Were the Apostles converted before the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- Were the Apostles converted before the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? From one of our live events, Sinclair Ferguson and Derek Thomas discuss the work of the Spirit prior to Acts 2.
Find more answers to your biblical theological questions in our Ask Ligonier: Questions Answered playlist: • Ask Ligonier: Question...
![HIWWHEE | OHM [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OJJLtTLqLag/mqdefault.jpg)
I appreciate that there is not an introduction. Anyone who clicked on the thumbnail knew what the question was. Good example for other TH-camrs to follow. We don't always need an introduction folks.
A thousand amens to this!
Hawayu Ligonier Ministries *& I Appreciate Pst. Sinclair Ferguson & Pst. Derek Thomas 4 Answering This Powerful, Blessful, Deep Oustion on "Were The Apostles Converted Before The Hooy Ghost Came at Pentecost ?"Where What Pst. Sinclair Ferguson & Pst. Derek Thomas Have Said Is Veryyyyyy, Veryyyyyy Ryt One 💯% Where In My Opinion The Apostles Were Converted Even Before The Hooy Spirit Csme at Pegtrcost Where The Apostles Who Were Disciples Had The Holy Spirit In Them Where Our Great LORD Jesus Christ Told The Disviples Who are Now Apostles Thay Out of His Belly Will Flow Rivers of Living Water 4. He Will Send Us a Comforter Who Will Abide/Renain With Us Forever Written In John 7:38 & John 14:16* & May Our Great Almighty God Bless Yu Pst. Sinclair Ferguson, Pst. Derek Thomas & Ligonier Ministries So Veryyyyyy, Veryyyyyy Much.🙏🙏🕊️🕊️
Abide in me and I in you in this there is no coma. Jesus chose them, not the other way round.
The man crucified with Jesus was told "TODAY you shall be WITH ME in PARADISE". As Jesus told Nicodemus, "You MUST be born again".
______________________
• "No Holy Spirit" in one's Heart...
• "No Salvation"...
• "No Eternity" in Heaven
______________________
The Holy Spirit was upon David, Elijah etc. when Jesus says he will come to you, he means he’s coming a new way unseen before. The Spirit is already everywhere. He didn’t physically come, as if he’s late to the party lol.
The Holy Spirit was upon David, Elijah etc. when Jesus says he will come to you, he means he’s coming a new way the world has never seen before. The Spirit is already everywhere. He didn’t physically come, as if he’s late to the party lol. They were already regenerate, though their faith was weak, had it been strengthened they would have died at Calvary and not wrote the gospels. And much wasn’t illuminated purposely, according to God’s will.
But they didn't and they did. 😮
🙏🙏🙏🙏
Sure they were
They were waiting for the Holy Spirit as they were told to do
Obedience follows conversion
John 20-21 9 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.
This is prior to Pentecost.
The term Pentecost comes from the Greek Πεντηκοστή (Pentēkostē), meaning "fiftieth". It refers to the Jewish festival of Shavuot celebrated on the fiftieth day after Passover. It is also known as the "Feast of Weeks" and the "Feast of 50 days" in rabbinic tradition.
The reason the apostles spoke in tongues was because there were many Jews from across the region that spoke many different languages due to the disbursement of the Jews during the Nebuchadnezzar occupation and other disputes that dispersed the Jews across many nations.Shavuot required all male Jews to bring a firstfruits offering on shavout.
The apostles weren't commanded to preach the gospel to the Gentiles until Paul which was much later after the accession and after Paul then Peter was commanded to preach to the gentiles in a dream.
this is referring to the empowering work of the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues, and to do miracles, not to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.
Didn't Jesus command, in the Great Commission, to disciple all nations in Matt 28:19-20? All by definition includes both the nation of Israel and ALL others. The Gospel going to the Gentiles goes back to the Old Testament.
If you don't know THIS, how do you know ALL these?!
I have chosen you
You have not chosen me!
90 elders ? That's absurd is he treating every elderly man as an elder? Elder is an office not a function of age.ans the Biblical qualifications are clear
I don't think he can be treating every elderly man as an elder. That would be too unusual a definition in Christian circles. He must be referring to those in leadership roles.
But I agree that the number is enormous unless Derek Thomas is part of some megachurch.
You should never assume....
Clarity just does not seem to be an imperative at Ligonier these days. For me, simplicity is a virtue. Extended conversation and theological speculation or rumination should be reserved for venues that are more focused on such deaper theological topics, with all the appropriate caveats and disclaimers.
Yes I'm confused by this as well 😅 unless there are thousands and thousands of members of that church I cannot see why they would need so many elders...and if the church is that large maybe they need to church plant and spread out a bit 😅
I thought he said nineteen.
The apostles were surely saved before Pentecost, even though they didn't have the Holy Spirit living in them in the way that became possible after Pentecost. In this respect they were like saints in Old Testament times.
But did OT saints have the Holy Spirit?
On the one hand, they couldn't have had the Spirit living in them to the extent that was possible after Pentecost. To say that they could have would be to ignore the emphasis on the Spirit in the New Covenant and makes light of Jesus' saying in John 14:17:
'. . . he [the Spirit] remains with you and will be in you'.
These words clearly imply that at the time at which Jesus is speaking the Spirit was not yet in the apostles (in the sense that Jesus is referring to).
But on the other hand, it seems very difficult to believe that OT saints had no Holy Spirit at all. How could David, for example, have composed all his Psalms without the Spirit enlivening him to some degree.
I think the answer is to say that OT saints did have the Holy Spirit, but at a lower level than New Covenant saints.
I think only certain OT saints had the privilege of having the Holy Spirit, such as David, the prophets, the judges, and others. In the NT all saints have the Spirit.
@@justanotherbaptistjew5659 I think all saints have to have the Holy Spirit to some degree, whether in OT or NT times.
I also think that even people like David didn't have the Holy Spirit to the extent that Christians do today. For example, in John 7:39 John says that 'the Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified'. This suggests something that went beyond anything that had gone before.
Luke 1:68-80: verse 71 speaks of a salvation from enemies in order that they may serve Him without fear in holiness and righteousness. We see the disciples gathered together praying ready to receive the promise. They were timid and fearful all the way to the cross. The time came where they were fearless even through persecution and to the death. They certainly were all in….except Judas.
This passage disagrees with you.
Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
this assumes that true believers cannot stumble and be tempted, yet the Bible makes it clear that this is not the case, the Bible contains many passages where-in it warns Christians against various Temptations.
this interpretation is not supported by the broader context of Scripture. For example, John 3:3 states that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." This clearly implies that regeneration comes before faith. and the apostles were all saved individuals who had been following Jesus for some time prior to His crucifixion.
"Converted" also means turn. Peter was already a believer in the Lord Jesus and a saved man. See the succeeding verses to understand more clearly what the Lord Jesus was saying. He mean't that particular sin of Peter denying Him three times. In order words, when Peter had turned from that sin and back to him; he should strengthen his brethren. This clearly happened- because Peter repented and was with the disciples on the day of the Lord's resurrection. "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that you will continue to believe in me. And you, when you have turned back to me, you must help your brothers to be strong again." (Easy English Version).
"But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.." If the word, "converted" which Jesus used meant that Peter wasn't saved, He wouldn't have mentioned that "...thy faith fail not.." Peter was already saved. He had faith. Christ was speaking about turning from the sin back to Him. When Peter had returned he should strengthen his brethren. Read the context. That's what it means.
@@therighteousbranch2599 you have no idea you don't save anyone
Just cling to your traditions 🙄
But were the apostles saved before the crucifixion and resurrection or only after?
They were officially saved the moment they believed that Jesus was God's Son, the Messiah. Which would have been towards the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, most likely when they responded to His effectual call to follow Him.
It is even possible that the disciples of first John the Baptist and then Jesus were saved in anticipation of Christ, already having been baptized in John's Baptism of Repentance, as they, like Abraham, had not yet seen the Messiah but had sins forgiven in forbearance (Rom 3:25) because of faith.
I don’t understand why they’re making this so confusing. Old Testament saints were saved by their faith and the thief on the cross was saved by his faith. Why would the apostles minus Judas be any different? What am I missing here? It seems to me the Holy Spirit would have been at work in all of them although maybe not in the fullness we have after Pentecost but still at complete work regarding their salvation none the less.
Well said. It is by faith we are saved through faith as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit in us." This has been the case for every one who believed in God and was accounted righteous from Genesis to Revelation. The Spirit of Christ was in the Old Testament saints. 1 Peter 1:10-11. He was officially given at Pentecost after Christ had been glorified. John 7:39. Grace and peace
So, was the answer yes or was it no. I can see a lay person needing to work through this, but these are most certainly not lay persons. I am thinking that RC would have provided a more diffinitive, precise, and unequivocal summation.
Ligon kind of went down an irrelevant rabbit hole but otherwise it seems to me the answer was yes and I would agree.
Both of them were answering yes.
The answer is YES. Both Old testament saints, and pre-Pentecost Christians were saved the same way, by the same Holy Spirit, and by the same faith in the gospel. The difference in the Holy Spirit’s administration was not one of quality, but one of quantity. The substance of the Holy Spirit was at work in the same manner in the Old Testament and New Testament, but His ministry was broadened and universalized with the inauguration of the new covenant. Remember, there is one faith, one baptism, and one salvation under the same covenant of grace, since the garden of Eden.
Yeah Derek didn’t do a good job answering this question.
@@Ade23514 I believe I had the names wrong. The second answer was confusing.
These aren’t really robust answers. PST Derek seems to even take the question elsewhere. Not too helpful.
I am sorry but this discussion is boarding on the egghead theologians of old who argued how many angels can stand on the head of a pin
While Sinclair does make very valid points, and highly plausible ones, we, NOW, AFTER having ALL of the written revelation of God, MUST necessarily conclude that it is exactly at John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
The folks at Ligonier, of all people, MUST and ought to have known that unless the Holy Spirit IS INDWELLING a person, said person is NOT Regenerate, no matter HOW MUCH prior work the Holy Spirit HAS done IN the person to build facets of eventual saving faith. Period.
YET, UNTIL the Holy Spirit INDWELLS said person, the person cannot become regenerate, and so, by definition, said person CANNOT have saving and justifying faith! Period.
In the off-chance we have quibblers: regeneration logically precedes faith, though both are instantaneously simultaneous.
Jesus Christ IS the baptizer with and by the Holy Spirit. (Biblically it is the Father, but mediated by the Lord Jesus Christ). And when Jesus Christ says, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost", he is not making suggestions to the apostles. They are ENTIRELY passive in this. It has the same impact as the Lord saying "Follow me" (in one context), or "Let there be light!" (in another context).
At Pentecost, it was 109 persons who were made regenerate, and so made to become Christians. 11 apostles were already saved. So that leaves 120-11=109 unsaved on the day prior to Pentecost. Mathias was the 12th selected apostle and so he +108 others = 109 persons. All totaling 120. And a little later, after Peter's declarations, about 3000 more saved.
Derek is generally good, but not clear why he rambled on and beat around the bush!
Good point, It does seem in John 20:22 a command. Would you say then, at Pentecost, the disciples were already saved but the Spirit came upon them to empower their words and deed for the saving event?
I find it hard to believe a disciple who saw Christ crucified, then an empty tomb, and THEN the risen Lord would not also have saving faith before Pentecost.
You are making a big mistake. Logically faith precedes regeneration.
See, for example, in John 3:14-15 how Jesus says:
'. . . the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him might have eternal life.'
See the pattern here: whoever does X might have Y. Therefore logically X leads to Y. So this text, and others in John's Gospel, teach that faith leads to eternal life. Importantly, in this Gospel eternal life begins at the point of conversion. So Jesus is saying that faith leads to having a spiritual form of life.
But regeneration is the entry point to life. So faith leads to regeneration.
Part of the gospel message is that people need to come to Jesus to gain life, and saying that regeneration leads to faith distorts this message to some extent.
@@maxaplin4204 I don't agree that faith comes before regeneration, even logically. If you are able to produce saving faith without first being regenerated, then why do you need regeneration in the first place?
Salvation is by God alone, and we have nothing to bring to it except the sin which needs forgiveness. If faith precedes regeneration then that means that faith comes from you, making you an Arminian?
@@maxaplin4204 Your own illustration isn't saying that you have to believe first to gain life, (Though this is true) it says that Christ was lifted to give life to those who believe, not that you have to have some kind of faith in yourself, apart from the Spirit upon regeneration. The initial ability to believe in the sacrifice referred to in John 3:14-15, comes from God's regeneration, not of yourself, lest any man may boast.
@@crushedrighthand3090 A few points:
(1) It is true that no one can come to Jesus unless God does a work in that person (John 6:44). But it is unwarranted to assume that this work of God must go as far as regeneration. God needs to enliven people enough before they can have faith, but reg. as described in Scripture goes far beyond this. Even some Calvinists, such as Millard Erickson, agree that faith leads to reg.
(2) You ask why reg. is needed if faith logically precedes reg. The answer is that having faith doesn't give us spiritual life. God needs to give that life, and he does so in reg.
(3) I am very unconvinced by Arminianism. To say that faith leads to reg. doesn't entail Arminianism at all. As I have said, even some Calvinists take the view that faith leads to reg. Personally, I lean towards Molinism, which also says that faith leads to reg.
(4) You say that if faith leads to reg., it means that faith comes from us. That doesn't follow.
To begin with, Calvinists like Erickson would say that God sovereignly enlivens someone enough to have faith, sovereignly causes that person to believe, and sovereignly responds to that faith by regenerating. In this schema, everything comes from God.
As a Molinist I would argue that God causes people to come to faith unless they resist. But if they do absolutely nothing, he will cause them to come to faith. So salvation is still all from God.
(5) You say that the initial ability to believe comes from reg., but this is the opposite of what John 3:14-15 implies.
Let me use another passage in John's Gospel to help make the point. In John 5:40 Jesus rebukes some Jews by saying:
'But you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life.'
See here how Jesus wants them to come to him so that they may have life. Clearly, coming to Jesus (in faith, understood) leads to life. Reg. is the act of God by which we receive life, so faith leads to reg.
Those who say that reg. leads to faith are saying that those who come to Jesus in faith DO SO BECAUSE they have life given to them in reg. But this is the reverse of John 5:40, where people are encouraged to come to Jesus (in faith) SO THAT THEY MAY HAVE LIFE.
We deeply miss Sir. Robert Sproul.🥲