SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Baptism/infilling of spirit

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
Jimm
Member



Joined: 2004/4/27
Posts: 498
Harare, ZIMBABWE

 Re:

Wanderson

Quote:
I repeat that you cannot prove any of the three Godly and very spiritual priniples with this verse nor can you define your oringinal statement,
"Perhaps we should start be asking ourselves what are the objective facts concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit."
I am interested in hearing God's thoughts and your on this matter but this verse I feel is a poor support from the way you've interpreted it.



Now this is progress. I would say the following fact concerns the baptism of the Spirit:

John3: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6[b] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[/b]7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit

What is to be born of the Spirit?

James


_________________
James Gabriel Gondai Dziya

 2005/2/2 12:07Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2736
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
you have atempted to prove 3 biblical principles here by this one verse as proof but this verse does not give support for any of these 3... 1) Jesus died on the cross, I have forgiveness of sin 2) Jesus rose from the dead, I have new life 3) Jesus is exalted in heaven, I have the Spirit shed forth. All is because of Him.



The verse from Acts 2 that I quoted was simply to establish the basis for which the Spitit is poured out. My point is that all these things, forgiveness, regeneration, and outpouring of the Spirit are not based on our merit but on the merit of Christ. It is all to prove the greatness of Jesus Christ, as Peter said in the following verse, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."(Acts 2:36)

On what basis are your sins forgiven? Is it because of your merits? No, it is because Jesus shed his blood, "... and without shedding of blood is no remission."(Hebrews 9:22).

I am saying is that the principle on which we receive the Spirit is the same upon which we receive forgiveness. God "has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ Jesus", these blessings are given freely but on a definite basis, we must know on what ground they are appropriated. Putting our faith in what Jesus has already done, the objective facts become real experience when we have this revelation.


In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2005/2/2 12:28Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

Quote:
And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.



I understand this Scripture in a different way. To me, someone who has the "Spirit of Christ," has the "testimony of Jesus."

Rev. 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Scripture teaches that one can have the Spirit of God and still choose to be led by the flesh. One who continually chooses to be led by the flesh will not in the end have the "testimony of Jesus."

Rom. 8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Paul teaches that his brethren have a choice, continue to follow the flesh and not put to death the ways of the flesh, results in death. Now remember, one is dead before he receives the Spirit. So Paul is teaching that a believer, one who is alive, can die due to the choices he makes. Likewise one who submits to the Spirit will remain alive by the Spirit.

I believe based on my witnessing my fellow friend and brother who prayed to know the baptism of the Spirit, that there truly is the work of God that empowers the individual to go on to glorify God in power and truth.

I believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit is available to all who believe. Are we willing to put to death the ways of the flesh? I believe the virgin must seek to keep her lamp full of oil to know the love that God has for those who follow Christ. Those who have the "testimony of Jesus" will have full lamps.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/2/2 12:33Profile
wanderson
Member



Joined: 2005/1/11
Posts: 14


 Re:

Thank you Ron for you post. I still find that from a doctrinal, biblical perspective you have not proven any point but still are using conjecture that no foundation can be built. Proving your stance on the issues of the Holy Spirit I feel would take much more specific text to help in this forum.

William


_________________
Apostle William Thomas Anderson

 2005/2/2 13:14Profile
Jimm
Member



Joined: 2004/4/27
Posts: 498
Harare, ZIMBABWE

 Re: The essence of this discussion!

This discussion is in grave danger of becoming fruitless because many questions have been asked and no questions have been given. I am guilty of answering in my head, then replying with a post and a different question. Let us review some of the questions that have been asked. I think if we address these then our discussion can progress:

1)Are you filled, saved, or just sealed when you are saved? or none of the above? When you recive the baptism do you speak in tougues? Whats the difference of the infilling and baptism of the spirit?

2) A question to start. Have you been baptized/filled with the Holy Spirit and Fire? By this we can know you are His(Romans 8:9) and capible of understanding spiritual truths, for truly what you intellectualy play/wrestle with is and are thoughts from the mind of Christ and can only be understood by the Spirit of Christ. If so what is the evidence of your filling?

3) Please then expound on the following verse...

Act 19:1 It was while Apollos was in Corinth that Paul passed through the inland districts and came to Ephesus. He found a few disciples there
Act 19:2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered him, "No, we haven't even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
Act 19:3 He then asked, "Then into what were you baptized?" They answered, "Into John's baptism."
Act 19:4 Then Paul said, "John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus."
Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 When Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy.
Act 19:7 There were about twelve men in all.

Act 8:12 But when Philip proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, men and women believed and were baptized.
Act 8:13 Even Simon believed, and after he was baptized he became devoted to Philip. He was amazed to see the signs and great miracles that were happening.
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.
Act 8:15 They went down and prayed for them to receive the Holy Spirit.
Act 8:16 Before this he had not come on any of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

and

Act 9:17 So Ananias left and went to that house. He laid his hands on Saul and said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were traveling, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

in conjuction with...

Act 26:12 "That is how I happened to be traveling to Damascus with authority based on a commission from the high priests.
Act 26:13 On the road at noon, O King, I saw from heaven a light that was brighter than the sun flash around me and those who were traveling with me.
Act 26:14 All of us fell to the ground, and I heard a voice asking me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me? It is hurting you to keep on kicking against the goads.'
Act 26:15 I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?' The Lord answered, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
Act 26:16 But get up and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for the very purpose of appointing you to be a servant and witness of what you have seen and of what I will show you.
Act 26:17 I will continue to rescue you from your people and from the gentiles to whom I am sending you.
Act 26:18 You will open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light and from Satan's control to God, so that they might receive the forgiveness of sins and a share among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
Act 26:19 "And so, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision.
Act 26:20 Instead, I first told the people in Damascus and Jerusalem, then the whole countryside of Judea, and then the gentiles to repent, turn to God, and practice works that are consistent with such repentance.

4)what about Romans 8 v. 9?
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

5) The question to ask here is not; "am I Christ's, because if so I have His Spirit"
but "do I have His Spirit, because if so I am His'

6) I always viewed this verse as meaning that if a person has the Holy Spirit then that Holy Spirit would resurrect them on that great resurrection day. If they did not, they would not be part of the first resurrection. But, can you at least discuss my understanding of Romans 8:11?

7)John1: 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: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. This is where my controversy with the evangelicals comes in. f you are unsaved, your will is definitely the will of the flesh is it not?

8)The question to ask is in fact "Do I have His Spirit, because if not I am not His". Note the totally different meaning

9)What about 'if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His'? How about a definition for 'His'? and, while we are here, a definition 'having the Spirit'?

10)Perhaps we should start be asking ourselves what are the objective facts concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit. What we all want to know is how does that become subjective experience?

11)"Perhaps we should start be asking ourselves what are the objective facts concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit."
I am interested in hearing God's thoughts and your on this matter but this verse I feel is a poor support from the way you've interpreted it.

12)John3: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit
What is to be born of the Spirit?

I think we can all see how this can become ridiculous if we do not address the very fundamental questions asked here first. May I suggest that we do not raise any more question for a while but address the questions which have already bee asked. After we have revealed our thoughts and positions, some more fruitful discussion may come of this.


_________________
James Gabriel Gondai Dziya

 2005/2/2 13:20Profile
wanderson
Member



Joined: 2005/1/11
Posts: 14


 Re:

It may be that the weight of evidence needed to properly represent the fullest of this subject matter is impossible to bring out in a "forum" such as this. Frankly after reading this forum to this point and others and seeing the damaging comments that "brothers" make to each other I have no intention in futhering this forum or any other.


_________________
Apostle William Thomas Anderson

 2005/2/2 13:34Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
I must confess that, whilst I have not yet made up my mind on the key issue covered by this thread, I am a pedant and as such must point out the logical error in what you have said.

What Paul says is 'If I do not have His Spirit I am not Christ's.' This is logically equivalent to the statement 'If I am Christ's then I have His Spirit' and not the other way around.



You would not believe how many times I have read this post! I was doing OK until we got to the illustration! Still we pedants must stick together. ;-) I don’t think the above is ‘logically so’. The Holy Spirit is the seal of Sonship. If I do not have the Seal can I be a son? The point I was trying to make is that the criterion for sonship is the evident seal of ‘having the Spirit’. What I was criticising is the assumption that because an individual has gone through an evangelical process they are thereby ‘saved’. “Your name is written in heaven etc, you are a son of God and because you are a son you have the Spirit, Romans 8 says so.”

Paul is talking about the evidence of the Spirit in the life of an individual and says the man that does not have the Spirit is not Christ’s. I was simply trying to point out that Paul as his eye on ‘the Spirit’ here; this is Romans 8, the most important chapter on the Spirit in the scripture… I think. This section is all about the work of the Spirit in the life of an individual. The impression to me is that it is the presence and activity of the Spirit which will convince Paul that someone belongs to Christ. A person may make all kinds of claims, evangelical or otherwise, but the ‘proof of the pudding’ is ‘having the Spirit’.

The Spirit is the seal of Christ’s ownership, and hence one who has the Spirit is His. If he any man does not have the seal, that man (‘he’ emphasised) is not Christ’s. If we pick up Paul’s comments from the beginning of the chapter perhaps there is another term that we can use. In verse 9 he refers to the Spirit of Christ; in verse 2 he refers to the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, and he says that this law of this Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has radically changed something; it (the law of) has freed me from another law, the law of sin and death. It is the law which this Spirit has brought in which has transformed his experience. It is the presence and power of this Spirit which sets me apart as Christ’s.

There is an OT incident which might illustrate. Israel have sinned and God has threatened to abandon them. He will still bless them and give them the Promised Land but He Himself will not go with them. The people are horrified and Moses pleads with God. God consents to Moses’ prayer; [i] And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest. And he said unto him, If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence. For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth. [/i] (Exo 33:14-16 KJV) It was the presence of God which would identify the people of God. Their significance and unique identity was only that God was with them.

You notice that Moses did not say ‘we are God’s people so His presence must be with us’. That would have been what Tozer would have called ‘a logical deduction drawn from proof texts’. But so often this is what people in our counselling rooms are hearing; “You are Christ’s so you do have His Spirit”. What I was trying to underline was that Paul is not saying ‘You are Christ’s so you do have His Spirit’, he was simply making the statement that if you do not have His Spirit you are not His.


Quote:
The question to ask is in fact "Do I have His Spirit, because if not I am not His". Note the totally different meaning.

I must apologise for labouring the point, but I hope it has become clear that what Paul said was the same as "If you are Christ's then you have His Spirit", and not the other way around. Note that this does not imply a causal link.


I don’t mind you labouring the point but I still can’t get to grips with this. How does a person become Christ’s? Is it not by receiving the Spirit of Christ? Notice that I am not defining what I mean by the phrase ‘receiving the Spirit of Christ’ as this stage but am just asking the question. I am not asking what the evidence of ‘receiving the Spirit might be’ but just asking the question… How does a person who is not Christ’s become Christ’s? This is why I said we would need to ask the question ‘what does “His” mean’. When did Paul become ‘His’? We have Paul’s testimony at the beginning of this chapter that ‘the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed me from the law of sin and death’. He had belonged to another king, sin and death, which had reigned over him, but at a point in time he was ‘freed’ from the law of that king. The means of his emancipation was the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Surely this was when he became ‘His’? When he came under the rule of another Will?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/2/2 16:00Profile
sfwc
Member



Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 14
England

 Re:

Quote:

Jimm wrote:
I am weary however of “logical” discussions in spiritual matters. Let us remember that the above statement is not a definition, but it is an aspect of being of Christ.



I too find logic one of the least fruitful tools for understanding spiritual things. But it does have some use. After all, the apostle Paul himself used a fair amount of logic to press his points home. I find it is often particularly useful in showing an error. If you point out an error with a parable or an illustration or something like that, the listener can discount what you are saying as not applicable in the case under discussion. But the whole point of logic is that it is applicable in all earthly circumstances.

Also, logic is something I can do. It is one of the few things that I feel able to make comments challenging what you are saying on the basis of. After all, you all seem to have a good deal more understanding of spiritual matters than I do.

Now I don't believe Paul was making a definition in this verse any more than you do. Nevertheless, if you wish to manipulate the sentence without changing the meaning, you must do so in accordance with the principles of logic.

sfwc


_________________
Nathan Bowler

 2005/2/3 10:55Profile
ZekeO
Member



Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 Re:

Have'nt read the whole thread so if this already in here forgive me.

If the Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am Gods child, that to me indicates the sealing, the setting into the family of the most high and then everything else along the lines of Elephants etc.

There is no assurance of salvation outside of that is there?


_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2005/2/3 11:06Profile
sfwc
Member



Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 14
England

 Re:

Quote:

philologos wrote:

What I was criticising is the assumption that because an individual has gone through an evangelical process they are thereby ‘saved’. “Your name is written in heaven etc, you are a son of God and because you are a son you have the Spirit, Romans 8 says so.”


I see what you are saying, and indeed I would tend to agree with you. But I think that the problem is not that those referred to on this forum as evangelicals (what a malicious epithet!) have missed the technical meaning of the verse, but rather that they have missed the point.

Now, I would say that the question 'do I belong to Christ' is harder to answer than some would have us believe. To assent to some statements and possibly pray a particular prayer is certainly not a suitable criterion. However, Paul provides a useful test for anybody wishing to answer this question properly. If you do not have His Spirit, then you cannot possibly be Christ's. This leads me to the conclusion that many who claim to be Christ's are not, on the basis that they do not have his Spirit.

On the other hand, 'evangelicals' (the reason I am using the word so tentatively is that I would normally refer to myself as such and yet I disagree with the opinions you attribute to them. Maybe I'm just a rebel) would come to the verse with their own definition of what it means to be Christ's, and conclude His Spirit is in more people than is the case. In doing this, they not only miss the challenge of the verse, but they devalue the incredible holiness of Christ's Spirit. Nor do they realise this second error, and use it to correct the first.

Quote:

This section is all about the work of the Spirit in the life of an individual. The impression to me is that it is the presence and activity of the Spirit which will convince Paul that someone belongs to Christ. A person may make all kinds of claims, evangelical or otherwise, but the ‘proof of the pudding’ is ‘having the Spirit’.


Think carefully about what you have said here. Paul is not saying here that the presence and activity of the Spirit will convince him that the person belongs to Christ (though I'm sure that it would, nevertheless a different scripture is needed to support that) but that the absence of the one will convince him of the absence of the other. Thankfully, you seem have the point in your final sentence. After all the principle of 'the proof of the pudding' is that you reject a pudding which tastes bad, and not vice versa.

Quote:

You notice that Moses did not say ‘we are God’s people so His presence must be with us’. That would have been what Tozer would have called ‘a logical deduction drawn from proof texts’.


On a par with the mistake I mentioned earlier in this post.

Quote:

What I was trying to underline was that Paul is not saying ‘You are Christ’s so you do have His Spirit’, he was simply making the statement that if you do not have His Spirit you are not His.


Paul does not say that 'You are Christ's, so you have His Spirit', but rather 'If you are Christ's, then you have His Spirit'. In fact the meaning may be closer to 'If you were Christ's, then you would have His Spirit'. I hope that you would not disagree with these statements. Nevertheless, writing it like this has a subtle implication: It suggests that you need to re-evaluate what it means to have Christ's Spirit, and not what it means to be Christ's. I can see how that could lead to error.

Quote:

I don’t mind you labouring the point but I still can’t get to grips with this. How does a person become Christ’s? Is it not by receiving the Spirit of Christ?



And how does a person become a legal driver? Is it not by recieving a driving license? Note that this is a metaphor only as far as the logic goes. I am not implying that the Holy Spirit of Christ is anything like a driving licence. What a thought!

Therefore I can make the statement 'If any man drives legally, then that man has a license'. I cannot, however, make the statement 'If any man has a license then he drives legally'. However, to get the point across better to those they pull over, the police would probably use the more Pauline turn of phrase 'If you don't have a license, sonny, then you aren't driving legally'.

Really I think our positions are quite close, but then I have noticed that this can be a common misconception in people who have no idea what you are talking about. If, therefore, I have totally missed the point of what you were saying then feel free to clarify.

sfwc


_________________
Nathan Bowler

 2005/2/3 11:37Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy