born of water

[obriencp]

Originally Posted by Hesetmefree238

I believe our argument has to based around this is the Bible way of doing it. This is the way the Apostles did it. Let's follow and obey the scriptural pattern. I agree we lose a lot of people by trying to get them to be baptized so they can be forgiven of their sins, when they've repented and been filled with the Spirit. It has to be based around you need to be baptized in Jesus name, because this is the Apostolic way of doing it. This was part of the plan of salvation and message that Peter preached. We do agree about where the blood is initially applied and that's at faith accompanied with repentance.

Originally Posted by Originalist

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Hesetmefree238

Brother Blume, I believe that the fact that God fills a person with his Spirit is evidence and confirmation that an inner cleansing has in fact taken place. The Spirit does not come and dwell in an unclean temple.

Everybody makes the claim that the Spirit cannot indwell an unclean temple,m but that is no where to be found in the bible. It's like some odd and weird thought about that very statement got implanted in everyone when it's not biblical.

More about your post later. Gotta run.

[obriencp]

Originally Posted by Originalist

And this goes right along with your bizarre belief that those who are baptized wrong yet receive the Holy Ghost are nothing but "sinners with the Holy Ghost".

You are literally saying that we are forgiven by the spoken name of Jesus instead of by Jesus himself! That is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard in my life.

The Lord will not loan his spirit to an unclean vessel. He doesn't put new wine into old bottles.

I see what you mean about the "spoken name of Jesus" and I'm not sure others see/understand this problem. Those that hold to an overly strict interpretation of the vocalized name spoken over the baptism candidate are usually in the wrong too because of their own strictness. Follow me here... Certainly the way we say, pronounce, and write the name of "Jesus" is different than the way Jesus himself and those around him of the day did it. Jesus is our English interpretation and was NOT the version used during the 30 or so years that took place during the book of Acts. I'm not one to start arguing the proper spelling/interpretation of the "Name" that we should use, but those like Sean, have by their own accord, caused their own water baptisms to be invalid. They see the spoken name of Jesus as such a necessity that they do away with what the name represents. IF THE SPOKEN "NAME OF JESUS" IS NECESSARY FOR A PROPER WATER BAPTISM ACCORDING TO WHAT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS HAPPENED, THEN THOSE WHO ACTUALLY USE OUR ENGLISH VERSION OF "JESUS" ARE DOING IT WRONG TOO.

Originally Posted by Sean

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
John 16:13...Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come....


This is the 1st reason why the Lord gives various folks, religious or not, the Holy Ghost.
The bible does not say this is the first reason he gives us the Spirit. Guidance into truth is consequential and incidental to receiving the Spirit.

Jesus clearly tells us the "first reason" the Spirit would be given right there in John 3:3-5, 16...to bring a new birth, eternal life, and to prevent us from perishing.


Agreed on the "new life" passage, my point is that the Holy Ghost given to the unlearned is designated to guide the unlearned into the truth.
The Spirit of truth must be complied with.
There has been more than one Spirit filled believer on planet earth in the last 2000 years that disobeyed the Spirit of truth, that they possessed. So a person can be Spirit filled and not Spirit led. Which can send a Spirit filled person to hell in the end.
The very description of the Holy Ghost by Jesus is "THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH".

That is why the truth is #1 for us to obey after receiving the Spirit!

I'm glad the above was discussed and clarified. If the Lord sees fit to fill someone with the Holy Ghost, they are saved.

I do agree with Sean that a person can be spirit filled and not Spirit led, but only for a matter of time. If a spirit filled person is going to ignore prompts of the Spirit and grieve the Spirit through unbelief of the word or continue in sin, they will ultimately be lost.

Originally Posted by Sean

Originalist, is a person saved prior to water baptism, If they have received the Spirit 1st?

I'll answer... yes.

Originally Posted by Sean

Can a person be saved without the remission of sins?

No

Originally Posted by Sean

If not, then you believe the Spirit remits sins!!!

Yes. You mentioned Titus 3:5 and we (Sean and I) have debated this passage on other threads. You, Sean, are adamant that this passage is speaking of water baptism because the word "washing" is there. I, however, do not believe this verse has anything to do with water baptism. It is by His Mercy that the Spirit washes us and regenerates us, not by works we have done. If one understands Titus 3:5 without wrongfully inserting "water baptism" into it, you can say with confidence that yes, "the Spirit remits sins!!!"

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Everybody makes the claim that the Spirit cannot indwell an unclean temple,m but that is no where to be found in the bible. It's like some odd and weird thought about that very statement got implanted in everyone when it's not biblical.

More about your post later. Gotta run.

I believe the idea comes from Luke 5:32- 39:

32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

33 And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?

34 And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?

35 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.

37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.

39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Gill puts it this way, and implies the thought of repentance:

"old wine is more grateful, more generous, and more reviving to the spirits, than new wine is. This is a proverbial expression, and which Luke only records; which may be applied to natural men, who having drunk the old wine of their carnal lusts and pleasures, do not desire the new wine of the Gospel, and of the grace of God, and of spiritual things, but prefer their old sins and lusts unto them:.."

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe the idea comes from Luke 5:32- 39:


Gill puts it this way, and implies the thought of repentance:

An "unclean temple" is simply one that has not been yielded to God. This is why baptism is "so your sins may be forgiven". God forgives us at baptism, according to our repentance and faith, because it is there that we surrender the temple of our body to the one who purchased it with his own blood. No literal cleansing happens at baptism and that is why God can and chooses at times to fill people with the Spirit prior to baptism. Spirit baptism is when the real cleansing of the heart happens by (on account of) the blood of Christ. Probably in well over 90% of cases converts are baptized prior to receiving the Holy Ghost. That just makes sense. I've read of cases where people in remote frozen areas received the Holy Ghost but had to wait until the lakes thawed before they could get baptized. I simply do not believe any of those people would have gone to hell had they died before the lakes thawed.

I personally do not say that the Spirit baptism remits sins. The word remit simply means to forgive as in forgive a debt owed. I believe that part happens normatively at baptism. God forgives us reckons us righteous based on the merits of Christ. Then at Spirit baptism he literally cleanses us from the effects of sin in our inner man, our conscience. Because he reckoned us righteous when we were baptized by faith, he can then restore unto us that which Adam forfeited thus making us (as opposed to reckoning) righteous. He breathes into us that which was breathed into Adam and was later lost due to sin.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

An "unclean temple" is simply one that has not been yielded to God. This is why baptism is "so your sins may be forgiven". God forgives us at baptism, according to our repentance and faith, because it is there that we surrender the temple of our body to the one who purchased it with his own blood. No literal cleansing happens at baptism and that is why God can and chooses at times to fill people with the Spirit prior to baptism. Spirit baptism is when the real cleansing of the heart happens by (on account of) the blood of Christ. Probably in well over 90% of cases converts are baptized prior to receiving the Holy Ghost. That just makes sense. I've read of cases where people in remote frozen areas received the Holy Ghost but had to wait until the lakes thawed before they could get baptized. I simply do not believe any of those people would have gone to hell had they died before the lakes thawed.

Exactly the point - according to our repentance and faith.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe the idea comes from Luke 5:32- 39:


Gill puts it this way, and implies the thought of repentance:

That seems to be speaking more about old versus new rather than sinful versus pure.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Hesetmefree238

. It is the blood that cleanses and sanctifies. If the blood was only applied at baptism, no one could ever be filled with the Spirit before being baptized.

The blood is never said to be applied at any given point in particular compared to other points in salvation. I don't know who started the idea otherwise. It's certainly not biblical any more than God being unable to dwell in an unclean temple is biblical.

Peter gives this description of Cornelius's household receiving the Spirit in Acts 15:7-9

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Peter just said, that God bare witness to the sincere faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and their repentance by filling them with the Holy Ghost. This was a confirmation and witness testifying of their faith, that God had received and forgiven them, and that an inner cleansing had taken place in their hearts by faith.

Hebrews 10:14-19
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

A few points from this passage:
1. The Holy Ghost bears witness of our acceptance with God and the fact that our sins and iniquities he remembers no more.
2. It's only through the blood that we enter into the Holiest (representing the Holy Ghost or presence of God)
3. The blood cleanses and grants pardon / The Holy Ghost bears witness to this and confirms our acceptance with God

None of this negates the necessity of being baptized the Biblical way, which is in the name of Jesus Christ with the baptizer invoking the name of Jesus over the baptismal candidate. However, as I said earlier, it's for God to do the judging. Faith and repentance are incomplete without baptism, and baptism is only to be done one way, which is in the name of Jesus, but it's for God to do the judging, and for us to do believing and obeying.

Amen.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The blood is never said to be applied at any given point in particular compared to other points in salvation. I don't know who started the idea otherwise. It's certainly not biblical any more than God being unable to dwell in an unclean temple is biblical.



Amen.

I truly don't see anywhere where any literal blood is applied to anyone. I believe that is figurative language.

Brother Mike , in spite of our minor disagreements I wish to extend to you and your family a very happy new year. I have been blessed and encouraged by many of your messages. Keep up the good work for the Lord.

To all on AFF , may God bless you in the new year.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I truly don't see anywhere where any literal blood is applied to anyone. I believe that is figurative language.

It is figurative for sure, but the point still stands. The fulfillment of the application of blood does not seem to occur in any one given instance. 1 John says the blood cleanseth, which gives an ongoing sense of washing.

Brother Mike , in spite of our minor disagreements I wish to extend to you and your family a very happy new year. I have been blessed and encouraged by many of your messages. Keep up the good work for the Lord.

To all on AFF , may God bless you in the new year.

God bless and thanks for your input as well! Happy new year!