Acts 22:16 Paul's salvation

[Doug Brents]

That does not change the fact you cannot remove the indwelling as a form of receiving the Spirit

so someone who has not received the Spirit cannot have been indwelt

think

You are trying to define the phrase and then apply that definition to all situations. You must use the facts we already know to define the phrase in each circumstance. These men were indwelt; they were saved, and therefore had to have already been indwelt. Therefore, the phrase cannot mean anything to do with the indwelling. It can only apply to them not having received empowerment from the Spirit.

 

[TomL]

You are trying to define the phrase and then apply that definition to all situations. You must use the facts we already know to define the phrase in each circumstance. These men were indwelt; they were saved, and therefore had to have already been indwelt. Therefore, the phrase cannot mean anything to do with the indwelling. It can only apply to them not having received empowerment from the Spirit.

Sorry you do not get to employ changing definitions

If the indwelling is a case of receiving the Spirit even if for argument’s sake we include other possibilities

then that is true at all times and there cannot exist a case where one has not received the Spirit but is indwelt

again think.



















receiving the spirit cannot

 

[Doug Brents]

Sorry you do not get to employ changing definitions

Sorry, but when there are multiple way of understanding a phrase, the one that fits the context is the one that must be used.

If the indwelling is a case of receiving the Spirit even if for argument’s sake we include other possibilities

then that is true at all times and there cannot exist a case where one has not received the Spirit but is indwelt

You assume that "had not received the Spirit" in Acts 8 refers to the indwelling. It does not because it cannot. It only applies to the empowerment of the Spirit, because the text is clear that these men had the indwelling because they were saved. The only thing they had not received was the empowerment of the Spirit.

 

[TomL]

Sorry, but when there are multiple way of understanding a phrase, the one that fits the context is the one that must be used.

You assume that "had not received the Spirit" in Acts 8 refers to the indwelling. It does not because it cannot. It only applies to the empowerment of the Spirit, because the text is clear that these men had the indwelling because they were saved. The only thing they had not received was the empowerment of the Spirit.

Again you cannot change the definition

If the indwelling is receiving the Spirit no matter what else you might imagine receiving the Spirit is

you cannot make it (the indwelling) a failure to receive the spirit

Again think

You are altering the meaning of the term to fit your doctrine.

 

[Doug Brents]

Again you cannot change the definition

If the indwelling is receiving the Spirit no matter what else you might imagine receiving the Spirit is

you cannot make it (the indwelling) a failure to receive the spirit

Again think

You are altering the meaning of the term to fit your doctrine.

Tom, we can go round and round forever on this, so I will make this the last thing I say about it. Your rigid insistence that if they "did not receive the Spirit" must mean that they could not have the indwelling is in clear defiance of the facts in the Text. The phrase "receive the Spirit" can refer to the indwelling, but most of the time it only refers to the miraculous empowerment of the Spirit (as it does in Acts 8). It is only referring to the fact that these men had not yet received any miraculous empowerment, because that empowerment can only be given via an Apostle, and Philip (the one who baptized these men into Christ) was not an Apostle. This means that they were indwelt, but had not yet "received the Spirit" from an Apostle laying hands on them to give them the miraculous empowerment of the Spirit. You can continue to believe whatever you want, but the evidence in Scripture is clear.

 

[TomL]

Tom, we can go round and round forever on this, so I will make this the last thing I say about it. Your rigid insistence that if they "did not receive the Spirit" must mean that they could not have the indwelling is in clear defiance of the facts in the Text. The phrase "receive the Spirit" can refer to the indwelling, but most of the time it only refers to the miraculous empowerment of the Spirit (as it does in Acts 8). It is only referring to the fact that these men had not yet received any miraculous empowerment, because that empowerment can only be given via an Apostle, and Philip (the one who baptized these men into Christ) was not an Apostle. This means that they were indwelt, but had not yet "received the Spirit" from an Apostle laying hands on them to give them the miraculous empowerment of the Spirit. You can continue to believe whatever you want, but the evidence in Scripture is clear.

Wrong

You agreed that those indwelt received the Spirit.

Now you want to deny what you affirmed because it is contrary to your theology.

Any time one is indwelt they have received the spirit.

Had the Samaritan been indwelt they would have received the Spirit even by your own confession,

but scripture is clear they had not received the Spirit.

Scripture clearly shows they received the Spirit at a time after water baptism

But you cannot abide with the fact this transpired after water baptism

 

[TomL]

Wrong

You agreed that those indwelt received the Spirit.

Now you want to deny what you affirmed because it is contrary to your theology.

Any time one is indwelt they have received the spirit.

Had the Samaritan been indwelt they would have received the Spirit even by your own confession,

but scripture is clear they had not received the Spirit.

Scripture clearly shows they received the Spirit at a time after water baptism

But you cannot abide with the fact this transpired after water baptism

Let me put it to you this way

You have two things

We will call them A and B

If you have either A or B then you have C

So if A then C

and

If B then C

Let A = the indwelling

Let B = endowment with miraculous power as you argue

Let C - having received the Spirit

The only time you do not have C is if you have neither A or B

The Samaritans according to scripture did not have C

Then logically they had neither the indwelling or endowment for miraculous power