You may know (absolutely) ye have eternal life

[steaver]

There were exceptions while the Grace Covenant was being established. You need to study the whole bible, not just parts to fit your theology.

Personal innuendos do not help your points of view. So you believe that I have only studied the parts of the bible that fits into MY theology? You believe that I would ignore scriptures so MY own views would look fantastic. You believe you know me quite well and you have been here for how long?

I take God's word VERY seriously and I pray that I teach others the truth without partiality. I desire the truth and I desire debates that challenge my views so I may grow surer of them or adjust them to God's message as close as I can human possibly get.

I have debated on these boards for many years now and lately have decided that there are too many polite people to discuss things with that I do not need to speak with those who desire to tear me down over a discussion of legitimate differences.

I'm not mad at you brother, just being honest with you with my feelings.

Blessings on you brother :wavey:

 

[mark1]

Personal innuendos do not help your points of view. So you believe that I have only studied the parts of the bible that fits into MY theology? You believe that I would ignore scriptures so MY own views would look fantastic. You believe you know me quite well and you have been here for how long?

I take God's word VERY seriously and I pray that I teach others the truth without partiality. I desire the truth and I desire debates that challenge my views so I may grow surer of them or adjust them to God's message as close as I can human possibly get.

I have debated on these boards for many years now and lately have decided that there are too many polite people to discuss things with that I do not need to speak with those who desire to tear me down over a discussion of legitimate differences.

I'm not mad at you brother, just being honest with you with my feelings.

Blessings on you brother :wavey:

I try and understand why you take offense to my insights of your debate, while others say your understanding is 101 hermeneutics, and you don't say anything.

Its ok, if you think that I debate in a way you do not care to debate with, I just wonder why the respect of persons?

I do think you take offense "way" to easy. When you are on a debate forum, you are not playing footsie two shoes. I mean, if you need an apology, then I give you one, but hate to have to be so careful with my words with someone. Its like walking on eggs, you never know when you are going to step too heavy.

I simply was telling you to look deeper into the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, others were telling you to look deeper into being "born again". I fail to see any difference. Of course I did fail to use the word hermeneutics!

 

[steaver]

I try and understand why you take offense to my insights of your debate, while others say your understanding is 101 hermeneutics, and you don't say anything.

Its ok, if you think that I debate in a way you do not care to debate with, I just wonder why the respect of persons?

I do think you take offense "way" to easy. When you are on a debate forum, you are not playing footsie two shoes. I mean, if you need an apology, then I give you one, but hate to have to be so careful with my words with someone. Its like walking on eggs, you never know when you are going to step too heavy.

I simply was telling you to look deeper into the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, others were telling you to look deeper into being "born again". I fail to see any difference. Of course I did fail to use the word hermeneutics!

I find nothing wrong with DHK's remarks to me, however, i have let comments slide off of my back many times by many different people. As I said, "lately" I decided to begin to disengage with such individuals.

This is a debate forum FOR CHRISTIANS! Let's act like brothers and sisters in Christ.

You don't have to be careful with your words, just don't be cutting down brothers and sisters, stick to the doctrine. Your post was actually very good for debate and could have sponded some good back and forth, but opening with a degrading remark killed it for me.

And lastly, you have not apologized but only tried to defend the remark.

God Bless! :jesus:

 

[mark1]

I find nothing wrong with DHK's remarks to me, however, i have let comments slide off of my back many times by many different people. As I said, "lately" I decided to begin to disengage with such individuals.

This is a debate forum FOR CHRISTIANS! Let's act like brothers and sisters in Christ.

You don't have to be careful with your words, just don't be cutting down brothers and sisters, stick to the doctrine. Your post was actually very good for debate and could have sponded some good back and forth, but opening with a degrading remark killed it for me.

And lastly, you have not apologized but only tried to defend the remark.

God Bless! :jesus:

This is a debate forum FOR CHRISTIANS

and then you continue to do what you just ask me not to do.

You don't have to be careful with your words, just don't be cutting down brothers and sisters

You seem to open with degrading remarks yourself. I never said anything to you, except to take a closer look at the "indwelling of the Holy Ghost". Maybe I said it with a WV way of talking, but meant no harm. As I said, you are a "touchy" person and why does it not surprise me that someone else's remarks were ok with you? If you were serious about debating, other than if you become offended again, we could still be discussing the debate.

I took it to mean you are"101" in being born again, and I was only saying you are "101" on the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. You failed to realize that some had the Holy Ghost within them, before pentecost. Of course I could have misunderstood the other post. I do make my mistakes and so do others. My wording was different, but I meant the same thing.

Is this saying I am not a Christian, therefore you will not debate me, because of how I answered your post, or just one of your remarks towards me?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: You don't have to be careful with your words, just don't be cutting down brothers and sisters

HP: We are still quite a ways away from New Years and NY resolutions, so you have me wondering. When did you come up with this novel idea?

 

[steaver]

and then you continue to do what you just ask me not to do.

If I feel offended I will let you know and you can ignore it or defend it. If I still feel offended I can take it to the list asking for two or three witnesses and if they agree and you still ignore it I can report it and let the administration settle it one way or the other. At any point it could have been that I was just being a bit overly touchy or not. I chose to tell you it offended me and I chose to let it go at that even though you do not think you meant anything by it. I will let that between you and the Lord, I done my part.

If I have offended you I would ask that you tell me and I will apologize.

You seem to open with degrading remarks yourself. I never said anything to you, except to take a closer look at the "indwelling of the Holy Ghost". Maybe I said it with a WV way of talking, but meant no harm.

I don't believe I have, but nonetheless if I have truly offended you I apologize. I will be more careful how I put things. Now since I don't believe I have made degrading remarks to you, you could ask the list if I have or you could report it and let the administrators discipline me if necessary. That's totally up to you.

You need to study the whole bible, not just parts to fit your theology.

This is not WV way of speaking. This is said over and over on this board by folks all around this country. It is a dig, a tear down character approach that the one saying it may feel better about themselves. Do you really feel I have never read those verses when I studied this subject?

I took it to mean you are"101" in being born again, and I was only saying you are "101" on the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. You failed to realize that some had the Holy Ghost within them, before pentecost.

I understand, things can be taken wrongly, i did not take it that way. But no, i haven't failed to realize some had the Holy Ghost working in thier lives. This is not the same as regeneration, if it is then you have a harmonization issue for Jesus said the regeneration ministry of the holy Spirit (living water) had not been given yet when He was here pre- ressurrection.

Is this saying I am not a Christian, therefore you will not debate me, because of how I answered your post, or just one of your remarks towards me?

Not at all, it saying "This is a debate forum FOR CHRISTIANS! Let's act like brothers and sisters in Christ.

God Bless brother :wavey:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Not at all, it saying "This is a debate forum FOR CHRISTIANS! Let's act like brothers and sisters in Christ.

HP: Are you saying let’s just keep our comments to things such as calling each other’s doctrines heresy, calling each other liars, self-righteous, arrogant, and the like? Just like brothers and sisters in Christ….. right?

 

[mark1]

If I feel offended I will let you know and you can ignore it or defend it. If I still feel offended I can take it to the list asking for two or three witnesses and if they agree and you still ignore it I can report it and let the administration settle it one way or the other. At any point it could have been that I was just being a bit overly touchy or not. I chose to tell you it offended me and I chose to let it go at that even though you do not think you meant anything by it. I will let that between you and the Lord, I done my part.

If I have offended you I would ask that you tell me and I will apologize.



I don't believe I have, but nonetheless if I have truly offended you I apologize. I will be more careful how I put things. Now since I don't believe I have made degrading remarks to you, you could ask the list if I have or you could report it and let the administrators discipline me if necessary. That's totally up to you.



This is not WV way of speaking. This is said over and over on this board by folks all around this country. It is a dig, a tear down character approach that the one saying it may feel better about themselves. Do you really feel I have never read those verses when I studied this subject?



I understand, things can be taken wrongly, i did not take it that way. But no, i haven't failed to realize some had the Holy Ghost working in thier lives. This is not the same as regeneration, if it is then you have a harmonization issue for Jesus said the regeneration ministry of the holy Spirit (living water) had not been given yet when He was here pre- ressurrection.



Not at all, it saying "This is a debate forum FOR CHRISTIANS! Let's act like brothers and sisters in Christ.

God Bless brother :wavey:

I do not know if you know it or not, but to put certain things in "bold" on BB is considered "screaming" at them.

Holy Ghost is one of the Trinity and God can do with it what and when He wants. He chose to indwell it in a few while setting up the Grace Covenant, as He chose to raise some from the dead, while setting up the Grace Covenant, give the blind sight, make the lame to walk. He even had some under the Law and some under the Grace walk hand in hand for a while. You cannot put God in a box, He can do what He wants.
He chose for Enoch to assend into Heaven, but the others did not, He is God. He even gave the Apostles power to raise the dead, before Pentecost.

I don't run to the list or the moderators. Now talk about acting like Christians, we are supposed to have faith, virtue, knowledge, patience, temperance, Godliness, Brotherly Love and Charity. If you have all these, ye shall never fall.

What kind of love is it to attempt to have your fellow member banned? Not saying you do that, but you said you first go to the list and then the Mods? There is a reason for doing all of that.

 

[DHK]

There were exceptions while the Grace Covenant was being established. You need to study the whole bible, not just parts to fit your theology.

Luk 1:15

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Luk 1:41

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Luk 1:67

¶​

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,


What do you think the "power" was the Lord gave those who received him to become the "sons" of God.

Upon this Rock, I build my church. My friend the new way had already begin to be established. Even the dead were raised, we don't see that today. Accept the whole word of God, not just parts.

God did things that were just for the establishing the "new" way, and the offering for sin of all men, which had never been done. And Jesus said "it is finished". What was finished, and what did God have to do to get it done?

Here were some legitimate points that were raised.

Please let's get back on topic and stop the complaining about who offended who.

 

[steaver]

There were exceptions while the Grace Covenant was being established. You need to study the whole bible, not just parts to fit your theology.

Luk 1:15

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Luk 1:41

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Luk 1:67

¶​

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

You have several problems with equating these "filled with the Holy Ghost" incidents with "born again".

Keep in mind all scriptures must exist in harmony, there are no contradictions.

1) John's testimony states that being "born again" is the receiving of the Holy Spirit.

If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

a) "the gift of God" is eternal life.

b) "who it is" is the One who can give eternal life.

c) "thou would have asked" is the calling on Jesus for the eternal life.

d) "he" (Jesus) would have given thee "living water". "Living water" is the means by which the Holy Spirit gives of Himself for regeneration of the believer.

Jhn 7:38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.


Jhn 7:39(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.)

This is your first delima. Harmonize the scriptures you posted of being "filled with the Holy Ghost" with the fact that Jhn 7:39 declares the rebirth of receiving living water (Holy Spirit) was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Further investigation of scripture will deliver a second delima...

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

Delima #2, why would the scripture instruct Christians to be "filled with the Spirit" if being "filled with the Spirit" is being "born again"? Something a Christian has already been through.

3) Num 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

The Holy Spirit of God works in many ways and has many ministries. As for "born again", this is the ministry of "living water" which was not yet given until Jesus was glorified.

You would not say that the ass was "born again" because the Spirit of God spoke through it, would you?

Can you harmonize points 1&2 with your view of being "filled with the Holy Ghost"?

I believe I have presented harmony through demonstrating that the Spirit has different ministries at differing times.

How will you present harmony with these scriptures?

 

[mark1]

You have several problems with equating these "filled with the Holy Ghost" incidents with "born again".

Keep in mind all scriptures must exist in harmony, there are no contradictions.

1) John's testimony states that being "born again" is the receiving of the Holy Spirit.

If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Here you defeat your own argument. Jesus said if you had of asked, I would of given you "living water", of which you are basing your argument on "born again" completely, as if God could not do something to His Glory and Honor, because it was going to be used later as a part of what He was setting up.




a) "the gift of God" is eternal life.

b) "who it is" is the One who can give eternal life.

c) "thou would have asked" is the calling on Jesus for the eternal life.

d) "he" (Jesus) would have given thee "living water". "Living water" is the means by which the Holy Spirit gives of Himself for regeneration of the believer.

You are saying there was no eternal life, until after Jesus died. I have you know that all those who died in faith believing, even before Christ came were saved and when Jesus died his blood covered them because of their "faith". You seem to think we are so much different than those who were under the OT, again, we are the same creatures and it took the blood of Christ to cover them in their future and it takes the blood of Christ to cover us that was shed in our past. Both came by "faith".

What about all the scripture that says "thy faith hath made thee whole"?

Jhn 7:38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.


Jhn 7:39(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.)

This is your first delima. Harmonize the scriptures you posted of being "filled with the Holy Ghost" with the fact that Jhn 7:39 declares the rebirth of receiving living water (Holy Spirit) was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.

So you do not believe in the Trinity until after Jesus arose from the dead?

Further investigation of scripture will deliver a second delima...

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

Delima #2, why would the scripture instruct Christians to be "filled with the Spirit" if being "filled with the Spirit" is being "born again"? Something a Christian has already been through.

Before the Grace Covenant was being set up by Jesus Christ and the Apostles and God did whatever it took to get the Job done, including the death of His Son, raising the dead for the Glory and honor of God.

Now we are talking about how that Grace Covenant works for mankind.

You are trying to put God in a box, where He was not able to do but the exact same thing every time about every thing. Again, God did what He had to do.

3) Num 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

The Holy Spirit of God works in many ways and has many ministries. As for "born again", this is the ministry of "living water" which was not yet given until Jesus was glorified.

You would not say that the ass was "born again" because the Spirit of God spoke through it, would you?

No, but I would not deny that the ass had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for a time either.

Can you harmonize points 1&2 with your view of being "filled with the Holy Ghost"?

Just did, "Power of God".

I believe I have presented harmony through demonstrating that the Spirit has different ministries at differing times.

How will you present harmony with these scriptures?

Your harmony leads you to false beliefs. IMO It is up to you to deny the word of God or accept it.

Do you deny the following. John the Baptist, baptized our Lord, you think he was "unsaved"?

Luk 1:15

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Luk 1:41

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Luk 1:67


And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

harmonize? God don't have to do or not do anything He wants. Because he used Enoch in a chariot of fire, does not mean, he has to use a chariot of fire for you, or me.

I could go on and on, but think you get my point. He raised Lazarus from the dead, but we have to wait until the resurrection to be raised. He saved the theif on the cross, we have to believe He saved the theif on the cross, right?

 

[DHK]

Delima #2, why would the scripture instruct Christians to be "filled with the Spirit" if being "filled with the Spirit" is being "born again"? Something a Christian has already been through.

Though there is a command, not every Christian has been filled with the Spirit. Does that mean they are not saved?
Being filled with the Holy Spirit does not equate with being born again.

 

[steaver]

Though there is a command, not every Christian has been filled with the Spirit. Does that mean they are not saved?
Being filled with the Holy Spirit does not equate with being born again.

Amen brother! :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

Here you defeat your own argument. Jesus said if you had of asked, I would of given you "living water", of which you are basing your argument on "born again" completely, as if God could not do something to His Glory and Honor, because it was going to be used later as a part of what He was setting up.

And my argument has been defeated because you have just said it has? All I see is rhetoric so far. I have used scripture to build my case. Where is your scripture references? Where is the harmony between what you believe and what has been said by God?

You are saying there was no eternal life, until after Jesus died. I have you know that all those who died in faith believing, even before Christ came were saved and when Jesus died his blood covered them because of their "faith". You seem to think we are so much different than those who were under the OT, again, we are the same creatures and it took the blood of Christ to cover them in their future and it takes the blood of Christ to cover us that was shed in our past. Both came by "faith".

Let's stick with what the Word of God says in the post I gave and see if you can find harmony in your understandings.

What about all the scripture that says "thy faith hath made thee whole"?

If you want to add this passage to your task of harmonization feel free to do so. But I think you have more than enough problems in harmonizing your views with the ones I posted. I am waiting.

Before the Grace Covenant was being set up by Jesus Christ and the Apostles and God did whatever it took to get the Job done, including the death of His Son, raising the dead for the Glory and honor of God.

Now we are talking about how that Grace Covenant works for mankind.

You are trying to put God in a box, where He was not able to do but the exact same thing every time about every thing. Again, God did what He had to do.

More rhetoric. "God did what He had to do". This is not how we should study and rightly divide the word of truth? It seems that you cannot find harmony, and it appears to me you haven't even tried, you just want to throw up your hands and say "Well, God can do whatever He wants to". This is not proper bible exegesis.

I could go on and on, but think you get my point.

I got your point which is "God can do anything He wants to", correct?

Now let's go to the scriptures I posted and see if you can find harmony between what you believe and what God said He would do.

If we take your approach to exegesis, which is to dismiss the Word and interject opinions, then God did not have to send Jesus to die for our sins. Forget what the scripture says, Jesus didn't really have to sacrifice Himself, why put God in that box?

If you want to debate scripture then let's stick with what is written. I cannot debate your feelings or opinions. I posted scripture and I came to conclusions that gave harmony between scriptures. You have posted rhetoric and basically your whole theme is "Well, God can do what He wants".

When your ready to debate the scriptures. I will be here.

Here are the points you have not addressed as of yet concerning harmony between your views and what was actually said in God's word;

Jhn 7:39(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.)

This is your first dilemma. Harmonize the scriptures you posted of being "filled with the Holy Ghost" with the fact that Jhn 7:39 declares the rebirth of receiving living water (Holy Spirit) was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Further investigation of scripture will deliver a second dilemma...

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

Dilemma #2, why would the scripture instruct Christians to be "filled with the Spirit" if being "filled with the Spirit" is being "born again"? Something a Christian has already been through.

Please, no more "Well, God can do what He wants". We are commanded to "rightly divide the word of truth". Ignoring truth serves no purpose here on a debate forum.

God being able to do what ever He wants is not the issue, the issue is what does the word of God declare God is going to do or has done.


:thumbs:

 

[mark1]

And my argument has been defeated because you have just said it has? All I see is rhetoric so far. I have used scripture to build my case. Where is your scripture references? Where is the harmony between what you believe and what has been said by God?



Let's stick with what the Word of God says in the post I gave and see if you can find harmony in your understandings.



If you want to add this passage to your task of harmonization feel free to do so. But I think you have more than enough problems in harmonizing your views with the ones I posted. I am waiting.




More rhetoric. "God did what He had to do". This is not how we should study and rightly divide the word of truth? It seems that you cannot find harmony, and it appears to me you haven't even tried, you just want to throw up your hands and say "Well, God can do whatever He wants to". This is not proper bible exegesis.



I got your point which is "God can do anything He wants to", correct?

Now let's go to the scriptures I posted and see if you can find harmony between what you believe and what God said He would do.

If we take your approach to exegesis, which is to dismiss the Word and interject opinions, then God did not have to send Jesus to die for our sins. Forget what the scripture says, Jesus didn't really have to sacrifice Himself, why put God in that box?

If you want to debate scripture then let's stick with what is written. I cannot debate your feelings or opinions. I posted scripture and I came to conclusions that gave harmony between scriptures. You have posted rhetoric and basically your whole theme is "Well, God can do what He wants".

You gave no harmony between Luke 1: and John 7, I am waiting.

When your ready to debate the scriptures. I will be here.

Here are the points you have not addressed as of yet concerning harmony between your views and what was actually said in God's word;





Please, no more "Well, God can do what He wants". We are commanded to "rightly divide the word of truth". Ignoring truth serves no purpose here on a debate forum.

God being able to do what ever He wants is not the issue, the issue is what does the word of God declare God is going to do or has done.


:thumbs:

I am afraid I can not satisfy your demand. You have this wall around your belief and refuse to budge. You are not differing with me but with the scripture itself.

I like that "proper Bible exegesis, seen it before, when someone has had their scripture kind of ruffled.

The following were not just overshadowed with the Holy Ghost, they were "filled" with the Holy Ghost. You must answer this before taking such a stand on John 7:39! The following just do not fit in to John 7:39, so you just skip them for now, right?

Luk 1:15

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Luk 1:41

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Luk 1:67


And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

How much plainer could it be but that some were filled with the Holy Ghost before Pentecost. You can't explain some of the things Jesus did to save people by putting them all under:

Jhn 7:39(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.)

This is your first dilemma. Harmonize the scriptures you posted of being "filled with the Holy Ghost" with the fact that Jhn 7:39 declares the rebirth of receiving living water (Holy Spirit) was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.

The scripture plainly teaches there were those who were saved before this took place, and there were those who were filled with the Holy Ghost, before Jesus died.

Were these saved???
Jhn 17:12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

What John said is how it is for these folks "which they that believe on him should receive", but these folks do not include all that had ever been born. If you are teaching people about being saved today, you are right to use "John", but don't try and put "John" to cover everyone, it just will not work.

Take for instance the baptism. While Christ was here the water baptism came first, but for us, the Holy Ghost baptism comes first, or its a dry sinner coming out a wet sinner, and still unsaved.

The Holy Ghost is a part of the Trinity. It was around with Jesus while He was on the earth. Scripture says so, it is you that will not accept it.

Mat 27:52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

You think these people were not already "saved", even before the resurrection??

What happened to OT souls of them that died in "faith"?

When you are willing to learn, I will be here. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Steaver,
Would Christ give to Nicodemus instruction that would be impossible for him to obey? He told him three times in John 3 that he must be born again. The Bible gives us ample evidence that he was. He defended him when the Sanhedrin gathered together. Then he was there with Joseph at his burial, risking his own life, wrapping the body of Jesus with spices and linen before putting him in the tomb that had belonged to Joseph. This was done at peril to his own life. What had happened to Nicodemus that he would risk his own life, as a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin, to take part in such a risky endeavour. He was a born again believer. That is the only answer.

 

[steaver]

Would Christ give to Nicodemus instruction that would be impossible for him to obey? He told him three times in John 3 that he must be born again. The Bible gives us ample evidence that he was. He defended him when the Sanhedrin gathered together. Then he was there with Joseph at his burial, risking his own life, wrapping the body of Jesus with spices and linen before putting him in the tomb that had belonged to Joseph. This was done at peril to his own life. What had happened to Nicodemus that he would risk his own life, as a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin, to take part in such a risky endeavour. He was a born again believer. That is the only answer.

I believe our disagreement is in the terminology. I define "saved" as "born again" and the scripture defines "born again" as receiving the "living water" or Holy Spirit rebirth which is clearly not given until after Jesus was glorified. There should be no argument between us here because John made it perfectly clear that the Holy Spirit rebirth was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Now if you want to expand the term "saved" to include all of those who would at a future time receive the Holy Spirit rebirth, then yes, all the OT saints and the disciples were saved or being saved through faith.

Nicodemus believed Jesus was the Christ and after Jesus' glorification Nicodemus would have received the promise of the Holy Spirit rebirth just like all the other saints who had waited for it by faith.

Would Christ give to Nicodemus instruction that would be impossible for him to obey? He told him three times in John 3 that he must be born again.

The instructions were of a thing (born again) Nicodemus must have happen to him or he would not enter the Kingdom of God. The instruction was to believe on the Son of God. God performs the rebirth, however, the rebirth was not yet given until Jesus was glorified. NT believers in Jesus had to wait just like the OT believers.

It is not correct to say Jesus gave Nicodemus instructions he could not obey concerning the rebirth. The teaching of the rebirth was just that, a teaching of what must take place. We learn from reading further into the gospel of John and throughout chapter four through seven that this rebirth will take place after Jesus' glorification. You cannot escape this fact.

Look here;

Jhn 4:10Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Jesus never promised the woman "when" she would receive the living water, only that she would. We know sure well that the "living water" was not availiable or given until after Jesus was glorified, So the woman would wait just like Nicodemus in faith until the Holy Spirit was indeed given.

Jhn 7:39(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.)

It does not get any clearer than this, "they that believe on him should receive".

Nic did not get the rebirth yet nor did the disciples nor the woman at the well. All waited in faith until after Jesus was glorified. There is no "born again" until after the glorification of Jesus.

Like I said many times, "saved" is not a OT term, it is a NT term and when we preach it we are telling people ye must be born again. So if you want to say in hindsight that the OT saints were being saved then that is ok, but "saved" as we preach it is being "born again" and this did not happen to anyone until after the ressurrection and glorification of Jesus.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Mark, I read your post three times and cannot make much sense from it. It is all over the place anywhere from water baptisms to the Trinity to the ressurrection of some OT saints. I don't know if this is because you don't want to attempt to harmonize your views of the scriptures in question or if you want to lay a bunch of rabbit trails to throw me off your dilemmas.

Here they are once again, will you please try to make harmony between your views and what is said in God's word. Please no "God can do what He wants" answers.

Jhn 7:39(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.)

This is your first dilemma. Harmonize the scriptures you posted of being "filled with the Holy Ghost" with the fact that Jhn 7:39 declares the rebirth of receiving living water (Holy Spirit) was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Here are the scriptures you posted...

Luk 1:15

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Luk 1:41

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Luk 1:67


And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

Here is the second dilemma...

Further investigation of scripture will deliver a second dilemma...

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

Dilemma #2, why would the scripture instruct Christians to be "filled with the Spirit" if being "filled with the Spirit" is being "born again"? Something a Christian has already been through.

Let me add another question for you to ponder. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Could there actually be another way to the Father other than Jesus? Maybe another way for certain people that we don't know of?

Remember, don't put God in a box or take Him at His word.

Jhn 7:39(But this [living water rebirth (verse 38) ] 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.)

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

DHK,

I don't understand you taking this stance on Nicodemus. Until now, our only disagreement on regeneration was whether the disciples recieved the Holy Spirit rebirth or indwellment sometime after glorification but before pentecost or at pentecost.

You said in post #191

The Holy Spirit would not indwell them until Pentecost--none of them.

Now you are agruing that Nicodemus had received the indwellment of the HS even before the cross.

:jesus:

 

[mark1]

Mark, I read your post three times and cannot make much sense from it. It is all over the place anywhere from water baptisms to the Trinity to the ressurrection of some OT saints. I don't know if this is because you don't want to attempt to harmonize your views of the scriptures in question or if you want to lay a bunch of rabbit trails to throw me off your dilemmas.

Here they are once again, will you please try to make harmony between your views and what is said in God's word. Please no "God can do what He wants" answers.



Here are the scriptures you posted...



Here is the second dilemma...



Let me add another question for you to ponder. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Could there actually be another way to the Father other than Jesus? Maybe another way for certain people that we don't know of?

Remember, don't put God in a box or take Him at His word.

Jhn 7:39(But this [living water rebirth (verse 38) ] 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.)

:jesus:

I think we might have some agreement that all was not finished until the blood and water was shed, but Jesus did not shed the Holy Ghost. I think that is where you are going wrong.

The all over the place, is to show you there were things that took place in the "transition", that is not the "norm". It still included Jesus Christ as the Saviour.

To be honest with you, I think this is your way of not answering why in Luke 1, they were filled with the Holy Ghost. That is all I am asking, please give an answer, if you can.

Now, maybe someone can shed some light on the Greek word "given" in the following scripture. It seems to be the only instance in the Bible where there is no Greek definition.

There are several different definitions in Greek for "given" but not in John 7: 39

Jhn 7:39(But 1161 this 5124 spake he 2036 of 4012 the Spirit 4151, which 3739 they that believe 4100 on 1519 him 846 should 3195 receive 2983 : for 1063 the Holy 40 Ghost 4151 was 2258 not yet 3768 [given]; because 3754 that Jesus 2424 was 1392 0 not yet 3764 glorified 1392 .)

This is KJV, if someone has the greek word itself with a definition, please post it.