. Explain how it was that Gentile members of the body of Christ once possessed miraculous powers.
2. Prove from Scripture that lack of faith or spirituality is not the reason for the absence of the Pentecostal gifts today.
3. Give Scripture to show how Christ was "approved of God" among His people.
4. What relation was there between the miracles of Christ's day and the kingdom of Satan?
5. Give Scripture showing how God bore witness to the Pentecostal ministry of the twelve.
6. How did Peter and his companions know that those of Cornelius' household had received the Holy Spirit?
7. What did the Apostle Paul write in I Cor. 13 about the gifts of prophecy, tongues and knowledge?
8. What eventually happened to all those who were healed by our Lord and His followers?
9. Why?
10. Give five Scriptures indicating that healing powers were already being withdrawn in Paul's day.
11. What greater blessings do we have than physical and material wellbeing?
12. How do physical infirmities often prove to be blessings?
13. What was Paul's attitude with respect to infirmities?
14. What is the first question which concerns us with respect to the ceremony of water baptism?
15. Give Scripture showing how John the Baptist associated water baptism with Israel and the kingdom.
16. Give three Scriptures proving that water baptism was required for salvation under John the Baptist, under the "great commission" and at Pentecost.
17. Where, in Scripture, do we find the first departures from the Pentecostal program?
18. Prove from Scripture that the Pentecostal program did not cease all at once.
19. Was Paul sent to baptize; was it part of his special commission?
20. What is accomplished by the "one baptism" of this dispensation?
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
To be baptized in the Name….
What is with all of the dunking? To be sure, a lot of it was going on just after our Lord’s ascension. Just read the book of Acts to find out! And scripture does talk a lot about baptism. Is it then therefore talking about water, or Spirit baptism? When scripture says to be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, is it not speaking of water baptism? (Or is it?) After all, man cannot baptize man, but in water, so what else would one who follows Jesus do if he is obeying the great commission?
All of the baptism that was going on was, no doubt, the result of the great commission as it is laid out in this verse:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Yet, does that make water baptism essential to salvation? After all, as we already said, they did it, and they did it a lot, running here, and baptizing there. It appears to be out of obedience, so, if it was good enough for them, our understanding should be the same maybe? It is hard to be understood. After all, this believer does not believe that water baptism ‘saves’ anyone. But does it add dimension to a man’s faith? That is perhaps an important question.
If we look at this verse we will make a further discovery. It appears that something extraneous is literally ‘tied’ to being baptized in the Name of Jesus, and that something is quite, I mean extremely, important.
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
That’s quite a gift. And looking at this verse, it appears that receiving “the gift of the Holy Ghost” is something quite separate from what takes place during one’s initial salvation! It is indicated here to be something different in that it is clearly ‘set apart’ by the way it is discussed in the sentence. It is defined as being something different that happens to someone. It is a ‘gift’ that one receives, which is conditional. Yet those who get saved insist that they ‘received’ the Holy Spirit when they were saved. Well…. And was Peter saying to be baptized into water, in the Name of Jesus Christ? To be sure, it doesn’t make it clear in verse 2:38.
But these passages add clarity!
Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Act 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Clearly, these were baptized in water, including Simon. I know that many believe that this is essential to salvation. These passages are part of the reason why. And I don’t know what to say. I don’t understand it to be necessary to be saved! But another consideration that I have, all of that aside, is that the ’order’ of things is not necessarily 1,2,3 thank you, as though you are to do this, and this, and you will be saved! And I still do not believe that water baptism is necessary if I didn't already say so, but they did it right out of the box way back then. No hesitation! But I said all of that to say this; If water baptism is not necessary, then is this next necessary?
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Here we see something very interesting! These believers had received the word of God. Does this not mean that they ‘believed’, or had they heard only? Well the next verse seems to clear that up, for verse 8:16 says that they had been ‘water’ baptized in the Name of Jesus. And that doesn’t happen until one has believed unto salvation. Possibly such an occurrence happens unto one’s salvation ‘when’ one is baptized? I however think that these were saved before they went under. But one thing is for sure, that here are described, two separate events: They received the word of God, meaning they were saved, having believed; and they were baptized in water. Yet something remained. For verse 15 states that they were prayed for, specifically, to receive the Holy Ghost! That is clearly an indication of an undeniably separate event, as much as the water baptism was a separate event, as much as believing in the heart, and confessing with the mouth is a separate event. And as we see in verse 16, “For as yet HE was 'fallen' upon none of them.” “HE” refers to the ‘Person of the Holy Spirit’, a blessing beyond salvation, a blessing of intimate knowing, and HE was not fallen upon them (given), though they were saved, and water baptized. (Heb8:11) So we read in verse 17:
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Hence the “Pentecostal” church! And there you have it. It is entirely scriptural.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
