Saved WithOut The Holy Ghost ?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Greek:

kai egeneto (5633) wv hkousen (5656) ton aspasmon thv Mariav h Elisabet, eskirthsen (5656) to brefov en th koilia authv, kai eplhsqh(5681) pneumatov agiou h Elisabet,

Acts 2:4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

Greek:

kai eplhsqhsan (5681) pantev pneumatov agiou, kai hrcanto lalein (5721) eteraiv glwssaiv kaqwv to pneuma edidou (5707) apofqeggesqai (5738) autoiv.

Luke 1:67

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:

Kai Zaxariav o pathr autou eplhsqh (5681) pneumatov agiou kai eprofhteusen (5656) legwn, (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]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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

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

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,

``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,

``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 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.

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]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

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.

Originally Posted by J-Roc

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.

Originally Posted by J-Roc

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.

Originally Posted by J-Roc

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.

Originally Posted by J-Roc

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!

Originally Posted by J-Roc

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.

Originally Posted by J-Roc

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 [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 .... PLACING FAITH ON 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 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.