Salvation and sin

[Brother Bob]

Bob, look back at your posts.
In post 293 you quote:
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

The above takes place about three days after Pentecost.
However, you refer to the filling of the Spirit mentioned in 4:31 in the same breath and context as if it were in chapter 2:4.
That is deceitful. In fact it is almost the same as a lie, isn't it? They are not the same. The event in chapter four took place well after The Day of Pentecost. Check out your own posts: 293 and 297. I hope you can follow your own conversation.

If it was not the day of Penecost that the Holy Ghost descended upon God's people, then when was it?

Day of Penecost;

Act 2:4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.


Maybe you could give a scripture of when the "indwelling" of the Holy Ghost was?

BBob,

 

[DHK]

If it was not the day of Penecost that the Holy Ghost descended upon God's people, then when was it?

Day of Penecost;

Act 2:4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.


Maybe you could give a scripture of when the "indwelling" of the Holy Ghost was?

BBob,

I did Bob. Go back and read my posts. No need for me to repeat myself.

 

[Brother Bob]

I did Bob. Go back and read my posts. No need for me to repeat myself.

I have never read a scripture where there was the "indwelling" of the Holy Ghost, given by you, that I can recall.

You gave John 20, which says he breathed upon them and they received the Holy Ghost, I take that to be they were filled with the Holy Ghost. You got a scripture of "Indwelling"???

BBob,

 

[DHK]

I have never read a scripture where there was the "indwelling" of the Holy Ghost, given by you, that I can recall.

Bob, do you believe that you are indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
If not, why not?
If so, when did happen, and why?

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob, do you believe that you are indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
If not, why not?
If so, when did happen, and why?

I believe I am filled with the Holy Ghost and another way of saying that would be "indwelt". I don't think there is no scripture using "indwelt", is my point DHK:.

This is 31 pages DHK;

BBob,

 

[DHK]

I believe I am filled with the Holy Ghost and another way of saying that would be "indwelt". I don't think there is no scripture using "indwelt", is my point DHK:.

Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

The verb is in the present continuous. It should be translated "but be continuously filled with the Spirit." It is a command for believers only. It has nothing to do with salvation. Salvation is not an on-going process. How would this make sense: Be continually saved through the Spirit.
We were saved once, at one time in history, when we trusted Christ as Saviour. It was a one time event. It is not an on-going event. But submitting to the Holy Spirit, yielding to Him every day is an on-going event in the believer's life.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

The Holy Ghost is in you. That is what it says. You are the temple of God. You are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and every believer has been since he has trusted Christ as His Saviour. That started on the Day of Pentecost. Another term we used is "baptized with the Spirit." There is no subsequent Spirit baptism, but at the day of salvation we are baptized with the Holy Spirit. It is at that same time that the Holy Spirit comes and indwells us, but not necessarily fills us. The filling of the Holy Spirit is different. It is for power for boldness and for preaching and for evangelism. The Charismatics identify it with tongues. They are mistaken.

 

[Brother Bob]

Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

The verb is in the present continuous. It should be translated "but be continuously filled with the Spirit." It is a command for believers only. It has nothing to do with salvation. Salvation is not an on-going process. How would this make sense: Be continually saved through the Spirit.
We were saved once, at one time in history, when we trusted Christ as Saviour. It was a one time event. It is not an on-going event. But submitting to the Holy Spirit, yielding to Him every day is an on-going event in the believer's life.



1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

The Holy Ghost is in you. That is what it says. You are the temple of God. You are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and every believer has been since he has trusted Christ as His Saviour. That started on the Day of Pentecost. Another term we used is "baptized with the Spirit." There is no subsequent Spirit baptism, but at the day of salvation we are baptized with the Holy Spirit. It is at that same time that the Holy Spirit comes and indwells us, but not necessarily fills us. The filling of the Holy Spirit is different. It is for power for boldness and for preaching and for evangelism. The Charismatics identify it with tongues. They are mistaken.

I agree they are mistaken on the tongues, I also see not argument between us. I say filled which is what scripture says, and you say indwelt, which is not what scripture says, but I will take it, for it becometh sound doctrine.

Seems to me we agree on this one DHK, its a call for celebration, I think.

BBob,

 

[skypair]

You misunderstand. When we become in need of the advocate, or the chastisement rod, is when the same sin, you say was covered and not to be remembered, in fact is remembered again, or how come the chastisement.

OK, Bob -- you're switching times on me. We need chastisement NOW. God can grant mercy according to our Advocate or chastisement but either way, it is in the "here and NOW." So the chastisement is in THIS LIFE.

Are you saying that it is "remembered again" at the Bema? Is that like "reverse born again?"

skypair

 

[skypair]

Bob,

I beg to differ, there is only one Holy Ghost and John had it.

No, we're not buying it. Like Missourians, we need for you to "Show me." :laugh:

Ah, ha! I see the problem. You don't know the difference between the "FILLING" and the "INDWELLING" of the Holy Spirit! That changes EVERYTHING, Bob!!

INDWELLING -- post-cross and, if you will, "possesses" us.

FILLING -- When whatever mind, emotions, and will one has are focused on God/Jesus.

But don't feel badly at this. In the book I'm reading on sanctification, one of the co-authors tells us every aspect he can think of as to what "filling" means without ever saying that he has personal experience of it!! That's what academia gets you! (BTW, I have experienced FILLING many times. I should think that all Christians had. Whether they know it as such is another matter. It's God's Spirit overwhelming our spirit!)

skypair

 

[MB]

Hi Brother Bob;

The blood of Christ is the baptism, the Holy Ghost baptism. No, Peter was not lost.

BBob,

You'd have to show me a reason for that belief from scripture. It's true we are washed in the Blood although this being baptism in the Holy Spirit is never discussed in my Bible.
My Bible says that even though these who believed didn't have the Spirit but had to have hands layed on them inorder to receive Him. Were they just not saved yet? or, were they saved with out the Holy Spirit? and received Him later.
Here it is again please read it;
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Why was it different for them than for us?
MB

 

[skypair]

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Why was it different for them than for us?
MB

Peter was exercising his "keys to the kingdom" power to let another group into the kingdom by giving them HS indwelling. The 3 groups where we see this are 1) Jews at Pentecost, 2) Samaritans who were mixed Jews-Arabs, and 3) Gentiles. In these cases, Peter had to "open the door and let 'em i-i-in, yeah."

skypair

 

[MB]

Peter was exercising his "keys to the kingdom" power to let another group into the kingdom by giving them HS indwelling. The 3 groups where we see this are 1) Jews at Pentecost, 2) Samaritans who were mixed Jews-Arabs, and 3) Gentiles. In these cases, Peter had to "open the door and let 'em i-i-in, yeah."

skypair

Hi Skypair; I can't say that I agree since the Keys are the gospel and Phillip preached it to them. Peter and John both laid there hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. There wouldn't have been any reason for John to touch them if Peter had such authority.
MB

 

[skypair]

Hi Skypair; I can't say that I agree since the Keys are the gospel and Phillip preached it to them. Peter and John both laid there hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. There wouldn't have been any reason for John to touch them if Peter had such authority.
MB

MB -- this is usually a discussion that comes up under the heading of "Laying on of Hands." But there are some interesting "diversions" -- for instance Simon Magus. Simon "received" but thought to "buy" the Spirit's power when Peter came. And so lucky that Philip, the "Great Evangelist," couldn't confer the Spirit, right?

There's thought out there that Simon started the Catholic Church in Rome anyway.

You're probably right that John had nothing to do with conferring the Spirit.

But, finally, the "keys" weren't the gospel. Jesus gave them to Peter before the gospel was even clear, right? They were to "bind on earth what is bound in heaven" and vice versa. (Mt 16:19) Wasn't the Spirit "loosed in heaven?"

Anyway, I am responding with what I've learned FWIW. Hope that helps.

skypair

 

[MB]

MB -- this is usually a discussion that comes up under the heading of "Laying on of Hands." But there are some interesting "diversions" -- for instance Simon Magus. Simon "received" but thought to "buy" the Spirit's power when Peter came. And so lucky that Philip, the "Great Evangelist," couldn't confer the Spirit, right?

There's thought out there that Simon started the Catholic Church in Rome anyway.

You're probably right that John had nothing to do with conferring the Spirit.

But, finally, the "keys" weren't the gospel. Jesus gave them to Peter before the gospel was even clear, right? They were to "bind on earth what is bound in heaven" and vice versa. (Mt 16:19) Wasn't the Spirit "loosed in heaven?"

Anyway, I am responding with what I've learned FWIW. Hope that helps.

skypair

Hi Skypair;
The gospel has to be a Key because it teaches us what we are to do.
If you'll notice that Mat 16:19 doesn't say Christ gave them to Peter but that He would.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Christ doesn't say "I give these keys" but; "I will give them" The Key to Salvation, is the gospel message and by the gospel comes the final key needed "Faith"
What is FWIW?
MB

 

[standingfirminChrist]

FWIW -- For What Its Worth

 

[skypair]

Hi Skypair;
The gospel has to be a Key because it teaches us what we are to do.
If you'll notice that Mat 16:19 doesn't say Christ gave them to Peter but that He would.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

MB -- I understand the "keys" to mean one key for Israel, one key for Samaria, one key for the "uttermost parts of the earth" (Gentiles) -- well, Acts 1:8.

You know, there is much debate on this and we each must consult the Spirit on this. I have seen the Catholics say it means "apostolic succession" or "majestracy" (teaching autority). I've got peace in my heart that Jesus was talking about Peter being THE person through which the faith would be introduced to these diverse groups.

You know, to me it is a little prophetic as well. I believe that Peter represents the Catholic Church in John 18:15-27 -- in his "thrice denial" of Jesus, a prophecy of the tribulation one world religion.. So, to me, this parallels his thrice affirming of Jesus in John 21:15-17. I guess we shall wait and see on this.

What is FWIW?

For What It's Worth.

skypair