Featured The Baptism With the Holy Ghost

The whole "force" of the Old Covenant is found its its EXTERNAL APPLICATIONS and CEREMONIAL TYPES which all lose their "force" or VALIDITY if Christ did not come die in fulfillment of them. The argument is the necessity of Christ's death and the whole Old Covenant loses its "force" or its validity apart from being fulfilled in the death of Christ - period!

Both of these texts repudiate your view and both are external to the context whereas my response was contextually based. Adam is a type of Christ and that type loses its "force" if there is no second Adam. The second quote proves the literal external typical sacrifices NEVER took away sin LITERALLY (Heb. 10:4), just as baptism and the Lord's Supper NEVER literally take away sin. but the law was merely instructive with regard to sin and its solution in Christ just as the ordinances today are instructive. However, our ordinances look back to a completion whereas the former looked forward for completion.

Yes you are! Catholics claim they teach salvation by grace through faith as well, but both of you include works of the Law for justification as you DENY CHRIST as any part of a SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENTIAL reality of salvation prior to Pentecost. You deny they could have the "life of Christ" or be "in Christ" and there is no salvation of any kind OUTSIDE of Christ and Christ tells you that BEFORE the cross (Jn.14:6) and Peter and John tell you that AFTER the cross (Acts 4:12) for any man at any time anywhere.

Apart from spiritual union there is no salvation of any kind or even the hope of salvation of any kind. Just as without actual remission of sins there is no hope of salvation for anyone. To claim the literal sacrifices actually took away their sins is absurd and contradicted by Paul in Hebrews 10:1-4 as well as in Hebrews 11:4 where Paul clearly states that the sacrifice offered by Abel only manifested his already righteous spiritual status rather than obtained it and you cannot have righteous status while still in unremitted sins and he did not offer the sacrifice to LITERALLY obtain remission of sins.

You are teaching sacramentalism between Genesis and Acts 2:1 rather than salvation by grace through faith WITHOUT WORKS as a salvation by grace through faith WITH WORKS is no grace at all and that is your only option when you reject actual remission of sins and actual spiritual union between Genesis and Acts.

The truth is YOU HAVE NO SOLUTION for the UNIVERSAL problem of sin and spiritual separation in the Garden of Eden until 4000 years later, 4000 years too late to SUBJECTIVELY save anyone between the Garden of Eden and Acts 2:1 with regard to their SUBJECTIVE sin problem or their spiritual separation problem.

Your view of sins being remitted by sacrifices is repudiated by the example of Abraham who is the "father" of "all who are of faith" as he was "justified" (sins remitted, righteousness imputed) while "in uncircumcision" "WITHOUT WORKS of his own or of the law (Rom. 4:1-11).

Without these THERE IS NO SALVATION of ANY KIND because the universal problem of sin and spiritual separation is INTERNAL not external. You are embracing the same error of the Jews at the time of Christ who sought salvation in EXTERNAL observances, when the EXTERNALS were NOTHING more than PICTURES or CEREMONIAL types of true personal salvation by INTERNAL CHANGE by the Holy Spirit. Your salvation is the same as the apostate Jews and here are your own words to prove it:

"Tha's why they offered up sacrifice. " Darrell

I would never yeild to such a foolish and totally antiBiblical assertion as that!!!!!

You don't understand the Law at all or you would never say such a thing. The law was NEVER designed to obtain life (Gal. 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law."

The law was designed to reveal sin PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY as well as NATIONALLY. And it was designed from the days of Moses to lead them to personal and individual faith in Christ as well as NATIONALLY and that is precisely what Paul is teaching in Galatians chapter three based upon the INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE of Abraham (Gal. 3:6-8) who was "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17) showing the law was to bring the INDIVIDUAL at that time to Christ personally for salvation while offering sacrifices was nothing more or less than present day baptism or the Lords Supper - both are "for remission of Sin" but not LITERALLY only FIGURATIVELY. They too are but a "SHADOW" of the person and work of Jesus Christ revealed in the promise of the gospel THEN and NOW (HEb. 4:2).


Take away actual remission of sins, actual imputed righteous all by faith and there is no such thing as justification by grace through faith for anyone at anytime. Take away the supernatural internal changing work of the Spirit (new birth) and there is no salvation at all with regard to the Edenic universal problem of sin and spiritual separation. You are left with a doctrine of CONFORMATION by works instead of INTERNAL TRANSFORMATION salvation by grace.

 

Darrell,

Do you actually believe that the problem of sin and spiritual separation is an EXTERNAL thing or an INTERNAL thing? If you believe it is an INTERNAL thing, then what kind of solution do you have for sinners between Eden and Acts 2:1????? Thus far, you have relied upon EXTERNAL sacrifices just as the Jews in Christ's day did and Catholics and other sacramentalists do today. So what is your INTERNAL SOLUTION for the sinner between Eden and Acts 2:1 to resolve sin and spiritual separation? Is it a solution OUTSIDE of Christ or IN CHRIST or to say it another way is it IN ADAM or IN CHRIST?

 

Whether one uses "with" or "in," it doesn't change the meaning. Not really. I would beware of choosing a preposition on the basis of one's thoughts concerning the mode of water baptism.

 

Hmm, Aaron, I usually don't put a lot of assertiveness behind my thoughts in a debate here at the BB.

But it's not just thoughts about the mode of water baptism, the mistranslation is carried on within the sentence to the Baptism In the Holy Ghost. The preposition en (in) is present in that structure as well.

We are talking about the word of God in the original language.
The Holy Spirit (not HankD) chose en (in).

To be forthright, en (in) can be thought of as instrumentive and is translated as such in most English bibles but it is not correct (because IMO of protestant baptismal tradition) and yes it is IMO but a very strong opinion. This mistranslation has led to a great deal of error in Christendom.

Surprisingly the Catholic Douay-Rheims translates it correctly probably because the ancient Latin Vulgate does as well.

I understand your choice but strongly disagree.
The use of "with" over "in" does indeed change the meaning of the passage and that in a very significant way.

American Standard Version:
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

Please think about my proposition.

Thanks
HankD

 

Darrel is freely admitting that his view of salvation before Acts 2:1 an "under the law" kind of justification distinctly different than an "in Christ" salvation. In other words his pre-Pentecost type of salvation has NO INTERNAL SPIRITUAL TRANSFORMATION. His "under the law" salvation is purely a WORKS salvation.

However, that is the very thing Paul repudiates and uses Abraham to repudiate it. Abraham lived prior to Pentecost. He lived prior to the giving of the Law. His justification by grace (Rom. 3:24; 4:4, 16) through faith WITHOUT works (Rom. 4:1-6) and without the works of the Law (Rom. 4:13-15) as no such Law existed. Furthermore, Paul says that the covenant between God and Abraham was "IN CHRIST" (Gal. 3:17). He is set forth as THE EXAMPLE for justification by faith. This repudiates Darrel's whole "under the law" for justification theme.

Darrell actually believes identical the unregenerate Jews of Christ's day who actually believed they could be justified "under the law" when Paul bluntly states that "NO FLESH" could be justified "under the law."

He has no clue about the true Biblical teaching of the Law. Neither doe he have any salvation solution for the actual practical problem of sin and spiritual separation from Eden to Acts 2:1. He offers the "law" as the solution to sin, when the law can only magnify sin and bring more condemnation but never alleviate it. He offers NOTHING for the problem of spiritual separation and the INTERNAL spiritual consequences of being WITHOUT LIFE, WITHOUT light and WITHOUT holiness. His Old Testament salvation is nothing but modern sacramental conformation instead of internal spiritual transformation by new birth or as the Old Testament presents it "circumcised in heart."

Romans 3:25-26 does assert clearly with regard to the atonement and remission of sins that God applied it by faith in his promise that the provision would be forthcoming. Darrel cannot really be consistent and deny this because Paul explicitly claims that Abraham was justified - that is his sins were actually remitted (Rom. 4:7-8) and righteousness actually imputed (Rom. 4:5-6) all WITHOUT THE WORKS OF THE LAW.

Neither does he understand the essence of justification. Justification is impossible without remission of sins and without righteousness that God approves and both are only found "in Christ" as such cannot be found OUTSIDE of Christ. Paul explicity denies the sacrifices obtained it as darrel suggests (heb. 10:1-4).

The problem is that Darrell is spinning a group of texts, which he jerks out of context and simply repeats which interpretation contradicts all teaching concerning the law and grace.

 

I believe I understand your concept and I agree. We are immersed in God, in addition we are filled with His Spirit, kind of like a glass immersed into a tub of water.

We are in the tub of water, the water of the tub is in us.

HankD

 

What he quotes is out of context and what he should have quoted that is in context he doesn't -

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.- Gal. 3:21

He has no clue about the Biblical teaching of the Law. The problem is not with the Law but with THE FLESH our fallen nature. Yet Darrell has pre-Pentecost saints being justified "under the law" IN THE FLESH because he denies they can be "IN THE SPIRIT."

The text he quotes simply proves that the law is contrary to the promise of God WHEN IT IS USED TO JUSTIFY US BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW as it cannot justify anyone "in the flesh" (fallen nature by first birth) but only condemn them as "by the works of the law" NO FLESH can be justified.

 

The issue is very simple. Is the universal problem of sin and spiritual separation an INTERNAL or EXTERNAL source problem???

Do human beings prior to Pentecost have a different problem than post-Pentecost saints or the SAME problem? If they have the SAME problem there can only be ONE solution for both. Darrell is treating pre-Pentecost fallen man as if they have a different problem that can be EXTERNALLY treated by "the works of the Law" when Paul says the law can justify NO FLESH. Darrel is treating pre-Pentecost man and his sin and spiritual separation problem with something that cannot work. He wants to mix justification by works under the law with faith in the coming Christ and Paul condemns such a thing a "another gospel" which denies grace.

 

No, I reject that because that is not what Romans 2:15 teaches. It does not teach the law is written on their hearts as that is the new birth or haven't you read 2 Cor. 3:3-6?????

Romans 2:15 teaches that it is "THE WORK" of the law, not the law, but the WORK OF the law that is written on the heart. And what is that work? The work of discerning good and evil as the text spells out in the final sentence. So you are abusing one text after another text and then claiming you have answered, explained an dealt with that issue when in fact you have not! You have ignored THE TRUTH and spinned it to what YOU WANT it to read.

Your reasoning is absured, as you mix law and grace for justification in one dispensation and deny it in another dispensation. Again, you fail to explain Abraham who was justified by grace through faith WITHOUT THE LAW or WITHOUT THE DEEDS of the Law. You fail to explain how Abraham is NON-DISPENSATIONAL but OMNI-DISPENSATIONAL or the pattern for "ALL who are of faith." So you dispensational tactics fall flat as Paul destroys your whole line of reasoning by Abraham.

Tell us Darrel, was David "of faith" or of unbelief? Abraham is said to the model, example of justification by grace through faith for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" - so much for you dispensational nonsense!

You don't understand the Law or what it means to be "under the Law." IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OBTAINING JUSTIFICATION as "NO FLESH" can be justified by the Law. The law was introduced to magnify sin and prove they needed to turn from the works of the law to faith in Christ. For those who did the keeping of the law merely manifested they already had been justified by faith not as a means to be justified by faith. You are teaching Roman Catholic sacramentalism prior to Pentecost as the means for justification - period!

You can't be serious???? God still judges his saints physically for sin or have you not read 1 Cor. 5 and Hebrews 12:5-13???????? What don't you understand about a "shadow" in Hebrews 10:1 and that such sacrifices could NEVER remove sin??? Those sacrifices were not means to remove sin as the blood of ANIMALS cannot LITERALLY atone for HUMAN sin, they can only provide the people of God a CEREMONIAL EXPRESSION of their faith in Christ that literally remitted their sins or have you not read Acts 10:43 or do you even believe what it says?

Did you read your last paragraph where you state in black and white that they were given animal sacrifices to literally atone for their sins???? That is Roman CAtholic sacramentalism to the core. Again the example for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" repudiates your veiw of sacrifices and your view of being justified under the law, and repudiates your view of different means under different dispensations. Indeed, your different means under different dispensations is an outright repudiation of Abraham being the father "OF ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" with regards to the means of his justification.

Have you ever read "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant"? Jesus said long before the cross that "NO MAN can come unto the Father but by me" and if you are not "in Christ" you are still condemned "in Adam" as there are no third options. There is no third option with regard to the problem of sin and spiritual separation. Justification is WHOLLY based upon the cross as there is no other LITERAL means to remove sin or be just in God's sight but "in Christ" and Christ alone. You have no concept of the Law or what it means to be justified by the law. Justification under law demands no failure at any point of the law - sinlessness and that is why "NO FLESH" can be justified under the law or have you not read Romans 3:19-20??????? Paul provides no third option between the Law (Rom. 3:9-20) and Christ (Rom. 3:21-22).

 

First, it seems you don't understand that the term "salvation" has a broader sense then just a subjective element? It is inclusive of God's eternal purpose of salvation, of initial salvation or conversion, of progressive sanctification and ulitmately of glorification. It is personified in the Person and work of Christ. So broaden your concept of the term salvation.

The "salvation" which they enquired was not their own person salvation but the actual PROVISION of salvation by the first advent of Christ (v. 11). The time of his coming and the manner of his suffering which are all progressive elements NOT NECESSARY for their own personal salvation, as the only thing essential to their own personal salvation was the PRESENT GOSPEL REVELATION.

Moreover, they did not live to witness what Peter claims his readers witnessed, the actual coming of Christ to make that provision of salvation. That does not mean they were not individually born again, indwelt, justified and progressively being sanctified, it only means they were not priviledged to understand the details stated which came only with more progressive revelation. Yes, the Holy Spirit was sent down from heaven to empower the churches to preach the gospel to a new type of people - GENTILES or "THE WORLD" but not to preach a new gospel or a new way of salvation.

So what difference is "make our abode WITH him" and telling them the Holy Spirit NOW "dwells WITH you"?????? Your point is pointless.

And I have answered and you IGNORE my answer. The mystery had to do with two specfics - the means of death - the cross - which was a matter of progressive revelation. The people who would be the new recipients or focus of the God's redemption - Gentiles or the "world" instead of Israel.

No one disputes the Holy Spirit was sent from heaven. What you fail to see and grasp is that it is GOD THE SON who is the administer NOT THE ELEMENT and it is GOD THE SPIRIT who is the elment and not GOD THE SON or GOD THE FATHER. You make both the words of John the Baptist and Christ meaningless as they distinguished who was the administrator from whom was the element but you refuse to accept the Biblical distinction that is repeated at least five times in Scriptures.You want to confuse what the Scritpures distinguish with regard to the baptism in the Spirit.

 

It starts with PRESENT TENSE COMING. The FUTURE TENSE outflow is what he uses the same FUTURE tense to explain in verse 39. It makes no sense to exhort people to come to him using present tense verbs, to believe on him, to eat and drink (metaphors to partake by faith) when it is impossible. It makes no sense to use a futuristic present when the future tense is being used as it makes no sense to use a present tense for a future when you are using future tenses. The inflow is PRESENT while the outflow is what is stated to be future "shall flow" and that is that future outflow that the next future tense explains.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


There can be no outflow prior to the Spirit coming.


God bless.[/QUOTE]

 

You are a maze of self-contradictions. Of course we are talking about salvation because you make the baptism in the Spirit inseparable from the new birth and that is salvation. You seriously don't thing to be "in Christ" is not a matter of salvation???? You talk about false and misleading arguments. Your view of the baptism in the Spirit is inseparable from your view of salvation "in Christ." That is the problem have no concept of the new birth, the law or the baptism in the Spirit.

The "force" of the law is not that it can provide life, or justification , or remission of sins. It's "force" is wholly EXTERNAL and CEREMONIAL as a "shadow." However, if Christ does not come and provide the sustance/provision of that shadow then it has no fulfillment, no completion and is therefore invalidated and made a lie.

You are only shooting yourself in the foot by this quote. Can't you see the term "figures"? That is the "force" of the Law it is an EXTERNAL "shadow" or "type" or "figure" and "NO FLESH" can be justified LITERALLY by observing its ordinances, precepts or sacrifices. Those sacrifices can NEVER take away sins LITERALLY but only in FIGURE. What took away sins literally is spelled out for you in Acts 10:43 - believing in the promised Christ provision of the gospel and that is how sins were remitted in EVERY DISPENSATION personally and indivdually and NEVER by any other means except FIGURATIVELY.

Try reading and interpreting this text in its immediate context! He tells him that if he can't believe earthly matters then how can he understand heavenly things. The only Person who has been in heaven an came to earth that can explain heavenly things is Christ who is still in heaven at the time he is speaking. So much for your proof text against prior saints going to heaven. He is not denying saints went to heaven, he is denying that any man went to heaven and came down to explain heavenly things and that is STILL TRUE TO THIS DAY.

You can't possibly separate your view of the baptism from your view of "in Christ" salvation and so why disclaim that is not the issue?????

Do you even know what it means to be reconciled to God????? It means one is justified = equals remission of sins, imputed righteousness and spiritual separation reversed. Abraham was "justified" and according to Paul "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" were justified JUST LIKE ABRAHAM regardless when they lived before or AFTER Pentecost. You simply refuse to believe that and repudiate that Abraham is the father "OF ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" with regard to reconciliation = justification and spiritual union. Your view repudiates Paul's denial that any man "under the law" can be justified by the works of the Law. He says "NO FLESH" and you say believers were justified "under the law" by faith plus sacrificial means. Paul says the sacrificials acts were not LITERAL means but only FIGURATIVE of sins already remitted by faith ALONE in Christ, just like Abraham, just like "ALL" the prophets preached concerning LITERAL remissions (Acts 10:43).