Forgiveness and/or Remission - Page 18

Adino · #**171** 11-13-2007, 08:46 PM

Good point, Sam. To tell you the truth, I've never thought of that one.

Scott Hutchinson · #**172** 11-13-2007, 08:54 PM

Were the 380 lost under new covenant terms ? Without the Spirit of Christ one is not one of His.
Some teach at repentance one receives a measure of the Spirit to be saved and another measure of the Spirit at HG baptism ? But is the baptism of The Holy Spirit a post conversional experience ?

Adino · #**173** 11-13-2007, 09:43 PM

I know this was directed to Sam but...

Quote:

Some teach at repentance one receives a measure of the Spirit to be saved and another measure of the Spirit at HG baptism?

Sadly, many tend to treat the Spirit as some sort of commodity we get incrementally. I had to come to terms with this myself. Once we realize we have the Spirit (any of it) at the moment of faith we have to realize we have ALL of it we are ever going to get.

Once the Spirit is present, He is present in his totality and it is not Him that subsequently grows in our lives, but us who step by step learn to yield more and more allowing that Spirit inside of us to become increasingly manifest in our lives.

Quote:

But is the baptism of The Holy Spirit a post conversional experience?

My opinion is no, but being "filled with the Holy Ghost" is. The baptism of the Spirit takes place at conversion. I believe future overwhelmings of the Spirit which lead to manifestations such as tongues are "fillings" of the Spirit. I do not think to be "baptized by the Spirit" and to be "filled with the Spirit" are synonymous terms.

American Pentecostalism went a long way in blurring these two terms. In fact, I believe it was because of this confusion of terms that G.T. Haywood eventually drew speaking in tongues into the new birth experience. Some in Pentecostalism at first called the tongues experience a 2nd Spirit baptism. This 2nd baptism was synonymous with being "filled with the Holy Ghost." The 1st Spirit baptism was said to take place when one was born again at conversion, while the 2nd was subsequent to salvation (a "post conversional experience"). The qualification of "2nd" was dropped by most and most simply called this non-saving experience the "baptism of the Spirit." The term "Spirit baptism" became separated from initial salvation at conversion.

Haywood reconnected Spirit baptism with being born again by saying Spirit baptism and Spirit birth were the same thing. This was good (and I believe they do happen at the same time), but instead of again making a distinction between a 1st Spirit baptism at conversion and a 2nd one later evidenced by tongues as many had done before, he simply drew the tongues experience into conversion itself. He discarded the whole concept of Spirit baptism at the moment the heart converted to faith and began to teach the tongues experience as part of the new birth. This had never been done before.

Scott Hutchinson · #**174** 11-14-2007, 03:28 PM

Adino if you don't mind me asking but do you believe in the initial evidence doctrine?

Adino · #**175** 11-14-2007, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Adino if you don't mind me asking but do you believe in the initial evidence doctrine?

I do not see support for it. I think this doctrine has had a negative effect on many good people.

I believe this particular doctrine has greatly clouded a correct understanding of the initial reception of the Spirit of life when man first passes from death to life at the moment faith is born in the heart.

Raven · #**176** 11-14-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adino

My sincere question is why do many choose to view Scripture through the theological paradigm handed down to them by men who admitted they were teaching a new revelation from heaven in 20th century America?

As I asked before:

On what grounds do we believe their final interpretation of truth was the same truth taught in the first century Church?

Many in the oneness movement begin with the premise that what they have inherited from these men is indeed truth. On what grounds can this be said?

Certainly not on historical grounds because there is absolutely no historical witness of anyone ever in history interpreting the doctrine of salvation as they ultimately did.

If on Scriptural grounds, how is it all other hermeneutically and grammatically plausible interpretations of the core passages normally used as prooftext for the water/spirit position are discarded out of hand without objective consideration? I think you'd agree that one cannot begin with the assumption that the early oneness pioneers discovered TRUTH (especially without historical precedent). One cannot discard alternative views of core passages simply because they do not support their theological conclusions concerning the new birth. Objectivity will have been thoroughly abandoned.

Is it possible for someone within the UPC and/or closely associated organizations to objectively approach the new birth issue or have they forever been tainted by an inherited theological paradigm through which they now view Scripture?

There are a variety of ways to interpret Acts 2:38 and John 3:5 leading to a very different conclusion than the water/spirit new birth doctrine.

JMHO

Excellent commentary and questions Adino! It's time to take a new look at some old things....... if we dare! I'm with you.
Raven

Adino · #**177** 11-14-2007, 05:51 PM

LOL.... Yes, if we dare!

About 15 years ago when I first set out to "take a new look at some old things" I had expected to become stronger in the doctrine I had inherited.

Silly me.... I went and became all objective!!! Look where that got me!!!

LOL.... I'd do it all over again.... even knowing the consequences. It's been a wonderful journey. To God be the glory!