[...] Lady.  But it is not to discuss what is or is not appropriate in a worship setting.  As in A Theology of More and A Theology of More II: Full Gospel Christianity, I want to address a philosophy that treats a [...]

[...] while ago, I addressed in A Theology of More a mentality that has a continual quest for greater external manifestations that demonstrates that [...]

Lisa -

I completely agree that we receive the Spirit at salvation/conversion. And this is Paul’s emphasis. Luke’s emphasis is the empowering presence of the Spirit for mission and charismata.

I think those Samaritans of Acts 8 were ‘born again’ through the preaching of Philip. They received the word. I have no doubt that Luke is reporting their salvation. And I think the Ephesian disciples of Acts 19 were most likely followers of Apollos. Apollos (end of Acts 18) was ‘saved’, though he needed some more help in understanding things, and, thus, I think we can assume his followers would have been. But I know it is up for debate.

Paul’s ‘filling’ in Eph 5:18 is in regards to regular fillings – ‘go on being filled with the Spirit’. Luke uses the word ‘filling’ in connection with baptism in the Spirit, though there is once when he uses the present imperative like Paul. So Luke can use the word ‘filled’ in regards to the first time or the subsequent times. Paul seems to only be using it in regards to subsequent times.

Eric, I haven’t forgotten about you. I’m doing some research amongst multiple demands.

Scott, actually my semester has ended but my deadlines were (are) work related. I live in a pressure cooker

You said:

“Hence, I don’t think Luke was too worried about words and descriptions, but he did have more of an empowering and ‘charismatic’ presentation of the Spirit, whereas Paul focused more on the soteriological purposes.”

I actually would agree with this but it doesn’t negate what I’ve been saying. The question goes back to what these charismatic presentations represented. I do want to clarify a previous statement I made in that distinguishing between baptism and filling, I was referring more filling for believers, as Paul stated in Eph 5:18.

In Acts, I do believe that filling and baptism are used interchangeably. So the fact that Acts 1:5 indicates a baptism and Acts 2:4 indicates they were filled, does mean the same thing – they received the Holy Spirit. But the question goes back to the role and work of the Spirit. I contend that since Acts represents a new way of how people would relate to God, starting with Jews then moving out to Gentiles. The spirit seals the salvation deal, so to speak. Consider what Romans 8:9 says, if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

It does seem reasonable that you would have some staggering initially. The fact that people are cited as being disciples or even believing is not necessarily indicative of them being Christians, meaning that they would have received the Spirit because that is the basis of conversion upon belief in Christ. I believe this to be true of the passages in question Acts 8:14-17 and 19:1-7. So the crucial element is that receiving the Spirit is indicative of our salvation. Also consider Romans 8:15-16. The fact that Paul may focus on soteriological aspects and Luke, charismatic aspects in no way negate the fact that role of the Spirit in our conversion. And this is the whole point of the Acts isn’t it? Salvation by faith in Christ brings an empowerment by the Spirit.

Dave Z,

If you look at the story of Apollos in Acts 18, in juxtaposition with that of the Ephesian disciples of John in Acts 19, in becomes relatively clear that Apollos because he was already a practicing believer (and past the point of initiation) likely did not receive a second baptism. This was also the stated understanding of the early church fathers, and you will probably find scholarly consensus on the matter. The church fathers are also clear on the matter that the disciples did not receive a second water baptism but only the baptism of John, again probably because they were already established believers and so did not need to go through the initiation rite.

Hmmm. Preaching on 1 Cor 16 this week and looked at Apollos more closely since Paul mentions him. Interesting comment on him in Acts 25. He was instructed in the way of the Lord, he taught about Jesus accurately, but knew only the baptism of John. That clearly implies he was a believer, yet was lacking some sort of baptism. Maybe a 2nd baptism was part of what he was taught by Aquila and Priscilla?

Lisa -

I understand it is the end of the semester for you, so it’s all good.

You stated: I would contend that baptism and filling are 2 separate things.

One thing to consider is that Luke uses both phrases, and others, to describe the same action.

The account of the 120 is spoken as both a baptism (Acts 1:5) and a filling (Acts 2:4). We read that the Samaritans and Cornelius’ household had the Spirit fall on them (Acts 8:16; 10:44). But it is also spoken of the Samaritans as receiving the Spirit (Acts 8:15). When Luke specifically speaks of being ‘filled’ with the Spirit, it is also worth noting whether he is using the aorist (which speaks of a completed event) or the imperfect tense (which seems to speak of something that can be continued). Luke uses both tenses in speaking of being filled with the Spirit.

Hence, I don’t think Luke was too worried about words and descriptions, but he did have more of an empowering and ‘charismatic’ presentation of the Spirit, whereas Paul focused more on the soteriological purposes.

Scott, thanks for that and I see where the difference lies. I would contend that baptism and filling are 2 separate things. I appreciate Grudem’s treatment of the topic also in his attempts to reconcile the 2 positions in the end game being empowered for service.

I will have to get back to this later on though as I am under a deadline right now. I would love to flesh this out some more.

Lisa:

I’m not sure you can do what you want to do without looking at some of those books and reading what Greek and Christian and Jewish scholars and theologians have to say on the subject(s). The fact that different Christian denominations, including the non-denominations of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, would answer your question differently is evidence that there is or may be no one simple or correct or one-size-fits-all-and-puts-all-objections-to-rest answer.