SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : What place does baptism have in Biblical salvation?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

InTheLight writes:

Quote:
That's an interesting thought you have there but I think it's more likely that the gift being referred to in John 4 is Jesus Himself, as Jesus had just said of Himself in John 3:16, God gave His only begotten Son. Jesus is the ultimate gift, the greatest gift of God's love we can ever know. The phrase following "gift of God" in John 4:10 would tend to support this, "and who it is that saith to thee, give me to drink" In other words He's saying, "if you knew who I am".

I am very comfortable with this but how is the 'gift of Jesus Himself' given to us other than by His Spirit.

If we think of the physical facts of these records we know that Christ was there in the flesh 'with' them. Could He then be 'in' them at that time? Surely this is the significance of His saying“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for [u]he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.[/u]”
(John 14:16-17, KJVS) This 'and shall be in you' is certainly 'future' at the time of saying it. The change from 'with you' to 'in you' was going to occur at the coming of the Comforter. This is plainly Acts 2 rather than John 20:22. The transition from 'with' to 'in' in that case takes place at Pentecost. The word 'with' here is 'para', literally 'alongside' while the word 'in' is 'en'. The move from 'alongside' to 'within' is dynamic movement accomplished by the 'coming of the Spirit'.

I do think that 'if you knew the gift of God, and who is it that saith to thee' is a double condition rather than a Hebrew type parallelism. The 'gift of God' is the life that is 'in' Christ. This is not separable from the person of Christ; 'he that hath the Son hath life' but how do we receive that life? Only by receiving the Son, but how do we 'receive the Son'? Surely we receive the Son in the person of the Spirit. This is the signficance of “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”
(John 14:16-23, KJVS) The apparent confusion of persons in this passage is easily explained in that it is 'by the Spirit' that God is known. They had known the ministry of the Spirit in that the Son was 'with' them; similarly they would know His internal work by the ministry of the Spirit making real the presence of the Son 'within' them.

"At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." 'that day' is clearly the day in which the Spirit would arrive, having been sent by the Son. The phrase 'in that day' is repeated several times in this section of John; John 14:20; 16:23,26


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/6/16 2:41Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Bro. Ron,

In our circles sometimes I hear ministers say that when a person is saved they receive "the Spirit of Christ" and later receive the Holy Ghost as a second blessing. I know you could jump all over this and I am not at all condoning it, but I thought of it after reading inthelight's post. Pedantically and biblically they are on very thin ice- but they use the expression to make the distinction between what happens at salvation and what happens at the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (in classical pentecostal theology).

Any thoughts?


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/6/16 8:47Profile









 Re:

Robert, this is not in answer to your question. It is something I've been thinking about in respect to what, since the days of Christ's life on earth, a person is to 'believe' when they hear the gospel. Having come from a Christian background, I was confused about my status when I was told I had to be baptised in the Spirit. Not to dwell on my personal story but, it illustrates a point, namely, one believes into the gospel which one has heard. Before anyone told me I needed the Holy Spirit, I thought I just needed faith in Christ. I'm not asking if I was wrong about that, but, it is the same sort of difference as between the woman of Samaria, or the blind man (John 9) both of whom had been told by Jesus Himself that He is the Messiah, but, before the Holy Spirit was given. The blind man, being Jewish, was ready to worship Him as soon as the fact was revealed of His title (entitlement to be worshipped). And worship was the topic introduced by the woman of Samaria, somewhat intuitively when in the presence of Jesus.

So, what was preached to Cornelius? I think there is something very interesting in Peter's choice of words, compared with how he phrased the same message on the day of Pentecost. There is also an answer to that question about how God treats people who have not heard of Christ (in vv 34,35). I think the punch comes in the first part of v 38. This is what Cornelius began to [i][b]expect[/b][/i]. He already knew God and had been sent a messenger from Him. He is now expecting something [i]more[/i], from Peter.

Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. 36 The word which [God] sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37 That word, [I say], ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How [u]God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power[/u]: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; [u]for God was with him[/u].
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, [even] to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God [to be] the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

 2005/6/16 16:54
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Robert
Yes, some of the early AoG folk here went in that direction too.

Nelson Parr hammered out his conviction that only the baptism with the Holy Spirit was to be equated with the believer's first reception of the Holy Spirit. He argued vehemently that, on the basis of Acts 8, the Samaritan believers, who had been baptised by total immersion, had not received the Holy Spirit in any measure. He did not, of course, deny that they had received Christ. Parr's argument was based on the text that Acts 8:15 says Peter and John travelled specifically so that the Samaritan converts "might receive the Holy Spirit". In order to pursue his case logically Parr made a distinction between the Spirit of Christ (Galatians 4:6) and the Holy Spirit and he insisted that the reception of Christ, though it accompanies the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, is quite distinct from the reception of the Holy Spirit. It is not, Parr contended, that the believer receives a part of the Holy Spirit at conversion and a fullness of the Spirit at the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Rather there are two different receptions: the sinner needs a Saviour and the believer needs a Comforter. (Redemption Tidings 23 June, 1 Sept 1950)

Parr's views, shared as they were by W P F Burton (Redemption Tidings 27 Sept 1946) were hardly likely to facilitate co-operation between Pentecostals and other evangelicals.

"Inside Story" William K Kay
My thoughts? As it stands it is very complicated. Newberry has some points about the use of the definite article in reference to the Spirit that I will dig out and share. The 'Spirit of the Son' is a solid biblical concept Gal. 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. but to distinguish this Spirit from the Spirit that the Father sent is close to Trinitarian chaos I think! Although Revelation does speak of 'the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth' (Rev 5:6) I'm going to bed now, that should give you something to think about until tomorrow. ;-)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/6/16 17:57Profile









 Re:

philologos,

Quote:
Trinitarian choas



How refreshing! I'll be interested to hear more.

Later EDIT: Isn't there a Hebrew name for God which is very occasionally used, which denotes more than 2 or 3? (I read about it a long time ago.)

Also, there is something at the back of my mind from a post a few pages ago, on which I would like to ask further clarification.

Quote:
I object to the title. I would have called it 'Authority is Male'.



In this are you referring to church life specifically? (In other words, you are not extrapolating it to outside the Church, to situations in which non-Christian men and Christian women interact?)

 2005/6/16 18:06
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Quote:
I object to the title. I would have called it 'Authority is Male'.


In this are you referring to church life specifically? (In other words, you are not extrapolating it to outside the Church, to situations in which non-Christian men and Christian women interact?)



yes and yes and I have my wife's permission to say so! :-D


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/6/17 4:00Profile
ReceivedText
Member



Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA

 Re:

philologos,

Quote:
I am very comfortable with this but how is the 'gift of Jesus Himself' given to us other than by His Spirit.

If we think of the physical facts of these records we know that Christ was there in the flesh 'with' them. Could He then be 'in' them at that time? Surely this is the significance of His saying
“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”
(John 14:16-17, KJVS)



I'm really glad that you brought this out. Andrew Murray wrote a great book that has been published under a lot of different titles. But the book is "The Believer's Blessing of Pentecost." I think he nails it on the head. He points out this passage of Jn. 14 and makes this point you have made. Jesus was externally with them and would be "in" them at Pentecost. (In US today)

Now I have a question. How many Spirit's does God have? Does the Father have a different Spirit than the Son? Just who IS Jesus' Father? The Bible says that the angel told Mary that "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." [Luke 1:35]

This brings up a topic on the thread here about Oneness Pentecostals. While they may be accused of oversimplification, Trinitarians could be accused of believing in three entities, or three Gods. Remember, it was Tertullian who first came up with the Trinity. The apostles never to our knowledge confessed this, nor did Christ.

How can we justify confessing something that neither Christ nor the apostles confessed?? THEY laid the foundation, NOT US. We must be careful how we lay on that foundation.

I still contend that the MYSTERY of godliness is the incarnation, or God manifest in the flesh.

I've got a really good question. What is so wrong with sticking to Scriptural confessions concerning the Godhead?? How about this one?

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." [1 Corinthians 8:6]

You see? We can read the OT and know that there is "but one God." The issue is who is the Lord Jesus Christ?

Just how many Spirits does God have?? Check out this Scripture:

"[b]God is a Spirit[/b]: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." [John 4:24]

Notice the indefinite article "a." God is a (singular) Spirit. How many Spirits?

Please, lets put our Trinitarian assumptions aside and not let them blind us to what we could learn outside of that non-Biblical box.

I think both the Trinitarians and the Oneness folks have communication problems. Personally, I think both terms need to be trashed and replaced with Biblical words like "Godhead."

Just my humble opinion.

"Now the Lord is that Spirit:" - 2 Corinthians 3:17 (It doesn't say "those Spirits" here)

RT

 2005/6/17 5:22Profile
ReceivedText
Member



Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA

 Re:

Quote:
Gal. 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

but to distinguish this Spirit from the Spirit that the Father sent is close to Trinitarian chaos I think! Although Revelation does speak of 'the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth' (Rev 5:6)



So are you agreeing that the Holy Ghost is the "Spirit of his Son"?

In my previous post, I tried to deal with Trinitarian chaos. Interested in your thoughts.

BTW, isn't this the seven spirits of God?

Isa. 11:2 "And (1) the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of (2) wisdom and (3) understanding, the spirit of (4) counsel and (5) might, the spirit of (6) knowledge and of the (7) fear of the LORD;" (numbering added)

Is this seven aspects, characteristics of God's Spirit? What do you think?

RT

 2005/6/17 5:30Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Just how many Spirits does God have?? Check out this Scripture:

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." [John 4:24]

Notice the indefinite article "a." God is a (singular) Spirit. How many Spirits?


I think you have misunderstood the nature of this verse. The Greek language does not have an indefinite article (a) but it does have a definite article (the). Consequently although, in English, we might choose to add an indefinite article in fact there is none in the original which simply reads 'God (is) Spirit' This has to do with His nature not His constitution. To the woman who thought God was located in this mountain or that, Christ simply states that God is not that kind of a being; He is spirit.

Newberry says 'the absence of the article (the) before a word in Greek, signifies, that this word is not be understood as objective, but characteristic; that is, it is not simply an object before the mind, but it expresses the character of something with which it is connected.'


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/6/17 6:58Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
In my previous post, I tried to deal with Trinitarian chaos. Interested in your thoughts.


Before we start the feeding frenzy :-? let me make it clear that I was saying that a certain view of the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit [u]causes[/u] Trinitarian chaos. I am a solid Trinitarian and am happy with the pronouncements of the various classical creeds thought not with the way in which they were often used. They were designed to exclude error; too often they were used to exclude people.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/6/17 7:04Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy