Acts 2:38 Comparison: Evangelical vs. Oneness / Baptismal-Regeneration View

[FlyingDove]

These verses are at its core descriptive and most certainly not prescriptive.

You are attempting to negate Acts 2:38 with a description of a one-time supernatural manifestation in Caesarea.

What happened in Caesarea does not annul the clear commands of repentance and water baptism in Acts 2:38.

What happened in that house in Caesarea was a one-time physical supernatural manifestation of the Holy Spirit and cannot and is not duplicated afterward.

Calling Acts 10 "descriptive" doesn't solve the problem, because Peter gives the doctrinal interpretation of the event in Acts 15:9:
"God purified their hearts by faith."

That's not a one‑time manifestation. That's Peter explaining how God saves Gentiles & Peter explicitly identifies the event in Acts 10 as Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 11:15–16), which Jesus Himself defined in Acts 1:5. That's not an anomaly. That's the same baptism Jesus promised for all believers.

This is exactly the salvation sequence Paul teaches for the entire church age:
When you HEARD the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation & BELIEVED, you were SEALED with the Holy Spirit” (Eph 1:13). Hear > Believe > Receive the Holy Spirit. That is the universal pattern.

Acts 10 is not an exception, it's the narrative demonstration of the doctrinal pattern Paul later explains.

So the question still stands:
Which baptism actually marks the moment of salvation in the narrative, the one Jesus performs with the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:44, or the water baptism Peter performs afterward in Acts 10:47?

You can't say "both," because the text gives the order. You can't say "water," because Peter says God had already purified them (Acts 15:9). And you can't say "neither," because the Spirit's arrival is the seal of salvation (Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5).

Acts 10 doesn't negate Acts 2:38, it clarifies it. Peter preached Acts 2:38 to Jews using Jewish purification categories. But when Gentiles believe, God shows the order plainly:
Hear > Believe > Receive the Holy Spirit > Water baptism.

Peter still leads them to water because baptism is the public identification with Jesus as Messiah & not the moment God grants remission.

 

[TheLearner]

Most of your encounters with tongues are false spirits???

Are you or your friends in possession of the gift of discerning spirits?

What do you with the false claims of physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit?

Do you and your friends call out the blasphemy and rebuke the spirit or just ignore it?

Most of your encounters with tongues are false spirits???
They are speaking from their flesh nature.

Are you or your friends in possession of the gift of discerning spirits?
Yes

What do you with the false claims of physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit?
Wait to someone says they heard one of our languages. Point out to them the languages we know and no one used those. We ask them if they speak the language? If they say Yes, then we start a converstaion with them in that language. We have yet to have them speak the language they claimed to know.

If someone used one of our languages and got a false interpretation. We confront both parties. Needless to say, they are not happy.

Do you and your friends call out the blasphemy and rebuke the spirit or just ignore it?
No spirit involve just their sin nature. People were healed at our worship in the parks, and we follow up on all of them.

 

[TheLearner]

The NT does not enforce the rigid separations you insist on. Your repeated claim that Jewish sources define immersion as mere ritual purification is uncited and unproven, and the sources themselves describe immersion as far broader - even a transformation and kind of rebirth. Jer2:13 and Jer17:13 show God as Israel’s mikveh and fountain of living waters, and Ez36 links water, cleansing, forgiveness, a new heart, and Spirit renewal as a single divine act. Acts consistently presents repentance, faith, baptism, forgiveness, and Spirit reception together, without suggesting water itself remits sin. Baptism is part of God’s appointed means for His saving work, not a substitute for it. Since you continue to insist on an erroneous, unproven premise as fact, we are agreed there is no productive way forward - the burden remains on you to demonstrate, without selective citation, that your sources actually support your claims.

Mikveh in Judaism

Ezekiel 36:25
Then I will sprinkle pure water on you and make you pure. I will wash away all your filth, the filth from those nasty idols, and I will make you pure.

 

[TheLearner]

Theological synthesis is the process of integrating diverse biblical, historical, and doctrinal truths into a coherent, unified system. It seeks to harmonize different perspectives—such as reconciling faith with reason or uniting Old and New Testament themes—into a logical whole. It is closely related to, or identical to, systematic theology.

 

[studier]

Acts 10:44–48 lets settle the core issue directly. Peter says the Holy Spirit fell on them "just as on us at (Pentecost) the beginning" (Acts 11:15), which Jesus Himself defined as Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 1:5). That Holy Spirit baptism happened before water & is interpreted by Peter as God purifying their hearts by FAITH (Acts 15:9). So here's the unavoidable question:

Which baptism actually marks the moment of salvation in the narrative? The baptism Jesus performed where He immersed them in the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:44, or the water baptism Peter performs afterward in Acts 10:47?

You can't say "both," because the text gives the order. You can't say "water,' because Peter says God had already purified (Acts 15:9). And you can't say "neither," because the Holy Spirit's arrival is the forever (Jn 14:16) seal of salvation (Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 1:22 & 5:5).

Peter still led them to water because baptism was the public identification with Jesus as Messiah. A bold & costly act for any Jew of that time. It was obedience & confession, not the moment God granted remission. Remission happened when the Holy Spirit baptized/filled/indwelt them 1st.

This latest post, and the demands it places on what others may or may not interpret and conclude, are continuing forms of fallacious argumentation.

Reducing faith to a single moment or fragment of the overall narrative of the Gospels and Acts - the practice of Faith-Alone soteriology - forces the isolation of the Spirit’s reception in Acts10, while Luke and Peter present faith as a comprehensive, obedient, cooperative response that includes hearing, believing, repenting, obeying Christ’s commands (including baptism), and receiving the Spirit. The sequence of events are secondary to the full process God assigns.

When Peter speaks of hearts being “cleansed by faith” in Acts15:9, he is summarizing this full, integrated view exactly as the Text instructs through the Gospels and Acts, using all of its instruction. He is building from the foundation God has already laid throughout the narrative and not redefining or isolating belief as a single, stand-alone act or moment.

 

[studier]

Mikveh in Judaism

Ezekiel 36:25
Then I will sprinkle pure water on you and make you pure. I will wash away all your filth, the filth from those nasty idols, and I will make you pure.

Part of what I referenced.

 

[studier]

Theological synthesis is the process of integrating diverse biblical, historical, and doctrinal truths into a coherent, unified system. It seeks to harmonize different perspectives—such as reconciling faith with reason or uniting Old and New Testament themes—into a logical whole. It is closely related to, or identical to, systematic theology.

And many systematic theologies exist, each proposing its own interpretation and structure. Sometimes it requires working through the system and its methods of argumentation to reach the actual practice of evaluating Scripture and applying theological synthesis.

 

[FlyingDove]

This latest post, and the demands it places on what others may or may not interpret and conclude, are continuing forms of fallacious argumentation.

Reducing faith to a single moment or fragment of the overall narrative of the Gospels and Acts - the practice of Faith-Alone soteriology - forces the isolation of the Spirit’s reception in Acts10, while Luke and Peter present faith as a comprehensive, obedient, cooperative response that includes hearing, believing, repenting, obeying Christ’s commands (including baptism), and receiving the Spirit. The sequence of events are secondary to the full process God assigns.

When Peter speaks of hearts being “cleansed by faith” in Acts15:9, he is summarizing this full, integrated view exactly as the Text instructs through the Gospels and Acts, using all of its instruction. He is building from the foundation God has already laid throughout the narrative and not redefining or isolating belief as a single, stand-alone act or moment.

You're describing your theological system, but Peter gives an interpretation of the Acts 10 event that you're not addressing.

Peter does not say God purified their hearts by A COMPREHENSIVE, COOPERATIVE PROCESS. He says God purified their hearts by FAITH (Acts 15:9). That is Peter's own doctrinal summary of what happened in Acts 10.

Peter identifies the event in Acts 10 as Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 11:15–16), which Jesus Himself defined in Acts 1:5. That's not AN ISOLATED ANOMALY. That's the same Holy Spirit baptism the Baptist foretold & Jesus promised Acts 1:5).

This matches the universal salvation sequence Paul teaches:
When you HEARD the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation & BELIEVED, you were SEALED with the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13). That is the New Testament pattern. Hear > Believe > Holy Spirit.

Acts 10 is not an ISOLATION of a moment. It is the narrative demonstration of the doctrinal pattern Peter & Paul both teach.

So the question remains:
Which baptism actually marks the moment of salvation in the narrative, the one Jesus performs with the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:44, or the water baptism Peter performs afterward in Acts 10:47?

You can't say BOTH, because the text gives the order. You can't say WATER, because Peter says God had already purified them (Acts 15:9). And you can't say NEITHER because the Spirit's arrival is the SEAL of salvation (Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5).

Your reply doesn't address any of those texts. It replaces them with your own theological framework Peter himself does not use.

 

[Biilybob65]

The one in Acts 10:47,48 for the one of Acts 10:44 only happened in Acts 2:4 and Acts 10:44 if you can show any other time it is recorded I am open to discuss it. Acts 10:47,48 is the same as Acts 2:38 and the only one the Apostles teach the only one for it is promised to all the one of Acts 2:4 and 10:44 was never promised to all and only happened twice as recorded in the scriptures. That is fact if not show me where it is different.

 

[Lamar]

Acts 10 is not an exception, it's the narrative demonstration of the doctrinal pattern Paul later explains.

Not an exception??? Are you in touch with reality?

What do you mean by "not an exception"?

 

[studier]

You're describing your theological system, but Peter gives an interpretation of the Acts 10 event that you're not addressing.

Peter does not say God purified their hearts by A COMPREHENSIVE, COOPERATIVE PROCESS. He says God purified their hearts by FAITH (Acts 15:9). That is Peter's own doctrinal summary of what happened in Acts 10.

Peter identifies the event in Acts 10 as Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 11:15–16), which Jesus Himself defined in Acts 1:5. That's not AN ISOLATED ANOMALY. That's the same Holy Spirit baptism the Baptist foretold & Jesus promised Acts 1:5).

This matches the universal salvation sequence Paul teaches:
When you HEARD the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation & BELIEVED, you were SEALED with the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13). That is the New Testament pattern. Hear > Believe > Holy Spirit.

Acts 10 is not an ISOLATION of a moment. It is the narrative demonstration of the doctrinal pattern Peter & Paul both teach.

So the question remains:
Which baptism actually marks the moment of salvation in the narrative, the one Jesus performs with the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:44, or the water baptism Peter performs afterward in Acts 10:47?

You can't say BOTH, because the text gives the order. You can't say WATER, because Peter says God had already purified them (Acts 15:9). And you can't say NEITHER because the Spirit's arrival is the SEAL of salvation (Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5).

Your reply doesn't address any of those texts. It replaces them with your own theological framework Peter himself does not use.

I really don't ascribe to a systematic theology anymore. Once I understood them and how they work and inevitably force conclusions, I let them go and it was not easy, but a process. Now I simply work to let Scripture say what it says and look for the synthesis and harmonization @TheLearner spoke of. I know your system because I was trained and ordained in it and taught it until I saw the problems in it.

The overall problem in this most recent post of yours is that you don't understand genuine faith. The system you're in strips all biblical definition and explanation and inclusions out of it. The misunderstanding is inherent in the system. Faith-Alone meant something specific at it's early point of use, then it became something else in the typical pendulum swing of battling theologians.

@Biilybob65, @Lamar and others are addressing some of the specific issues with verses you should consider, but knowing your underlying assumptions, I doubt you will do so. As I said, it's not easy to let go of a system. But once we do and simply work at what @TheLearner said through exegesis, what I found is that I did come close to a system, but it's not the one you're in and I'm not completely tied to any and thus open to the process of letting Him say what He says.

I'll address what I see in Scriptures with you others but out for awhile. Have fun.

 

[Wansvic]

These verses are at its core descriptive and most certainly not prescriptive.

You are attempting to negate Acts 2:38 with a description of a one-time supernatural manifestation in Caesarea.

What happened in Caesarea does not annul the clear commands of repentance and water baptism in Acts 2:38.

What happened in that house in Caesarea was a one-time physical supernatural manifestation of the Holy Spirit and cannot and is not duplicated afterward.

Although I disagee with much that FlyingDove says.
Acts 8:12-18 and Acts 19:1-7 reveal the Holy Ghost is not automatically received upon obedience to water baptism. And this does not alter what is stated in Acts 2:38-39. Peter stated that everyone is to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin and they shall receive the Holy Ghost. And in fact all those who received the Holy Ghost believed and willingly obeyed when given the water baptism command. The sequence matters not, what matters is believing and obeying the gospel message.

 

[FlyingDove]

I really don't ascribe to a systematic theology anymore. Once I understood them and how they work and inevitably force conclusions, I let them go and it was not easy, but a process. Now I simply work to let Scripture say what it says and look for the synthesis and harmonization @TheLearner spoke of. I know your system because I was trained and ordained in it and taught it until I saw the problems in it.

The overall problem in this most recent post of yours is that you don't understand genuine faith. The system you're in strips all biblical definition and explanation and inclusions out of it. The misunderstanding is inherent in the system. Faith-Alone meant something specific at it's early point of use, then it became something else in the typical pendulum swing of battling theologians.

@Biilybob65, @Lamar and others are addressing some of the specific issues with verses you should consider, but knowing your underlying assumptions, I doubt you will do so. As I said, it's not easy to let go of a system. But once we do and simply work at what @TheLearner said through exegesis, what I found is that I did come close to a system, but it's not the one you're in and I'm not completely tied to any and thus open to the process of letting Him say what He says.

I'll address what I see in Scriptures with you others but out for awhile. Have fun.

You didn't answer a single text I cited. Not one. You shifted the entire discussion away from Acts 10–11–15, Eph 1:3) & into a psychological analysis of my system, my assumptions & my training. That's not exegesis. That's evasion.

Peter's interpretation of Acts 10 is not my system. It's Peter's words. Peter says God purified their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9). Peter says the event was Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 11:15–16). Jesus defines that baptism in Acts 1:5.
Paul says the Spirit is given when you believe (Eph 1:13). None of that comes from a theological framework. Those are direct statements from the inspired authors.

If you really wanted to "let Scripture say what it says," then deal with what it actually says.

Paul says the Spirit is given when you hear and believe (Eph 1:13).
None of that comes from a theological framework. Those are direct statements from the inspired authors. If you want to “let Scripture say what it says,” then deal with what it actually says.

Same question:
Which baptism marks the moment of salvation:

The one Jesus performs with the Spirit Acts 2:44. or the water baptism Peter performs afterward in 10:47?

Your entire reply avoided this because the text itself contradicts your conclusion. If you want to talk about "genuine faith,” then start with Peter's definition:
God purified their hearts by faith. Not by process. Not by ritual. Not by cooperation. BY FAITH.

If you want to talk about harmonization, then harmonize Peter with Paul: Hear > Believe > Sealed with the Spirit (Eph 1:13). That is exactly what happens in Acts 10. Until you engage those passages directly, you're not "letting Scripture speak." You're avoiding the very texts that define the issue.

 

[TheLearner]

The one in Acts 10:47,48 for the one of Acts 10:44 only happened in Acts 2:4 and Acts 10:44 if you can show any other time it is recorded I am open to discuss it. Acts 10:47,48 is the same as Acts 2:38 and the only one the Apostles teach the only one for it is promised to all the one of Acts 2:4 and 10:44 was never promised to all and only happened twice as recorded in the scriptures. That is fact if not show me where it is different.

Isaiah 28
Easy-to-Read Version

5 At that time the Lord All-Powerful will become the “Beautiful Crown.” He will be the “Wonderful Crown of Flowers” for his people who are left. 6 Then he will give wisdom to the judges who rule his people. He will give strength to the people who are in battles at the city gates. 7 But now those leaders are drunk. The priests and prophets are all drunk with wine and beer. They stumble and fall down. The prophets are drunk when they see their dreams. The judges are drunk when they make their decisions. 8 Every table is covered with vomit. There is not a clean place anywhere.

God Wants to Help His People
9 The people say, “Who does he think he is trying to teach and explain his message to? Does he think we are babies who were at their mother’s breast only a very short time ago? 10 He speaks to us as though we were babies:

“Saw lasaw saw lasaw
Qaw laqaw qaw laqaw
Ze’er sham ze’er sham.”

11 So God will use this strange way of talking, and he will use other languages to speak to these people.

12 In the past he spoke to them and said, “Here is a resting place. Let those who are tired come and rest. This is the place of peace.”

But they would not listen to him. 13 So the Lord’s words will be senseless sounds[c] to them:

“Saw lasaw saw lasaw.
Qaw laqaw qaw laqaw.
Ze’er sham ze’er sham.”

When the people try to walk, they will fall backwards. They will be defeated, trapped, and captured.

No One Escapes God’s Judgment
14 You leaders in Jerusalem should listen to the Lord’s message, but now you refuse to listen to him. 15 You have said, “We have made an agreement with death. We have a contract with death. So we will not be punished. Punishment will pass us without hurting us. We will hide behind our tricks and lies.”

16 Because of these things, the Lord God says, “I will put a rock—a cornerstone—in the ground in Zion. This will be a very precious stone.[d] Everything will be built on this very important rock. Anyone who trusts in that rock will not be disappointed.[e]

17 “Workers use a string and weight to show their work is straight and true. I will use justice as the string and goodness as the weight when I lay that foundation. But your safe places were built on lies. So they will be destroyed and washed away when the troubles come against you like hail storms and floods. 18 Your agreement with death will be erased. Your contract with Sheol will not help you.

“Someone will come and punish you. He will make you like the dirt he walks on. 19 He will come and take you away. Your punishment will be terrible. Your punishment will come early in the morning, and it will continue late into the night.

“Then you will understand this story: 20 A man tried to sleep on a bed that was too short for him. He had a blanket that was not wide enough to cover him. The bed and blanket were useless, and so were your agreements.”

21 The Lord will fight as he did at Mount Perazim. He will be angry as he was in Gibeon Valley.[f] He will do what he must do. It will be what some stranger should do, but he will finish his work. Yes, this is a stranger’s job. 22 Now don’t complain about these things. If you fight against them, you will only tighten the ropes around you.

The words I heard will not change. They came from the Lord God All-Powerful, the ruler of all the earth, and these things will be done.

The Lord Punishes Fairly
23 Listen closely to the message I am telling you. 24 Does a farmer plow his field all the time? No, he doesn’t work the soil all the time. 25 A farmer prepares the ground, and then he plants the seed. He plants different kinds of seeds different ways. He scatters dill seeds, he throws cumin seeds on the ground, and he plants wheat in rows. A farmer plants barley in its special place, and he plants spelt seeds at the edge of his field.

26 Our God is using this to teach you a lesson. This example shows us that God is fair when he punishes his people. 27 Does a farmer use large boards with sharp teeth to crush dill seeds? No, and he doesn’t use a wagon to crush cumin seeds. A farmer uses a small stick to break the hulls from these seeds of grain. 28 People grind grain to make flour, but they don’t grind it forever. As God does in punishing people, a worker might drive his wagon over the grain to remove the hulls, but he does not allow the horses[g] to crush it. 29 This lesson comes from the Lord All-Powerful, who gives wonderful advice. He is very wise.

Footnotes
Isaiah 28:2 that crown That is, Samaria.
Isaiah 28:10 Saw lasaw … ze’er sham This is probably a Hebrew song to teach little children how to write. It sounds like baby talk or a foreign language, but it can also be translated, “A command here, a command there. A rule here, a rule there. A lesson here, a lesson there.” Also in verse 13.
Isaiah 28:13 senseless sounds Or “gibberish” or “baby talk.”
Isaiah 28:16 very precious stone This also means a stone has been tested and shown that it has no cracks.
Isaiah 28:16 Anyone … disappointed This is found in the ancient Greek version. The standard Hebrew text has “Whoever trusts will not panic.”
Isaiah 28:21 Mount Perazim … Gibeon Valley See 1 Chron. 14:8-17.
Isaiah 28:28 horses This word also means “horse soldiers.”

 

[FlyingDove]

Not an exception??? Are you in touch with reality?

What do you mean by "not an exception"?

Acts 1:1–5 Jesus tells the apostles not many day's from today you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit baptism is eternal life's/salvations FOREVER SEAL (Rom 5:5, Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, 2 Tim 1:14) & this happens to the apostles 10 days later (Acts 2:1-4) void of any water purification rituals.

Acts 10:
43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
(NOTE: (NOTE: They HEARD > BELIEVED & were baptized with Christ' eternal life-salvation-sealing Holy Spirit void of any water prior rituals.

45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 15
8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
(NOTE: Not a one off. Jews then gentiles are baptized with the eternal life salvation sealing Holy Spirit void of any prior water rituals)


Further confirmation
Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, when you heard the word of truth, the good news of your salvation, and [as a result] believed in Him, were stamped with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit [the One promised by Christ] as owned and protected [by God]
(NOTE: They HEARD > BELIEVED & were baptized with Christ' eternal life-salvation-sealing Holy Spirit void of any water prior rituals.

Acts 15:
8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
(NOTE: They weren't purified by being immersed in water rituals. They were purified by faith-for which Jesus immersed/baptized them in His eternal life-salvation-sealing Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16, Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, Rom 5:5, 2 Tim 1:14)

 

[studier]

You didn't answer a single text I cited. Not one. You shifted the entire discussion away from Acts 10–11–15, Eph 1:3) & into a psychological analysis of my system, my assumptions & my training. That's not exegesis. That's evasion.

Actually, I did answer you and what I said about your underlying issue of not understanding what is included in genuine faith is key, and far from being psychological analysis. The system you adhere to simply does not allow the Text to define what is involved in and intrinsic to believing - IOW, faith - and what God applies to it and when.

 

[Biilybob65]

Although I disagee with much that FlyingDove says.
Acts 8:12-18 and Acts 19:1-7 reveal the Holy Ghost is not automatically received upon obedience to

Although I disagee with much that FlyingDove says.
Acts 8:12-18 and Acts 19:1-7 reveal the Holy Ghost is not automatically received upon obedience to water baptism. And this does not alter what is stated in Acts 2:38-39. Peter stated that everyone is to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin and they shall receive the Holy Ghost. And in fact all those who received the Holy Ghost believed and willingly obeyed when given the water baptism command. The sequence matters not, what matters is believing and obeying the gospel message.

water baptism. And this does not alter what is stated in Acts 2:38-39. Peter stated that everyone is to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin and they shall receive the Holy Ghost. And in fact all those who received the Holy Ghost believed and willingly obeyed when given the water baptism command. The sequence matters not, what matters is believing and obeying the gospel message.

why can you not see that Acts 8:17 and Acts 19:6 is NOT the indwelling spirit. It is the spirit acting in a different function but Not indwelling that happens in the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ without the laying on of hands. Acts 8 The purpose of this apostolic mission to Samaria was evidently to qualify certain men for leadership through the laying on of the apostles' hands and the accompanying endowment of them with miraculous powers.
That they might receive the Holy Spirit ... has reference to receiving the Holy Spirit in miraculous measure, because, having been baptized, they had already received the gift ordinary of the Holy Spirit as Peter promised on Pentecost (Acts 2:38).

Fallen upon none of them ... means that none of them had received such miraculous powers as had been conferred upon the Twelve on Pentecost. As Don DeWelt noted, "Luke used the term `fallen upon' to describe the reception of the special powers."26

Then laid they their hands upon them ... The special power of the Holy Spirit in view in this passage was conveyed only through the laying on of the hands of the apostles. Plumptre was correct in seeing the gift here as:

Distinct from the new birth of water and the Spirit (John 3:5) which was given through baptism. The apostles looked on the Samaritans as qualified for the higher gift as well for admission into the kingdom; and it was given to them, and not to Philip ... to be the channels of communicating it.27

Significantly, although Philip himself possessed this higher gift of ability to perform mighty signs, the whole narrative at this place makes it clear that Philip did not have the ability to communicate this gift to others. Therefore, this was a plenary, not a self-perpetuating ability. Only the apostles could convey it; and when the last man died upon whom the apostles had laid hands, the age of miracles expired by limitation. This commentator has no patience with the rejection of conclusions of this kind because "they are merely deductions." As a matter of fact all faith and holy religion are matters of "deduction," the great deduction being that the apostles delivered the truth to mankind. It is simply unbelievable that if Philip could have conveyed such a gift, Simon would not have tried to buy it of him, rather than of the apostles.

Benson was evidently correct in his deduction that not all of the Samaritans received miraculous powers. He said:

Not that all who had been baptized in Samaria might receive miraculous gifts; for it was never so in any church, not even in Jerusalem; but that some might receive ... for the confirmation of the gospel, and especially such as were designed for office in the church, or to be eminently active members of it.28

As Bruce noted, "The context leaves us in no doubt that their reception of the Holy Spirit was attended by external manifestations."29 If this had not been the case, Simon would not have been able to "see" that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the gift was given, as declared in Acts 8:18. Bruce also distinguished this special gift from that which all Christians have, saying, "It seems to be assumed in the New Testament that those who believe and are baptized have also the Spirit of God."30 Since there is no way for any person to "see" that this gift ordinary is received, the distinction between the two gifts is a certainty. Moreover, as McGarvey observed: "If Philip could have conferred this gift, the mission (of the apostles) would have been useless so far as its chief purpose was concerned."31

Same as with Acts 19

 

[FlyingDove]

Actually, I did answer you and what I said about your underlying issue of not understanding what is included in genuine faith is key, and far from being psychological analysis. The system you adhere to simply does not allow the Text to define what is involved in and intrinsic to believing - IOW, faith - and what God applies to it and when.

You didn't answer a single text because the moment you touch the text your position collapses, so instead you retreated into a homemade definition of GENUINE FAITH that neither Peter nor Paul ever give.

Peter explicitly says God purified their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9), identifies the Acts 10 event as Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 11:15–16) & Jesus defines that baptism in (Acts 1:5). Paul says the Spirit is given when you hear & believe (Eph 1:13). That's the inspired sequence, not my system & that's why you keep dodging the only question that exposes the contradiction in your view:

Which baptism marks the moment of salvation in Acts 10? the one Jesus performs with the Spirit in (vs44). or the water baptism Peter performs afterward in (vs47)?

Until you answer that from the text, not from your redefinition of faith, you're not doing exegesis, you're avoiding the very passages that refute your conclusion.

 

[James456]

Most evangelicals I know would accept at the point of conversion the Holy Spirit dwells in you, for you cannot be in a saved state unless He does(Romans8:9)
But there is a secondary experience available, which they would term the baptism of the Spirit, or filling of the Spirit.
Im sure when Philip preached to the Samarians, they got baptised and were called believers, he would not have left them in an unsaved state, so, the Holy Spirit then resided in them. But when Peter and John went to Samaria, and prayed the believers might receive the Holy Spirit this must have been a separate occurrence to the Spirit dwelling in you at conversion.
Of course, the two can happen simultaneously, as Acts 10 would suggest, we cannot put God in a box as it were. He can do things as he wishes, and does not have to follow a set formula in all cases

 

[FlyingDove]

Most evangelicals I know would accept at the point of conversion the Holy Spirit dwells in you, for you cannot be in a saved state unless He does(Romans8:9)
But there is a secondary experience available, which they would term the baptism of the Spirit, or filling of the Spirit.
Im sure when Philip preached to the Samarians, they got baptised and were called believers, he would not have left them in an unsaved state, so, the Holy Spirit then resided in them. But when Peter and John went to Samaria, and prayed the believers might receive the Holy Spirit this must have been a separate occurrence to the Spirit dwelling in you at conversion.
Of course, the two can happen simultaneously, as Acts 10 would suggest, we cannot put God in a box as it were. He can do things as he wishes, and does not have to follow a set formula in all cases

Hello James, My take on the Samarians new covenant inclusion event that closed/healed a 1000 yr. rift between the two.

The Samaritans were saved when they believed Philip’s preaching. The Holy Spirit’s outward manifestation was delayed so that Peter & John could personally witness God accepting Samaritans into the New Covenant community.

This prevented a Jewish Samaritan split and preserved church unity. It was not a salvation delay, it was an apostolic confirmation.