Can a person lose the Holy Spirit once it is received?

[Ed Edwards]

Just for a comparison the KJ21 (21 Century King James Version) says it this way.

35: 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 Being who shall be born
of thee shall be called the Son of God.

I'm thinking seriously about ordering one of these. Right now you can get two for the price of one, plus an extra $2.00 postage.

As I was called by God to do, I've checked this verse.
You got it wrong Brother:

Luke 1:35 (KJ21):
35: And the angel answered and said unto her,
"The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.
Therefore also that Holy Being who shall be born
of thee shall be called the Son of God.

BTW, when you were reading the KJ21, did you notice
that the verses about the Angel conversation with Mary
were Bolded?

 

[R. J.]

As I was called by God to do, I've checked this verse.
You got it wrong Brother:

Luke 1:35 (KJ21):
35: And the angel answered and said unto her,
"The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.
Therefore also that Holy Being who shall be born
of thee shall be called the Son of God.

BTW, when you were reading the KJ21, did you notice
that the verses about the Angel conversation with Mary
were Bolded?

God actually spoke to you and told you to "check this verse"? What was the tone of His voice?

 

[Samuel Owen]

Ed.

We don't want to hijack this thread, so I will make this short. You might want to start a thread on it.

Yes! and I read their intro to this version, and know both reasons for it. Since this is a version they have printed with no certain identity like "Thompson Chain" (I have one), they have tried to make it somewhat cross denominational.

I have no problem with that since it does not make it a Catholic Bible, believe me I have seen one, and there is no comparison. I have checked out the text on several other chapters, and it stays closer to the KJV than other updated Bible like the NKJV.

I never use any other translation alone, but along side of the KJV. I quite often do this in Bible Studies to clarify verses for those who are confused by the old english. I have used the NASB for this but it does not follow along well in many cases, as it is from a different text as you know. The KJ21 is the closest I have seen. Billy Graham once used the Living Bible for this, and may still. I think I would rather use the KJ21 at the worst.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I said: //As I was called by God to do, I've checked this verse.//

R.J. Said: //God actually spoke to you and told you to "check this verse"? What was the tone of His voice?//

God did not speak with an audible voice,
appear on a TV show with a faith healer,
come in a cloud of smoke & mirrors, nor etc.

Here is how God called me:

Act 17:10-11 (KJV1611 Edition):
And the brethren immediatly sent away Paul and Silas
by night vnto Berea: who comming thither,
went into the Synagogue of the Iewes.
Act 17:11 These were more noble then those in Thessalonica,
in that they receiued the word with
all readinesse of minde, and searched
the Scriptures dayly, whether those things were so.

 

[R. J.]

I said: //As I was called by God to do, I've checked this verse.//

R.J. Said: //God actually spoke to you and told you to "check this verse"? What was the tone of His voice?//

God did not speak with an audible voice,
appear on a TV show with a faith healer,
come in a cloud of smoke & mirrors, nor etc.

Here is how God called me:

Act 17:10-11 (KJV1611 Edition):
And the brethren immediatly sent away Paul and Silas
by night vnto Berea: who comming thither,
went into the Synagogue of the Iewes.
Act 17:11 These were more noble then those in Thessalonica,
in that they receiued the word with
all readinesse of minde, and searched
the Scriptures dayly, whether those things were so.

Ahhh! Yes. Now I understand and agree completely.

Are you a fan of the Berean Bible Society and Cornelius Stam?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Sorry Brother R.J. I never heard of Berean Bible Society
and Cornelius Stam, but I guess I
could go read some on Googled sites.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Simple - It would show they are not OF Him. If they did not 'abide' or 'rest' in the branch but try to do something that would make them somehow MORE righteous or worthy then they reveal they are not and were not OF Him who 'rest' in the Vine. It is about them (the branch) 'doing something' to try to produce much friut rather than it being all about Christ and 'resting' in Him that will work and produce MUCH fruit THROUGH them who dwell IN Him.

Thus the warning

If you assume that they are not OF Him you make Jesus a liar. (Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.)

 

[Allan]

If you assume that they are not OF Him you make Jesus a liar. (Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.)

EDITED>>>

I never stated THEY were not OF Him but in general ‘they’ others who claimed to be His and did not abide it was THEY who are not of Him.

The verse just before it states that every branch that beareth fruit, He (God) purgeth it (cleans it - as it is from the same Greek Root word 'clean') that it may bring forth MORE fruit.

Jesus was then telling them that the Word of God has been doing this and preparing them to BRING FORTH MORE FRUIT as they were being purged back or trimmed up.

So Jesus did not lie as Jesus Goes on to Say "YE ARE THE BRANCHES..."
This discourse shows how to know those who are actually one of Christ’s own and those who are not (like Judas Iscariot who did not abide nor do the commands of Christ)

 

[Soulman]

There are other ways of displaying political correctness without the use of racist remarks. And no, I will not lighten up on that subject. There is no excuse to use it, period.

And yes I saw your context by which you placed your remark.
You stated:

my ephasis added
Your context is: Jesus gives something and does not take it back unlike the native americans.
(Why native americans? Because they can't be trusted - this is the historical meaning of that phrase)

Am I wrong about the comment?? Nope! You might not have ment it but that is exactly what you stated. All I asked is that you not do it again. Is that something really so hard for you to accept???

The term "Indian giver" is the accurate phrase. It simply implys a person giving a gift and taking it back. I was just having a little fun with political correctness. Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[Allan]

I appreciate that.

Being that I have very litter Indian in me, My younger bothers grandermother on his fathers side is a full blooded Cherokee Princess. While my adopted brother (my sisters son) is half black. I have heard all the halfbreed jokes and racist remarks I can handle anymore, but most people don't understand or even know they ARE racist remarks. One Gentlemen I spoke with about his remark concerning 'jewing a person down' didn't even realize it and told me I didn't even know what constituted a racist remark.
I said simply: For the short version it is any remark concerning a specific ethnic group in a steriotypical derogitive way.

I explained the where the phrase denotes that steriotypical derogitive reference. At you should have seen the look on his face when he realized that it was.

I don't mean to be mean about correcting such things, but I stand by it without appologies.

 

[HankD]

I appreciate that.

Being that I have very litter Indian in me, My younger bothers grandermother on his fathers side is a full blooded Cherokee Princess. While my adopted brother (my sisters son) is half black. I have heard all the halfbreed jokes and racist remarks I can handle anymore, but most people don't understand or even know they ARE racist remarks. One Gentlemen I spoke with about his remark concerning 'jewing a person down' didn't even realize it and told me I didn't even know what constituted a racist remark.
I said simply: For the short version it is any remark concerning a specific ethnic group in a steriotypical derogitive way.

I explained the where the phrase denotes that steriotypical derogitive reference. At you should have seen the look on his face when he realized that it was.

I don't mean to be mean about correcting such things, but I stand by it without appologies.

Allan you should never take offense because of a "racial" remark because, genetically speaking, God knows no such thing as "race". After all, we ALL have the same original parents (Adam,Eve).

Acts 17

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation​

 

[Allan]

Allan you should never take offense because of a "racial" remark because, genetically speaking, God knows no such thing as "race". After all, we ALL have the same original parents (Adam,Eve).

Acts 17

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation​

"Racial" is the common venacular that for which people accociate ethnicity or did you not learn that in school??

It was in the commons to which I was bringing this point to bare and was understood as such by the person to whom it was written, so you point though intended to be somewhat intellectual shows your laci in understanding. Though I do appreciate you trying to straighten me out with regard to our genetic make up. It was dually noted.

 

[HankD]

"Racial" is the common venacular that for which people accociate ethnicity or did you not learn that in school??

No, I didn’t.

I ‘m from an “ethnic” background myself (Italian descent). I grew up in an “ethnic” community. I didn’t really find out the reality of “racial” slurs until I went into the military.

It was in the commons to which I was bringing this point to bare and was understood as such by the person to whom it was written, so you point though intended to be somewhat intellectual shows your laci in understanding. Though I do appreciate you trying to straighten me out with regard to our genetic make up. It was dually noted.

OK, maybe I am lacking in understanding. However you are a son of God in whom the Spirit of Christ abides.

What charge can any one really bring against you?

Even on the earthy level, while in the service, whenever there were racial slurs or I became the butt of an ethnic joke, I would often remind the offender that some of the greatest minds and artisans know have come out of Italy (Galileo, DaVinci Michelangelo, to name a few).

I will admit that it took some discipline to not respond in like kind and fire back railing for railing.

HankD

 

[Allan]

OK, maybe I am lacking in understanding. However you are a son of God in whom the Spirit of Christ abides.

This is non-siquester. Meaningless to what I was speaking about. I know what you are getting at but that does not excuse a believer from using language that is DESIGNED (by the originator of the phrase) to be demeaning and degrading to the groups for whom it stereotypes.

What charge can any one really bring against you?

No one can bring a charge that brings forth damnation upon a believer. But We can show the sin (whether knowingly or unknowingly) does that they may get it right with God and others. This way they wont make the same mistakes twice by the grace of God.

Even on the earthy level, while in the service, whenever there were racial slurs or I became the butt of an ethnic joke, I would often remind the offender that some of the greatest minds and artisans know have come out of Italy (Galileo, DaVinci Michelangelo, to name a few).

Were they believers as well casting disperaging epitaphs at you or making the racial comments at or behind your back??
I was speaking to a person who is a believer and as a brother in Christ I am not permitted to sit by and listen to such degrading and demeaning things about others. As a believer I am to reprove AND exhort. I don't believe that brother was being meaning spirited but I did want him to know it was not appropreit.

I will admit that it took some discipline to not respond in like kind and fire back railing for railing.

I will agree you should not shoot back racial comments for recail comments. However this is not even abstractly what was going on.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

EDITED>>>

I never stated THEY were not OF Him but in general ‘they’ others who claimed to be His and did not abide it was THEY who are not of Him.

The verse just before it states that every branch that beareth fruit, He (God) purgeth it (cleans it - as it is from the same Greek Root word 'clean') that it may bring forth MORE fruit.

Jesus was then telling them that the Word of God has been doing this and preparing them to BRING FORTH MORE FRUIT as they were being purged back or trimmed up.

So Jesus did not lie as Jesus Goes on to Say "YE ARE THE BRANCHES..."
This discourse shows how to know those who are actually one of Christ’s own and those who are not (like Judas Iscariot who did not abide nor do the commands of Christ)

You just don't see the point. Christ declared that they were now clean, i.e. saved. How could it be that if they did not abide in Him it would show that they never were in Him? They were in Him. If they abide in Him they are saved. If not, they are damned.

 

[EdSutton]

Short answer to the OP and opening question-

NO! NEVER! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

IN LARGE BOXCAR LETTERS!

Any questions?

Ed

P.S. I'm not a pastor, though!

 

[Allan]

You just don't see the point. Christ declared that they were now clean, i.e. saved. How could it be that if they did not abide in Him it would show that they never were in Him? They were in Him. If they abide in Him they are saved. If not, they are damned.

WRONG!!!

They are not saved YET because salvation must be purchased by blood as says the scriptures. "Without the shedding of blood there can be NO remission (removal) of sin." It is due TO sin that we are seperated from God and under His Righteous Wrath and condemned - thus Unsaved!
Also without the sealing and indwelling Holy Spirit one CAN NOT be saved for it is His Spirit that brings us into the Body of Christ and brings us into a relationship with the Father where he makes intersession for us. He (the Holy Spirit) ALSO bears witness WITH our spirit that we are His!

The disciples still were not real believers in Jesus until AFTER the resurrection. They didn't know or understand FULLY what the Messiah was to do and how He was to do it. They still thought He was going to be their Kingdom ruler so when He died they thought is was over. Peter and 5 others went back to fishing while the others just stood around. We know they didn't believe because when Mary and the other women who went to the empty tomb and came back saying He is arisen for they saw Him; Mark 16:11-14 states :

Mar 16:11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
Mar 16:12 ¶ After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
Mar 16:13 And they went and told [it] unto the residue: neither believed they them.
Mar 16:14 ¶ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

We see the same thing in Luk 24:11-12, (37 - they though He was a ghost)
and John 21 shows Peter and other back in their old life fishing not realizing He was alive.

They were not YET 'saved' for Christ had not yet died for their sins AND they did not yet believe in the resurrection which is paramont in our salvation (Rom 10:9) Indeed Christ 'kept them' as He promised but that 'keeping' was from death physically until He procured them from death spiritually.

So you see they did not 'Abide in Christ' and their fruit proved it. But once they were saved and infilled the friut produced was that of a different quality. That no matter what happened they would always stand and abide in Him because that is where they actaully were. They could do no different.

 

[LeBuick]

Short answer to the OP and opening question-

NO! NEVER! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

IN LARGE BOXCAR LETTERS!

Any questions?

Ed

P.S. I'm not a pastor, though!

But it's sure good to have you back!

 

[EdSutton]

WRONG!!!

They are not saved YET because salvation must be purchased by blood as says the scriptures. "Without the shedding of blood there can be NO remission (removal) of sin." WIthout the sealing and indwelling Holy Spirit one CAN NOT be saved for it is His Spirit that bears witness WITH our spirit that we are His!

The disciples still were not real believers in Jesus until AFTER the resurrection. They didn't know or understand FULLY what the Messiah was to do and how He was to do it. They still thought He was going to be their Kingdom ruler so when He died they thought is was over. Peter and 5 others went back to fishing while the others just stood around. We know they didn't believe because when Mary and the other women who went to the empty tomb and came back saying He is arisen for they saw Him; Mark 16:11-14 states :

We see the same thing in Luk 24:11-12, (37 - they though He was a ghost)
and John 21 shows Peter and other back in their old life fishing not realizing He was alive.

They were not YET 'saved' for Christ had not yet died for their sins AND they did not yet believe in the resurrection which is paramont in our salvation (Rom 10:9) Indeed Christ 'kept them' as He promised but that 'keeping' was from death physically until He procured them from death spiritually.

So you see they did not 'Abide in Christ' and their fruit proved it. But once they were saved and infilled the friut produced was that of a different quality. That no matter what happened they would always stand and abide in Him because that is where they actaully (sic) were. They could do no different.

While I think I know where you are coming from, I have to offer a couple or three things, here. As to the 'disciples' being "not YET saved", I have to differ slightly. Doubt does not necessarily equal one not being saved; neither does lack of 'complete' understanding. If that were the case, no one could ever be saved or know if they were saved, and in the words of Paul, would place all of us as among "those most miserable", IMO. That is unless one makes the claim that they know all, one that this saint, at least, is not going to make.
Second, the remission of sin does not equal salvation, although salvation is bestowed by grace/faith on the basis of sin which would be taken out of the way (before the cross) and now has been (after the cross). The Lamb of God taketh away the sins of the world, although all the world is not saved. Hence there must be more involved than merely removing sin, as Scripture teaches and I just posted before, i.e.- grace/faith.
Thirdly, believing does not always have only to do with being saved.
Fourthly, not one OT Saint was ever either 'sealed' or 'indwelt', as that is something particular to the NT saints after, at least Pentecost, but I submit that each and every one of David, Abraham, Noah, Lot, Rahab, Abel, John the Baptizer, and the rest of the Saints before the cross were just as saved as you or I, and that by faith, for they too were entirely and completely "kept by the power of God".
And surely no one would say these were not saved, least of all, Scripture.

Ed

 

[Allan]

While I think I know where you are coming from, I have to offer a couple or three things, here. As to the 'disciples' being "not YET saved", I have to differ slightly. Doubt does not necessarily equal one not being saved; neither does lack of 'complete' understanding.

I agree, but doubting the resurrection does. Rom 10:9 - You can not have salvation WITHOUT the resurrection. We see after this a complete change in the disciples attitudes, proclaimation, and witness. Things that are attributed to salvation.

If that were the case, no one could ever be saved or know if they were saved, and in the words of Paul, would place all of us as among "those most miserable", IMO.

Noted: but we are not talking about knowing everything, just that Jesus is the Messiah who not only came to take away the sins of the world but also rose again. These are two crucial points within the doctrine of salvation, are they not??

Second, the remission of sin does not equal salvation, although salvation is bestowed by grace/faith on the basis of sin which would be taken out of the way (before the cross) and now has been (after the cross). The Lamb of God taketh away the sins of the world, although all the world is not saved. Hence there must be more involved than merely removing sin, as Scripture teaches and I just posted before, i.e.- grace/faith.

If salvation is not about the remission of sins then what pray tell are we saved from. It is the effects of sin which is Judgment, right?? If ones sins are removed are they not saved from that Judgment to come?? Is this not the Salvation Paul Speaks of in Rom 7-8 and 10.??
Is this not the eternal life Jesus spoke of rather than eternal damnation?? Peter as well?? Jesus IS the Lamb that takes away the sins of the World but no ones sins are removed until they believe on the Only Begotten of the Father.

Thirdly, believing does not always have only to do with being saved.

What?? Believing in who Jesus IS and what He has DONE is ALWAYS about being saved. Or else you will be believing in another Christ who is Not Jesus THE Christ.

Fourthly, not one OT Saint was ever either 'sealed' or 'indwelt', as that is something particular to the NT saints after, at least Pentecost, but I submit that each and every one of David, Abraham, Noah, Lot, Rahab, Abel, John the Baptizer, and the rest of the Saints before the cross were just as saved as you or I, and that by faith, for they too were entirely and completely "kept by the power of God".
And surely no one would say these were not saved, least of all, Scripture.

I agree but their salvation was based on them KEEPING the Faith and ours is on HAVING Faith in the FINSHED work of Christ. Did any of those you mention walk away from or not believe what God told them, go back to their old lives?? Did God ever have to go back to them and explain what and why certain things must have happened. Answer: not one.
But this is exactly what the disciples did!