Strange Fire

[The Biblicist]

Acts 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him . . .

Why mention "filled with the Holy Ghost" here and not in every act of Paul since Ananias laid hands on him? Did Paul's submission fluctuate? Was he extraordinarily obedient in this case as compared to the others? Maybe he was a baritone virtuoso singing psalms and hymns.

So again: When the Scriptures speak of Christ, Stephen and Peter being "full of the Holy Ghost" (Christ, after 40 days of fasting and intense temptation, Peter when preaching after performing a miracle, and Stephen when being martyred), they are describing extraordinary events and manifestations. Until we agree on that point, there's no need to discuss it any further.

Again, the biblical facts repudiate your whole line of reasoning. The "baptism" in the Spirit is found in every instance prior to Pentecost in the future tense whereas "filled' and "full" are found prior to Pentecost. That destroys your whole theory.

Second, you are so narrow minded that you refuse to see that "filling" thus being "full" of the Spirit is not limited to just manifest "power" but can be equally applied to manifest "fruit" of the Spirit and leadership by the Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

Explain a sword filled with blood, and a head filled with dew.

Blood on the sword or in the sword? Dew on the head or in the head?

Have you ever thought about CONTEXT???? The context of the "head filled with dew" immediately explains what part of the head is being referred to - his hair is filled with water (locks). However, no "power" is being manifest? The second reference is metaphorical. As the same sword is filled with "fatness" as well. The CONTEXT again explains that it is a metaphorical expression for slaughtering sacrifices, but again no "power" is being implied.

 

[Yeshua1]

The body, the local, New Testament, body of believers belonging to Christ, is the local church and the local church has certain doctrinal imperatives to qualify for membership.

I agree fully with that, as being Baptist, would not have one Infant baptized giving local church mebership until believer baptized, but was addressing more of the issue that we cannot have fellowship, nor not see those who would hold to infant baptsm such as the Presby Christians as not in the body.church of christ!