Acts 5:32 Obedience before the indwelling

[Sethproton]

Well if you reread our exchanges you will not find a singLe word from me saying order matters. It wasn't my argument at all. It was all about tenses. And if we reverse the order again:
He has (already) given to those who obey it still favors my view because the "already" is implied by the past tense form.
It gives the same implied meaning regardless of order in the sentence.

Acts 5:32 ...so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.
If you don't agree that this is putting forth a kind of axiom, then look at it in the context that Peter spoke it.
The Holy Spirit had been given to many believers at that point. If he wanted to say what you think he meant, that would have been an obtuse way to say it.
You understand it to mean that God has given the Spirit to those who will obey Him. Peter could have said exactly that. But Peter does not use a future tense for obey, he uses present tense.

I suppose all this is now really for the benefit of others reading, because you and I are set on what we think.

 

[Simpletruther]

Acts 5:32 ...so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.
If you don't agree that this is putting forth a kind of axiom, then look at it in the context that Peter spoke it.
The Holy Spirit had been given to many believers at that point. If he wanted to say what you think he meant, that would have been an obtuse way to say it.
You understand it to mean that God has given the Spirit to those who will obey Him. Peter could have said exactly that. But Peter does not use a future tense for obey, he uses present tense.

I suppose all this is now really for the benefit of others reading, because you and I are set on what we think.

No it doesn't require future tense to make my point. Those now obeying, present tense, He has already given

Maybe you are just reading in the wrong axiom

 

[Sethproton]

No it doesn't require future tense to make my point. Those now obeying, present tense, He has already given

Maybe you are just reading in the wrong axiom

tell me the difference in meaning between these three
God has given the Spirit to those who obey Him
God has given the Spirit to those who will obey Him
God has given the Spirit to those who have obeyed Him

 

[Theo1689]

Acts 5:32 ...so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.
If you don't agree that this is putting forth a kind of axiom, then look at it in the context that Peter spoke it.
The Holy Spirit had been given to many believers at that point. If he wanted to say what you think he meant, that would have been an obtuse way to say it.

You mean like if God was going to "draw all men to himself" (a verse about the Son's drawing, btw, not the Father's drawing), then saying "NO ONE CAN COME TO ME unless the Father who sent me draw him" would LIKEWISE be "an obtuse way to say it"?

You understand it to mean that God has given the Spirit to those who will obey Him. Peter could have said exactly that. But Peter does not use a future tense for obey, he uses present tense.

But THAT wording would have been "obtuse", since God already gave the Holy Spirit to some, who were then (presently) "obeying" him.

I'm sorry, but any argument which requires a criticism of, "If how you interpret it was intended, then it would have been worded a different way" is a fallacious argument.

We could JUST as easily say that you are wrong, because if your interpretation were intended, then he SHOULD have said, "the Holy Spirit, whom God has given BECAUSE they obey him". But it doesn't say "because" (and THAT is the problem, you are ASSUMING a particular causation).

Any argument that can be made for either side is by definition fallacious.

 

[Johan]

We are looking at the phrase "has given to those who obey"

Consider the sentence "God has given life to all who are living." Is "are living" the cause or the effect?

 

[Simpletruther]

tell me the difference in meaning between these three
God has given the Spirit to those who obey Him
God has given the Spirit to those who will obey Him
God has given the Spirit to those who have obeyed Him

In The first two it is implied the given comes first.

In the 3rd it is ambiguous as to which is first.

 

[Sethproton]

Consider the sentence "God has given life to all who are living." Is "are living" the cause or the effect?

Of course not. That is easy because of the vocabulary. Also because of the verb form you chose and the verbs themselves.
Life causes living.
If I use your verb form, "God has given the Spirit to all who are obeying" then it does become more ambiguous as to when the obedience occurred relative to the giving. But again our verb form is Acts 5:32 And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him
I can repeat that structure in a few instances where doctrine does not influence how it is read
the salary, that the boss has given to those who work
the understanding, that the teacher has given to those who listen
the children, who God has given to those who pray

And here's another idea: context. When Peter makes this statement, he is referencing the day of pentecost and the giving of the Spirit to those who had done as Jesus had asked and had waited for Him. The Spirit was given to those who waited for Him at pentecost (obeying what He had commanded) and then as a principle: the Spirit is given to those who obey.

 

[Sethproton]

.

In The first two it is implied the given comes first.

In the 3rd it is ambiguous as to which is first.

God has given the Spirit to those who obey Him
God has given the Spirit to those who will obey Him
God has given the Spirit to those who have obeyed Him
And in the third, without the present tense , we may not know the order, but we know it was all past tense. The use of present tense in #1 is what tells us this is an ongoing concept.

.Click above to expand to see what I wrote. the formatting here is still mysterious to me the way it forces in the poster's name at times
.Also I wrote this to another poster but you should also consider it:
And here's another idea: context. When Peter makes this statement, he is referencing the day of pentecost and the giving of the Spirit to those who had done as Jesus had asked and had waited for Him. The Spirit was given to those who waited for Him at pentecost (obeying what He had commanded) and then as a principle: the Spirit is given to those who obey.

 

[Sethproton]

Yep but not because they would be.

You mean giving the Spirit was coincidental to them being obedient and there was no connection between the two?

 

[Sethproton]

The phrase "those who obey" is straightforward. But you do not seem to pay enough attention to the tenses involved. God gave (past tense) His Spirit to those who now are obedient (present tense). So if anything, this verse supports rather than contradicts Calvinist doctrine.

the Boss has given money to those who work.
Does this mean the money comes first?

 

[Johan]

the Boss has given money to those who work.
Does this mean the money comes first?

Well, if you truly think that this example sentence is analogous to Acts 5:32, it goes to show that you do not merely hold an anti-Calvinist but an anti-Evangelical position. Salvation is by grace and not by works. The Spirit is not given as a reward but as a token of His salvific promise.

And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. (Rom. 11:6)

Of course not. That is easy because of the vocabulary. Also because of the verb form you chose and the verbs themselves.
Life causes living.
If I use your verb form, "God has given the Spirit to all who are obeying" then it does become more ambiguous as to when the obedience occurred relative to the giving.

I used exactly the same verb tenses as in Acts 5:32. So you finally concede that this verse is by itself ambiguous and that we need other verses to fully understand it. I call that progress.

And here's another idea: context. When Peter makes this statement, he is referencing the day of pentecost and the giving of the Spirit to those who had done as Jesus had asked and had waited for Him. The Spirit was given to those who waited for Him at pentecost (obeying what He had commanded) and then as a principle: the Spirit is given to those who obey.

Which verse is saying that the Spirit was given to them because they were waiting for Him? The obedience of which Peter speaks in 5:32 is rather in its context referring back to 5:27–29:

The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood." Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings!"

Peter was not exactly a shining example of an obedient person pre the resurrection of Christ, given that he denied his Master thrice.

 

[Johan]

Of course not. That is easy because of the vocabulary.

I previously gave the example sentence "God has created all that exists." This could, for instance, be stated in a debate between a believer and an atheist. And that sentence is not "easy" because of the vocabulary, but because of the presupposition that God is the Creator of the universe.

 

[zerinus]

Consider the sentence "God has given life to all who are living." Is "are living" the cause or the effect?

Luke 11:

13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

So which came first, giving the Spirit or asking?

John 7:

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

So which came first, receiving the Spirit or believing?

 

[Johan]

Luke 11:

13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

So which came first, giving the Spirit or asking?

John 7:

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

So which came first, receiving the Spirit or believing?

The asking precedes the giving of the Spirit. But the context tells us what we need to know. The Spirit is not given as a reward for being obedient but as a gracious gift despite us being evil.

 

[zerinus]

The asking precedes the giving of the Spirit. But the context tells us what we need to know. The Spirit is not given as a reward for being obedient but as a gracious gift despite us being evil.

But the asking precedes the giving, which implies some kind of faith. Why would you want to ask, if you did not believe? So the asking, which presupposes faith, becomes some kind of meritorious act, without which the Spirit would not be given.

 

[Johan]

But the asking precedes the giving, which implies some kind of faith. Why would you want to ask, if you did not believe? So the asking, which presupposes faith, becomes some kind of meritorious act, without which the Spirit would not be given.

Yes, the asking presupposes "some kind of faith," but you are incorrect in calling faith meritorious. God gives His Spirit because of His grace and not as a reward for believing. God gives His Spirit because He is a good giver and not because we somehow deserve it.

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. (Rom. 4:4–5)

 

[zerinus]

Yes, the asking presupposes "some kind of faith," but you are incorrect in calling faith meritorious. God gives His Spirit because of His grace and not as a reward for believing. God gives His Spirit because He is a good giver and not because we somehow deserve it.

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. (Rom. 4:4–5)

The mistake you are making is that you are equating any kind of meritorious behavior with “works,” which are not the same. The Bible is full of examples of God “rewarding” mankind for various kinds of meritorious behavior or actions. For example scripture teaches that God “resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble” (James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5). Does that mean that being humble is some kind of “work”? Of course not. You are not doing any “work” by being humble. But still, from the biblical point of view, it is seen as something meritorious that qualifies one for receiving grace.

 

[brightfame52]

zer

But the asking precedes the giving, which implies some kind of faith

Correct O, so that means this is directed to people already born again Children of God, and not the unregenerate of mankind, who have no faith at all, none that pleases God !

 

[zerinus]

zer


Correct O, so that means this is directed to people already born again Children of God, and not the unregenerate of mankind, who have no faith at all, none that pleases God !

I gave that quote in order to counter his grammatical and linguistic argument about what comes first, and what comes before and what comes after what. It was not meant as a soteriological argument, although it can serve that purpose as well, when used in the right context. But coming to the main point of your argument, the Bible is full of examples of God rewarding people for doing good, and punishing them for doing evil. Doing good, and refraining from evil, is not the same as “works” either. “Thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not steal” etc. are not “works”. You are not doing any “works” by not doing any of those things. You would be doing a lot more “work” by committing those sins than by not committing them. But you would be breaking the commandments of God if you did. Keeping the commandments of God is not the same as “works”. You need to keep the commandments of God to be saved.

 

[Johan]

The mistake you are making is that you are equating any kind of meritorious behavior with “works,” which are not the same. The Bible is full of examples of God “rewarding” mankind for various kinds of meritorious behavior or actions. For example scripture teaches that God “resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble” (James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5). Does that mean that being humble is some kind of “work”? Of course not. You are not doing any “work” by being humble. But still, from the biblical point of view, it is seen as something meritorious that qualifies one for receiving grace.

But meritorious means "deserving of honor or esteem" (Merriam-Webster's) and we do not deserve honor for believing or for being humble. Salvation is never deserved, nor are any of the other good gifts of God. To be humble before God means exactly that, to concede that we are sinful and undeserving, whereas He is gracious and good.