When did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

They had to physically go through the path we have to go through spiritually.

No, they had to *spiritually* go through the path we have to go through spiritually. And this is true of any converted person anytime in history.

The things of the spirit are spirit; they can't be obtained physically.

This is the whole problem; trying to understand spiritual things as if they were physical. Jesus referred to this when He said that new wine could not be put in old wine skins.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Again, nothing here that we could insist is "past tense"?

"Hath appeared" would be past test, right? It's aorist passive indicative in the greek. Here's an example:

This is the conjugation of the aorist passive indicative of λύω

singular plural

1st person ἐλύθην I was loosedἐλύθημεν we were loosed

2nd person ἐλύθης you were loosed ἐλύθητε you (pl.) were loosed

3rd person ἐλύθη he, she, it was loosed ἐλύθησαν they were loosed

I guess, due to a bug in the software, the Greek looks great in the preview, but it doesn't render when you actually submit. So ignore the #7952 things, which don't matter, and just concentrate on the underlined portions, which show how the aorist passive indicative is translated into English.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

The disciples did not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until the upper room.

It was only then that they could receive it.

They had to physically go through the path we have to go through spiritually.

That then makes their experience so valuable to us. :-)

Mark :-)

Mark, it is not really important to me as to when they received the Holy Spirit, be it in a small measure or in the fullness, but the fact that they could have received the indwelling prior to the coming of Jesus. They could have been born again before meeting with Jesus if they had properly understood the Gospel of the kingdom of the grace of God through the merits of the promised Saviour, as taught in the sacrificial system.

sky

But it should be important Sky, there is nothing in scripture that is not important.

One practical application is that when we know the process the disciples went through, we can apply it to our own lives.

Then we can help others.

Very important information.

Here is another point:

We can see from the disciples experience here, that first we have to receive the former rain before the latter rain.

Many are praying for the latter rain, but have not yet received the former rain by faith.

There is also the need to understand about the "kingdom of God" between those two experiences.

It was important enough to be announced with a loud voice in heaven, it was important enough for Jesus to personally come and breathe new life into the disciples, it was important enough for Him to then spend the next 40 days teaching about the "kingdom of God", to prepare them for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

I would say it was very important brother!

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Quote:

They had to physically go through the path we have to go through spiritually.

No, they had to *spiritually* go through the path we have to go through spiritually. And this is true of any converted person anytime in history.

The things of the spirit are spirit; they can't be obtained physically.

This is the whole problem; trying to understand spiritual things as if they were physical. Jesus referred to this when He said that new wine could not be put in old wine skins.

Jesus had to "physically" be crucified so that we could be "spiritually" crucified by faith.

The Disciples went through the "physical reality", that we go through by "spiritual faith".

Example:

Jesus appeared to them in the upper room.

Jesus does not appear to us physically in person in our upper rooms.

The point being made is that we learn from the disciples physical experience with a physically present Christ.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Quote:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Again, nothing here that we could insist is "past tense"?

"Hath appeared" would be past test, right? It's aorist passive indicative in the greek. Here's an example:

This is the conjugation of the aorist passive indicative of λύω

singular plural

1st person ἐλύθην I was loosedἐλύθημεν we were loosed

2nd person ἐλύθης you were loosed ἐλύθητε you (pl.) were loosed

3rd person ἐλύθη he, she, it was loosed ἐλύθησαν they were loosed

I guess, due to a bug in the software, the Greek looks great in the preview, but it doesn't render when you actually submit. So ignore the #7952 things, which don't matter, and just concentrate on the underlined portions, which show how the aorist passive indicative is translated into English.

Please note, this was a question to Sky I re-posted that I had originally asked to be clarified.

Mark :-)

[Martus]

There are too many facets of God for us to comprehend, as I believe the greatest intellect of man is foolishness in God's eye.

Reading where Saul (before he became the apostle Paul) was greeted by Jesus in the form of the Holy Spirit as he was clearly on the "righteous indignation war path" evidently experienced the "early" Rain and evidently he was not "in Christ" but in opposition to 'The Way...'.

earlier examples regarding Baalam and king Saul who also received the Spirit but I think they both cast their "winning lottery ticket" to the ground. So sad. (somehow I feel if I'm offbase or wrong y'all would let me know)

What I am trying to share is not so much as the OP question regarding when the disciples received the Spirit but I'm looking for much more than that which would bend the OP discussion topic of "When".

Being new to the forum, possibly a search would be more appropriate for my desire discussing the correlation of early and latter Rain. Mainly the latter and evidence in these days but not so much as to a theological debate regarding what happened 2000 years ago.

I wish I had the time to share more.

greetings to all and thank you for sharing your viewpoints.

[Twilight]

There are too many facets of God for us to comprehend, as I believe the greatest intellect of man is foolishness in God's eye.

Reading where Saul (before he became the apostle Paul) was greeted by Jesus in the form of the Holy Spirit as he was clearly on the "righteous indignation war path" evidently experienced the "early" Rain and evidently he was not "in Christ" but in opposition to 'The Way...'.

earlier examples regarding Baalam and king Saul who also received the Spirit but I think they both cast their "winning lottery ticket" to the ground. So sad. (somehow I feel if I'm offbase or wrong y'all would let me know)

What I am trying to share is not so much as the OP question regarding when the disciples received the Spirit but I'm looking for much more than that which would bend the OP discussion topic of "When".

Being new to the forum, possibly a search would be more appropriate for my desire discussing the correlation of early and latter Rain. Mainly the latter and evidence in these days but not so much as to a theological debate regarding what happened 2000 years ago.

I wish I had the time to share more.

greetings to all and thank you for sharing your viewpoints.

Jump right in and share your thoughts Martus. :-)

Mark

[skyblue888]

There are too many facets of God for us to comprehend, as I believe the greatest intellect of man is foolishness in God's eye.

Reading where Saul (before he became the apostle Paul) was greeted by Jesus in the form of the Holy Spirit as he was clearly on the "righteous indignation war path" evidently experienced the "early" Rain and evidently he was not "in Christ" but in opposition to 'The Way...'.

earlier examples regarding Baalam and king Saul who also received the Spirit but I think they both cast their "winning lottery ticket" to the ground. So sad. (somehow I feel if I'm offbase or wrong y'all would let me know)

What I am trying to share is not so much as the OP question regarding when the disciples received the Spirit but I'm looking for much more than that which would bend the OP discussion topic of "When".

Being new to the forum, possibly a search would be more appropriate for my desire discussing the correlation of early and latter Rain. Mainly the latter and evidence in these days but not so much as to a theological debate regarding what happened 2000 years ago.

I wish I had the time to share more.

greetings to all and thank you for sharing your viewpoints.

You are absolutely right in stating that one will not be able to share in the latter rain experience unless he has first obtained the early showers of the Holy Spirit.

sky

[Dr. Rich]

While an opinion is only what you gave for believing that there will be a 'latter rain experience', I, for one would like to see the scripture where Jesus talked about receiving a latter rain experience.

Why? Because if Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His disciples as it says in John 20:22, then why would Jesus do it again? I mean, did He goof or make a mistake or did the Holy Spirit fail to be received by them? And if Jesus already gave them AND us the Holy Spirit, then why would it be necessary for some type of a 'latter rain experience'?

My educated opinion is that there will NOT be any signs or wonders going on when Jesus comes like a thief. After all, what does the 'midnight' mean anyway? Has not the SDA church taught that this means there will not be any 'later rain experience'?

[Musicman1228]

Dr. Rich,

Agreed. God is not a buffoon, doing something then taking it back so He can do it again. We have eyewitness testimony that Jesus gave His Disciples the Holy Spirit in the upper room just before He went back to heaven. The ONLY reason He would have to give that same Spirit to the Disciples at Pentecost or to us in a latter rain would be if what He had done previously was not sufficient. God does not make mistakes. So if God saw a need for a re-iteration of the Holy Spirit to His Disciples then He MUST HAVE made a mistake. Since this is IMPOSSIBLE the only explanation is that what happened at Pentecost and what will supposedly happen in the future with the latter rain must not be of the same God that gave the Holy Spirit to His Disciples in the upper room.

Is this not logical? Does this not make sense? If not, why not. Please prove your points from the testimony of Jesus.

[pnattmbtc]

T:They had to physically go through the path we have to go through spiritually.

p:No, they had to *spiritually* go through the path we have to go through spiritually. And this is true of any converted person anytime in history.

The things of the spirit are spirit; they can't be obtained physically.

This is the whole problem; trying to understand spiritual things as if they were physical. Jesus referred to this when He said that new wine could not be put in old wine skins.

T:Jesus had to "physically" be crucified so that we could be "spiritually" crucified by faith.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].

----------------------

Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

So from this, we can see that David had the light to pray for the new covenant promise.

So we can say that the Kingdom of God was established when Christ ascended to heaven, but all could look forward in faith to this time.

We can also see the teaching of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the sanctuary service.

The Most Holy Place signifies this as well (another time perhaps).

-------------

So now we can look at the disciples now and understand that they personaly had not entered into the experience of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

That then helps us to understand our own journey through the "born again" experience, into the "kingdom of God" experience and then to the "outpouring of the Spirit experience".

This is important, because it gives us a map of reformation and revival.

Did God answer David's prayer? Specifically:

Quote:

Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

So from this, we can see that David had the light to pray for the new covenant promise.

[pnattmbtc]

T:Please note, this was a question to Sky I re-posted that I had originally asked to be clarified.

[Twilight]

Quote:

I would suspect He did pnat, why do you ask?

[Twilight]

Did God answer David's prayer? Specifically:

Quote:

Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

So from this, we can see that David had the light to pray for the new covenant promise.

I would suspect He did, do you have a concrete text to state He did?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

T:Please note, this was a question to Sky I re-posted that I had originally asked to be clarified.

I'm not understanding why this should be noted. You quoted Titus 2:11, and asked

Quote:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Again, nothing here that we could insist is "past tense"?

so I pointed out that "hath appeared" is past tense.

I asked for clarification on this Pnat, earlier.

If it did indeed mean past tense in the Greek.

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Did God answer David's prayer? Specifically:

Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

So from this, we can see that David had the light to pray for the new covenant promise.

I would suspect He did, do you have a concrete text to state He did?

Didn't you say this was a New Covenant experience? But I thought you thought this was a dispensational thing.

I admit, I find this confusing. To me, it's very simple. There's always been one way of salvation, identical, since the fall, which is by faith in Christ, at which point one is born again/converted/justified by faith/clothed with Christ's righteous/indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

[teresaq]

The only safeguard against evil is the indwelling of Christ in the heart through faith in His righteousness.

It is because selfishness exists in our hearts that temptation has power over us. But when we behold the great love of God, selfishness appears to us in its hideous and repulsive character, and we desire to have it expelled from the soul. As the Holy Spirit glorifies Christ, our hearts are softened and subdued, the temptation loses its power, and the grace of Christ transforms the character. {Pr 301.2}

[Twilight]

Quote:

Did God answer David's prayer? Specifically:

Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

So from this, we can see that David had the light to pray for the new covenant promise.

I would suspect He did, do you have a concrete text to state He did?

Didn't you say this was a New Covenant experience? But I thought you thought this was a dispensational thing.

I admit, I find this confusing. To me, it's very simple. There's always been one way of salvation, identical, since the fall, which is by faith in Christ, at which point one is born again/converted/justified by faith/clothed with Christ's righteous/indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

I am actually exploring the whole thing through bible study.

Ask me where I stand when the conversation and study finishes pnat. :-)

I am totally willing to be led by the Lord and corrected by the Lord if I am off on something.

In fact, it is totally necessary to be willing to be led and corrected, as I know I am wrong on so many things.

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

I think what I suggested before would be helpful. That is, have a big picture outlook, a framework, and then fit things into that. What is the problem of man? And the universe? How did God go about fixing that problem? These are fundamental questions. When we understand these big issues, the details fit into place.

[skyblue888]

Mark, your position has been that the "new birth" could be had only after Jesus was glorified. That no one could have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until after Jesus was glorified.

Some of us challenged this position and you asked that we back everything up with the Bible only. You left us with the strong impression that it could not be done since you were so sure of your position. When Scriptures from the Old Testament were produced, which showed that the "new birth" or "the indwelling of the Spirit" could be experienced in Old Testament times, you said, "I was just waiting for someone to quote these verses." It seems that at that point you were willing to acknowledge the truth but then you began to raise doubts as to whether God answered David's prayer for a new heart and for His Holy Spirit not to be removed from him.

David could not have written what he wrote in the Psalms unless he was born from above, without him having received a great measure of the Holy Spirit. I have no doubt that David trusted in the merits of the promised Saviour for His acceptance with God, for pardon and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

sky

[skyblue888]

pnatt asked you: "Didn't you say this was a New Covenant experience? But I thought you thought this was a dispensational thing."

Mark, you didn't seem to be exploring to us. You were adamant that the "new birth" was a dispensational event.

sky

[Twilight]

Mark, your position has been that the "new birth" could be had only after Jesus was glorified. That no one could have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until after Jesus was glorified.

Some of us challenged this position and you asked that we back everything up with the Bible only. You left us with the strong impression that it could not be done since you were so sure of your position. When Scriptures from the Old Testament were produced, which showed that the "new birth" or "the indwelling of the Spirit" could be experienced in Old Testament times, you said, "I was just waiting for someone to quote these verses." It seems that at that point you were willing to acknowledge the truth but then you began to raise doubts as to whether God answered David's prayer for a new heart and for His Holy Spirit not to be removed from him.

David could not have written what he wrote in the Psalms unless he was born from above, without him having received a great measure of the Holy Spirit. I have no doubt that David trusted in the merits of the promised Saviour for His acceptance with God, for pardon and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

sky

Sky, the question was being explored with an open mind.

And of course we have to be willing to change positions as God corrects it...

My understanding is as follows:

The "kingdom of God" was established at a specific point in time.

The disciples did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before that point in time according to Jesus' plain testimony.

The question then came up about whether it was possible for someone to have the new birth experience before the "kingdom of God" was established.

At first I suspected not.

But then as I considered it, David came to mind.

While I perused this point, I waited for yourself or pnat to bring it up.

Once it was bought up, I acknowledged it, (I was about to post it myself, but I thought it would be realised eventually).

That was the train of conversation.

As to David, it would appear that he understood new birth because his request matched the covenant promise.

So it would appear that it was possible, but I am still considering if there were in fact different dispensations, as the time element is there, in what capacity I am not fully fixed on yet.

Does that answer your question?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

pnatt asked you: "Didn't you say this was a New Covenant experience? But I thought you thought this was a dispensational thing."

Mark, you didn't seem to be exploring to us. You were adamant that the "new birth" was a dispensational event.

sky

And I am still exploring that point Sky.

I am not closing my mind on anything yet, until I am sure it is totally solid from scripture that it was not dispensational.

Hence my insistence that we stick to scripture.

A man can be adamant at one point, then wavering on the very same point the next when new points come to mind.

I consider Ellen White and the Sabbath issue, did she not have the same experience, and on health reform, what do you think?

Also, it is healthy for us to remember:

A. We are capable of being wrong.

B. We do not know all things.

C. We have some things to learn from other Christians.

D. We can and should change position on points when we are shown we are wrong.

E. We must insist that truth be shown from the scripture alone before forming doctrine.

[Musicman1228]

Teresaq said, "The only safeguard against evil is the indwelling of Christ in the heart through faith in His righteousness."

The only safeguard against evil is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through abiding in the words of Jesus Christ.

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  John 8:31-32.

Mark said,

Also, it is healthy for us to remember:

A. We are capable of being wrong.

B. We do not know all things.

C. We have some things to learn from other Christians.

D. We can and should change position on points when we are shown we are wrong.

E. We must insist that truth be shown from the scripture alone before forming doctrine.

This is good, and works for me. Good job. I do believe that at the end of time there will be people that will know all things that are related to salvation and how it works. They are called the 144,000.