The problem is rbanks, that we can say 'I am crucified with Christ' with a huge variety on what that means in practice. This is the sort of thing that changed for me.

I have not changed one iota on the basics from the Nicene Creed, apart from not adding the Filioque Clause which is heresy.

And again 'dead to sin' does not mean the same to all nor did it to me for a long time till Christ became my Lord and Saviour fully and completely even though I followed Him.

I agree with all you said, but at another level.

We do not read scripture as much as it reads us.

You claim a higher level than most others…I thought so…

So that is why you think you should teach others what you have come to believe….

And that is where you are definitely wrong…

You read so much material outside of the Bible…

It seems you don’t fully trust God through the Bible…you don’t trust that God will lead you into all truth…if you only read the Bible…

You don’t truly depend on the Holy Spirit…but the Holy Spirit plus knowledge that you are depending on from all your studies outside the Bible…

So dangerous…you can’t even be sure of the Holy Spirit leading you…without some acquired knowledge

_________________
Travis

rbanks: Thank you for the kind words.

_________________
Travis

rbanks

It seems that you are accusing me of what you yourself do - you think you can just read the Bible and interpret it yourself. The curse of Protestantism. I look at what others say over a range and then, whichever is confirmed within by the Holy Spirit, and which tunes in with sanctified reason, I adopt till one day it is challenged. If it is. I do not follow a denomination. You don't realize just how much of a lens you see through that way.

Anyway, to do apologetics one needs to know how others think and it has been very productive for me to do that here. If that is not your role then don't criticize others that do have it.

Brenda, but you feel that you have discovered more enlightenment than the Bible.

I have witnessed to “Jehovah Witnesses” on my porch all the way to them hurrying to get in their car and leave.

I have walk up in kindness to 2 Mormons and a restaurant spending some time explaining to them the true gospel.

You are not much different than them in the fact that you read and depend on outside sources more than the Bible.

There is a difference in reading outside the Bible than depending on teachings outside the Bible…more than you do the Bible.

Blessings

Well Brend, I just got caught in trying to get you to trust God and His Word only.

Blessings to you, and I hope to stay humble in realizing I have not arrived and do fall short myself depending on Him to help me always…not trusting in any outside teaching that is not clearly in the gospel of Christ.

I will bow out…blessings to all…

Thanks for that Travis. Yes it is about the heart and any miracle man sees, could be interpreted to be the work of the devil, if a man is determined to disprove God because of bitterness in his heart. Even the speaking of foreign languages at Pentecost, I guess. That's why I have been thinking that the sign is one of judgement.

I will consider what you have said.

Hi Travis!

The things you mentioned are some important things to remember. When I came to Christ, I remember that I was often challenged by certain individuals with very strongly-held doctrinal opinions. They were primarily debating certain views about "calling and election" but also spiritual gifts.

Since I went from not believing in God to believing and then earnestly seeking him, I normally would have been uncomfortable with such fractious confrontations. However, I was diligently seeking the Lord. I had already read the Bible cover-to-cover several times. So, I felt comfortable answering their questions.

One thing that they argued was that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was simply water baptism and/or salvation.

When I read this passage to them, they initially didn't believe it was in the Bible. Then, they alleged that it was merely contained within a poorly-written translation of the Bible. I showed it to them in their Bibles and they were further bewildered. They couldn't explain it.

Here's that passage:

.......
.......

1 And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.

2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.”

4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”

5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Acts 19:17 (ESV)

.......
.......

I pointed out that the passage clearly shows three separate experiences.

1.) John's baptism (of repentance)
2.) Baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus
3.) Receiving the Holy Spirit

The first is John's baptism. These disciples had already been baptized in water. However, Paul made the distinction between mere "baptism of repentance" and the Christ-focused example of water baptism -- clarified later in the epistles by Paul and Peter.

So, these men were baptized into Christ Jesus.

Yet, subsequent to this, Paul laid his hands on them. It was at the point that they "received the Holy Spirit" (verse 1). When the Holy Spirit came on them, "they began speaking in tongues and prophesying" (verse 6).

Now, I suspect that these men had already received Jesus by the time Paul laid hands on them. How? Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus. I don't think that Paul would baptize sinners. They had already repented (or, at least, been baptized with a baptism of repentance). They were subsequently baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

After Paul laid his hands upon them, "the Holy Spirit came upon them." They began to speak in tongues and prophesy.

Now, people can argue whether they began to speak in tongues so that sinners around them could hear it. However, the text doesn't say this. Rather, it simply indicates that they received the Holy Spirit when Paul laid his hands upon them (similar to what we read elsewhere in Acts when people received the Holy Spirit).

I would also point out that there was no "effort" involved among those who received the Holy Spirit. They didn't "pray through" to "receive the gifts." They were simply baptized in the name of Jesus and SUBSEQUENTLY had Paul (an apostle) lay his hands upon them. It makes you wonder about the significance of the "laying on of hands" (and Paul's exhortation to Timothy to not be "hasty" with the laying on of hands).

_________________
Christopher

Chris: Agreed brother. A case for a baptism in the Holy Spirit that is subsequent to salvation, but not the same thing as salvation, is easy to make from very plainly stated scripture. Acts 19 is very clear in its distinction and differentiation of these things.

_________________
Travis