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 )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Hi Bro. Ron,

Quote:
I don't know any passages in which conversion is ascribed to God'



This is an excerpt from a tractate series I am working on titled REAL REPENTANCE (Part 1):


God strives with man to turn him to Himself, but men do always resist the Holy Ghost. God's goodness seeks to lead men to repentance (Romans 2:4). Acts 5:30, 31 teaches us that God desires to give us repentance and that He is not willing that any perish, but that all would come to repentance (II Peter 3:9). God made a way to grant the Gentiles repentance also as we read in Acts 11:18). But men are at war with themselves. The psalmist cries out for God to turn us again that we shall be saved (Psalm 80:19) John 6:44 tells us that none can come to the Father unless He draw them. And again we read, And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;... (II Timothy 2:24,25). We see in this and other passage that repentance is something that God grants to us if we respond to His Spirit rightly.

The only direct passage I see here is Psalm 80:19. The others deal with God 'granting' repentance. Do you have any insiht into God 'granting' repentance?

Thanks,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/2/3 16:12Profile
Jimm
Member



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

 Re: Concerning logic

Ron

Quote:
My problem with this pesky packyderm is that the words we are using are labels rather than characteristics or experiences. Elephant is just a label, and a rose by any name would smell as sweet. (although I don't think elephants are particularly sweet smelling) Mammal is just another kind of label. But if someone says 'if it doesn't have grey crinkly skin, and a trunk it isn't an elephant', I think I might be permitted to say 'an elephant has grey crinkly skin, and a trunk'.



Okay I will admit that it feels almost criminal to bring this up again but I would just like to clarify. As a description, what you have given about our annoying pachyderm is absolute. As a definition, this is not absolute. A description can be absolute as long as even just a few specimens adhere to the specifications, an absolute definition must be all-inclusive.

Again as you rightly said, “This is a thinking exercise at this stage not a pastoral one. I am just trying to get my thinking clear.” My entire point here is to point out how difficult it is to define spiritual matters, we can describe them very accurately but to define them is more complicated. For example we cannot [i]define[/i] what love is, but we can [i]describe[/i] what it is and what it is not. In this case, I would suggest that the verse does not [i]define[/i] what it is to be “of Christ” but, it describes what it is to be not of Christ. It can be said from the infallible word of God that that a description of a person who definitely is not of Christ is that he does not have His Spirit. The Spirit is one description of those who are of Christ, but what of those who shall say in that day Lord, Lord (Mathew7:22 On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?'). Does one not require the spirit to prophesy in the name of the Lord? These ones are clearly not of Christ, but they did have his Spirit.

Sfwc

Quote:
I too find logic one of the least fruitful tools for understanding spiritual things. But it does have some use. [u]After all, the apostle Paul himself used a fair amount of logic to press his points home.[/u] 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.



The main thing about Paul is this; he was an apostle. Like the prophets, the writings of Paul are divinely inspired. His knowledge and wisdom was a spiritual gift not an act of intellect. I do not mean to sound condescending sir but these are not just letters written by a clever righteous man. I have no doubt that you know this already because as you have said, “it is applicable in all earthly circumstances”. This is where my question would appear, is the analysis of the scriptures earthly or spiritual? It might be distressing if we had to adhere to the intellect and personality of Paul however when we read it is comforting if say, “what is the spirit seeking to show me”, rather than “what was Paul thinking when he said this? What kind of a mood was he in? What were his circumstances? How did he feel about the people he was writing to?”

You have not said all these things sir, but I am just trying to illustrate what I mean. It is easy for bible reading to become a mental exercise if we are too analytical (this lesson is largely directed towards me). As you have said, logic is for “earthly” interactions, spirit is for spiritual interactions.

James


_________________
James Gabriel Gondai Dziya

 2005/2/3 17:29Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
The only direct passage I see here is Psalm 80:19. The others deal with God 'granting' repentance. Do you have any insiht into God 'granting' repentance?


Yes, I was really talking about the New Testament word and pattern. If we were looking at OT things we would have a different list. eg Ps 19:7, 51:13. But these verses are a different kind of 'turning', I think, relating to those who were already God's people but who needed to get back on track. This is not the same concept, I think, as the New Testament, and certainly not what we usually have in mind when we speak of 'conversion'.

According to my Online Bible the Hebrew word is used over 1000 times but with a wide range of meanings including; return 391, ...again 248, turn 123, ...back 65, ...away 56, restore 39, bring 34, render 19, answer 18, recompense 8, recover 6, deliver 5, put 5, withdraw 5, requite 4, misc 40;


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/2/3 18:30Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
I would suggest that the verse does not define what it is to be “of Christ” but, it describes what it is to be not of Christ. It can be said from the infallible word of God that that a description of a person who definitely is not of Christ is that he does not have His Spirit.


Yes, I take your point with the distinction between defining and describing in this particular verse. There are other verses however which added to Romans 8:9 begin to tighten the noose in a definition. I am thinking of James' axiom [i]the body without the spirit is dead.[/i] and the Ezekiel prophecy where absolutely everything was in its right place but there was 'no spirit in them' (Ezek 37:8) John's Gospel comment 'it is the spirit that makes alive'. and the almost identical words from 2 Cor 3:6.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/2/3 18:46Profile
sfwc
Member



Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 14
England

 Re:

Quote:

Do you regard Romans 8 as some kind of corrective against a false position or profession? I don’t see Paul as arguing a case here but simply expounding truth. Do you think he has an ‘opponent’ in mind as in his early rhetorical questioning?



Well, not exactly. Certainly in Romans 8 I think Paul is expounding truth about the Spirit, but he appears (to me) to be applying it to the readers in v. 9-11. This gives explanation and hope to those who have the Spirit. But note the remark in verse 9a 'if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you'. This would have the effect of jolting those readers in whom the Spirit does not dwell (as you have pointed out, this is a recognisable condition), and I think verse 9b is intended partly as a challenge to such readers. But I don't think Paul has a specific opponent in mind.


_________________
Nathan Bowler

 2005/2/4 7:01Profile
sfwc
Member



Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 14
England

 Logic; not necessary to read this to follow the main thread.

Quote:
Jimm wrote:

This is where my question would appear, is the analysis of the scriptures earthly or spiritual?


Undeniably the analysis of the scriptures is spiritual. But I would like to add some comments in case I appear contradictory. I do hope none of them are heretical, but if any are then feel free to correct me.

1. Analysis of the scriptures involves using the brain.
->If the brain was not required at all, why have written scriptures? After all, the Spirit could simply impart the understanding to us directly without any need for such a thing.
->If understanding flows directly from the text into us by operation of the Spirit, we have a similar problem.. why should I concentrate rather than just reading the words like a mantra?

2. You can't understand scripture with only your brain, any more than you can take a photograph wtih only a film. Your brain is simply used by the Spirit as a tool to get the Truth into you. But it is used.

3. Not only your brain plays this subsidiary role when you study scripture. For example, the emotions etc. are used. But the combination of all these things, independent of the Holy Spirit, is completely useless.

Why did I mention the logicality of Paul? As a precedent, to show that spiritual matters are not exempt from profitable logical discussion.

So does that mean that if I found that Paul was illogical I would reject him? Of course not: I would reject logic. But it is my belief that the Bible is entirely logically consistent (which would be astonishing for such a diverse book if we didn't know by Whom it was written), and indeed that it supports the use of logic in some circumstances (for example, the precedent given by Paul).
Quote:
It is easy for bible reading to become a mental exercise if we are too analytical (this lesson is largely directed towards me). As you have said, logic is for “earthly” interactions, spirit is for spiritual interactions.


Thankyou for this kind rebuke. Pray that this error would depart from me completely.

sfwc

PS It's not Paul's apostleship which is the reason you believe what he says is it? Even apostles got things wrong sometimes. On the other hand, people who weren't apostles were used by God to write infallible scripture (for example Luke). The reason I believe what Paul wrote is that it was written by God, not that it was written by an apostle. (This is just a note; the implication is that you wrote something incorrect by an oversight rather than by having wrong beliefs.)

PPS This is getting a little off-topic, so if I have made a mistake then it is probably a good plan to correct it in a different thread.


_________________
Nathan Bowler

 2005/2/4 8:12Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re: Logic; not necessary to read this to follow the main thread.

PreachParsley(sp) began this thread:

Quote:
Whats the difference of the infilling and baptism of the spirit?



What is the difference?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/2/4 11:16Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

In a classic Campbell Morgan phrase...

One Baptism
Many Fillings
Constant Anointing


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/2/6 17:01Profile
Delboy
Member



Joined: 2004/2/8
Posts: 199
Worthing UK

 Re: terminology

Quote:
In a classic Campbell Morgan phrase...

Quote:
One Baptism


this is a wonderful quote,
can i ask, would anyone like to define their view of conversion? there seems to be many views
The diciples that paul met who had only recieved john's baptism for instance where they good believers converted born again or what?
:-)


_________________
derek Eyre

 2005/2/7 6:58Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

Delboy wrote:

Quote:
can i ask, would anyone like to define their view of conversion? there seems to be many views
The diciples that paul met who had only recieved john's baptism for instance where they good believers converted born again or what?



I have listened to many and have read about some who have attempted to define conversion, the point of conversion, and the impact of circumstances that have led to conversion. I have read the testimony of John Wesley and Charles Finney. I have read many ideas here at SI.

My conclusion thus far is that there is no means by which man can know when one is saved.

John 3:

8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

I have heard testimony of being baptised by the Spirit and falling down slayed by the Spirit. I have read positions held by Billy Graham, that when one prays for Jesus to be his Savior, he at that moment receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I have come to the conclusion at this point in my walk that no one can know the ways of God and how He works to save those that are His. Everyone tries to methodize something that cannot be. To me, it is all vainglory. To me, the only question that matters is this. Where am I dwelling today? Am I living as a pilgrim or an adulterer? Only the Holy Spirit can empower me to live as a pilgrim.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/2/8 11:57Profile





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