Saved WithOut The Holy Ghost ?

[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]

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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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.

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:

Originally Posted by Revelationist

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]

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)

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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.