Saved WithOut The Holy Ghost ?

[Scott Hutchinson]

I might be posting this in the wrong area and if so please forgive me.
I understand some Pentecostal groups and some here on AFF ,believe one is saved and then filled with The Holy Ghost.Evidently a fair amount of OPs teach this.
Now this is asked in charity, but I do read scriptures that say without the Spirit of Christ you can't be His,or none of His Or I read verses that say it is by One Spirit we are baptized into one body.

Ok what is the difference in receiving the Holy Ghost and being baptized with The Holy Ghost ?Isn't terms like being filled with The Holy Spirit and such synonymous terms for the same experience.
If regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit how can one be regenerate with the Spirit of Christ ?

Also doesn't receiving the Spirit comes after repentance and not at repentance I understand.Because doesn't ACTS.2:37,38 teach that the Holy Ghost comes after repentance.

So can one be saved and not have the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit ?

I am open-minded and willing to hear other's views on this subject.

[Sam]

The book that we call Ephesians in our Bible was written by the Apostle Paul while he was in prison in Rome in the AD 60-62 time period. This imprisonment is recorded in Acts 28.

Paul calls the folks there "saints" and "faithful) (Eph 1:1) and refers to "God our Father"(Eph 1:2). In verses 13 and 14 of that first chapter he mentions that they had heard the gospel, had believed, and were sealed unto the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit.

We assume these folks were saved/born again of the Spirit and had the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Christ) dwelling within. In chapter 5 and verse 18 he encourages them to "be filled with the Spirit" or as some paraphrase it, "keep getting filled with the Spirit" or "be ongoingly or continuously filled with the Spirit."

The work of the Spirit begins in us when we are drawn to Jesus.
The Spirit then opens our hearts to Jesus.
When we make that surrender to Jesus He comes into our hearts to dwell as the Holy Spirit and we are:
born of the Spirit,
sealed by the Spirit unto the day of the redemption of the purchased possession,
baptized (placed) by the Holy Spirit into Christ or into the Body of Christ.

This, however, is not the last and final work of the Spirit in our lives.
After our born again or saved experience we are to walk in the Spirit and be filled with the Spirit and some day our mortal body will be transformed/resurrected by the Spirit.

Some of us here believe that the disciples of Jesus were saved and had their names written in Heaven before (Luke 10:20) the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts chapter 2. Before Jesus ascended He told them to wait in Jerusalem until they received an empowerment of the Spirit which He also referred to as a baptism in the Spirit (Acts 1:4-8). Ten days later they received an experience which says they were "filled" with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4). Peter referred to this experience as the Spirit being poured out (Acts 2:17, 32). Later in Acts 4:8 we read that Peter was filled with the Spirit, and still later he was among a group of people who were filled with the Spirit (Acts 4:31).

So, there are experiences subsequent to being born of the Spirit when it speaks of the Spirit being poured out; the Spirit coming upon; receiving (making room for) the Spirit; being immersed/baptized/saturated in the Spirit; and being filled with the Spirit.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Does anybody else have an opinion ?

[freeatlast]

I concur with much of Sam's Writings.

At hearing in faith the word of God we are graciously given God's spirit in our lives.

The filling or the falling upon or in some scriptures it refers to he came upon them.

This is a manifestion of the spirit which happens not just once but there can be many "fillings" in our lives.

The scripture is true and if you have not the spirit of Christ you are not his.

But many mistakenly take that to mean if the Spirit has never manifested in the opertion of a gift in you r life you "ain't got squat"

[Scott Hutchinson]

I do agree that you have an experience prior to HG baptism but personally I don't see a difference between receiving the HG and being baptized with the HG.
I see baptism in Jesus name as a expression of the faith one places in Christ at repentance,I understand one receives Spirit baptism due to their faith in Christ.
I feel it is God's will for all who are penetant to place their in Christ and His atoning blood and be buried with Him in His name,and to be Spirit filled and then to live a life of progressive sanctification and personal holiness awaiting a final resurrection.
I'm just being honest here but I am listening to others's side of the issue.

[Dedicated Mind]

The work of the Spirit begins in us when we are drawn to Jesus.
The Spirit then opens our hearts to Jesus.
When we make that surrender to Jesus He comes into our hearts to dwell as the Holy Spirit and we are:
born of the Spirit,
sealed by the Spirit unto the day of the redemption of the purchased possession,
baptized (placed) by the Holy Spirit into Christ or into the Body of Christ.


Sam, do you believe the HS indwells at repentance without speaking in tongues (baptism of HS)?

[drummerboy_dave]

I just don't think it's wise or biblical for someone to say that you are "saved" even though you still haven't recieved the Holy Ghost. It's like saying you can be baptized, but you don't have to get wet.

[Darcie]

I do agree that you have an experience prior to HG baptism but personally I don't see a difference between receiving the HG and being baptized with the HG.
I see baptism in Jesus name as a expression of the faith one places in Christ at repentance,I understand one receives Spirit baptism due to their faith in Christ.
I feel it is God's will for all who are penetant to place their in Christ and His atoning blood and be buried with Him in His name,and to be Spirit filled and then to live a life of progressive sanctification and personal holiness awaiting a final resurrection.
I'm just being honest here but I am listening to others's side of the issue.

Here's my question to you... Is the Holy Ghost an object, or a being?

If you think think baptism of the Holy Ghost and receiving the Holy Ghost is the same you make the Holy Ghost an object. And we all know that the Holy Ghost is God, a being. So if I've repented and have even gotten baptised, do I not have God in me. I mean, are we oneness, or are we oneness?

[TRFrance]

I concur with much of Sam's Writings.

At hearing in faith the word of God we are graciously given God's spirit in our lives.

The filling or the falling upon or in some scriptures it refers to he came upon them.

This is a manifestion of the spirit which happens not just once but there can be many "fillings" in our lives.

The scripture is true and if you have not the spirit of Christ you are not his.

But many mistakenly take that to mean if the Spirit has never manifested in the operation of a gift in you r life you "ain't got squat"

How do you explain then, the believers in Acts 8... who received the gospel (v. 5-6) , which was delivered with signs following (v. 7), and they had great joy (v.8) , and also even got baptized (v.12), but they did not receive the Holy Ghost till the apostles came later on, and prayed for them to receive it?

According to your belief, the Holy Ghost would have came upon them when they heard and received the word of God in faith.

But the scripture plainly says: 14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
So keeping in mind the above passage, upon what scriptural basis do you say:
" At hearing in faith the word of God we are graciously given God's spirit in our lives." ?


.

[TRFrance]

Here's my question to you... Is the Holy Ghost an object, or a being?

If you think think baptism of the Holy Ghost and receiving the Holy Ghost is the same you make the Holy Ghost an object. And we all know that the Holy Ghost is God, a being. So if I've repented and have even gotten baptised, do I not have God in me. I mean, are we oneness, or are we oneness?


What scriptures do you used to teach that there's distinction between receiving the Holy Ghost, and being baptized in the Holy Ghost?

If you think think baptism of the Holy Ghost and receiving the Holy Ghost is the same you make the Holy Ghost an object. And we all know that the Holy Ghost is God, a being. So if I've repented and have even gotten baptised, do I not have God in me.

My previous post to free at last deals with that very issue.
We see a clear example of a whole bunch of new believers who had repented and got baptized, but still didn't have the Holy Ghost.

I guess it would be nice to think that anyone who repents, receives the Holy Ghost just by their repentance and/or being baptized.... but there's no scriptural basis for us to believe or teach that .
.

[Sam]

Sam, do you believe the HS indwells at repentance without speaking in tongues (baptism of HS)?

yes

[TRFrance]

yes

So how do you know they received it?

[Sam]

Here's my question to you... Is the Holy Ghost an object, or a being?

If you think think baptism of the Holy Ghost and receiving the Holy Ghost is the same you make the Holy Ghost an object. And we all know that the Holy Ghost is God, a being. So if I've repented and have even gotten baptised, do I not have God in me. I mean, are we oneness, or are we oneness?

In my opinion, the Holy Ghost, like the Father and the Son is not an it.
The Holy Ghost is God. The Holy Ghost is a "He."

We do not say, I love the Lord because It is my Father and I am Its child.
Neither do we say I love Jesus because It is my Savior. It died on the cross for me and now It lives in my heart.
Nor should we say in reference to the Holy Spirit, It lives in me, or thank God I have received It, or It came into my heart.

In my opinion, God is Spirit.
We can say God lives in our heart.
We can say Jesus lives in our heart.
We can say the Holy Spirit lives in our heart.
We can say Jesus lives in our heart.
However we express it, only one Spirit lives in our heart whatever we call Him.

[Sam]

So how do you know they received it?

When we ask Him to come in, He does.
We know it by faith.

[TRFrance]

When we ask Him to come in, He does.
We know it by faith.

Is there scripture you have to support that?
Or is this just a personal belief?

[Sam]

Jesus said, "He that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37)

The Apostle John said:
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:11-13)

Previously he had said:
"If you believe that Jesus is the Christ --that He is God's Son and your Savior-- then you are a child of God." (1 John 5:1)

[TRFrance]

So how come the Samaritan believers in Acts 8 didnt have the Holy Ghost after repenting and being baptized ? (my previous post above .. #9, goes into this in more detail)

[Sam]

So how come the Samaritan believers in Acts 8 didnt have the Holy Ghost after repenting and being baptized ? (my previous post above .. #9, goes into this in more detail)

I would not say the Samaritans were not saved and did not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within until the Apostles came down from the Jerusalem Church. I would say that they were saved when they believed (verse 12). It is recorded in verse 14 that they had received the Word (Jesus). Because they believed and received the Word/Jesus, Philip baptized them (verse 12). We see in a later account that Philip required a profession/confession of faith before he would baptize someone (verses 36 and 37) because he wanted to ascertain that they had been saved or converted first (just as John the Baptist insisted on repentance before he would baptize in water Matthew 3:7-8). In my opinion these folks were saved because they believed and received Jesus (the Word). Then as a result of their faith they were baptized in water. Even though they were saved and had Jesus living within, and were water baptized they had not received the experience that is called by various terms such as:

receiving the Spirit,
being filled with the Spirit,
the Spirit falling upon them,
the Spirit coming upon them,
being endued with power,
being baptized in the Spirit,
receiving the promise of the Father,
being filled with the Spirit

[TRFrance]

Jesus said, "He that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37)

The Apostle John said:
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:11-13)

Previously he had said:
"If you believe that Jesus is the Christ --that He is God's Son and your Savior-- then you are a child of God." (1 John 5:1)

Is that your best evidence, brother?

I thought just for once, someone was going to come with better scriptures than that. Anyway...


Jesus said, "He that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37)


Cast out? If someone repents but doesn't receive the Holy Ghost right away, it doesn't mean they're being "cast out". The believers in Acts 8 came to God, got baptized, but didn't get the Holy Ghost immediately... but it didn't mean they were "cast out"; they just didn't have the Holy Ghost yet, thats all. Then after Peter and John prayed for God to give it to them, they got it.

I don't see how being "cast out" would even apply here.



Previously he had said:
"If you believe that Jesus is the Christ --that He is God's Son and your Savior-- then you are a child of God." (1 John 5:1)

or to use the King James version of that:
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."
If we want to pull verses out of the proper overall NT context, one might also try to say that anyone who just believes is saved". Using your apparent train of thought here...
... Acts 16:31 "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved".
But a person walking into a church and saying "I believe" ... that by itself doesn't make him saved, does it? Same concept. Believing is key, but thats only the beginning. It certainly doesn't constitute salvation in and of itself.

Or... we could go to a ridiculous extreme, if we're just going to quote scripture, without proper context and balance.For example how about Acts 2:14 " And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." ?
If someone told you he literally "called on the name" of Jesus so therefore he's saved,would you tell him he's correct? The Lord's name is Jesus. So He calls on Jesus' name and this literal "calling on the name" = salvation? That wouldn't make any sense, and of course no one really believes or teaches that. But its the same concept as what you (and many other PCI-type thinkers) seem to propose ,if you say one becomes a child of God just because they "believe" that Jesus is the Christ.

1 John 5:1 is not a proof text of any kind concerning the salvation plan per se; it doesn't even mention repentance, which we know is critical to salvation.

---
So how do you say that anyone who believes and accepts Jesus has the Holy Ghost? What scripture really backs that up?

So back to the question of "how you know a person has received the Holy Ghost?" ... Didn't the believers in Acts 10 know that the new believers in Acts 10 got the Holy Ghost because they spoke in tongues? "for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God" Acts 10:46
Where did the believers ever accept that someone received the Holy Ghost simply because they "accepted Jesus" or "believed" ?

[mizpeh]

I would not say the Samaritans were not saved and did not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within until the Apostles came down from the Jerusalem Church. I would say that they were saved when they believed (verse 12). It is recorded in verse 14 that they had received the Word (Jesus). Because they believed and received the Word/Jesus, Philip baptized them (verse 12). We see in a later account that Philip required a profession/confession of faith before he would baptize someone (verses 36 and 37) because he wanted to ascertain that they had been saved or converted first (just as John the Baptist insisted on repentance before he would baptize in water Matthew 3:7-8). In my opinion these folks were saved because they believed and received Jesus (the Word). Then as a result of their faith they were baptized in water. Even though they were saved and had Jesus living within, and were water baptized they had not received the experience that is called by various terms such as:

receiving the Spirit,
being filled with the Spirit,
the Spirit falling upon them,
the Spirit coming upon them,
being endued with power,
being baptized in the Spirit,
receiving the promise of the Father,
being filled with the Spirit

Is this Spirit someone other than Jesus living within? Do we have two Spirits dwelling in us? Jesus and the Spirit?

To be saved then one must believe in the heart and confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus? What about repentance?

[mizpeh]

[/INDENT][/INDENT] Where did the believers ever accept that someone received the Holy Ghost simply because they "accepted Jesus" or "believed" ?

And why did Paul have to have Ananias pray for him to receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost if Paul believed in Jesus on the road to Damascus when he saw Him?

[Michael The Disciple]

The so called PCI position is pretty weak in light of all scripture on the topic of salvation. TRFrance's post about the Samaritan disciples will not let their position be right.

Having said that I will now say that tongues as the ONLY initial evidence is the real issue here.

True the Holy Spirit is personal and God. But the baptism of the Spirit the Bible speaks of is the Spirit of God being poured out on the Believer. Another way of saying they are anointed by the Spirit. In that sense it is accurate to speak of having it.

[Darcie]

What scriptures do you used to teach that there's distinction between receiving the Holy Ghost, and being baptized in the Holy Ghost?



My previous post to free at last deals with that very issue.
We see a clear example of a whole bunch of new believers who had repented and got baptized, but still didn't have the Holy Ghost.
I guess it would be nice to think that anyone who repents, receives the Holy Ghost just by their repentance and/or being baptized.... but there's no scriptural basis for us to believe or teach that .
.


The Holy Ghost is a He, baptism of the Holy Ghost is an experience a gift promised by God.

If you believe God is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, you can't separate them when if comes to receiving the gift. How can you be repented and baptized and still not have God in you? (Father, Son and Holy Ghost).

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[freeatlast]

Holy Ghost only equals tongues in some minds.

No tongues=no holy ghost. That is your problem when you veiw scripture with your glasses tined with this theolgy.

[DividedThigh]

i believe the greatest evidence of the holy ghost indwelling is the fruit of the spirit, dt, :bells

[berkeley]

I endorse this thread.

[TRFrance]

The Holy Ghost is a He, baptism of the Holy Ghost is an experience a gift promised by God.

If you believe God is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, you can't separate them when if comes to receiving the gift. How can you be repented and baptized and still not have God in you? (Father, Son and Holy Ghost).

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Darcie , youre totally missing the point here, and I see you're not even bothering to respond to the scriptural references I mentioned.

The Holy Ghost is a He, baptism of the Holy Ghost is an experience a gift promised by God.

Yes the Holy Ghost is a he.. nobody is arguing with that. How is that relevant to this issue?
The Holy Ghost is a He, baptism of the Holy Ghost is an experience a gift promised by God.

The Holy Ghost is promised by God. Again, nobody is disputing that. That is not the issue here.
We know the HG is promised by God. The question is, is someone saved before receiving of the Holy Ghost. ? If so, at what point, does the Holy Ghost come into the person?

Obviously you think the baptism of the Holy Ghost is different from the gift of the Holy Ghost. That is so not scriptural , I’m just shaking my head to see that people actually believe that.

If you think think baptism of the Holy Ghost and receiving the Holy Ghost is the same you make the Holy Ghost an object.

I think Sam did a good job of showing that the following descriptions, used interchangeably in the NT, are different ways of describing the same experience.
… the experience that is called by various terms such as
receiving the Spirit,
being filled with the Spirit,
the Spirit falling upon them,
the Spirit coming upon them,
being endued with power,
being baptized in the Spirit,
receiving the promise of the Father,
being filled with the Spirit
These are all the same thing. Otherwise show me, Darcy, from scripture, how the baptism of the Holy Ghost is a separate experience from receiving the Holy Ghost.

And explain to me how believing the 2 are the same "makes the Holy Ghost an object". I don't even see the rationale there in that, or how that even matters one way or another in this discussion.


If you believe God is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, you can't separate them when if comes to receiving the gift. How can you be repented and baptized and still not have God in you? (Father, Son and Holy Ghost).
Again, more of the same. Nobody here is "separating them" here. I STILL fail to see how any of this is relevant to the point of Scott's question.

[quote=Darcie;325924]
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Ok, its a gift. We know that, Darcie.
Let me ask it this way... at what point does the gift come... when you believe? , when you decide to accept Jesus? When they get baptized? or when exactly? When do you know the person has received the gift?


How can you be repented and baptized and still not have God in you? (Father, Son and Holy Ghost).
Fine - let's deal with that question, which really deals with the issue at hand . I see what your train of thought is on this, but what scriptures are you using to support this thought?
Lets go with what the scriptures say, not just the concepts you and I might have in our mind.

So you think if someone repents and is baptized, then they must have God in them? . Ok, fine... scriptures please. I am more than willing to hear them. And don't just say acts 2:38, because that doesn't prove anything as far as the point being discussed in this thread.
----

Now speaking of scriptures, I'll go back to my earlier reference, which you didn't bother to respond to... I'll be brief, since I've already referred to it...

1) In Acts 8, the Samaritans repented and were baptized , but had not received the Holy Ghost... until till afterward, when Peter and John came to and prayed for them to receive it. So tell me, doesn't that blatantly undermine your theory on this??

2) Lets throw in another one. Piggybacking on Mizpah’s question above….
why did Paul have to have Ananias pray for him to receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost if Paul believed in Jesus on the road to Damascus when he saw Him?

If you receive the Holy Ghost by repenting and believing, as some say, why was Ananias sent to pray for Paul to receive the Holy Ghost. Paul saw Jesus, and believed, & had evidently repented, and was even fasting, right?

So 1 point and 1 question for you then…

A--If Paul had received the Holy Ghost just by repenting, he wouldn't have needed Ananias to pray for him to receive the gift...

B---Or do you believe the the Holy Ghost "just comes" at baptism ? In that case, tell us why that didn’t happen with the Samaritans in Acts 8.

[TRFrance]

I would not say the Samaritans were not saved and did not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within until the Apostles came down from the Jerusalem Church. I would say that they were saved when they believed (verse 12). It is recorded in verse 14 that they had received the Word (Jesus). Because they believed and received the Word/Jesus, Philip baptized them (verse 12). We see in a later account that Philip required a profession/confession of faith before he would baptize someone (verses 36 and 37) because he wanted to ascertain that they had been saved or converted first (just as John the Baptist insisted on repentance before he would baptize in water Matthew 3:7-8). In my opinion these folks were saved because they believed and received Jesus (the Word). Then as a result of their faith they were baptized in water. Even though they were saved and had Jesus living within, and were water baptized they had not received the experience that is called by various terms such as:

receiving the Spirit,
being filled with the Spirit,
the Spirit falling upon them,
the Spirit coming upon them,
being endued with power,
being baptized in the Spirit,
receiving the promise of the Father,
being filled with the Spirit

OK Sam, this is a bit long but bear with me on this…

I'm seeing a lot of opinion and conjecture in your post, Sam. But let's try to stick to what the book says.
I would not say the Samaritans were not saved and did not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within until the Apostles came down from the Jerusalem Church. I would say that they were saved when they believed (verse 12).

You "would say" they were saved? OK. But does the scripture say that?

Answer is "no" .

What it does say is that they received the word and were baptized. (Acts 8, v. 6, and 12) . "Receiving" the word, (i.e. accepting/believing the word) does not constitute salvation in and of itself.

It says plainly that the Holy Ghost had not yet come upon them. (v. 15-16)

The Word tells us that he who does not have the Spirit "is none of His" (Rom 8:9) or as the NIV renders it :
"if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ"
And if it is by one Spirit that we are baptized into the body (1 Cor 12:13), then a person is not even in the body of Christ (i.e. "not saved") if they haven't yet received the the Spirit. There's no way to get around that. It might not be popular to teach that, but it's scriptural!

So in light of Rom 8:9 & 1 Cor 12:13 on what basis then (apart from just your feelings), do you assert that the Samaritans in Acts 8 were saved (at verse 12) when the bible tells us they had not received the Holy Spirit?

We see in a later account that Philip required a profession/confession of faith before he would baptize someone (verses 36 and 37) because he wanted to ascertain that they had been saved or converted first

Did the eunuch say that? Or are you forcing that meaning into the text?
What did the eunuch say?

Lets look at that...verse 36-38:
36...the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
You are totally reading into that verse things that are not stated.
The only thing Philip asked was if the man believed. He wanted a profession of faith.

(The 2 things the scripture has ever shown to be required before baptism were 1/ believing/...or a "confession of faith" showing belief, as we see here in 8:36-38, and of course 2/ repentance [see acts 2:38] )

Did it say Philip required the man to be "saved, or converted" before baptism? No. You're saying that. (And you're probably reading that meaning into the scripture because you feel that believing is synonymous with salvation). All Philip was requiring was the confession of faith. Thats all that passage says.

On that note, we see that Jesus said
"he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. (Mark 16:16).
This indicates to us that baptism is part of the salvation process, not something that comes after salvation. So Philip wouldn't be trying..

to ascertain that they had been saved or converted first
before baptizing the man, since baptism isn't something that comes after salvation. NOTICE that Jesus didn't say "he that believes and is saved shall be baptized ...(which one might expect, if baptism truly came after salvation, as some claim).

See the distinction there?

In my opinion these folks were saved because they believed and received Jesus (the Word). Then as a result of their faith they were baptized in water. Even though they were saved and had Jesus living within, and were water baptized they had not received the experience..

There you go again.
In your opinion they were saved. You seem to rely on your opinion a lot with this. How about if we just stick to the Word?

In my opinion these folks were saved because they believed and received Jesus (the Word). Then as a result of their faith they were baptized in water. Even though they were saved and had Jesus living within, and were water baptized they had not received the experience..

So again you state that "they were saved", but you just stated you relied on your opinion in reaching the conclusion that they were saved! So now you basically continue to go further on developing your thought, based on something that you yourself stated is just your opinion! Sorry brother, that does not qualify as "rightly dividing the word". Not.Even.Close.

... were saved and had Jesus living within, and were water baptized they had not received the experience..

(See previous response). They "had Jesus living within" based on what scripture? I know its your opinion they were saved and had Jesus living within. You've already let us know that. But again, you continue to build your case on a foundation that is based on opinion, not solid scripture.

Even though they were saved and had Jesus living within, and were water baptized they had not received the experience that is called by various terms such as:

receiving the Spirit,
being filled with the Spirit,
the Spirit falling upon them,
the Spirit coming upon them,
being endued with power,
being baptized in the Spirit,
receiving the promise of the Father,
being filled with the Spirit

Okay!! Thank you, Sam.
You're actually helping me make my point here.

Clearly, (A )these terms you just listed all refer to the same single experience. Lets start with that...

And... (B) we know from scripture that receiving "the Holy Spirit", is the same as receiving the "Spirit of Christ", otherwise referred to as "the Spirit of your Father", or simply, "the Spirit". OK, basic stuff -- (there's one Spirit).
So...

That being said...

(1)... If... "he that has not the Spirit of Christ is none of his" (Rom 8:9) , then ...

a...the Samaritans in Acts 8 were "none of His" before they received the Holy Ghost, which didn't take place until verse 17

b... they were not in the body of Christ , since believers are baptized into the body by that one Spirit.

c... to put it simply, they were NOT saved because there is no salvation without having the Spirit of God (see Rom 8:9 again), which we can all see they had not yet received up to this point.

[B]and (2)... If (as Acts 8:15-16 says) they had not received the Holy Spirit, (aka the Spirit of Christ) , one cannot rightfully say "they had Jesus living within them" , since Jesus comes to live in us by way of His Spirit. The bible makes it abundantly clear that the Holy Ghost and the Spirit of Jesus Christ are that one Spirit.

Therefore, no Holy Spirit=No Spirit of Jesus Christ= No "Jesus living in their hearts"!! Its that simple.

Thus, it is a gross error to teach that a person who repents and believes in Jesus is saved before they "receive", /or "are baptized in"the Holy Spirit. There is nothing scriptural to support the idea/teaching that "Jesus comes and is living in " somebody before they receive the Spirit of Christ).

Essentially such a teaching would presuppose that the believer who comes to God receives a "first blessing" (initial coming of Jesus into their heart).. and then later a "second blessing" (i.e. the outpouring, infilling, baptism of the Spirit). There are many who teach this, and it serves as a nice convenient doctrine that makes a lot of people feel good, but its not supported by scripture, and it's SIMPLY. NOT. TRUE..

[mizpeh]

One last question, in Acts 19 why did Paul ask the disciples he found at Ephesus this question:

Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? KJV

Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" NASV

If Paul believed the Holy Ghost is received at faith why did he ask this question?

[TRFrance]

One last question, in Acts 19 why did Paul ask the disciples he found at Ephesus this question:

Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? KJV

Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" NASV

If Paul believed the Holy Ghost is received at faith why did he ask this question?

Good point. To take that a step further, Mizpheh,
Note that the same passage says: 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

After they got baptized, Paul subsequently laid hands for them to receive the holy Ghost. But if the Holy Ghost is automatically received by faith, why didn't they receive the HG upon believing Paul's gospel... or after that, simply upon being baptized?


The PCI version of salvation just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, when measured against scripture. It's simply a "Lite Version" of salvation.

.

[mizpeh]

The PCI version of salvation just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, when measured against scripture. It's simply a "Lite Version" of salvation.

.

But does a "Lite version" save?

I can understand why people would like to believe the PCI view. It's more inclusive but I agree it doesn't measure up. We can't change what is written in the Bible but only attempt to get at the truth by His grace.

Who knows why Noah was given exact instructions as to making the ark, or Moses the tabernacle, or why God chose faith in Christ, repentance toward God, and baptisms to bring us into his church? I'd like to know and understand the bigger picture but until then I have to trust the word of God and not the opinions of men.

[drummerboy_dave]

OK Sam, this is a bit long but bear with me on this…

I'm seeing a lot of opinion and conjecture in your post, Sam. But let's try to stick to what the book says.


You "would say" they were saved? OK. But does the scripture say that?

Answer is "no" .

What it does say is that they received the word and were baptized. (Acts 8, v. 6, and 12) . "Receiving" the word, (i.e. accepting/believing the word) does not constitute salvation in and of itself.

It says plainly that the Holy Ghost had not yet come upon them. (v. 15-16)

The Word tells us that he who does not have the Spirit "is none of His" (Rom 8:9) or as the NIV renders it :
"if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ"
And if it is by one Spirit that we are baptized into the body (1 Cor 12:13), then a person is not even in the body of Christ (i.e. "not saved") if they haven't yet received the the Spirit. There's no way to get around that. It might not be popular to teach that, but it's scriptural!

So in light of Rom 8:9 & 1 Cor 12:13 on what basis then (apart from just your feelings), do you assert that the Samaritans in Acts 8 were saved (at verse 12) when the bible tells us they had not received the Holy Spirit?



Did the eunuch say that? Or are you forcing that meaning into the text?
What did the eunuch say?

Lets look at that...verse 36-38:
36...the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
You are totally reading into that verse things that are not stated.
The only thing Philip asked was if the man believed. He wanted a profession of faith.

(The 2 things the scripture has ever shown to be required before baptism were 1/ believing/...or a "confession of faith" showing belief, as we see here in 8:36-38, and of course 2/ repentance [see acts 2:38] )

Did it say Philip required the man to be "saved, or converted" before baptism? No. You're saying that. (And you're probably reading that meaning into the scripture because you feel that believing is synonymous with salvation). All Philip was requiring was the confession of faith. Thats all that passage says.

On that note, we see that Jesus said
"he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. (Mark 16:16).
This indicates to us that baptism is part of the salvation process, not something that comes after salvation. So Philip wouldn't be trying..

before baptizing the man, since baptism isn't something that comes after salvation. NOTICE that Jesus didn't say "he that believes and is saved shall be baptized ...(which one might expect, if baptism truly came after salvation, as some claim).

See the distinction there?



There you go again.
In your opinion they were saved. You seem to rely on your opinion a lot with this. How about if we just stick to the Word?



So again you state that "they were saved", but you just stated you relied on your opinion in reaching the conclusion that they were saved! So now you basically continue to go further on developing your thought, based on something that you yourself stated is just your opinion! Sorry brother, that does not qualify as "rightly dividing the word". Not.Even.Close.



(See previous response). They "had Jesus living within" based on what scripture? I know its your opinion they were saved and had Jesus living within. You've already let us know that. But again, you continue to build your case on a foundation that is based on opinion, not solid scripture.



Okay!! Thank you, Sam.
You're actually helping me make my point here.

Clearly, (A )these terms you just listed all refer to the same single experience. Lets start with that...

And... (B) we know from scripture that receiving "the Holy Spirit", is the same as receiving the "Spirit of Christ", otherwise referred to as "the Spirit of your Father", or simply, "the Spirit". OK, basic stuff -- (there's one Spirit).
So...

That being said...

(1)... If... "he that has not the Spirit of Christ is none of his" (Rom 8:9) , then ...

a...the Samaritans in Acts 8 were "none of His" before they received the Holy Ghost, which didn't take place until verse 17

b... they were not in the body of Christ , since believers are baptized into the body by that one Spirit.

c... to put it simply, they were NOT saved because there is no salvation without having the Spirit of God (see Rom 8:9 again), which we can all see they had not yet received up to this point.

[B]and (2)... If (as Acts 8:15-16 says) they had not received the Holy Spirit, (aka the Spirit of Christ) , one cannot rightfully say "they had Jesus living within them" , since Jesus comes to live in us by way of His Spirit. The bible makes it abundantly clear that the Holy Ghost and the Spirit of Jesus Christ are that one Spirit.

Therefore, no Holy Spirit=No Spirit of Jesus Christ= No "Jesus living in their hearts"!! Its that simple.

Thus, it is a gross error to teach that a person who repents and believes in Jesus is saved before they "receive", /or "are baptized in"the Holy Spirit. There is nothing scriptural to support the idea/teaching that "Jesus comes and is living in " somebody before they receive the Spirit of Christ).

Essentially such a teaching would presuppose that the believer who comes to God receives a "first blessing" (initial coming of Jesus into their heart).. and then later a "second blessing" (i.e. the outpouring, infilling, baptism of the Spirit). There are many who teach this, and it serves as a nice convenient doctrine that makes a lot of people feel good, but its not supported by scripture, and it's SIMPLY. NOT. TRUE..This is a very well laid out post, brother. Good work.

[drummerboy_dave]

But does a "Lite version" save?

I can understand why people would like to believe the PCI view. It's more inclusive but I agree it doesn't measure up. We can't change what is written in the Bible but only attempt to get at the truth by His grace.

Who knows why Noah was given exact instructions as to making the ark, or Moses the tabernacle, or why God chose faith in Christ, repentance toward God, and baptisms to bring us into his church? I'd like to know and understand the bigger picture but until then I have to trust the word of God and not the opinions of men.Right. It reminds me of 2Timothy 3:5 and 2Timothy 4:3.

[Joelel]

Your not saved if your not filled with the Holy Ghost,If the Spirit don't dwell IN you..Your none of his.

.Rom.8:9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his

If we believe we will eat his word and drink his Spirit and only then will we have life.When we drink his Spirit we are filled with his Spirit.


John 6:47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48. I am that bread of life.
49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh (Word) of the Son of man, and drink his blood,(Drink his Spirit) ye have no life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61. When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life

Be washed by the Holy Ghost. We are washed and regenerated and renewed and SAVED when we are filled with the Holy Ghost.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. -- Titus 3:5

[Darcie]

Darcie , youre totally missing the point here, and I see you're not even bothering to respond to the scriptural references I mentioned.


Yes the Holy Ghost is a he.. nobody is arguing with that. How is that relevant to this issue?

The Holy Ghost is promised by God. Again, nobody is disputing that. That is not the issue here.
We know the HG is promised by God. The question is, is someone saved before receiving of the Holy Ghost. ? If so, at what point, does the Holy Ghost come into the person?

Obviously you think the baptism of the Holy Ghost is different from the gift of the Holy Ghost. That is so not scriptural , I’m just shaking my head to see that people actually believe that.


I think Sam did a good job of showing that the following descriptions, used interchangeably in the NT, are different ways of describing the same experience.

These are all the same thing. Otherwise show me, Darcy, from scripture, how the baptism of the Holy Ghost is a separate experience from receiving the Holy Ghost.

And explain to me how believing the 2 are the same "makes the Holy Ghost an object". I don't even see the rationale there in that, or how that even matters one way or another in this discussion.


Again, more of the same. Nobody here is "separating them" here. I STILL fail to see how any of this is relevant to the point of Scott's question.
[quote=Darcie;325924]

Ok, its a gift. We know that, Darcie.
Let me ask it this way... at what point does the gift come... when you believe? , when you decide to accept Jesus? When they get baptized? or when exactly? When do you know the person has received the gift?


Fine - let's deal with that question, which really deals with the issue at hand . I see what your train of thought is on this, but what scriptures are you using to support this thought?
Lets go with what the scriptures say, not just the concepts you and I might have in our mind.

So you think if someone repents and is baptized, then they must have God in them? . Ok, fine... scriptures please. I am more than willing to hear them. And don't just say acts 2:38, because that doesn't prove anything as far as the point being discussed in this thread.
----

Now speaking of scriptures, I'll go back to my earlier reference, which you didn't bother to respond to... I'll be brief, since I've already referred to it...

1) In Acts 8, the Samaritans repented and were baptized , but had not received the Holy Ghost... until till afterward, when Peter and John came to and prayed for them to receive it. So tell me, doesn't that blatantly undermine your theory on this??

2) Lets throw in another one. Piggybacking on Mizpah’s question above….


If you receive the Holy Ghost by repenting and believing, as some say, why was Ananias sent to pray for Paul to receive the Holy Ghost. Paul saw Jesus, and believed, & had evidently repented, and was even fasting, right?

So 1 point and 1 question for you then…

A--If Paul had received the Holy Ghost just by repenting, he wouldn't have needed Ananias to pray for him to receive the gift...

B---Or do you believe the the Holy Ghost "just comes" at baptism ? In that case, tell us why that didn’t happen with the Samaritans in Acts 8.


I believe that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is the gift, the experience. A baptism that comes from God (who is Father, Son, Spirit). Something we have no control over. He is the one who gives it.

I am not missing the point. I used to believe like you do. I've said my peace and really don't think its worth the debate.

[SDG]

the W & S crowd often forgets that filling/receiving/ the Holy Ghost is not simply an experience of speaking in tongues .... this is a manifestation ... but the Spirit of God has been moving througout time ... when it moved over the face of the waters ... dwelled within prophets and others in the OT and He dwells/makes residence in those that accept Him through faith in His Incarnate Word - Jesus Christ.

Rev. 3 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Rev.+3):

20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

1 John 5:1 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+John+5%3A1) Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him

Romans 8 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Romans+8);11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you

Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me" (John 15:4 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+15%3A4)).

If you abide in My Word, then you are truly disciples of Mine" (John 8:31 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+8%3A31)).

"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in Him." John 6 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+6): 53-56

[Joelel]

There is salvation only in the truth.

The Importance of knowing ALL truth and receiving ALL truth,NO perversion.John17:17. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth

You can only be born (regenerated) by the truth of God's word Jesus (Jehoshua,Yehowshuwa)

1 Peter001:022Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth (word) through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 001:023Being born (regenerated) again, not of corruptible seed (word) , but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever

1 John003:009Whosoever is born (regenerated) of God doth not commit (practice) sin; for his seed (Word) remaineth in him: and he cannot (practice) sin, because he is born (regenerated) of God

[Joelel]

Acts10:43: To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.So to believe means to Repent and be baptized because Acts 2:38: says,Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,So we must conclude that if believing gives remission of sins and Repenting and being baptized gives remission of sins,then believing don't simply mean to believe Jesus died for your sins and accept him as you savour

[mizpeh]

the W & S crowd often forgets that filling/receiving/ the Holy Ghost is not simply an experience of speaking in tongues .... this is a manifestation ... but the Spirit of God has been moving througout time ... when it moved over the face of the waters ... dwelled within prophets and others in the OT and He dwells/makes residence in those that accept Him through faith in His Incarnate Word - Jesus Christ.

Rev. 3 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Rev.+3):

20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

1 John 5:1 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+John+5%3A1) Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him

Romans 8 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Romans+8);11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you

Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me" (John 15:4 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+15%3A4)).

If you abide in My Word, then you are truly disciples of Mine" (John 8:31 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+8%3A31)).

"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in Him." John 6 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+6): 53-56

Why don't you address what TRFrance has written? The question is when does the Spirit indwell a believer? You have said at faith. Please prove it with the scriptures that agree with your assertion.

[SDG]

Why don't you address what TRFrance has written? The question is when does the Spirit indwell a believer? You have said at faith. Please prove it with the scriptures that agree with your assertion.

Revelation 3 does alone. ... in conjuction to the other verses listed .... faith goes hand-in-hand w/ repentance ... AFTER COMMANDING REPENTANCE he said if ANYONE HEARS MY VOICE [FAITH COMETH BY HEARING ... HEARING THE WORD] .... THEN I WILL COME IN [INDWELL] AND EAT WITH HIM AND HE WITH ME.

[TRFrance]

I believe that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is the gift, the experience. A baptism that comes from God (who is Father, Son, Spirit). Something we have no control over. He is the one who gives it.

I am not missing the point. I used to believe like you do. I've said my peace and really don't think its worth the debate.

Well, this was a discussion of a biblical/doctrinal topic. You gave your opinion, and I simply asked you to support it with scriptures if you could. Rather that doing so, you choose to say:

I've said my peace and really don't think its worth the debate.
Thats fine; not a problem at all. But what's the purpose of chiming in on a biblically based discussion if you don't feel like bothering to show the scriptures that support how you feel on the topic?

Anyway, suit yourself.

Blessings...


.

[SDG]

This one is even easier:

These are all the same thing. Otherwise show me, Darcy, from scripture, how the baptism of the Holy Ghost is a separate experience from receiving the Holy Ghost.

John 20:22

And when he had said this, he(A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22&version=47;#cen-ESV-26878A)) breathed on them and said to them, (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22&version=47;#cen-ESV-26878B)) "Receive the Holy Spirit."

[Darcie]

Well, this was a discussion of a biblical/doctrinal topic. You gave your opinion, and I simply asked you to support it with scriptures if you could. Rather that doing so, you choose to say:

Thats fine; not a problem at all. But what's the purpose of chiming in on a biblically based discussion if you don't feel like bothering to show the scriptures that support how you feel on the topic?

Anyway, suit yourself.

Blessings...


.
My brother Daniel has done a fine job for me.

Thanks Dan! (With all the packing, I don't have the energy to get into this one.)

[TRFrance]

Why don't you address what TRFrance has written? The question is when does the Spirit indwell a believer? You have said at faith. Please prove it with the scriptures that agree with your assertion.

He hasn't responded to the specific scriptures, and most PCI'ers wont even try. They'll just try to trot out some other (out-of-context) scriptures to support what they feel.

The question is pretty straightforward. At what point does the spirit come to indwell the believer??. They'll say at believing/at accepting/ at baptism/ ... but their are scriptures that blatantly contradict that, and they cant provide a solid answer to those direct scriptures.

[SDG]

He hasn't responded to the specific scriptures, and most PCI'ers wont even try. They'll just try to trot out some other (out-of-context) scriptures to support what they feel.

The question is pretty straightforward. At what point does the spirit come to indwell the believer??. They'll say at believing/at accepting/ at baptism/ ... but their are scriptures that blatantly contradict that, and they cant provide a solid answer to those direct scriptures.

Please go down the context road ... since filled to you must always means initial indwelling???? ....

You asked for scripture ... you don't have one for your own question ... is it when they speak in tongues and/or prophesy???

You've mistaken an experience w/ God making fellowship in the heart of a man.

Let alone only 4 conversion experiences of 21 that include tongues in the book of ACTS yet you make the experience salvific ... A REQUIREMENT THAT IS A GIFT???? ... with no evidence for or against this happening in every case ...

if heaven and hell hinged on a tongues experience ... the bible would be more than clear on the issue ...


AS IT IS W/ SAVING FAITH AND TURNING TO GOD.

btw .... Your example in Acts 8 has no tongues. There is a visible laying of hands.
btw ... NO PCIer says the indwelling happens at baptism ... wrong set of believers.

[Joelel]

This one is even easier:



John 20:22

And when he had said this, he(A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22&version=47;#cen-ESV-26878A)) breathed on them and said to them, (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22&version=47;#cen-ESV-26878B)) "Receive the Holy Spirit."

Luke wrote that Jesus said this at the same time.When he said receive the Holy Ghost means the same as tarry in the city of Jerusalem.So they obeyed and was filled with the Holy Ghost on the day of pentecost.Luke.24
[29] But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
[49] And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

[SDG]

Luke wrote that Jesus said this at the same time.When he said receive the Holy Ghost means the same as tarry in the city of Jerusalem.So they obeyed and was filled with the Holy Ghost on the day of pentecost.Luke.24
[29] But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
[49] And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

At the same time? As in historically or about the same event? The were various appearings.

Your first verse is w/ the 2 disciples walking to Emmaus ... the invitation was to stay w/ them that evening.

The second is a promise of being endued w/ power to the eleven.

Your point?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

:hmm so being filled with Joy equates the Holy Ghost (Spirit of the Christ) infilling?

Some weird theology here and direct contrast to John 3:1-8

Why then would someone ever seek the Holy Ghost if the Holy Ghost infilling is now equated to an option?

[SDG]

:hmm so being filled with Joy equates the Holy Ghost (Spirit of the Christ) infilling?

Some weird theology here and direct contrast to John 3:1-8

Why then would someone ever seek the Holy Ghost if the Holy Ghost infilling is now equated to an option?

An option ... BOOM??? ...the HG is a reality for all believers

that's in contrast to making a gift a REQUIREMENT .. based on a manifestation/ sign for the unbeliever.

But it makes for great stats on the UPCI.org cover page.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Not to be ugly or mean spirited,but I don't anybody receiving the Holy Ghost in John 20.
I used to attend a Trinitarian full gospel church and they taught that one receives a measure of the Spirit at salvation and another measure of the Spirit at the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
You to me it's kinda of odd ,but to hold ministerial license with the AOG one must have the HG. baptism with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance ,but they teach one can make heaven without it,but you can't hold a license with them if you don't have the Holy Ghost baptism.

[Joelel]

I might be posting this in the wrong area and if so please forgive me.
I understand some Pentecostal groups and some here on AFF ,believe one is saved and then filled with The Holy Ghost.Evidently a fair amount of OPs teach this.
Now this is asked in charity, but I do read scriptures that say without the Spirit of Christ you can't be His,or none of His Or I read verses that say it is by One Spirit we are baptized into one body.

Ok what is the difference in receiving the Holy Ghost and being baptized with The Holy Ghost ?Isn't terms like being filled with The Holy Spirit and such synonymous terms for the same experience.
If regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit how can one be regenerate with the Spirit of Christ ?

Also doesn't receiving the Spirit comes after repentance and not at repentance I understand.Because doesn't ACTS.2:37,38 teach that the Holy Ghost comes after repentance.

So can one be saved and not have the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit ?

I am open-minded and willing to hear other's views on this subject.

Hi,We see here in the first two chapters of Acts that being baptized with the Holy Ghost and being filled with the Holy Ghost is the same.They are told in verse 5 but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.So they obeyed what Jesus commanded them to do and in Acts 2: 1 they were filled.


Acts.1
[1] The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
[2] Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
[3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
[4] And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
[5] For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
[6] When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
[7] And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
[8] But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
[10] And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
[11] Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
[12] Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
[13] And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
[14] These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
[15] And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
[16] Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
[17] For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
[18] Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
[19] And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
[20] For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
[21] Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
[22] Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
[23] And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
[24] And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
[25] That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
[26] And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Acts.2
[1] And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
[2] And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
[3] And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
[4] And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance

[TRFrance]

Not to be ugly or mean spirited,but I don't anybody receiving the Holy Ghost in John 20.
I used to attend a Trinitarian full gospel church and they taught that one receives a measure of the Spirit at salvation and another measure of the Spirit at the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
You to me it's kinda of odd ,but to hold ministerial license with the AOG one must have the HG. baptism with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance ,but they teach one can make heaven without it,but you can't hold a license with them if you don't have the Holy Ghost baptism.

Very strange stuff, Scott.

It essentially teaches 2 different levels of the Holy Ghost experience (first blessing/second blessing). Its a nice, convenient, warm-and-fuzzy, doctrine.

Its also as bogus as a $3 bill.

[SDG]

Very strange stuff, Scott.

It essentially teaches 2 different levels of the Holy Ghost experience (first blessing/second blessing). Its a nice, convenient, warm-and-fuzzy, doctrine.

Its also as bogus as a $3 bill.

It's as bogus as souls who who have been regenerated and accepted by Christ ...

but have not spoken in tongues after weeks ... months ... years of seeking .... but go through marathon sessions with folks yelling and coaching them in their ears ... while patting them on the back ... giving them hush puppy eyes and a wince if they don't receive it that night ... and must go home thinking they will be lost for eternity until it happens ... or worse .. the feel rejected and despondent and turn to sin once again ...

Just because they're obsessed w/ counting to see who is in the ship ... and who is out ...

[TRFrance]

DANIEL, question for you.

Just to make sure I'm clear on something here...

Are being baptized with the spirit, filled with the spirit, and receiving the gift of the Spirit the same thing ?

(Some PCI'ers seem to think they are, and some say they're not. Is there a standardized PCI position on this?)

If not, what is the distinction between them, and what scriptures support a distinction among them, if there is such a distinction ?

[SDG]

DANIEL, question for you.

Just to make sure I'm clear on something here...

Are being baptized with the spirit, filled with the spirit, and receiving the gift of the Spirit the same thing ?

(Some PCI'ers seem to think they are, and some say they're not. Is there a standardized PCI position on this?)

If not, what is the distinction between them, and what scriptures support a distinction among them, if there is such a distinction ?

Being born of the Spirit or indwelt by God's Spirit... happens at the point of faith/true belief ...

John 3 and 1 John 5

1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

God is a spirit.


1. As for the first term ... baptized w/ the Spirit

the first term is used in the Gospels and alluded to in the epistles ... we do not find anyone being baptized in the spirit as a phrase ..

Sam said it best when he said early in this thread:


The work of the Spirit begins in us when we are drawn to Jesus.
The Spirit then opens our hearts to Jesus.
When we make that surrender to Jesus He comes into our hearts to dwell as the Holy Spirit and we are:
born of the Spirit,
sealed by the Spirit unto the day of the redemption of the purchased possession,
baptized (placed) by the Holy Spirit into Christ or into the Body of Christ.

Yet the baptism of the Holy Ghost can be exegeted with little effort. This also means neither you or I can point to a verse that specifically uses this phraseology ...

2. Filled w/ the Spirit, and other terms...

in PAJC circles is meant to mean the intial dwelling of the Holy Ghost w/ the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues .... yet the term is used in many instances w/o the evidence of tongues prior and post Pentecost ..... What is the PCI position?

Sam stated:

Some of us here believe that the disciples of Jesus were saved and had their names written in Heaven before (Luke 10:20 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Luke+10%3A20)) the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts chapter 2. Before Jesus ascended He told them to wait in Jerusalem until they received an empowerment of the Spirit which He also referred to as a baptism in the Spirit (Acts 1:4-8 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+1%3A4-8)). Ten days later they received an experience which says they were "filled" with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+2%3A4)). Peter referred to this experience as the Spirit being poured out (Acts 2:17, 32 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+2%3A17)). Later in Acts 4:8 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+4%3A8) we read that Peter was filled with the Spirit, and still later he was among a group of people who were filled with the Spirit (Acts 4:31 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+4%3A31)).

So, there are experiences subsequent to being born of the Spirit when it speaks of the Spirit being poured out; the Spirit coming upon; receiving (making room for) the Spirit; being immersed/baptized/saturated in the Spirit; and being filled with the Spirit.

I await your answer to my previous posts.

[freeatlast]

Good job Dan and Sam. The gospel is so simple and so freely given.

Some still can't see it and insist on making it an ardurous difficult task to "get it".

Someone alluded to "our" get it terminolgy earlier in this thread I think. To refer to God as 'it" has for so long seemed so disgusting to me.

In our OP circles we hear it often repeated. They got it/ did you get it/ how many got it at camp... we are "oneness folks" but we sure have "separated" the Holy Ghost from Jesus Christ.

Just sounds degrading to the very experience of recievving Christ and his word into ones life.

[J-Roc]

It's as bogus as souls who who have been regenerated and accepted by Christ ...

but have not spoken in tongues after weeks ... months ... years of seeking .... but go through marathon sessions with folks yelling and coaching them in their ears ... while patting them on the back ... giving them hush puppy eyes and a wince if they don't receive it that night ... and must go home thinking they will be lost for eternity until it happens ... or worse .. the feel rejected and despondent and turn to sin once again ...

Just because they're obsessed w/ counting to see who is in the ship ... and who is out ...


Well well, Dan...looks like I qualify as one of those dudes going through the marathons and living terrorized....roughly 16 yrs of living and serving the Lord before I spoke in tongues (which lasted for about 90 minutes without me being able to stop when my first experience happened).

But all those years living for God leading up to that experience was ALL DONE BY ME AND ONLY ME....FOR I HAVE WILL POWER AND MIND OVER MATTER...and I alone showed the fruits of the Spirit by my own abilities and power.....

....uhhh, at least that's what they would have to believe since God was not dwelling in me all those years.

You are not hearing good news, when you are told that it is not enough to place your trust in Jesus Christ and his shed blood on the cross and that you have to wait for an experience to confirm....it is terrorizing news and can last for 16 yrs.

Oy vey.... :banghead :banghead :banghead



SOMEONE PLEASE POINT ME TO THE CROSS!!!!!

[berkeley]

Not to be ugly or mean spirited,but I don't anybody receiving the Holy Ghost in John 20.
I used to attend a Trinitarian full gospel church and they taught that one receives a measure of the Spirit at salvation and another measure of the Spirit at the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
You to me it's kinda of odd ,but to hold ministerial license with the AOG one must have the HG. baptism with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance ,but they teach one can make heaven without it,but you can't hold a license with them if you don't have the Holy Ghost baptism.

this is because the AoG believes that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is an annointing of one to minister.

[Joelel]

At the same time? As in historically or about the same event? The were various appearings.

Your first verse is w/ the 2 disciples walking to Emmaus ... the invitation was to stay w/ them that evening.

The second is a promise of being endued w/ power to the eleven.

Your point?

This is all the same event,referred to as the great commission.This is when Jesus appeared to the disciples after his resurrection

Math.28:16: Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17: And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen

Mark 16:14: Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17: And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18: They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19: So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20: And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Luke24:33: And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
34: Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
35: And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
36: And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37: But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38: And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40: And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41: And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42: And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43: And he took it, and did eat before them.
44: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45: Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46: And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48: And ye are witnesses of these things.
49: And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
50: And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51: And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
52: And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
53: And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen

John 20:19: Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20: And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21: Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22: And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
24: But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25: The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26: And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27: Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28: And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29: Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

[mizpeh]

Revelation 3 does alone. ... in conjuction to the other verses listed .... faith goes hand-in-hand w/ repentance ... AFTER COMMANDING REPENTANCE he said if ANYONE HEARS MY VOICE [FAITH COMETH BY HEARING ... HEARING THE WORD] .... THEN I WILL COME IN [INDWELL] AND EAT WITH HIM AND HE WITH ME.

Dan, you're not rightly dividing the word of God. Who is Jesus speaking to when he says he is standing at the door and knocking? The church of Laodicea who are believers not unbelievers.

[mizpeh]

This one is even easier:



John 20:22

And when he had said this, he(A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22&version=47;#cen-ESV-26878A)) breathed on them and said to them, (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22&version=47;#cen-ESV-26878B)) "Receive the Holy Spirit."

This is symbolic. No one was filled with the Spirit at that time otherwise why did Jesus instruct the disciples to wait at Jerusalem, why not go out and start preaching right away? What about these verses?

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

When did Jesus send the Comforter?

Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

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.)

When was Jesus glorified?

Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted,

[mizpeh]

Please go down the context road ... since filled to you must always means initial indwelling???? ....

You asked for scripture ... you don't have one for your own question ... is it when they speak in tongues and/or prophesy???

You've mistaken an experience w/ God making fellowship in the heart of a man.

Let alone only 4 conversion experiences of 21 that include tongues in the book of ACTS yet you make the experience salvific ... A REQUIREMENT THAT IS A GIFT???? ... with no evidence for or against this happening in every case ...

if heaven and hell hinged on a tongues experience ... the bible would be more than clear on the issue ...


AS IT IS W/ SAVING FAITH AND TURNING TO GOD.

btw .... Your example in Acts 8 has no tongues. There is a visible laying of hands.
btw ... NO PCIer says the indwelling happens at baptism ... wrong set of believers.

You are redirecting the discussion and going off topic to avoid answering questions. We can discuss speaking in tongues as an evidence. I remember a discussion with Theophilus who penned the phrase "necessary redundancy". But let's finish this discussion first then move on to tongues as a sign. :rudolph

[mizpeh]

An option ... BOOM??? ...the HG is a reality for all believers

that's in contrast to making a gift a REQUIREMENT .. based on a manifestation/ sign for the unbeliever.

But it makes for great stats on the UPCI.org cover page.

the gift is a requirement....Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

[mizpeh]

Well well, Dan...looks like I qualify as one of those dudes going through the marathons and living terrorized....roughly 16 yrs of living and serving the Lord before I spoke in tongues (which lasted for about 90 minutes without me being able to stop when my first experience happened).

But all those years living for God leading up to that experience was ALL DONE BY ME AND ONLY ME....FOR I HAVE WILL POWER AND MIND OVER MATTER...and I alone showed the fruits of the Spirit by my own abilities and power.....

....uhhh, at least that's what they would have to believe since God was not dwelling in me all those years.

You are not hearing good news, when you are told that it is not enough to place your trust in Jesus Christ and his shed blood on the cross and that you have to wait for an experience to confirm....it is terrorizing news and can last for 16 yrs.

Oy vey.... :banghead :banghead :banghead



SOMEONE PLEASE POINT ME TO THE CROSS!!!!!

JRoc, how old were you when you first spoke in tongues? Are you saying you went through 16 years of accountability after repentance before you spoke in tongues? Are you Dan's age now?

[TRFrance]

This one is even easier:


John 20:22

And when he had said this, he(A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22&version=47;#cen-ESV-26878A)) breathed on them and said to them, (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22&version=47;#cen-ESV-26878B)) "Receive the Holy Spirit."


Sorry Dan. This is an "easy" one? and you still got it wrong too?

The John 20 passage proves nothing here . Here is the the problem.

Yes, Jesus did say "Receive the Holy Ghost", but did the passage say they actually received it then, or later? They did not receive the Holy Ghost until Pentecost. Have you forgotten that ?

If they had received it in John 20, Jesus would not have told them to "tarry in Jerusalem" for the Spirit to come. (Luke24:49)

Also if the HG had already come upon them there in John 20, Jesus wouldnt not have had to tell them that it would be coming. (see Acts 1:8) "And ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost shall come upon you"

So Dan, I dare say that neither you, nor any PCI-er on this board can show us anywhere in the Word that describes the disciples actually receiving the HG before Pentecost.


My brother Daniel has done a fine job for me.

Thanks Dan! (With all the packing, I don't have the energy to get into this one.)

Darcy,if you choose to have people like Daniel do the doctrinal heavy lifting for you -- be careful whose lead you're following. Jesus talked about blind folks trying to lead others... it doesn't usually work out too well!

[TRFrance]

Dan, you're not rightly dividing the word of God. Who is Jesus speaking to when he says he is standing at the door and knocking? The church of Laodicea who are believers not unbelievers.

THANK YOU!!

Jesus was speaking to the saints in the Laodicean church opening their hearts to him

He was not speaking about salvation by any means. How can anyone look at that passage in proper context and say Jesus was talking about salvation of sinners?

This goes back to what I said before. These people pluck scriptures out of context to support a convenient but bogus doctrine.

This guy is so way off, its scary. And he actually acted like Rev 3:20 was a solid proof text for his position. Not even close.

Why don't you address what TRFrance has written? The question is when does the Spirit indwell a believer? You have said at faith. Please prove it with the scriptures that agree with your assertion.

Revelation 3 does alone. ... in conjuction to the other verses listed .... faith goes hand-in-hand w/ repentance ... AFTER COMMANDING REPENTANCE he said if ANYONE HEARS MY VOICE [FAITH COMETH BY HEARING ... HEARING THE WORD] .... THEN I WILL COME IN [INDWELL] AND EAT WITH HIM AND HE WITH ME.

Wrong again, Dan!! If Revelation 3:20 is a key scripture in your argument, it just shows how weak your case is, sir.


Dan, what is your response to Mizpeh's post on that?

[SDG]

Dan, you're not rightly dividing the word of God. Who is Jesus speaking to when he says he is standing at the door and knocking? The church of Laodicea who are believers not unbelievers.

UM ... who is ANYONE?? that's what the verse says ... not anyone in the church of Laodicea .... anyone!!!!! Of course he was addressing the church but the anyone is anyone ... generic anyone. Like open invitation anyone.

This not speaking to believers .... cop out holds no water in the light that y'all use Epistles to support your doctrines too ...

That's one scripture ... would you like another one?

[SDG]

TR ... you know you asked various questions and each time after they're answered you re-phrase it ... I will delineate your debate technique later.

[TRFrance]

UM ... who is ANYONE?? that's what the verse says ... not anyone in the church of Laodicea .... anyone!!!!! Of course he was addressing the church but the anyone is anyone ... generic anyone. Like open invitation anyone.

This not speaking to believers .... cop out holds no water in the light that y'all use Epistles to support your doctrines too ...

That's one scripture ... would you like another one?

Dan, stop the madness please. Context here. Jesus was talking to the saints and his whole conversation was to the lukewarm Laodicean church. He didn't throw in a verse all of a sudden dealing with sinners, when his whole conversation is about the saints in the Laodicean church!!

Look at whole passage. ..
14 “And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%203;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-30755f)] write,
‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: 15 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%203;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-30757g)] I will vomit you out of My mouth. 1718 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. 21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’”

Dan, who is he talking to, and what is he talking about? Is he not taking to a lukewarm church that needs to repent?

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION DOCTRINE.

The "anyone" he is speaking to is specifically dealing with anyone in the Laodicean church he is addressing. Is that too hard to see?

Or do you just want to cling ferociously to your position, despite what the word is clearly saying??

[TRFrance]

TR ... you know you asked various questions and each time after they're answered you re-phrase it ... I will delineate your debate technique later.

No Dan, I've asked various questions which you have dodged.

Dan, I've asked you different questions... its not a matter of "re-phrasing" the questions. You're obviously evading certain questions, so I've try to ask different questions to elicit some direct answers out of you.

Dan, you still haven't even answered this question I asked you earlier. Remember this post?
DANIEL, question for you.

Just to make sure I'm clear on something here...

Are being baptized with the spirit, filled with the spirit, and receiving the gift of the Spirit the same thing ?

(Some PCI'ers seem to think they are, and some say they're not. Is there a standardized PCI position on this?)

If not, what is the distinction between them, and what scriptures support a distinction among them, if there is such a distinction ?
Straightforward question. But No answer from you. But its fine. Its starting to matter less and less now. I'm not really finding you to be very credible anyway.


And you still haven't responded directly to the acts 8 and Acts 19 examples that directly undercut your PCI position .

Then again, if you actually think, or claim, Rev 3:20 applies to sinners seeking salvation, you show just how off you are scripturally. That right there shows you have no real credibility on this. Of course, you'd never admit you're wrong on that passage, even though its been made clear to you that you're off. Your'e so in love with your PCI doctrine that you'll cling to it relentlessly.

The concept of rightly dividing the word is just not something you seem to want to employ, at least not on this topic.

(Your using Rev 3:20 as a proof text just illustrates just how biblically weak your position is. I think even some of your PCI buddies would recognize that Rev 3:20 is not a good verse of scripture to use for your doctrine.)

You seemed as if you were one of the PCI-champions on this board, and I welcomed a chance to hear from you and some of the other PCI defenders on this board. But the proof is in the pudding. I've been getting a lot of:

*evasiveness,
*non-answers,
*verses pulled out of context that don't respond to some of my direct points and questions I posed,
*arguments based on logic and feeling that have no scripture to back them up,
*... or I'm getting peripheral stuff thrown out there doesn't even relate to the salvation issue at all !!

You guys are trying to give it your best shot, and your best shot has been shown to be lame. I dunno, somehow I kind of expected better, but I guess I really shouldn't have.

Sorry to say Dan, your doctrinal/scriptural presentations to support your position have been rather weak --- then again, so is the doctrine you’re defending, so I guess that’s to be expected.

I suppose you can only do so much to prop up a doctrine that really has no biblical legs to stand on in the first place.

[freeatlast]

Gal 3:2 this only would I learn of you, Recieved ye the spirit by the woks of the law. or by the hearing of faith ?

I came , I heard , I believed, I received.

My life was forever changed in that instant....and I did'nt speak in tongues.

Later , as I grew in grace, Christ manifested his spirit in my life and I spoke in other tongues. I was filled with his spirit, The spirit fell on me.

It has happened many times since. I trust tomorrow He will fill me once again as his spirit falls on me.

It's all good.

[mizpeh]

Gal 3:2 this only would I learn of you, Recieved ye the spirit by the woks of the law. or by the hearing of faith ?

I came , I heard , I believed, I received.

My life was forever changed in that instant....and I did'nt speak in tongues.

Later , as I grew in grace, Christ manifested his spirit in my life and I spoke in other tongues. I was filled with his spirit, The spirit fell on me.

It has happened many times since. I trust tomorrow He will fill me once again as his spirit falls on me.

It's all good.

My experience would be similar but a little different than yours. I was witnessed to and believed. I read the gospels and repented. I called a chaplain and was baptized and felt clean on the inside and a profound sense of peace while under the water...(I stayed under there longer than usual because it was in a bathtub and the minister was trying to make sure I was under!). I asked God to use my hands as his own and when I laid my hands and prayed, I started speaking in tongues. I found a Oneness church less than a year after that.

Faith in Christ and repentance made a huge change in me. I no longer wanted to do the things I use to do. All I thought about was God. I wanted to seek his face by reading his word and prayer. I told almost everyone I came into contact with about Jesus. God was with me but He wasn't in me until I received the Spirit with the evidence of tongues.

[Kansas Preacher]

If anyone is interested, I preached a message on this subject a while back. You can hear it on our church website. It is called "With You or In You," and is under the "Featured Sermons (http://www.newlifepc.com/featuredsermons.html)."

[SDG]

Dan, stop the madness please. Context here. Jesus was talking to the saints and his whole conversation was to the lukewarm Laodicean church. He didn't throw in a verse all of a sudden dealing with sinners, when his whole conversation is about the saints in the Laodicean church!!

Look at whole passage. ..14 “And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%203;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-30755f)] write,
‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: 15 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%203;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-30757g)] I will vomit you out of My mouth. 1718 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. 21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’”

Dan, who is he talking to, and what is he talking about? Is he not taking to a lukewarm church that needs to repent?

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION DOCTRINE.

The "anyone" he is speaking to is specifically dealing with anyone in the Laodicean church he is addressing. Is that too hard to see?

Or do you just want to cling ferociously to your position, despite what the word is clearly saying??

The Word is clearly saying when we believe on the Word we are born of the Spirit .... It's an open invitation ... if we abide in His Word, He will abide in us ... A promise is a promise despite the context .... it's applicable in every situation .... are we to only preach this passage in the context of the Laodicean church ... imagine if this was the measure in preaching and teaching.

[SDG]

Now the Samarians are rank sinners while they awaited Peter and John to lay hands on them... I thought their sins were washed away....???

Furthermore, there are examples of conversions of sinners and no tongues what say ye ....??? I ask this because ... when did they become His??? No evidence of a set pattern of Holy Ghost filling? Why not?

It's hilarious that you guys call plausible explanations evasiveness .... non-answers ... it's disingenuous.

And you still haven't responded directly to the acts 8 and Acts 19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+19) examples that directly undercut your PCI position .

Then again, if you actually think, or claim, Rev 3:20 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Rev+3%3A20) applies to sinners seeking salvation, you show just how off you are scripturally. That right there shows you have no real credibility on this. Of course, you'd never admit you're wrong on that passage, even though its been made clear to you that you're off. Your'e so in love with your PCI doctrine that you'll cling to it relentlessly.

[SDG]

Dan, who is he talking to, and what is he talking about? Is he not taking to a lukewarm church that needs to repent?

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION DOCTRINE.

Now repenting is a one stop ... good for all time step??

Repenting, no matter when it's done, has nothing to w/ salvation doctrine?

Are Once Saved, Always Saved?

Repentance is a lifestyle ... a turning to God ... that goes beyond your 2 minute altar call

[J-Roc]

Revelation 3 does alone. ... in conjuction to the other verses listed .... faith goes hand-in-hand w/ repentance ... AFTER COMMANDING REPENTANCE he said if ANYONE HEARS MY VOICE [FAITH COMETH BY HEARING ... HEARING THE WORD] .... THEN I WILL COME IN [INDWELL] AND EAT WITH HIM AND HE WITH ME.

Dan, you're not rightly dividing the word of God. Who is Jesus speaking to when he says he is standing at the door and knocking? The church of Laodicea who are believers not unbelievers.


Mizpeh, who does "anyone" include? or better yet, who does it exclude?

[mizpeh]

UM ... who is ANYONE?? that's what the verse says ... not anyone in the church of Laodicea .... anyone!!!!! Of course he was addressing the church but the anyone is anyone ... generic anyone. Like open invitation anyone.

This not speaking to believers .... cop out holds no water in the light that y'all use Epistles to support your doctrines too ...

That's one scripture ... would you like another one?

Sure it says 'anyone' but you are taking it out of context. The context is Jesus is speaking to the seven CHURCHES in Asia. To read it the way you want it, you have to literally read it as a rebuke to a church, then an altar call to the sinner, and then an encouragement to the church that was just rebuked. The way you read it is like Jesus is arbitrarily interjecting something which doesn't fit with the context. Either Jesus is rebuking a church or He is reaching out to sinners.

You are not the only one to take that verse out of context.

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

[J-Roc]

JRoc, how old were you when you first spoke in tongues? Are you saying you went through 16 years of accountability after repentance before you spoke in tongues? Are you Dan's age now?

I was about 22...I'm 8 months older than Dan.

[J-Roc]

UM ... who is ANYONE?? that's what the verse says ... not anyone in the church of Laodicea .... anyone!!!!! Of course he was addressing the church but the anyone is anyone ... generic anyone. Like open invitation anyone.

This not speaking to believers .... cop out holds no water in the light that y'all use Epistles to support your doctrines too ...

That's one scripture ... would you like another one?


Ok, I see you addressed the "anyone" part...so I jumped the gun here not realizing it was presented already.

[mizpeh]

Ok, I see you addressed the "anyone" part...so I jumped the gun here not realizing it was presented already.

JRoc,

I agree with TRFrance about 'anyone' in this passage. In context it is referring to anyone in the Laodecian church. To extend it's meaning and move it to a bigger picture I would still have to say it can apply to anyone in church that has gone lukewarm or even to an individual saint who has gone lukewarm but not to a sinner.

Here is a post by Pelathais in which he describes a figure of speech called an elipsis which I think may be applicable here: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=206952&postcount=10

[J-Roc]

JRoc,

I agree with TRFrance about 'anyone' in this passage. In context it is referring to anyone in the Laodecian church. To extend it's meaning and move it to a bigger picture I would still have to say it can apply to anyone in church that has gone lukewarm or even to an individual saint who has gone lukewarm but not to a sinner.

Here is a post by Pelathais in which he describes a figure of speech called an elipsis which I think may be applicable here: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=206952&postcount=10


Mizpeh, I respectfully disagree...he ended it by saying:

"“Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what he is saying to the churches.”


Consider what is said to the Church of Philadelphia...do you think the promises here are also only for them and does not apply to anyone else?


“Because you have obeyed my command to persevere, I will protect you from the great time of testing that will come upon the whole world to test those who belong to this world. I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take away your crown. All who are victorious will become pillars in the Temple of my God, and they will never have to leave it. And I will write on them the name of my God, and they will be citizens in the city of my God—the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven from my God. And I will also write on them my new name."


Under the logic you are using, we would have to say that in context he was speaking only to Philadelphia and so it has nothing to do with us and those promises are not for us nor will we bear His new name.

[J-Roc]

JRoc,

I agree with TRFrance about 'anyone' in this passage. In context it is referring to anyone in the Laodecian church. To extend it's meaning and move it to a bigger picture I would still have to say it can apply to anyone in church that has gone lukewarm or even to an individual saint who has gone lukewarm but not to a sinner.

Here is a post by Pelathais in which he describes a figure of speech called an elipsis which I think may be applicable here: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=206952&postcount=10

Mizpeh, I respectfully disagree...he ended it by saying:

"“Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what he is saying to the churches.”


Consider what is said to the Church of Philadelphia...do you think the promises here are also only for them and does not apply to anyone else?


“Because you have obeyed my command to persevere, I will protect you from the great time of testing that will come upon the whole world to test those who belong to this world. I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take away your crown. All who are victorious will become pillars in the Temple of my God, and they will never have to leave it. And I will write on them the name of my God, and they will be citizens in the city of my God—the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven from my God. And I will also write on them my new name."


Under the logic you are using, we would have to say that in context he was speaking only to Philadelphia and so it has nothing to do with us and those promises are not for us nor will we bear His new name.



Furthermore, Revelations 1:3 says:

"God blesses the one who reads the words of this prophecy to the church, and he blesses all who listen to its message and obey what it says, for the time is near."

Surely, this includes us!

[TRFrance]

Dan, who is he talking to, and what is he talking about? Is he not taking to a lukewarm church that needs to repent?

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION DOCTRINE.


Now repenting is a one stop ... good for all time step??

Repenting, no matter when it's done, has nothing to w/ salvation doctrine?

Are Once Saved, Always Saved?

Repentance is a lifestyle ... a turning to God ... that goes beyond your 2 minute altar call
*sigh"
Amazing.
Dan, I imagine you're a reasonably intelligent guy. So why is it that I have to clarify stuff to you that should be fairly obvious?

Let me go back to that concept you seem to be having trouble with: CONTEXT.

Now repenting is a one stop ... good for all time step??
Repenting, no matter when it's done, has nothing to w/ salvation doctrine?


1.. I never said or even implied that repenting is a: "a one stop ... good for all time step"
2... neither have I ever said or implied that "Repenting, no matter when it's done, has nothing to w/ salvation doctrine" .

I really have to wonder if you're really having a hard time understanding what I'm saying, or if you're just being purposely intellectually dishonest, just so you can keep arguing your point. I would hate to think that's what you're doing here, but honestly, it does seem like a distinct possibility.

Anyway.. I am simply saying that the repentance Jesus was taking about was for a group of SAINTS to repent. That passage had nothing to do with the repentance of sinners that come seeking salvation. Jesus was not talking about "altar call" -type initial salvation & repentance. He was talking about a lukewarm church turning back to him. That is why I said "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION" . Or, to say it a different way "this passage is not referring to salvation" . Got me now? Therefore, his reference to "coming in to sup with them" is irrelevant to the discussion of "at what point does does a newly repentant sinner receive the Spirit of Christ"

This all goes back to my basic point, which I believe others have made..

You were asked in essence: "what scriptures support your idea that one one immediately receives the Spirit of Jesus by faith when they first express belief?" Rather than just stick to with with verses that deal with the issue of salvation, You proceeded to give us a scripture that deals not with sinners coming to salvation, but a lukewarm church that needed to repent of its ways.

It's clear that in this passage, Jesus is saying he will come in and sup/commune with the church-members who repent and open the door of their hearts to him. These people were already saved, so salvation/infilling of the Holy Ghost is not the issue here. But you chose to apply this scripture to buttress your argument that Jesus comes immediately to live in the heart of sinners who come to him in repentance? If you honestly don't see any flaw there in supporting a doctrinal issue with that kind of argument, then you're really on dangerous ground, buddy.

Are Once Saved, Always Saved?

Repentance is a lifestyle ... a turning to God ... that goes beyond your 2 minute altar call

You're barking up the wrong tree again.

Yes, Dan I'm fully aware, there is repentance for saints as well as sinners. But the daily repentance that saints do, for their sins on an ongoing basis, is very different entity from the repentance of a sinner who is turning to God. I imagine you already know that.

But you chose to use a passage dealing with how Jesus was interacting with a lukewam church (saved folks)... and you take that as a proof-text on the issue of how Jesus will interacts with a repentant sinner... And this is a key scripture for you how a newly repentant sinner receives the Spirit of Christ ?

And the thing is, you don't seem to recognize it for being the flawed reasoning that it is. You don't see it for being the bad biblical exegesis that it is. What makes me sad is that many men who display a similar level of poor scholarship are actually pastoring, preaching and teaching people in thousands of churches all across our country and beyond!

Even from a secular debating point of view, such a specious line of argument would be seen as fatally flawed and totally lacking any merit. But from a spiritual point of view, its even worse. This kind of almost mindless cut-and-paste theology shows a dangerous lack of attention to detail when formulating or supporting doctrine.

[TRFrance]

Furthermore, Revelations 1:3 says:

"God blesses the one who reads the words of this prophecy to the church, and he blesses all who listen to its message and obey what it says, for the time is near."

Surely, this includes us!

And your point is??

The simple fact is, you cant use the the letters to the churches from the book of Revelation to form salvation doctrine.

I don't think thats a difficult principle at all for a Christian to understand, especially one who's been in church now for well over a decade.

[SDG]

And your point is??

The simple fact is, you cant use the the letters to the churches from the book of Revelation to form salvation doctrine.

I don't think thats a difficult principle at all for a Christian to understand, especially one who's been in church now for well over a decade.

Oh sugar ... that's right ... salvation doctrine is found where??? only in the application of said doctine ... a historical book ... Acts ... but let's disregard the explanation given to new converts and maturing saints in the other NT books.

This is where you guys falter ... you rely on solely on a handful of passages in a historical book for what seems all of your doctrine. :gift


J-Roc ... you've hit a grandslam .... do your trot. Let's scrap context for pretext.

[J-Roc]

And your point is??

The simple fact is, you cant use the the letters to the churches from the book of Revelation to form salvation doctrine.

I don't think thats a difficult principle at all for a Christian to understand, especially one who's been in church now for well over a decade.


I think I was pretty clear...the point is that you cannot say those words are exclusive to the churches named and that they have no application for Christians today. You'd have to say the same for the words spoken to the church of Philadelphia and you'd have to ignore what Christ says about "he who has ears to hear" since you'd think it was exclusive to the ears of the people of each church.

And who is using it to form a salvation doctrine...it was used to support, not form. The book of Romans is sufficient in forming the salvation doctrine. :christmaskiss

[TRFrance]

I think I was pretty clear...the point is that you cannot say those words are exclusive to the churches named and that they have no application for Christians today. You'd have to say the same for the words spoken to the church of Philadelphia and you'd have to ignore what Christ says about "he who has ears to hear" since you'd think it was exclusive to the ears of the people of each church.

I think what is clear is that you didn't seem to understand what Mizpeh was posting. He never said those words were exclusive to the churches named. He was simply saying they were primarily to the churches. Look again (highlighted in red)...
JRoc,
I agree with TRFrance about 'anyone' in this passage. In context it is referring to anyone in the Laodecian church. To extend it's meaning and move it to a bigger picture I would still have to say it can apply to anyone in church that has gone lukewarm or even to an individual saint who has gone lukewarm but not to a sinner.

Mizpeh is just saying the letters were written to the 7 churches, and the meaning could be reasonably applied to other churches. He simply said the meaning of the text, especially Rev 3:20 under discussion, was not addressed to sinners but church folk.

J-rock , you were barking up the wrong tree with your post. No need for you to try to correct him on anything there, because what he said was very correct


And who is using it to form a salvation doctrine...it was used to support, not form.

The letters to the churches in Revelation don't deal with the salvation issue at all. They cant be used to form salvation doctrine, and since they don't deal with salvation at all, they don't provide legitimate support for any salvation doctrine either, especially the issue under discussion (i.e. when does one receive the Spirit)

And the specific passage in question was used by your buddy Dan as a key passage supporting his contention that Jesus comes to live in a new convert upon belief/repentance. The counterpoint has already been made that the passage he was referring to had nothing to do with salvation of a sinner who comes to God. But it seems like Dan chose it because he felt it could "fit" his PCI doctrine. Or maybe he didn't really notice the proper context of that verse before it was brought to his attention here -- I don't know. Of course he hasn't acknowledged his incorrect usage of that verse, even though it should be clear to him by now. But it doesn't matter, the facts are well laid out for anyone who comes and reads this thread.

The fact is pretty simple, whether or not any of the PCI crowd wants to admit it or not. There are many salvation-related scriptures one can use to establish or support a doctrinal positions. But choosing a non-salvational passage (like Rev 3:20 etc.) just because the words seem to "fit", is sloppy stuff, to say the least. I think even responsible PCI folks who are intellectually honest will agree with that.

And as you can probably tell by now, I'm thoroughly convinced that the PCI folks in general employ a lot of doctrinal sloppiness in forming and supporting their salvation doctrine.

[TRFrance]

Oh sugar ... that's right ... salvation doctrine is found where??? only in the application of said doctine ... a historical book ... Acts ... but let's disregard the explanation given to new converts and maturing saints in the other NT books.

This is where you guys falter ... you rely on solely on a handful of passages in a historical book for what seems all of your doctrine.


Dan, once again you seem to prefer assumptions to facts.

I have never said salvation doctrine is found only in the book of Acts, have I ?
But you assume that.

The implementation of salvation doctrine is seen in the book of Acts, but there are scriptures related to salvation doctrine are found in other books also,(the gospels, epistles) as well as the book of Acts. The explanations in the epistles support the standard Acts 2:38 salvation plan, rather than undermine it ... although many PCI types try to use Paul's explanations to override the book of Acts pattern and to teach salvation doctrine from Romans, etc. ignoring the clear implementation of Jesus' instructions as seen in the Book of Acts.


This is where you guys falter ... you rely on solely on a handful of passages in a historical book for what seems all of your doctrine.

Assumptions once again. I'm not sure who "you guys" is supposed to refer to. I certainly don't rely on a handful of scriptures from the book of Acts as you seem to be incorrectly presuming. (And I certainly don't use non-salvational passages to support my positions on salvational doctrine, which seems to be a fairly common PCI practice)
Anyway, don't assume you know what my positions are on something if I haven't stated them.

[freeatlast]

I recall many times being taught that the Epistles were written to teach the church how to stay saved, not how to be saved.

Then God showed me the language Paul used was reminding them how they got saved. by grace thru faith in God's imputed rightousness.

I also recall the teachihg that no one was ever saved in the gospels...you know you only find salvation in the book of Acts

Then again God showed me that John wrote the book of John more than 20 years or so AFTER the day of Pentecost.

John had witnessed people speaking in tongues and had surely seen people being baptized by the time he got around to writting his account.

Don' you find it a bit amazing that John never speaks of or mentions this "pentecostal" stuff after being a Pentecostal preacher all those years.

Most Pentecostal preachers today can't get thru their introduction without reiterating the necesity of speakinjg in tongues to saved...let alobne write a whole book and never mention it.

John even declares why he recorded all his writing about how if you "believe" in Jesus you will have eternal life. John 20:31 "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that by believing ye may have life in his name."

I remeber well , lessons I recieved that stated every place in the book of Acts that someone got save it is recorded that they spoke in tongues.

HogWash !! Over 20 accounts of people or groups of people coming to faith in Christ and wee see only 3 or 4 accounts of tongues happening.

These were inagural events where we see tongues Jews / Samaritans/ Gentiles reciving salavation....the Samaritans and Gentiles just happened to speak in tongues as an evidence to the unbelieving Jews that were present. Jews that could not believe any body but them could be saved.

In no way does it state or imply that tongues will always occur when some one gets saved NOWHERE...but yet we ASSUME that it implys it will wlways happen.

We call our doctrine theology when it is no more than idealogy.

A handful of scripture pounded together to form a doctrine.

A doctrine that does not meld together with the whole of scripture

A doctrine that made one of leading bible schools ignore the book of Romans and not even teach Romans other than a handful of scriptures that seemed to fit with a tongues evidence salvation. Seemed to fit if you didn't read the rest of the book.

[freeatlast]

Oh yes...I'm one of them PCI one steppers now. I used to believe it took 3...no really about 7 to 14 steps to be saved.

I thank God that Christ took THEE STEP....the one step, that purchased my salvation

[OneAccord]

Yesterday, I took my wife to Huntsville for Chemo treatment. I didn't do the "Bewitched" thing and wiggle my nose and "poof!", we were in Huntsville.

No, first we had to set our destination. Huntsville. Then we had to prepare. Get dressed, get meds and treatment logs together. Then the wheelchair...gettin my wife in the van... but, still we weren't there. Had to do some things to get there. Had to get gas... had to drive...etc.

Salvation begins at repentance (IMO) It all starts there. But that doesn't necessarily complete the process, because salvation isn't instand pudding. The Bible says.... "He that endureth to the end shall be saved". We begin at repentance, but, as we progress, there are things we are to do, not to "earn" salvation" but to "solidify" our relationship with the Lord...to ensure we have "enough gas" to get there. Baptism (water) removes us from the world by "burying the old man with his deeds". The Holy Ghost is our Power to overcome temptation, bringing us into His Body. And we journey, we "put on holiness" by being led, not by traditions and man-made rules, but by the Holy Spirit that teaches us from God's Word. Along the way, we recieve revelations that help us to understand God...the Oneness of the Godhead, the nature of God...etc.
Are we saved without the Holy Ghost? No...He, (The Holy Ghost) begins leading us even before we repent by drawing us with the Gospel. Once we are freed from sin through repentance, He comes to dwell within us... and throughout our lives, He is there to lead us into all truth. But, no, we aren't saved without the Holy Ghost, for it is through and by the Holy Spirit that we are able to endure to the end.

[TRFrance]

I don't feel like doing a long post to argue with all the issues in your post. This post is already wearing me out. But I do want to respond to this part.


These were inaugural events where we see tongues Jews / Samaritans/ Gentiles reciving salavation....the Samaritans and Gentiles just happened to speak in tongues as an evidence to the unbelieving Jews that were present. Jews that could not believe any body but them could be saved.

Ive heard that argument before, but...
Is that theology, or ideology? Does the bible tell you that the reason they "just happened" to speak in tongues in tongues there was as evidence to the unbelieving Jews? Does the bible say that, or is that view just based on supposition because it seems to "fit" ?

And as far as tongues only taking place at "inaugural events" , theres a big hole in your theory/doctrine there. How was it an "inaugural event" many years later when the former disciples of John received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues in Acts 19:1-6 ??. That was not at all an "inaugural event".

This post has been interesting, to say the least.
Its interesting to hear how you guys, think though, thats for sure.

[mizpeh]

I recall many times being taught that the Epistles were written to teach the church how to stay saved, not how to be saved.

Then God showed me the language Paul used was reminding them how they got saved. by grace thru faith in God's imputed rightousness.The reminders of how we were saved are inserted into Paul's writings but not as though he is expounding the on the doctrine of salvation step by step. They are intermingled with other things he is teaching. But I do agree with you that Paul does speak of how we were saved in different epistles, not at length and not fully in detail. One place may make a reference to water baptism, somewhere else may mention the indwelling Spirit, another spot faith another confession. We have to put them all together and make them harmonized with what the apostles taught in the book of Acts to unbelievers. You must agree that the epistles are written to the churches not to sinners and perhaps that is why Paul doesn't have one passage that specifically teaches Acts 2:38 since it is something the early church folks should know.

I also recall the teachihg that no one was ever saved in the gospels...you know you only find salvation in the book of Acts

Then again God showed me that John wrote the book of John more than 20 years or so AFTER the day of Pentecost.

John had witnessed people speaking in tongues and had surely seen people being baptized by the time he got around to writting his account.

Don' you find it a bit amazing that John never speaks of or mentions this "pentecostal" stuff after being a Pentecostal preacher all those years.You're arguing from silence. I'm not surprised John didn't write what happened after Jesus ascendind into heaven in his gospel. Luke didn't write what he wrote in Acts 2 in his gospel either.

Most Pentecostal preachers today can't get thru their introduction without reiterating the necesity of speakinjg in tongues to saved...let alobne write a whole book and never mention it.My pastor doesn't reiterate the necessity of speaking in tongues to be saved.

John even declares why he recorded all his writing about how if you "believe" in Jesus you will have eternal life. John 20:31 "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that by believing ye may have life in his name."Without faith no on will be saved, no one will be batpized, no one will receive the Spirit, no pray will be answered, etc....

I remeber well , lessons I recieved that stated every place in the book of Acts that someone got save it is recorded that they spoke in tongues.What Bible were you reading from?

HogWash !! Over 20 accounts of people or groups of people coming to faith in Christ and wee see only 3 or 4 accounts of tongues happening.Have you gone over these accounts with a fine toothed comb? I have. Repentance is absent from some accounts as well. Recieving the Spirit is absent also. Confession isn't always present. Why is that? Does that mean God saves people differently? or is He no respect of persons and we all need to be born again of the water and of the Spirit? Why don't you answer the questions set forth by TRFrance? We can discuss these scriptures and if you like every single account of someone being saved in the book of Acts.

These were inagural events where we see tongues Jews / Samaritans/ Gentiles reciving salavation....the Samaritans and Gentiles just happened to speak in tongues as an evidence to the unbelieving Jews that were present. Jews that could not believe any body but them could be saved.Sorry, if one receives the Spirit at faith it would not have been necessary for the apostles to go to Samaria to lay hands on them to recieve the Holy Spirit. Same with Acts 9 and 19. How many witnesses do you need? Is 4 instances of folks speaking in tongues upon receiving the Spirit not enough for you?

In no way does it state or imply that tongues will always occur when some one gets saved NOWHERE...but yet we ASSUME that it implys it will wlways happen.Read Acts 8 again. What do you think Simon saw when the believers were filled with the Spirit?

We call our doctrine theology when it is no more than idealogy.

A handful of scripture pounded together to form a doctrine.

A doctrine that does not meld together with the whole of scriptureThe PCI doctrine cannot account for all scriptures and seems unable to answer the simple questions TRFrance has put forth.

A doctrine that made one of leading bible schools ignore the book of Romans and not even teach Romans other than a handful of scriptures that seemed to fit with a tongues evidence salvation. Seemed to fit if you didn't read the rest of the book.Let's stick with the Bible and not worry what a Bible school teaches.

[J-Roc]

You must agree that the epistles are written to the churches not to sinners


No, mizpeh, I cannot agree with you that it was not for sinners.

Romans 1:15-17 reads: "That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome. I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last...."


If the book of Romans was exclusively written for saved individuals, why is he going to Rome to preach a message that does not apply to them if the hearers are ALL in a saved condition. Furthermore, he explains what the gospel is, namely "the power of God for the salvation of everyone".

Besides, why would he have to state he is not ashamed of the gospel if his constituents are fellow brothers in the Lord? Surely, we must deduce that he is not ashamed to bring this message to the unbelievers!

And thirdly, since we know he is bringing the gospel to Rome (as he states), then it is fair to say that he is equipping and teaching the Roman brothers on how to share this gospel and in doing so, he is giving them the full package and not bits and pieces here and there as you suggest, mizpeh.


We need to stop invalidating Romans and the other epistles on the grounds that it is not for sinners....

[J-Roc]

Romans 2:4-6 "Don’t you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can’t you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin? But because you are stubborn and refuse to turn from your sin, you are storing up terrible punishment for yourself. For a day of anger is coming, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed."

Does this sound like an admonishment exclusively to believers? or is this for sinners? What Believer refuses to turn from their sin that awaits terrible punishment?

[Apprehended]

I might be posting this in the wrong area and if so please forgive me.
I understand some Pentecostal groups and some here on AFF ,believe one is saved and then filled with The Holy Ghost.Evidently a fair amount of OPs teach this.
Now this is asked in charity, but I do read scriptures that say without the Spirit of Christ you can't be His,or none of His Or I read verses that say it is by One Spirit we are baptized into one body.

Ok what is the difference in receiving the Holy Ghost and being baptized with The Holy Ghost ?Isn't terms like being filled with The Holy Spirit and such synonymous terms for the same experience.
If regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit how can one be regenerate with the Spirit of Christ ?

Also doesn't receiving the Spirit comes after repentance and not at repentance I understand.Because doesn't ACTS.2:37,38 teach that the Holy Ghost comes after repentance.

So can one be saved and not have the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit ?

I am open-minded and willing to hear other's views on this subject.

This is not my concern...

My concern is for all of those tongue talkers that have been baptized in Jesus' name, never misses a service at home church, keeps the whole law (read rules) and are still not saved.

Sadest note that of Saraph song.

[J-Roc]

This is not my concern...

My concern is for all of those tongue talkers that have been baptized in Jesus' name, never misses a service at home church, keeps the whole law (read rules) and are still not saved.

Sadest note that of Saraph song.


What we do is so important and cannot be overlooked.

Paul had a concern to for those that KNOW, but do not DO. Actions/deeds are so underrated, IMO.

You who call yourselves Jews are relying on God’s law, and you boast about your special relationship with him. You know what he wants; you know what is right because you have been taught his law. You are convinced that you are a guide for the blind and a light for people who are lost in darkness. You think you can instruct the ignorant and teach children the ways of God. For you are certain that in God’s law you have complete knowledge and truth. Well then, if you teach others, why don’t you teach yourself? You tell others not to steal, but do you steal? You say it is wrong to commit adultery, but do you commit adultery? You condemn idolatry, but do you use items stolen from pagan temples? You are so proud of knowing the law, but you dishonor God by breaking it. No wonder the Scriptures say, “The Gentiles blaspheme the name of God because of you.” (Romans 2:17-24)


Paul puts emphasis on what we do (our deeds/actions)

"But there will be glory and honor and peace from God for all who do good..." (Romans 2:10)


"For it is not merely knowing the law that brings God's approval. It is obeying the law that makes us right in his sight..." (Romans 2:13)

[Joelel]

We find to receive him and believe is the same as being filled with the Holy Ghost.If a person is filled they receive the power to become a son of God when the Holy Ghost comes on them.

John.1
[12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Acts 1:
[8] But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

A true believer is born again.

1John.5
[1] Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

[Apprehended]

What we do is so important and cannot be overlooked.

Paul had a concern to for those that KNOW, but do not DO. Actions/deeds are so underrated, IMO.

You who call yourselves Jews are relying on God’s law, and you boast about your special relationship with him. You know what he wants; you know what is right because you have been taught his law. You are convinced that you are a guide for the blind and a light for people who are lost in darkness. You think you can instruct the ignorant and teach children the ways of God. For you are certain that in God’s law you have complete knowledge and truth. Well then, if you teach others, why don’t you teach yourself? You tell others not to steal, but do you steal? You say it is wrong to commit adultery, but do you commit adultery? You condemn idolatry, but do you use items stolen from pagan temples? You are so proud of knowing the law, but you dishonor God by breaking it. No wonder the Scriptures say, “The Gentiles blaspheme the name of God because of you.” (Romans 2:17-24)


Paul puts emphasis on what we do (our deeds/actions)

"But there will be glory and honor and peace from God for all who do good..." (Romans 2:10)


"For it is not merely knowing the law that brings God's approval. It is obeying the law that makes us right in his sight..." (Romans 2:13)

Amen again...

Incidently, I want to KNOW him even as Paul so desired as well. But, I AM FAR MORE CONCERED that he knows me than I am of knowing HIM.

Many will claim in that day, "I know him." Many wll say, "Lord, Lord,"....oneness folk, boasting all their lives that they know the Lord and have the revelation of who he is but only to find out in the end that Jesus will say to them, "just get out of my sight you wicked ones, I don't know who you are or where you have come from." (Slightly paraphrased to fit todays coloquelism)

Imagine that. Got the Holy Ghost with the revelation of who He is, but on their way to hell just as straight as a Martin to her gourd. Bragging about KNOWING Him but all along, he does KNOW them.

God help us.

Your two step, your three steps and your four steps are not going to save you. The question is, did you take the ONLY step? Did you make Jesus YOUR LORD?

[Revelationist]

In addition to what Bro. Scott has posted, how about this scripture about John the Baptist?

Luke 1:15

15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

KJV

The Holy Ghost had not been given, how was John filled with the Holy Ghost?

[OneAccord]

A relationship, any relationship, is a two way street. Jesus said Jhn 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine. Paul said "That I might know Him...". But, for it to be a Covenant Relationship, we need to be known of the Lord. "The Lord knoweth them that are His..." Its not enough to know God or to even know He is one. The devil knows that. But, to be known of the Lord. That puts us in relationship the devil, nor the world can ever know, without KNOWING, and being KNOWN, of the Lord.

[TRFrance]

In addition to what Bro. Scott has posted, how about this scripture about John the Baptist?

Luke 1:15
15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. KJV

The Holy Ghost had not been given, how was John filled with the Holy Ghost?

Well, the scripture states explicitly that the Holy Ghost was not yet given.
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.)
There's no contradiction with the rest of the scriptures on this because...

...What John received was not the same experience we now know as the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:21) . Zechariah, Johns father was filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:67), and Bezalel, who worked on the tabernacle in the Old Testament was filled with the spirit of God (Ex 31:3) but still this was not the same experience as what believers receive in the church age.

John spoke of the experience to come, and he was the first to use the term "baptized with" the Holy Ghost. Matt 3:11
" I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire"
Jesus referred to this same experience shortly before Pentecost when he said
" For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." (Acts 1:5)
So although, its the same Holy Ghost, experientially it is still a different impartation from what had ever been given before. That is why John wrote that the Holy Ghost had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified. (John 7:39)

[Sam]

In the Old Testament it is recorded that some of God's people were also "filled with the Spirit" or that the "Spirit came upon them." This was not a salvation experience but was an empowering experience for folks who were already saved.

When John the Baptist came upon the scene he spoke of a baptism in the Spirit. As folks were being immersed in water as part of John's mikveh/baptism ministry, he declared that the One who was coming after him would immerse/baptize people in the Holy Spirit. The image of such a soaking or overwhelming or saturation or immersion or baptism in God's Spirit was a new way of looking at an experience being offered from God.

Comparing Acts 1:4-8 and Acts 2:1-4,14-17 this experience known as a baptism in the Spirit was also called being filled with the Spirit and the Spirit being poured out.

[SDG]

Those that claim that the Spirit did not reside in some before Pentecost are mistaken.

But those that say that the Holy Spirit did not reside in some ... like the psalmist who asked God not to take his Holy Spirit from him ....

Luke the same writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts .... uses the same Greek phaseology to describe the filling of Elizabeth ... Zacharias ... and those in the upper room ... no difference ....


Luke 1:41 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Luke+1%3A41) When (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5613) Elizabeth (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1665) heard (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=191) Mary's (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3137) greeting (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=783), the baby (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1025) leaped (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4640) in her womb (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2836); and Elizabeth (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1665) was filled with the Holy (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=40) Spirit (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151).


Greek: (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532)

kai (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) egeneto (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1096) (5633 (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5633)) wv (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5613) hkousen (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=191) (5656 (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5656)) ton (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) aspasmon (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=783) thv (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) Mariav (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3137) h (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) Elisabet, (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1665) eskirthsen (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4640) (5656 (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5656)) to (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) brefov (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1025) en (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722) th (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) koilia (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2836) authv, (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=846) kai (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) eplhsqh (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4130)(5681 (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5681)) pneumatov (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151) agiou (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=40) h (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) Elisabet, (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1665)

Acts 2:4 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+2%3A4)And they were all (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956) filled with the Holy (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=40) Spirit (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151) and began (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=757) to speak (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2980) with other (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2087) tongues (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1100), as the Spirit (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151) was giving (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1325) them utterance (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=669).

Greek:

kai (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) eplhsqhsan (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4130) (5681 (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5681)) pantev (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956) pneumatov (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151) agiou, (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=40) kai (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) hrcanto lalein (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2980) (5721 (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5721)) eteraiv (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2087) glwssaiv (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1100) kaqwv (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2531) to (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) pneuma (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151) edidou (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1325) (5707 (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5707)) apofqeggesqai (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=669) (5738 (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5738)) autoiv. (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=846)

Luke 1:67 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Luke+1%3A67)

And his father (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3962) Zacharias (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2197) was filled with the Holy (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=40) Spirit (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151), and prophesied (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4395), saying (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3004):


Kai (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) Zaxariav (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2197) o (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) pathr (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3962) autou (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=846) eplhsqh (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4130) (5681 (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5681)) pneumatov (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151) agiou (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=40) kai (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) eprofhteusen (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4395) (5656 (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5656)) legwn, (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3004) (5723 (http://studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5723))
__________________

[SDG]

"what scriptures support your idea that one one immediately receives the Spirit of Jesus by faith when they first express belief?"Acts 11:16-18
16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 "If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand
God?" 18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life."

1. Peter states: The disciples and the brethren in Judea received the gift when THEY BELIEVED ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

2. Are we to accept that they didn't believe in the Lord Jesus Christ until the second chapter of Acts?

[Sam]

Bro. Norris taught his ministerial students that the Holy Spirit did not live within anyone in the Old Testament (including the time in the Gospels before the resurrection of Jesus). He taught that the Spirit came upon people as needed to enable them to accomplish something and then the Spirit left. His visual explanation was that of the Spirit being like a locomotive engine and the person was a railroad car. The engine couples to the car, moves it to its intended place, and then decouples and moves away. That is how he explained people's experience in the Old Testament.

Bro. Frank Curts taught us that the Holy Spirit did indeed live within individuals in the Old Testament times. He taught that the sign/evidence of the Holy Spirit coming in was prophecy in the Old Testament and tongues in the New Testament.

Actually, I don't believe it quite like that.
I believe the Holy Spirit did indwell people in the Old Testament and also moved upon or came upon some of them with special giftings, like prophecy, wisdom, artistic skills, etc. This is the way I see it in the NT. I believe the Holy Spirit indwells all believers from the time of regeneration but that He also comes upon or equips or fills or baptizes/saturates/overwhelms them with special giftings such as prophecy, tongues, leadership, etc.



ducking

[SDG]

Well, the scripture states explicitly that the Holy Ghost was not yet given.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.)
There's no contradiction with the rest of the scriptures on this because...

...What John received was not the same experience we now know as the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:21) . Zechariah, Johns father was filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:67), and Bezalel, who worked on the tabernacle in the Old Testament was filled with the spirit of God (Ex 31:3) but still this was not the same experience as what believers receive in the church age.

John spoke of the experience to come, and he was the first to use the term "baptized with" the Holy Ghost. Matt 3:11" I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire"
Jesus referred to this same experience shortly before Pentecost when he said" For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." (Acts 1:5)
So although, its the same Holy Ghost, experientially it is still a different impartation from what had ever been given before. That is why John wrote that the Holy Ghost had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified. (John 7:39)

The promise Joel speaks of is not a different experience, as alluded to by Peter in his Acts 2 sermon, but that His Spirit would poured out ON ALL FLESH ....

Why because through faith on the Lord Jesus Christ he would immerse us ... all ... into his Church.

The Baptism of the Holy Ghost w/ the evidence of tongues is indeed a manifestation of an enduement of power/filling given to the Church to testify to the world ... but does not mean one has not be indwelt by the Spirit of God ... or that one is not born of the Spirit, at the point of faith .

As for those W & S adherents that misuse John 7:9 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+7%3A9)

I always had read this verse in Spanish ... which in the Reina Valera does not say the that the Holy Ghost was not given ... but that the Holy Ghost had not come ... changing the context of what is being expressed by Christ ...

After trying to find the word given in the orginal Greek text ... I could not find it for John 7:39 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+7%3A39)

After futher research .... I found this:

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given];

the word "given" is not in the original text; but is very properly supplied, as it is in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions. The Arabic version renders it, "for the Holy Ghost was not yet come";

he was; he was in being as a divine person, equal with the Father and Son, so he was from everlasting; and he had been bestowed in his grace upon the Old Testament saints, and rested in his gifts upon the prophets of that dispensation; but, as the Jews themselves confess F6 (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=7&verse=39#f),``after the death of the latter prophets, Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi, the Holy Ghost removed from Israel.'' And they expressly say, be was not there in the time of the second temple. Maimonides says F7 (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=7&verse=39#g),``they made the Urim and Thummim in the second temple, to complete the eight garments (of the priests) though they did not inquire by them; and why did they not inquire by them? because the Holy Ghost was not there; and every priest that does not speak by the Holy Ghost, and the Shekinah, does not dwell upon him, they do not inquire by him.'' They observe F8 (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=7&verse=39#h) there were five things in the first temple which were not in the second, and they are these,``the ark with the mercy seat, and cherubim, the fire (from heaven), and the Shekinah, (vdwqh xwrw) , "and the Holy Ghost", and the Urim and Thummim.'' Now, though he had removed, he was to return again; but as yet the time was not come, at least for the more plentiful donation of him:


Others suggest another plausible interpretation .... of John 7:9 ....

One should conside this text referring to Jesus' remarks to his disciples in John 16:8 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+16%3A8).

8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.

Most people tend to view the gospels as a chronological account of what transpired written in real time, when in actuality the Gospels were written years later. The comment...the Holy Ghost had not been given was written as an after thought.

And as a tangent ... let's accept your premise .... when was Jesus glorified??? At the ascension??? ... don't we believe he had a glorified body post resurrection?

[TRFrance]

You must agree that the epistles are written to the churches not to sinners and perhaps that is why Paul doesn't have one passage that specifically teaches Acts 2:38 since it is something the early church folks should know.
No, mizpeh, I cannot agree with you that it was not for sinners.
Well, the epistles in general are addressed to the churches, as is the book of Acts in particular.
Paul’s opening to Romans 1: 1:Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
... verse 6-7
7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Whose faith is "spoken of throughout the world"? Sinners, or saints??
Just from looking at his very introduction it is clear he is addressing the church in Rome.


Romans 1:15-17 reads: "That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome. I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last...."

Indeed, Paul is prepared to preach the gospel to anyone in Rome who is not saved. But that doesn't negate the fact that the book and (its message) is ADDRESSED to saints. The book’s doctrinal teachings, expounding on the things of God, etc, was not a salvation message. The fact that Paul was [always] ready to preach the gospel to sinners still doesn't negate the fact that the book of Romans was addressed to the Roman church.

Furthermore, he explains what the gospel is, namely "the power of God for the salvation of everyone".
Agreed. The gospel is for the salvation of everyone. However, the book of Romans is not “the gospel". It is a book of teaching to the saints. It is not the gospel in the sense of being "the message to bring Christ to those who don’t know him and need to turn from their sins".
Yes, Paul does speak about salvation, among other topics, in Romans. (Just as he also speaks about salvation in other epistles addressed to the other churches.) But he never preaches a "salvation message" or gives “salvation instructions” in the book of Romans because, once again, the book was addressed to church folks.
Besides, why would he have to state he is not ashamed of the gospel if his constituents are fellow brothers in the Lord? Surely, we must deduce that he is not ashamed to bring this message to the unbelievers!

Same as above. Paul is not bringing this message to unbelievers in the book of Romans. He speaks about bringing the salvation message to all tht need it when gets to the city of Rome, but that's it. The people he’s writing to in the epistle are saints!
And thirdly, since we know he is bringing the gospel to Rome (as he states), then it is fair to say that he is equipping and teaching the Roman brothers on how to share this gospel and in doing so, he is giving them the full package and not bits and pieces here and there as you suggest, mizpeh.
Sorry. Too many assumptions there.
The Roman saints whom he is addressing already know what the plan of salvation is, because they followed it themselves when they got saved. Paul didn't have to instruct them on how to share the gospel, since they were already doing so. They were already an established, well known church, as Paul said:
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. (Rom 1:9)
So although Paul often speaks to the saints in his epistles about many deeper issues related to salvation...He never lays out instructions for the salvation plan to any of these churches in the epistles, since these saints already know the essentials of "how to get saved", and are implementing it already, in Paul's absence, in bringing in new converts.
We need to stop invalidating Romans and the other epistles on the grounds that it is not for sinners....

I daresay you'll never find an epistle addressed to a sinner. They are all addressed to churches (i.e. saints) and ministers/bishops (Titus/Timothy) . These churches already had pastors, deacons, etc and were already witnessing and winning souls. So although Paul often spoke on salvation-related topics (regenerating power of Christ/ justification by faith/ Jesus as the "last Adam", etc), he never had to lay out the "Step 1-2-3 of salvation" to them since they already knew it and were implementing it in their churches.

J-Roc, no-one is “invalidating the book of Romans & other epistles”, etc. We just recognize that the epistles don’t show a “here-is-how-its-done” pattern of how to implement the salvation plan. That pattern is implemented in the book of Acts. The gospels and the epistles lay down many important salvation-related doctrines and principles, but the actual implementation of salvation doctrine is shown to us in the book of Acts.

.

[SDG]

The biggest problem ... and assumption you are working w/ TR is that your 3 steps is salvation doctrine .... and so you point to various instances where commandments are followed and manifestations of God's Spirit [tongues, prophesying] as salvation doctrine being implemented ....

when from the PCI view ... being saved by grace through faith in the work of the Lamb is SALVATION DOCTRINE .... PLACING FAITH ON JESUS ... [B]TO US IS SALVATION DOCTRINE ...

as long as we disagree on this ... then you looking at Acts as the "best" evidence of salvation doctrine becomes a point of contention ... when we see the epistles as the apostles and church leaders of the time reminding saints how they were saved and expounding on their faith in Jesus Christ.

Your verbosity and attempts to nitpick every argument disguises your fallacious premise to the casual reader ... but is evident just the same to anyone who reads inferentially.

Sloppy is subjective ... but I submit your inability to harmonize Acts 2:38 w/ God's Plan for Salvation - Jesus Christ- is as sloppy as it gets.

[Sam]

Y'all don't seriously believe that when these epistles were read in the local assembly that there were no sinners there?

Isn't saying that sinners should not read the epistles the same as saying that sinners should ignore any and all teaching in a church unless the service was designated "for sinners only"? Have you ever heard a pastor or evangelist addressing a congregation and make reference in the sermon or teaching that mention how folks get saved?

[freeatlast]

In addition to what Bro. Scott has posted, how about this scripture about John the Baptist?

Luke 1:15

15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

KJV

The Holy Ghost had not been given, how was John filled with the Holy Ghost?


Shoot..Johns mamma was filled with the holy ghost too along with Johns father....before Jesus was even born.

Filled with merely means that the spirit has manifested itself upon someone

Other laguage speaks of fallen upon somone or came upon them.

It's a wonderful experience....but is not salvation....it's a happening , an experience.

[SDG]

Y'all don't seriously believe that when these epistles were read in the local assembly that there were no sinners there?

Isn't saying that sinners should not read the epistles the same as saying that sinners should ignore any and all teaching in a church unless the service was designated "for sinners only"? Have you ever heard a pastor or evangelist addressing a congregation and make reference in the sermon or teaching that mention how folks get saved?

It's the same elitist view that has instituted a practice of calling one another brother and sister ... not because we are one family in Christ ..... but as a code to distinguish us w/ the world ... akin to how the old Soviet Union communists who called each other comrades.

[SDG]

Shoot..Johns mamma was filled with the holy ghost too along with Johns father....before Jesus was even born.

Filled with merely means that the spirit has manifested itself upon someone

Other laguage speaks of fallen upon somone or came upon them.

It's a wonderful experience....but is not salvation....it's a happening , an experience.

That's where TR is missing it ... he's made this experience salvational .... and uses the book of Acts ... and it's 4 examples of tongues ... threads it w/ 4 or 5 other verses and WHALLA!!!! .... WE HAVE SALVATIONAL DOCTRINE. A non-biblical requirement to demonstrate one's spiritual rebirth .... that they still have the audacity to call a gift.

[TRFrance]

The promise Joel speaks of is not a different experience, as alluded to by Peter in his Acts 2 sermon, but that His Spirit would poured out ON ALL FLESH ....

Why because through faith on the Lord Jesus Christ he would immerse us ... all ... into his Church.

The Baptism of the Holy Ghost w/ the evidence of tongues is indeed a manifestation of an enduement of power/filling given to the Church to testify to the world ... but does not mean one has not be indwelt by the Spirit of God ... or that one is not born of the Spirit, at the point of faith .

As for those W & S adherents that misuse John 7:9 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+7%3A9)

I always had read this verse in Spanish ... which in the Reina Valera does not say the that the Holy Ghost was not given ... but that the Holy Ghost had not come ... changing the context of what is being expressed by Christ ...

After trying to find the word given in the orginal Greek text ... I could not find it for John 7:39 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+7%3A39)

After futher research .... I found this:

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given];

the word "given" is not in the original text; but is very properly supplied, as it is in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions. The Arabic version renders it, "for the Holy Ghost was not yet come";

he was; he was in being as a divine person, equal with the Father and Son, so he was from everlasting; and he had been bestowed in his grace upon the Old Testament saints, and rested in his gifts upon the prophets of that dispensation; but, as the Jews themselves confess F6 (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=7&verse=39#f),``after the death of the latter prophets, Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi, the Holy Ghost removed from Israel.'' And they expressly say, be was not there in the time of the second temple. Maimonides says F7 (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=7&verse=39#g),``they made the Urim and Thummim in the second temple, to complete the eight garments (of the priests) though they did not inquire by them; and why did they not inquire by them? because the Holy Ghost was not there; and every priest that does not speak by the Holy Ghost, and the Shekinah, does not dwell upon him, they do not inquire by him.'' They observe F8 (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=7&verse=39#h) there were five things in the first temple which were not in the second, and they are these,``the ark with the mercy seat, and cherubim, the fire (from heaven), and the Shekinah, (vdwqh xwrw) , "and the Holy Ghost", and the Urim and Thummim.'' Now, though he had removed, he was to return again; but as yet the time was not come, at least for the more plentiful donation of him:


Others suggest another plausible interpretation .... of John 7:9 ....

One should conside this text referring to Jesus' remarks to his disciples in John 16:8 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+16%3A8).

8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.

Most people tend to view the gospels as a chronological account of what transpired written in real time, when in actuality the Gospels were written years later. The comment...the Holy Ghost had not been given was written as an after thought.

Daniel, what are you even talking about? Stop the madness, please.
Your ranting (above) is irrelevant here.
Pay close attention, sir. The question was asked:

The Holy Ghost had not been given, how was John filled with the Holy Ghost?
So..

Are you telling me that:

1-- Bezalel being filled with the Spirit of God (Exodus 31:3)

2- Zechariah being filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:67)

3- Elizabeth being filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:21)

4- John being filled with the Holy Ghost in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15)

...are the same experience as the infilling of the Holy Ghost that happened to Christians in the church age beginning with Pentecost?

If they were the same, John wouldnt have said: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.)

Spiritually, experientially, and ontologically, these experiences (pre-Pentecost/post-Pentecost) are very different entities, and served different purposes.

.

[freeatlast]

Well, the scripture states explicitly that the Holy Ghost was not yet given.
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.)
There's no contradiction with the rest of the scriptures on this because...

...What John received was not the same experience we now know as the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:21) . Zechariah, Johns father was filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:67), and Bezalel, who worked on the tabernacle in the Old Testament was filled with the spirit of God (Ex 31:3) but still this was not the same experience as what believers receive in the church age.

John spoke of the experience to come, and he was the first to use the term "baptized with" the Holy Ghost. Matt 3:11
" I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire"
Jesus referred to this same experience shortly before Pentecost when he said
" For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." (Acts 1:5)
So although, its the same Holy Ghost, experientially it is still a different impartation from what had ever been given before. That is why John wrote that the Holy Ghost had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified. (John 7:39)

SO TR..are you saying that the "filling of the spirit" is differnent from the recieving of the spirit that John said wasn't happening yet.

You see how i and others say there is a differnce in being "filled with the spirit" and having received Christs spirit thru faith at repentance.

Two diferent things Having Christ dwelling in your life and being filled with the spirit are distinctly different experiences.

[J-Roc]

The biggest problem ... and assumption you are working w/ TR is that your 3 steps is salvation doctrine .... and so you point to various instances where commandments are followed [baptism] and manifestations of God's Spirit [tongues, prophesying] as salvation doctrine being implemented .... when from the PCI view ... being saved by grace through faith in the work of the Lamb is SALVATION DOCTRINE .... JESUS TO US IS SALVATION DOCTRINE ...

as long as we disagree on this ... then you looking at Acts as the "best" evidence of salvation doctrine becomes a point of contention ... when we see the epistles as the apostles and church leaders of the time reminding saints how they were saved and expounding on their faith in Jesus Christ.

Your verbosity and attempts to nitpick every argument disguises your fallacious premise to the casual reader ... but is evident just the same to anyone who inferentially.

Sloppy is subjective ... and your inability to harmonize Acts 2:38 w/ God's Plan for Salvation - Jesus Christ- is as sloppy as it gets.



Yes, Dan...that's exactly right....he fails to see how the gospel is succinctly taught here by Paul in (Romans 3:21-31)



But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

[SDG]

Daniel, what are you even talking about? Stop the madness, please.
Your ranting (above) is irrelevant here.
Pay close attention, sir. The question was asked:

So..

Are you telling me that
1-- Bezalel being filled with the Spirit of God (Exodus 31:3)

2- Zechariah being filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:67)

3- Elizabeth being filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:21)

4- John being filled with the Holy Ghost in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15)

...are the same experience as the infilling of the Holy Ghost that happened to Christians in the church age beginning with Pentecost?

If they were the same, John wouldnt have said: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.)Spiritually, experientially, and ontologically, they are very different entities, and served different purposes.

.

Different entities ...??? Spiritually different???? Now there are 2 HOLY GHOSTS???

Stop the madness ... you use a verse that is not translated as you want to make it fit ... and I've gone mad??? Furthermore, when was Jesus glorified? Ascension or post resurrection? Did he not blow on them and tell his disciples receive ye the Holy Ghost post resurrection?

[Scott Hutchinson]

I must say I appreciate the study that those who have drawn differing conclusions here have done,even if I this disagree with some here I appreciate those that know what they believe and why they believe it.

[SDG]

Acts 11:16-18
16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 "If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand
God?" 18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life."

1. Peter states: The disciples and the brethren in Judea received the gift when WE BELIEVED ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

2. Are we to accept that they didn't believe in the Lord Jesus Christ until the second chapter of Acts?

Bump for Brother French.

[TRFrance]

Y'all don't seriously believe that when these epistles were read in the local assembly that there were no sinners there?

Isn't saying that sinners should not read the epistles the same as saying that sinners should ignore any and all teaching in a church unless the service was designated "for sinners only"? Have you ever heard a pastor or evangelist addressing a congregation and make reference in the sermon or teaching that mention how folks get saved?

Sam, lets be honest here. Has anyone ever, ever said that sinners should not read the epistles?

Why would you even distort my argument by implying that? I know of no Pentecostal ever who has ever said or implied any such thing.

There is a big distinction between saying:
the epistles were not addressed to sinners, but to saints...
versus saying
...sinners are not supposed to read the epistles.

Surely you understand that.

[Sam]

I must say I appreciate the study that those who have drawn differing conclusions here have done,even if I this disagree with some here I appreciate those that know what they believe and why they believe it.

It shows the diversity of views among Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals.

[freeatlast]

I must say I appreciate the study that those who have drawn differing conclusions here have done,even if I this disagree with some here I appreciate those that know what they believe and why they believe it.

I'm with you Scott...I feel very inadequate in these deep discussions.

DA and TR are pretty smart fella's

Shoot...one of them is even right.

[SDG]

SO TR..are you saying that the "filling of the spirit" is differnent from the recieving of the spirit that John said wasn't happening yet.

You see how i and others say there is a differnce in being "filled with the spirit" and having received Christs spirit thru faith at repentance.

Two diferent things Having Christ dwelling in your life and being filled with the spirit are distinctly different experiences.

Yet the same Spirit of the Infinite Almighty God that moved over the waters in Genesis and has moved in various ways .... throughout scripture and is moving even today.

[freeatlast]

Sam, lets be honest here. Has anyone ever said that sinners should not read the epistles?

It has been strongly implied that sinners, when reading the Epistles, are reading someone else's mail.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Could it be both sides might have a portion of truth ? Extremities in doctrinal matters are not good ?

[Sam]

Sam, lets be honest here. Has anyone ever said that sinners should not read the epistles?

Not in so many words.
Bro. Norris taught the "Gospels, Acts, and Epistles" division very strongly and basically said that the Epistles were only for saints, not for sinners. He strongly influenced many who became ministers, pastors, teachers, and leaders in the UPC.

[J-Roc]

Herein lie our differences -- we believe that in baptism we are reciting the gospel, while you believe that in baptism we are reenacting the gospel. If one understands that salvation consists of following certain qualifications to achieve acceptance with God, then New Testament texts, such as Acts 2:38, will be interpreted as steps of obedience in order to gain salvation. On the other hand, if one sees that the coming of Christ was a radical shift in God’s approach to salvation (John 1:29)...and if one sees that man’s attempt to achieve salvation through obedience to the Law was a failure (Romans 3) until God came and lived the Law perfectly in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19)....and if one sees that only Christ is qualified before God (Matthew 3:17) through obedience to the Law (Romans 10:3-11).... then, salvation will be understood as a work performed by Christ (Hebrews 9:2-28; 10:10) and offered to man out of the grace of God (Ephesians 2:5-9), and it must be received by faith alone (Romans 4, 5). The focus will be on the greatness of the gift offered and not on the status, conditions or responses of the receiver of the gift. One will then interpret Acts 2:38 more as responses of confession than as “how to get saved.” It is a recital of what Jesus has accomplished, rather than a reenacting of some portion of Jesus’ life that we accomplish through our obedience.

[freeatlast]

Could it be both sides might have a portion of truth ? Extremities in doctrinal matters are not good ?

What Scotty ?? No WAY..we are Apostolics and we have all the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

We have the truth market cornered !!! :bells

[Scott Hutchinson]

I do believe The NT. church was started in the book of ACTS, however the epistles do tell one many of the beautiful aspects of salvation and Christian living.

[Scott Hutchinson]

What Scotty ?? No WAY..we are Apostolics and we have all the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

We have the truth market cornered !!! :bells

Since Jesus Christ is the way,the truth and the life wouldn't one to have to be Jesus to have all of the truth ?
I'm don't have it all figured out I'm still learning.

[SDG]

Herein lie our differences -- we believe that in baptism we are reciting the gospel, while you believe that in baptism we are reenacting the gospel. If one understands that salvation consists of following certain qualifications to achieve acceptance with God, then New Testament texts, such as Acts 2:38, will be interpreted as steps of obedience in order to gain salvation. On the other hand, if one sees that the coming of Christ was a radical shift in God’s approach to salvation (John 1:29)...and if one sees that man’s attempt to achieve salvation through obedience to the Law was a failure (Romans 3) until God came and lived the Law perfectly in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19)....and if one sees that only Christ is qualified before God (Matthew 3:17) through obedience to the Law (Romans 10:3-11).... then, salvation will be understood as a work performed by Christ (Hebrews 9:2-28; 10:10) and offered to man out of the grace of God (Ephesians 2:5-9), and it must be received by faith alone (Romans 4, 5). The focus will be on the greatness of the gift offered and not on the status, conditions or responses of the receiver of the gift. One will then interpret Acts 2:38 more as responses of confession than as “how to get saved.” It is a recital of what Jesus has accomplished, rather than a reenacting of some portion of Jesus’ life that we accomplish through our obedience.

Agreed ... as long as sacramentalists like TR .... believe that re-enactment, or mimicking, of the Work of the Lamb is salvational doctrine

then we must accept that infilling of the Holy Ghost and Christ's communion w/ the believer ... can only be achieved by a tongues experience demonstrating the indwelling of God's Spirit ... and hence being born of His Spirit ... the final piece to the puzzle of full salvation ... finally resurrecting w/ Christ.

[J-Roc]

Sam, lets be honest here. Has anyone ever, ever said that sinners should not read the epistles?

Why would you even distort my argument by implying that? I know of no Pentecostal ever who has ever said or implied any such thing.

There is a big distinction between saying:
the epistles were not addressed to sinners, but to saints...
versus saying
...sinners are not supposed to read the epistles.

Surely you understand that.



What is your point for bringing up that it was addressed to the church if it is not to imply that its words are not for sinners?

Acts was written to Theophilus....do you negate it because it was addressed to him? :banghead

If it is not to imply that....then what does mentioning who it was addressed to have to do with the price of chicken?

[Sam]

Anyone who has access to those old Pentecostal Outlooks,
I seem to remember Bro. Norris having an article in one of them on the "Gospels, Acts, and Epistles" division of the NT. It's too late for me to look it up so I can't say how strongly he emphasized it in that article.

This is a chart based on what he taught.

[SDG]

Anyone who has access to those old Pentecostal Outlooks,
I seem to remember Bro. Norris having an article in one of them on the "Gospels, Acts, and Epistles" division of the NT. It's too late for me to look it up so I can't say how strongly he emphasized it in that article.

This is a chart based on what he taught.

Surely men like Norris have distorted the view of PAJCers to the point that one book and a handful of passages takes pre-eminence in the Word of God

[freeatlast]

Anyone who has access to those old Pentecostal Outlooks,
I seem to remember Bro. Norris having an article in one of them on the "Gospels, Acts, and Epistles" division of the NT. It's too late for me to look it up so I can't say how strongly he emphasized it in that article.

This is a chart based on what he taught.

My former pastor was aBI graduate and he taught it stron htat salvation was ONLY found in Acts. Nobody ever got saved in Epistles.

Epistles were only to the saints to teach them how to stay saved.

[freeatlast]

Br. Norris also taught a form of the light doctrine or something called the rightous the wicked and the holy

[J-Roc]

Romans 2:4-6 "Don’t you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can’t you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin? But because you are stubborn and refuse to turn from your sin, you are storing up terrible punishment for yourself. For a day of anger is coming, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed."

Does this sound like an admonishment exclusively to believers? or is this for sinners? What Believer refuses to turn from their sin that awaits terrible punishment?



Bumperooski

[Sam]

What Scotty ?? No WAY..we are Apostolics and we have all the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

We have the truth market cornered !!! :bells

Well, we are Apostolics.
We're all Apostolics.


and some Apostolics believe that justification/salvation/regeneration happens before water and Spirit baptism while others believe a person is not a child of God until after water and/or Spirit baptism.

So, whether we are "one-steppers" or "two-steppers" or "three-steppers" we are all bruvvers and part of God's big family.

Like the old hymn says,

"I love you.
You love me.
We're God's great big family.
With a great big hug
and a kiss from me to you,
won't you say you love me too?"

How did the Apostle John put it?
"If you believe that Jesus is the Christ --that he is God's Son and your Savior-- then you are a child of God. And all who love the Father love his children too." 1 John 5:1

[Sam]

Br. Norris also taught a form of the light doctrine or something called the rightous the wicked and the holy

Yes, and that doctrine is believed in and taught by more Apostolics than we realize because of the far reaching influence of ABI over the years.

[Sam]

Br. Norris also taught a form of the light doctrine or something called the rightous the wicked and the holy

The "holy, righteous, and wicked" doctrine gives "wiggle room."

It allows a preacher to emphatically say that a person is not saved or is not a child of God without experiencing the two commands and one promise of Acts 2:38 but it leaves "wiggle room" so they don't have to say all of those who have not experienced those three experiences will go to Hell.

[J-Roc]

Yes, Dan...that's exactly right....he fails to see how the gospel is succinctly taught here by Paul in (Romans 3:21-31)



But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.


I love the message above.....that sweet gospel message!

[SDG]

We find to receive him and believe is the same as being filled with the Holy Ghost.If a person is filled they receive the power to become a son of God when the Holy Ghost comes on them.

John.1
[12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

1John.5
[1] Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.


Yes ... receiving him, the Holy Spirit and Word Incarnate, through faith as our Savior, Sanctifier, and Lord .... results in our regeneration ... BEING BORN OF GOD ... OR OF THE SPIRIT..

[TRFrance]

What is your point for bringing up that it was addressed to the church if it is not to imply that its words are not for sinners?

Acts was written to Theophilus....do you negate it because it was addressed to him?

If it is not to imply that....then what does mentioning who it was addressed to have to do with the price of chicken?

J-Roc, you are soooooooo far out in left field with that I'm almost dumbstruck. I'm tired of you and others distorting the clearly meaning of my posts, and then telling me what I'm "implying". Your question will get no further response than that.

Either you're not paying attention, or you're really, really just not getting it. It's as if you're seeing what you want to see. So suit yourself, then, brother.

Blessings...

[J-Roc]

J-Roc, you are soooooooo far out in left field with that I'm almost dumbstruck. I'm tired of you and others distorting the clearly meaning of my posts, and then telling me what I'm "implying". Your question will get no further response than that.

Either you're not paying attention, or you're really, really just not getting it. It's as if you're seeing what you want to see. So suit yourself, then, brother.

Blessings...


You make me chuckle... :jolly :christmaskiss

What's your purpose if it is not to dismiss the fact that the gospel message is found in the book of Romans? You'd like for everyone to think that we can only find the gospel message in the historical book of Acts. Gospel in a box neatly fitted in one verse in the 2nd chapter. It reminds me of the pledge of allegiance robotically recited at BOTT 2007 as led by A.M. to his choir.


Yet, what do you call this in Romans 3?


But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

[TRFrance]

SO TR..are you saying that the "filling of the spirit" is different from the receiving of the spirit that John said wasn't happening yet.

You see how i and others say there is a difference in being "filled with the spirit" and having received Christs spirit thru faith at repentance.

Two different things Having Christ dwelling in your life and being filled with the spirit are distinctly different experiences.

I've already dealt with that bro, in great detail, as a matter of fact.

....Earlier in this thread, if you want to go look.

[TRFrance]

Ok, Dan, once again the actual facts on the ground interfere with your theory/doctrine.
Your doctrinal carelessness is catching up to you again. First, lets briefly recap:

#1 --- You were already caught on the John 20 reference, claiming that the disciples received the Holy Ghost then, when its clear from scripture that they first received it on the day of Pentecost.
#2--- You were caught again when you used Rev 3:20 as proof that Jesus immediately comes into the heart of any believer that comes to him… (you were shown point blank that Rev 3:20 that is a non-salvation related passage,e not having anything to do with the topic at hand, because Jesus was talking about the Laodicean Christians , not about sinners receiving the salvation message)

Using non-salvation-related passages as key scriptures to establish or support your position on salvation doctrine (which is what you were doing) is just bad practice, to put it mildly. ..


Anyway.. this brings us to #3. Here we’ll see another example of the doctrinal sloppiness you keep demonstrating, which makes you less and less credible every time it reveals itself.

Watch real closely, D.
Lets start off with your own words here.

You say that John 7:39 should read The Holy Ghost was not yet [come], rather than “not yet given”.
As you say, in the original, it simply reads “the Holy Ghost was not yet” so the word “given” is supplied by translators, based on the verse’s context, for clarity’s sake. Fine. Understood, and agreed. After examining it in the original, I also believe it could also read “the Holy Ghost was not yet [manifested]”, but either word, I think, could still maintain the essential meaning of the text.


But for the sake of fitting it into your doctrine, you prefer (and almost insist on) using the word “come” in this context. It’s not that important for me to insist on using the word “come” or “given” in this passage, but obviously, it’s important to you, because of the [doctrinal] agenda you have in mind. But let’s follow along, and watch as you trip yourself up, in your careless zeal.

Anyway, to support your position further, you add this, from a Bible Commentary, the John Gill Exposition of the Bible:

for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given];

the word "given" is not in the original text; but is very properly supplied, as it is in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions. The Arabic version renders it, "for the Holy Ghost was not yet come";

he was; he was in being as a divine person, equal with the Father and Son, so he was from everlasting; and he had been bestowed in his grace upon the Old Testament saints, and rested in his gifts upon the prophets of that dispensation; but, as the Jews themselves confess F6 (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=7&verse=39#f),
``after the death of the latter prophets, Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi, the Holy Ghost removed from Israel.''
And they expressly say, be was not there in the time of the second temple. Maimonides says F7 (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=7&verse=39#g),
``they made the Urim and Thummim in the second temple, to complete the eight garments (of the priests) though they did not inquire by them; and why did they not inquire by them? because the Holy Ghost was not there; and every priest that does not speak by the Holy Ghost, and the Shekinah, does not dwell upon him, they do not inquire by him.''
They observeF8 (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=7&verse=39#h) there were five things in the first temple which were not in the second, and they are these,
``the ark with the mercy seat, and cherubim, the fire (from heaven), and the Shekinah, (vdwqh xwrw) , "and the Holy Ghost", and the Urim and Thummim.''
Now, though he had removed, he was to return again; but as yet the time was not come, at least for the more plentiful donation of him:


DAN…ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this here.
You choose to appeal to a commentary writer, who in turn relies on non-scriptural Jewish writings of people like Maimonides (a 12th century Jewish philosopher) ?? Please, STOP THE MADNESS!! Now you see why, over and over I keep saying you’re killing your own credibility. There’s a reason the non-scriptural Jewish writings, (Apocrypha, Talmud, etc), are not part of the Bible. I’m not even going to bother explaining that. I’m assuming you already know; or at least you should.

Nothing in the bible teaches that the Holy Ghost had left Israel after Malachi.( If there was indeed scripture for that, you would have used it, instead of relying on commentaries, and extra-biblical Jewish writers and philosophers.)

But after all that, you’ve built a case that doesn’t hold up to even the most basic scrutiny.

So let’s cut to the chase here…

First of all, does the scripture ever say that the Holy Ghost left after the death of Malachi? NO. It’s supposition at best; and man-made doctrine. But you choose to embrace that belief because you feel it fits into your doctrine.

But here’s the other problem. You’re saying the Holy Ghost left after Malachi, and had “not yet come” (i.e. not yet returned to Israel) at that point in time referred to in John 7:39.

But the Bible says the Holy Ghost had come upon Elizabeth and Zechariah in Luke 1, which of course, wasafter Malachi and before Jesus was even born! So, what’s the deal? Did the Holy Ghost leave after Malachi, come back briefly in Luke 1, and then leave again? That’s the only scenario that would fit the position you’re trying to teach here, ---that the HG was going to “come” back after having left Israel after the death of Malachi.

I think you might want to go back to the lab ...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2210/2113490882_66af56395e_m.jpg
...and work on that part of your doctrine, sir, since I see that you’re committed to advocating the PCI doctrine (that is, the Lite Version of the Gospel)

See, Dan… what you’ve done is gone again and pulled something out of some Commentary somewhere to support your point, and you don’t even see how you end up undercutting your own position and contradicting scripture in the process.

IMHO, you might want to spend more time in the Bible and less time in some of these Bible Commentaries. Your doctrinal sloppiness and lack of attention to detail is really showing itself. You’re trying so hard to support this PCI doctrine, that you’ll find whatever you can to support it.

Meanwhile I notice you have a tendency to try and sidestep the stuff that clearly shoots right through the heart of the doctrine you seem to love so much.

Anyway...have a great day, sir.
And meanwhile, have another sip of that PCI- Kool-aid !! LOL ;)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2171/2113536008_2191ceaa32.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2082/2112744131_09a499d93b.jpg?v=0



.

[TRFrance]

This is a very well laid out post, brother. Good work.
Thanks drummerboy.
(I meant to acknowledge your post earlier on.)

Anyway, this gives me an excuse/opportunity
to put up one of my favorite funny pictures:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2154/2108620985_e38a55db8b.jpg?v=0
:D:D:D

[SDG]

Ok, Dan, once again the actual facts on the ground interfere with your theory/doctrine.
.

You're getting whooped duke, 'fess up ....

you couldn't handle it last nite ... so you whimpered.

That last post ... shows the antics of a prancing, hee-hawing, washed-up, prize fighter whose just been stung and knees buckled....

This discussion on the John 7:20 as prooftext to salvific tongues or "receiving the HG" ...

and reconciling it w/ your sacramentarian re-enactment doctrine, Grasshopper, is plain holey ...

1. in the misuse of a translated word that is not there
2. a confusing theology that mistakes glorification w/ ascension
3. inability to harmonize your salvific works-based pattern w/ the book of Acts in all instances and faith-based doctrine taught in the Epistles and Gospels.

For more on John 7:20 and it's ramifications w/ Christ's glorification and the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in us ... go to the following thread:

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=10503

Kudos on the flailing verbal energy ... but you got to work on the power behind your anemic unsubstantive haymakers.

[Sam]

Dan and TR France,

Why does this have to be about winning an argument or putting one another down?

There are obviously differences of opinion among us here on AFF on:
when a person is saved;
whether or not there is a difference between being born of the Spirit and being baptized in the Spirit;
whether folks were indwelt by the Spirit before Pentecost in Acts chapter 2;
whether sins are forgiven before or after water baptism;
and other things.

These differences of opinion on AFF represent differences of opinion among Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals. We're all in God's family. We're all brothers and sisters. Can't we just give an opinion without resorting to some of the things we say to one another here?

[Joelel]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelel
We find to receive him and believe is the same as being filled with the Holy Ghost.If a person is filled they receive the power to become a son of God when the Holy Ghost comes on them.

John.1
[12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

1John.5
[1] Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

__________________

Yes ... receiving him, the Holy Spirit and Word Incarnate, through faith as our Savior, Sanctifier, and Lord .... results in our regeneration ... BEING BORN OF GOD ... OR OF THE SPIRIT..

Yes and I also would like to say,Just saying I receive Jesus and believe in him as my savior don't mean your filled with the HolY Ghost.Jesus said these signs shall follow them who believe.Anyone filled with the Holy Ghost will have one or more signs follow.

Mark 16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17: And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18: They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover

[TRFrance]

Dan and TR France,

Why does this have to be about winning an argument or putting one another down?

There are obviously differences of opinion among us here on AFF on:
when a person is saved;
whether or not there is a difference between being born of the Spirit and being baptized in the Spirit;
whether folks were indwelt by the Spirit before Pentecost in Acts chapter 2;
whether sins are forgiven before or after water baptism;
and other things.

These differences of opinion on AFF represent differences of opinion among Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals. We're all in God's family. We're all brothers and sisters. Can't we just give an opinion without resorting to some of the things we say to one another here?

Wow. I'm flabbergasted by your post, Sam.

What did I say that was so improper?
Yes I accused Dan of "doctrinal carelessness", and also "doctrinal sloppiness". Those are not put-downs, they are my assessment of how he has presented his case scripturally. I have stated what I specifically found to be doctrinally unsound, and gave clear examples, not all of which he has chosen to respond to so far.

I tried to keep it lighthearted at the end, by telling him to "drink some more Kool-Aid". That was not intended as an insult, and I don't get the impression he took it that way. I'm more that happy to apologize if he took offense. But the "LOL" and smile at the end was to indicate I'm trying to add some levity to the verbal sparring that's gone on here. No-one is putting anyone down here. But if Dan thinks I am, let him express it freely.

However, on the serious issue involved here, I do still believe what I said about his doctrinal carelessness. Facts are facts. He has made several scripture references that have been clearly demonstrated to be inapplicable to the discussion. Should I not call him on it? If we're all so easily offended, why even discuss doctrinal issues at all, since doctrinal issues tend to be polarizing by their very nature? Let's all just sit around then and bake cookies.

Dan has used non salvation-related scriptures as key supporting scriptures for bible doctrine (bad practice. I pointed that out to him)

He also used the John 20:22 passage in to support his position while ignoring other scriptures that clearly contradict his position (also bad practice. I pointed that out to him too).He has had his incorrect use of these scriptures plainly demonstrated to him (and not just by me),

I have asked him several times to answer several questions directly, and his technique seems to be to avoid the tough questions and take shots at the ones he sees as "easy". (bad practice too, but understandable, perhaps :O) So yes, I have stated that I've found him to be evasive at times. Am I not allowed to say that?

He has used non-biblical reference material from Jewish philosophers to build a particular point (extremely bad practice) and then his point still had a huge, glaring inconsistency which I pointed out... (he still hasn't responded directly to that yet). Was that wrong too ? No pointing out glaring errors?

Overall, I believe I have been very balanced in my approach in dealing with him on this post. I have found his tone toward me at times to be somewhat mocking in nature, (I didn't see you criticizing him for that) but I've tried to be a good sport and play it off, by just responding with levity of my own.

And somehow through this whole post you choose to single me out, as being about "winning an argument or putting one another down"?? Please. I must say I'm disappointed in you, Sam. I thought you were more fair minded than that.

The fact is, Dan's hit-and-run, bob-and-weave debating style doesn't lend itself to a thorough, balanced discussion of the issue, but I did the best I could with it. However, when one repeatedly uses specious arguments (like inappropriately referring to non-biblical texts , and using blatantly inapplicable scripture verses that don't even address the issue at hand) --this is untenable in a truly intellectually honest debate or discussion.

It is for such reasons I stated that he kills his own credibility with some of the things he himself said. I've said more than once that I consider him less and less credible the more I see of flagrantly flawed used of scripture. Am I not entitled to express that too, or do you consider that another "put down"?

Doctrinal sloppiness is doctrinal sloppiness. It is what it is. If I see doctrinal sloppiness or carelessness, should I not say it because that's considered "name-calling" now? Should I not call a spade a spade? Should I not call out-of-context misuse of scripture for what it is? If you cant call error error on a doctrinal thread, then why even have doctrinal discussions then?

Am I not allowed to respectfully but firmly express disagreement If I feel someone is clearly off base? Please show me where I was disrespectful toward him or anyone else on this thread.

After all the things both you and I have seen Dan post, not just on this thread, but others, I'm just flabbergasted at your take on this. Dan's words have at times been been very harsh against those who hold "the PAJC position". But I've don't remember seeing you pull his chain even one time.

In the end, Dan's a PCI-er like you, so I guess maybe I shouldn't be surprised that your criticism would be one-sided. I must say again though, honestly, I expected you to be a bit more fair, and balanced.

[SDG]

Sheesh, TR!!!

If you are unable to take the Elder's fair and balanced rebuke of both of us ... and fail to see it as so ... then quite frankly, I question your ability to think critically and objectively.

[TRFrance]

You're getting whooped duke, 'fess up ....

you couldn't handle it last nite ... so you whimpered.

That last post ... shows the antics of a prancing, hee-hawing, washed-up, prize fighter whose just been stung and knees buckled....

Kudos on the flailing verbal energy ... but you got to work on the power behind your anemic unsubstantive haymakers.

Careful.. Sam might accuse you of using "put-downs" to "win an argument".
Wait a sec.... You're Dan the man, so you get a free pass.
Carry on, buddy :O)

[TRFrance]

Sheesh, TR!!!

If you are unable to take the Elder's fair and balance rebuke ... and fail to see it as so ... then quite frankly, I question your ability to think critically and objectively.


Now that's' funny.
He spoke in your defense, so of course you consider him "fair and balanced" . No surprise there.

[SDG]

Dan and TR France,

Why does this have to be about winning an argument or putting one another down?

There are obviously differences of opinion among us here on AFF on:
when a person is saved;
whether or not there is a difference between being born of the Spirit and being baptized in the Spirit;
whether folks were indwelt by the Spirit before Pentecost in Acts chapter 2;
whether sins are forgiven before or after water baptism;
and other things.

These differences of opinion on AFF represent differences of opinion among Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals. We're all in God's family. We're all brothers and sisters. Can't we just give an opinion without resorting to some of the things we say to one another here?

Now that's' funny.
He spoke in your defense, so of course you consider him "fair and balanced" . No surprise there.

I'll try this once more ... re-read his post ... if you can't see it ... then ... :santathumb

[stmatthew]

I stopped debating Dan after I found out he was a Dodger fan.


http://dsp.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pMLB2-1359861p275w.jpg

hehehe

[SDG]

I stopped debating Dan after I found out he was a Dodger fan.


http://dsp.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pMLB2-1359861p275w.jpg

hehehe

I stopped debating Matt when I realized he's still hitting off a tee ...

http://www.littleleague.org/media/images/teeball062605/Tee_Ball_06-05h_400px.JPG

[stmatthew]

Wrong tee Dan

http://69.90.174.251/photos/display_pic_with_logo/5650/5650,1176747206,1.jpg

[J-Roc]

Now that's' funny.
He spoke in your defense, so of course you consider him "fair and balanced" . No surprise there.



I think what is clear is that you didn't seem to understand who Sam was addressing himself to. He never said those words exclusively to you. He was simply saying it to both Dan and you. Look again (Dan & French)... :smack

[TRFrance]

This discussion on the John 7:20 as prooftext to salvific tongues or "receiving the HG" ...

and reconciling it w/ your sacramentarian re-enactment doctrine, Grasshopper, is plain holey ...

1. in the misuse of a translated word that is not there
2. a confusing theology that mistakes glorification w/ ascension
3. inability to harmonize your salvific works-based pattern w/ the book of Acts in all instances and faith-based doctrine taught in the Epistles and Gospels.



1---You keep referring to John 7:20. Do you mean John 7:39 ??
2-- What misuse of a translated word? (Do you even read what I said, or do u just get ready for your next snappy response?) I said plainly that either word used there ("given" or "come") works for me, and neither affects the gist of the verse's meaning. Is that so hard to understand? Go and read it again if you missed it.
3-- You still haven't responded to the fact that the Commentarian you relied on in that post was using extra-biblical Jewish philosophers like Maimonides to help make his point... which in turn you used to make your point.
4-- You haven't responded to my point that there is no biblical backing for your contention that the Holy Ghost left Israel after Malachi died. (I guess that's why you relied on someone's commentary)
5--- You still haven't responded to the fact that even if the Holy Ghost left after Malachi died (un-biblical, but lets go with it for a minute)... the Holy Ghost was here when Zechariah and Elizabeth were here in Luke 1, so your whole argument that John 7:39 referred to the "coming" back of the Holy Ghost to Israel is just implausible.

This is just the latest in a series of proven errors you continue to manifest. Thus, I'll say it again, it's hard to take you seriously. Credibility matters with me, and your repeated fau pax's just on this thread alone makes you NOT someone I can consider a credible voice on this issue.



For more on John 7:20 and it's ramifications w/ Christ's glorification and the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in us ... go to the following thread:
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=10503

Kudos on the flailing verbal energy ... but you got to work on the power behind your anemic unsubstantive haymakers.

No I'm not inclined to rush over there and re-re-hash this issue. Unlike you, I find the PCI/PAJC thing to be intriguing, but I'm not obsessed with it as you seem to be at times.

As I said on a previous post, I find it intriguing that some folks seem to almost put more energy into fighting "PAJC-ers" and the "PAJC positon", rather than fighting the devil and the myriad of false doctrines out there. Your seemingly unbalanced fixation with this single issue is becoming more and more bothersome, frankly.

Blessings..

[J-Roc]

Wow. I'm flabbergasted by your post, Sam.

What did I say that was so improper?
Yes I accused Dan of "doctrinal carelessness", and also "doctrinal sloppiness". Those are not put-downs, they are my assessment of how he has presented his case scripturally. I have stated what I specifically found to be doctrinally unsound, and gave clear examples, not all of which he has chosen to respond to so far.

I tried to keep it lighthearted at the end, by telling him to "drink some more Kool-Aid". That was not intended as an insult, and I don't get the impression he took it that way. I'm more that happy to apologize if he took offense. But the "LOL" and smile at the end was to indicate I'm trying to add some levity to the verbal sparring that's gone on here. No-one is putting anyone down here. But if Dan thinks I am, let him express it freely.

However, on the serious issue involved here, I do still believe what I said about his doctrinal carelessness. Facts are facts. He has made several scripture references that have been clearly demonstrated to be inapplicable to the discussion. Should I not call him on it? If we're all so easily offended, why even discuss doctrinal issues at all, since doctrinal issues tend to be polarizing by their very nature? Let's all just sit around then and bake cookies.

Dan has used non salvation-related scriptures as key supporting scriptures for bible doctrine (bad practice. I pointed that out to him)

He also used the John 20:22 passage in to support his position while ignoring other scriptures that clearly contradict his position (also bad practice. I pointed that out to him too).He has had his incorrect use of these scriptures plainly demonstrated to him (and not just by me),

I have asked him several times to answer several questions directly, and his technique seems to be to avoid the tough questions and take shots at the ones he sees as "easy". (bad practice too, but understandable, perhaps :O) So yes, I have stated that I've found him to be evasive at times. Am I not allowed to say that?

He has used non-biblical reference material from Jewish philosophers to build a particular point (extremely bad practice) and then his point still had a huge, glaring inconsistency which I pointed out... (he still hasn't responded directly to that yet). Was that wrong too ? No pointing out glaring errors?

Overall, I believe I have been very balanced in my approach in dealing with him on this post. I have found his tone toward me at times to be somewhat mocking in nature, (I didn't see you criticizing him for that) but I've tried to be a good sport and play it off, by just responding with levity of my own.

And somehow through this whole post you choose to single me out, as being about "winning an argument or putting one another down"?? Please. I must say I'm disappointed in you, Sam. I thought you were more fair minded than that.

The fact is, Dan's hit-and-run, bob-and-weave debating style doesn't lend itself to a thorough, balanced discussion of the issue, but I did the best I could with it. However, when one repeatedly uses specious arguments (like inappropriately referring to non-biblical texts , and using blatantly inapplicable scripture verses that don't even address the issue at hand) --this is untenable in a truly intellectually honest debate or discussion.

It is for such reasons I stated that he kills his own credibility with some of the things he himself said. I've said more than once that I consider him less and less credible the more I see of flagrantly flawed used of scripture. Am I not entitled to express that too, or do you consider that another "put down"?

Doctrinal sloppiness is doctrinal sloppiness. It is what it is. If I see doctrinal sloppiness or carelessness, should I not say it because that's considered "name-calling" now? Should I not call a spade a spade? Should I not call out-of-context misuse of scripture for what it is? If you cant call error error on a doctrinal thread, then why even have doctrinal discussions then?

Am I not allowed to respectfully but firmly express disagreement If I feel someone is clearly off base? Please show me where I was disrespectful toward him or anyone else on this thread.

After all the things both you and I have seen Dan post, not just on this thread, but others, I'm just flabbergasted at your take on this. Dan's words have at times been been very harsh against those who hold "the PAJC position". But I've don't remember seeing you pull his chain even one time.

In the end, Dan's a PCI-er like you, so I guess maybe I shouldn't be surprised that your criticism would be one-sided. I must say again though, honestly, I expected you to be a bit more fair, and balanced.



:blah:blah:blah:blah

[RevDWW]

:blah:blah:blah:blah

Wow! A PCI'er with substance........:killinme :killinme :killinme :killinme :killinme

[TRFrance]

I think what is clear is that you didn't seem to understand who Sam was addressing himself to. He never said those words exclusively to you. He was simply saying it to both Dan and you. Look again (Dan & French)... :smack
You're right. I misread it in the beginning. (sorry, Sam)

But my larger point still is that just because you criticize someone's position doesn't mean you are putting them down. Whether Sam was getting on me alone, (or both, as he was) fact is... I cant speak for Dan, but as for me, I was not putting Dan down by asking very direct questions (many which he still hasn't answered) and criticizing his arguments and scriptural approach.

But if this is all becoming too contentious, we can drop the issue if need be.
Dan doesn’t seem inclined to answer some of my direct questions and statements anyway, so we could just leave it alone.I'm ok with it.




But still
:blah:blah:blah:blah
That wasn't necessary, really.

[J-Roc]

But still

That wasn't necessary, really.



:christmaskiss

[TRFrance]

:christmaskiss

(Yuck.)
I'd be ok with a hug.
Not sure about this kissing business.
:D

[TRFrance]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2153/2114488848_97d32978a2.jpg?v=0
:wave

[J-Roc]

"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,..." (1 Corinthians 15)


Why is he not mentioning Acts 2-38 as first importance? How could he have failed to mention the key verse?

[stmatthew]

"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,..." (1 Corinthians 15)


Why is he not mentioning Acts 2-38 as first importance? How could he have failed to mention the key verse?

The Gospel = death, burial and resurrection of Christ

Our obedience (response) to the Gospel = death, burial, resurrection

[J-Roc]

(Yuck.)
I'd be ok with a hug.
Not sure about this kissing business.
:D


Got scriptcha for that too, bud!


Romans 16:16 - Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

1 Corinthians 16:20 - All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.


2 Corinthians 13:12 - Greet one another with an holy kiss.

1 Thessalonians 5:26 - Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.


If you want, Ronzo or Bill Price will hug your neck....(dont know if there is scripture for that though.... :jolly )

[J-Roc]

The Gospel = death, burial and resurrection of Christ

Our obedience (response) to the Gospel = death, burial, resurrection


Our response to the gospel is BELIEVING & TRUSTING!

That don't make sense, huh.....that's just too easy, isn't it? That's just foolishness, aint it?

[stmatthew]

Our response to the gospel is BELIEVING & TRUSTING!

That don't make sense, huh.....that's just too easy, isn't it? That's just foolishness, aint it?

So you can believe, yet not obey? The bible states that the Spirit is given to them that OBEY. Easy believism doesn't cut it as far as salvation is concerned.

[TRFrance]

The Gospel = death, burial and resurrection of Christ

Our obedience (response) to the Gospel = death, burial, resurrection

Our response to the gospel is BELIEVING & TRUSTING!

That don't make sense, huh.....that's just too easy, isn't it? That's just foolishness, aint it?

J-Roc, believing and trusting don't negate the need to obey the gospel.
Why do you have a problem with the concept that the gospel requires obedience as well as belief and trust in God??

[stmatthew]

Our response to the gospel is BELIEVING & TRUSTING!

That don't make sense, huh.....that's just too easy, isn't it? That's just foolishness, aint it?

Do you do away with repentance too??

[J-Roc]

Our response to the gospel is BELIEVING & TRUSTING!

That don't make sense, huh.....that's just too easy, isn't it? That's just foolishness, aint it?



Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense. But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.....God has united you with Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made him to be wisdom itself. Christ made us right with God; he made us pure and holy, and he freed us from sin. (1 Corinthians 1)

[J-Roc]

So you can believe, yet not obey? The bible states that the Spirit is given to them that OBEY. Easy believism doesn't cut it as far as salvation is concerned.



NOPE, That is not what the Bible says...Paul addresses your question.


There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law. (Romans 3)

[J-Roc]

J-Roc, believing and trusting don't negate the need to obey the gospel.
Why do you have a problem with the concept that the gospel requires obedience as well as belief and trust in God??



You are misrepresenting my beliefs by suggesting I have a problem with obedience....in fact, I addressed this in my previous post. :tiphat

[stmatthew]

NOPE, That is not what the Bible says...Paul addresses your question.


There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law. (Romans 3)

NOPE to you.

Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

IF one does not obey, they do not receive his Spirit.

[stmatthew]

Our response to the gospel is BELIEVING & TRUSTING!

That don't make sense, huh.....that's just too easy, isn't it? That's just foolishness, aint it?

Do you do away with repentance too??

.

[staysharp]

So you can believe, yet not obey? The bible states that the Spirit is given to them that OBEY. Easy believism doesn't cut it as far as salvation is concerned.

Obedience comes when the heart falls in love with Jesus. "If you love me, keep my commandments." You cannot obey until you love him, you cannot love him until he has forgiven you. "To whom much is forgiven, the same loveth much." You fall in love when you receive his forgiveness and recognize his sacrifice for your sin.

Here's the real plan of salvation.
1. Come to God with a heart of repentance seeking him to be Lord of your life.
2. Jesus saves you and washed you.
3. You are greatful for forgiveness and Calvary.
4. You fall in love with Jesus.
5. You submit to his will for your life which includes baptism as a sign of inward faith.
6. You fall in love with him more everyday.
7. You surrender to his will again.
8. You seek the baptism of the H.G.
9. You stay close to Jesus and develop a relationship with him.
10. You start helping people and loving everyone you meet.
11. You stop complaining.
12. You stop gossiping on AFF
13. You stop telling everybody else their lost.
14. You surrender again to Jesus and his will for your life.
15. You continuous live by the renewing of His word.
16. You walk in humility before the Lord.
17. You go on a 40 day fast.
18. You cook burritos and peanut brittle until you can't stand up anymore.
19. You pay your tithes and offerings faithfully.
20. You teach Sunday School.
21. You go to revival 14 nights in a row and pray each other through again and again.
22. You get old and grumpy.
23. You get old and don't like what the kids are listening to or are wearing.
24. You develop chronic fatique syndrome.
25. You develop arthritis.
26. You develop diabetes.
27. Eventually you die.

[TRFrance]

This thread is beginning to go around in circles now...

[J-Roc]

NOPE to you.

Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

IF one does not obey, they do not receive his Spirit.


Lol...Matt...my nope to you was a direct answer to your question if one can believe and not obey. The answer to that is - Nope

I proved it with the text I highlighted in red:
Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.


Did you read my response at all...or were you to busy loading up your gun...rofl....your answer is in red. :santathumb

[J-Roc]

This thread is beginning to go around in circles now...


Welcome to the AFF....bizniz as usual! :tiphat

[J-Roc]

SOMEONE PLEASE POINT ME TO THE CROSS!!!




But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

[J-Roc]

Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. (Romans 3)

[stmatthew]

Our response to the gospel is BELIEVING & TRUSTING!

That don't make sense, huh.....that's just too easy, isn't it? That's just foolishness, aint it?

Do you do away with repentance too??

Let me ask this again.

Since believing and trusting are all one must do to be saved, is repentance not a prerequisite for salvation?

[mizpeh]

[/INDENT]Spiritually, experientially, and ontologically, these experiences (pre-Pentecost/post-Pentecost) are very different entities, and served different purposes.

.

Ontologically different? How's that?

[J-Roc]

Let me ask this again.

Since believing and trusting are all one must do to be saved, is repentance not a prerequisite for salvation?



LOL...Matt


Romans 2 addresses that too:


Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

[stmatthew]

LOL...Matt


Romans 2 addresses that too:


Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

NOW WAIT A MINUTE. You are adding a work on our part to this. It is no longer JUST believing and obeying!!

Again, instead of answering with scripture, simply answer me. IS it ONLY Faith and Trust, or do you now add repentance into the salvation equation?

[J-Roc]

NOW WAIT A MINUTE. You are adding a work on our part to this. It is no longer JUST believing and obeying!!

Again, instead of answering with scripture, simply answer me. IS it ONLY Faith and Trust, or do you now add repentance into the salvation equation?



Abraham was, humanly speaking, the founder of our Jewish nation. What did he discover about being made right with God? If his good deeds had made him acceptable to God, he would have had something to boast about. But that was not God’s way. For the Scriptures tell us, “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.” When people work, their wages are not a gift, but something they have earned. But people are counted as righteous, not because of their work, but because of their faith in God who forgives sinners.

[mizpeh]

SO TR..are you saying that the "filling of the spirit" is differnent from the recieving of the spirit that John said wasn't happening yet.

You see how i and others say there is a differnce in being "filled with the spirit" and having received Christs spirit thru faith at repentance.

Two diferent things Having Christ dwelling in your life and being filled with the spirit are distinctly different experiences.

How is having Christ dwelling in us and being filled with the Spirit different?
Are these two different Spirits?
What scripture says we received the Spirit of Christ at repentance?
Do you realize if you received the Spirit of Christ at repentance then you are negating being saved by faith alone?

Sorry for all the questions but I want to understand where you are coming from.

[stmatthew]

NOW WAIT A MINUTE. You are adding a work on our part to this. It is no longer JUST believing and obeying!!

Again, instead of answering with scripture, simply answer me. IS it ONLY Faith and Trust, or do you now add repentance into the salvation equation?

Abraham was, humanly speaking, the founder of our Jewish nation. What did he discover about being made right with God? If his good deeds had made him acceptable to God, he would have had something to boast about. But that was not God’s way. For the Scriptures tell us, “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.” When people work, their wages are not a gift, but something they have earned. But people are counted as righteous, not because of their work, but because of their faith in God who forgives sinners.

Don't hedge now. Is repentance mandatory for salvation, or is it JUST believe and Trust, as you have promoted.

With your above post, it seems to be saying that you do not believe one repents to be saved, but that they repent because they are saved. But I do not want to misrepresent you, so I am attempting to allow you to clarify.

[mizpeh]

Different entities ...??? Spiritually different???? Now there are 2 HOLY GHOSTS???

Stop the madness ... you use a verse that is not translated as you want to make it fit ... and I've gone mad??? Furthermore, when was Jesus glorified? Ascension or post resurrection? Did he not blow on them and tell his disciples receive ye the Holy Ghost post resurrection?


Jesus was glorified when he ascended into heaven to sit on the right hand of God. It was at this time that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to infill/indwell/baptize all believers, not post resurrection.

Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

[J-Roc]

NOW WAIT A MINUTE. You are adding a work on our part to this. It is no longer JUST believing and obeying!!

Again, instead of answering with scripture, simply answer me. IS it ONLY Faith and Trust, or do you now add repentance into the salvation equation?


The focal point of biblical repentance is the Lord himself. We turn from sin to the Lord....and 2 Chronicles 7:14 provides a good example of this:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Turning from our wicked ways is certainly an important part of biblical repentance, but not the focus, “Seek my face,” God says. Turning from sin cannot save us from sin. Only turning from sin to the Lord, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” can save us from sin (John 1:29). Therefore, total repentance is a total change in orientation from sin to trusting Christ. Our focus cannot remain sin-centered. That would not be true repentance.”

So, to sum up the answer to your question...when we trust in the LORD we are inherently turning away from sin and turning toward Jesus.

Repentance goes hand in hand with believing/trusting in Jesus.

[J-Roc]

I found this interesting:


“There are two ways to believe. The first way is to believe about God, meaning that we believe what is taught about God is really true. It’s similar to believing that what is taught about the devil or hell is true. This type of belief is more a statement of knowledge than an expression of faith.


“The second way is to believe in God. This not only includes believing what is taught about God is true but also includes trusting him and daring to be in relationship with him. It means believing without any doubt that he really is who he says he is, and he will do all he says he will do. I wouldn’t believe any person to this same degree, no matter how highly others might praise him. It’s easy to believe that someone is godly, but it’s another matter to completely rely on him.


“A person who believes in God believes everything written about God in Scripture. He dares to believe this in life and in death. This faith makes a person a true Christian and gives him everything he desires from God. A person with an evil, hypocritical heart can’t have this type of faith, for it’s a living faith, as described in the first commandment: “I am the LORD your God . . . Never have any other god” (Exodus 20:2-3).


- Martin Luther

[stmatthew]

The focal point of biblical repentance is the Lord himself. We turn from sin to the Lord....and 2 Chronicles 7:14 provides a good example of this:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Turning from our wicked ways is certainly an important part of biblical repentance, but not the focus, “Seek my face,” God says. Turning from sin cannot save us from sin. Only turning from sin to the Lord, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” can save us from sin (John 1:29). Therefore, total repentance is a total change in orientation from sin to trusting Christ. Our focus cannot remain sin-centered. That would not be true repentance.”

So, to sum up the answer to your question...when we trust in the LORD we are inherently turning away from sin and turning toward Jesus.

Repentance goes hand in hand with believing/trusting in Jesus.

So there is not a need to confess sins and all the alter stuff. Simply Believing in Jesus, and trusting him is automatically repenting of sins???

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

So there is not a need to confess sins and all the alter stuff. Simply Believing in Jesus, and trusting him is automatically repenting of sins???

James 2:19 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)


19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

[Sam]

I found this interesting:


“There are two ways to believe. The first way is to believe about God, meaning that we believe what is taught about God is really true. It’s similar to believing that what is taught about the devil or hell is true. This type of belief is more a statement of knowledge than an expression of faith.


“The second way is to believe in God. This not only includes believing what is taught about God is true but also includes trusting him and daring to be in relationship with him. It means believing without any doubt that he really is who he says he is, and he will do all he says he will do. I wouldn’t believe any person to this same degree, no matter how highly others might praise him. It’s easy to believe that someone is godly, but it’s another matter to completely rely on him.


“A person who believes in God believes everything written about God in Scripture. He dares to believe this in life and in death. This faith makes a person a true Christian and gives him everything he desires from God. A person with an evil, hypocritical heart can’t have this type of faith, for it’s a living faith, as described in the first commandment: “I am the LORD your God . . . Never have any other god” (Exodus 20:2-3).


- Martin Luther

Some times we are accused of making it too easy or too simple when we talk about a person being saved or justified by faith. The way I understand it is that faith is not just mentally agreeing with some one or some thing. Faith results in action.

Hebrews chapter 11 is called “the faith chapter” or “God’s Hall of Fame.” Throughout the whole chapter we are given example after example of people of faith. In each case the faith of these people resulted in action. Over and over we read, “by faith, so and so DID such and such.” It is an action chapter. Joni Eareckson -Tada said, “Faith isn’t the ability to believe long and far into the misty future, It’s simply taking God at His Word and taking the next step.” Martin Luther King said, “Take the first step in faith. You don’t have to see the whole staircase, just the first step.”

These are some notes that I’ve written in my Bible in chapter 2 of the Book of James. Some are attributed to the person who said or wrote them, others I don’t remember where I heard or saw them.

"Faith is the root of salvation, works are the fruit."

John Calvin said, “Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone.”

“Faith is not even worthy of the name until it erupts into action,” Catherine Marshall

“Faith is never passive. It is an action word. It is not just mental assent. It demands a response --some kind of action,” Bill Bright

"Doing, not doctrine, is the test of faith."

"Faith leads people to do what the men of the world cannot understand at all."

Rev. Dr. Halsey Dewey spent at least 30 years as a missionary for the Methodist Church in India. On one occasion he invited Mahatma Gandhi to speak to his congregation. Gandhi said, “If you Christians would truly follow the teachings as found in your Bible, you could take this city by storm.”

----------------------------------------------
Believing in Jesus or believing on Jesus, or trusting in Jesus as Savior.

I’m not quite sure what “easy believism” is. I’ve heard the term before and I think it means just a mental assent to something or what we might call head faith. For example we could say we believe in George Washington or we believe in Abraham Lincoln This could mean that we accept the concept that there was indeed an historical person named George Washington and one named Abraham Lincoln. Many people believe in Jesus this way. Yes, there was years ago a person named Jesus who lived, taught, and died in the area we now call Israel. I don’t think that is what the Bible means when it speaks of believing in or having faith in Jesus Christ. James chapter 2 speaks of faith which is demonstrated by and accompanied by action contrasted with just saying we believe. The difference would be between head faith and heart faith or between living faith and dead faith. James 2:18 sarcastically says that just claiming to believe doesn’t mean much because the demons believe in one God and obviously they are not saved by that kind of faith. Some times we hear the term saving faith which would mean a trust in or surrender to Jesus.

John 1:12 says that if a person receives Jesus he then has the right to become a child of God. The term receive is then expanded to mean believing in His name. Acts 16:31 says believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. 1 John 5:1 says that whoever believes that Jesus is the Anointed One or the Christ has been born of God. Romans 10:9-10 says that if a person confesses with his mouth Jesus as Lord and believes in his heart that Jesus has risen from the dead, that person is saved. This is further explained that with the heart a person believes unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. In other words, salvation occurs when a person believes in or trusts in Jesus. One of the pastors of the VCC where I used to go says he prefers to use the word trust instead of faith or believe. One of the Bibles that I regularly use, The Complete Jewish Bible, uses the words trust or trusting instead of faith, believe or believing.

These are a couple of notes from the Spirit Filled Life Bible, copyright 1991, Jack Hayford, General Editor. These notes attempt to define the words believe and faith as used in the Old and New Testaments.

Believe, Hebrew word aman, Strong’s number 539, To be firm, stable, established; also, to be firmly persuaded; to believe solidly. In its causative form aman means to believe, that is, to consider trustworthy. This is the word used in Gen 15:6, when Abraham believed in the Lord. ...From aman comes emunah, faith. The most famous derivative is amen which conveys this idea; It is solidly, firmly, surely true and verified and established.

Faith, Greek word pistis, Strong’s number 4102. Conviction, confidence, trust, belief, reliance, trustworthiness, and persuasion. In the NT setting, pistis is the divinely implanted principle of inward confidence, assurance, trust, and reliance in God and all that He says.

Believe, Greek word pistseuo, Strong's 4100, The verb form of pistis, faith. It means to trust in, have faith in, be fully convinced of, acknowledge, rely on. Pisteuo is more than credence in church doctrines or articles of faith. it expresses reliance upon and a personal trust that produces obedience. It includes submission and a positive confession of the lordship of Jesus.

This is a note from the preface of the Amplified Bible
...Acts 16:31 reads: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. What does the word believe mean? Webster defines it: to place credence...apart from personal knowledge; to expect or hope...to be more or less firmly persuaded of the truth of anything, to think or suppose. In this sense, most people believe in Christ --that He lived; that He was a perfect Man Who sincerely believed Himself to be the Son of God, and that He died on the cross to save sinners. But this is by no means the meaning of the Greek word which twenty-two New Testament versions out of twenty-four consulted render believe. They do so because there is no one English word that adequately conveys the intended meaning. Actually, the Greek word used here for believe is pisteuo. It means to adhere to, cleave to, to trust, to have faith in; to rely on. Consequently the words, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ really mean to have an absolute personal reliance upon the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.

This is the way Acts 16:31 reads in the Amplified Bible
31And they answered, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ give yourself up to Him, [take yourself out of your own keeping and entrust yourself into His keeping] and you will be saved, [and this applies both to] you and your household as well

[Felicity]

I might be posting this in the wrong area and if so please forgive me.
I understand some Pentecostal groups and some here on AFF ,believe one is saved and then filled with The Holy Ghost.Evidently a fair amount of OPs teach this.
Now this is asked in charity, but I do read scriptures that say without the Spirit of Christ you can't be His,or none of His Or I read verses that say it is by One Spirit we are baptized into one body.

Ok what is the difference in receiving the Holy Ghost and being baptized with The Holy Ghost ?Isn't terms like being filled with The Holy Spirit and such synonymous terms for the same experience.
If regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit how can one be regenerate with the Spirit of Christ ?

Also doesn't receiving the Spirit comes after repentance and not at repentance I understand.Because doesn't ACTS.2:37,38 teach that the Holy Ghost comes after repentance.

So can one be saved and not have the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit ?

I am open-minded and willing to hear other's views on this subject.Different works/operations of the Holy Ghost produce different effects. That's the answer to your question.

I came across the scripture that affirms this point but I'd have to go look for it because I forget the reference and I'm going to bed instead.

God bless!

[J-Roc]

So there is not a need to confess sins and all the alter stuff. Simply Believing in Jesus, and trusting him is automatically repenting of sins???


Isnt it amazing how through one man Adam we are all condemned, but through one man Jesus we are given right standing? Here is the stark contrast. How can it be that Jesus is the answer? SOMEONE PLEASE POINT ME TO THE CROSS!!!



For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins. For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.
Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone. Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous. (Romans 5)

[J-Roc]

Simply Believing in Jesus



What does this mean to you? Is this a light matter...is believing in Jesus too insufficient for you? Is he not the object of our faith? I am dismayed by this phrase as if to suggest he is not enough. Yes, believing in Jesus is the foolishness that God used. And I cling to this foolish message of believing in Him.


...he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense. But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength. (1 Corinthians 1)

[J-Roc]

Doesn't Ron Libby hold a yearly conference during Thanksgiving for youths.... SIMPLY JESUS!

[crakjak]

Isnt it amazing how through one man Adam we are all condemned, but through one man Jesus we are given right standing? Here is the stark contrast. How can it be that Jesus is the answer? SOMEONE PLEASE POINT ME TO THE CROSS!!!



For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins. For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.
Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone. Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous. (Romans 5)

Don't you know Romans is a foreign lanugage to most OP's?

[J-Roc]

Don't you know Romans is a foreign lanugage to most OP's?


Evidently... :iagree


Many think "believing" is an insignificant matter. Yet, it is of utmost importance when it is placed on the crucified Jesus.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

What does this mean to you? Is this a light matter...is believing in Jesus too insufficient for you? Is he not the object of our faith? I am dismayed by this phrase as if to suggest he is not enough. Yes, believing in Jesus is the foolishness that God used. And I cling to this foolish message of believing in Him.


...he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense. But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength. (1 Corinthians 1)

So to you not only The Infilling of The Holy Ghost, but also Repentance and Water Baptism is optional?

:covereyes :huh :covered

[J-Roc]

So to you not only The Infilling of The Holy Ghost, but also Repentance and Water Baptism is optional?

:covereyes :huh :covered

I've yet to see you delve deep in these matters on any thread...please provide some meat and I'd be happy to engage. :santathumb

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

I've yet to see you delve deep in these matters on any thread...please provide some meat and I'd be happy to engage. :santathumb

It is a direct question. You sidestepped almost as good as Daniel, but it is a simple direct question. Let me simplify it again for you.

A- Do you believe in essentially of Repentance, Water Baptism, and the Infilling of the Holy Ghost?

B- Do you not believe the above?

Your posting that I have read on this thread screams out B, and so that is why I asked a simple question. A 4 yr old child can answer yes or no. Why did you make it sound like this is so deep you cannot?

[TRFrance]

On the board last night I went on a bit of a rant in response to a previous post by Sam that was directed at both me and Dan. I had carelessly misread the post initially, not realizing it was directed at both of us, rather than just me, as it seemed at first glance.

My apologies,not just to Sam, but to all, for for speaking rashly. I apologized on the board last night, briefly. But I thought I should come back to apologize more fully. I'll be more careful in the future.

Peace 2 all.

[mizpeh]

On the board last night I went on a bit of a rant in response to a previous post by Sam that was directed at both me and Dan. I had carelessly misread the post initially, not realizing it was directed at both of us, rather than just me, as it seemed at first glance.

My apologies,not just to Sam, but to all, for for speaking rashly. I apologized on the board last night, briefly. But I thought I should come back to apologize more fully. I'll be more careful in the future.

Peace 2 all.

I wasn't offended but thank you for this.

[SDG]

It is a direct question. You sidestepped almost as good as Daniel, but it is a simple direct question. Let me simplify it again for you.

<b>A- Do you believe in essentially of Repentance, Water Baptism, and the Infilling of the Holy Ghost?

B- Do you not believe the above?</b>

Your posting that I have read on this thread screams out B, and so that is why I asked a simple question. A 4 yr old child can answer yes or no. Why did you make it sound like this is so deep you cannot?


On the board last night I went on a bit of a rant in response to a previous post by Sam that was directed at both me and Dan. I had carelessly misread the post initially, not realizing it was directed at both of us, rather than just me, as it seemed at first glance.

My apologies,not just to Sam, but to all, for for speaking rashly. I apologized on the board last night, briefly. But I thought I should come back to apologize more fully. I'll be more careful in the future.

Peace 2 all.

It's cool TR. Love ya, bro.

Saving my darts for another day .... y'all have fun.

Oh ... wait ..

BOOM ... the simple answer to your simple question is YES.

Yet, re-asking a question ... is not substantive or somehow proof you've "cornered" someone.

Your question perhaps is mistyped because ... essentially J-Roc believes in relation to a genuinely repentant believer that baptism is important and necessary for obedience. He also believes that a born again believer is by virtue of his new birth indwelt w/ the Holy Ghost ... that's what makes us new creatures.

It's hilarious to hear you guys ... ask DO YOU BELIEVE THIS ... after 10 months of ring around the rosy.

We are not discussing if we believe in Acts 2:38 ... we all do ... and believe it's the God-breathed inerrant Word of God ...

but, once again, we are discussing the when, how and what of our initial salvation and regeneration. Including topics about remission, justification, sanctification, etc.

It boggles my mind to see how radical orthodoxy can cloud reason. Not liking an answer or an explanation does not mean a plausible interpretation has not been given. Your inability to process the explanation w/o having to accept it may show an inability to think and read critically.

IT IS POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE IN THE SAME CONCEPTS AND NOT INTERPRET IT IN THE SAME WAY ...

This a truth that perhaps a 4 year old cannot grasp because he is in a pre-operational and simple concrete operations stage.

Furthermore, it is intellectually dishonest to use this interrogative technique if you do understand the layers to this soteriological discussion and continue to ask.

In the end, we still all can and will throw around the side-stepping, dodger, dancer labels because we feel a person hasn't answered our question w/ the answer we have in our noggins ....

So we continue .... COME LET US REASON.

[TRFrance]

It is a direct question. You sidestepped almost as good as Daniel, but it is a simple direct question. Let me simplify it again for you.


A-HA!!!... So I'm not the only one who's noticed that Daniel is the master sidestepper. I guess that's his modus operandi here. I was beginning to figure that out for myself, but I guess I'll take this as confirmation.

Dan certainly seems to be a combination of Muhammad Ali (bobbing and weaving), and Fred Astaire (dancing/sidestepping) here on AFF. After a while it does become amusing to watch. ;)

it is a simple direct question. Let me simplify it again for you.
<b>A- Do you believe in essentially of Repentance, Water Baptism, and the Infilling of the Holy Ghost?

B- Do you not believe the above?</b>Your posting that I have read on this thread screams out B, and so that is why I asked a simple question. A 4 yr old child can answer yes or no. Why did you make it sound like this is so deep you cannot?

BoredoutmyMind.. good luck getting a direct answer from J-Roc on that one.

Sounds like his answer would almost certainly be B, rather than A, just judging from his previous posts. But getting him to come out and say it directly might not be very easy.

[SDG]

Good job in borrowing my boxing analogy ... the Fred Estaire one was used by PJ, just this week. Come let us reason .... lol.

[SDG]

Obedience comes when the heart falls in love with Jesus. "If you love me, keep my commandments." You cannot obey until you love him, you cannot love him until he has forgiven you. "To whom much is forgiven, the same loveth much." You fall in love when you receive his forgiveness and recognize his sacrifice for your sin.

Here's the real plan of salvation.
1. Come to God with a heart of repentance seeking him to be Lord of your life.
2. Jesus saves you and washed you.
3. You are greatful for forgiveness and Calvary.
4. You fall in love with Jesus.
5. You submit to his will for your life which includes baptism as a sign of inward faith.
6. You fall in love with him more everyday.
7. You surrender to his will again.
8. You seek the baptism of the H.G.
9. You stay close to Jesus and develop a relationship with him.
10. You start helping people and loving everyone you meet.
11. You stop complaining.
12. You stop gossiping on AFF
13. You stop telling everybody else their lost.
14. You surrender again to Jesus and his will for your life.
15. You continuous live by the renewing of His word.
16. You walk in humility before the Lord.
17. You go on a 40 day fast.
18. You cook burritos and peanut brittle until you can't stand up anymore.
19. You pay your tithes and offerings faithfully.
20. You teach Sunday School.
21. You go to revival 14 nights in a row and pray each other through again and again.
22. You get old and grumpy.
23. You get old and don't like what the kids are listening to or are wearing.
24. You develop chronic fatigue syndrome.
25. You develop arthritis.
26. You develop diabetes.
27. Eventually you die.

Is that all? When am I regenerated? How?

[J-Roc]

It is a direct question. You sidestepped almost as good as Daniel, but it is a simple direct question. Let me simplify it again for you.

A- Do you believe in essentially of Repentance, Water Baptism, and the Infilling of the Holy Ghost?

B- Do you not believe the above?

Your posting that I have read on this thread screams out B, and so that is why I asked a simple question. A 4 yr old child can answer yes or no. Why did you make it sound like this is so deep you cannot?


BOOM, I have yet to see you engage in debating these matters...instead I see you sitting on the bleachers thinking you can come in to serve as Prosecutor and throw around your questions.

I am welcoming you to come into the debate and show me your meat and I'll be more than happy to engage....until then, you're no prosecutor nor am I on the witness stand...your questions will be deemed worthy of my attention when I see you get in the octagon and show me your stuff....I'm asking for meat....I want to read your thoughts and see you defend your beliefs...I don't want to hear chants from the fans that sit on the bleachers, I want to see you in the octagon of debate.


http://blog.stats.com/UFC_OCTAGON_small.jpg

[J-Roc]

BoredoutmyMind.. good luck getting a direct answer from J-Roc on that one...But getting him to come out and say it directly might not be very easy.



Yes, I agree...Good luck. It won't be easy for him from the nose bleed section....he needs to get in the octagon and engage....until then, all I hear are chants.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39523000/jpg/_39523982_fanchant203.jpg