Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | kalos | 2113 | ||
"Since the disciples did not actually receive the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost, some 40 days in the future (Acts 1:8; 2:1-3), this statement must be understood as a pledge on Christ's part that the Holy Spirit would be coming." (p. 1627, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) . . . My answer to your last question will likely provoke some controversy. However, it is not my intention to be provocative or controversial. . . . As strange as it may seem, I believe the following with all my heart and understanding, even though I am a member of a leading Pentecostal denomination. . . . Question: "If Jesus first gave the Spirit here, what exactly happened at Pentecost?" My answer: "The disciples did not actually receive the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost." Acts 2:4 *filled with the Holy Spirit.* "In contrast to the baptism with the Spirit, which is the one-time act by which God places believers into His Body (1 Cor 12:13), the filling is a repeated reality of Spirit-controlled behavior that God commands believers to maintain. Peter and many others in Acts 2 were filled with the Spirit again (e.g., Acts 4:8,31; 6:5; 7:55) and so spoke boldly the Word of God. The fullness of the Spirit affects all areas of life, not just speaking boldy (compare Eph 5:19-33)" (p. 1635, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). To be "filled with" the Spirit means to be "controlled and empowered by" the Spirit. I might add that while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9 "...Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His."), it is obvious that not all believers at all times are *filled* (controlled and empowered) by the Spirit. |
||||||
2 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | Brent Douglass | 2135 | ||
Well said, JHVH0212. I actually think that we are in fairly strong agreement on this topic (which probably seems amazing in and of itself to some), and I see that I (and others whom I got it from) may well have been using the term "baptize" erroneously. Being "baptized with" the Spirit does appear to belong together with "receive" rather than "be filled with" -- as you point out. You ask the question, 'Again why say "ye shall receive [future tense] power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you," if the Holy Spirit had already come upon them in the past?' I also pointed out the same passage from Acts 1 to "prayon" in our parallel thread, and I agree that there was something missing prior to Pentecost. However, I would argue (contrary to MacArthur and to you) that the most natural reading is that the apostles received the Spirit in John 20:22 but still needed the pouring out of the Spirit (or "filling") at Pentecost (and again in Acts 4 and later) for empowerment to effectively proclaim the Gospel. For the record, I am also convinced that tongues are not "the sign" of the filling of the Spirit; this was a view (ab)used in Corinth, and it is still abused today. Most of the examples (of being filled with the Spirit) given in Scripture make no mention of tongues, and many make no mention of any gifts whatsoever. The initial pouring out (or filling) at Pentecost apparently released the expanded availability of the gifts (in a directly observable way), as happened again later when a similar event proved to Jewish Christians (through direct observation) that the same promises and full availability of the Spirit applied to Samaritans and Gentiles as to Jews. This is completely separate from the question of the gifts; there is no necessity of consistently linking them to the filling of the Spirit. Gifts can be exercised without such filling (See Mt 7:22-23, about people who didn't even know Christ at all yet exercised supernatural gifts); likewise such filling often takes place throughout Acts without resulting in the use of any specific gifts. Their concurrence is unusual rather than typical. |
||||||