SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The Distinction Between Being "Filled" and "Baptized" in the Holy Ghost

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: just a few notes on dunamis-power

just a few notes on dunamis-power

But there are several references which speak quite specifally of power in relation to Jesus' promise of the coming Spirit, and it is these verses which have become the focus of attention for pentecostal/charismatic Bible students. The best known are probably;
And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. (Luk 4:14 KJV)
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.(Luk 24:49 KJV)
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Act 1:8 KJV)
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. (2Ti 1:7 KJV)

The NT has several different words for power. exousia really means 'authority'; the kind of 'power' that enables a police-officer to stop the traffic. However, the word for 'power' in the above verses is always 'dunamis'. Preachers are quick to link 'dunamis' to dynamite. I recall a preacher once declaring; "Jesus promised you would be clothed with dynamite, and that means 'no smoking'. 100% for enterprize,I think, but rather less for exogesis. Dynamite-power is sudden, destructive, and quickly over. This is not the kind of power that 'dunamis' speaks of. Other preachers prefer the link with dynamo, and this is a happier picture of pentecostal power. But dunamis really means 'inherent power'. The kind of power that something has by virtue of its nature. Conequently an army's strength/power would be expressed in terms of numbers of soldiers; the army has 6000 soldier-power because it has 6000 soldiers.

In fact its cognates are the usual words for 'able'. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:25 KJV) 'able' here, and almost everywhere else in the NT is 'dunamai'. Christ has the 'power' alright but by virtue of who He is; the continuing High Priest. The important thing to note is that 'dunamis' is never 'bolt-on' power, or for that matter 'detachable power'; it is always inherent power. There is an interesting illustration in the life of Nebuchnezzer; Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. (Dan 4:16 KJV) and its consequence as seen later; ...and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws. (Dan 4:33 KJV). This is a powerful illustration. See how the change of heart determines his nature. His 'power' of being 'beastlike' came from the inherent nature. This is a consistent Bible truth; the only way to thoroughly change the behaviour is to change the heart.

This powerful truth is captured in the original promise; but ye shall receive power at the coming of the Holy Spirit upon you, and ye shall be witnesses to me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the end of the earth. (Act 1:8 YLT) If we follow the timeline of this verse we discover when the Holy Spirit has arrived you 'shall receive dunamis' and 'you shall be witnesses'. Note that what we have here is primarily 'power to be' rather than 'power to do'. Of course, if the nature is changed the behaviour will be changed. This verse is neither a promise nor a command; it is simple statement of fact 'when He comes this will happen'.

There is an interesting link with an earlier reference to the work of the Spirit; And the angel answered and said unto her, 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. (Luk 1:35 KJV) Here too we have the ideas of the Holy Spirit coming upon someone and the dunamis of the Highest overshadowing. These mysterious words were the only explanation we have for the incarnation. Did Mary remember these words when she heard similar ones prior to His ascension? The challenging thought here is that when these words were spoken to Mary the topic was inward conception rather than bolt-on power.

the sense of 'dunamis' then is the outward expression of an inward nature. This is not to deny that the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost was in some way related to power, but only to draw attention to the nature of the power. It is 'holy' power as a result of the coming of the 'holy' Spirit. Some high-profile UK charismatics are adamant that the coming of the Spirit has no bearing upon sanctification but is only to equip the saints to work and witness, but how could this be? One of the very few things we know about the Spirit is that He is holy. How could be enter a believer and leave His character outside?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/10/15 8:58Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re: What really happened at Cornelius' place?

Do you recall the title 'what really happened at Azuza Street'? How about 'what really happened at Cornelius' place' There are several unique features about Cornelius, especially that this is the first comprehensive Gentile experience of 'baptism in the Spirit'. Perhaps we should justify that phrase first?

When Peter justified his entering into Cornelius house he did so in terms of the Holy Spirit's leading. He went on to justify Cornelius' experience by using the language of 'baptism in Spirit'; And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. (Act 11:15-16 KJV) This is a rich passage; it includes
1. the sense of suddenness; the Holy Spirit fell on them
2. a tie into their own unquestionable experience in Acts 2; as on us at the beginning
3. the identification of this experience with the phrase 'baptism in Spirit'.

This is clearly a repeat of Acts 2 but without the wind and fire. The language used to describe the narrative is very wide.

The story begins with Cornelius' command to send for Peter; And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. (Act 10:5-6 KJV) Peter gives more details of this event in Acts 11 and declares that the purpose of his visit to Corenlius was Cornelius' salvation; And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. (Act 11:13-14 KJV)

Cornelius would have been a credit to most churches today. He was devout, gave charitable gifts, was constant in prayer, fasted, had visions of angels. He also knew of Christ's preaching and miracles; The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Act 10:36-38 KJV)
But, apparently, he still needed to be 'saved' and for this he needed Peter's words. Cornelius experience, like so many, had been culmulative but was still incomplete.

Peter certainly added to Cornelius store of information; 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: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 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. 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. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Act 10:39-43 KJV) This new information includes the facts that Christ has risen, will be Judge of living and dead, is the fulfillment of OT prophecy and, that as a consequence of faith in Him believers would have their sins remitted. This is a wonderful summary of the gospel and we may presume that Cornelius and his house-meeting believed; Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?(Act 11:17 KJV) The mood is pregnant; While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. (Act 10:44 NASB)

The conservative Jewish believers were amazed that; on the Gentiles was poured out (another image) the gift of the Holy Spirit. Traditional Pentecostal denominations have found strong evidence here for their doctrine of 'the initial evidence' of speaking with tongues. The Jewish witness, seven in all, witnessed an epoch opening event; Gentiles had received the Spirit just as we did. When Peter reported this to the gathered saints in Jerusalem their response was significant: When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. (Act 11:18 KJV). There logic was God has given them 'repentance unto life'. In the space of a few sentences Cornelius and his friends came to genuine faith and a repentance that opened the way to life. God's response was to baptize them in the Holy Spirit. For the reluctant folks back at Jerusalem God's response to Cornelius was conclusive proof that salvation was opened to the Gentiles.

There is a post-script to this story. Some years later at the Jerusalem conference Peter gave his evidence; And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Act 15:8-9 KJV) He boldly declares that what happened at the home of Cornelius was that 'hearts were purified, by faith'. This is new evidence; it was not recorded in Acts 10 or 11. Why would Peter make such an assertion? Because he knew that this is what happened when people were 'baptized in the Holy Spirit'. It seems that in the space of few moments, Cornelius believed, repented unto life, received the Holy Spirit and had his heart purified by faith. There is a dimension to baptism in the Spirit which has almost become lost here. God, who knew their hearts, bore witness to them by giving them the Spirit. This eliminated all differences between Jew and Gentile and brought in heart purity. Yes, they spoke with tongues and magnified God, but something had happened on the inside too; their hearts were purified by faith.

The Second Blessing Holiness people said 'Baptism in the Spirit produces a clean heart'. The Pentecostals said Baptism in the Spirit 'gives power for service'. Why quarrel? Why set one truth against the other?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/10/15 15:42Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Why quarrel? Why set one truth against the other?



Excellent points!

Certainly there is no quarrel here. I think that the problem is in the selective separation of the offices of both the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus for personal convenience. When you receive Christ you are receiving all that He is; Savior, Lord, etc., so too the Holy Spirit cannot be separated into components such as power or holiness; He comes as His complete person or not at all. But now I have the problem of squaring that truth with the commonly held beliefs that "we don't need more of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit needs more of us." Perhaps the answer lies in your earlier premise that the Spirit comes not to give us power to DO but to BE martrs (witnesses). Not to witness, but to be a witness. It also makes me realize again the direct link between our submission to the Holy Spirit in producing holiness and our boldness as witnesses. They are inseperable in my experience; yet your tractate spells out with clarity why that is.

I'm sure you know I'm getting quite nervous at this point. ;-) If a person is indeed baptised in the Holy Spirit at conversion there seem to be a few anomolies in Acts to this. Acts 19:2 for one seems to suggest that the people 'believed'- but not necessarily that they were born again I suppose. There is also a pattern of believe, baptise, and filled with the Spirit (not necessarily in that order). I do not discount the truth that they should all occur at once; but now we get into a real sticky area. We have to be prepared to suggest that when a person is genuinely saved they receive the Holy Spirit like unto the book of Acts and become witnesses with either the evidence of tongues or speaking the word with boldness. Thats a lot to say in one sentence. Almost like walking out on a limb and sawing it off. This is instant sanctification and power to BE a witness the likes of which are RARELY ever seen in modern 'conversions.' I'm not saying its wrong necessarily- I'm just surveying the vast ramifications of such a thought and how it could possibly play out soteriologically. :-o

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/10/18 8:46Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Hi Robert

Quote:
I'm sure you know I'm getting quite nervous at this point.



I am glad you raised it. If you had not, I would have had to. Now I have the job of trying to explain my understanding without folks putting me into a pigeon hole and switching channels.;-)

The difficult lies in our presuppositions. Both the Holiness folks and the Pentecostals have concluded that the culminating 'experience' is to be called the Baptism in the Spirit. The Holiness folk say Sanctification is achieved by an event called 'Baptism in the Spirit', the Pentecostals say the empowering of a believer is achieved by an event called the 'Baptism in the Spirit'. For each the final event is called Baptism in the Spirit.

Some time ago I was playing about with something I called Theological Algebra and posted it on a different thread; I will repeat it here. It may serve as I kind of 'international translator' so that when someone uses a phrase like 'baptism in the Spirit' you will have an idea of what they mean by it.

1.The Key
a. -> signifies "leading to..."
b. / signifies "otherwise knows as.."
c. = signifies "is the same as.."

2. the Reformed (Calvinist) position
a. regeneration > conversion > sealing of Spirit/assurance
i. Calvinists regard conversion as the evidence of regeneration
ii. but do allow for an assurance/witness of the Spirit to come later
iii. this would have been Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones' essential position

3. the Brethren position
a. conversion/regeneration = baptism in Spirit
i. Brethren used to say that conversion = regeneration
ii. they also distinguished between Standing and State
1) i.e. what we are In Christ and what we are In Experience
2) "reckoning" on the fact of what we are in Christ brings us into a conscious experience.
iii. Standing and State become identical.
1) This is Watchman Nee's position.
iv. however, there are now some Charismatic Brethren

4. the Wesleyan Holiness position
a. conversion/regeneration > pure heart/sanctification/baptism in Spirit
i. Wesley taught concerning justification and regeneration that in order of time "neither of these is before the other... but that in order of thinking... justification precedes the New Birth." Sermon on The New Birth
ii. Wesley didn't use the phrase "baptism in Spirit", but John Fletcher of Madeley did
iii. Wesleyans used the phrase Perfect Love, or Christian Perfection to describe the experience of sanctification
b. Later Wesleyan Holiness (Church of the Nazarene etc.,) people called this The Second Blessing or Sanctification

5. the Keswick position
a. conversion/regeneration > sanctification (as a process with a definite beginning)
i. Wesleyan Holiness teaches that the root of sin is removed in a moment of time
1) the Weslyan Holiness was held by Samuel Chadwick, Paget Wilkes, Cambpell Morgan (a varient)
ii. Keswick Holiness teaches that the power of sin (or the old nature) remains but may be overpowered daily by the Spirit's life
1) The Keswick position was held by J.C.Ryle, Andrew Murray, Donald Barnhouse, The Billy Graham Organization

6. the Pentecostal Holiness position
a. conversion/regeneration > pure heart/sanctification > power for service/baptism in Spirit
i. the first "Pentecostals" were Wesleyan Holiness with a subsequent "empowering" experience of the Spirit

7. the Pentecostal/Charismatic position
a. conversion/regeneration > power for service/baptism in Spirit
i. Charismatics are Pentecostals in non Pentecostal denominations
1) some Pentecostals insist on tongues as the initial evidence of baptism in Spirit
2) NB the idea of a crisis in which the Spirit deals with the root of sin has no real place in Charismatic teaching.
b. some Anglo Catholic and Roman Catholic Charismatics believe in baptismal regeneration of infants

8. Some modern charismatics
a. repentance + conversion/regeneration + water baptism + power for service/baptism in Spirit = full initiation into Christ.

9. RB position as at 18 Oct 2004 !!
a. baptism in Spirit = conversion > (regeneration + union + full repentance + pure heart/sanctification + power for service + assurance)
i. i.e. full immersion into all the flowing, living life of God!
ii. Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
iii. 2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

In my personal pilgrimage through this Theological Algebra I have been Keswick, followed by Pentecostal/Charismatic, followed by Pentecostal-Holiness, and have held my current understanding for about 30 years, however 'watch this space....'

The charismatics of No 8 seem closest to my own understanding but there are big differences too. The modern charismatics have no specific place in their theology for 'sanctification' and some deny it absolutely. The essence of my understanding is that the whole 'full' initiation into Christ is 'Baptism in the Spirit', rather than 'Baptism in the Spirit' being the final event of that initiation. Consequently 'Baptism in the Spirit' is a process, though it need not take time, which puts us in Christ in all His Fulness.

I note that the Acts uses the phrase specifically only in Acts 2 and Acts 10, where in each instance a comprehensive event is in view.

I have to add a hurried disclaimer. I do not identify the 'Baptism in the Spirit' by single outward or inward criteria. Not power, not assurance, not sanctification. What do I understand by 'baptism in the Spirit'? All of it. Can it happen in a moment? Why not? a day is as a 1000 years. Can the process be spread over a longer period? Why not? a 1000 years is as a day. Let me illustrate; Paul's 'initiation into Christ' took 3 days. Was that a single unit of time? a biblical 'day'? Cornelius' 'initiation into Christ' took less than 5 minutes. Was thata single unit of time? a biblical 'day'? The Samaritans experience seems to have been over several days or even weeks. The Ephesians' experience may have been over several months. I'll let you digest (or choke) a while before continuing...


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/10/18 13:49Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
baptism in Spirit = conversion > (regeneration + union + full repentance + pure heart/sanctification + power for service + assurance)



Hi Bro. Ron,

Do I understand you to mean that conversion leads to (>) (regeneration + union + full repentance + pure heart/sanctification + power for service + assurance)? Would that mean that conversion and (regeneration + union + full repentance + pure heart/sanctification + power for service + assurance) are seperate experiences that can play out in a moment of time or could progressively take months?

Do you define sanctification as walking before God without any conscious sin or do you have a different position? Does power for service imply full access to the gifts of the Spirit.

God Bless,

-Robert

********


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/10/18 15:51Profile
ZekeO
Member



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

 Re: Assumption of Roles

Hi all,

The distinctions of when and how are best summed up with these two scriptures:

Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth
John 17:17

But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth
2 Thess 2:13

So both of them the word and the spirit are agents of the same process, namely sanctification.

I think that the distinction 'filled' and 'baptized' compartmentalizes who he is and his actions within the believer. In the references in the gospels talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit it speaks of it as the primary gift that Jesus would bring. John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16

Maybe in the gospel writers minds being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit were so inextricably linked that there was no distinction made. If you had been born again, you had to have received the spirit. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, [b]with whom you were sealed[/b] for the day of redemption. Eph 4:30
It is saying in essence you would not have been born again if the holy spirit hadn't come on you. Having him meant that on that day the Lord would know those that are his.

When I think of the word baptism, the image of a person totally submerged in water comes to mind. It is totally in the water, so the water holds and surrounds the person, that person can be said to be 'in' the water. The scripture says that we are in Christ.[i]In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God [b]in[/b] Christ Jesus.Rom 6:11[/i] The context here is of baptism which we have spoken about before as an expression of a reality of being saved. So baptism in the Spirit happened at the momment of conversion. I am in Christ if you follow my reasoning.

Here is another play on words:
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and [b]you have been given fullness[/b] in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. Col 2:9,10

Seems from this verse that when I received Christ Jesus as Lord I received the fullness of God. So I have been filled already. So as a reality of being born again I am baptized into Christ having received everything that Jesus wanted me to receive. I am as a present reality full of the Holy Spirit. The question would then be raised why does Paul tell us to be continually filled? If we have this all at conversion why must we be continually filled?

Gee, those are good questions, which I am battling to articulate. The focus of his thought is more on what He does than the act of being filled. In Ehp 5:18 he ties together the affect of wine and the parrallel of what it means to be filled with the Spirit. Create an environment by your actions that is condusive to the Holy Spirit being free and willing to exert influence over a person.

and be not drunk with wine, in which is dissoluteness, but be filled in the Spirit, [b]speaking to yourselves[/b] in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. Eph 5:18,19 YLT

it implies an action of reminding yourself what and who God is, what he has done. The picture is to fill your senses with him, engage him and the eyes of your heart will be enlightened to see him and hear him. We don't lose the Holy Spirit, he is always in us, we can't ask for more of him. We have got all of him.

So the realities are that I am baptised in the Spirit and filled with the Spirit at the momment of conversion, based on the scriptures above.


_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2004/10/18 16:24Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Hi Robert

Quote:
Do I understand you to mean that conversion leads to (>) (regeneration + union + full repentance + pure heart/sanctification + power for service + assurance)? Would that mean that conversion and (regeneration + union + full repentance + pure heart/sanctification + power for service + assurance) are seperate experiences that can play out in a moment of time or could progressively take months?


I think each is an event, with a specific beginning. but I think an event may have taken place for some time before we identified as such. I think the Acts 15 reference to 'hearts purified by faith' may be instructive here. This comment is quite a few years after the event. In my own personal experience I had a crisis in which God assured me that He had done what I asked. Although it was a long time before I understood what is was I had really asked for and its implications in everyday life.

In a sense the duration of the event is not my main concern. Natural birth takes a while with many parts to the process but there comes a point before which the baby is 'not born' and another point at which it 'is born'. The parts are all vital to the result, but we can really only declare the result at a point in time.

In an individual the important thing is to have consciously received the Holy Spirit. These 'events' may then have dates but they may also be successive revelations of who God is and what He has done. I think each of these events becomes a state and as such is capable of development. Initial repentance would be an event but there is also a disposition of repentance, which in the languge of Ezekiel appears as the consequence of the new heart; Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations. (Eze 36:31 KJV) which in this place follows cleansing, a new heart, fruitfulness etc...

In a simplistic way I would say that it is all in the Spirit; regeneration, sanctification, empowering for service. If we have Him we have in essence all that is in Him. Just as the whole tree and its fruit is in the seed. The seed may take time to develop but the full gift of the life was there from the beginning.

Our consciousness of the 'full gift' may come in different ways, and has been expressed differently by different schools. The key thing is genuinely being placed into Christ the person. I don't identify this with the traditional language of 'decision' 'accepting Christ' etc. I think those are valid responses to God but I think we often put too much theology into the responses.

To me the deciding factor is do I have the Spirit, not as a deduction from proof texts but as an experiential reality. The early 'Christians' of Acts never needed our 'assurance theology'. The question was 'did you receive the Spirit'? and such a question implies a clear answer.


Quote:
Do you define sanctification as walking before God without any conscious sin or do you have a different position?

Again, sanctification can be viewed as an event and a process. All processes must have a point of origin. I regard 'walking before God without any conscious sin' as the consequence of a sanctification event, although the receiver may not use that language at all. Sanctifiation, at root, just means 'His'. This is someone who has passed from death to life, from the power of darkness into the kingdom of the beloved Son. The recipient may just become aware of a new enabling of continual dependence upon Him that makes a new way of living possible, and he may well falter in ignorence of the significance of what has happened to him.


Quote:
Does power for service imply full access to the gifts of the Spirit.

Not to quibble but because I think the emphasis is important; it implies full access of 'me' to the Holy Spirit. The 'gifts of the Spirit' are referred to in 1 Cor as the 'manifestation of the Spirit'; this is God revealing Himself. I don't think of these 'gifts' as being located in the believer in an absolute sense. They are ways in which the Holy Spirit manifests Himself. If I have the Spirit within I believe I have the Giver who is not detachable from His 'gifts'.

My emphasis in all this is upon 'receiving the Spirit'. It seems to me that this is the normal way of describing the entrance of 'the eternal life that is in Christ Jesus'. He that hath the Son hath life... but how does the Son take up residence? and this is the crunch... I can see no biblical explanation other than by the Spirit.

This is the trouble I got myself into on another thread.;-) I was not trying to distinguish between 'receiving' or 'accepting' Christ, I was pleading for a use of biblical language so that we can better understand what we are talking about. The biblical references to 'receiving Christ' have no point of connection with the way that evangelicals have come to use them. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 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: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Joh 1:11-13 KJV) These verses do not say that if we respond at an evagelistic meeting we are born again. It says those who received Him and his testimony in the days of His flesh were given the 'right to become' children of God. This is much the same promise as was made in John 7:37-39. That was a post-dated promise and until the day was 'fully come' it could only remain a promise. This is future potential not easy believism. This is one of Tozer's familiar themes; textualism and its ills.

that's enough for a single post, I think.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/10/18 17:02Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Hi ZekeO
welcome to our little world...

Quote:
Maybe in the gospel writers minds being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit were so inextricably linked that there was no distinction made.

I think you are right.

Quote:
Maybe in the gospel writers minds being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit were so inextricably linked that there was no distinction made.

Conversion and regeneration are not synonyms. Conversion always has a human agent in the scriptures; on occasion we are required to 'convert ourselves' (Acts 3:19); regeneration, on the other hand, always has God as the agent. The Arminians says that it is our turning of ourselves that causes God to regenerate us. The Calvinist says that only when God has regenerated us can we 'convert/turn ourselves'.

In my theological algebra I use 'conversion' in the sense of man's response to God.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/10/18 17:48Profile
dohzman
Member



Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132


 Re: The Distinction Between Being "Filled" and "Baptized" in the

Ok -- I understand what you're saying here and It's excellent!One baptism many fillings as the old timers used to say.What then is the difference between Unction/Anointings/and Fillings??Or is there any?Any light you can share would be very much appreciated.Thank You// In Christ--Bro. Daryl


_________________
D.Miller

 2004/10/19 1:30Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Hi Daryl
I've not really got to the 'fillings' yet in detail; that will come. As regards the difference between anointings and fillings, one of my earlier posts tried to point out that, biblically, 'the anointing' is Christ's own anointing that He shares with us. The picture is of separation to a task and specific authorization as in the OT with priest, prophets and kings. The pentecostal/charismatic use of the word to describe someone who seems particularly 'helped' by God in prayer or preaching etc is not really biblical. It may well be that 'filling' is much more appropriate here.

In these notes I have been trying to be ruthlessly biblical. Our normal pattern is to argue backwards from our position or our theology. I have tried to start with the bible and say what did the early Christians understand by these kind of terms.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/10/19 4:06Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy