The Distinction Between Being "Filled" and "Baptized" in the Holy Ghost

I wanted to start a new thread to discuss this topic as I hope others have much additional insight. BEING FILLED WITH THE SPIRITIn Christian theology, Pneumatology refers to the study of the Holy Spirit. In orthodox Christian doctrine, the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead. When reading Ephesians 5:18 we have both a negative and a positive commandment. We are not to be drunk with wine wherein is excess, this is the negative command; but rather are to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The Greek word for ‘filled’ is pleroo (play-ro'-o) and it means to cram a net, to fill a void, or to furnish an office. There is a void in our soul and spirit that has to be filled. Everyone’s ‘void’ is filled with something. There is a 'house' that Christ has swept and garnished and it needs to be furnished. There is a net that we cast seeking to fill ourselves with cares and pleasures that can only be truly 'filled' with the Holy Ghost. Whether with wine or the Spirit of God or something else (that leads to excess), everyone is filled with something.Everyone has something that influences them, captures their love and zeal, and provides the very fuel for their behavior. The word ‘excess’ is translated in the NKJV as ‘dissipation’- which is “reckless gratification of the senses.” Herein is the key to understanding one of the great reasons you must be filled with the Spirit; what fills you, to a great extent, controls you. If we are to walk in the Spirit we must be filled with the Spirit. The proportion of our fullness will dictate our proportion of walking in the Spirit. All May Be Filled With The SpiritEvery genuine born again believer may be filled with the Spirit. As Finney points out, not because God is somehow forced to give you His Spirit because of our goodness, etc., but because He has promised to give it to those that ask. "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke 11:13). If you ask to be filled with the Holy Spirit, God has promised to give Him to you. Moreover, God has commanded you to be filled with Him. He says in Ephesians 5:18, "Be filled with the Spirit." When God commands us to do something, it is the highest possible evidence that we can do it. God has no way righteously to command something, unless we have ability to obey. What tyranny would be leveled upon a God that commanded things that were impossible to obey? Nay! Everyone may be filled with the Spirit; else God had not commanded it. Am I Filled MERELY Because I Can Speak With Tongues?When we speak of being filled with the Spirit we are not merely talking about “speaking in tongues.” Xenoglossolalic Tongues in Classical Pentecostalism is considered "the initial outward evidence" of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost and provides a person with the means of praying in tongues and being filled with the Holy Ghost perpetually by the use of that means; but, I think it can be clearly demonstrated that the manifestation of tongues is not necessarily evidence of fullness. A person who is genuinely filled with the Spirit lives a victorious life over sin and walks in communion with God almost continually. Ye shall receive POWER after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you. Moreover, some were baptized and spoke the word with BOLDNESS.(Various MEANS of Fulness)Additional means of fullness is the reading of God’s word (which His words are Spirit and life) and prayer with unutterable groanings in the Spirit. Prayer in which the Spirit of God comes upon the person to the point of great anguish and travail goes a long way towards refilling that person with the fullness of the Spirit of God. Singing to yourselves in psalms and hymns which glorify God is also a means of inviting the Holy Ghost. Add these means to praying in the Holy Ghost (tongues) and you have a recipe for being FULL of the Holy Ghost and power continually if you exercise them. There have also been many occasions in the pre New Testament period when people were instantly filled by God's sovereign will and required no means- only God's action. God Bless,-Robert

Hi RobertThanks for raising this theme; I think it ought to be helpful to many.I think there are three verses which tie together the concept of 'be being filled with the Spirit'. A little exegesis first from the text; And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; (Eph 5:18 KJV) This could literally be translated; be not wine drunken, wherein is dissolution, but be being filled in/by spirit. There are some things to note here. 1. The first 'with' is not in the original, but the meaning is obvious as it stands. 2. The second 'with' is actually the Greek word 'en' which usually means 'within' but can also mean instrumentatily. For example, to slay with the sword, would literally be to slay 'by' the sword where the sword is the instrument of the slaying.3. there is no definite article preceding the word 'spirit'so technically it might mean the human spirit or the Holy Spirit, but the use of 'en' as the instrument makes it clear that this is the Holy Spirit.4. the 'be filled' is the present imperative form of the present. The Greek present tense is much more like our present continuous and has the sense of 'continue to'. For example; continue asking and ye shall receive; continue seeking and ye shall find; continue knocking and it shall be opened to you. (Luke 11:9,10) So the ISV captures the sense well; Stop getting drunk with wine, which leads to wild living, but keep on being filled with the Spirit. (Eph 5:18 ISV) It is also in the passive form which implies that it is something which we must allow to happen to us. We cannot 'fill ourselves' with the Spirit, but we can, and must, continue to be open to his continuing supply.The key thing to note is that Paul is referring to a continual process, not a single event. The other two verses with link with the idea are..He, therefore, who is supplying to you the Spirit, and working mighty acts among you--by works of law or by the hearing of faith is it ?(Gal 3:5 YLT)For I have known that this shall fall out to me for salvation, through your supplication, and the supply of the Spirit of Christ Jesus,(Phi 1:19 YLT)In both of these verses Paul refers to the 'supply of the Spirit'. It is really 'further supply', the supply on top of the supply. (epi-chorēgeō) This is Spirit on top of Spirit. The picture is not of the static condition of having been filled, but of additional supplies of the same Spirit. This is process.Luke wrote both the Gospel and the Acts and he uses the idea of being filled with the Spirit in two senses. He uses it as an event; Zecharias.. was filled with the Holy Spirit. When he does this he uses a verb; this is not a process but a crisis event. He also uses the phrase full of the Holy Spirit; For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. (Act 11:24 KJV) When he uses this phrase he is using a noun; this is a state of being. So Luke uses the idea of a crisis event; they were filled, and the idea of a settled state; full. Paul's use of be being filled is quite different to both of these: Paul is referring to a continuous process of cooperation with God. The Geneva Bible has an interesting translation for the Ephesian verse; And be not drunke with wine, wherein is excesse: but be fulfilled with the Spirit,(Eph 5:18 GB) This is the brilliance of Tyndale appearing again. Tyndale knows that the word does not imply the slow filling up of an empty vessel, but the maintenance of fulness in the vessel. The Normal Christian Life is fulness; and Paul is admonishing us to keep it so. This is partly why it is important to understand that the full sense of this verse is not 'be filled' but 'be being filled'. It is the picture of a full pot remaining under the tap. There is not going to be much room for 'other things' if the pot stays full.So Luke uses the ideas of crises and state; filled and full, while Paul uses the idea of process; the continuing supply to something already full.I'll leave you to digest this before we include 'baptism in the Spirit' into the mix. :-?

Hi Brother Ron,Thats some awesome stuff there. It ought to be in the articles section. I wonder if you would concur that if a person is filled somehow (if I may use the term loosely) with SELF that there is less room, as it were, for complete fulness. Sort of like a pitcher of Ice Being filled up with water. If the ice (which takes up space) were plastic then the pitcher would run over- but it is not truly full of water. Do you think that being "FULL" of the Holy ghost implies and emptying out first in order for that fulness to to be fulfilled?God Bless,-Robert

I wonder if you would concur that if a person is filled somehow (if I may use the term loosely) with SELF that there is less room, as it were, for complete fulness. Sort of like a pitcher of Ice Being filled up with water. If the ice (which takes up space) were plastic then the pitcher would run over- but it is not truly full of water. Do you think that being "FULL" of the Holy ghost implies and emptying out first in order for that fulness to to be fulfilled?Hi RobertIf Greg thinks they have a place in the articles section, I'm happy.The difficulty with your question is that we have moved the ground from scripture to illustration. I have problems with the concept of 'self'. I think we are drifting into psychology. I have made it a personal discipline for some years to force myself to use biblical language to define or describe 'soul conditions'.I think the image of 'full' always implies no room for anything else. I think if the pressure of the water from the tap is adequate it will soon sort out any debris in the vessel! ;-) Although I do believe that souls are capable of increasing their capacity, so yesterday's fullness might be todays 90%.

BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRITAs a general rule NO REAL DISTINCTION is generally made by Classical Pentecostals as to the use of the terms "Baptism in the Holy Ghost" and "Filled with the Holy Ghost." This is because the term "Filled" is used loosely to describe the Baptism in the Holy Ghost. It is also because scripture uses the phrase "And they were all FILLED with the Holy Ghost..." seemingly interchangably with Spirit baptism. The PURPOSE for my making this distinction is to show that the phenomena of the Baptism is a near instantaneous act of God that is not progressive. The other means of fulness mentioned in the previous section require an ongoing effort to build to a level of fulness. Baptism in the Holy Ghost is an empowerment that comes on a believer in such a way that they are immediately filled with the Spirit and enabled to speak with xenoglossolalic utterance and unction. Baptism into Jesus Christ by the SpiritWhen a person repents, believes, and accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in a genuine Born Again experience, the Holy Spirit begins a great work in their life in which all old things pass away and all is become new. The Spirit convicts them of sin, convinces them of righteousness, and dwells within them (John 6:44; 14:17; Roman 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13). This baptism into Jesus Christ makes us members of the Body of Christ sealed with the Holy Ghost, the earnest of our inheritance (Ephesians 1),- the inner witness from which we cry ABBA Father. However, this is not to be confused with the Baptism of POWER for SERVICE that comes with the Baptism in the Holy Ghost. Baptism in the Holy Ghost There is an additional second work and distinct ministry of the Holy Spirit called the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The Baptism is an empowering gift from God the Father that is promised to every believer (Matthew 3:11; Luke 11:13; 24:49; Acts 2:33, 38). It also helps the Christian to walk in the Spirit- bringing a new devotion to Jesus Christ. The primary purpose of the Baptism is to give greater power for witnessing (Acts 1:8) and produce great boldnessfor Christ from that fulness. The baptism in the Holy Ghost is an immediate infilling to overflowing from the submurgance into the Holy Spirit. This is a fullness to overflowing until the Spirit of God, as it were, is not just in you but overflowing and "upon you." This simply means more than enough of the Holy Ghost. More than enough power and conviction. More than enough of whatever you need to do in the Power of the Spirit what CANNOT be done in the flesh. God Bless,-Robert

As with emersion baptism, it is something I belive that only happens once.

Hi RobertIt is also because scripture uses the phrase "And they were all FILLED with the Holy Ghost..." seemingly interchangably with Spirit baptism.I don't believe these terms are fully interchangeable. eg when Luke refers to the events surrounding John Baptist's birth he says: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 1:15 KJV)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 1:41 KJV)And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, (Luk 1:67 KJV)but this is not the same as saying that John, Elizabeth and Zacharias were all baptised in the Spirit.Luke uses the phrase 'were filled with the Holy Spirit' to signify a crisis event of the Spirit in the life of the individual. It is a generic term and we have to examine the context to further define the event. The way that Luke uses this terms signifies that although all events of baptism in the Spirit can be referred to as 'were filled with the Spirit', not all events of 'were filled with the Spirit' can be referred to as 'baptism in the Spirit'. For Luke all sudden events of the Spirit are referred to as 'were filled with the Spirit' within that whole group of events we can identify at least one sub-set which we can call 'baptism in the Spirit'. The other events in the whole groupe seem to be empowerings of the kind that we see in the John Baptist narrative. Specific enablings for specific function; this would be very much the Old Testament pattern.Luke uses the phrase 'were filled with the Spirit' in the narrative of the Acts too.Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, (Act 4:8 KJV) Here 'filled' is the Aorist tense of the verb indicating a single act. It is not a description of Peter's condition but a record of an event.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. (Act 4:31 KJV) Here 'filled' is also in the Aorist. Again this is not the description of the pray-ers but the record of an event.Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, (Act 13:9 KJV) This is also in the Aorist and is another event.And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost. (Act 13:52 KJV) Here 'filled' is in the imperfect tense, signifying that.. they were being filled.. with the Holy Spirit. This is a continuous process.Except for the last instance all these verses use the Aorist tense. The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar (ie at a specific point in time rather than a linear/process) action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations. Luke's final reference here is in the Imperfect which is the continuous past tense; were being filled with/used to be filled with. This is the one time that Luke has the process in mind as Paul in Eph 5:18.I'll return to of the other points later DV.

I'll return to the other points later DV.Thanks Brother Ron! I greatly appreciate your insight into the Greek words. Please continue with this thread and develop these thoughts as they are very near to my heart and I believe others can well benefit from the study. I will be out of town until October 2nd or 3rd so I will probably not be anywhere I can reply. I look forward to taking it up again when we get back.God Bless!-Robert

Thanks Brother Ron! I greatly appreciate your insight into the Greek words. Please continue with this thread and develop these thoughts as they are very near to my heart and I believe others can well benefit from the study. I will be out of town until October 2nd or 3rd so I will probably not be anywhere I can reply. I look forward to taking it up again when we get back.It may be a little lonely, talking to myself, but I will do my best. :-P Here's a request for other readers. If these conversations become too exclusive please reel us in. When two bible students get talking it is easy to forget that others are listening. We want this forum to be of maximum service to the all SIers so please chirp up if some of the worms are going over your head. :-D

There are other phrases that LUke uses to describe the work of the Spirit in the life of individuals and of the church. The Spirit's work is a key topic in the writing of Luke, not only in the Acts but throughout the gospel. It is Luke who makes it clear that a 'stirring' was taking place at the time of Jesus' birth. WE have already referred to the work of the Spirit in the live of Zecharias, Elizabeth and John, but others too were experiencing the work of the Spirit.Simeon is a fascinating character in the scripture, and I would love to know more about him. And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, (Luk 2:25-27 KJV). Just look at the life of this man! 1.the Spirit was upon him. The word 'was' is the Imperfect, that continuous past tense. This could be translated 'the Spirit used to be on him'. This is not a single crisis event but the record of a process.2. upon him. This is the normative experience of Old Testament saints who were 'anointed' by the Spirit to authorise and empower.3. This man had received a prophetic revelation 'by the Holy Spirit. 'by' is the word under. The picture is consistent, this man was 'under the influence' (not of alcohol!!) but of the Holy Spirit.4. He came 'by the Spirit' into the temple. 'by' here is 'en' and implies 'by the instrumentality of the Spirit'. In other words Simeon was Spirit-led.So we have a minor New Testament character upon whom the Holy Spirit habitually rests. The 'spirit' of prophecy had been rekindled in the nation. It is easy to miss the fact that this may well have been the first instance of prophecy for almost 400 years! (If we put Malachi at c400 BC). There have been 400 years in which God has been silent and as he was an old man it is most probable that his revelation that he would not die before he had seen Messiah came even before Gabriel's visit to Mary. Simeon's prophecy at the presentation of Jesus is the first New Testament pointer to the Suffering Messiah; And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. (Luk 2:34-35 KJV)Chronologically, our New Testament begins with Simeon.....or possibly with Anna; And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. (Luk 2:36-37 KJV). Wouldn't you love to know more about these two senior citizens whose lives provide the prelude for the New Testament? Anna did not merely prophesy, as did Simion, she was a prophetess, and there are not too many of them in the Book. Luke doesn't give us any details of the Spirit's authorization or empowering in her life but we may safely assume that it would have similar ingredients to that of Simeon.Luke's account of Christ's water baptism and the coming of the Spirit is important. We need to keep in mind that in one sense Jesus of Nazareth was 'born of the Holy Spirit'. The mystery of his incarnation is expressed by Gabriel; 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 thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luk 1:35 KJV) We must tread reverently here. Was this two separate acts of the Spirit or a Hebrew parallelism? (parallelism is feature of Hebrew poetry, saying the same thing with a slightly different emphasis) I am not going to try decide, not publically anyway. Let us simplify the revelation; Mary said, 'How?'. Gabriel said, 'The Holy Spirit'. The creed has it 'conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary'. In this sense Jesus of Nazareth was 'born' of the Spirit; He would never require 'regeneration'. After 30 years he was 'made manifest to Israel' through the testimony of John Baptist. John's commission is expressed in different ways; his work was the work of preparation and of identification. His work of preparation is expressed in the word 'Repent'; his work of identification is expressed in the word 'behold'. His testimony is recorded most fully in John's account; And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. (Joh 1:31-34 KJV) It is important to distinguish two quite different pictures of the Holy Spirit here; 1. upon Jesus of Nazareth He comes 'like a dove' 'descending and remaining on him'. Other than the initial arrival of the Spirit this is very similar to the language which described Simeon's experience. The Spirit comes, externally, and 'settles' upon Him. This is NOT Baptism in the Spirit. The concept of baptism can only ever be used with the words 'in' 'by' or 'with'. You can never 'baptise upon'; it is just impossible. But 'anointings' are 'upon' eg;It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; (Psa 133:2 KJV). This is an anointing and the natural preposition is 'upon'.I am stressing this because pentecostals have often referred to this event in the life of Christ as His 'baptism in the Holy Spirit'. It is important to a clear understanding of biblical teaching to understand that this was not Christ's baptism in Spirit. He never needed a 'baptism in Spirit' and later in this discussion we shall find out why others do need such a 'baptism in Spirit' while He did not. But He did need an anointing; this speaks of commissioning and enduing, authority and power. Later, as a direct result of this experience of the Spirit, He would say; ...The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. (Luk 4:17-21 KJV) John Baptist witnessed the anointing of Jesus of Nazareth. The Hebrew word for an anointed one is Messiah; the Greek word is Christ. From this moment He moves into His mission as Jesus Christ. (He has not changed His nature or His identity, but He is now 'anointed'and 'sent'.)2.the second picture of the HOly Spirit in this narrative is that of 'baptism'. It is an entirely different picture to that of 'anointing'. Jesus of Nazareth was anointed and became The Christ. But John now reveals the mission of the Christ; And I did not know Him, but the One sending me to baptize in water, that One said to me, On whomever you see the Spirit coming down and abiding on Him, this is the One baptizing in the Holy Spirit. (Joh 1:33 LITV) (This 'one-baptizing' is the Present Participle preceded by the definite article; is signifies characterestic function. as would be the case in the 'one-bus-driving' for the bus-driver!) The construction is used of John Baptist himself; And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him. (Mar 6:14 KJV) This is Ιωάννης ο βαπτίζων - John, the one baptizing. It is perfectly legitimate to translate this as John the Baptizer; it is also perfectly legitimate to translate John Baptist's testimony to Christ as 'the same is the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit'.The thought is made very plain earlier in John's account and in all the gospel accounts; And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. (Joh 1:33 KJV) John's testimony to the role of Jesus Christ was 'I am a water Baptizer; He is a Spirit Baptizer'. It is significant too that this controversial phrase 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' was the natural expression of a Baptizer.In the next excerpt we will trace the idea of baptism. Did you know that there are 4 hidden baptisms in the Old Testament? See if you can find them before the next session......to be continued.

Appendix 1Having said I want to keep this understandable for everyone I now post this appendix!! Unless you are a student of Biblical Greek, or would like to be, you can safely ignore this posting. I made some comments about the Aorist Tense in an earlier posting. Scholastic opinion is moving on this issue. All older Greek scholars will say something like: The aorist is strictly the expression of a momentary or transient single action, being thus distinguished from the imperfect; and in the indicative mood it originally signifies past time. It is, however, used of a prolonged action, if there is no positive need to make a direct expression of the circumstance. It is thus of constant use in the narrative of past transactions.More modern primers, eg Mounce "Basics of Biblical Greek" are strongly at odds with this opinion; The aorist is the indefinite tense that states only the fact of the action without specifying its duration. When the aorist describes an action as a unit event it may accentuate one of three possibilities, as, imagine, a ball that has been thrown: 1) let fly (inceptive or ingressive); 2)flew (constative or durative); 3)hit (culminative or telic) p193and further comments...the aorist tense has been often mishandled by both scholars and preachers. Aorist verbs too frequently are said to denote once-for-all action when the text has no such intention. Having been warned of this error, we should not go to the other extreme and fail to see tht in some contexts the aorist does denote once-for-all-action...Translation, The aorist active is normally translated with the simple English past indicating undefined action. "I studied". Remember that aspectis primary, and all the aorist tells you is that an event occured; it tells you nothing more about the aspect of the event. And the aorist is not necessarily punctiliar; it is 'undefined'.Modern linguistic scholarship is very professional and these comments should be treated seriously, however, I would be slow to jettison the older view of the aorist when it was held by brilliant linguists of an earlier day. The most obvious use of the aorist is just as a past tense recording an event that had occured. This does not alter substantially anything I have said in the earlier postings but I thought for the benefit of some who are learning Biblical Greek it would be as well to caution them from my earlier absolute statements.

Philologos:Here's a request for other readers. If these conversations become too exclusive please reel us in. When two bible students get talking it is easy to forget that others are listening. We want this forum to be of maximum service to the all SIers so please chirp up if some of the worms are going over your head. What I gathered from these posts thus far:A. Associated with "being filled with the Spirit" are three NT usages - 1. Pauline usage -- "being filled with the Spirit" as an ongoing, continual process.2. Lukan usage #1 -- "full of the Spirit" as a state of being.3. Lukan usage #2 -- "filled with the Spirit" as a one-time crisis event.B. Concerning Jesus' baptism by John the Baptiser:1. Jesus' water baptism is an anointing by the Spirit (after the OT fashion?) to be distinguished from the believer's being baptised by the Holy Spirit.2. John pointed out that Jesus is the one who baptises the believers by the Holy Spirit.I like making summaries in a long discussion. So please correct me if I got any of this wrong. Hopefully this will help others who tried to follow too.Sam :-P

There are different ways of examining doctrine. We could begin with the statements of saint or denomination and check their conclusions against the facts. This is often the way classic doctrinal statements have emerged. The weakness of this method is that it is reactive. Someone says the answer is 'a' but on examination it is found unsatisfactory and we produce statement 'b'. However 'b' will almost certainly be expressed in terms of the weakness of 'a'; it is a reaction to 'a' rather than a self-standing expression of truth. The other method is to start from scratch and build it up slowly; this gives us 'c' which is not expressed in terms of 'a' or 'b'. Of course, when this expression of truth is erected we would need to compare it against 'a' and 'b'and subject it to the challenge of others. It is much more difficult to subject a denominational or confessional statement to challenge simply because it calls loyalties into question. So rather than reacting to 'a' or 'b' lets start from the ground and build as we are able.The words 'baptism' and 'baptize' are in themselves compromises. They are not English words at all but transliterations of Greek words. The Greek noun is baptisma. Strongs Concordance defines it as 'baptism'; that's really helpful guys! ;-) The Greek verb is baptizO. Bible words seldom have bible definitions; what they do have is histories. Often these histories have entered into the psyche of a nation. Here is a little list of place names; Alamo, Dunkirk, Gallipoli, Katyn. For an American, a Brit, an ANZAC, a Pole, these are not just place names, they are histories and the histories have defined the word.What does God expect us to understand or feel when the words baptise and baptism are used? Well let's trace the histories. The Old Testament's Hidden Baptisms1. The FloodPeter tells us that the word baptism has a 'type'. A type is a template; it is something defines a shape. In Romans Paul says Adam was a 'type' of Him who was to come. There is something about the 'shape' of Adam which is repeated in the accomplishments of Christ. It is not the reality but the shape; 'the print of the nails' that Judas wanted to explore is the word 'type'. He would see the shape in the wound. The scriptures also refer to 'shadows'; For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. (Heb 10:1 ASV) Types and shadows have the same characteristics; they give the outward shape of the thing, but they are not the things itself. They have no colour, no texture, no details, no life. But even so they can be useful as a starting point.who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah--an ark being preparing--in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water; also to which an antitype doth now save us--baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ, (1Pe 3:20-21 YLT) The antitype is the reality of which the type was just the outline. This long introduction is to say that according to Peter Noah's Flood was a 'type' of baptism. So although Noah's Flood was historical fact it was also a revelation of something that would come later. It was a picture of baptism.Please forget everything you ever knew about 'baptism' and let's start from scratch. If Noah's Flood was the only definition of 'baptism' what would we think about. If your church were to announce a service of Believer's Flood what would you think about? If your denomination says it believes in the Flood of the Holy Spirit would that open up some new lines of thought? Go on, test the idea. If I said tell me what Noah's Flood/Baptism was all about what would be the first thought that entered your head. I suggest the first thought would be 'judgement'. Noah's Flood/Baptism was a death sentence on sinners. The corruption of sin was brought to a standstill by God's action. The old world was buried in water. It also had another effect. Every drop of water had the effect of lifting Noah higher. So the judgement of God on sin actually separated Noah from the sin that God was judging. It brought a whole creation to an end and started again with a new family. I sometimes wonder if Noah took off the covers and said to Mrs Noah, 'old things have passed away, behold, all things are become new'? What can we learn then from the Bible' first baptism? Baptism is judgement on sin. Baptism is separation from sin. Baptism is the end of the old and the beginning of the new. Remember God is beginning to build a sense of what He means by baptism. Whenever He uses the word 'baptism' in the future we must remember that this is His first 'definition' of baptism....to be continued.

Hi SamOK we'll play school...A. Associated with "being filled with the Spirit" are three NT usages -1. Pauline usage -- "being filled with the Spirit" as an ongoing, continual process.2. Lukan usage #1 -- "full of the Spirit" as a state of being.3. Lukan usage #2 -- "filled with the Spirit" as a one-time crisis event.Excellent work. Spot on.:-DB. Concerning Jesus' baptism by John the Baptiser:1. Jesus' water baptism is an anointing by the Spirit (after the OT fashion?) to be distinguished from the believer's being baptised by the Holy Spirit.2. John pointed out that Jesus is the one who baptises the believers by the Holy Spirit.More attention to detail required here. :-( 1. Jesus was baptised in water by John prior to being 'anointed' by the Father with the Spirit. Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. (Luk 3:21-22 ASV)I have not introduced the 'believer' yet. Don't get too far ahead. 'Believing' will need a definition too later.2. These prepositions are important. So far I have made reference to baptism IN the Spirit rather than 'by' the Spirit. We shall see later that the Agent of this baptism is Christ while the medium into which He baptizes is the Holy Spirit. (In the sense of instrumentality we could translate 'by the Spirit' in the sense that a man might by 'slain by the sword', but the focus is upon the agent; Jesus the Baptizer.)Class dismissed. :-D

The Old Testament's Hidden Baptisms2. The Crossing of the Red SeaWe are trying to discover what the word 'baptism' means by just using the scriptures.I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. (1Co 10:1-4 ESV)Who would have guessed that the events of the Passover and the Crossing of the Red Sea were really a baptism? These prepositions are fascinating too. 'in' the cloud and 'in' the sea have the word 'en' meaning 'in' (or in an instrumental sense.. by) The medium 'in' which they were all baptised was 'the cloud and the sea'. It doesn't say who the Baptizer was, although it was plainly God Himself, but it does have this phrase 'into Moses'. This is the preposition 'eis' meaning 'into' or 'towards'. This preposition is frequently used in the sense of destination and shows the destination of this baptism. The purpose of this baptism is to put the people 'into Moses'.This is a wonderful facet of truth that we would never have seen if Paul had not used this amazing phrase of being 'baptised into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea.' Let's see if we can do a similar exercise to the one on Noah's Baptism. If we were to ask questions about the Crossing of the Red Sea, what would our answers be? What are the main truths captured in this story?In fact, there are surprising similarities to Noah's Baptism. This was God's final judgement upon the Egyptians; this was a death sentence on the sinners. The destructive power of the Egyptians was brought to a standstill by this event. Their old master was brought to death in the cloud and the sea. The cloud first separated Israel from the Egyptians and then the closing waters of the Red Sea sealed their fate. The baptism that ended the destructive power sealed their borders and left Israel on one side and their past on the other. So the judgement of God on sin actually separated Israel from the sin that God was judging. It brought a whole creation to an end and started again with a new family. I sometimes wonder if Moses paused on the other side of the water and said, 'old things have passed away, behold, all things are become new'? (I cut and pasted that from the last study!)There is something else about this baptism that we could have mentioned in Noah's Baptism; this baptism united the destiny of a people with the destiny of the Covenant holder. Let me explain. If we had studied the story of Noah we would have discovered that God's covenant was with him personally, and others benefited as a result of their right relationship with Noah. They were united with Noah as a result of Noah's Baptism. Now a similar thing is seen in the story of Moses' Baptism; the people are identified with and united to Moses. Their destinies have become inseparable. This baptism has joined them to Moses. So we are beginning to see a pattern in these hidden baptisms.1. Judgement on Sin/Our Enemy2. Separation from Sin/Our Enemy3. A decisive end of the old.4. A solid beginning of the new.5. A union with the the Covenant Holder.Do we dare to begin to ask the question 'if this is what the word "baptism" means, how does this fit in to a definition of 'baptism in the Spirit'? The word 'baptism' can't signify one thing consistently in the types and another in the reality. Hold the question, we have two more hidden OT baptisms to consider.ps I did some teaching on Noah some time ago. If you would like to hear this topic preached click here....to be continued.

The Old Testament's Hidden Baptisms3. Naaman's BaptismAs with many words used in the New Testament the word 'baptism' was not new. The Hebrew Bible had been translated into Greek somewhere around 250BC (the Greek LXX (Septuagint c 260 BC) was the bible used by the early Christians, and when NT quotations differ from their OT original it is usually because the quotations are from the LXX. This doesn't mean that the Greek LXX is to be preferred to the Hebrew behind our bibles. It means that in the times quoted there is truth visible in the Greek LXX which was not obvious in the Hebrew) For the Jews of the 1st century AD Greek was their everyday language, particularly in the area of Galilee where most of Jesus' disciples had their homes. These men knew the LXX better than the Hebrew text, and Greek OT used the word 'baptize' on at least three occasions.The first instance was in a vivid story. The ASV translating from the Hebrew text has; Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean. (2Ki 5:14 ASV) But the disciples had grown up with a text which, in the Greek said;2 Kings 5:14 So Naiman went down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the word of Elisaie: and his flesh returned to him as the flesh of a little child, and he was cleansed. (LXX Eng Trans) where the word 'dipped' is 'ἐβαπτίσατο' - baptized.Perhaps this is a good time to say more about the Greek words to explain what they mean. There are several associated words:baptO means to dip, and sometimes 'to wash by dipping'baptizO means to submerge, and which should not be confused with baptO.The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. #Mr 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! (Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989). (the cooks will see immediately the distinction is between 'blanching' and 'marinading'.)Naaman, then, marinaded/submerged himself seven times. Seven in the scripture is a number which often indicates perfection, thoroughness or completion. There could be no doubt about Naaman's 'baptism'. I think we can safely presume that the miracle took place not gradually but instantly as Naaman emerged from his seventh submerging. The consequence was that the battle scars and leprous scars of this gnarled old warrior were instantly gone and his his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.. Remember that the ideas associated with baptism are perculating down into the nation's memory of what is involved in baptism. Naaman became 'new and clean'. Naaman's personal history recorded in his scars was gone, completely.We can see some ideas here which link with the earlier 'hidden baptisms'. This marked the end of the old and the beginning of the new. It is linked this time not with judgement but with cleansing. If we continue our speculation we might imagine Naaman saying 'old things have passed away, all things have become new.' This is the first Bible 'baptism' where the candidate got wet!! Noah and family and Moses and the Israelites were kept completely dry during their baptisms. There is something else that this baptism effected. Naaman became an adherant of Jehovah. He was a changed man in more ways than his skin. This 'flesh as a little child' effect may have had future impact upon Jewish baptism as we shall see later. This links baptism with conversion and 'new birth'.This is slow work and I hope you don't mind that, but it will be important to understand what the word 'baptism' means before we try to understand what 'baptism in the Spirit' means.

Perhaps the best book written on this subject, including a study of the OT instances of Spirit baptism is Roger Stronstad's "The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke." It's a short book that is pretty easy to read (especially considering it was a Masters thesis).

Hi JimmyI don't know the book but I am not talking about 'Spirit Baptism' yet. At this stage I am trying to establish some basic ideas and I want to find 'the value of the word baptism' before we put it into any New Testament equations.This is a little like algebra. When we have established what the word 'baptism' would have meant to those who used it and heard it we may find some surprizes. I don't want to reverse-engineer by starting with pentecostal/charismatic theology and working backwards; I want to build upwards, slowly.

The Old Testament's Hidden Baptisms4. Isaiah's BaptismAnother portion of scripture which has 'bapizO' in the Septuagint is in Isaiah; Therefore are my loins filled with anguish; pangs have taken hold upon me, as the pangs of a woman in travail: I am pained so that I cannot hear; I am dismayed so that I cannot see. My heart fluttereth, horror hath affrighted me; the twilight that I desired hath been turned into trembling unto me. (Isa 21:3-4 ASV) For the word 'affrighted' the Septuagint has καὶ ἡ ἀνομία με βαπτίζει horror baptized me The Greek word 'baptizO' is the word that classical authors used to describe a ship lost at sea; the ship was 'baptized' or overwhelmed. Irretrievably sunk. This is sense in which the LXX uses the word, but this passage is a terrifying passage of scripture. It is found in the section of Isaiah where God's judgements are coming upon the nations. All of these visions are terrifying but Isaiah singles this one out for a special introduction; A grievous vision is declared unto me; the treacherous man dealeth treacherously, and the destroyer destroyeth. Go up, O Elam; besiege, O Media; all the sighing thereof have I made to cease. (Isa 21:2 ASV) It is a grievous vision. In this vision he sees the judgements of God coming on Babylon. As a prophet he identifies with his prophecy and experiences, in the Spirit, the sense of the judgement upon Babylon. He uses the language of childbirth, and later refers to this judgement as; O thou my threshing, and the grain of my floor! that which I have heard from Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, have I declared unto you. (Isa 21:10 ASV) (We shall come back to the picture of the threshing floor later in these studies)Experiencing the final judgement of God upon Babylon and its sin, Isaiah says 'he was baptized in horror'. He was utterly overwhelmed by the sense of God's righteous judgement upon sin, but even in the midst of this there is glimmer of hope represented in the picture of the travail that will bring forth.Can we see any of our familiar traits in this use of 'baptize'? Well, it is God's destructive visitation of judgement upon sin, and the judgement will ultimately result in the freeing of Babylon's slave peoples. It is a separating experience that will leave people on either side of a divide. It is also one of the OT's most vivid pictures of Gethsemene and Calvary, but that will need to wait for a while in our studies.The template for the idea of 'baptisim' is remarkably consistent. It is a destructive act of God which separates men from their slave-masters. Are we beginning to get an idea of what 'baptism' signified to Bible reading 1st century Jews?

The Old Testament's Hidden Baptisms5. Ezekiel's BaptismAs far as I am aware this is the last OT reference to the idea of baptism. Again it is in the Septuagint, the early church's KJV, that the word is used. This time it is in Ezekiel; Girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads, all of them princes to look to, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea, the land of their nativity: (Eze 23:15 KJV) I expect you are looking at the verse and wondering where the word 'baptism' could be hidden here. Well, it's not the word 'baptizO' but that word 'baptO' signifying to dip and it is the word translated 'dyed'. Do you remember Lydia, the woman who dyed for a living? ;-) (Just a little reward for those who have plowed through this intense word study!!) Our Greek New Testament has this word too; And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (Rev 19:13 KJV) That word 'dipped' could be translated 'dyed'. When ancient people dyed a cloth in their purple dyes, they 'dipped' the cloth in and it became 'united with' what it had been dipped into. The words they used were 'baptO' and 'baptizO'. This is why the New Testament speaks of 'the baptism' in this way; Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, (Rom 6:4-5 NASB) 'baptism' unites the thing immersed into the medium into which it was baptised. The two become inseparably one. Once you had two items cloth and purplse dye, but now you have one item; purple- cloth.There is no picture of judgement here, but the introduction of an idea that a baptism can effect a union. It is an irreversible event which leaves old things passed away and everything become new, or at least, purple!This brings our little count of hidden OT baptisms to 5.1. Noah's Baptism2. Moses' Baptism3. Naaman's Baptism4. Isaiah's Baptism5. Ezekiel's Baptism.Next we touch on converts to Judaism and their baptism.

The Jewish Baptism of Proselytes.Edersheim: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix 12. The Baptism of Proselytes.1. Proselytes of the Gate did not undergo baptism or even circumcision.2. It was otherwise with 'the proselytes of righteousness,' who became 'children of the covenant,''perfect Israelites,' Israelites in every respect, both as regarded duties and privileges. All writers are agreed that three things were required for the admission of such proselytes: Circumcision (Milah), Baptism (Tebhilah), and a Sacrifice (Qorban, in the case of women: baptism and sacrifice) - the latter consisting of a burnt-offering of a heifer, or of a pair of turtle doves or of young doves Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5). After the destruction of the Temple promise had to be made of such a sacrifice when the services of the Sanctuary were restored. On this and the ordinances about circumcision it is not necessary to enter further. That baptism was absolutely necessary to make a proselyte is so frequently stated as not to be disputed (See Maimonides, u. s.; the tractate Massekheth Gerim in Kirchheim's Septem Libri Talm. Parvi, pp. 38-44 [which, however, adds little to our knowledge]; Targum on Ex. xii. 44; Ber. 47 b; Kerith. 9 a; Jer. Yebam. p. 8 d; Yebam. 45 b, 46 a and b, 48 b, 76 a; Ab. Sar. 57 a, 59 a, and other passages). There was, indeed a difference between Rabbis Joshua and Eliezer, the former maintaining that baptism alone without circumcision, the latter that circumcision alone without baptism, sufficed to make a proselyte, but the sages decided in favour of the necessity of both rites (Yebam. 46 a and b). The baptism was to be performed in the presence of three witnesses, ordinarily Sanhedrists (Yebam. 47 b), but in case of necessity others might act. The person to be baptized, having cut his hair and nails, undressed completely, made fresh profession of his faith before what were 'the fathers of the baptism' (our Godfathers, Kethub. 11 a; Erub. 15 a), and then immersed completely, so that every part of the body was touched by the water. The rite would, of course, be accompanied by exhortations and benedictions (Maimonides, Hilkh. Milah iii. 4; Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiv. 6). Baptism was not to be administered at night, nor on a Sabbath orfeast-day (Yebam. 46 b). Women were attended by those of their own sex, the Rabbis standing at the door outside. Yet unborn children of proselytes did not require to be baptized, because they were born 'in holiness' (Yebam. 78 a). In regard to the little children of proselytes opinions differed. A person under age was indeed received, but not regarded as properly an Israelite till he had attained majority. Secret baptism, or where only the mother brought a child, was not acknowledged. In general, the statements of a proselyte about his baptism required attestation by witnesses. But the children of a Jewess or of a proselyte were regarded as Jews, even if the baptism of the father was doubtful.It was indeed a great thing when, in the words of Maimonides, a stranger sought shelter under thewings of the Shekhinah, and the change of condition which he underwent was regarded as complete. The waters of baptism were to him in very truth, though in a far different from the Christian sense, the 'bath of regeneration' (Titus iii. 5). As he stepped out of these waters he was considered as 'born anew' - in the language of the Rabbis, as if he were 'a little child just born' (Yeb. 22 a; 48 b; 97 b), as 'a child of one day' (Mass. Ger. c. ii.). Edersheim: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix 12. The Baptism of Proselytes.The Jews of John Baptist's day were very familiar with baptism; it was part of the essential ritual of a Gentile becoming a Jew. What must have been provoking was that John was baptizing Jews. There is an interesting feature in that one of John's sites was 'Bethabara beyond Jordan'; that means on the other side. I have often wondered whether John was acting out the Crossing of the Jordan in Joshua's time. Bethabara is exactly where they crossed. Jesus said of John, 'he restoreth all thinks'. John's preaching of repentance and baptism was almost like a re-setting of the dials, bringing Israel back to the point of its beginnings.What can we learn from Jewish Baptism to help us in building up our understanding of the word 'baptism'? There are definite links with 'cleansing' here and again the concept, for converted Gentiles, of old things having passed away and all things become new. It provoked in the Jewish thought ideas of 'born anew', 'a little child just born' and a 'bath of regeneration'. I am not building doctrine on Jewish habits, but it is good to remind ourselves that John Baptist was not preaching in a sterile vacuum but in a market place of ideas. In such a context the word 'baptism' would have held ideas that were common to many groups.

John Baptist's TestimonyI am trying to build 'from the ground' up, rather than reacting to contemporary views or definitions of the 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit'. Suppose you were in a closed country with no access to denominational or historical sources. Your only source is the scripture which you 'search diligently' to know what Christ expects of you and what you may expect of Him; this is my attempt to answer the last half of that search.John Baptist was like the Morning Star which shone so brilliantly but which was inevitably made invisible by the rising of the sun. We are usually anxious to get on into the gospel account and sometimes this prevents us from considering 'how great' this man was. He was the greatest unregenerate servant of God; But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. (Mat 11:9-13 KJV) John was one of the Bible's milestone men; a watershed in God's ongoing purposes. John is the last of the breed.His work was blessed with amazing popular success but, more importantly, with Christ's personal approval;Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. (Mat 3:5-6 KJV)And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought. (Mar 9:12 KJV)He brought back the spiritual condition of the people to the highest levels. As Elijah had marked a new beginning for Israel, so John did the same. If John is the greatest of the prophets it behoves us to listen carefully to what he has to say about 'Baptism in the Spirit'. It is, after all, his phrase. In every narrative that mentions 'Baptism in the Spirit' there is a reference to John Baptist. (Matt 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:5, Acts 11:16) It almost seems that the inspired historians never used the phrase without crediting John with its origin.But it is not just John's origin of the phrase that the historians record but his continual contrast between his own mode of baptism and that of Christ's. "I am a water baptist; He will be a Spirit baptist." is the theme of his prophecy to Christ's future work. Well, as the world's most experienced baptizer, what did John think baptism signified? We have touched on the Jewish view of water baptism as the end of the old and the beginning of the new. It is a sacremental expression of death followed by life, and part of incorporation into the people of God. In Israel's Levitical ritual they placed their hands on sacrificial animals and acknowledged their sins; John's innovation is that Jews must also acknowledge their sins and then submit to baptism. So there is a clear focus on sin, and its penalty in death. But beyond the death there is new identity within the family of God. It is as though, old things had passed away and all things become new. He invited the hearers to 'play out' the sentence of death upon the old and yet when that was done they lived.John's specific teaching about the nature of Christ's Spirit Baptism is found most fully in Matthew and Luke who each record with almost identical words; John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable. And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people. (Luk 3:16-18 KJV) This coming Baptizer, says John, will baptize you with (in) the Holy Spirit and fire. This is not two baptisms but one; a baptism in 'Holy Spirit and fire'. Water was a Biblical symbol of judgement and cleansing; so was fire. There can be no doubt that when John used this phrase he was thinking of judgement and cleansing; his next words confirm that plainly. His thought moves seemlessly from the picture of 'fire' to the place that fire has in the process of harvest. His image is of the threshing floor; John says it is 'Christ's winnowing fan, Christ's threshing floor', Christ's garner. The only difference between Matthew and Luke is that Matthew tells us it is Christ's harvest too. (cf Luke 3:17, Matt 3:12) This whole process of baptism in Spirit and fire, according to John, is HIS.What is John referring to? He links Christ's Baptism with harvest. It is easy to forget in the midst of all the other symbolism that the feast of Pentecost was a 'harvest festival. (Originally called the Feast of Weeks, (First Fruits and Harvest) (see Leviticus 23:15 - 21), it is observed on the sixth day of the Sivan (our May/June). It became known as Pentecost (meaning 50th) because it comes 50 days after Passover. It was the celebration of the beginning of the harvest season when the people brought the first fruits and offered them in thanksgiving to the Lord.) When was the last time we thought of Pentecost as a celebration of harvest? But for John the ideas are inseparable. This was Christ's harvest and John sees that the Spirit and fire Baptizer will have his fan in his hand. Seed and tares have grown together to harvest but now the time of final separation has arrived; Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. (Mat 13:30 KJV) Can you see the consistency of the imagery?John has in mind the process of harvest. The wheat (and tares) have been cut down and gathered together on the threshing floor. With flails and sledges they have been out the gold grain, but it is all mixed up with the husks. They takes spadefulls of the mixture and lift it gently into the air. Meanwhile they create a gentle breeze with their fans and in a golden haze the chaff is blown to one side and the heavier grain fall to the earth. Next they gather the wheat into the barns, and the chaff is consumed in a spectacular conflagration. Have you seen a fire like this? Have you heard one? The fire creates its own upward thermal and draws in the oxygen which furthers the process. The noise is alarming; a great continuous roar. I cannot see this picture without seeing the day of Pentecost; And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. (Act 2:2-3 KJV) Donald Gee's history of the Pentecostal movement in the UK was called 'Wind and Fire'; the upper room had become part of the harvest process; the rushing mighty wind filled the room, and the coming Spirit filled those who waited in it. One of the consistent pictures of God's attitude to sin is expressed powerfully in Hebrews; For our God is a consuming fire. (Heb 12:29 KJV)But John's image of harvest is part of his thinking on Christ's Baptism. Can we see any of our old patterns of baptism here? Judgement on sin and sinners, separation of God's people to safety, the old passed away, behold all things are become new. They are all here. Can we see why the old Holiness preachers equated Baptism in Spirit with God's dealing with sin rather than power to evangelize? And what is more sobering, how do pentecostal/charismatic paradigms of Baptism in the Holy Spirit match what we have seen so far? If, as many pentecostal/charismatic teachers would say, Baptism in the Holy Spirit does not relate to sin, separation, sanctification and new beginnings, then centuries of Biblical ideas have a been without purpose, and the word baptism now means some quite different to what we had been led to expect.I'll pause for a while now to await comment, protest, street demonstrations or whatever... Iron sharpeneth iron... and then try to explain what I think the term 'baptism in the Spirit' signifies. I promise that whatever you have believed this to mean I will not subtract, but I will try to enlarge and add to our expectations and understanding of all that is encompassed by this amazing phrase 'Baptised in the Holy Spirit.

'll pause for a while now to await comment, protest, street demonstrations or whatever... Iron sharpeneth iron... and then try to explain what I think the term 'baptism in the Spirit' signifies. I promise that whatever you have believed this to mean I will not subtract, but I will try to enlarge and add to our expectations and understanding of all that is encompassed by this amazing phrase 'Baptised in the Holy Spirit.Hi Bro. Ron,I was home again and logged on yesterday but did not comment as I wanted to read through all your materials. I printed it out for some bed time reading. :-)Again, I think this material should be stored some place. It is really good stuff. For years I have been unable to find a resource that will allow me to search the Septuagint for NT Greek words. I can perform an Englishmsn's search with my PC study bible (or others) and I even have a Hebrew Englishman's in hard cover; but I don't read Greek well enough to just sit down and read LXX material. Maybe there is a feature on studylight I am missing. If you have any suggestions I am wide open. As I read through I was anxious to see what direction you would ultimately take the Baptism in the Spirit. At this point you could go at least two different directions (I'm sure you have a third :-) ) and suggest that the Baptism in the Spirit actually takes place at the Born Again experience. That, being, we are baptised by the Spirit into Jesus Christ. I see your taking this approach as highly unlikey due to Christ being the baptiser who baptises with the Holy Ghost and fire; and your well reasoned articulation of the who's and what's (if you will). The second direction I could see you going would be that of Wesley and the proponents of the second blessing for the purpose of Entire Sanctification. Your etymological work on baptO and baptizo has reopened my mind and heart to that possibility. Keep in mind I come from an Oberlin theology based family doctrine. I believe deeply in Christian perfection and strive to understand and reach it for God's glory. How to get there has been an enigmatic quest for me. To the place to where I have often believed (to my shame) it was impossible to reach on a practical and practicable level. My Pastor is old school Pentecostal and believes that the key to total victory over sin is to be "on fire for God"-- full of the Holy Ghost and power. I agree with this. He also takes the approach that the baptism in the Holy Spirit leads to a holy life. He has used the illustration before of filling a cup with water and then saying- the cup is filled. He then takes the same filled cup and drops it into the picture of water and says; "Now it is baptised." Looking forward to reading to you continuing on with this.God Bless!-Robert

As I read through I was anxious to see what direction you would ultimately take the Baptism in the Spirit. At this point you could go at least two different directions (I'm sure you have a third )Getting to know you, getting to know all about you, getting to like you.....You have missed another option... I may take both routes at the same time! :-D I have added some comments on PCs and the Septuagint PC Septuagints

You have missed another option... I may take both routes at the same time!I was watching yesterday for a new post. I had hoped you had still planned to keep it going.I appreciate you directing me to e-sword. I had not known of it. I will be doing a seminar later in the month on bible study tools and that looks to be a great free bible program. I am going to try to load it myself over the next few days. If I can get it all together I may just use it. I wonder if they offer a CD with it all ready to install? God Bless!-Robert

We have at least one more 'baptism' to look at before we take the word into the phrase to see what we ought to be expecting from a 'baptism in the Spirit'. If the OT references are to 'hidden' baptisms' this one must be called the 'forgotten' baptism; I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: (Luk 12:49-51 KJV) Martin Luther king said 'I have a dream'but Jesus says 'I have a baptism'. What is he referring to? He links it in His thought to the sending of 'fire on the earth' and 'division'. This is not the only time He took up this kind of language; But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: (Mar 10:38-39 KJV) This is His cup and His baptism and there can be little doubt that He is referring to His death on the cross, but what extraordinary images to use. I may have led a 'sheltered life'but I have never heard anyone (other than myself) preach on Christ's death as a baptism; this is why I called it the 'forgotten' baptism.This is a foundational image of His death, but little referred to in evangelical circles. If we take some of the values of 'baptism' from our previous notes and apply them here it begins to make sense. Isaiah comtemplated Babylon's judgement and was 'baptized in terror'. When Christ contemplated the cross His reactions were remarkably similar; And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray. And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy; And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. (Mar 14:32-36 KJV) Luke records great gouts of blood that splashed on the earth as He prayed. The other language used is to be found in medical textbooks of the day describing the extremities of a complete nervous breakdown. Terror has taken hold of Him. Mark's gospel tells us of His thoughts as they walked to Gethsemene; And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. (Mar 14:26-27 KJV) This is a quotation from Zechariah; Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith Jehovah of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered; and I will turn my hand upon the little ones. (Zec 13:7 ASV) It is God who calls for the Sword of Judgement against 'my fellow'; it was the horror of this prospect that 'Abba, Father' must now unsheath His sword that broke Him in Gethsemene. And this was only the contemplation of the event, what must the reality be described as? A baptism to be baptized with and a cup to be drunk. "O make me understand it, Help me to take it in,What is meant to Thee, the HOly OneTo take away my sin"The cup that he had first referred to in Mark 10 reappears in His prayer in Gethsemene. 'the cup' of Mark 10 has become 'this cup' of Mark 14. It is no longer 'the cup' as a prospect, it is 'this cup'; within reach now. His Abba Father is reaching out to Him with 'this cup'. The other image 'baptism' is an overwhelming flood. Judgement falls upon sin and the judgement becomes the source of the salvation; this is consistent with Noah's Baptism and Moses' Baptism. The separation effected by those Old Testament baptisms is seen again in the cry of dereliction; My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me and He bears in His body our sins. And it all culiminates in the great cry; it is finished. Old things have passed away...I believe something else is happening here which takes us to the very edge of revelation and human comprehension. Baptism effected a union. Those who 'received' Noah's baptism were united with him in his destiny. Those who 'received' Moses' Baptism were united with him in his destiny. What was Christ baptized into and with what was He united? I see a reference here to the real 'passion of the Christ'; For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2Co 5:21 KJV) The sinless lamb of God is seen as the 'serpent in the wilderness' [John 3:14] God has drawn the veil of an impenetrable blackness over these eternal moments and we can go no further, we can only bow and worship.And yet, and this is breathtaking, He says; ... Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: (Mar 10:39 KJV) The disciples said 'We can' which only serves to show their ignorance at such a prospect, but He says 'ye shall...' How can these things be?I'll try to answer the question in the next postings, but before we leave this I will draw our attention to a remarkable verse in Paul's letter to the Corinthians; For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink into one Spirit. (1Co 12:13 RB Literal) Notice, baptism and drinking have come together again here in One Spirit. It was not an idle promise.... ye shall.

And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray. And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy; And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. Hi Bro. Ron,Is it possible that we need to rethink somehow or at least look at some of the aspects of what was actually causing this heaviness. Jesus said "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." He condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3) by striving against sin to victory and as Hebrews says 'unto blood'; which the JAMA article on the crucifixion calls by a actual medical term (which you alluded to) as being 'hemohidrosis' or 'hemotidrosis.' A friend turned me on to this about 10 years ago (you probably already have it, but in case someone is interested). Click for JAMA article PDFThe striving against a sinless flesh which was 'weak' yet not 'sinful' (in His case) brought about this condition it seems as obedience unto death, even the death of the cross, was a sore test of righteousness. The spirit was willing- but the flesh was not. Could it be that through this struggle He condemned sin to the uttermost as He faced off with what would have to mount to be the greatest temptation one could conceive of- the temptation to walk away from giving His life for the sins of the world when there was no real law stating that He had to do it- yet He knew it was the Father's will. This blows my mind and makes me to see myself as a pathetic wretch when it comes to striving against sin. Would you say that once we are genuinely born again of the Spirit that our death to sin in terms of original sin is annhilated? I mean, the law of sin that is (was) in our members. The law that seems to exist in the flesh of fallen man that causes sin to revive within us when a commandment comes. That law of sin that is resident and can only be brought to the surface by the law or a NT commandment from Christ designed to reveal that rebellion is truly resident as is proved when the right commandment or combination of commandments are presented. When we go down in our personal Jordan are we dying to the Law of Moses (as it were) so in turn we are thereby free from the law that causes rebellion to surface or is there a seperation that takes place from sin within our members that would allow the laws of God to truly be holy and just and good to us?God Bless!-Robert

Is it possible that we need to rethink somehow or at least look at some of the aspects of what was actually causing this heaviness. Jesus said "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."Hi RobertI think it was the horror of separation that crushed Him rather than a physical trial. I'm not sure about the aspect of the 'weakness' of Christ's flesh. Paul says For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you. (2Co 13:4 KJV) but this is not directly referring to the flesh/spirit contrast.He was a perfect human being and the instinct for life would be perfectly manifest in Him. We were created to be an overcomer and there was nothing in Him that would have wanted to lie down and die. I have wondered about the 3-fold choice He made; And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. (Mat 26:44 KJV) and I see a parallel in Exodus with Israel after the flesh. Three times Israel was required to consider, count and choose. Three times they said; 'thy will be done' [EX 19:8, 24:3, 7] I see the True Israel making the same deliberate choice. Israel was not rushed into this, neither was Christ. He considers, counts the cost and chooses. He was under no illusion to the cost but He deliberately set Himself to do the will of God, and when Peter again tried to prevent the cross Christ answered; ...Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? (Joh 18:11 KJV) Notice in Gethsemene it is offered and accepted but here it is defended. The choice is made 'my Father hath given me'; He will drink it now to its last dregs and no one will prevent Him.

Hi Bro. Ron,Great points. I won't hinder you getting to the baptism in the Holy Spirit any farther. :-)God Bless,-Robert

Would you say that once we are genuinely born again of the Spirit that our death to sin in terms of original sin is annhilated? I mean, the law of sin that is (was) in our members. The law that seems to exist in the flesh of fallen man that causes sin to revive within us when a commandment comes. That law of sin that is resident and can only be brought to the surface by the law or a NT commandment from Christ designed to reveal that rebellion is truly resident as is proved when the right commandment or combination of commandments are presented. When we go down in our personal Jordan are we dying to the Law of Moses (as it were) so in turn we are thereby free from the law that causes rebellion to surface or is there a seperation that takes place from sin within our members that would allow the laws of God to truly be holy and just and good to us?Hi RobertI think this needs to be carefully expressed if we are not to run into error. I see Christ's cross baptism as His uniting with Man the Rebel, Adam. In Romans 6:6 we read knowing this, that our old man was crucified with [Him], that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. (NKJV) This 'old' man is singular and apparently shared by all of us, hence it is 'our old man'. We often hear folk talk about 'my old man' but I don't think this is a scriptural concept. There is a human solidarity of rebellion which began in Adam and hence we share the consequence of his behaviour. It is 'our old man'. (old is paleios - ancient) According to this verse the shared old man was co-crucified with Christ. I have switched to the NJKV here because it carries the tenses better. (although I think 'done away' is too strong) This is a 'was' rather than an 'is'. An event took place when this 'shared old man' was put to death; it was at the cross.The verse then says that the purpose of this execution of the 'shared old man' was that the 'body of sin' might be 'katargeO' (rendered inoperative). You use the word 'annihilate'. KatargeO does not strictly mean 'cease to exist' but 'cease to operate'. But this state of affairs, where the 'body of sin' ceases to operate in only true in Christ, because it is only in Christ that the 'shared old man' was crucified. Crucifixion is a vivid picture of a man who 'ceases to operate'; his feet can no longer take him and his hands no longer obey his will.So I am hedging on this 'annihilate'? Yes, because I try to keep to biblical phraseology and the Bible does not use the language of 'annihilation'. The Sanctification people like the language of 'roots' and the idea of its removal, but this seems to 'locate' sin somewhere in humanity and then describes its removal. Erradication, literally, means the removal of the root. I am uncomfortable with the word because I can't see a 'root' located in man.The other term we haven't defined here is 'body of sin'. All commentators see this as our body ie our physical humanity under the rule of sin. I don't (no suprizes there :-( ) I have long felt that this is a mystical body. In a way Satan's counterfeit 'body of Christ'. This is humanity under the wrong head. The solidarity still continues in Adam, only in Christ is it rendered inoperable. I felt very lonely in this particular interpretation and then discovered the Oswald Chambers believed the body of sin to be a mystical body; I have felt a little reassured since then. ;-) I don't see Rom 6 as relating primarily to the Law of Moses but to the Law of Sin and Death which 'entered' through Adam's disobedience in 5:12. Your interpretation here would be different to mine because of our different starting points in the timing of Romans 7. In my understanding, the Law of Moses (as applied by the Spirit) stirs up this sleeping tyrant, and the man becomes its slave again. In a sense Romans 7 looks after itself, for me, as an illustration of a personal experience of a man before he is 'made free from sin' and become a 'servant(s) to God'. This part of the discussion should probably wait, I think.Good to talk to you.

All commentators see this as our body ie our physical humanity under the rule of sin. I don't (no suprizes there ) I have long felt that this is a mystical body. In a way Satan's counterfeit 'body of Christ'. This is humanity under the wrong head. The solidarity still continues in Adam, only in Christ is it rendered inoperable.Hi Bro. Ron,I said I would leave off and let you go on to baptism, but I do want to briefly touch this if we can. This is an interesting concept. It lines up well with, "Ye are of your Father the Devil and his deeds you will do." All who are in Adam do the deeds of the Devil and all who are in Christ do the works of Christ. Those in Adam walk according to the course of this world (lust of eyes, lust of flesh, pride of life), according to the Prince of the Power of the Air (the 'Head' of all who are in Adam), and the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience (the spirit of AntiChrist that is already in the world). Among whom also we ALL had our conversation in times past (when we were in Adam) in the lusts of our flesh (could this be the body apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and 'endued' by the spirit that now works in the Children of disobedience?), fulfilling the desires of the flesh (ibid) and of the mind (carnal mind that cannot be subject to God), and were by nature (phusis) the children of wrath even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for His love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins has quickened us together with Christ. I see here in the Greek word phusis the symbol of a plant that springs forth from its source and brings forth from the good treasure of that source (which pre-salvation is Adam and all that comes with that; i.e. thorns and briars which are the litmus test for them having been rejected or adokimos and are to be burned); yet when we are saved we who were 'wild' by nature were (if I can mix metaphors here) transformed into a new creature and transplanted (as it were) into Christ to bring forth fruit unto God (the fruit of the Spirit). If this is true of the meaning of phusis- is what I and others have been calling 'the flesh' or our old sin nature really just residual memories and remembrances of past behavior patterns that are still in our minds? Is it possible that our past thoughts patterns and actions and tendencies left over in us after we were born again can somehow simulate the old carnal nature and lead us to believe we still have a sin nature- when in reality we do not? And that because the sin nature is really just us walking according to the prince of the power of the air and the spirit that now works in us when we were children of disobedience? The nature of a person cannot be thought of to exist within them as though it was some metaphysical controlling substance somehow attached to the body individually; but in reality phusis (our nature) is not truly something that is our own- it is that which we borrow or are plugged into (either Christ and the things of the Spirit or Adam and the spirit of Antichrist, etc.). I know you like to maintain a biblical framework in our discussions (which is always the best method), but if I might use in my folly the analogy; are we like a computer that is online with the devil through Adam until we are saved downloading and working through all kinds of sinfulness; but when we are born again we disconnect from the enemy (the corporeal sin nature of the devil that all who are in Adam are hooked into) and are now plugged in (grafted in) to Jesus Christ? Could it be that we in a sense are now in Christ, yet all those old programs (as it were) and info is still on the hard drive from before and when we go to open up something- it occasionally trys to open up the file with a carnal program (as it were) that was left over from before. In other words, God plugged us into Christ, but he did not clear the harddrive of our memories and past learned behaviors. God Bless and thanks for all the input! -Robert

Hi RobertThanks for your questions, I think! You are reading your Bible too much, some of your sentences are longer than Paul's! ;-) (just joking) So now I am sitting here trying to understand your understanding of my understanding before I answer and wondering if you will understand my understanding of your understanding of my understanding... and some people say I am complicated. Me??? surely not ?!? ;-) I do genuinely appreciate your questions and challenges; iron sharpeneth iron. I am fully supportive of 'destruction testing' of my views. I love the spirit of Finney in his Systematic Theology; I hold myself sacredly bound, not to defend these positions at all events, but on the contrary, to subject every one of them to the most thorough discussion, and to hold and treat them as I would the opinions of any one else; that is, if upon further discussion and investigation I see no cause to change, I hold them fast; but if I can see a flaw in any one of them, I shall amend or wholly reject it, as further light shall demand.True Christian consistency implies progress in knowledge and holiness, and such changes in theory and in practice as are demanded by increasing light. Charles Grandison Finney\t in the preface to his Systematic Theology (1851)" and I find the same spirit in Tyndale; "If I shall perceive either by myself or by the information of another, that ought be escaped me, or might be more plainly translated, I will shortly after, cause it to be mended".1st paragraph.I am certainly with you for the first half of this other than to comment that I don't think the 'spirit of antiChrist' is quite the same thing as ...the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Eph 2:2-3 KJV) 'the spirit of antiChrist' would certainly be in opposition to/replacement for Christ and in that sense has similarities to the 'rebellious old man', but I think the 'spirit of antiChrist' is a further manifestation of Satanic opposition rather than just another label for 'Adam'.in the lusts of our flesh (could this be the body apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and 'endued' by the spirit that now works in the Children of disobedience?),Are you asking here the question 'is the flesh the same as the 'body of sin'? If you are, my answer would be 'no'. I can't think of a scriptural use of the 'flesh' in the sense of a corporate entity. 'the old man' and 'the body of sin' are, I think, corporate entities, so although Romans 6:6 talks about 'our' in the plural the things that we share 'the old man' and 'the body of sin' are always singular. In other words there is just one 'old man' and just one 'body of sin'. I think 'the flesh', in its moral sense, is linked to human energy. It is human-ness in its neutral use; ie Christ being.. of the seed of David according to the flesh. In its bad moral use it retains the connection with human-ness but personal human-ness rather than a corporate entity. We are personally accountable for 'the flesh' and its behaviour but I don't think the scripture holds us personally accountable for 'the old man' or 'the body of sin'; this will have important implications later in our thinking.2nd paragraph.The nature of a person cannot be thought of to exist within them as though it was some metaphysical controlling substance somehow attached to the body individually; but in reality phusis (our nature) is not truly something that is our own- it is that which we borrow or are plugged into I think we create thought patterns by our view of the 'tripartite' nature of man. Man is not 'tripart' he is 'monocoque', an integrated whole and although 'body, soul, spirit,' may be indentified they cannot be separated out, except by the specific operation of the 'word of God'; a 'word' can do it, but a bible student cannot! I think you are saying something similar in your quote above. God took material (body) and breathed into it 'spirit' and 'it became' a living soul. It did not become a soul which 'has' a body and a spirit', 'body' and 'spirit' became a God-conscious entity with a unique identity. I am a body/spirit creature. If either of these is missing I am no longer 'a soul'. Oswald Chambers used to talk much about the unique glory of man as being the very fact that he was both 'body' and 'spirit'. Angels are spirits, dogs are bodies'. Angels were created to be 'at home' in the spiritual world, dogs were created to be 'at home' in the physical world', man was created to be 'at home' in both. It is his unique glory and his responsibility.You put a whole bunch of terms together that I would want to teaze out a little; the flesh, the old sin nature, the old carnal nature and I would rather gather them up later. I think one of our failures in talking about 'original sin' is that we don't go back to its origin. We think it began with Adam, but Paul doesn't say it originated in Adam, he says it entered our world through Adam. This points to an origin earlier than Adam and shows plainly that 'sin' is older than our race. It is because folk think of it as being of human origin that we get into conversations about what 'humans' can do about it; bondage of the will etc. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (Joh 8:44 KJV) The 'beginning' here is 'archE' and 'archE' can be translated 'origin'. Sin, in the human race (and in the cosmos/world for which God made man responsible) is thus found to have its origin 'outside' the human race. Its origin is a rebellious spirit-being known to us as Satan/Lucifer. Its energy continues to be derived from that spirit-being; ...for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1Jo 3:8 KJV). That 'beginning'is archE too. This verse tells us that in all human sin Satan is still at work; the devil 'continues to sin' from the origin. The dynamic behind sin is satanic.Unless God can do something about the continuing relationship between Satan and the human race salvation can only be a promise for a future day. This partnership between Satan and the Man began in Adam and now the word 'Adam' represents the result of this partnership. The 'old man' is the human race in union with the wrong power; the 'new man' is the human race in union with the right power. The 'gospel according to Zacharias' tell us of a horn of salvation from the house of David and its consequence; That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. (Luk 1:74-75 KJV) This is an 'all the days of our life' salvation, not a 'when we all get to heaven' salvation. It is salvation in which 'having been delivered' not when 'death finally delivers us'. It is a salvation in which we become 'servants without fear' serving Him in 'holiness and righteousness'. This is New Covenant salvation and anything less than this means we are being 'short-changed'. 3rd paragraphI am always 'suspicious' of mechanical illustrations, even when I use them myself. Christ's illustrations were never mechanistic but always 'living'. I quoted a Spurgeonism in another thread. He would encourage his students to use illustration but would always caution them that the purpose of an illustration is to let light into the building. Be wary he would say of using glass as a foundation. So I am cautious about programming illustrations. The scripture enjoins us to 'be being renewed in the spirit of our minds' (Eph 4:23) This is a present infinitive which consequently has the sense of 'be continually renewed' in the spirit of your mind. This is process although it may well begin in crisis. Infinitives in Greek can be in three tenses;Aorist Infinitive which would mean 'to be renewed'- undefined.Present Infinitive which would mean 'to continually be renewed'- continuousPerfect Infinitive which would mean 'to have been renewed' - completedI think the change of tenses here must be significant; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off (Aorist Infinitive) concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed (Present Infinitive) in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on (Aorist Infinitive) the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. (Eph 4:21-24 KJV). The sudden switch to Present Infinitive when speaking of the 'spirit of the mind' would stand out from the other two Aorist Infinitives. The reference to the 'old man' here is significant too. Rotherham translates this; If, at least, it is, him, ye have heard, and, in him, ye have been taught—even as truth is in Jesus,— That ye were to strip off—as regardeth the former behaviour—the old man, who corrupteth himself according to his deceitful covetings, This captures well the idea of an 'old man' who is a constant state of being corrupted. It is not a static thing but a continual bubbling pollution. I also like the way Rotherham has captured the sense that this was part of their original teaching, the truth about 'being in Him'. They had originally been taught 'to strip off, as regards the former behaviour, the old man. You have probably heard my little rants about the way modern translations obscure the distinction between the old man and the new but translating 'old man' as 'old self' or 'old nature'. These translations are really interpretations which lose the linking contrast between the 'old man' and the 'new man'. In some aspects one way of defining the 'old man' would be by contrast with the 'new man'. ie Does the 'new man' mean a 'new self'? and would a 'new' self be an improvement on the old 'self'? 'Self', of course, is a psychological term rather than a biblical one.There are implications in your questions that I have not tried to answer here. They deal with the practical applications and pastoral implications of these views. Perhaps we can come to them later in our conversation. (by the way, if anyone else is listening, do join in)

Hi Bro. Ron,Thanks again for your insight. Your understanding of the Greek tenses and the ways in which significant words are translated is very helpful. I have read some of your postings elsewhere a few months ago and I can assure everyone that you are a whole lot more knowledgable than you come across, and you come across to be very knowledgable. :-) Not to puff you up; I am simply acknowledging the fact. I thank God you have been led here. This is an 'all the days of our life' salvation, not a 'when we all get to heaven' salvation. It is salvation in which 'having been delivered' not when 'death finally delivers us'. It is a salvation in which we become 'servants without fear' serving Him in 'holiness and righteousness'. This is New Covenant salvation and anything less than this means we are being 'short-changed'. Earlier in the year I would have tried to refute this comment; but I am a little wiser now I hope from our past conversations. I always believed there has to be a place of victory over sin in this life. What I really always was so dead set against was the concept that we cease to struggle and wrestle and strive against sin in this life. I am angered that I am tempted to sin at times and wonder why. Why? Why? Why? I search the scriptures and search them, and in time I concluded, that death brings an end to that struggle. Death is not the Savior (as Wesley and yourself have well stated), but death seemed to be the place of finality of this warfare and this fight that I often get tired of fighting. I saw in myself a need to resist things that should have never been an attraction to a person who was born of God; and I concluded that I must have two natures: one that was born after God and one that was of the devil. The one I feed most will prevail. I called the sin nature "the flesh" or the "the old man" and the new nature "the spiritual man." A hymn described what I felt:There is a silent war raging deep within memy lower nature fights to dominatemy spirit man is poised and locked in battlewhile the carnal side of me I have grown to hate My missives of months gone by were not directed at you- they were reactions of what were ultimately a struggle to find an answer and a desperation to know the truth. I have found a place of brokeness since then and can sit again at the feet of one who may understand these things more excellently and with greater clairity. In your words I would hear "there is no real struggle, you are only imagining it." I reacted with page after page of arguments that the fight that I am trying to fight daily, in varying degrees, some days easier and some days great struggle, is and was a very real struggle indeed. When I have talked about perfectionism it was never with an eternal security safety net below in case I missed the mark; it was always through the Oberlin lense of walking the tightrope at 60 feet above the crowd without a net below. Missing the mark for me simply was not an option. So the stakes in my mind were always sorely high, as to fall from this precipice would be anathama and adokimos. These studies are helping me settle down and rest in Christ. I appreciate your input as I know these conversations are God ordained.God Bless!-Robert

Bro Ron,I listened to your four part series on Baptism here on SI. Took me a couple days, but it was well worth it. I think I can sum up your position on the old man like this:We WERE in the body of sin- the head of which is Satan; but since we are born again we are baptized into the body of Christ, the head of which is Christ. Theres a lot of good stuff in that study and I recommend it to everyone. I am trying to fit some new pieces into the puzzle I guess you would say- or rather looking at some old pieces at a new angle. Can you go on and discuss beyond what you talked about in the series? This subject I wish to understand to the uttermost. God Bless,-Robert

Can you go on and discuss beyond what you talked about in the series? This subject I wish to understand to the uttermost. Hi RobertYes, there's more to come soon.

Continuing our examination of the concept of baptism we can now take a look at the New Testament use of the word. In this exercise I am continuing to define the word 'baptism' before we join it to the phrase 'baptism in the Spirit'. My 'thesis' so far has been that the word has a long biblical history and that we must understand the use of the word before we can understand the expectations that 'baptism in the Spirit' would have evoked.This time I want to go beyond the narratives in the Acts to pick up the word in the Epistles. If we can demonstrate that the word has maintained its mood and feeling we may say with some certainty that the word is used consistently throughout the scriptures; this will have deep implications for the phrase 'baptism in the Spirit'. There are some references which clearly pertain to water baptism; (1 Cor 1:13-17, 15:29) but others are open to interpretation. Water baptism in the period of the Acts was usually referred to as 'baptism in the name of Jesus'. This was not a baptismal formual but a simple assertion that the person being baptized was coming under the authority of the 'name' into which they were baptized. To call 'the name of the Lord' over someone was to bring that person consciously under the authority of that owner of that name; Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: (Jam 5:14 KJV). There is an interesting cameo in the story of David which illustrates this idea. Joab was about to take Rabbah but is insistent that the victory should be credited to David; and Joab sendeth messengers unto David, and saith, `I have fought against Rabbah--also I have captured the city of waters; and now, gather the rest of the people, and encamp against the city, and capture it, lest I capture the city, and my name hath been called upon it.' (2Sa 12:27-28 YLT) To have David's 'name' called upon Rabbah would bring the city under David's authority and rule. The inscription of names of boundary stones throughout archaeology has the same purpose. To put your name on it is to stake your claim; Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. (Rev 3:12 KJV) 'baptism in the name' is to bring that person publically under the authority of 'the name'. Peter's first proclamation is a no compromise demand; Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Act 2:38 KJV) It would be a challenging question to ask whether we see 'water baptism' in this light today? The link between baptism and 'the name' continues throughout the Acts and into the Epistles; Acts 8:12-16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16, 1 Cor 1:13-15.However there are two occasions in the Epistles where the construction is changed dramatically and these passages have been the subject of disagreement as to their application; we will need to examine these.1. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (Rom 6:3-6 KJV)The phrase 'in the name' is missing from this passage. Instead we have a reference to 'baptism into Christ Jesus'; not 'into the name' now, but 'into the person'. The question we must ask is 'is this water-baptism'? The claims for this 'baptism' are wide-ranging. It is said that this baptism 'baptizes into His death'? Would any, other than the Roman Catholics and their fellow travellers, claim this for 'water baptism'? It reminds me of the old saying that if you water-baptize a sinner what you get is a 'wet sinner'. However, Paul sees the consequence of this 'baptism' in a much greater panarama. This baptism 'unites' the baptized with 'the likeness of His death'. In a profound sense this baptism is not focussing upon the death of the 'baptized' but upon Christ's own death; the event that He called 'a baptism'. This is not 'my death' but 'His death' which is being effected in the person being baptized. Again, this has powerful implications.2. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:27-28 KJV)Again the key phrase from the water-baptisms is missing. The reference is not to those 'baptized into the name of' but to those 'baptized into the person' of Christ. Again the implications are wide-ranging; those who have been baptized into Christ have 'put on Christ'. This latter phrase immediately links with the things 'taught' to the Christians in Ephesus; if so be ye did hear him, and in him were taught, as truth is in Jesus; ye are to put off concerning the former behaviour the old man, that is corrupt according to the desires of the deceit, and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and to put on the new man, which, according to God, was created in righteousness and kindness of the truth. (Eph 4:21-24 YLT) Again, other than the Roman Catholics, no one would attribute these events to water-baptism. We also see the consequence of this 'baptism' in that it has unites those baptized into 'oneness' in Christ.In both of the above we are seeing that familiar theme of 'baptism' effecting a union. In the first with Christ's own baptismal-death on the cross, and in the second with the 'body' of His people who are 'one in Christ'. In fact both of these passages result in 'union with Christ'; union with Him in His death and union with Him in His Body. Each is a baptism 'into Christ' which unites the baptized with Him.The theme is carried forward in another reference to 'baptism'; For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1Co 12:12-13 KJV) I have begun with the familiar KJV which seems to suggest that this 'baptism' is 'by one Spirit'. Some have used this translation to justify the teaching that this is a different baptism to 'baptism in the Spirit', but the original Greek phrase is exactly the same as earlier constructions; For, even as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ, for also in one Spirit we all to one body were baptized, whether Jews or Greeks, whether servants or freemen, and all into one Spirit were made to drink, (1Co 12:12-13 YLT) The Greek prepositions behind the KJV are 'en'-'by' and 'eis'-'into', but 'en' is most usually translated 'in' and 'eis' has the purposive sense of 'towards', hence the Greek reads 'in one Spirit were we all baptized towards one Body'. The purpose, or one of them as it suits Paul's teaching here, was to get everything into 'one body', the means was 'baptism in Spirit'. In fact the passage parallels the earlier an earlier one; and all to Moses were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea; (1Co 10:2 YLT) in which 'to Moses' is 'eis' and 'in the cloud etc' is 'en'. The purpose was to unite them all with Moses and the means was 'a baptism in cloud and sea'.In these references we see a persistence that baptism effects union. The 1 Cor 12:13 reference brings together a baptism and a drinking; the exact imagery of Christ's own baptism and cup. This is the fulfilled promise; And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: (Mar 10:39 KJV) If it should be countered that this is just a reference to a bloody death we need to remind ourselves that, so far as we can be sure, John did not experience such a death. But how can we experience his 'baptism and cup'? By being 'baptized into Christ'. We are touching here, a baptism into a baptism. If God really does have means of uniting us to Christ at the point of His death then it is dynamically true, not positionally so that ...he who hath died hath been set free from the sin. (Rom 6:7 YLT) and that is the gospel in a nutshell.We have two more references to study;1. The first is more in the way of a return to an earlier one. we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk.(Rom 6:4 YLT) Young's Literal translation picks up the definite article and give us 'the baptism'. It also reminds us of an earlier characteristic that we have noted; all biblical baptism is 'baptism into death' and if this is true is must have a poerful impact upon our understanding of the phrase 'baptism in the Spirit'. The Greek definitive article can have the effect of a backwards reference. 'the death' of Romans 5 and 6 is a companion term to 'the sin'. This is not 'sins' as events but the nature and dynamic of 'Sin' which 'by one man' 'entered into the world'. Sin has its consequence in sins, and Death has its consequence in death, but we need to distinguish between the nature and the event. Christ's baptism (his cross) was a baptism into Sin and Death and in a manner beyong human expression He was united with it Him who knew not sin he has made sin for us, that *we* might become God's righteousness in him. (2Co 5:21 Darby). Again, we dare go no further... What a Saviour! 'the baptism into the death' however is a baptism into 'the death, His'. In this sense the Christian does not have to 'die to Sin'; he just needs to be baptized into Christ's baptism where He died to Sin. The Romans section carries the truth further forwards for we are united by such a 'baptism' into Christ who has already died and has already risen again (and if we were to follow the theme into Ephesians...) has already ascended, and has already sat down. It is wonderfully and literally true; everything is 'in Christ'. 2. The second is also obscurred by our English translations; in whom also ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh in the circumcision of the Christ, being buried with him in the baptism, in which also ye rose with him through the faith of the working of God, who did raise him out of the dead.(Col 2:11-12 YLT) We have here another reference to 'the baptism' and this one will add some more 'experiences'. This time Paul says his Colossians readers were 'co-buried with Christ' and 'co-raised with Him' and each time he sees the agent as 'the baptism'. He says 'you were co-buried with Him in the baptism' 'in which (the baptism) you were also c-raised with Him. Faith is at work here too, but the focus is 'the baptism'. Again we see the uniting power of 'the baptism'which unites us to a life that was taken down into death and raised from it.I think there is enough to digest here in one posting but the thesis holds. The word 'baptism' is retaining its historical content. It is baptism into death. It is judgment upon the old. It is separation from the continuing pollution. It is an end which makes a genuine beginning possible. It is a uniting process which links the baptized into the destiny of the another. It is co-everything; co-circumcision, co-burial, co-resurrection, co-ascension, co-seating in the heavenlies, and all is 'in Christ' and so may I be... 'by the baptism'.

Hi Bro Ron,Excellent thesis. These are essentially my understandings and thoughts as well. This is what complicates my understanding: I understand that we are buried with Christ in Baptism and that we are in Him. I understand that he died to sin and in Him we are dead to sin. I understand that we are seated together in heavenly places in Christ, etc. However, there has to be something left that we need to be finally seperated from else death would not be needed and from the born again experience we would be immortal. This corruption must still 'put on' incorruption and this mortal immortality. The proof that sin still somehow existed when there was no Law is that death reigned from Adam, even when the people did not sin in the similitude of Adam. Understand that I am not seeking to debate this; I am way past that. I am desperately trying to understand it and if anyone can help me you can.God Bless,-Robert

However, there has to be something left that we need to be finally seperated from else death would not be needed and from the born again experience we would be immortal. This is the kind of ruthless logic I appreciate! We shall need to identify the 'usual suspects'.Perhaps a lead-in would be to ask 'what is born again'? If we take the tripartite view and regard man as body, soul and spirit, just what exactly is 'born again?'. It clearly isn't my body; I'm looking forward to a much sleeker model than my current version! What about 'soul?' If 'soul' is the essential me, who would I be if it was born again? (I know this is knock-about stuff but others might be listening... possibly.) That leaves 'spirit' and this certainly fits the available evidence from other sources; A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. (Eze 36:26-27 KJV) I know this passage has an Israel dimension but there is a pattern here which seems to hold good on the personal level too. The promise is of a new 'spirit' rather than of soul or body, and of another 'Spirit' (My Spirit) within you. This is powerful and clear New Covenant theology. It continues to describe the removal of the stony heart and the provision of heart of flesh; there is not enough time to pursue this but these are wonderful promises. The equivalent passages in Jeremiah 31 speaks of 'hearts' (plural) so we are justified in seeing a personal application of the promises. It seems to be that it is the spirit that is regenerated. That leaves soul and body and possible areas of continuing inner conflict and the spirit itself as potentially vulnerable from outside attack.The language of salvation that pertains to the soul is that of redemption; a buying back which constitutes a change of ownership. There is room for progress here too along the type of the conquest of Canaan. The conquest of the land was to have been a continual progress of victory following victory. I hear an echo of the possessing your possessions theme in the statement of the Lord; In your patience possess ye your souls. (Luk 21:19 KJV) As the Ark was carried into the land as a spiritual beachhead, so the regeneration of the spirit puts God's inward law and the symbol of His presence within the territory that is to be occupied and brought under God's perfect rule. Man without body is unclothed; For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. (2Co 5:1-3 KJV) So for God's triumph of redemption to be complete the body too must share in the victory. However, although the gift of the Spirit guarantees the future redemption of the body, that time is 'not yet'; For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. (Rom 8:20-23 KJV)So in our lineup of the 'usual suspects' for any continuing conflict we shall certainly include the body. Roman 8 is moving the story along. Paul's reference to 'your mortal bodies' with the qualifying adjective of 'mortal' is one of my reasons for seeing the 'body of sin' in Rom 6:6 as a 'mystical body'. As you have pointed out in some of your own studies the concept that the 'mortal body' is in itself sinful is Greek philosophy rather than Hebrew instinct or Divine revelation. Nevertheless the 'mortal body' has suffered from Sin's entrance into the world. It is significant to me that Paul refers to Sin entering into the 'world' rather than just the human race. This is one of the reasons that I do not think in terms of 'hereditory sin' passing from generation to generation. If it were this simple Eve who was separated from Adam prior to Genesis 3 would have escaped the unique contamination that has polluted the rest of the race, and the lower animal creation would not have been damaged either. Somehow, there is an 'organic' of the physical creation which was committed to Adam's care and the whole thing 'fell' in Adam.Paul says, quite clearly, that For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Rom 8:20-21 KJV) So we have 'a creation' that continues in the 'bondage of corruption'; corruption maintains its grip on this creation. There is a group of people referred to in Peter; While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. (2Pe 2:19-20 KJV) where the phrase 'servants/slaves of corruption' is very close to the phrase in Rom 8:21. But the folk referred to in Peter seem to be those who have become 'again entangled'. (One of the issues we will need to examine at some point is whether 'carnality' is the consequence of a lack of progression or the result of specific regression. cf For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. (Heb 5:12 KJV)) Our 'mortal body' and our humanity (which is more than physical) remains in permanent contact with a fallen world of which we are still 'part'. It can serve as a ready beachhead for enemy attack. This picture of the 'beachhead' is not so fanciful. The 'mortal body' must also be regarded as a suspect in the light of verses which use the Greek word 'aphormE'; For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. (Gal 5:13 KJV) and I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. (1Ti 5:14 KJV) There are other places where the word is used. The word was used in military language of a 'beachhead'; a fortified position established on a beach by invading forces. Our 'mortal body' is part of an 'unredeemed creation'and as such serves as an interface between me and a hostile environment. In Galatians 5:13 it is the liberty itself which can serve as a beach-head. Liberty is not an enemy but it is vulnerable territory. In the Galatian passage it is the 'flesh' which is the invader; we shall really need to spend some time defining 'the flesh' later.There is another passage of scripture which I think is highly suggestive. Having declared that we are to 'count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations, James later continues; Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (Jam 1:12-15 KJV) The roots of the words for 'temptation' in the earlier verses and 'tempt' here are the same. However, what we have here is a unique description of a process which results in sin and death.James speaks of temptation and identifies it as being the consequence of allurement and entrapment. Sin is seen to be the result of a solicitation. Adam Clarke says there is a double metaphor; the first referring to the dragging a fish out of the water by a hook which it had swallowed, because concealed by a bait; the second, to the enticements of impure women, who draw away the unwary into their snares, and involve them in their ruin. The enticing principle is said to be 'his own strong desire'. 'epithumias' is a word which can be used in widely differing circumstances; And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: (Luk 22:15 KJV) doubles the word for intensity. Men and women have 'strong desires' within them; they were created so; And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Gen 3:6 KJV) - 'desired' is the word translated 'covet' in the commandments. I think we may be seeing two parties here; the strong desires which draw out and an enticing from outside. The strong desires are fertile and they 'takes hold'; this is the language of conception. But what do they take hold of? In every conception there is a giver and a receiver. The receiver is the strong desires but who is the giver? The giver is plainly the 'father' of this event; who can this be? I see an ominous replay here of temptation which is received by something entering in the human race; the desire fertilized by the wrong 'father' which results in sin leading to death. This is what happened to the first man; it is the architype of sin repeated in its measure in every other sin that was every committed; He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1Jo 3:8 KJV) Only in one man was the enticing offer refused and the seed rejected; Christ Himself. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (Joh 8:44 KJV) All sin has its origin in Satan, but the conception takes place in human beings.One day we will be immortal but until them we live here in our 'mortal body' and Satan's attacks continue. The temptations are not an unmitigated disaster; in each temptation there is a potential victory. In each slander there is an opportunity to cleave to the truth of God's character. I am reminded of a WWII general who addressed his troops; "gentlemen we are surrounded to the north, south, east and west by enemy troops. They won't get away this time!"For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.(Rom 16:19-20 KJV) God will do the bruising but He has determined to use your feet!

This is the kind of ruthless logic I appreciateI knew you could answer it and you have done well. s you have pointed out in some of your own studies the concept that the 'mortal body' is in itself sinful is Greek philosophy rather than Hebrew instinct or Divine revelation. Nevertheless the 'mortal body' has suffered from Sin's entrance into the world.Perhaps I was wrong in condemning the concept merely because it might be Greek (dualism). It was my position before my days debating at the Jewish Institute. As a matter of fact, I suggested to the Jewish men that circumcision of the heart was the putting off of the sins of the body- therefor circumcision of the flesh was an outward expression of an inward work. The foreskin of the heart was a 'type' of our sinful body that Christ must circumcise ultimately at physical death. That drew fire like you can't believe. To me the body has always been suspect. Why would Paul say that a man and woman (married) must use caution and come together again lest the Devil tempt us for our lack of self-control. The act of joining again has the effect of somehow dispelling a physiological need and temptation and desire flees. These must be weaknesses of the body itself. Paul says, quite clearly, that For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Rom 8:20-21 KJV)I have always taught this as the creature being in a state of 'inutility.' Is that wholly accurate?For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. (Heb 5:12 KJV))I have always seen this as a 'regression' caused by a refusal to 'exercise' or control the senses; i.e. - letting all sorts of stuff in the eyes and ears causes the regression. We are charged to 'exercise the senses to discern good and evil.' To me this is right where carnality starts. If not here it is a refusal to lay aside the weights that make provision for the flesh- or create a 'beachhead' for the enemy to attack from by charging into the eyes and ears, etc. with thoughts and imaginations that exalt against the knowledge of God.Looking forward to you defining the flesh! This is excellent material and I followed it well with many smiles :-). God Bless,-Robert

Just a few notes on anointing:In our examination of the ideas behind the word 'baptism' it may be helpful to say clearly what baptism 'is not'. It 'is not' to be confused with 'anointing' either in Christ's own experience or that of his followers. 'baptism' is immersion and emergence. 'anointing' is out-pouring and be-smearing. The word Christ means 'anointed one' and would immediately link with prophets, priests, kings, tabernacles, and altars in the mind of a 1st century Jew. (The Hebrew is Messiah). For the 1st century hearer then, the title Christ immediately had connotations of the unique setting apart and authorization of men or things for unique purposes. These connotations are present in several specific texts. Four references to 'anointing' are references to The Anointed One, Christ; The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, (Luk 4:18 KJV) We can see the clear link between 'anointing' and specific purpose here.The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, (Act 4:26-27 KJV)again we can see the purpose of anointing is to identify someone for a specific role.How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Act 10:38 KJV)Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Heb 1:9 KJV)This verse links Christ's enthronement with an anointing as priest. Ps 110 and Zechariah 6:13We then have 3 further uses of the word 'anoint' and its cognates in the NT.Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; (2Co 1:21 KJV)But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. (1Jo 2:20 NASB)But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1Jo 2:27 KJV)The pentecostal/charismatic use of the idea 'an anointing on the meeting' or 'an anointed singer/preacher' is foreign to scriptural use. In this sense the idea is never used of an individual (other than Christ) in the NT. They are all 'shared' anointings. The plural 'you' being used in each case. What then does the idea of 'anointing' convey in the scriptures? Mainly that of identification, separation to a task and authorization. Conscious power is not a main thrust of the picture. In the UK our monarchs are still 'anointed' at their coronation. The Queen was seated in the Coronation Chair. A small canopy was held above her as the Archbishop anointed her with the holy oil, the most sacred part of the service. The oil was contained in the eagle-shaped ampulla and poured into a 12th century silver-gilt anointing spoon... Anointing was the formal recognition of 'God's man'. David was anointed three times, once by Samuel, once by Judah, and once by all Israel, but only in the first instance is the empowering of the Spirit mentioned. (1Sam 16:13, 2 Sam 2:4, 2 Sam 5:3) The NT concept has the 'anointing' abiding 'within' and is, again, a corporate reference rather than a personal one. The wisdom God has given is 'collective' rather than individual.In OT usage the 'anointed' priest was a description of the high priest. Although the scriptures refer to Aaron's sons being 'anointed' a close examination of Lev 8 will show that they were actually 'sprinkled' with the 'anointing oil'. Thus they 'shared' their High Priest's anointing; so may we. In NT usage 'anointing' is not an occasional event but the steady state of those rightly related to Christ. Campbell Morgan's pattern seems to have scriptural warrant:One BaptismMany FillingsConstant Anointing

just a few notes on dunamis-powerBut there are several references which speak quite specifally of power in relation to Jesus' promise of the coming Spirit, and it is these verses which have become the focus of attention for pentecostal/charismatic Bible students. The best known are probably;And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. (Luk 4:14 KJV)And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.(Luk 24:49 KJV)But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Act 1:8 KJV)For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. (2Ti 1:7 KJV)The NT has several different words for power. exousia really means 'authority'; the kind of 'power' that enables a police-officer to stop the traffic. However, the word for 'power' in the above verses is always 'dunamis'. Preachers are quick to link 'dunamis' to dynamite. I recall a preacher once declaring; "Jesus promised you would be clothed with dynamite, and that means 'no smoking'. 100% for enterprize,I think, but rather less for exogesis. Dynamite-power is sudden, destructive, and quickly over. This is not the kind of power that 'dunamis' speaks of. Other preachers prefer the link with dynamo, and this is a happier picture of pentecostal power. But dunamis really means 'inherent power'. The kind of power that something has by virtue of its nature. Conequently an army's strength/power would be expressed in terms of numbers of soldiers; the army has 6000 soldier-power because it has 6000 soldiers. In fact its cognates are the usual words for 'able'. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:25 KJV) 'able' here, and almost everywhere else in the NT is 'dunamai'. Christ has the 'power' alright but by virtue of who He is; the continuing High Priest. The important thing to note is that 'dunamis' is never 'bolt-on' power, or for that matter 'detachable power'; it is always inherent power. There is an interesting illustration in the life of Nebuchnezzer; Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. (Dan 4:16 KJV) and its consequence as seen later; ...and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws. (Dan 4:33 KJV). This is a powerful illustration. See how the change of heart determines his nature. His 'power' of being 'beastlike' came from the inherent nature. This is a consistent Bible truth; the only way to thoroughly change the behaviour is to change the heart. This powerful truth is captured in the original promise; but ye shall receive power at the coming of the Holy Spirit upon you, and ye shall be witnesses to me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the end of the earth. (Act 1:8 YLT) If we follow the timeline of this verse we discover when the Holy Spirit has arrived you 'shall receive dunamis' and 'you shall be witnesses'. Note that what we have here is primarily 'power to be' rather than 'power to do'. Of course, if the nature is changed the behaviour will be changed. This verse is neither a promise nor a command; it is simple statement of fact 'when He comes this will happen'.There is an interesting link with an earlier reference to the work of the Spirit; 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 thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luk 1:35 KJV) Here too we have the ideas of the Holy Spirit coming upon someone and the dunamis of the Highest overshadowing. These mysterious words were the only explanation we have for the incarnation. Did Mary remember these words when she heard similar ones prior to His ascension? The challenging thought here is that when these words were spoken to Mary the topic was inward conception rather than bolt-on power.the sense of 'dunamis' then is the outward expression of an inward nature. This is not to deny that the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost was in some way related to power, but only to draw attention to the nature of the power. It is 'holy' power as a result of the coming of the 'holy' Spirit. Some high-profile UK charismatics are adamant that the coming of the Spirit has no bearing upon sanctification but is only to equip the saints to work and witness, but how could this be? One of the very few things we know about the Spirit is that He is holy. How could be enter a believer and leave His character outside?

Do you recall the title 'what really happened at Azuza Street'? How about 'what really happened at Cornelius' place' There are several unique features about Cornelius, especially that this is the first comprehensive Gentile experience of 'baptism in the Spirit'. Perhaps we should justify that phrase first?When Peter justified his entering into Cornelius house he did so in terms of the Holy Spirit's leading. He went on to justify Cornelius' experience by using the language of 'baptism in Spirit'; And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. (Act 11:15-16 KJV) This is a rich passage; it includes1. the sense of suddenness; the Holy Spirit fell on them2. a tie into their own unquestionable experience in Acts 2; as on us at the beginning3. the identification of this experience with the phrase 'baptism in Spirit'.This is clearly a repeat of Acts 2 but without the wind and fire. The language used to describe the narrative is very wide.The story begins with Cornelius' command to send for Peter; And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. (Act 10:5-6 KJV) Peter gives more details of this event in Acts 11 and declares that the purpose of his visit to Corenlius was Cornelius' salvation; And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. (Act 11:13-14 KJV)Cornelius would have been a credit to most churches today. He was devout, gave charitable gifts, was constant in prayer, fasted, had visions of angels. He also knew of Christ's preaching and miracles; The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Act 10:36-38 KJV)But, apparently, he still needed to be 'saved' and for this he needed Peter's words. Cornelius experience, like so many, had been culmulative but was still incomplete.Peter certainly added to Cornelius store of information; And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Act 10:39-43 KJV) This new information includes the facts that Christ has risen, will be Judge of living and dead, is the fulfillment of OT prophecy and, that as a consequence of faith in Him believers would have their sins remitted. This is a wonderful summary of the gospel and we may presume that Cornelius and his house-meeting believed; Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?(Act 11:17 KJV) The mood is pregnant; While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. (Act 10:44 NASB)The conservative Jewish believers were amazed that; on the Gentiles was poured out (another image) the gift of the Holy Spirit. Traditional Pentecostal denominations have found strong evidence here for their doctrine of 'the initial evidence' of speaking with tongues. The Jewish witness, seven in all, witnessed an epoch opening event; Gentiles had received the Spirit just as we did. When Peter reported this to the gathered saints in Jerusalem their response was significant: When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. (Act 11:18 KJV). There logic was God has given them 'repentance unto life'. In the space of a few sentences Cornelius and his friends came to genuine faith and a repentance that opened the way to life. God's response was to baptize them in the Holy Spirit. For the reluctant folks back at Jerusalem God's response to Cornelius was conclusive proof that salvation was opened to the Gentiles.There is a post-script to this story. Some years later at the Jerusalem conference Peter gave his evidence; And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Act 15:8-9 KJV) He boldly declares that what happened at the home of Cornelius was that 'hearts were purified, by faith'. This is new evidence; it was not recorded in Acts 10 or 11. Why would Peter make such an assertion? Because he knew that this is what happened when people were 'baptized in the Holy Spirit'. It seems that in the space of few moments, Cornelius believed, repented unto life, received the Holy Spirit and had his heart purified by faith. There is a dimension to baptism in the Spirit which has almost become lost here. God, who knew their hearts, bore witness to them by giving them the Spirit. This eliminated all differences between Jew and Gentile and brought in heart purity. Yes, they spoke with tongues and magnified God, but something had happened on the inside too; their hearts were purified by faith.The Second Blessing Holiness people said 'Baptism in the Spirit produces a clean heart'. The Pentecostals said Baptism in the Spirit 'gives power for service'. Why quarrel? Why set one truth against the other?

Why quarrel? Why set one truth against the other?Excellent points! Certainly there is no quarrel here. I think that the problem is in the selective separation of the offices of both the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus for personal convenience. When you receive Christ you are receiving all that He is; Savior, Lord, etc., so too the Holy Spirit cannot be separated into components such as power or holiness; He comes as His complete person or not at all. But now I have the problem of squaring that truth with the commonly held beliefs that "we don't need more of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit needs more of us." Perhaps the answer lies in your earlier premise that the Spirit comes not to give us power to DO but to BE martrs (witnesses). Not to witness, but to be a witness. It also makes me realize again the direct link between our submission to the Holy Spirit in producing holiness and our boldness as witnesses. They are inseperable in my experience; yet your tractate spells out with clarity why that is. I'm sure you know I'm getting quite nervous at this point. ;-) If a person is indeed baptised in the Holy Spirit at conversion there seem to be a few anomolies in Acts to this. Acts 19:2 for one seems to suggest that the people 'believed'- but not necessarily that they were born again I suppose. There is also a pattern of believe, baptise, and filled with the Spirit (not necessarily in that order). I do not discount the truth that they should all occur at once; but now we get into a real sticky area. We have to be prepared to suggest that when a person is genuinely saved they receive the Holy Spirit like unto the book of Acts and become witnesses with either the evidence of tongues or speaking the word with boldness. Thats a lot to say in one sentence. Almost like walking out on a limb and sawing it off. This is instant sanctification and power to BE a witness the likes of which are RARELY ever seen in modern 'conversions.' I'm not saying its wrong necessarily- I'm just surveying the vast ramifications of such a thought and how it could possibly play out soteriologically. :-o God Bless,-Robert

Hi RobertI'm sure you know I'm getting quite nervous at this point.I am glad you raised it. If you had not, I would have had to. Now I have the job of trying to explain my understanding without folks putting me into a pigeon hole and switching channels.;-)The difficult lies in our presuppositions. Both the Holiness folks and the Pentecostals have concluded that the culminating 'experience' is to be called the Baptism in the Spirit. The Holiness folk say Sanctification is achieved by an event called 'Baptism in the Spirit', the Pentecostals say the empowering of a believer is achieved by an event called the 'Baptism in the Spirit'. For each the final event is called Baptism in the Spirit.Some time ago I was playing about with something I called Theological Algebra and posted it on a different thread; I will repeat it here. It may serve as I kind of 'international translator' so that when someone uses a phrase like 'baptism in the Spirit' you will have an idea of what they mean by it.1.The Keya. -> signifies "leading to..."b. / signifies "otherwise knows as.."c. = signifies "is the same as.."2. the Reformed (Calvinist) positiona. regeneration > conversion > sealing of Spirit/assurancei. Calvinists regard conversion as the evidence of regenerationii. but do allow for an assurance/witness of the Spirit to come lateriii. this would have been Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones' essential position3. the Brethren positiona. conversion/regeneration = baptism in Spiriti. Brethren used to say that conversion = regenerationii. they also distinguished between Standing and State1) i.e. what we are In Christ and what we are In Experience2) "reckoning" on the fact of what we are in Christ brings us into a conscious experience.iii. Standing and State become identical.1) This is Watchman Nee's position.iv. however, there are now some Charismatic Brethren4. the Wesleyan Holiness positiona. conversion/regeneration > pure heart/sanctification/baptism in Spiriti. Wesley taught concerning justification and regeneration that in order of time "neither of these is before the other... but that in order of thinking... justification precedes the New Birth." Sermon on The New Birthii. Wesley didn't use the phrase "baptism in Spirit", but John Fletcher of Madeley didiii. Wesleyans used the phrase Perfect Love, or Christian Perfection to describe the experience of sanctificationb. Later Wesleyan Holiness (Church of the Nazarene etc.,) people called this The Second Blessing or Sanctification5. the Keswick positiona. conversion/regeneration > sanctification (as a process with a definite beginning)i. Wesleyan Holiness teaches that the root of sin is removed in a moment of time1) the Weslyan Holiness was held by Samuel Chadwick, Paget Wilkes, Cambpell Morgan (a varient)ii. Keswick Holiness teaches that the power of sin (or the old nature) remains but may be overpowered daily by the Spirit's life1) The Keswick position was held by J.C.Ryle, Andrew Murray, Donald Barnhouse, The Billy Graham Organization6. the Pentecostal Holiness positiona. conversion/regeneration > pure heart/sanctification > power for service/baptism in Spiriti. the first "Pentecostals" were Wesleyan Holiness with a subsequent "empowering" experience of the Spirit7. the Pentecostal/Charismatic positiona. conversion/regeneration > power for service/baptism in Spiriti. Charismatics are Pentecostals in non Pentecostal denominations1) some Pentecostals insist on tongues as the initial evidence of baptism in Spirit2) NB the idea of a crisis in which the Spirit deals with the root of sin has no real place in Charismatic teaching.b. some Anglo Catholic and Roman Catholic Charismatics believe in baptismal regeneration of infants8. Some modern charismaticsa. repentance + conversion/regeneration + water baptism + power for service/baptism in Spirit = full initiation into Christ.9. RB position as at 18 Oct 2004 !!a. baptism in Spirit = conversion > (regeneration + union + full repentance + pure heart/sanctification + power for service + assurance)i. i.e. full immersion into all the flowing, living life of God!ii. Galatians 3:27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.iii. 2 Corinthians 5:17Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.In my personal pilgrimage through this Theological Algebra I have been Keswick, followed by Pentecostal/Charismatic, followed by Pentecostal-Holiness, and have held my current understanding for about 30 years, however 'watch this space....'The charismatics of No 8 seem closest to my own understanding but there are big differences too. The modern charismatics have no specific place in their theology for 'sanctification' and some deny it absolutely. The essence of my understanding is that the whole 'full' initiation into Christ is 'Baptism in the Spirit', rather than 'Baptism in the Spirit' being the final event of that initiation. Consequently 'Baptism in the Spirit' is a process, though it need not take time, which puts us in Christ in all His Fulness.I note that the Acts uses the phrase specifically only in Acts 2 and Acts 10, where in each instance a comprehensive event is in view.I have to add a hurried disclaimer. I do not identify the 'Baptism in the Spirit' by single outward or inward criteria. Not power, not assurance, not sanctification. What do I understand by 'baptism in the Spirit'? All of it. Can it happen in a moment? Why not? a day is as a 1000 years. Can the process be spread over a longer period? Why not? a 1000 years is as a day. Let me illustrate; Paul's 'initiation into Christ' took 3 days. Was that a single unit of time? a biblical 'day'? Cornelius' 'initiation into Christ' took less than 5 minutes. Was thata single unit of time? a biblical 'day'? The Samaritans experience seems to have been over several days or even weeks. The Ephesians' experience may have been over several months. I'll let you digest (or choke) a while before continuing...

baptism in Spirit = conversion > (regeneration + union + full repentance + pure heart/sanctification + power for service + assurance)Hi Bro. Ron,Do I understand you to mean that conversion leads to (>) (regeneration + union + full repentance + pure heart/sanctification + power for service + assurance)? Would that mean that conversion and (regeneration + union + full repentance + pure heart/sanctification + power for service + assurance) are seperate experiences that can play out in a moment of time or could progressively take months? Do you define sanctification as walking before God without any conscious sin or do you have a different position? Does power for service imply full access to the gifts of the Spirit.God Bless,-Robert********

Hi all,The distinctions of when and how are best summed up with these two scriptures:Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truthJohn 17:17But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth2 Thess 2:13So both of them the word and the spirit are agents of the same process, namely sanctification. I think that the distinction 'filled' and 'baptized' compartmentalizes who he is and his actions within the believer. In the references in the gospels talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit it speaks of it as the primary gift that Jesus would bring. John 1:33; Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 Maybe in the gospel writers minds being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit were so inextricably linked that there was no distinction made. If you had been born again, you had to have received the spirit. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Eph 4:30It is saying in essence you would not have been born again if the holy spirit hadn't come on you. Having him meant that on that day the Lord would know those that are his.When I think of the word baptism, the image of a person totally submerged in water comes to mind. It is totally in the water, so the water holds and surrounds the person, that person can be said to be 'in' the water. The scripture says that we are in Christ.In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.Rom 6:11 The context here is of baptism which we have spoken about before as an expression of a reality of being saved. So baptism in the Spirit happened at the momment of conversion. I am in Christ if you follow my reasoning.Here is another play on words:For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. Col 2:9,10Seems from this verse that when I received Christ Jesus as Lord I received the fullness of God. So I have been filled already. So as a reality of being born again I am baptized into Christ having received everything that Jesus wanted me to receive. I am as a present reality full of the Holy Spirit. The question would then be raised why does Paul tell us to be continually filled? If we have this all at conversion why must we be continually filled?Gee, those are good questions, which I am battling to articulate. The focus of his thought is more on what He does than the act of being filled. In Ehp 5:18 he ties together the affect of wine and the parrallel of what it means to be filled with the Spirit. Create an environment by your actions that is condusive to the Holy Spirit being free and willing to exert influence over a person.and be not drunk with wine, in which is dissoluteness, but be filled in the Spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. Eph 5:18,19 YLTit implies an action of reminding yourself what and who God is, what he has done. The picture is to fill your senses with him, engage him and the eyes of your heart will be enlightened to see him and hear him. We don't lose the Holy Spirit, he is always in us, we can't ask for more of him. We have got all of him.So the realities are that I am baptised in the Spirit and filled with the Spirit at the momment of conversion, based on the scriptures above.

Hi RobertDo I understand you to mean that conversion leads to (>) (regeneration + union + full repentance + pure heart/sanctification + power for service + assurance)? Would that mean that conversion and (regeneration + union + full repentance + pure heart/sanctification + power for service + assurance) are seperate experiences that can play out in a moment of time or could progressively take months?I think each is an event, with a specific beginning. but I think an event may have taken place for some time before we identified as such. I think the Acts 15 reference to 'hearts purified by faith' may be instructive here. This comment is quite a few years after the event. In my own personal experience I had a crisis in which God assured me that He had done what I asked. Although it was a long time before I understood what is was I had really asked for and its implications in everyday life.In a sense the duration of the event is not my main concern. Natural birth takes a while with many parts to the process but there comes a point before which the baby is 'not born' and another point at which it 'is born'. The parts are all vital to the result, but we can really only declare the result at a point in time.In an individual the important thing is to have consciously received the Holy Spirit. These 'events' may then have dates but they may also be successive revelations of who God is and what He has done. I think each of these events becomes a state and as such is capable of development. Initial repentance would be an event but there is also a disposition of repentance, which in the languge of Ezekiel appears as the consequence of the new heart; Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations. (Eze 36:31 KJV) which in this place follows cleansing, a new heart, fruitfulness etc...In a simplistic way I would say that it is all in the Spirit; regeneration, sanctification, empowering for service. If we have Him we have in essence all that is in Him. Just as the whole tree and its fruit is in the seed. The seed may take time to develop but the full gift of the life was there from the beginning.Our consciousness of the 'full gift' may come in different ways, and has been expressed differently by different schools. The key thing is genuinely being placed into Christ the person. I don't identify this with the traditional language of 'decision' 'accepting Christ' etc. I think those are valid responses to God but I think we often put too much theology into the responses. To me the deciding factor is do I have the Spirit, not as a deduction from proof texts but as an experiential reality. The early 'Christians' of Acts never needed our 'assurance theology'. The question was 'did you receive the Spirit'? and such a question implies a clear answer. Do you define sanctification as walking before God without any conscious sin or do you have a different position?Again, sanctification can be viewed as an event and a process. All processes must have a point of origin. I regard 'walking before God without any conscious sin' as the consequence of a sanctification event, although the receiver may not use that language at all. Sanctifiation, at root, just means 'His'. This is someone who has passed from death to life, from the power of darkness into the kingdom of the beloved Son. The recipient may just become aware of a new enabling of continual dependence upon Him that makes a new way of living possible, and he may well falter in ignorence of the significance of what has happened to him. Does power for service imply full access to the gifts of the Spirit.Not to quibble but because I think the emphasis is important; it implies full access of 'me' to the Holy Spirit. The 'gifts of the Spirit' are referred to in 1 Cor as the 'manifestation of the Spirit'; this is God revealing Himself. I don't think of these 'gifts' as being located in the believer in an absolute sense. They are ways in which the Holy Spirit manifests Himself. If I have the Spirit within I believe I have the Giver who is not detachable from His 'gifts'.My emphasis in all this is upon 'receiving the Spirit'. It seems to me that this is the normal way of describing the entrance of 'the eternal life that is in Christ Jesus'. He that hath the Son hath life... but how does the Son take up residence? and this is the crunch... I can see no biblical explanation other than by the Spirit.This is the trouble I got myself into on another thread.;-) I was not trying to distinguish between 'receiving' or 'accepting' Christ, I was pleading for a use of biblical language so that we can better understand what we are talking about. The biblical references to 'receiving Christ' have no point of connection with the way that evangelicals have come to use them. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Joh 1:11-13 KJV) These verses do not say that if we respond at an evagelistic meeting we are born again. It says those who received Him and his testimony in the days of His flesh were given the 'right to become' children of God. This is much the same promise as was made in John 7:37-39. That was a post-dated promise and until the day was 'fully come' it could only remain a promise. This is future potential not easy believism. This is one of Tozer's familiar themes; textualism and its ills. that's enough for a single post, I think.

Hi ZekeOwelcome to our little world...Maybe in the gospel writers minds being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit were so inextricably linked that there was no distinction made.I think you are right.Maybe in the gospel writers minds being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit were so inextricably linked that there was no distinction made.Conversion and regeneration are not synonyms. Conversion always has a human agent in the scriptures; on occasion we are required to 'convert ourselves' (Acts 3:19); regeneration, on the other hand, always has God as the agent. The Arminians says that it is our turning of ourselves that causes God to regenerate us. The Calvinist says that only when God has regenerated us can we 'convert/turn ourselves'.In my theological algebra I use 'conversion' in the sense of man's response to God.

Ok -- I understand what you're saying here and It's excellent!One baptism many fillings as the old timers used to say.What then is the difference between Unction/Anointings/and Fillings??Or is there any?Any light you can share would be very much appreciated.Thank You// In Christ--Bro. Daryl

Hi DarylI've not really got to the 'fillings' yet in detail; that will come. As regards the difference between anointings and fillings, one of my earlier posts tried to point out that, biblically, 'the anointing' is Christ's own anointing that He shares with us. The picture is of separation to a task and specific authorization as in the OT with priest, prophets and kings. The pentecostal/charismatic use of the word to describe someone who seems particularly 'helped' by God in prayer or preaching etc is not really biblical. It may well be that 'filling' is much more appropriate here.In these notes I have been trying to be ruthlessly biblical. Our normal pattern is to argue backwards from our position or our theology. I have tried to start with the bible and say what did the early Christians understand by these kind of terms.

To me the deciding factor is do I have the Spirit, not as a deduction from proof texts but as an experiential reality. The early 'Christians' of Acts never needed our 'assurance theology'. The question was 'did you receive the Spirit'? and such a question implies a clear answer. This is the question of the ages. Without the Spirit you will not be resurrected in the first resurrection. For me the question then becomes one of quantity and evidence. What does it mean to "have the Spirit"? Does it mean that you feel conviction of sin? This cannot be because sinners feel conviction. Does it mean because I can cast out devils and perform many acts of dunamis (wonderful works)? This cannot be because many will say in that day "Lord Lord" and will be sent away for all eternity. Does it mean the fruit of the Spirit, that is, fruit unto holiness? I would have to say yes because the end of these things is everlasting life. Not self-righteousness or Pharaisism, but genuine godly fruition brought forth as a result of being fed by the vine. Again, sanctification can be viewed as an event and a process. All processes must have a point of origin. I regard 'walking before God without any conscious sin' as the consequence of a sanctification event, although the receiver may not use that language at all.A lot of my misunderstandings of your positions in the past have been directly related to my use of traditional definitions of these terms applied to your statements. You were pouring different meanings into the words than I was. Nonetheless, your meanings are more biblical I believe. Do you see a person as being 'positionally' in Christ from the point in which they were converted although they may still be struggling with areas of sin or may be in some ways getting their life untangled. Can a person fall from this position by yielding to temptation over and over until their fall into darkness has become a "walking in darkness?" I don't think of these 'gifts' as being located in the believer in an absolute sense. They are ways in which the Holy Spirit manifests Himself. If I have the Spirit within I believe I have the Giver who is not detachable from His 'gifts'We would say in our Pentecostal circles that the gifts are resident in the Holy Spirit and that anyone who has the Spirit may be used in the gifts. I think that is similar to what you are saying. These verses do not say that if we respond at an evagelistic meeting we are born again. It says those who received Him and his testimony in the days of His flesh were given the 'right to become' children of God.Trouble you may have found but I well understand your point. Jesus said, "FOLLOW ME and I will make you to become..." I have given several invitations this year for unbelievers to follow Christ. I told them the gospel. I told them to count the cost. When they said they would follow Christ I asked them if they would follow the Lord in water baptism. I figure if they have passed from death to life their 'meat' will be to do the will of their Father. And the first revelation of that will once they have crossed over is to be baptised. Some did and some did not. Thanks for all the input! it is a great help.God Bless

Hi RobertThis is the question of the ages. Without the Spirit you will not be resurrected in the first resurrection. For me the question then becomes one of quantity and evidence. What does it mean to "have the Spirit"?... Does it mean the fruit of the Spirit, that is, fruit unto holiness?In the late 1950s, A. W. Tozer wrote about what he called "the error of textualism," which has its counter-part in today's "wordism." This is what he said: "The error of textualism is not doctrinal. It is far more subtle than that and much more difficult to discover, but its effects are just as deadly. Not its theological beliefs are at fault, but its assumptions."It assumes, for instance, that if we have the word for a thing we have the thing itself. If it is in the Bible, it is in us. If we have the doctrine, we have the experience. If something was true of Paul it is of necessity true of us because we accept Paul's epistles as divinely inspired."The Bible tells us how to be saved, but textualism goes on to make it tell us that we are saved, something which in the very nature of things it cannot do. Assurance of individual salvation is thus no more than a logical conclusion drawn from doctrinal premises, and the resultant experience wholly mental." (Man: The Dwelling Place of God, A. W. Tozer, page 18, copyright 1966 Christian Publications, Inc., Harrisburg, PA.) On another occasion he remarked that 'for the biblical doctrine of the witness of the Spirit we have substituted logical deductions drawn from proof texts'. I am prefacing what I want to say with these quotes as a disclaimer... I believe the 'evidence' is the witness of the Spirit, but by the witness of the Spirit I don't mean the evangelical doctrine of assurance 'drawn from proof texts'. I mean an inward knowledge that He has come. This inward knowledge is absolutely crucial as we have an enemy who is master of counterfeit and deception. We must know what God has done by inward witness or we are wide open to the slanderer.I would expect this to evidenced by 'the fruit of the Spirit' but fruit is the result of process and we must give God time to get the new life flowing. Another caution I would have about fruit is that I think the general state of the child of God will be conscious repentance and unconscious holiness. The instinct of the child of God regarding fruit is always for 'more', so no 'quantity' will every furnish absolute proof. Do you see a person as being 'positionally' in Christ from the point in which they were converted although they may still be struggling with areas of sin or may be in some ways getting their life untangled. Can a person fall from this position by yielding to temptation over and over until their fall into darkness has become a "walking in darkness?"I am not comfortable with the positional position!! It seems to leave the door open for schizophrenic Christianity. I do believe that we need to reckon ourselves to be dead indeed... but this injuction is for those who have 'been buried with him by baptism into the death'. My concern is that so much of modern evangelicalism is mind-games and brain-washing. I do believe that there are two main reasons why 'Christians' don't enjoy all the benefits of redemption; some 'perish for lack of knowledge' (and we preachers have a lot of responsibility here) and secondly... because they have not genuinely received another Spirit; they have believed truth and made decisions but not received Him. This is why is earlier postings I often use the phrase 'consciously receiving the Spirit'. I don't mean that there is an outward proof in tongues or tingles. Here's a crude illustration; when you were water baptized what were you most conscious of? Now don't get pious on me!;-) You were overwhelmingly conscious of water, water everywhere, over you, under you, in your ears, yours eyes... I see 'baptism in the Spirit' similarly, an overwhelming conscious of God and our being gathered into Him. To 'recover' from this is like coming out of sleep; somewhat disorientating. The well known 1 JOhn 5:11-13 has been used in evangelistic counselling now for over 50 years. It assumes that the 'record' of vs11 is the scripture, and that our salvation is assured because the Bible says so; this is the textualism that Tozer consistently attacked. The word 'record' is actually the same word 'witness' that is used throughout the passage. The counselling technique says 'you have asked Christ into your life 'in His name' and He always keeps his promises so He has come, now the record says that those who have Christ have eternal life, so you do have eternal life, so you are going to heaven...' I dare not tell you how strongly I feel about this brain-washing. What the previous verse says is 'He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself... If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for the witness of God is this, that he hath borne witness concerning his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he hath not believed in the witness that God hath borne concerning his Son. And the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life.(1Jo 5:9-12 ASV) In previous centuries the preachers would join the seekers at the 'mercy seat' and pray alongside until the seeker 'came into peace' or 'found joy in believing' or 'was comforted'. The whole language of those earlier generations is a standing accusation to our evangelistic methodology. I can't help but notice how 'subjective' those expressions are. These folk had not been 'persuaded' or 'counselled' they had met with God.In fact the thrust of 1 John 5:10 is to identify genuine faith. The genuine 'believer in the Son' hath the witness. Believing which comes short of having the witness is not sufficient. Wesley's testimony is classic; In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street,where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine,while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ,I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone,for salvation;and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins,even ine,and saved me from the law of sin and death. I began to pray with all my might for those who had in a more especial manner despitefully used me and persecuted me. I then testified openly to all there what I now first felt in my heart. "I felt I did trust Christ, Christ alone". This is the witness.We would say in our Pentecostal circles that the gifts are resident in the Holy Spirit and that anyone who has the Spirit may be used in the gifts. I think that is similar to what you are saying. Yes, I would be comfortable with that as long as we remember that His gifts are his disposings and not our rights or something that can be 'claimed'.

Wow, this is a very important thread. I just began it a bit closer today and need to go back out through the meat contained within.I have a question Ron. You said In previous centuries the preachers would join the seekers at the 'mercy seat' and pray alongside until the seeker 'came into peace' or 'found joy in believing' or 'was comforted'. The whole language of those earlier generations is a standing accusation to our evangelistic methodology. I can't help but notice how 'subjective' those expressions are. These folk had not been 'persuaded' or 'counselled' they had met with God.This would be the same experiencing as "praying through?" It's more than a mental assent but praying through until Christ himself gives the victory over whatever it is? That's where we meet Him I believe.Again the modern church's doctrine has confused me, when go back and look at the history of the church.

I mean an inward knowledge that He has come. This inward knowledge is absolutely crucial as we have an enemy who is master of counterfeit and deception. We must know what God has done by inward witness or we are wide open to the slanderer. This reminds me of something Paris Reidhead said in one of his books. I seem to recall that his position is that we must never tell a person they are saved- because only they know if they have the witness of the Holy Spirit. The same faculties that alert us that we are here and not there are the same faculties that tell us the Spirit is present. You were overwhelmingly conscious of water, water everywhere, over you, under you, in your ears, yours eyes... I see 'baptism in the Spirit' similarly, an overwhelming conscious of God and our being gathered into Him. To 'recover' from this is like coming out of sleep; somewhat disorientating.Yes I recall quite well. Good point. I dare not tell you how strongly I feel about this brain-washing.I understand. But how do you undo this type of teaching? It is deep in the hearts of many of todays ministers (especially ministers who lived and ministered in the 50's and 60's after the Billy Graham model) and even when they are confronted with "ask Jesus in your heart" and all these things- they keep on doing it week after week. I see it as rebellion to God's word because it does not call a person to repentance and surrender in any real way, yet they believe they are doing God a service. :-( I'm not saying people have not been saved under these methods, I am saying that it needs to be revisited.So we see then that the whole doctrine of conversion and also assurance is almost man made in our times. Is it the pressure of getting another person on the list? Were we not commanded to make disciples? Modern extrapolations of the book of Romans have not led to salvation in many cases- only a false assurance. On the flip side of that what would you say to a guy like my who has been baptized ;-) in an extreme version of Finney's theology my whole life and have to deal with people who believe that your always just one sin from hell?God Bless,-Robert

Terrific thread guys, some very good stuff to chew on here!This reminds me of something Paris Reidhead said in one of his books. I seem to recall that his position is that we must never tell a person they are saved- because only they know if they have the witness of the Holy Spirit. The same faculties that alert us that we are here and not there are the same faculties that tell us the Spirit is present.I'm curious, in light of Mr. Reidheads comments, how do we view what Jesus said to Zaccheus;And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. (Luke 19:8-9)It was after Zaccheus made evident the sincerity of his repentence in verse 8, that Jesus said salvation has come. Although the Spirit was not yet given, Zaccheus had received the gospel of Jesus and salvation had commenced. Jesus declared it so and also to his "house".In Christ,Ron

Although the Spirit was not yet given, Zaccheus had received the gospel of Jesus and salvation had commenced. Jesus declared it so and also to his "house".Good question! I would answer it by saying that Jesus said it was expedient for Him to go in order that the Comforter would come. In other words, Jesus said audibly what the Spirit would later say inwardly.

Brother Ron---thank you , I look forward to following your present discourse.I'm up to John the Baptist and tonight I'll take off from there.They've been a great source of edification.Thank you ----God Bless, Your Brother in Christ, Daryl

It was after Zaccheus made evident the sincerity of his repentence in verse 8, that Jesus said salvation has come.Although the Spirit was not yet given, Zaccheus had received the gospel of Jesus and salvation had commenced. Jesus declared it so and also to his "house".I would link together the words of Simeon...Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, (Luk 2:29-30 KJV) with those of Christ Himself...And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. (Luk 19:9 KJV) Christ is the personification of salvation and salvation is wherever He rules. His rule in the home Zaccheus is plainly demonstrated in Zaccheus' restitution of 'stolen goods'. To be 'saved' is a generic term for God's saving intervention and can be momentary as when Peter cried 'Lord, save me'. He was 'saved' in that moment and for that moment.Christ's presence interupts all kinds of 'dispensations'. Did you notice how people could not stay 'dead' when He was around? In John 5:28-29 Christ says the Resurrection is 'future' but in Himself the Resurrection had already drawn near; Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? (Joh 11:23-26 KJV)There is a lovely old Isaac Watt's hymn which saysBlessings abound where-ere He reignsThe prisoner leaps to lose his chains;The weary find eternal rest;And all the sons of want are blest.Wherever and whenever He reigns 'salvation has come to that house'. In fact the word for 'come' is ginomai which really means 'to be-come'. It as though Christ is saying 'salvation has been generated in this house'. 'Salvation' is 'generated' by the presence of Christ, and 'permanent salvation' can only be sustained by the continual presence of Christ.The flaw in the question (excuse me, inthelight :-) ) is the underlying idea that 'salvation' means heaven when we die. I'm not accusing you of this, Ron, only that this is what is often in the mind of the questioner. Was Abraham saved? means did he go to heaven? Heaven will be wonderful, but salvation is now. Was he saved while he was on earth? regularly!

This reminds me of something Paris Reidhead said in one of his books. I seem to recall that his position is that we must never tell a person they are saved- because only they know if they have the witness of the Holy Spirit. The same faculties that alert us that we are here and not there are the same faculties that tell us the Spirit is present.I didn't know of Paris Reidhead until I came to this site but this is a pattern I have long adopted. When I was a formal pastor it was a fairly regular hassle. Folk put great trust in a 'pastor' and could be desperate to hear the 'pastor' say they were 'born again'. I always felt that this was a prerogative of the Spirit that He would not delegate.

The flaw in the question (excuse me, inthelight ) is the underlying idea that 'salvation' means heaven when we die. I'm not accusing you of this, Ron, only that this is what is often in the mind of the questioner. Was Abraham saved? means did he go to heaven? Heaven will be wonderful, but salvation is now. Was he saved while he was on earth? regularly!I do understand that salvation means much more than just heaven and this is why I said that salvation had "commenced" in my original post. Salvation is "completed" when we are sanctified and received up to heaven.I certainly believe there can be a broad understanding of the phrase "salvation has come to this house" to involve Jesus as the personification of salvation however, Jesus wasn't just declaring there that He was Salvation but also that Zaccheus is in effect saved and all that that implies including deliverance from the guilt and power of sin.In Christ,Ron

I certainly believe there can be a broad understanding of the phrase "salvation has come to this house" to involve Jesus as the personification of salvation however, Jesus wasn't just declaring there that He was Salvation but also that Zaccheus is in effect saved and all that that implies including deliverance from the guilt and power of sin.Perhaps there's another way of looking at it. In this passage 'salvation' is apparently linked with Abraham and his covenant.And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. (Luk 19:9 KJV) Zaccheus had effectively excluded himself from the 'salvation' that was a benefit of being a 'son of Abraham', by his manner of life. His acceptance of the King as the ruling authority brought him back into that benefit?Now all we have to do is define Abraham's salvation! ;-) The 'son of Abraham' is an unique construction as far as I can see. Only Christ is called 'the son of Abraham' I think this suggests strongly that Zacceus has been 'restored' to salvation.

I posted this in the thread about True obedience by grace....that to the nations the blessing of Abraham may come in Christ Jesus, that the promise of the Spirit we may receive through the faith. Gal 3:14 YLT...in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.Gal 3:14 NASBThat the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Gal 3:14 KJVOk guys, does anyone know how this fits? :-? :-?

The 'son of Abraham' is an unique construction as far as I can see. Only Christ is called 'the son of Abraham' I think this suggests strongly that Zacceus has been 'restored' to salvation.Not as unique as I had thought perhaps! The word translated 'children' in the KJV is correctly translated 'sons' in (Gal 3:7 NASB) Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. But this links 'faith' with the concept of being a 'son of Abraham'. In this sense Zaccheus is re-instated as a 'son of Abraham' in the light of his obedience of faith, and salvation has 'been created' in his house.

Hi ZekeOThat the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Gal 3:14 KJV I have often struggled with this verse in the past. It is not so much the clear declaration of the verse but rather the context in which it is placed. Later on in this chapter Paul makes a clear distinction between the original states of Gentiles and Jews; But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal 3:23-27 NASB) I have switched to the NASB here because it distinguishes more clearly between the Greek words for child and son. The NASB here makes the point as he switches from 'we' to 'you'. This is a feature of Paul in other places, but he also sometimes uses 'we' as of 'we Christians' and then it comes down to providing the most consistent hypothesis, and not separating from brethren who have chosen another one!This Galatians section is part of Paul's proof that 'justification' was always 'by faith'. He has used his own experience , the Galatians' experience and now Abraham's experience to prove this same point. He says know ye, then, that those of faith--these are sons of Abraham, (Gal 3:7 YLT) This is his definition for genuine 'sons' of Abraham; they are people who have shared Abraham's justifying faith. Human genetics do not consititue 'sons of Abraham'. Sometimes Paul just drops out a little something in passing and you screetch to a halt to pick it up. v8 is such a 'little something'; And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed. (Gal 3:8 ASV) He says that the gospel was 'pre-preached' to Abraham in the promise that 'in thee shall all the nations be blessed'. In other words, right from the beginning of God's dealings with Abraham there was a dimension which would include non-blood-line peoples; the Gentiles. (Genesis 12:1-3)The Law could never guarantee this promised blessing. In fact, it could only promise a curse on those who did not keep it perfectly. The failure of the later Covenant people to keep the Law became a standing accusation against them and threatened to disqualify them from receiving the blessing. But the 'curse' has been born by another; Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Gal 3:13 KJV) Consequently 'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law. This is his use of 'we' that I referred to earlier. The Law made sin quantifiable and the written charge against those under the Law was insurmountable. We can see the same contrast in Colossians; And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col 2:13-14 KJV) Notice again the contrast between 'you' and 'us' and the reference to the 'handwriting of ordinances'. For the failed Jew Christ had erased the debt; the penalty (the curse) had been borne and the record (the handwriting) blotted out. But the promise was made to Abraham and his seed and the Gentile dimension is seen in the promise; and in thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. This is the 'blessing of Abraham' but how is it to be mediated to those who are not of his bloodline? The blessing certainly could not be mediated to the Gentiles by the keeping of a law. Consequently the law is seen as a parenthesis; it was added... until... (Gal 3:19) The law had never been God's channel through which blessing would come to anyone. It was 'added' because of transgressions and part of its purpose was to show the utter sinfulness of men. The law provided a means of quantifying sin and consequently when the law was in place 'sin could be reckoned'. (cf Rom 5:13)God had limited Himself to a channel however; and in thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. If Abraham's people block this channel by their disobedience does that obstruct God's plan to 'bless all nations of the earth'? That God put all His eggs into one Abrahamic basket is confirmed by a unique comment in Romans where Abraham is described... For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: (Rom 4:13-14 KJV) Abraham is the 'world's heir'! This verse also makes it plain that the 'inheritance' could not pass to the beneficiaries through the law. The promise was made to Abraham and his seed. This latter phrase is used in different ways in Galatians. In absolute terms the terminus of this promise is Christ; Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal 3:16 KJV) but those who are Christ's qualify because Christ is Abraham's seed; For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:27-29 KJV)The Gentile and the failed Jew can be united in a baptism into Christ; and when they are they partake of the inheritance promised to the Seed, hence 'are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise'. So how does this work from your verse b>in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Gal 3:14 NASB) Again I have opted for the NASB because of its more accurate translation of the preposition 'en'. The KJV says 'through Christ' the Greek and the NASB says 'in Christ'. The blessing promised to all nations was to be 'in Abraham'. The law could not block it because it never was designed to come by that route and the blockage 'the curse of the law' itself has been removed in Christ. The cross has removed all obstacles, but the benefit can only be mediated in one manner... by the promised Spirit who we receive through faith. The blessing was promised in Abraham; Christ is Abraham's Seed. How does God get the blessing to me; He put me into Christ. How? by the promised Spirit received by faith.This brings us back to an earlier conclusion... if being Christ's means I am Abraham's seed and an heir according to the promise, how do I become Christ's? But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Rom 8:9 KJV) Those who are His have His Spirit; And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Gal 4:6 KJV)

Br. Ron wrote:The Law could never guarantee this promised blessing. In fact, it could only promise a curse on those who did not keep it perfectly. The failure of the later Covenant people to keep the Law became a standing accusation against them and threatened to disqualify them from receiving the blessing. We know that a remnant has always existed. We know that no one can keep the whole law. Only those who recieved the promise, as did Abraham, could be an heir of the same promise. There is no difference between the writer of Psalm 119 and those who are heirs today. When God promises to be God to you, we are adopted by Him and become co heirs with Christ. This is all possible because of God's divine power backing up His promise to those who live by faith. In ChristJeff

This brings us back to an earlier conclusion... if being Christ's means I am Abraham's seed and an heir according to the promise, how do I become Christ's? But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Rom 8:9 KJV) Those who are His have His Spirit; And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Gal 4:6 KJV)In my prayer time I have felt strongly God leading me to look at the life of Abraham with the intent of understanding what God has really wanted to do through redemption. Certainly He did not want to create a bunch of Pharisees; people who have substituted religion for a relationship with God. A Pharisee can be a strict 'holiness' zealot for God- yet not according to knowledge (or on the other hand lax and sinful living in pretense). So what makes one a Pharisee is not the holiness and righteousness that those like Paul strove for; but it was the means by which they sought to obtain favor with God (which was works). Surely God's purpose in perfection is to clear the channels (as it were) of communication between us and Him that we might walk with God unthwarted by sin. No wonder people who in the time of Christ could be enemies of God and not see it- their whole starting position was wrong because they did not understand that God was the end of what they should have sought for- not the establishment of their own righteousness. So in this thread I see God's real purpose unfolding in my heart afresh. It has served to refocus what really matters. God wants us to walk with Him as did Abraham- that we might likewise be His friend. If we are children of Abraham should we not also be friends of God? Surely we are also His children. Having said all that to ask this: Would you consider the time being under a tutor (the Law) to be akin to the time in which a parent raises a child to adulthood? My relationship with my earthly father was much different as a child compared to now; as I am sure will be the case with my children as they become adults. There has to be something quite profound in the working of God by the addition of the law. I would love to be able to have the relationship with my children that my father and I now have- but that is impossible because I must train and discipline them. They are simply not in a place of maturity to be able to handle such a friendship yet, without being filled with all manor of contempt. The roles are such that the process of maturity is too fragile at this atage of their lives to befriend at a level that I would like- but in time it will be so. How does all this play out in our relationship with God as He chastens us and yet we are pressing to be His friend? God Bless,-Robert

Br. Robert wrote:So in this thread I see God's real purpose unfolding in my heart afresh. It has served to refocus what really matters. God wants us to walk with Him as did Abraham- that we might likewise be His friend. If we are children of Abraham should we not also be friends of God? Surely we are also His children. The subject of this thread has concentrated on an attempt to categorize or define limits to the work of the divine power of God. Yet, what does Jesus say?"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:8Robert, your thoughts, in the words quoted above, speak to the outcome of the work of the divine power of God. Not only Abraham, but all of those who are faithful, are given to us as examples of how God works in those who would hear and believe. Not only this but the Holy Scriptures teach us of all the ways man has rebelled against God. The Holy Scriptures teach us about God and man. The final question is do we submit to His divine power, or do we continue in the prideful depraved nature of man. Listen to the word of God."I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life..." Deuteronomy 30: 19-20In ChristJeff

Man without body is unclothed; For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. (2Co 5:1-3 KJV) So for God's triumph of redemption to be complete the body too must share in the victory. However, although the gift of the Spirit guarantees the future redemption of the body, that time is 'not yet'; For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. (Rom 8:20-23 KJV)Hi Bro. Jeff,I was reading the thread on perfection and wanted to revisit the above comment Bro. Ron Bailey made. I agree with this statement. I also think we should address why it is that if our mind is no longer carnal why we cannot come fully under the 613 laws of the OT. It would seem that we could be born again and then go back under the law again; yet Paul said that is another gospel. So there is something that still remains within us that is kicking against the goads as it were. It seems Bro. Ron believes (as I certainly to an extent concur) that the suspect in this phenomena is the body. There is something yet to be redeemed in this building that is making perfection a difficult thing. Do you have any input on that?God Bless,-Robert

Br. Robert,As I understand this point, at this moment in time, that, I can only share with others. We are given the promise of knowing the mind of Christ. Before this promise took effect in our life, we were not under this promise. If you look back to Genesis, we are given a genealogy of man. The seventh generation is more corrupt than the sixth. I believe that the nakedness that God's word speaks of, is the removal of His divine power's influence in the life of man. The original sin of Lucifer consisted of rebellion against his Creator. The sin of pride speaks to self rational thought. Without God, the rational thoughts of men lead men to his own destruction. The body, or flesh, or carnal mind is influenced by experiences outside of God's ways. All of creation has been subjected in futility. In Roman's chapter 1 it speaks of man rebelling against God. And God therefore gives them up to their own ways. The idea that I get from this is that with God removing His grace from man's life, this in effect, brings death to this individual. I believe God gives light to every man coming into this world. This light begins with man being given the law of God. This light convicts man of his depravity. This light gives man a chance to choose between life and death. The absence of light defines nature of the body, the flesh, the carnal mind. According to God's plan, He has placed all things under the bondage of corruption. According to His plan, there will come a day when we will see Christ as He is. Those who lived by faith will recieve Life. And those who rejected God will be judged. This absence or presence of light is the precept which seperates the seed of Satan and the Seed. Pride and ignorance or submission and understanding define the lost and the saved. The choice presented to us is this, do we submit or rebel. The blessings and the cursings are before us. Only through submission or faith, do we learn of His righteousness. To know His righteousness is to grow in the love of His truth. His gift to His creation is to understand His law. The growth, in understanding His law, causes us to cling to Him. What do we cling to now? The world values gold and silver. That is their treasure. As we are set apart by His giving us understanding of His righteousness, He replaces the desires we once had as rational men.There is always a battle in this life. Until His time comes to bear fully on His creation, man cannot know God as He is. Only by faith, living day by day, salvation unto salvation, do we grow closer to Him. Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, obeyed the law perfectly. It was the divine power of God that gave Jesus the understanding to obey perfectly. What does Scripture teach us about Jesus' life? Everything He saw the Father do He did. To know the will of God in every moment of life is the only way to obey perfectly. So I believe that knowing God's will for His creation is of the Spirit. Anything that exist outside of this precept keeps us in bondage to corruption. We are polluted by the corruption brought about by darkness. We are given the opportunity to be conveyed into His light. We are partakers of His Holy Spirit which allows us to see Christ dimly in this life. But it is enough to cause us to cling to Him. It is enough to cause us to be satisfied with the things that are not seen. But is is enough to put songs in our hearts. He is enough. In ChristJeff

Anything that exist outside of this precept keeps us in bondage to corruption.Hi Bro. Jeff,Good input. In this statement I see a large truth unfolding. Because of the other 'law' (the law of sin) that Paul found in his members that used the law of God as an occasion to rebel against God. To be free from the law is to keep the law of sin in a state of inutility. Yet we can't just be free to do what we want. The Spirit of God must lead us. We must obey and allow God to mold our hearts (as it were) into His perfect image. The Spirit of God will never lead us to sin. If we walk in the Spirit we are not under the Law. This keeps the law of sin in our members at bay until this corruption puts on incorruption at the last trump. If we are not walking in the Spirit we come back under the condemnation of the law and when that happens the law of sin begins to rise up in our members again and creating some kind of a struggle. Do you agree with these things? I would also like to hear what Bro. Ron's take is on these thoughts.God Bless,-Robert

Br. Robert wrote:To be free from the law is to keep the law of sin in a state of inutility.I can only speak of my experience. I know that God works in all of us in ways different from one another. What I mean to say is that, God has pinpointed the next stumbling block in my life. Likewise, He works in others according to His loving wisdom, and it is always to reveal a precept, or ordinance, or statute of the Life that glorifies Him. One man's sin of covetousness, differs from another man's sin of adultery. These are the outward manifestations of the root cause of why we sin. It centers on the desires of our hearts. Because we are naked when we are born of the flesh, we learn the ways of the world. We are tempted by the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. These temptations come from Satan. In our nature, we all have one thing in common. There is the precept of desire. Desire motivates us to strive for what we have learned to hope for. The world will teach us to strive after futile things. All of these things are the sum of how we have submitted to temptation. The existence of desire is not sinful. The path we choose to satisfy desire is sinful. It is sinful because we don't know God's will for us. We begin as the seed of Satan. Satan works to define the parameters of the hope that is in us. It will always lead to death. It will always lead to bondage. We become slaves to the hopes that destroy us. In Romans 1, Paul teaches that God also establishes His presences, His calling, in the lives of men. We are given enough light to know that God is. We are given enough light to convict us of our rebellion. We are given enough light that we understand that there is the Life. Our conscience speaks of a choice that all men must make. The choice is between righteousness and wickedness. The way God keeps the law of sin in a state of inutility, revovles around the divine power of His promise. Look at the nature of what a promise means. A promise implies that actions will be taken where the reciever of the promise will come to realize or understand the benefits of that promise. The New Covenant promises that the word of God will supplant the word of Satan. The word of God will change the substance of what we hope for. Our desire will motivate us to strive for something always. It is the substance of the things we hope for that change our life. If God's word grows in our minds and our hearts, the evidence of God's work will lead us away from the hopes that we once had. His word seperates us from the hopes that have been previously nurtured in us by the lies of Satan. The times where I read His word and meditate constantly on the things I don't understand, these are the times that are most fulfilling in my life. These times of fulfillment also reflect times in my life where I am less interested in worldly things. So I understand, that to keep sin in the state of inutility, is to not focus on sin or the law which condemns. But the more perfect way is to seek the treasures that are found in Christ. To take the yoke of Christ means that we submit to the pull of the reigns. The pull of the reigns teaches us about the way He loves creation. The pull of the reigns teaches us about the sorrows that exist in His creation. The pull of the reigns teaches us to dwell as pilgrims in our earthly bodies. The pull of the reigns teaches us about the darkness that we once held central to the reason for our existence. There is joy. The joy that we come to understand causes us to forget about the things we once held dear. I am sure of one thing. He has given me all things which pretain to Christ. It is our corruption to hold onto or it is His grace to experience, that creates the choice each day. If we try to imagine where we are going, it is futile. If we listen for Him daily, we will not thirst as the world thirst. It is His goodness that causes me not to think of the temptations that surround me. It is His goodness that leads me to repentance. It is His mercy that pick me up when I stumble.In ChristJeff

JeffQuote: One man's sin of covetousness differs from another man's sin of adultery. These are the outward manifestations of the root cause of why we sin. It centers on the desires of our hearts. Because we are naked when we are born of the flesh, we learn the ways of the world. We are tempted by the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. These temptations come from Satan.You are addressing the real issue here Brother Jeff. Sins are symptoms of an illness that the patient cannot see for himself. The law serves as our insight into reality and out of darkness, it is a tool to illustrate a point, that point is that sin indeed is in all flesh (Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.)In Christ James

Hi Bro. Jeff,That is beautiful. It is encouraging. I read the echoes of what the Spirit is also saying to me these many years. The word of God will change the substance of what we hope for. Our desire will motivate us to strive for something always.When I read this I thought about how the world and the enemy wants our love. i thought about the Ephesian church that our Lord said they had left their first love- the love they had at first. Love is the supreme motivation and the steeringwheel of our desires. We desire what we love. Therefor we read- love not the world- neither the things of this world. That Greek word is agape. How could a person express agape love for the world? It begins when we befriend the world. It begins when we allow the world to seduce our appetites and recast our hope as you so well put it. Could we with ink the ocean fill, And were the skies of parchment made, Were every stalk on earth a quill, And every man a scribe by trade, To write the love of God above Would drain the ocean dry. Nor could the scroll contain the whole,Though stretched from sky to sky.- - author unknownWhich leads me to how this pertains to this thread. The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5). Luke 7 teaches us of one who was forgiven little and loved little and one who was forgiven much and loved much. The key here is realizing that we were all sinners and that we ought to all love much, because any sin forgiven is much in light of the penalty. Which leads to the passage- "We love Him because He first loved us." Fear may do a work in gaining the attention of a sinner convinced of their sin in light of their destiny; but love must be our motivation day in and day out. And when that love is challenged and stolen away from the things of this world the fear of God must step in through the convincing power of the Holy spirit drawing us back to the love that we had at first once again. I am sure of one thing. He has given me all things which pretain to Christ. It is our corruption to hold onto or it is His grace to experience, that creates the choice each day. If we try to imagine where we are going, it is futile. If we listen for Him daily, we will not thirst as the world thirst. It is His goodness that causes me not to think of the temptations that surround me. It is His goodness that leads me to repentance. It is His mercy that pick me up when I stumbleAmen!God Bless,-Robert

Brothers and Sisters,"You are my portion, O Lord; I have said that I would keep Your words. I entreated Your favor with my whole heart; be merciful to me according to Your word. I thought about my ways, and turned my feet to Your testimonies. I made haste, and did no delay to keep Your commandments. The cords of the wicked have bound me, but I have not forgotten Your law. At midnight I will rise to give thanks to You, because of Your righteous judgements." Psalm 119:57-62May our hearts cry the same, You are my portion, O Lord. May our hearts turn from the bondages of the wicked. May our hearts desire His righteous judgements.Amen!In ChristJeff

Hi RobertThere has to be something quite profound in the working of God by the addition of the law. I would love to be able to have the relationship with my children that my father and I now have- but that is impossible because I must train and discipline them. They are simply not in a place of maturity to be able to handle such a friendship yet, without being filled with all manor of contempt. The roles are such that the process of maturity is too fragile at this atage of their lives to befriend at a level that I would like- but in time it will be so. How does all this play out in our relationship with God as He chastens us and yet we are pressing to be His friend?There is a contrast that we can see in the promise of the New Covenant;Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (Jer 31:31-32 KJV)This promise includes the phrase 'not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt'. This 'old' covenant' is set against the new covenant, clear statement that these two covenants cannot co-exist. This truth is expressed boldy by Paul in Galatians with startling energy; But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. (Gal 4:23-24 KJV)and Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (Gal 4:30 KJV)There can be no question; these two covenant are mutually exclusive.As individuals, people within the first covenant could enjoy Abrahamic relationship with God; justification by faith etc, but the glories of the New Covenant were not yet accessible on a personal nor corporate level. The 'we' of Galatians 3:24 is Paul and his race under the Old Covenant. Part of its purpose was as paidagogos; child-conductor. The KJV has translated 'paidagogos' as 'schoolmaster' but this is an error. Thayer describes the role of a paidagogus; a tutor, i.e. a guardian and guide of boys. Among the Greeks and the Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood. The paidagogus was in effect a boy's personal policman. He was not a 'teacher' and was not permitted to teach. His job was to get the boy to school. Paul sees the people of the Old Covenant as in this relationship with the Law. But goes on to say so that the law became our child-conductor--to Christ, that by faith we may be declared righteous, and the faith having come, no more under a child-conductor are we, (Gal 3:24-25 YLT)There are very distinct eras of reference here.In Galatians 4 Paul goes on to say that this state was a state of child-hood. This fits with the paedagogus who stuck like glue until the boy entered official manhood; at this point he instantly lost his child-conductor. The 'Jewish' child was an heir, but there is 'no difference' between a child-heir and a slave. Here is Paul's familiar refrain that we hear again in Romans; 'there is no difference'. Paul equates 'Jewish child-heirs' with Gentile 'slaves'. You can see how the obvious question of Romans would arise; What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Rom 3:1 KJV)That is another question for another place, but Paul's Galatians' statement makes it an inevitable question. And now I come to your specific question...The fulness of time had not come. The heir had not arrived at the day of his majority. BUT when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law... and this is a vital link 'in order to redeem them that were under the law, that we migh receive sonship.' (Gal 4:4,5)I want to flag this clearly... they could not receive sonship while under the law, not even the best of them. Christ would have to come to redeem them from under the law IN ORDER THAT we might receive sonship. The switch of pronouns here is a vital element. He has been speaking about 'they'; those under the law and now he makes it plain that all such had to remain 'under the law' including 'we' (himself) until Christ was 'sent forth'.The next verse is a suddent change of direction; and because ye are sons (Gal 4:6)He has switched from 'we' Jewish child-heirs' to the 'you' of Gentile slavery who are no longer slaves; you are sons. Sonship is not the result of maturity; it is a state. It was a publically acknowledged 'state'. I see strong links with the narratives of Christ's manifestation to Israel. The Spirit comes upon Him and the Father acknoledges His Son publically. It is significant that from this moment Jesus never again 'obeyed his mother'. He was a publically acknowledged 'son'. His attitude to the Law appeared to be erratic, but is makes sense if you understand that He was a son who had come in His inheritance and was no longer under the paidagogus of the law. From this moment He would be Spirit-led. This should not surprize us as those who are Spirit-led are sons of God. (Rom 8:14). This is the difference between the parameters of the Covenants. Moses, David, Isaiah never experiences this public acknowledgement of 'sonship' and remained 'under the law'. For them 'faith' in the sense in which Pauls uses it in Galatians 'had not come'.The background to Galatians is that the Judaizers did not question the way the Galatians had begun their pilgrimage but insisted that progress/maturity depended on law-keeping and in particular circumcision. Paul will have none of it; not only does 'law keeping' not produce progress/maturity it actively obstructs it. The Gentile believers did not need to go through an Old Covenant in order to get to the New Covenant. The gift of the Spirit was public acknowledgment that they were sons, and sons are not under written laws. The question of 'chastening' is somewhat different although we need to remind ourselves that He does not chasten us in order to receive us; that would be mysticism. He chastens because we are sons. However, I don't think we can conclude that the writer to the Hebrews (Jews)is using the concept of 'sons' in quite the same sense as Paul does to the Gentiles in Galatia and later in Rome.

Br Ron wrote: He was a publically acknowledged 'son'. His attitude to the Law appeared to be erratic, but is makes sense if you understand that He was a son who had come in His inheritance and was no longer under the paidagogus of the law.Scripture does not teach this. Jesus obeyed the law perfectly. The notion of being erractic is not taught. However, Jesus did not have to obey the oral law of the Talmud. These laws represented the traditions of men. Jesus is the word of God. He cannot deny Himself. In ChristJeff

The background to Galatians is that the Judaizers did not question the way the Galatians had begun their pilgrimage but insisted that progress/maturity depended on law-keeping and in particular circumcision.Then the Gnostics came along and taught that in order to attain one must be liberated from the flesh (body) or to get out of the flesh and into the Spirit in order to attain. I kow there were many other concepts, but this is the one that sticks out to me.How then do we split the horns of these two things and come into the fulness of all that God intended to bring us unto perfection and the establishment of a the law (without either coming under the law or taking a dualistic approach to the physical body)? Can we say with any certainty that we must walk in the Spirit and reguard the body as a sin tainted enemy that lusts against the Spirit? And in so doing we can reach that place of Entire Sanctification by handling the issues of the body scripturally, such as laying aside every weight, exercising the senses, not making provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts, etc. ? Or is there a different approach I am missing all together?Thanks! God Bless,-RObert

The notion of being erractic is not taught. I think I see what you both are saying and I agree with both. :-( The Son of man was Lord also of the Sabbath. Sure He fulfilled the Law- which as the Messianics would say, "rightly interpret and live out." He lived it out as it was intended and not as men had interpreted it. He is the Law and the Judge. His interpretation stands in the life He lived. As He once said, "Which of you convinceth me of sin?" They could not- yet the principals of the Talmud and Oral Law were the precodified traditions that He disregarded and in so doing appeared to be transgressing the Law to some. He was not- He was rightly interpreting it and demonstrating it in Human Flesh. Should the traditions of these men have made the word of God into something God was bound to honor? Their traditions made it of none effect, the Lord demonstrated it as God intended it. God Bless,-Robert

Br. Ron wrote:This promise includes the phrase 'not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt'. This 'old' covenant' is set against the new covenant, clear statement that these two covenants cannot co-exist.I agree. They cannot coexist in terms of applying to one person's standing before God. One is either under the one or the other. Paul teaches:"This only I want to learn from you; Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Gal 3:2 Then Paul teaches:"Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? just as Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness, therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham." Galatians 3:5Faith comes by the work of Him who gives the Holy Spirit.In Christ Jeff

From here we have the next stage in the working of God and it is that of Him taking up residence in man. This invariably will lead to some deep and searching questions that I have never really answered in my heart. Circumcision of the heart must deal with the cutting away, as it were, of the inner influence of iniquity upon the heart of man. To have a circumcised heart is to die (separation) to (from) the stiffnecked disposition of the flesh that always wants to resist the Holy Ghost (Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Acts 7:51). In this case I will revert to my former understanding of the flesh (sarx) and view it as the body of our members in bondage to the law of sin. The law of sin being a knee jerk rebellious reaction to anything God decrees no matter if it were pleasing to the flesh or not. Sabbath should never have been rebelled against by a people that are lazy by nature. The law of sin, passed down from Adam, as we would know as part of the Original Sin, uses the law of God as a means of rebellion. When the law came sin revived and I died- for sin was dead without the law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam even to those who did not sin in similitude to Adam's transgression. Why? Because sin was dormant in man, yet it was present, and because it was present the people died. Death was the evidence that it was there. The Pharisees and others such as the rich young ruler would not admit they were sinners, so Jesus would offer a commandment such as selling all or He would point at lust in the heart as evidence that sin was indeed still present in man's members no matter how well they had mastered an outward show of keeping the law. The only proof that sin is gone is the absence of rebellion and a desire to all that God commands no matter what that commandment may be. Since the law brings sin to the surface in this body of sin God had to circumcise us of it through the cross until we could lay it aside at death and put on the house (tabernacle) which we long to be clothed upon with. How would He do it? We had to die to the law and the law of sin simultaneously. We are free from the law by baptism into Christ, who both died to sin and the law, that we might be loosed from both the slavery and headship of both the law and the law of sin. This leaves man in a perdicament. If the Spirit of God does not come at that moment antinomianism will prevail. This was, in my opinion, the root misunderstanding of what Paul was trying to teach that caused many of the stripes on his back. People simply could not get it. Paul did not say they were free from the law- end of story. He was saying that they were free from the law so long as they walk in the Spirit. And if they walk in the Spirit they will fulfill the law just as Christ. What a marvel! That God could cause a man to walk in love towards Him and man's neighbor while keeping sin in inutility by the power of the Holy Spirit. So much we could say right here.Here is my first question- at what point is the person actually a citizen in the Kingdom of God whose name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life? Is it as soon as the process of working begins as the Spirit comes in to take up residence how ever small the evidence of His indwelling may be or is this an instantaneous work that yields such a change at regeneration that the person is immediately fit for the Kingdom of God?God Bless,-Robert

Hi RobertCircumcision of the heart must deal with the cutting away, as it were, of the inner influence of iniquity upon the heart of man. To have a circumcised heart is to die (separation) to (from) the stiffnecked disposition of the flesh that always wants to resist the Holy Ghost. There is a lot in this last post and some conclusions that are a 'bridge too far' in my thinking. The significance of circumcision is one that I have considered for a long time. It was fundamental to Abraham's people and assumed under the Old Covenant. However, the references to circumcision are really quite few in the Old Testament itself and circumcision is not specifically commanded, but rather assumed, in the establishment of the Sinai Covenant. Some of the most significant references in Deuteronomy refer specifically to 'circumcision of the heart'. What is its significance? I shared some views in one of the Abraham, My Friend devotionals. I think the original theme of circumcision is not directly to do with sinfulness but independence. Of course they are inseparable connected but the focus can be different. Oswald Chambers used to say that Adam's first act was one of independence which then hardened into rebellion. There is a repitition of this pattern in the story of King Saul, who is a great picture of the Old Man later replaced by the New Man. Saul first act was one of impatient indepedence and as a result he forfeited the prospect of a dynasty. The second was an act of defiant rebellion, and for this he forfeited the throne.It is almost impossible for us now to think about independence without thinking about rebellion, but there are some illustrations that come to mind. By independence I mean the self-centred use of human powers. The human powers themselves were not sin, but their use for personal satisfaction alone is. When God created Adam he was given 'powers' and instincts which were necessary for his vocation. There are two which seem obvious to me; self-survival and racial survival. Adam was intended to be an overcomer, not a quitter. The Scottish Athlete, Eric Liddell, when asked why he ran so fast said 'I don't like to be beaten'. I think this is a wholesome instinct and the man who enjoys losing is sick. Adam was commanded; And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Gen 1:28 KJV)All these commands were inherently do-able because of the powers and instincts God had put with the race. To exercise these powers is not sin; they are lit from the basic desires that God has put within the race.The steps of Eve's sin are instructive too. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.(Gen 3:6 KJV)The seeing that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and that it was desirable for wisdom were not sins; they were all the natural consequences of the way that God had made her. It is important to realise this. It was the taking and eating, in direct disobedience to the command, that was sin. Adam's choice can be seen as a choice of patterns for life; the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil OR the tree of life. The first speaks of independent autonomy, the second of continuing dependence upon God. Sin was and is a clash of 'wills', not primarily the stirring of desires.Our problem is trying to understand what happens to us is that our desires have always been the playthings of another's will, even though we have thought ourselves free. These desires have spent 'a life-time' under the wrong king and instead of them being our servants they have become used to being served. They were created as servants but as a result of the fall and our presence in it they have become our masters. They will need to be re-educated when the New Master takes his throne.The word 'epithumea' that you have mentioned is really an 'a-moral' word. It does not have, necessarily, a good or evil connotation; that can only be deduced from the context. Consequently we read; And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: Luk 22:15 KJV)As far as I know noone has ever dared to translate this as 'with lust have I lusted' but it would be perfectly proper translation. Wesley instructed his converts to 'sing lustily'. If I say that Christ had 'lusts' I will bring the wrath of SI down on my head, but He did and so does the Spirit; For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. Gal 5:17 KJV)That verse tells us that the Spirit has passionate longings or lusts.I would suggest a tour through some of these scriptures using the word 'desire/s' rather than lust/s. Mat_5:28; Mat_13:17; Mar_4:19; Luk_15:16; Luk_16:21; Luk_17:22; Luk_22:15; Joh_8:44; Act_20:33; Rom_1:24; Rom_6:12; Rom_7:7; Rom_7:8; Rom_13:9; Rom_13:14; 1Co_10:6; Gal_5:16; Gal_5:17; Gal_5:24; Eph_2:3; Eph_4:22; Phi_1:23; Col_3:5; 1Th_2:17; 1Th_4:5; 1Ti_3:1; 1Ti_6:9; 2Ti_2:22; 2Ti_3:6; 2Ti_4:3; Tit_2:12; Tit_3:3; Heb_6:11; Jam_1:14; Jam_1:15; Jam_4:2; 1Pe_1:12; 1Pe_1:14; 1Pe_2:11; 1Pe_4:2; 1Pe_4:3; 2Pe_1:4; 2Pe_2:10; 2Pe_2:18; 2Pe_3:3; 1Jo_2:16; 1Jo_2:17; Jud_1:16; Jud_1:18; Rev_9:6; Rev_18:14; It could be quite enlightening. I think the concept of circumcision has to do with the refusal to use natural power/instinct in the service of God or for myself. Of course, in the unregenerate, these waters are constantly muddied by the rule of sin, but for the regenenerate there is a necessary outworking of the cross/circumcision in bringing everything constantly under God's rule.

Br. Robert wrote:In this case I will revert to my former understanding of the flesh (sarx) and view it as the body of our members in bondage to the law of sin. The law of sin being a knee jerk rebellious reaction to anything God decrees no matter if it were pleasing to the flesh or not.Jesus taught: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are Spirit, and they are life." John 6:63 Paul taught: "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." Romans 8:7The nature of natural man can never change. It is corrupt. It was created in the image of Adam. "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgement," Heb 9:27 What does Paul teach? "So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power....As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have been borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man." 1 Corinthians 15:42-49Our bodies are in the image of Adam. They are corrupt. What this teaches me is that the Spirit of God will teach this precept to all of those that are His. The principle that I see is that we are subjected to corruption so that we will learn that there is no hope for our corrupt bodies. Think about it, what is the original sin? The choice: submit or self rule. Those who live for this life are dead. Those who realize through the witness of the divine power of God that their present life is worthless and that God is increasing day by day in their life have a hope that is not of this world. His plan is to restore according to His ways the glory that His creation once had. We have only two choices, submit or rebell. Choose this day life or death. Blessings or cursings. In ChristJeff

Br. Ron wrote:The seeing that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and that it was desirable for wisdom were not sins;These were temptations. Satan tempts through the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. What is required of men who are tempted? In ChristJeff

What is required of men who are tempted? So we come to the question at last. I would answer this question by saying that if we follow the precepts of God's word as we have been instructed in the New Testament we are in place to do battle with the enemy as we read in Ephesians 6. In my teachings and understanding there is a "having done all" that we all must do before we can stand. We must eat of the milk and meat of God's word. We must drink of the waters of the Holy Spirit. We must walk in that Spirit that we are now full of through the infillings of the Spirit and the word that is Spirit. We must run the race with patience having laid aside every weight that would slow us. The ancient Greeks would strip down to nothing to run, because they knew the difference between winning and loosing might be the shorts they had on. If it is slowing you down in your pursuit of God- cast it off. We must exercise our senses to discern good and evil. This keeps thoughts that need to be cast down at a minimum. And having done all these things we are ready to stand and Fight the good fight of faith. Taking the sword of the Spirit and the whole armour of God. it is from this posture of absolute surrender to God that we may level upon our foe the full thrust of IT IS WRITTEN and in turn take the way of escape that God will surely make in that hour.

Br. Robert wrote in a previous post:Nevertheless death reigned from Adam even to those who did not sin in similitude to Adam's transgression. Why? Because sin was dormant in man, yet it was present, and because it was present the people died.I don't know if the thought of sin, being something that lies in wait of stimulation, is the source of why we sin. As Br. Ron pointed to desire being nuetral in a sense, and Jesus could not have been said to lust after the things of this world. I see it more as a question of understanding truth. God is the source of all truth. The statutes and ordinances of His creation are established by truth that is pure and holy. Adam lost fellowship with God. The result is that he became naked. Naked to me means man is allowed to be nuetral in his desires. He is not allowed to know God's will. From infancy, the child grows in understanding of his relationship to the world around him. I believe that Scripture teaches that God has established an age of accountability for all men born in the image of Adam. Without knowing the absolute truth man responds to the world according to his ability to sense, process, and then respond to the situations that he encounters. Without the absolute truth, the child who was once nuetral has learned over time to be a rational being. God created our senses so that we could enjoy His creation. These abilities become the source for which we base all understanding and thus is the substance for which we hope. These God given abilities were never given to us by God as the means by which we know the truth. These carnal abilities create the substance of hope. This hope is absent of God's will. Therefore this hope will always miss the mark. "His flesh shall be young like a child's, he shall return to the days of his youth.. He shall pray to God, and He will delight in him, he shall see His face with joy, for He restores to man His righteousness." Job 33:25-26Man in this life is never restored to the relationship that Adam had with God. The time of perfection awaits the resurrection. Yet what happens when man repents and turns to God? God restores His righteousness to him. The man is brought back to his youth. I see this, as saying, that the hardness of heart that has been fostered by our responding to our carnal abilities has been overcome by the divine power of God. This man has been given the opportunity to learn again from his youth, but this time in a spiritual way. This time he has been given access to all things that are in Christ. This time, as a child, there is the presence of truth that overcomes the old habits that we were left to develope in the absence of that truth. We are called to look to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are taught the futility of following our old way based on our carnal abilities. Just think about John the Baptist. God gave His Holy Spirit in the womb so that John would have the guiding light of truth. Look at the results of that man's life. He didn't lust after the things the world lusted after. He ate bugs, and dressed out of style. He didn't lust after position. He did the will of God. He called for repentance. Yet there will be a time when everything is perfect. But we are of the dust as Adam. In ChristJeff

The result is that he became naked. Naked to me means man is allowed to be nuetral in his desires. He is not allowed to know God's will.Hi Bro. Jeff,My understanding of nakedness is the absense of the covering of the body in the glory of God. This is the first evidence of the death (separation) between man and God that God guaranteed would happen in the day that Adam sinned. God's glory departed from Adam and Eve and they saw that they were naked and sewed fig leaves together to cover this nakedness. God then shed the blood of an animal to take its covering to cover mans nakedness. Nakedness in scripture always causes me to think of sin and God's departed glory and the accompanying shame. In a like figure we shall receive the covering or glory of Christ when we receive our glorified body. We get from Christ (as it were) what God took from the animal He slew- a cover for our nakedness. Just as the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin- so to they could not restore the glory of God. Our body will be sown in corruption, but it will be raised in glory. I have to date always felt that our desires are bent toward lawlessness (iniquity). I have taken the position that before the fall man was neutral. In regeneration we can be bent towards God (the opposite of iniquity) through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. As Br. Ron pointed to desire being nuetral in a sense, and Jesus could not have been said to lust after the things of this world.My apologetic for this has always been that Jesus did not have a sin nature. He was tempted 'from without' as was Eve by Satan personally (face to face). Satan has someone on the inside as it were in those who are in Adam. The iniquities of the fathers are visited, not the mothers. Just as the protevangelum states that the 'Seed' would be the seed of the woman and not the seed of a man as is almost always used to describe posterity biblically. Jesus was tempted in all point like as we are. Personally I see His trial greater than ours. Without the absolute truth, the child who was once nuetral has learned over time to be a rational being. God created our senses so that we could enjoy His creation. I agree with this in part- as I know the senses were all created good, etc. However, I would have to take the position that foolishness is bound in the heart of the child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him. The rod of correction drives that Adamic sinfulness far from a child- but not from the child. This is why someday a person will need to be born again. God will replace the heart- that has foolishness inseperably bound in it. Man in this life is never restored to the relationship that Adam had with God. The time of perfection awaits the resurrection.I agree totally. Yet what happens when man repents and turns to God? God restores His righteousness to him.I have always viewed righteousness and holiness as attributes of God's deity that in order to obtain they must be imputed in some way. Man in himself (in my thinking) could not possibly be righteous because he cannot make his words and actions match on all occasions. He cannot make one hair white or black. Man must not swear because man cannot make good on such a promise should circumstances arise that are beyond his control. Holiness is a state of seperation and otherness perfect in purity through and through. In a state of genuine holiness man could not be tempted with evil. Just some thoughts to throw out that I have felt were pretty accurate. Any thoughts?God Bless,-Robert

In a state of genuine holiness man could not be tempted with evil. Hi RobertDid you really mean this? If this is true then Christ was either not holy or not a man.

Hi RobertI would answer this question by saying that if we follow the precepts of God's word as we have been instructed in the New Testament we are in place to do battle with the enemy as we read in Ephesians 6. In my teachings and understanding there is a "having done all" that we all must do before we can stand.We must eat of the milk and meat of God's word. We must drink of the waters of the Holy Spirit. We must walk...There seems to be an enormous amount of energy going into this battle, whereas the image of the man in Ephesians is of a man fully equipped standing... I'm not sure that the picture here is of general, individual temptation but of the cosmic warfare that Paul calls 'the wrestling'. Of course, our individual temptation is a constituent part of the cosmic warfare.Adam Clarke says And having done all, to stand - Και ἁπαντα κατεργασαμενοι στηναι· rather, And having conquered all, stand: this is a military phrase, and is repeatedly used in this sense by the best Greek writers. So Dionys. Hal. Ant., lib. vi., page 400: Και παντα πολεμια εν ολιγῳ κατεργασαμενοι χρονῳ· “Having in a short time discomfited all our enemies, we returned with numerous captives and much spoil. This seems to be borne out in Liddell. I think the sense here would be that we put on the whole armour of God in order that ye may stand... and verse 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. (Eph 6:13 KJV)would be the end result of the conflict. My KJV margin has 'having overcome all, to stand.' I don't think the 'having done all' is the list of preparations that you have in your post.How are we to stand? having girt your loins... having put on the breastplate... having shod your feet... having taken the great shield of faith... I have a sense that all this armour is to equip us to stand in our place of prayer rather than as a personal defense. I don’t know if you have read Watchman Nee recently ‘Sit, Walk, Stand’. It must be decades since I read it, however it has left some permanent thoughts in my mind. As I recall he works through Ephesians in experiential order and emphasizes the point that this order is significant. The Sitting would be the place of rest in the finished work of Christ and is foundational to the subsequent Walking and Standing.I think the mood of Ephesians is of these settled experiences; there is not a feeling of strife in any of these words; Sit, Walk, Stand. I feel sure these consciousnesses must come as a result of personal revelation and from ‘the rest of faith’ comes ‘the fight of faith’, never the other way around. Sometimes you meet folk and there is an intensity in their seeking of God that has an ‘edge’ to it. It is not just the total abandonment of ‘all your eggs in one basket’ faith, but is an electric, nervous, tight-rope thing. I do not see this in the life of Christ or of Paul. Paul’s expression always has the feel of ColossiansWhom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily. (Col 1:28-29 KJV)It is the ‘I but not I’. It is hard to define but not hard to discern.

Did you really mean this? If this is true then Christ was either not holy or not a manHi Bro. Ron,What I meant to say is that God cannot be tempted with evil neither does He tempt any man. Christ was indeed tempted to sin in His humanity. There was a purpose in this. Had Christ never taken on human form He would have never been tempted to sin. There are a host of reasons for this. Nonetheless, we read why He must be made 'temptable' (as it were) like unto His brethren:For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. (Psalm 22:22) And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. (II Samuel 22:3 Isaiah 8:18) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:10-18) He was in all points tempted like as we yet without sin. The spirit indeed was always willing, but the flesh was always weak. In my estimation He would have been as temptable as was Adam and Eve with no propensity to sin. He dealt with temptation as did Eve- face to face. The weakness and vulnerability was in the weakness of the flesh- not in His deity. For this cause it is said to us that we have not yet resisted unto blood striving against sin.... This was not a inward struggle to do evil for Christ- but was the outworking of the weakness of the flesh that in order to do the will of the Father He would have to endure a baptism of unspeakable sufferings. Did this mean that because He was temptable He was not holy? Certainly Christ was always holy. Is He holier now because He is in His glorified body? He was always as holy as He could ever be. But remember, we are referring to Christ, who was the second Adam who was unlike the first Adam. In all these things is a tapestry woven too wonderful to me. I could not speak beyond this. One thing I feel quite sure of- once glorified we will no longer be tempted to sin.

There seems to be an enormous amount of energy going into this battle, whereas the image of the man in Ephesians is of a man fully equipped standing... I'm not sure that the picture here is of general, individual temptation but of the cosmic warfare that Paul calls 'the wrestling'. Of course, our individual temptation is a constituent part of the cosmic warfare.Hi Bro. Ron,It would be difficult to say I suppose either way so I will not try to prove the point to any definate certainty. I would suggest though that the outline that I proposed fits well with the overall Pauline use of metaphors that imply preparations for the Olympic games. Paul writing, for example, that he 'got under his body' or as I have seen in the definitions of the Greek words "hit under the eye and lead away captive' my body, lest when I have preached to others I myself would be adokimos, seems to lend something that we must actively work out in fear and trembling. I definitely appreciate what you mean in terms of Watchman's Nees position (as I have read that in part). I suppose that for me victory over sin has always been an active struggle of constant watching and preparation. Constant 'training' as it were- with times of rest certainly. There are times to rest, times to prepare, and times to stand and fight. I guess to my list of eat + drink+ walk+ run+ exercise+ stand+ fight; I should add sit + rest. (Sorry brother, I'm stuck in addition I'm still learning your Algebra :-) ).God Bless,-Robert

Did this mean that because He was temptable He was not holy? Certainly Christ was always holy. Is He holier now because He is in His glorified body? He was always as holy as He could ever be. But remember, we are referring to Christ, who was the second Adam who was unlike the first Adam. In all these things is a tapestry woven too wonderful to me. I could not speak beyond this. One thing I feel quite sure of- once glorified we will no longer be tempted to sin.Yes, the key distinctive is that 'man' has always been tempted through an agent. Angelic rebellion seems to be of a different order and may never have become a 'physical rebellion'; For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: (Isa 14:13 KJV)Man's unique glory is his spirit/body integrity. Adam was both like and unlike Christ who is technically the 'last Adam'; there will be no more federal heads to the race, and the 'second Man' as if all men in between hardly deserved the title of 'man'. We are getting into the hair-splitting territory of Christ's hyperstatic union here but Christ came For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:(Rom 8:3 KJV)As you will know from your own studies 'in the likeness of flesh' would have been Docetism, and 'in sinful flesh' would have disqualified Him as Saviour. The balance is preserved beautifully here... in the likeness of sinful flesh. This verse seems to make possible a definite distinction between between 'flesh' and 'sinful flesh'. 'flesh' belongs to humanity and at times could be translated 'humanly speaking'; Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; Rom 1:3 KJV)This use of the word flesh has no derogatory connotation. 'flesh' then is something which originally 'in Adam' was a natural part of humanity and in that sense 'neutral'. Oswald Chambers sometimes says that the natural is made spiritual; Paul is not dealing with sin in this chapter of Galatians, but with the relation of the natural to the spiritual. The natural must be turned into the spiritual by sacrifice, otherwise a tremendous divorce will be produced in the actual life. Why should God ordain the natural to be sacrificed? God did not. It is not God's order, but His permissive will. God's order was that the natural should be transformed into the spiritual by obedience; it is sin that made it necessary for the natural to be sacrificed. My Utmost Dec 10th.I need to point out that I am not equating 'flesh' with 'body' nor 'the old man'. This is one of the swamps of this kind of discussion; we use terms with different understandings of the terms and use other terms as synonyms which are distinct. Chambers ideas above open the way to an examinattion of Christ's temptation. This was 'flesh' but not 'sinful flesh'. It was 'flesh' susceptible to outside influence. He was hungry; to have been otherwise would have been less than human. The satisfying of that hunger was a perfectly legitimate 'right'. However, the manner of satisfying it brough human instinct and right into contact with the revealed will of God; namely his fast. Christ now has the choice; He can satisfy his 'human' condition and right by stepping out of the will of God, or He can remain within the will and God and suffer hunger. There was nothing at all wrong with Adam and Eve's hunger for hunger for food, beauty and wisdom;And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. Gen 3:6 KJV)They had been made this way. The snare is elsewhere; For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Gen 3:5 KJV)That was the temptation to independence of action. They need not be tied to God's apron strings; mankind could now 'grow up'. Their lives would no longer be dependent upon revelation but on self-discovery. They could become autonomous.Christ's temptation is not to hunger or sensual satisfaction but to autonomy. The 'flesh' in its basic instincts may serve as the medium through which the temptation will come, but the real temptation is to 'go it alone'; we are back to independence, autonomy. Something happened to Adam's humanity which instantly spread to the whole human race. From that time man was no longer 'neutral' and 'innocent' but partisan and evil. Adam had made our choice. Sin had entered. Christ's virgin conception was a fresh start; human but not without Sin, flesh but not 'sinful flesh'. His humanity was not under the domination of a wrong spirit. Regeneration puts us 'into Christ' in spirit and ultimately which shall be utterly like like when 'redemption' reaches our bodies;Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. (1Jo 3:2 NASB)If I may misquote one of your presidents; you ain't seen nothing yet!;-) (In fact, by a peculiar set of circumstances my mother named me after Ronald Reagan; the film-star not the president.:-?)The questions that arise from this are the nature of Christ's human experience; Did he ever have a cold? Did he ever make a human mistake and hammer His fingers in mistake for the nail? And the nature of the regenerate's human experience; how is it different to the unregenerate?Have we discussed James' obstetrics of sin?

In fact, by a peculiar set of circumstances my mother named me after Ronald Reagan; the film-star not the president.Ronald Reagan is the most respected President of my generation in my mind. The 'flesh' in its basic instincts may serve as the medium through which the temptation will come, but the real temptation is to 'go it alone'; we are back to independence, autonomy.The enemy always seems to marry the legit to the forbidden as a sort of evil coctail. The questions that arise from this are the nature of Christ's human experience; Did he ever have a cold? Did he ever make a human mistake and hammer His fingers in mistake for the nail? This is that ruthless logic that I also appreciate. :-) You don't know how many dead ends my mind just went down trying to answer this. I know that he did noting that would be construed as sin. I have a feeling he got sick like we do if for no other reason than sickness is contageous. Yet, the Physician could have always healed Himself. Just like hunger- if he suffered it was willingly so He could be like us. He did it so He could be made like unto His brethren. And the nature of the regenerate's human experience; how is it different to the unregenerate?When a person is regenerated and walking in the Spirit free from the law and the law of sin. When they have come out from among them to be seperate. When they are making no provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts. When they have laid aside every weight and are doing the things that I listed earlier to address Paul's mixed metaphor of Olympic wrestling and warfare (in the spirit), then it would indeed require an outside agent to tempt- perhaps Satan himself (I Corinthians 7:5). If we neglect to do the afore mentioned things we have not guarded our heart and the external temptations and suggestions make their way into our hearts and then it becomes a struggle from within. This is why we must cast down imaginations, etc. Any other thoughts?

I have a feeling he got sick like we do if for no other reason than sickness is contageous. There have been those whose ruthless logic on this has caused them to conclude that He suffered no consequence of Adam's sin and hence no pain at all, not even at Calvary.This, however, is plainly contradicted by scripture; For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: (1Pe 2:21 KJV)Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;(1Pe 4:1 KJV)The enemy always seems to marry the legit to the forbidden as a sort of evil coctail. I think there is much room for thought here. Satan cannot create, only the Creator can create. But Satan can distort and vandalize. At the heart of every sin there is something that God gave for another purpose which has been twisted by our enemy. I think this is our lead in to James' obstetrics of sin...

I think this is our lead in to James' obstetrics of sin...It seems I have gone through this quite a few times, but a fresh look at it right now would be great! i'm sure you have some good stuff on it so I'll yield the floor to you. :-)God Bless,-Robert

The questions that arise from this are the nature of Christ's human experience; Did he ever have a cold? Did he ever make a human mistake and hammer His fingers in mistake for the nail?Matthew 4:66 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. (Psalm 91:10-11)This suggests that Jesus would not of hammered His fingers instead of a nail......however the cross would have been a diferent matter......and if he had never felt pain before how much more terrible must it have been on the cross!In the film "The Passion of The Christ" Jesus falls over when He is young and hurts His knee, to which Mary attends to, this reminded me of that verse in Matthew...

Br. Ron wrote:There seems to be an enormous amount of energy going into this battle, whereas the image of the man in Ephesians is of a man fully equipped standing...Paul sent Timothy to strive to correct and exhort the Church of Ephesus because they had fallen rapidly from the time of Paul's first writings to the Ephesians. Listen to the struggles of ministry. Listen to the energy required of those who serve the Lord. 1&2 Timothy.In ChristJeff

Br. Robert wrote:I agree with this in part- as I know the senses were all created good, etc. However, I would have to take the position that foolishness is bound in the heart of the child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him. The rod of correction drives that Adamic sinfulness far from a child- but not from the child. This is why someday a person will need to be born again. God will replace the heart- that has foolishness inseperably bound in it. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7Yes I agree all need to be born from above. But I endeavor to make this thought. According to the verse you quoted, foolishness to me more accurately describes the man who chooses rebellion when God has given him clear witness that He is. "because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.. Professing to be wise, the became fools." Romans 1:21Here Paul teaches that God gives no man excuse. Here Paul teaches that the fool is one who having witnessed God's light (truth), did not glorify Him nor were they thankful. Instead they chose to be wise according to their carnal ways and thus their hearts were darkened. Scripture has been speaking lately to me the idea of seperation and pollution. For the last year our bible study at Ucla has been in Genesis. The idea of seperation began in chapter 3. And as I read, thoughout the Scriptures, the idea of seperation and pollution are ever present. "Therefore I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgements by which they could not live," Ezekiel 20:25Paul teaches the same in Romans, "Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts..." Romans 1:24What I see here is the act of God removing all effect of His truth. The absence of truth condemns man to his own destruction. In Genesis 4:16-24, this precept of degeneration, of pollution is displayed in the genealogy of Cain. Peter talks of this pollution. "For if, after they have escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome,, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning." 2 Peter 2:20Pollution comes from lack of knowledge.In ChristJeff

Hi Bro. Jeff,I recall years ago a conversation I had with a friend concerning total depravity. In those days I uncovered a word that since has lightened my understanding of what it means to be a fool. The Hebrew word for fool is nabal and it means (among other things) 'to wilt'. This gives great weight to your point in that it establishes the fact that no one is born an atheist (for example). A person 'wilts' based upon rejection of light and quenching the working of the Holy Spirit. If something wilts it was first alive. Everyone is born with enough of the essential components of the image of God to establish and sustain a convincing consciousness of the reality of God unless somehow the person begins to vandalize these essential elements (sear their conscience, etc.). From this I see no contradiction between our points, rather, I am looking from one end of the issue and you are looking from the other. Both are valid viewpoints and are becessary aspects of a well rounded apologetic for dealing with many of the issues in Romans 1 and 2. Pollution comes from lack of knowledge.Absolutely! It is why people perish. The word could mean defilement. I hear a man say once that the solution for pollution is dillution. I can't say with certainty that it is so; but I can say that we need the washing of the water by the word. And with that word comes great responsibility. It is why the prossess of maintaining holiness is so much work (as it were). The buzzards are always circling and if we are not vigilant and sober they will build a nest in our hair. God Bless,-Robert

Quote: Pollution comes from lack of knowledge.Absolutely! It is why people perish. The word could mean defilement. I hear a man say once that the solution for pollution is dillution. I can't say with certainty that it is so; but I can say that we need the washing of the water by the word.Isn't that a kind of Gnosticism? Pollution does not come from a lack of knowledge. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. (2Pe 2:20 KJV)This verse says something quite different. Not that a lack of knowledge produces pollution, but that a very particular kind of knowledge gives us an escape from 'pollution'. The knowledge, of course, is not knowledge per se, but the 'knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.' This is not knowledge as information but knowledge as personal encounter; Adam-knew-Eve knowledge. As regards human pollution there is an interesting verse in Ephesians; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; Eph 4:21-22 KJV)There are lots of ideas here but to trace a path through... the former conversation/behaviour is the dress of the old man, and Christians were taught that the 'truth, as it is in Jesus' is that we strip-off the old ways which were the dress of the old man. Paul then describes the 'corruption' of the old man. And says that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,Eph 4:22 NASB). the NASB gives us a real insight but obscures it at the same time. The obscuration is caused by the phrase 'old self' which has no basis in the language of the original; it is simply 'the old man'. But the glimpse of light it gives is in the phrase 'which is being corruptied in accordance with...' Paul refers to the old man as 'the being corrupted one, according to deceitful lusts'. This is a present participle, the kind that John often uses eg the believing one or the believer. This is 'the self corrupting one'. The picture is gives me is not of pollution being acquired from outside but a continuing pollution which is bubbling up from within. The pollution is endemic to the old man; it is not a stranger but native to 'the old man'. And there is a process at work; it continues to be corrupted. It is in permanent process of corruption. There is an old testament couplet which perfectly describes the condition of the 'old man'; But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked. Isa 57:20-21 KJV). Have you see the way that the tide constantly fouls the beach if there is pollution in the area? The never ending tides spue up wickedness; this is the old man. There is no cure, there is no peace. The only hope is that the 'old man' can be katargeO-ed; rendered impotent, and baptism into Christ is the only thing that can achieve it.The other gem in the Ephesian text is the reference to the part that 'deceitful lusts' play in this process. There is some kind of connection here between the 'old man' and the 'deceitful lusts'. What we need is a 'new man' with some 'honest lusts'.

Isn't that a kind of Gnosticism? Pollution does not come from a lack of knowledge. You're right; when I look at it that way it is Gnostic. :-? You do again make a good point (as so often you do) concerning textualism over against the reality. It is easy to slip into that. Yet, I should have said that the solution to pollution for a believer is prevention. This requires knowledge in the intellect of God's word as the battle ground is so often the mind. If indeed that word is pregnant with power (as it were) there has to be some sort of commonality between the written and the living word. I really have never thought through the distinction as to separate them. To me they are one and the same. There is some kind of connection here between the 'old man' and the 'deceitful lusts'. What we need is a 'new man' with some 'honest lusts'.As you begin the study on 'James' obstetrics' it will be interesting to see how the deceitfulness of sin plays into our understanding of deceitful lusts. I have pondered the thought in ths past that the deception of sin in all cases can be extinguished with the truth. You shall know the truth (written and living) and the truth shall make you free. God Bless,-Robert

Br. Ron wrote:Isn't that a kind of Gnosticism? Pollution does not come from a lack of knowledge. When a child is born of the flesh he has no knowledge. Yet he will follow his parent in simple faith. We are called to be as a child and to believe as a child. Yet, without knowledge of the truth that leads to salvation, the mind of the child will grow in knowledge of futile things. "This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of theignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who being past feeling have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleaness with greediness. Ephesians 4:17-19Here Paul teaches that these gentiles have been alienated from the life of God. Because they walk by the futility of their mind, their understanding was darkened. Because of ignorance and blindness of heart they are given over to corruption. This all takes place because they are fools. I do agree with you Br. Ron in that it is not knowledge that saves men from hell. Jesus warned the Pharisees:"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me." John 5:39Jesus teaches that knowledge means nothing. Only knowing Jesus brings eternal life. "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." John 17:3Getting back to Ephesians 4:20-24, "But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus;"The truth that I speak of is that which comes from hearing and being taught by Jesus. Paul teaches that man grows corrupt according to the deceitful lists. This corruption grows because of the lack of the truth. "that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lists," Paul exhorts the believer to, " and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness."Paul teaches that a believer must experience a renewing of the mind that is according to God. This believer will learn all things pretaining to true righteousness and holiness. There is no other way. The renewing of the mind seperates the believer from the corruption of the carnal mind. The work of Jesus will teach the believer true righteousness and holiness. To have knowledge that is given to us by our Lord will bring understanding of the seperation of the carnal from the spiritual mind. The writer of Psalm 119 speaks of this requirement. "Make me understand the way of Your precepts; so shall I meditate on Your wonderful works." vs 27"Give me understanding, and I shall keep Your law; indeed, I shall observe it with my whole heart." vs 34"Your hands have made me and fashioned me; Give me understanding that I may learn Your commandments." vs 73"I have more understanding than all my teachers, for Your testimonies are my meditation." vs 99"I understand more than the ancients, because I keep Your precepts." vs 100"Through Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way." vs 104"I am Your servant; give me understanding, that I may know Your testimonies." vs 125"The righteousness of Your testimonies is everlasting; give me understanding and I shall live." vs 144The light of life comes by understanding the things that are spiritual. "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned....We have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:12-16Was Paul an Gnostic?In ChristJeff

There's still a lot to talk about in discussing the different phrases that the Bible uses to describe the work of the Spirit. My own conviction is that there are very few genuine synonyms in Bible language. Each phrase used catches the light glinting from a different facet of God's working in His saints. However as we have moved to the more practical applications perhaps this is the time to examine what I called 'James' obstetrics'.James says two things which are not contradictory; My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; (Jam 1:2 KJV)Now some may say he is not referring to temptation to sin here but rather the trials of life. There is some truth in this, nevertheless, temptation to sin IS one of the trials of life, and no mature human being has ever escaped the 'trials of temptation'. Nor will we in this present life. James says we are to count it all joy when this process is underway! Of course, we are not to put ourselves in the way of temptation and we are not to seek to be tempted or tried; And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. (Mat 6:13 ASV)A little later James amplifies his point; Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. (Jam 1:12 KJV)'Endures' is 'hupermeno' which literally means 'to remain under' something. It is the New Testament root word usually translated 'patience' or 'have patience'; its real sense is 'patient endurance'. This is James' real point; the man who patiently endures temptation is blessed. When he is 'tried' or 'approved' he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love Him'. This is a wonderful verse; it shows the link between the love of God and the patient endurance which results in blessing. The root of victory over temptation and sin is 'the love of God'; the Wesley's persistently referred to their second blessing sanctification as 'perfect love'. They knew the source of power. The KJV 'tried' sounds as though the trial is the blessing, but ASV captures the real sense of 'dokimos' as 'approved' Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he hath been approved, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord promised to them that love him. (Jam 1:12 ASV)I think it is worth considering the roots of the word 'dokimos' even if we have to leave James' obstetrics to the another post. Our tendency is to regard 'temptation' as an attack, to be dreaded and resisted. The ideas behind 'dokimos' are not so hostile. The English word 'assay' means to test a metal or ore to determine its ingredients or quality. In the UK we have several Assay Offices. Here is a quote from the home page of the Birmingham Assay Office ; The Birmingham Assay Office has been in operation since 1773. Its prime function is to carry out the testing and hallmarking of precious metal items as required by the Hallmarking Act. (the eagle-eyed among you will have noticed that the Birmingham Assay Office is 3 years older than some countries I might mention. ;-)) Metals have always been tested to ascertain their quality and consequent worth. The UK assay offices stamp every piece of gold and silver in the UK with 3 marks; 1. with a measurement of gold quality, pure gold would be 24 carat, Men's 'hardwearing gold' wedding rings are usually 9 carat. The woman's is 20 carat or better. This is why your wife's ring cost more that yours did.2. and the date of the 'assay' symbolized usually these days by a letter. 3. Finally they 'sign' it with their Assay Office. This final stamp authorizes the others. It has been 'tried' and this is the verdict signed by the Assay Office.For some years I worked in the Wedgwood's Pottery Factory. If an item passed their quality standards the Wedgwoods stamp was put on the piece. Sometimes pieces would not reach the Wedgwood standard and these were known as 'seconds'. They were sold on to other manufacturers, but never bore the stamp of approval. They were pottery mavericks, unbranded. An item without the 'trade mark' is defective. The purpose of the assaying of precious metals or the quality checking of pottery was not 'to fail' the article but to ensure its quality and to 'prove' in the sense of 'approve'. We do it constantly... testing the spices in a soup, feeling the texture of a fabric.The idea of testing and approving is the background to part of Romans 1. The KJV has And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (Rom 1:28 KJV)But Youngs Literal Translation has maintained the link between the words the KJV has translated as 'like-dokimazO' and 'reprobate-adokimos'; And, according as they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things not seemly; (Rom 1:28 YLT). The imagery here is of the race refusing to 'add its seal' to God's self revelation. (the Bible picture of approving by stamping with a seal can be clearly seen in John 3:33 and 6:27 and elsewhere. The 'sealing' of the Spirit is part of this imagery.) They 'assayed' but would not 'approve'. They saw but would not acknowledge. The consequence was that God abandoned them to a 'defective' mind; a mind that did not have His stamp of approval. The world, in its wisdom, knew not God. (1 Cor 1:21)We should remember the way that the word 'know' can be used in the sense of 'recognize'; the tree by its fruit. The world, by wisdom, refused to acknowledge/recognize God, says Paul in Corinthians. These verses are part of Paul's indictment against the whole race; we are without excuse.Testing, trial, temptation has always been an integral part of the human condition. The flow of ideas in Luke is startling; Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. (Mat 4:1 KJV)It was immediately following the Father's public acknowledgment of approval of His Son, that 'Jesus... was led... of the Spirit... to be tempted of the devil'. There is no doubting the identity of the Tempter but with all temptation there is an element of the truth that Joseph verbalized; ...ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good...(Gen 50:20 ASV)James' obstetrics in verses 14 and 15 will have to await a later posting...

The consequence was that God abandoned them to a 'defective' mind; a mind that did not have His stamp of approval.This makes me think of the items in the Temple. The golden vessels. What a fearsome thing to bear the stamp of approval and then allow the vessel (members of our body as it were) to be used in a fasion like unto Belshazzar's ways. Him shall God destroy- for the Temple of God is holy... It would be a good time to look at this because of the ultimate consequence of certain unrepentant sins.This is some really good stuff. I have known about these things in part, but your discussion of 'assay' really brought it home. It puts a different perspective on the necessity of temptation. Pure gold never has to fear the assay; it will pass the test. To switch to Hebrews use of adokimos, we see the fruit of the tree as the criteria for testing. Is it fruit or are they thornes and briars? that happens to be one of the most fearsome passages in all the bible for an unbeliever to grapple with because it seems to heap up the destruction; rejected nigh unto cursing whose end is to be burned. God Bless,-Robert

Pollution does not comeI gave this a lot of thought last night and wanted to add a few of them. Gnosticism really deals with 'hidden' knowledge. The idea that somehow there is a hidden knowledge that others do not have access to. I taught on the New Age movement about 10 years ago and one of the books I was studying on the subject was titled something to the effect, "The rebirth of Gnosticism." I think that Gnosticism (of which I had been somewhat accused of being influenced by-by my Jewish professor) has similar ideas that run close to biblical truths. Rat poison is 90% good corn- it is the 10% strict nine that makes it deadly (so to speak). Certainly I can concur that the poison of gnosticism is greater than 10%, but we can't just throw out teachings that are biblical for fear of running parallel with a gnostic teaching. I would not have said that 10 months ago- but in conversations here at SI (especially with Bro. Ron) I have learned to be more careful in my treatment of God's word.That said, pollution does not come from lack of knowledge in terms of a void of knowledge giving birth to it. I would say that pollution can certainly come as a consequence of a lack of knowledge just as getting the flu may happen as a consequence of not having a flu shot. We also have to grapple with whether or not a person rightly handles the knowledge they receive. This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom, which you brought out well in your remark on spiritual understanding. The question becomes; how will we respond to revelation? If we respond rightly we do well. If not, sin is crouching at the door.God Bless,-Robert

A thought came to me last night concerning the doctrine of total depravity and the discussion of the effects of being polluted by the world. My understanding of total depravity centers around the thought spoken of by Paul in Ephesians 4:17, "...that you should no longer walk as the rest of the gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind. To me, this means that the carnal mind is unable to know God. To me this speaks of the inability to do God's will. God alone gives witness of Himself. It is by His divine power that man is enabled to know God. So to me, total depravity mean's that the mind of man cannot understand the things of God. Therefore, every thought of man is futile. Paul teaches this throughtout his epistles. Now there are consequences that come about because of the carnal mind. These consequences develop as the child of the flesh grows into adulthood. The heart of a child is less influenced by the pollution of the world than one who has lived in this system for decades. As an oberservation of the fruit. I have heard from various studies done by evangelicals concerning the different age groups and how they respond to the gospel.I forget the exact statistics, but generally speaking, 85% of those who profess Christ repented before their 14th birthday. With each decade that follows the remaining 15% come to profess Christ in decending numbers. To me, this is as one should look to the fruit of the tree. What does it say about the nature of man? Listen to the writer of Psalm 119. "I entreated Your favor with my whole heart; be merciful to me according to Your word. I thought about my ways, and turned my feet to Your testimonies. I made haste, and did not delay to keep Your commandments. vs 58-60Now we know that the natural man cannot turn from his futile ways. But really look to what is said here. "I thought about my ways, and turned my feet to Your testimonies." Only by God teaching him about his ways did this man have the ability to turn with haste towards God. Repentance is God given, not man created. If you listen to where this man receives his instruction, you will come to the conclusion that what Paul teaches in Ephesians 4 is what this man speaks of from his heart. "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Rest from what? What are we saved from?In ChristJeff

Hi Bro. Jeff,I have a book at home that I put together that traces the footsteps of depravity. I liked to call it "The Pathway to Perdition." Suffice it to say that there are literally thousands and thousands of pages of materials that deal with depravity that were written before 1900 that are quite profound. In the end these studies, which men have worn their minds out on for centuries, lead to a lot of dead end roads and theologies that are riddled with anomalies. These anomalies become the point of distinction between the major groups- as one is willing to live with anomalies that the other is not. And hence we have the polemic battle lines drawn for the pen and ink wars that really never helped me understand or grow closer to God. I said that to say, I don't think we can get where we are going if we try to work within that framework. But your point is well taken. What does it say about the nature of man? It tells us that the heart of man is desperately wicked and unsearchable in that wickedness. It tells us that God had to give man a job, to keep him occupied; working by the sweat of his face to slow the progression of his mischief. It tells us that when man lived to be 900 years old he filled the earth with violence and decadence until every thought of his heart was only evil continually; therefor man was reduced to live 120 years. It tells us that when man was born from pure generations he still found within himself to build a tower until God had to slow the progression again and confound the languages. it tells us that when man had seen all manor of miracles such as Israel saw he still given to mischief- therefor the law was added because of transgressions; shall we go on? I think the short answer is this and I have seen it through experience- the older a man gets apart from God the meaner and more vile he becomes. I believe this comes about because he has hardened his heart against God and ignored the light that God has set in him and set around him. It comes from always resisting the Holy Ghost. It comes from entertaining sin in the heart. God Bless,-Robert

Br. Robert,Do you understand that repentance comes from God? What I mean is, that within man, there is nothing that will cause man to repent. There is nothing in man that gives man the knowledge of what he must repent of. This is a very important distinction to grasp. Do you hear the words of the writer of Psalm 119? "I thought about my ways, and turned my feet to Your testimonies." What does the Spirit say?In ChristJeff

Br. Robert wrote:In the end these studies, which men have worn their minds out on for centuries, lead to a lot of dead end roads and theologies that are riddled with anomalies. This is not meant as a deriding remark. The focus of this thread fit into this same category. Have not 1000 of pages been writen on defining parameters in which the Holy Spirit operates. To me this seems fruitless. The results that come from the operation of the Holy Spirit on an individual is always glossed over by the pursuits of men to deny what the Spirit is really showing them. They seek security in religion, and seek the pleasures of this world. Definitions establish religion, the path one walks establishes the evidence of what one hope in. In ChristJeff

Hearing Him dissipates the trust that one has within himself.In ChristJeff

Do you understand that repentance comes from God? What I mean is, that within man, there is nothing that will cause man to repent. There is nothing in man that gives man the knowledge of what he must repent of. This is a very important distinction to grasp. Hi Bro. Jeff,Yes, I understand that left to himself man would never seek the Lord. We respond to the Holy Spirit as He convinces us of sin. Finney would argue that God is not obligated to draw man and that man is responsible to God no matter what. I also agree with that. We have to be careful though how far we take the depravity issue because philosophically there is a point to which man is no longer responsible for his actions if he is as depraved as some claim. This is not the case, as it would render God unjust for punishing man for his sin as man had no alternative choice. The rebuttal to this is generally, "Well, God is sovereign and can do what He wants." This is a dangerous statement because it has the flavor of making God act out of harmony with the primary attributes that He has chosen to reveal Himself as (love, etc.). The rebuttal for my last statement is generally, "Well, we have a skewed version of what it means to love in our hearts and can't really say what real love is." The danger of the last statement is that it suggests that God deposited in man a false sense of what love is; or has left man in a state that causes him to misjudge what true love is." Again, this is an endless argument. My position on this is that men everywhere are commanded to repent and that God the Holy Spirit is drawing all men to repentance and faith. I cannot suscribe to the teaching that election is unconditional. Man must rightly respond to the revelation of his condition as God illuminates him. The more light a person has the more they are responsible for. If we respond rightly to the light we have God will shed more light. If not, the light that he has shall be taken away. Now we move into the doctrine of reprobation. God Bless,-Robert

To me this seems fruitless. The results that come from the operation of the Holy Spirit on an individual is always glossed over by the pursuits of men to deny what the Spirit is really showing them. They seek security in religion, and seek the pleasures of this world. Definitions establish religion, the path one walks establishes the evidence of what one hope in. This is a good comment. My intention was to try and steer us away from the whole subject of total depravity so we could keep rolling towards James description of temptation and sin. I am not saying it is not significant, I am saying that the issues have been delved into deeply by some great men of God whose minds were very sharp and yet they really never settled the issue. Maybe we could tackle it in another thread. :-)God Bless,-Robert

My intention was to try and steer us away from the whole subject of total depravity so we could keep rolling towards James description of temptation and sin. I am not saying it is not significant, I am saying that the issues have been delved into deeply by some great men of God whose minds were very sharp and yet they really never settled the issue. Maybe we could tackle it in another thread.Now there's an idea. Something like this? Original Sin

Sorry bros.I get going sometimes and don't know when to quit. However I believe that repentance is a crucial part of where you are headed. I'll wait and see.In ChristJeff

These two verses from James are, I think, unique in the way that they describe the development of sin and death. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (Jam 1:14-15 KJV)How far dare we interpret his 'every man'? Every Old Covenant man? every New Covenant man? The man Christ Jesus? This last suggestion will probably brings howls of dissent, but please read on a little before you respond. No-one would, I think, want to deny the fact that Christ was 'tempted'. If Christ's temptation was different to 'every mans', how was it different, and how will we interpret for we have not a chief priest unable to sympathise with our infirmities, but one tempted in all things in like manner--apart from sin; (Heb 4:15 YLT)? Whoever this 'every man' is this, apparently, is the inevitable and unchanging process of sin and death. Some, like Luther, regarded James as semi-Christian; that is a discussion for elsewhere. As far as I am concerned this is part of the 'all scripture' that was God-breathed.Temptation begins when a man (and this actually 'everyone' rather than a gender issue) is drawn away of his own lust. This word for 'lust' and its associated verb 'to lust' is used over 50 times in the New Testament. It is worth going through this list for anyone who really want to give this some thought; ( Mat_5:28; Mat_13:17; Mar_4:19; Luk_15:16; Luk_16:21; Luk_17:22; Luk_22:15; Joh_8:44; Act_20:33; Rom_1:24; Rom_6:12; Rom_7:7; Rom_7:8; Rom_13:9; Rom_13:14; 1Co_10:6; Gal_5:16; Gal_5:17; Gal_5:24; Eph_2:3; Eph_4:22; Phi_1:23; Col_3:5; 1Th_2:17; 1Th_4:5; 1Ti_3:1; 1Ti_6:9; 2Ti_2:22; 2Ti_3:6; 2Ti_4:3; Tit_2:12; Tit_3:3; Heb_6:11; Jam_1:14; Jam_1:15; Jam_4:2; 1Pe_1:12; 1Pe_1:14; 1Pe_2:11; 1Pe_4:2; 1Pe_4:3; 2Pe_1:4; 2Pe_2:10; 2Pe_2:18; 2Pe_3:3; 1Jo_2:16; 1Jo_2:17; Jud_1:16; Jud_1:18; Rev_9:6; Rev_18:14;)I would estimate that about a third of these references have good connotations and the remainder bad or neutral connotations. Perhaps, as I mentioned, the most intense verse on these matters contains the words of Jesus;(Luk 22:15 KJV) And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: This juxtaposing of the noun and the verb is very intense and is, I think, a carry over from Hebrew thought patterns eg. Song of Songs, Holy of Holies, King of Kings. It points to the ultimate of a thing; Jesus' word signify that this was the thing he 'desired/lusted for' beyong all others. So 'lust' is not necessarily an evil thing. We always need to examine the context to be sure. All creatures have 'hungers'; all creatures do not have the same hungers. There is an interesting link with Buddhism here!?! Buddhism teaches that reincarnation is fueled by desire. Consequently the goal of life is to eliminate all desire, even the desire to live. The consequence of the elimination of all such desire is that the next cycle of reincarnation is aborted; the process ceases and the consequence is Nirvana! Of course, as Bible-believing Christians we reject these notions, but it is interesting to see the place that Buddhism gives to 'desire'. You will have heard the quote that 'we are as holy as we want to be'. There is truth in that statement; our desires will shape our future. The old Methodists used to refer to sanctification as 'the expulsive power of a new affection'. This passage tells us that a man is tempted when he is 'drawn away of his own lust'. At this stage of the verse this is an 'inside job', a purely personal affair. I cannot blame anyone else for my 'own' lust. I'm not even sure I can 'blame' myself, although we shall need to carefully apportion culpability in these verses. James then adds the necessary verbs to describe the process of temptation; drawn away and enticed. The first word is the picture of the hunt, the second of a seduction.drawn_away is ἐξέλκω meaning literally to 'drag out' in the way a 'bait' is used to draw out an animal, the word is used only here in the New Testamentand enticed, δελεάζω meaning to 'entrap'. This word is also used by Peter; having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children; forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet. These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved. For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, (2Pe 2:14-18 NASB) Joining the two ideas together provides a powerful picture, enticed and entrapped!Young's Literal Translation has ;and each one is tempted, by his own desires being led away and enticed, (Jam 1:14 YLT)The parsing here makes it clear that it is the 'everyone' who is being led away and enticed. (the gender and the passive form of the verb Here is 'someone' who has come under the power of 'hungers' which have allured and encaptured. I am cautious about being too analytical here but I want to draw attention to the fact that in this process 'sin' does not arrive until the next verse. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (Jam 1:15 KJV) An old gospel hymn says 'yield not to temptation, for yielding is sin'; this is a faithful saying! Verse 14 is detailing the working of temptation. I think we have a slow-motion view of something here. The verbs 'entice and entrap' are passive and in the present participle; is_being_enticed and is_being_entrapped.Let me try to examine verse 15 now. The word 'entrapped' (given a slightly wrong connotation in the KJV as enticed)is a suitable verb for another kind of 'trap', seduction. This is James' natural link to the next statment; Then when lust has conceived... (Jam 1:15b MKJV)The word 'then' is described by Strong as a 'particle of succession'. This is giving us a definite sequence; after the enticing and entrapment something else happens; a conception takes place. This is not another way of describing the events of verse 14 but the next stage of a process. This opens up a whole new viewpoint. Lust/desire then is the mother, but who is the father? Lust/desire is the fertile womb into which the seed falls, but who is the father? Sin apparently is the result of a union between 'lust/desire' and who? what?I find it interesting that we have here almost an action replay of Genesis 3 as found there and in its definitive interpretation in Romans 5.1. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Gen 3:6 KJV)Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned with his eyes wide open.2.Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (Rom 5:12 NASB)3.afterward the desire having conceived, doth give birth to sin, and the sin having been perfected, doth bring forth death. (Jam 1:15 YLT)I will let you muse a little...

As far as I am concerned this is part of the 'all scripture' that was God-breathed.Absolutely. This opens up a whole new viewpoint. Lust/desire then is the mother, but who is the father? Lust/desire is the fertile womb into which the seed falls, but who is the father? Sin apparently is the result of a union between 'lust/desire' and who? what?It would seem that the father must be the agent of temptation. But I feel we need to know what the 'seed' actually is first. Would you concur that the seed is actually the object of the temptation? In the case of Eve it would seem that the fruit was the seed; both literally and figuratively. There was a literal seed in that fruit that Eve partook of along with the seed of sin. Adam and Eve had eaten many seeds before eating the forbidden seed. I have often taught that the fruit of the Spirit carries the seed of true ministry. I just don't quite have enough mental RAM to bring it all together in my mind at once. But I think we can do it piece by piece.After we finish this I hope that you could shed some light on what the term sarx means. :-)God Bless,-Robert

According to J. Glyn Owen “the will” is “the father” with which “desire” becomes joined to conceive sin (James 1:15). “Sin is conceived when the will consents to desire.”(Think about it. :-))He deals with this in the 5 minute segment from about 15 to 20 minutes into the message, The Birth of Death. By the way, the Scripture passage in this message is incorrectly labeled ‘Romans 7’; it should be ‘James 1:13-15’.https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=4805

We are either the seed of Satan or the seed of Him who died on the cross for us that believe. What does the Scriptures say about how sin entered the world. It is all there in Genesis 3.It is either the lie or of the truth that man lives by. The father of lies or the Father of all creation forms the substance for which man hopes are created.The battle is spiritual.In ChristJeff

According to J. Glyn Owen “the will” is “the father” with which “desire” becomes joined to conceive sin (James 1:15).“Sin is conceived when the will consents to desire.”A long time ago I got myself into an endless discussion on the will. I'm not sure that anyone understood what I was trying to say. Perhaps I expressed it too strongly and folk switched off. My question was where can we find the concept, biblically, that we have a faculty of the soul called 'the will'? The 'will' in the sense of 'not my will but thine' is not of a faculty like conscience or desire, but the expressed choice. In regal terms it would be a 'decree'. God's decrees (I don't mean this as the Calvinists do) are frequently mentioned. This has far reaching implications. eg if there is no biblical concept of the 'human will' what has all the debate over 'Free Will' or 'The Bondage of the Will' all been about.Biblical terminology is difficult to fit together in absolute terms (which is one of the reasons I am cautious about Watchmen Nee's attempt to do so). In the Bible we have spirit, soul, body, heart, mind, emotions, imagination, thoughts, intents, but I can't see a biblical concept of 'the will' as a faculty of the soul, and I can't see a biblical concept of 'self'. I know what Christians mean by 'the will' but I have found it impossible to anchor the concept biblically. I have listened to the Glyn Owen audio file but I think he is mistaken here. His teaching depends on 'the will' as a faculty of the soul, and if the 'will is bound' I have problems with man's culpability. Occasionally our dog will take someone's sandwich when they are not looking. My wife says the dog is a thief; I say 'no, she is a dog'. She has not 'sinned' she has just behaved consistently with her nature. She may be re-trained but in extremity her nature will surface again; she is a dog. If the will is bound and the desires seduce it, virtue is impossible.

In the case of Eve it would seem that the fruit was the seed; both literally and figuratively. There was a literal seed in that fruit that Eve partook of along with the seed of sin. Adam and Eve had eaten many seeds before eating the forbidden seed.I think it is very significant that Eve's disobedience did not open the door to sin and death in the way that Adam's disobedience did. A reading of Genesis 3 reveals that God held Adam alone responbsible for what had occured and its consequences.The interesting feature, and I have mentioned it before, is that it is at this point of Adam's disobedience, rather than Eve's that 'Sin' entered the world. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Rom 5:12 KJV) The word 'by' is 'dia' (through). Adam was the route 'through' which Sin entered the world. Sin is clearly older than the human race. This is partly my reason for disagreeing with Glyn Owen. How could 'the will' (if there is such a thing) father sin; the will could only father will. Surely only Sin can father sin.The occasion of this union was Adam's taking and eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but I don't see this fruit has having sin-seed in this sense. I see Adam's action as sacramental in the protestant sense; sacraments are the outward expression of inward actions. They serve, like Israel's offerings as a God-ordained focus for faith (or disobedience). Adam's faith should have found its focus in his taking of the tree of life, which was not forbidden. As it was his disobedience found its focus in his defiant taking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.But Adam, I think, did not receive the Sin-seed from the tree, but from Sin. It is this receiving of Sin-seed into Adam that formed, in our race, what I call congenital sin. In Adam all die. After we finish this I hope that you could shed some light on what the term sarx means. We'll try! :-?

If the will is bound and the desires seduce it, virtue is impossibleMoreover, if what Glen Owen is true then man did not fall at the partaking of the tree, but in the lusting after it. The concept betrays the natural coarse of the analogy James uses. Self-fertilization is impossible in a human being. There has to be an outside agent (partner as G. Owen puts it). There are things here necessary:1) womb of subject (epithumia)2) seed of agent (object of temptation)Eve consented to partaking of the seed (fruit) as the Serpent proposed that she fulfill a good desire in a forbidden way. When she partook of that fruit (seed) it brought forth fruit unto death. The seed was planted in the soil of her desire and brought forth the fruit of unrighteousness once that planted seed had grown and reached fruition.

Sometime the problem we have is that we are too close to this process to be able to give an objective view. What we need in order to examine how conditions operate is a perfect man. Fortunately, we have two;The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. (1Co 15:47 KJV). Both of these men were perfect and both were tempted; one remained perfect. Blessed be His holy Name. These two men are two, and there can never be more than two, points of origin for the human race. Christ is not only the second man, He is the Last Adam. Can we apply what we have discovered so far in James to these two men?Adam was without sinful bias, without wrongful desire. He is created in innocence but is open to temptation. At the time of Adam's temptation there was no conspirator on the inside. Here was a man alive to God; he is instinct with life. The dichotomy of the physical and the spiritual is nowhere to be seen in the earliest chapters of Genesis. It reminds me of the nature of the child. I recall my own children in their early years. Life was integrated. They would sometimes ask profound questions about creation or the nature of God, and sometimes half way through my explanation they would ask a profound question about their dolls or toy cars. The first times it happened I was dumbfounded but I came to realise that they don't have holy and secular worlds of the kind we develop; life is integrated. It was for Adam. The physical creation and Adam's spiritual links with God are all of one. This is man in all his glory; body and spirit in perfect harmony. Adam responds to God's actions in a way that seems instinctive. God brings the animals and Adam names them; God brings a wife and Adam names her. In the moments before the terrible disclosure of his defection, Adam and Eve ...hear the sound of Jehovah God walking up and down in the garden at the breeze of the day...(Gen 3:8 YLT)This is how it was intended to be; before Enoch or Noah, Adam walked with God.Sin brought separation and dis-integration but before its arrival how did Adam live? It seems he lived in perfect harmony and by revelation. He was a perfect creature; perfectly dependent upon his perfect Creator. We are not told the process of his sin, only Eve's. Perhaps the details of hers do for both; And the woman seeth that the tree is good for food, and that it is pleasant to the eyes, and the tree is desirable to make one wise, and she taketh of its fruit and eateth, and giveth also to her husband with her, and he doth eat; (Gen 3:6 YLT)The steps of the sin may be significant. Satan begins by casting doubt upon what God has said. Youngs gets the sense;And the serpent hath been subtile above every beast of the field which Jehovah God hath made, and he saith unto the woman, `Is it true that God hath said, Ye do not eat of every tree of the garden?' (Gen 3:1 YLT)Is it 'yea'?... has God said... It is sometimes said that Satan approached Eve when she was alone but all the personal pronouns are in the plural; it sounds to me as if both were present but Eve is holding the conversation.Eve gives her somewhat garbled account of God's word to Adam; But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. (Gen 3:3 KJV)In fact, this word had been entrusted to Adam and the express word was ...in the day that thou eastest thereof, dying thou shalt die. There is the combination of verb and noun that we observed before on intensity; dying thou shalt die. This is a reference to the ultimate death not merely ceasing to breath.And next comes the slander... The Greek word diabolos from whence our word 'devil' literally means a slanderer. I think it is important to observe the nature of this temptation. It is presented as though God were blocking Eve's 'rights'. Satan is drawing her into self consciousness, and the plural 'ye' includes Adam too. God wants to keep you subservient and 'beneath' Him. God knows that if you eat the fruit 1. your eyes will be opened - man will live his life based on his own evidence and will not need revelation2. you shall be as god - the very poison that he brewed in his own heart is now presented to Eve and Adam. For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. (Isa 14:13-14 KJV)3. knowing good and evil - man will become his own arbiter of good and evil with no need to be tied to an external standard.I don't want to lengthen this post but I think it is really important to see that Satan's design is clearly to involve mankind in his own conspiracy against the most High. This is treason and must, if allowed to succeed, end in theo-cide; the murdering of God. There can never be two supreme rules. Satan's intention in the seduction of the human race was not in order to debauch and corrupt, but to vandalize what God had made and to add mankind to his own forces in a cosmic revolt. Sin is a clash of crowns. ( which is why full repentance must always include abdication). It is the creature saying 'not your will but mine be done'. The stark reality is there can be no neutral territory. The creature must crown Him or crucify Him; in the final analysis there are no other options.I think we should also note that is was God who made the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil attractive to mankind. I repeat what I have said elsewhere; Satan cannot create, he can only corrupt. And out of the ground made Jehovah God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:9 ASV)God has created mankind with desires that are capable of satisfaction. We need beauty, we need food. Eve was only responding to her God-given desires when it records; And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. (Gen 3:6 ASV)There is one single addition here; she recognized in the tree that it was a tree to be desired to make one wise. I wonder why she wanted to be wise? and did she not understand the difference between wisdom and knowledge. Her children have acquired much knowledge but wisdom has eluded them. Did she imagine that the acquisition of knowledge of good and evil was a short cut to wisdom? The creature's wisdom is to come from revelation not information.This is all the beginnings of the process. I can see lust/desire here, I can see enticement and entrapment here. Then they ate and their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked... Seeds usually are carriers of life; this one carried death. Both sinned but through Adam's disobedience something entered here. A conception took place; Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: James' formula is holding true. And this even before congenital sin was man's normal experience, when there were no 'flesh sins', it still hold true...But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Now we need to look at the experience of the second man...

Thanks Bro. Ron! Did she imagine that the acquisition of knowledge of good and evil was a short cut to wisdom? I wonder if the subtlty of the Serpent was something she admired. The Serpent obviously outwitted her- in the sense that he, through his cunning craftiness, subdued the beginning of wisdom, which is the fear of the Lord in her mind. That has always been the final safety net for victory. The fear of the Lord must convince the heart of the truth of God's word no matter how deceptive a temptation becomes. For fear of the Lord men depart from evil. The enemy always challenges us with the particulars of what God has said in order to undermine the commandment. When he cannot successfully undermine the commandment he will undermine the penalty. When he cannot undermine the penalty I have found that he convinces us that the penalty will not be immanent.

I want to split this verse to make my point. The initial experience is to be one of the indwelling God. None of this is primarily dependent upon the believer but is the free gift of the God. The Father would fulfil His promise to the Son and the Son would fulfil His promise to the waiting disciples (Acts 2:33). All this would be because of the Son’s achievement on the cross; there is no human contribution thus far. But the words move on to link human condition with divine blessing; He that has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me; but he that loves me shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him. This speaks to me of something more. The disciples’ obedience is a consequence of their love to God, but that obedience is also a condition of God’s self revelation. I wanted to draw from the latest "Abraham My Friend" entry as I think we can learn something here. It also ties directly into the thread as John 14 deals with the coming of the Comforter. In John 14:15, 16 we read:If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever... (ASV)There was a point in my life that I desperately wanted to know and do what was right in God's sight. I wanted to learn of Him. At the time I had been working as a mechanic and had badly injured my hand. This left me to work at the cashiers desk. One day I looked down and someone had placed a xerographic copy of John 14 on the desk. It was reduced in size and apparently was being handed out as a Gospel tract. I read through it and wondered what it was all about. My attention centered on the many mansions and Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. But there was something there that I was overlooking- and this day would mark a turning point in my life. It happens that a traveling evangelist came to our church to hold a revival (as they were called then). I was hungry for God. I was desperate to know God. I had been to church and read my bible and even asked Jesus into my heart as a child. I called upon the name of the Lord in the times of trouble and from time to time would drift into sins of the heart and flesh. But my life was about to change forever. I was filled with the Holy Spirit on one of those nights. The change in my life is indescribable. I have often said that I went from religion to relationship in a snap. I had a continuous consciousness of God that was accompanied by an intense hunger for the Word and worship. Maybe I could say it was my 'first love' experience in Christ. I would eat, sleep, and breathe God. It was the love I had at first. I didn't need a long list of "how to's" to keep me from sin. The love I had at first was enough. The love dominated my heart; there was no room for anything else. For many years I had known Christ by the hearing of the ear; now the Spirit that was with me was in me. Maybe that's not theologically correct, but it sure seemed to be that way. Strangly enough I always 'felt' saved before that. I only know that when the Spirit of God filled me so many things changed. From that time to this I have been in a struggle with the enemy that so desperately wants to steal away that love. He wants me to leave my first love; my foremost love; the love I had at first- for the one who loved me first. Do you remember those days? Can you remember that great love that seemed to cause everything to work. The Love that you lived for and was willing to die for. I am told that there is a tower in England that once held prisoners in chains about to be burned to death. There is a writing on that wall that was etched into the wood Jhesus est amor meus- it means "Jesus is my love." I think of this and I think- love is an all controlling force in our lives. Who we love we give our lives for. Who we love we are loyal to. What could possibly scale the walls of our love and spoil the relationship between us and God if those walls ascended to the heights of the love we had at first?

Maybe I could say it was my 'first love' experience in Christ. I would eat, sleep, and breathe God. It was the love I had at first. I didn't need a long list of "how to's" to keep me from sin. Hi RobertYes, I think we are back to what those old Methodists called the 'expulsive power of a new affection'. I have often seen strong parallels to New Testament teaching in the life of David and the three generations of Saul (Jonathan and Mephibosheth). And Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they should kill David. But Jonathan Saul's son delighted much in David: and Jonathan told David, saying, Saul my father seeketh to kill thee: now therefore, I pray thee, take heed to thyself until the morning, and abide in a secret place, and hide thyself: (1Sa 19:1-2 KJV)Jonathan's protection against Saul's temptation was not an experience he had had back in Ch 18, but his continuing love for David. It resurfaces in 1 Sam 20:17 and each time the basis is Jonathan's love for David.The Methodists, of course, called it Perfect Love.

Hi Bro. Ron,So is it safe to say that all the admonishions in the New Testament that seem to guard us from falling into sin are more excellently there to protect that love? Or should that love even need protection? Jonathon loved David- but was there ever a danger of something or someone souring that love or stealing that love away somehow? I have taught that we only have 'x' amount of love to distribute. To use some algebra of my own I would say that the love that we give to our family and friends and unfortunately the cares of this life adds up until we sometimes end up giving the love that belongs to God to other people or things. If I understand correctly the definition of whoredom is to take the love that belongs to the one and give it to another. When we start to wander away or our love is not what it was at first we need to examine ourselves and see where we have been distributing that love. The enemy is always wanting to steal our love. Any other thoughts before you go on?

I have taught that we only have 'x' amount of love to distribute. To use some algebra of my own I would say that the love that we give to our family and friends and unfortunately the cares of this life adds up until we sometimes end up giving the love that belongs to God to other people or things.I'm sure we only have 'x' amount, or '-x' in some cases, but I think this is good news. It's the same kind of good news that comes in the realization that Christianity is not difficult, but impossible. ;-) the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.(Rom 5:5 NASB) is not human love but the love of God. It is not God filling up what lacks of my own meagre resource, but an entirely different kind of love; hence agapE. Paul goes on in Romans to define God's love as distinct from human love. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.(Rom 5:7 KJV) That's human love, at its best. BUT...But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.(Rom 5:8 NASB)This is the only reason that Christian husbands can be admonished to love... as Christ (Eph 5:25 KJV) Divine love is available. There is a thrilling (and probably accidental) testimony to this in Rom 9. Where Paul testifies, and the tenses are significant, Truth I say in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing testimony with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart-- for I was wishing, I myself, to be anathema from the Christ--for my brethren, my kindred, according to the flesh,(Rom 9:1-3 YLT) What an amazing discovery for Paul, that within his own heart God's own love was being poured forth.This is the reason I opted for the NASB in the Rom 5:5 quotation. It makes it clear that this is not love going 'into' the heart, that would be 'eis', but love being poured out 'within' (en) our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.Somehow to make all this work God has to get us out of our finite resources into His infinite provision; otherwise this Christianity thing, beautiful ideal though it may be, just 'ain't gonna work'.

Br. Ron wrote:Adam was without sinful bias, without wrongful desire. He is created in innocence but is open to temptation. At the time of Adam's temptation there was no conspirator on the inside.I agree with your eloquence of thought. The only point I would want to make, is that wrongful desire is the result of misplaced hope. The knowing of good and evil comes from the two seeds. The good seed is of God's word. The evil seed is of Satan's word. In ChristJeff

he only point I would want to make, is that wrongful desire is the result of misplaced hope. The knowing of good and evil comes from the two seeds. The good seed is of God's word. The evil seed is of Satan's word. This makes me think of I Peter 1:13-23. The whole passage seems to build towards the 21st verse; "That you faith and hope might be in God."(1:21b) Where will we place our love? Where will we place our hope? Where will we place our faith? The enemy lures us away from God's love to get us to put our faith in his lies and our hope in a pipe dream. Its that same pattern Bro. Ron has been teaching on from James. Eve believed the lie having placed her hope in the enemies assurance that she would be like gods. Bro Jeff, do see 'lust' as the consequence of our entertaining the lies of the devil and that the desire is in fact our natural desires combined with a false hope that results from entertaining those thoughts? This may well answer why we need to cast the imaginations down. They hand around until they create a false hope that we end up turning our desires towards.

Br. Robert wrote:Bro Jeff, do see 'lust' as the consequence of our entertaining the lies of the devil and that the desire is in fact our natural desires combined with a false hope that results from entertaining those thoughts? Yes. Lust is the result of striving after a misplaced hope that can never satisfy. We might say to ourselves," If only I get more of the thing or consequence that once satisfied the desire for which I hope in, then I will be at rest." All hopes that germinate from the seed of Satan are futile. Only the seed which Jesus sows can germinate into a hope which allows one to enter into His rest. His truth releases us from striving after futile things which can never satisfy. In ChristJeff

Br. Robert,Sixteen years ago I was a pot head. It all began with the temptation of smoking one joint. I still remember the smell and the enlightened state of awareness that that first joint brought. I remember my toes tingling. Soon, one joint wasn't enough. It didn't satisfy. So as time went on, more of my day was consumed by being high. Near the end, I would smoke when I got up in the morning. I would smoke two joints at coffee break and two at lunch. And then when I got home I continued to smoke. The hope I lusted after eluded me. But something else came with this lust. The lust turned me into a hermit. And I still suffer the consequences of that sin. Up until 8 years ago, I believed that I only needed one or two people. Now the Lord continues to stretch me. A disciple of Christ cannot be a loner. It is not in His nature.In ChristJeff

'lust' as the consequence of our entertaining the lies of the devil and that the desire is in fact our natural desires combined with a false hope that results from entertaining those thoughts? This may well answer why we need to cast the imaginations down. They hand around until they create a false hope that we end up turning our desires towards.At a later stage in human history we have a powerful statement of the human condition expressed in Gen 6; And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Gen 6:5 KJV)This is a devastating judgment. It is difficult to 'imagine' a more final statement; every imagination...only evil, continually. It is, in fact, the first reference to the 'heart' in the scriptures.Was this now the normal condition of man or its lowest ebb? Or was this the consequence of verse 2? The only exception to this condition apparently was Noah himself, Gen 6:9.It may well be that 'false hope' had a part in Eve's deception, but Sin did not enter through Eve's deception but through Adam's transgression. It was Adam who lost us the presence of God and Eden. It was Adam through whom the whole creation 'fell'. It was Adam who who expelled (though Eve accompanied him as part of his race). Adam's action was not the 'fault' of false hope but of chosen rebellion. Lust/desire, was original to Adam and Eve; it was not the result of striving after misplaced hope. It was simply the way we made. I repeat my understanding that Satan created nothing but only spoiled something. However as a result of Adam's rebellious choice Sin-Satan entered our world, and especially our race. This dramatically altered the whole balance of what it meant to be human. From that time the blank-canvas of human lusts/desire became the canvas for a very different artist and picture. Genuine regeneration re-sets the inner dials (and much more) but does not remove us from the 'world' that Sin entered. Adam was surrounded by evidences of God's love and provision. From the time of his giving access to the alien spirit mankind has not dwelt, spiritually, in a garden but a desert . We are living our lives in enemy territory. The ways of this occupied territory surround us; we breath its air and live among its accents and viewpoints. I am not talking about decadent western culture here, but 'the world'; its rulers and its patterns. A new 'norm' was begun by Adam's rebellion and even the regenerate have to make their journey through it.

Christ's TemptationsThe period of the wilderness temptation was 40 days. Surely this is significant as is the site of the temptation. The first man met his enemy in a garden, the second man meets his enemy in a wilderness. It is important to remember that whatever our views about the restoration of the Adamic image in man, the 'world' has not been restored. It is no longer a garden to cheer and sustain with wall-to-wall tokens of God's love, it is a wilderness with nothing to assist us in our conflict. This is daunting but wonderful too. God always starts from where we are, rather than where we ought to be.The site of the temptation seems to be close to the site of Christ's water baptism; there is an immediacy in the gospel narrative accounts that has no room for long journeys; And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. (Mar 1:10-12 KJV)We read of three separate places where John baptized but the New Bible Dictionary puts the site for Christ's baptism "on the right bank of the Jordan opposite Jericho". I am sure they are right. Christ's baptism and temptation were at the sites of Old Israel's repitition of the Law in Deuteronomy, and at the place they crossed Jordan into the promised land. From the place of the Temptation it may have been possible to see the place where Moses reiterated the Law. All Christ's answers to the Temptations were words first uttered by Moses in basically the same place; Deut 8:3, Deut 6:16, Deut 6:13. He is the mind-set of Deuteronomy, poised to enter the promised land to subdue it for God. He is the New Moses, the True Joshua, True Israel.Old Israel spent 40 years in the wilderness; a year for a day. Christ's temptation was a re-enactment of Adam's trial, and Israel's. His first Deuteronomy quotation is significant when placed in its full context; All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers. And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and [/u]to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart[/u], whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no. And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years. (Deu 8:1-4 KJV)Adam's role was to subdue the earth and replenish it; Joshua's was to subdue the land and possess it. Before this there must be the 'proving'. The reference to 'prove' in Deut 8:2 above uses the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word we examined earlier; it is to approve, test, assay. Adam is called, by implication, a son of God in Luke genealogy (Luke 3:38)which Luke places in between the proclamation of Christ's sonship and the wilderness. Old Israel too was called God's son (Ex 4:22)Both were 'owned' by God, both were 'tested'. Now the is 'led... of the Spirit into the wilderness... to be tempted by the devil'. (Matt 4:1)The first temptation is to independence of action, and the tempter's lure is Christ's hunger. It would have been unhuman not to have been hungry. Hunger is one of the God-given instincts intended to preserve the life of the individual. If we don't eat we die. In order to ensure that we don't ignore this fact we hunger when we don't eat. Nothing wrong with hunger, nothing at all. We raised three sons and always regarded hunger as a healthy sign! How was Christ different to Adam? Was He different at all? How then could it be written the Word became flesh; And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (Joh 1:14 NASB)If we do get to defining 'flesh/sarx' we shall surely spend some time on this verse. The Good News Bible 'interpretes' this as 'the Word became a human being'; I think that is good exposition though not a good translation.It is vital to understand that Christ's work on earth was accomplished as a human being; as is His continuing work in heaven. This is the second man; He is not God pretending to be human. The Word, really did, become flesh. (pause for worship!)God might have destroyed Satan with a word and one day will do so, but the question was not can God be victorious over Satan; the question is, can man be victorious over Satan? The incarnation says 'yes'. God will be just and seen to be just. Satan will not be able to say 'the great experiement failed', the human race failed. It is part of the great glory of God that He is determined to bruise Satan under your feet shortly. I don't want to be disrespectful, but Christ had no tricks unknown to Adam. He had the revealed will of God; so did Adam. It was what both 'Adams' did with that knowledge that made the difference.The Father has publicly acknowledged Christ to be the Son. The Spirit has taken Him into the wilderness. The temptation is essentially 'why not use your status and power as a Son for the satisfaction of your hunger?' Matthew records that when He had fasted for 40 days and 40 nights, he was afterward an hungred. The fast was over. The period of the 40 days accomplished. What point is there in remaining hungry? Surely you can be a little easier on yourself? After all we're talking bread here not a gourmet meal. The question is really quite a simple one, 'why would it have been wrong to yield to this temptation?' Christ's answer gives us our answer, 'because man is not to live by his own resources, but by dependence upon God'. His switching from Satan's 'son' to an answer in terms of 'man' is very significant. According to Deut 8 this was a major purpose of the wilderness temptation for Israel; And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by everything that proceedeth out of the mouth of Jehovah doth man live. (Deu 8:3 ASV)I have mentioned before that the verb 'to know' in both Greek and Hebrew can have the sense of 'acknowledge' or 'recognize'. I think that holds here. God looked for a recognition that 'man' is more than his hungers and that 'life' is dependence upon divine revelation.Christ's 'life' is bounded by the will of His Father. He can consciously step outside this boundary to satisfy perfectly legitimate desires/lusts. Paul sets His pattern as ours; We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. (Rom 15:1-3 KJV)Personal satisfaction and the satisfying of hungers must be subject to the revealed will of God. If the choice is remain within God's will or satisfy my God-given appetites, then Christ plainly chooses to remain in the will of God and to remain hungry. Did His hunger vanish with His obedience; I think not. Was His hunger sin; I think not. What then is sin? it is choosing my own choice above God's choice. The first Adam satisfied his 'appetites' for knowledge and beauty and food in a manner that was contrary to divine revelation, and knowingly. The Last Adam 'denied Himself' and in this secret place away from all observation chose to further embrace the will of God.It was the outworking of his 'mission statement'; Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.' (Heb 10:7 ESV)I will let you digest and comment/challenge and before we go further into the wilderness temptation I want to examine the most severe temptation He ever faced...

The Last Adam 'denied Himself' and in this secret place away from all observation chose to further embrace the will of God.Hi Bro. Ron,What an awesome commentary. Makes me want to visit that "I was wrong" post again to reaffirm it.I want to key in for a second on the quote above. The real temptations deal with what we will do or not do in secret. This has been expressed in many profound ways; but I think we need to consciously grasp it. Everyone does well I the public eye among those whom we may be trying to impress; but can we stand the test in the wildeness when only God, Satan, the great cloud of witnesses and the Angelic host are watching? I'll let you go I'm anxious to let you finish. :-)God Bless,-Robert

Br. Ron wrote: It was Adam who who expelled (though Eve accompanied him as part of his race). Adam's action was not the 'fault' of false hope but of chosen rebellion. Lust/desire, was original to Adam and Eve; it was not the result of striving after misplaced hope. It was simply the way we made. I repeat my understanding that Satan created nothing but only spoiled something. Eve was tempted by Satan. Eve disobeyed God. Adam who is the head of the family chose to disobey God and remain with Eve. What is the evidence of what Adam hoped for?Adam knew the command, Adam chose Eve over God. In ChristJeff

Br. Ron wrote; It was simply the way we made.Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day."Br. Ron, Scripture does not teach what you are implying. Everything that God created was good. Therefore there was nothing depraved in Adam or Eve. Absolutely nothing. The only thing that existed that was evil was Lucifer and his angels. That is the spiritual realm. Lust/desire, was original to Adam and Eve; it was not the result of striving after misplaced hope.With this statement Ron you state that lust/desire were part of Adam and Eve. Was this lust/desire consider good. Because everything that God created was good.In ChristJeff

Br. Ron wrote: I repeat my understanding that Satan created nothing but only spoiled something. How did Satan spoil man?In ChristJeff

Br Ron wrote: I don't want to be disrespectful, but Christ had no tricks unknown to Adam. He had the revealed will of God; so did Adam. It was what both 'Adams' did with that knowledge that made the difference.Twenty or so posts ago you denied that knowledge was the key to understanding that prevents corruption. Here you state that both Adam and Christ had the same knowledge, the difference is the choice they made. Choices that are made are made based on where our hope lies. Please clarify what you are teaching here.In ChristJeff

Br Ron wrote: It is, in fact, the first reference to the 'heart' in the scriptures.Was this now the normal condition of man or its lowest ebb? Or was this the consequence of verse 2? The only exception to this condition apparently was Noah himself, Gen 6:9.Gen. 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” 26 And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the LORD. Not all mens hearts were wicked as you have stated. God always has a remnant whose hearts are for God.In ChristJeff

How did Satan spoil man?Certainly we can agree that Satan did something to deserve having his head crushed. I am reminded of the passage; "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" (Matthew 18:6-8). What was his guilt? Revelation 20:3- he deceived the natians. Eve was tempted by Satan. Eve disobeyed God. Adam who is the head of the family chose to disobey God and remain with Eve. What is the evidence of what Adam hoped forI think my solution for this is a bit more controversial so I will carefully word it. I reserved it hoping we would not need to go this route:Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were create (Genesis 5:2 KJV). Youngs Literal reads; A male and a female He hath prepared them, and He blesseth them, and calleth their name Man, in the day of their being prepared.I see evidence that Eve being deceived was in the transgression. Paul alludes to what happened in the Garden. He admonished the Corinthian church, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his craftiness, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." The apostle writes further, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:14) This does not conflict with Paul's statement about Adam- I think the key is understanding that they were both referred to as Adam (man) in Genesis 5:2.

This morning I am burning with words. We are saved by grace through faith. Heb. 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. God's grace forms the substance. The substance creates the hope. The evidence defines the desires for which we strive for. Desire is not the precept which causes men to miss the mark. It is the hope that we have that causes us obey or rebell. What don't you see?In ChristJeff

"For by it the elders obtained a good testimony." Heb 11:2The definition of faith teaches that there is a result in what is hoped for. In verse 2 we know that the evidence of the walk of the elders created a good testimony. What would be the testimony of one who had faith in something other than God? Could we also judge them by the testimony of their life? Could we not see what their hope was?In ChristJeff

The testimony that a man has is the result of God's grace worked in us by the Holy Spirit, or the result of the father of lies. Look for the fruit of the Holy Spirit or of Satan. Examples are given for our instruction throught out the Holy Scriptures.In ChristJeff

Have you ever considered the encounter between Christ and Peter recorded in Matthew? It drew from Christ the strongest reaction of his earthly pilgrimage. It all starts so well for Peter, but at the end the accusation is so strong that I have often wondered how Peter ever recovered from it. I raise it here because we are talking about the mechanics of temptation and I think this passage shows something in stark light.It begins with revelation, and while Peter sticks to the revelation he is on good ground, but when he tweaks things he becomes the most dangerous man on earth. The answer to the question and Christ's comment are well known; He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Mat 16:15-17 KJV)Peter is moving on the basis of revelation; apokaluptō - Thayer Definition: to uncover, lay open what has been veiled or covered up. God can build wonderfully on properly received revelation. This confession will be the basis of 'my church'; only those who have received the Father's revelation as to the person of the Son can be built into this 'church'. Some say the foundation is the confession, I think this is incomplete. The foundations are the confession which come as the response to revelation. This is my favourite definition of faith again; right response to revelation. This is understanding based on revelation; this is life dependent upon the word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Peter is on good ground here.The Lord then forbids the disciples to pass this revelation on to anyone else! Faith can never be based on what God said to someone else alone; I must hear the word 'proceeding from the mouth of God'. This is a watershed; From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. (Mat 16:21-22 KJV)Peter's words are his reaction to the words of Jesus regarding the cross, and the amazing fact is that it was Peter's love for Christ which earned him this terrible rebuke. There is an aspect to this story captured by Tyndale which seems to have escaped all the other versions; Then Peter tooke him aside, and began to rebuke him, saying, Master, pitie thy selfe: this shall not be vnto thee. (Mat 16:22 Geneva Bible)'Pity thyself'; it seems such a harmless counsel. It is the word hileōs and in this context it means 'be merciful (or propitious) to thyself; it is used a second time in Hebrews For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (Heb 8:12 KJV)Peter, out of the kindness of his heart brought his rebuke be merciful to thyself, this shall not be to thee and it brought the wrath of heaven on his head!In the gentle rebuke of Peter Christ heard anothers voice; But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. (Mat 16:23 ASV)Why such anger? What triggered this reaction? The underlined words are our clues. The word stumbling-block or offense in the KJV is skandalon Thayer Definition: 1) the movable stick or trigger of a trap, a trap stick. I remember trying to catch birds as a boy with bread crumbs under a cardboard box propped up with a stick to which I had attached a piece of string. The theory was that you lured the prey into your trap and activated the trigger; the reality was I never caught one (and don't know what I would have done with it if I had). The stick-trigger was a skandalon. In Peter's words Christ saw the trigger of a trap; he was being enticed in order to be entrapped. (remember our James postings?)And what was the lure? Pity thyself[/i], self-interest. Christ had spoken of the cross. At this point only He knew the implications of these words, but its shadow must have cast a chill on His spirit. Perhaps Peter saw it. Perhaps he thought he could bring a little warming comfort. 'Pity thyself'. Self-interest was the underlying theme of Satan's temptation in the garden in Eden. Look out for yourself, God does not have your interests at heart. Well, don't you deserve a bit of a break? These words of Peter had the power to weaken Christ's resolve to do His Father's will, and Christ recognized their author; [b]Get thee behind me, Satan. If I were preaching now I would be tempted to say 'whenever you hear those words 'Pity Thyself' understand who it is who is speaking them.The other word in the ASV is mindest. I think the ASV has worked hard here to make a link that no others translators have succeeded in. The KJV 'savourest' is not very helpful at this point. The word mindest is phroneō Thayer Definition: 1) to have understanding, be wise 2) to feel, to think. It is one of many Greek words to do with thought processes and is usually translated by the verbs 'think' or 'mind'. Christ is saying the reason that this was such a snare to Him was that it represented a different kind of mind-set or thought sequence. You are not thinking the way God thinks. There is a battle taking place in the mind here. Which mind-set will prevail? I am always alerted when the pattern is unexpected. Following the reasoning you might have expected Christ to say to Peter; Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art the trigger of a snare to me because you are not thinking the way God thinks, but the way Satan thinks. But He actually says; ...Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. (Mat 16:23 ASV)It appears that Satan and 'man' have the same mind-set and it is set in opposition to God's mind-set.What is the essence of that mind-set? Well, here's the other mind-set; Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (Phi 2:5 KJV)The NASB has 'attitude' which is a good exposition but again a bad translation. Paul then goes on to describe Christ's mind-set/attitude. You will know it well. It is a mind-set in which self-pity was never allowed. Self-hood, at every level, was surrended to the will of God on the persistent downwards journey; untimately to death, even the death of the cross. We are back at the cross again! He resisted all allurements, set his face as a flint and embraced a death which emptied Him of every 'right'. The Satan-man mind-set is quite different. It a persistent upwards journey;For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. (Isa 14:13-14 KJV)Do you see the constant choice of his own interest against that of God?The truth of the cross operates at many different levels. The Lord never rebukes without presenting the remedy and He know does this for Peter; Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Mat 16:24 KJV)Christ's cross was unique and we are never told to take up His cross. However, if would follow in His steps a man must take up 'his (own)cross'. Whenever the word's 'Pity thyself' are heard, we must put them behind our back and 'deny thyself'. This is what Christ did in this deadly temptation. There can be no compromise and no arbitration; it is either/or. Adam could have taken this route; not my will but Thine, but he put himself and his own self-interest above everything and united with the original Rebel.It the simplest of terms 'the cross' is when I say 'no' to my own self-interest. That wonderful verse in Revelation is not only speaking about the outward physical realities; And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. (Rev 12:11 KJV)Here is where the victory lies; they loved not their lives unto the death.that's more than enough for a single posting, my apologies.

Br. Ron wrote: Adam's action was not the 'fault' of false hope but of chosen rebellion. Lust/desire, was original to Adam and Eve; it was not the result of striving after misplaced hope. It was simply the way we made. I repeat my understanding that Satan created nothing but only spoiled something. If you teach you should be able to explain with Scripture. Please address each one of these statements above according to Scripture. In ChristJeff

Listen to what the writer of Psalm 119 says about hope.73 \tYour hands have made me and fashioned me;\tGive me understanding, that I may learn Your commandments. 74 \tThose who fear You will be glad when they see me,\tBecause I have hoped in Your word."Here Scripture teaches us about the results or evidence brought about in this man's life because the Word of God was the substance of what he hoped for. What are the results spoken of here?"Those who fear You will be glad when they see me..." Does this not speak of his relationship with God. Godly fear is present in all those who God has made a promise too. Also notice that there is fellowship with others who God has worked in. This verse represents the workmanship of God that enable the faithful to fullfill the two most important commandments. We are to love God with our whole mind, soul, and body and love one another. Do you see that it is the precept of hope that enables man to obey God. And this hope is centered on the word of God. All those who rebell only have satan as their father. In ChristJeff

Do you see that it is the precept of hope that enables man to obey God. And this hope is centered on the word of God. All those who rebell only have satan as their father. Hi Bro. Jeff,It seems that we are swinging back and forth a bit in this subject and I'm loosing the whole jest of this main argument. I don't want to misunderstand your position doctrinally on original sin; so I hoped you would maybe give us a quick snap shot of it or link me to it so I know where you are coming from. As for the above statement I think the issue is more of our resisting or submitting to the Holy Spirit. When He comes He will lead us into all truth. It is also God that worketh in us both to will and to do His good pleasure. The hope you speak of is presented to us in order to influence our decree; but the decree is to either submit or rebel to what God has said as truth or Satan has told as lies. We either submit to God and resist the Devil or we submit to the devil and resist the Holy Ghost. To me the issue is right response to revelation as the Spirit helpeth our infirmities. In other words, without the Spirit of God we could do nothing. I don't want to sound too Cavlinistic here, but I believe it is true. Finney would say we are responsible no matter what. I also agree to that. Jeremiah writes; I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself 'thus', Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a calf unaccustomed 'to the yoke': turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art Jehovah my God. I have to submit to this turning when God does it. It is hard for us to kick against the pricks/goads (Acts 26:14). It is not so much my ability to obey as my willingness to yield to the Holy Ghost. God Bless,-Robert

Br. Ron wrote:Quote: Adam's action was not the 'fault' of false hope but of chosen rebellion. Lust/desire, was original to Adam and Eve; it was not the result of striving after misplaced hope. It was simply the way we made. I repeat my understanding that Satan created nothing but only spoiled something.If you teach you should be able to explain with Scripture. Please address each one of these statements above according to Scripture.Please see posting from philologos @ 2004/11/1 12:29. The word translated 'lust' can be used of 'good lusts' as well as 'bad ones'. Adam was created with basic desires/lusts which were part of his humanity; they were not evil. Christ, as true man, would have had the same 'desires/lusts'. The intrusion of another spirit through Adam has altered the whole balance of what it means to be human. There have only ever been 2 proper men; the first man and the second man. All others have been a distortion of what God originally planned. The distorter/vandal was Satan.

I was thinking this morning about how it seems that there is somehow a residual evil inclination in the hearts of men that is not fully 'disposed of' at regeneration for some reason. My reasoning for that is in the fact that the carnal mind is enmity against God and unable to be made subject unto the law of God. If this fully changed at conversion and regeneration, then we could have come under the Mosiac law (Spiritual law) with no real problem. Yet, Paul gave no small rebuke to those who would suggest that the Mosiac law even be added to the plan of Salvation. The body is also suspect because it is still subject unto death, as evidence that sin is still somewhere present. This does not mean that a person must sin in the similitude to Adam's transgression; it only leaves the possibility of falling back into a carnal mindset. I am thinking that our death to sin must be directly tied to our death to the Law. Death to the Law keeps the law of sin in inutility; while opening the door to the infilling of the Holy Spirit to help us deal with those two specific infirmities. This is quite a bit different (weaker) than my former model of having two side by side natures. The whole issue seems to boil down to our utter dependence on the Holy Ghost to help our many infirmities and allow us to walk in complete victory, by walking in the Spirit. When I studied Wesley's writings some years ago along with the accounts of those who had 'reached' or 'acquired' the second blessing, they spoke of having felt no inclination to sin for some period of time, etc. I remember always thinking that what they were experiencing was what has been called in our Pentecostal circles a "Mountain Top Experience". They were in a state of revival, as it were, that brought them to that state of perfect love. Did that last? I hope it did and believe it could and can. I have simply never seen it on a consistent year by year basis. That is my experience and I will no longer be dogmatic and say that it is unattainable.My question throughout the years has been; "what are we struggling against that seems to toss us down the Mountain as it were?" Is it external or internal or both? Is the enemy in me (the flesh)? Is it me subjecting myself to the world? To be quite candid, I always felt there was something sinnister in my being that craved sin itself. I always concluded that the 'flesh' craves sin and we must not make provision for the flesh. But what is the flesh? Galatians 6 and James 1 seem like very similar passages. One deals with sowing to the flesh and the other to lust conceiving and bringing forth sin. If the flesh is now neutral then we must conclude that what the flesh is being sown with bad seed and that bad seed is what yields corruption. Bro Jeff's earlier comment about a remnant of men having a heart for God must be qualified also. These men still died. That is proof that sin was present in them also. They were all in need of regeneration and redemption. God has concluded all under sin (Galatians 3:22). They resisted that bentness to sin, but it is clear that original sin is universal. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come (Romans 5:14). We are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). Paul had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (Compare Romans 10:2 & Galatians 1:14) and he had the entire Old Testament at his disposal (much of which as a Pharisee he would have had memorized). Paul tells of the inward struggle he experienced in his quest for God in Romans 7. Here is a man that struggled no matter how bad he wanted to know God. He found relief in salvation through Christ (Romans 7:24).

Thankyou for responding Br. Ron,You wrote in a past post:This passage tells us that a man is tempted when he is 'drawn away of his own lust'. At this stage of the verse this is an 'inside job', a purely personal affair. I cannot blame anyone else for my 'own' lust. I'm not even sure I can 'blame' myself, although we shall need to carefully apportion culpability in these verses. James then adds the necessary verbs to describe the process of temptation; drawn away and enticed. The first word is the picture of the hunt, the second of a seduction.I agree with what you say in most posts. But I believe there is something more to this than just the lust\\desire aspect of sin. It has to do with Satan. You rightly acknowledge satan's activities, but it seems that there is a lack of sufficient weight given to the part that satan plays in the wickedness of men. The temptation is of satan. The precepts of his evilness are communicated to man. This seed is planted. Biblically speaking, the seed can be either good or bad. Only good comes from God, only evil comes from satan. This was established in Genesis 3:15. There are only two types of people. Those who are of the seed of satan and those who Jesus saves. Nothing else exists. So as James rightly places the sequence of sin beginning with the temptation. Then the desire of man is brought into play. There is a cause effect relationship. My point throughout this discussion has been to focus on the cause. The cause becomes the substance for which we hope for. When this hope is conceived, then our desire kicks in. Action results from desire. The action within our lives, if it is based on the seed of satan will never satisfy. This action will only cause us to try to force, with greater magnitude, the pursuit for attaining what has been conceived in us as being what we hope for. If our concept of hope remains based on satan's seed, which all men are subjected to, then we are condemned. If our concept of hope is renewed by the seed of God, (The Word of God), then there is salvation.In ChristJeff

The second tempation (in Matthew's order) has as its background Ps 91. This is a wonderful Psalm but it is sometimes not easy to work out the different persons represented in the Psalm. It seems that the Psalmists testimony breaks through at times, and the final verses sound very much like a direct word from the mouth of God. I would recommend that you read the whole psalm as an introduction to this next temptation. The Psalmist is supremely confident of God's ability to save and keep; He shall deliver thee... He shall cover thee... He shall give His angels charge over thee... The Psalmist is also confident of the consequences; shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty... thou shalt not be afraid... it shall not come nigh thee... no evil shall befall thee... no plague shall come nigh thy dwelling... thou shalt tread upon the lion and the adder...The Psalmist's confidence is the consequence of his own experience. What God has done for him, He will do for another; I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust. (Psa 91:2 KJV)and again later... Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation; (Psa 91:9 KJV)It reminds me of the words of Paul; But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. (Phi 4:19 KJV)Only a man who has experienced 'my God's' faithfulness would dare make this promise to another.But these blessings and assurances are not really 'promises' for us to claim. They are inevitable consequences of something else which brings us to the first verse, and of all my translation it is The Message which hits the right note! You who sit down in the High God's presence... (Psa 91:1a MSG)The word translated 'dwelleth' in almost all our versions is the verb 'to sit down'. These are not blessings to be 'claimed' but consequences of prior action. The blessings and assurances of this psalm are restricted to a particular kind of person; the person who is comfortable in God's presence, to the one who sits in the presence of God. This is why is it so important to consider the context of 'precious verses'. This psalm relates to someone who 'sits in the presence of the most High' not to someone who 'casts himself down from temple pinnacles'. These assurances are not the portion of the man who has 'put himself' into danger, but to the man who is in the place that the Most High has decreed.In the Messianic context the final three verses are amazing. Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him. With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation. (Psa 91:14-16 KJV)The Psalmist was speaking to someone who he describes; Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;(Psa 91:9 KJV)To whom is he speaking? Well, to anyone who fulfils the criteria of the first half of verse 1, but especially to Christ. the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy and 'sitting in the secret place of the Most High' is His testimony.Surely this is a testimony too of the Father concerning the Son and again the blessings of these verses... I will deliver him... I will answer him... I will be with him... are all consequences of the condition found at the beginning of verse 14; Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore ... There are two fundamental statements made about this 'man'; he sits in the secret place of the Most High AND he has set his love upon Me. We are back to the 'love of God' as the ultimate defense against all enemy attack. This word for love is a passionate one; a few verses will give the flavour...1. And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife. (Gen 34:8 KJV)2. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: (Deu 7:7 KJV)3.And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; (Deu 21:11 KJV)In fact it is used in the record of the construction of the tabernacle and means 'to be attached to', 'to cling to'. And again The Message seems to sound the right note where it translates this word as 'hanging on for dear life'. This is a cleaving, clinging, attaching love. The man in view is utterly safe; sitting and clinging.to be continued...

to be continued...Bro. Ron, Perhaps you would shed some light here on the love of God that is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost and how when we are full of the Holy Ghost we are full of that love. This will bring a bit of fulness to the statement; We are back to the 'love of God' as the ultimate defense against all enemy attack. There has to be a different meaning of love than what we are used to using. There are people that have a great emphasis on the love of God that do not cease from sin; but rather use that 'love' as an occasion to believe they can sin and God will forgive them because 'God loves them.' I had a young girl tell me once that she viewed God like her daddy; no matter what she ever did her daddy still accepted her and loved her. She deduced from this that she was OK to live in sin. When you would ask her about it or hint at it she would proclaim God's great love. Strangly some of these people can still sing and praise and worship and lift their hands without fear. Pretty soon the house fills up with sin and horrendous scandal. God Bless,-Robert

This is not a reply to anything posted here but just some discoveries made today while browsing through my Oswald Chamber's CD.I have really only read a small part of Chambers' works but I am always shocked to find my level of agreement with him. This little list of quotations is not exhaustive of his works but I think it is sufficient to see how he thinks. I don't want to put words into his mouth but I think Chambers regarded what contemporary evangelicals would call 'regeneration' as 'converssion', and what Chambers regards as 'regeneration' most evangelicals would term 'sanctification'.Our part as workers for God is to open men’s eyes that they may turn themselves from darkness to light; but that is not salvation, that is conversion—the effort of a roused human being. I do not think it is too sweeping to say that the majority of nominal Christians are of this order; their eyes are opened, but they have received nothing. Conversion is not regeneration. This is one of the neglected factors in our preaching today. When a man is born again, he knows that it is because he has received something as a gift from Almighty God and not because of his own decision. People register their vows, and sign their pledges, and determine to go through, but none of this is salvation. Salvation means that we are brought to the place where we are able to receive something from God on the authority of Jesus Christ, viz., remission of sins.Chambers, Oswald, My Utmost for His Highest, Jan 10.(United Kingdom: Marshall Morgan & Scott) c1927.Until we are born again, the only kind of temptation we understand is that mentioned by St. James—“Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” But by regeneration we are lifted into another realm where there are other temptations to face, viz., the kind of temptations Our Lord faced. The temptations of Jesus do not appeal to us, they have no home at all in our human nature. Our Lord’s temptations and ours move in different spheres until we are born again and become His brethren. The temptations of Jesus are not those of a man, but the temptations of God as Man. By regeneration the Son of God is formed in us, and in our physical life He has the same setting that He had on earth. Satan does not tempt us to do wrong things; he tempts us in order to make us lose what God has put into us by regeneration, viz., the possibility of being of value to God. He does not come on the line of tempting us to sin, but on the line of shifting the point of view, and only the Spirit of God can detect this as a temptation of the devil.Chambers, Oswald, My Utmost for His Highest, Sept 18 (United Kingdom: Marshall Morgan & Scott) c1927.No natural man knows anything about carnality. The flesh lusting against the Spirit that came in at regeneration, and the Spirit lusting against the flesh, produces carnality. “Walk in the Spirit,” says Paul, “and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh”; and carnality will disappear.Chambers, Oswald, My Utmost for His Highest, March 23.(United Kingdom: Marshall Morgan & Scott) c1927.If Jesus Christ is to regenerate me, what is the problem He is up against? I have a heredity I had no say in; I am not holy, nor likely to be; and if all Jesus Christ can do is to tell me I must be holy, His teaching plants despair. But if Jesus Christ is a Regenerator, One Who can put into me His own heredity of holiness, then I begin to see what He is driving at when He says that I have to be holy. Redemption means that Jesus Christ can put into any man the hereditary disposition that was in Himself, and all the standards He gives are based on that disposition: His teaching is for the life He puts in. The moral transaction on my part is agreement with God’s verdict on sin in the Cross of Jesus Christ.Chambers, Oswald, My Utmost for His Highest, October 6.(United Kingdom: Marshall Morgan & Scott) c1927. In regeneration, a man’s personal spirit is energised by the Holy Spirit, and the Son of God is formed in him (see Galatians 1:15-16; 4:19). This is the New Testament evangel, and it needs to be re-stated. New birth refers not only to a man’s eternal salvation, but to his being of value to God in this order of things; it means infinitely more than being delivered from sin and from hell. The gift of the essential nature of God is made efficacious in us by the entering in of the Holy Spirit; He imparts to us the quickening life of the Son of God, and we are lifted into the domain where Jesus lives (see John 3:5).Chambers, Oswald, The Love of God, (United Kingdom: Marshall Morgan & Scott) c1965. We can only know the Father through the Son (see Matthew 11:27), and regeneration means that God puts into my spirit the Spirit of His Son. Ask God on the authority of Jesus to give you the Holy Spirit, and He will do so; but you will never ask until you have struck the bottom board of your need.Chambers, Oswald, The Love of God, (United Kingdom: Marshall Morgan & Scott) c1965.When a man is born from above he has granted to him the disposition of Jesus, Holy Spirit, and if he obeys that disposition he will develop into the new manhood in Christ Jesus. If by deliberate refusal a man is not born again he is liable to find himself developing more and more into the satanic, which will ultimately head up into the devil.Chambers, Oswald, Baffled to Fight Better, (United Kingdom: Marshall Morgan & Scott) c1931.By regeneration Jesus Christ can put into any man the disposition that will make him the living example of what he preaches. The baptism of the Holy Ghost did not add anything to the Apostles’ doctrine, it made them specimens of what they taught (see Acts 1:8).Chambers, Oswald, Baffled to Fight Better, (United Kingdom: Marshall Morgan & Scott) c1931.Our natural disposition is gifted to us by heredity; by regeneration God gives us the disposition of His Son. Jesus Christ is pure to the depths of His motives, and if His disposition can be formed in me, then I begin to see how I can lay my account with purity. “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” If I let God alter my heredity, I will become devoted to Him, and Jesus Christ will have gained a disciple. Many of us who call ourselves Christians are not devoted to Jesus Christ.Chambers, Oswald, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, (United Kingdom: Marshall Morgan & Scott) c1929.

Hi Robertyou write: There has to be a different meaning of love than what we are used to using. There are people that have a great emphasis on the love of God that do not cease from sin; but rather use that 'love' as an occasion to believe they can sin and God will forgive them because 'God loves them.'One of my most quoted OT texts is And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. Yea, he loved the people... (Deu 33:2-3a KJV)I recall talking to a Wycliffe Bible translator many years ago. He said I am working with people who have no word for 'love'". I replied "So am I". We have a word which we use to express our preference for a flavour of ice-cream, our appreciation of a sunset, our feelings for a family pet, a one-night stand sexual encounter, our devotion to God... We don't have word for 'love'; not 'love' as the Bible uses the term. This is why I like this quotation from Deuteronomy. If this juxtapostion of 'fiery law' and 'love' seems incongruous, it is because I have not understood what the Bible means by 'love'. The Sinai law was a love-gift to His people; a wedding present for the wife of Jehovah.The 'love of God' is not only a 'love that will not let me go', it is also 'a love that will not let me off'. It is 'love' of a completely different order. This is not 'love for God' but God's own-brand of love. The modernist who asks 'which will have the last word? God's love or His justice?' has not begun to understand what the Bible means by this word. This is 'love' which will pay any price but cannot compromise; it is Holy Love. This is the love which says 'neither do I condemn thee, Go and sin no more' and any 'love' which omits either part of that sentence is not the 'love of God'.This is why I tie-in 'fiery judgement upon sin with immersion into the love of God' in my understanding of the term 'baptism in the Holy Spirit'.

This is the love which says 'neither do I condemn thee, Go and sin no more' and any 'love' which omits either part of that sentence is not the 'love of God'.Thanks Bro. Ron,How can we start to teach this type of love? I truly believe we need to start defining this term to our generation lest we be misunderstood. I will take all the notes you have on this subject if you are willing. :-)God Bless,-Robert

Br Ron wrote: This is the love which says 'neither do I condemn thee, Go and sin no more' and any 'love' which omits either part of that sentence is not the 'love of God'.Jesus then turned around to the crowd that was before Him at the temple and said, "I am the light of the world, He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." John 8:12Many focus on the point of condemnation. Many will say that famous part of the verse, "Neither do I condemn you." They smile and think of what a wonderful world they live in. Yet what is really being taught by Jesus. We have the Pharisees condemning this woman for sinning. Jesus then condemns the Pharisees of their sins. Jesus forgives the woman of her sins. He saves her physical life. Then He commands her to,"sin no more." Do you hear the weight of the command? Sin no more! But then Jesus provides for the only means by which she can obey His command. "I am the light of the world; He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness,. What is He promising to those who follow Him? What does it mean to not walk in darkness?It is only by the light of life can this woman obey the command of Jesus. So what is the light of life? By what means does the light overcome the darkness? Br Robert this is how one shepherds His flock. Listen and obey His voice. Jesus will overcome the world that is in us. In ChristJeff

After reading Abraham, My Friend 44 I was struck with a question that may help us explore this question of love. That being, how does AgapE love manifest itself? Psalm 7:11 states that God is angry with the wicked everyday; yet John 3:16 tells of God's love for the world in giving His son. Therefore, we deduce from this that anger and love are not necessarily incongruent. Anger would have to be thought of as an expression of His character trait righteousness, holiness, or love (or all the above). This is important to me in understanding the full gamut of reactions to sin and unrighteousness when full of the Holy Ghost. Sometimes it seems like anger- but not anger without cause or without love. There is a fine line also between anger and desperation. When a person is desperate enough in ill circumstances, their behavior may be characterized as harsh or angry- but it is merely an expression of desperate urgency. Why is daddy yelling and upset? Because you were playing with matches in your bedroom darling. In this equation, it was a reaction birthed out of love for both the child and the people who could be killed in the event of a fire. It is not malicious or retaliatory. It meets the circumstances with a desperate urgency to bring correction and prevent destruction.Any Thoughts?

Hi RobertAfter reading Abraham, My Friend 44 I was struck with a question that may help us explore this question of love. That being, how does AgapE love manifest itself? Psalm 7:11 states that God is angry with the wicked everyday; yet John 3:16 tells of God's love for the world in giving His son. Therefore, we deduce from this that anger and love are not necessarily incongruent. Anger would have to be thought of as an expression of His character trait righteousness, holiness, or love (or all the above).There is continuous cross-fertilization between all these threads and certainly your earlier posting has been in my thinking when I did Abraham, My Friend_44 It is interesting too as I had just received a private emale quoting Psalm 7. I think the first distinction we must make is between anger and temper. With God the first is a settled state against the rebel, the second is sin. In Psalm 7:11 the phrase 'with the wicked' is supplied by the translators and is not in the original which the ASV renders as My shield is with God, Who saveth the upright in heart. God is a righteous judge, Yea, a God that hath indignation every day. If a man turn not, he will whet his sword; He hath bent his bow, and made it ready. (Psa 7:10-12 ASV)The context shows that the KJV is not misinterpreting but I think the ASV shows the thrust of the Psalm better. I wonder if it would be legitimate to translate it thus; God is a righteous judge, Yea, a God that hath indignation every day if a man turn not. He will whet his sword; He hath bent his bow... The emphasis now is on God's attitude to the unrepentant and God's judgments are poised to strike... He hath bent his bow... I've just changed the punctuation.My old NT Greek teacher used to distinguish between 'anger'(thumos) and 'wrath' (orgE)by saying that wrath was the simmering cauldron of God's abiding and settled animosity, while anger was the boiling over of that animosity. He was a classicist but I think his definition holds up. There can be no doubt that wherever loves exists there hate must also exist. It is the other side of the same coin; I hate the thing that threatens the thing I love. God's love cannot be defined by man's love and God's hate cannot be defined by man's hate. The devil has glimpsed it and trembles.We have a great capacity for hate and agression but we need to be sure it is rightly targeted, remembering always that For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. (Jam 1:20 KJV)Your illustration is interesting When a person is desperate enough in ill circumstances, their behavior may be characterized as harsh or angry- but it is merely an expression of desperate urgency. Why is daddy yelling and upset? Because you were playing with matches in your bedroom darling. In this equation, it was a reaction birthed out of love for both the child and the people who could be killed in the event of a fire.and yet I think we both feel that there is something amiss with such a reaction. Perhaps fear is mingled with our love, perhaps impatience that an earlier lesson has not been learned. The fact is God never 'yells' at us and is never 'upset' in a ruffled sense. God does not get adrenalin rushes.Jesus was angry, as we know. I get the sense that Jesus used his anger rather than it using Him. He never 'lost it'. There is a lovely comment by Amy Carmichael that says 'a cup filled with sweet water cannot spill a bitter drop; no matter how suddenly it is jarred'. I think we need to ask the Lord to show us the elements in our 'anger' which are not legitimate. An illustration surfaces from an old war film. Pearl Harbour and the devasted American South Pacific fleet. The Japanese commanders are rejoicing over their surprize when one of them says 'I fear what we have done is to awaken a terrible resolve'. God's wrath is a terrible resolve and it is carried out as a judicial punishment. It is not a temper tantrum. He never 'feels better when He has got it off His chest'. It always has the note of sorrow in it, and is never the outburst of frustration. When my children were younger and had earned a spanking I would carry out a proper review of their crime and would pronounce sentence. The sentence was then carried out calmly. God's anger is never out of control and his punishments are never retaliatory.There are places where 'wrath' is not appropriate. When we pray we are to do so without 'wrath and reasoning'.I wish, therefore, that men pray in every place, lifting up kind hands, apart from anger and reasoning;(1Ti 2:8 YLT)I wonder why this is and whether it can give us some pointers?

Perhaps fear is mingled with our love, perhaps impatience that an earlier lesson has not been learned. The fact is God never 'yells' at us and is never 'upset' in a ruffled sense. God does not get adrenalin rushes.I was thinking about fear also. It makes me think of an earlier passage, the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Also, we are told in Hebrews that our fathers chastened us for their own pleasure- but He for our profit that we might be partakers of His holiness. There seems to be a great contrast between our anger and God's and the various motivating factors, both factually and emotionally that make up the anger. His is a righteous anger or wrath, where ours could "be without cause," "with bitter envy and strife" or a host of other things. Look at Jonah and how he was angry. Certainly Jonah was a great prophet, but God certainly did not share His anger. Cain is another example of getting angry over something that is clearly wrong. The emotion of anger is a creation of God and we must consider it good when used lawfully. The question is, how can we square our emotions with AgapE love? Going back to our spanking analogy (btw I very rarely ever resorted to this with my kids, but wonder if I should have more biblically speaking) Solomon says not spanking is evidence of lovelessness (para Proverbs 13:24). My personal experience in my reaction to how my children behaved (most of whom are teens now) was a mixed strata of things. Love, desperation, fear, impatience etc. etc. Could this be the "Their own pleasure that Hebrews was speaking of and if so- how is God's love different that brings chastisement for our profit. Wrath towards an individual (especially the spouse) hinders prayers we know. So to tie all this together- our motives must be just as right in our prayers as in our chastening of our children. In effect, we cannot pray in such a way as to draw a spanking on a person based upon our own wrath and reasoning. We have to be praying without the wrath that worketh not the righteousness of God. Is there more to this? And does it not again stress the need for the Holy Spirit to bring both love, patience, and self-control?

Hi RobertCain is another example of getting angry over something that is clearly wrong. The emotion of anger is a creation of God and we must consider it good when used lawfully.Cain might be useful to us. Surely his was the first biblical evidence of anger. I think we have a parallel here of the relation of 'sex' to sin. To use my old algebra, sex is not sin. Sin + self is sin. It is when I enthrone my rights that I become offended by another. God never takes offence in a personal way. He has nothing to prove and nothing to defend. That's another Amy Carnichael saying 'they never caught Him off guard, because He was never on guard'. I think, in sinful anger, there is always this self-centredness. This links in with frustration which is just me insisting upon my rights to be a god! When 'my will' has been sidelined, or I think it has, the temptation is to impose my will instantly. Where this is beyond my control I manifest frustration which is just me stamping my foot because someone will not allow me to be God.Just why was Cain angry? It will be speculation to say it but he manifests spirit of the murderer. The only way he can have his will is if he removes all others; Abel was in the way. Abel clearly believed God's revelation and acted upon it; he had faith. Cain had a revelation too (Gen 4:7) but stamped his foot and walked away from it. Abel becomes the standing accusation to the man that Cain might have been and is removed.Satan's self consciousness seems to have marked the beginning of his sin. There is no explanation as to why this happened, only that it did. While others worshipped in oblivious wonder he became conscious of his own beauty and demanded recognition. Aesthetics are a creation of God too, but when my own beauty becomes my focus the fall is inevitable. You say 'anger' is a creation of God. The question is 'is what I call anger the same 'emotion' that God calls anger?' Man is no longer in the image and likeness of God. The likeness has been damaged. Man is a distortion of what he was intended to be. Is his anger also a distortion of what it was intended to be. Sexual ability and desires were also part of God's creation but when used for self-centred gratification and without regard to others such abilities and desires are deadly. The reason that Christ's anger was not sinful is plainly declared; He pleased not Himself.

Hi Bro. Ron, The question is 'is what I call anger the same 'emotion' that God calls anger?' Man is no longer in the image and likeness of God. The likeness has been damaged. Man is a distortion of what he was intended to be. Is his anger also a distortion of what it was intended to be. Sexual ability and desires were also part of God's creation but when used for self-centred gratification and without regard to others such abilities and desires are deadly. The reason that Christ's anger was not sinful is plainly declared; He pleased not Himself.To be consistent with our view that God restored what was lost in the fall in Christ, the Second Adam, we must conclude that when we walk in the Spirit, full of the Holy Ghost, that we cantrust our emotions to a great extent to be in harmony with God's definition of anger or other emotions. I have to agree with the Wesleyians that suggested that it was great error to say that our perceptions of love, etc. are so skewed that they are not trustworthy enough to at least have a sense of what the original was. My response to this issue has always been, we are depraved, but not totally depraved. Our depravity apart from Christ is total in the sense that it touches every aspect of our humanness, but not to utter completion in each respective area. We are totally touched by the fall, but not totally destroyed from the image of God to the point that there is no semblance whatsoever. I have to think that in Christ it is all restored, but the usual suspects may leave us in a state of infirmity. Again, the Spirit will help those. Does that seem correct?

rookie writes...Re: Abraham, My Friend_43\tEverything you wrote here Br. Ron describes the relationship one has with God. You have captured many elements of what it means to have a relationship with God. Yet you assert in other posts that there remains a difference between the relationship that Abraham had with God and the relationship you have with God. What distinction according to Scripture, can be illustrated, that affirms the difference that you teach?Jeff, we have discussed this endlessly on other threads. I find it difficult to discuss the differences with someone who claims that the greater revelation lies in the Old Testament which runs against 2000 years of Christian exposition. We have hardly any points of contact which is why we constantly talk past each other.However, I had wanted to come to the 'difference' aspect of this thread and perhaps this is the time. My reasoning is based on assertions that I have made earlier in this thread. The promise of the Holy Spirit made in many different places in the gospel was fulfilled in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. As a result of Christ's exaltation to the Father's right hand, his inaugurating act of the the new era was to pour out the Spirit. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. (Act 2:33 KJV) This event was very different to any other manifestations of God's Spirit recorded in the scriptures. It was dependent upon Christ's accomplishments upon the cross and His ascent to the Father. But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (Joh 15:26 KJV)Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. (Joh 16:7-11 KJV)From the last quotation in particular it will be seen that this event could never have occurred previously. It had to be predated by 'the prince of the world' judgment ie the cross, and His ascent to His Father. Samual Chadwick wrote;The Holy Spirit does nothing of Himself, neither does He do anything for Himself. His mission is to glorify Christ, and all He does is based upon the finished work of Christ. He could not be given until Jesus was glorified, and in experience there can be no Pentecost until there is a Coronation.The event recorded in Acts 2 is clearly that predicted in Acts 1:5For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. (Act 1:5 KJV)This experience was unprecidented and innovative. Luke begins his description with a date stamp; when the day of Pentecost was fully come. It is plain that a significance undergirds this introduction. The Feast of Pentecost was originally called the Feast of Weeks, (First Fruits and Harvest)see Leviticus 23:15 - 21, it was observed on the sixth day of the Sivan (our May/June. It became known as Pentecost meaning 50th because it comes 50 days after Passover. It was the celebration of the beginning of the harvest season when the people brought the first fruits and offered them in thanksgiving to the Lord. It is key to note that Pentecost was a Harvest Feast; and the feast of harvest, the first-fruits of thy labors, which thou sowest in the field: and the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year, when thou gatherest in thy labors out of the field. (Exo 23:16 ASV)Acts 2 is the beginning of the wheat harvest; Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isa 53:10-12 ASV) Modern Jews call the Feast of Pentecost Shavuous. In addition to it's harvest implications, they also observe it as the Time of the Giving of the Torah. According to unanimous Jewish tradition, which was universally received at the time of Christ, the day of Pentecost was the anniversary of the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, which the Feast of Weeks was intended to commemorate. (Edersheim) There is a remarkable correlation between the giving of the Law and the Day of Pentecost; the Covenant is established through shed blood. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words. (Exo 24:8 KJV)the Mediator of the Covenant went up/ascended to receive the Law; And he said unto the elders, Tarry ye here for us, until we come again unto you: and, behold, Aaron and Hur are with you: if any man have any matters to do, let him come unto them. (Exo 24:14 KJV) What a happy choice of words that was 'tarry ye here'. cf And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. (Luk 24:49 KJV)a clould hides the Mediator of the Covenant from their view And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount. (Exo 24:15,18 KJV) cf Acts 1:9The glory of God was seen as a devouring fire And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. (Exo 24:17 KJV)cf Acts 2:3.The inauguration of the New Covenant has so many links and comparisons to the inauguration of the Old Covenant. In fact the symbols of wind and fire are the inaugural signs of the creation of old Israel. Their deliverance from Egypt was effected by a strong wind;And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. (Exo 14:21 KJV)(it is always well to remember that when a Hebrew or a Greek heard ruach or pneuma he immediately thought wind/breath/spirit.)The 'sound' heard on the day of Pentecost was as of 'a rushing mighty wind'. To those who had heard fire sweeping over a threshing floor with its deafening roar and knew the account of Sinai's devouring fire the connections would have been powerful.Pentecost was the inauguration of the New Covenant. To be 'baptized in the Spirit' is to be inaugurated into the New Covenant, a covenant could not predate Christ's coronation as King and Priest. The New Covenant only pre-existed in His blood, and not until that blood was shed in the covenant victim's death was the Covenant established. for where a covenant is , the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary, for a covenant over dead victims is stedfast, since it is no force at all when the covenant-victim liveth, (Heb 9:16-17 YLT)Abraham was a great man and he saw Christ's day, but in the days of his earthly pilgrimage he never came to ... to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. (Heb 12:22-24 NASB)

Hi Bro. Ron,A Few Questions:* Why do you suppose tongues of fire appeared over the heads? What is the symbolism here?* Do you see an additional crisis event of persons being filled with the Holy Spirit after regeneration?God Bless,-Robert

Hi Robert Why do you suppose tongues of fire appeared over the heads? What is the symbolism here?There are two passages which come to mind.1. In that day shall the branch of Jehovah be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem; when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof, by the spirit of justice, and by the spirit of burning. And Jehovah will create over the whole habitation of mount Zion, and over her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory shall be spread a covering. And there shall be a pavilion for a shade in the day-time from the heat, and for a refuge and for a covert from storm and from rain. (Isa 4:2-6 ASV)The picture is of the fiery glory of God resting upon each dwelling place. For old Israel the shekinah had always settled in one place, God's dwelling place. Now God was to dwell within each saint. This is a link, of course, with he dwelleth with you and shall be in you (John 14:17 KJV)2. The KJV word 'cloven' (of the fire on each head)can be translated 'distributed' and immediately brings to mind Heb 2:4 where a cognate word is used; God bearing, besides, witness with them to it , both by signs and wonders, and various acts of power, and distributions of the Holy Spirit, according to his will?(Heb 2:4 Darby)3. but I think this is the most convincing: And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease. (Num 11:25 KJV). The imagery of Acts 2 is of a descending flame which divides and redistributes itself upon the heads of all who were filled. The heart of Moses revealed the heart of God here;And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them! (Num 11:29 KJV) I think we mentioned this earlier, that the disctinctive of the New Covenant is that;But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: (Act 2:16-18 KJV) I don't mean, of course, in an automatic way but that all God's people now become potential channels of His word.* Do you see an additional crisis event of persons being filled with the Holy Spirit after regeneration? Yes, certainly I see that. Are you using 'regeneration' as linked with Acts 2? In the Acts the Aorist is used inThen Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, (Act 4:8 KJV)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. (Act 4:31 KJV)Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, (Act 13:9 KJV)these all signify 'an event'.whileAnd the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost. (Act 13:52 KJV)has the imperfect. This is the past continuous... they...were being filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit This was their continuous experience. 'they were being filled...'In his commentary on the Acts FF Bruce writes F.F. Bruce "we should distinguish between this use of the aorist passive, denoting a special moment of inspiration, and the use of the adjective "plErEs" (full) to denote the abiding character of a Spirit-filled man. cf Stephen Ac 6:5" Acts p.99In his commentary on the Acts Campbell Morgan writes This was a new filling, perhaps to prevent the development of insipient fear. There is a difference between "full of the Spirit" and "filled with the Spirit". Someone full of the Spirit may nevertheless be filled to overflowing for specific service, and for work that waits to be done. These men were filled with a new consciousness, and with a new actuality of the presence and the power of the Spirit.

The imagery of Acts 2 is of a descending flame which divides and redistributes itself upon the heads of all who were filled. So cloven tongues is a misnomer? The word is simply 'cloven' and was interpreted to mean tongues, but that was a wrong supposition? To clarify my second question, I meant to ask does a person become filled with the Spirit at regeneration or just simply 'indwelt' by the Holy Spirit and then later they are filled in a crisis event (as seemed to be the case several times in Acts). Please take into consideration my general Classical Pentecostal presuppositions and correct them as necessary.God Bless,-Robert

Br. Ron wrote:Jeff, we have discussed this endlessly on other threads. I find it difficult to discuss the differences with someone who claims that the greater revelation lies in the Old Testament which runs against 2000 years of Christian exposition. We have hardly any points of contact which is why we constantly talk past each other.Brother Ron, I hear you write of the wonderful relationship that Abraham has with the Lord. I hear you ascribe the same qualities of a NT believer to Abraham. As you draw word pictures of Abraham life with God I cannot help but hear the words of Paul, John and Peter. The qualities of Abraham's life reflect the nature of being Christ's disciple. You easily write of these qualities found in the NT and apply them to Abraham. Since your words paint a picture of what it means to receive the grace of God, I am always wondering why you are not willing to address the divine nature of the transformation that Abraham experiences. Since the faith of Abraham is our example, based on the teachings of dispensational theology, our lives should reflect a much greater transformation and nearness to God than Abraham. We can talk endlessly about the doctrinal differences between regeneration or being filled with the Spirit. Yet the Scriptures teach a different way. They give us examples of lives that are impacted by God and Satan. What is the evidence? Is it of God or Satan? In ChristJeff

Since the faith of Abraham is our example, based on the teachings of dispensational theology, our lives should reflect a much greater transformation and nearness to God than Abraham.Abraham's life was unique in that it was at times a walk of faith and others it was theophanic. God spoke to him and Sarah 'face to face' at times, depending on how you view Genesis 18. This is not a mainstream priviledge for Christians. It would be nice, but it is not reality. I used to desire such a walk with God that I would study the mystical Christian writers who talked about walking with God in a tangible way. Good Morning Holy spirit is an example of one of those books. Pretty soon I was headed down a slippery slope of manifestations and feelings that left a lot of confusion and doubt. Then I came to the place, "For we walk by faith and not by sight." For a hope that is seen why do we yet hope for it? The relationship I had with God took a different angle and expression. I realized that meeting Christ was not achieved by going in my bedroom and meditating until I saw visions of Christ; but seeing Christ in the faces of those who are needy in the world such as the fatherless and the widows. The things I would do to Him I can do for them and its all the same. I can visit them in their affliction and in as much as I do it unto them, I have done it unto Him. Those are not my words, those are the words of our Lord. Our expression of religion must be bathed in sincere prayer, but understand that the outworking of our love for God is in the keeping of the commandments of Christ. I can lock myself away and seek encounters with God, or I can spend time in prayer and the word and then go out and meet Christ in the faces of the lost and needy. Christians are bad about having meetings of experiences and such and then ignoring the very commandments of God that are written in stone. We need to worship God in the Secret Places of our lives; but we need to worship Him also in the sacrifice of our bodies in use for His divine service (Romans 12:1). If we walk closer to God than did Abraham it would be because of the fullness of the Holy Ghost in us- working out the deeds of Christ in our indiviual bodies. Shall we tarry at the altar? Yes. Shall we worship and pray? Yes. shall we then take the fulness of the Holy Ghost within us and bury it in the ground? God forbid! We are to be a light to the world. That is where the reality of our walk with God as sojourners in this Earth is all about. Doing his will, being His faithful stewards. Damascus road apparations? Maybe not. Ruling at the Judgment Seat? "Well done my good and faithful servant." God Bless,-Robert

So cloven tongues is a misnomer? The word is simply 'cloven' and was interpreted to mean tongues, but that was a wrong supposition? No, I must have expressed that clumsily. 'tongues' is 'glossa' but we often refer to 'tongues of flame' in our own idioms. The word translated 'cloven' simply means 'distributed'. glossa does mean the physical organ of the tongue but is also the usual word for 'language'. The image of is of flames resting upon the heads of all in the upper room.I meant to ask does a person become filled with the Spirit at regeneration or just simply 'indwelt' by the Holy Spirit and then later they are filled in a crisis event (as seemed to be the case several times in Acts). Please take into consideration my general Classical Pentecostal presuppositions and correct them as necessary. Now it all depends on what you mean by 'regeneration' ;-) Over here 'classical pentecostals' struggled with the notion that 'decision for Christ' caused the Spirit to indwell a man and then the Spirit came again in a Baptism. I don't know how American Pentecostals resolved this. Here is a snippet from a history of the AoG in the UK. One of the leaders and a very 'charismatic' character was Nelson Parr (I met him a couple of times). He and about a dozen others were the founders and signees of the first AoG agreement. Nelson Parr taught that only the baptism with the Holy Spirit was to be equated with the believer's first reception of the Holy Spirit. He argued vehemently that, on the basis of Acts 8, the Samaritan believers, who had been baptised by total immersion, had not received the Holy Spirit in any measure. He did not, of course, deny that they had received Christ. Parr's argument was based on the text that Acts 8:15 says Peter and John travelled specifically so that the Samaritan converts "might receive the Holy Spirit". In order to pursue his case logically Parr made a distinction between the Spirit of Christ (Galatians 4:6) and the Holy Spirit and he insisted that the reception of Christ, though it accompanies the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, is quite distinct from the reception of the Holy Spirit. It is not, Parr contended, that the believer receives a part of the Holy Spirit at conversion and a fullness of the Spirit at the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Rather there are two different receptions: the sinner needs a Saviour and the believer needs a Comforter. These views were shared by other UK Pentecostals including W P F Burton of the Congo.I think the more usual understanding was an automatic indwelling at the point of 'decision for Christ' and a subsequent 'overwhelming' or baptism. I think Parr's view is very complicated and it never appealed to many. He wasn't, of course, promoting two Spirits, but one Spirit in different roles. The assumption that 'decision for Christ' produces a 'Christian' and that all such Christians have the Spirit indwelling is deeply rooted in evangelical thinking. I mentioned in an earlier post that I was often shocked to realise how close my thinking is to Oswald Chambers on these things. I came to my conclusions independently but I certainly found much encouragement in the way Chambers expressed things. eg. "When a man fails in personal Christian experience, it is nearly always because he has never received anything. The only sign that a man is saved is that he has received something from Jesus Christ. Our part as workers for God is to open men’s eyes that they may turn themselves from darkness to light; but that is not salvation, that is conversion—the effort of a roused human being. I do not think it is too sweeping to say that the majority of nominal Christians are of this order; their eyes are opened, but they have received nothing. Conversion is not regeneration. This is one of the neglected factors in our preaching today. When a man is born again, he knows that it is because he has received something as a gift from Almighty God and not because of his own decision. People register their vows, and sign their pledges, and determine to go through, but none of this is salvation. Salvation means that we are brought to the place where we are able to receive something from God on the authority of Jesus Christ, viz., remission of sins." My Utmost January 10. This is the kind of language that gets people reaching for stones.. More recently a well known UK evangelical David Pawson has distinguished between conversion and regeneration. In his commentary on John's gospel Campbell Morgan writes "Except you are born of all that water baptism signified, repentance and that which the Spirit baptism accomplishes, regeneration, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" (Campbell Morgan and AW Tozer both used 'regenerate' to describe OT saints)As I look at the scriptures I cannot see anything which equates to the contemporary evangelical 'decision for Christ/receiving Christ as Saviour' scenario. I'm afraid I regard all faith without revelation as superstition, and we evangelicals have our fair share of superstitions. The evangelical norm is to say a person receives the indwelling Spirit when they become regenerate. I express this the other way around; when a person receives the indwelling Spirit they become regenerate. I think that is what 'regeneration' is. The next question, inevitably, is when were the disciples regenerated? Well according to my understanding 'when they received the Spirit'. In other words I don't regard the Baptism of the Spirit as an experience distinct from, and subsequent to, regeneration; this is the standard UK AoG phraseology. That doesn't mean that I am saying that someone has to speak in tongues to be regenerate! You will see that these two views produce quite different questions. The evangelicals say 'is he regenerate?' but I ask 'did he receive the Spirit'?I can't understand, biblically, how someone can have Christ in them unless it is by His Spirit. We know that Christ in person is at the Father's right hand; he can only be resident in the believer in the person of the Holy Spirit. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. (Joh 14:16-18 KJV)The ideas here are... another Comforter... shall be in you... I will come to you. He seems to combine both him and I in the sweep of this promise. I see this whole spectrum of glorious truth as being accomplished by the Baptism in the Spirit.

No, I must have expressed that clumsily. 'tongues' is 'glossa' but we often refer to 'tongues of flame' in our own idioms. The word translated 'cloven' simply means 'distributed'. glossa does mean the physical organ of the tongue but is also the usual word for 'language'. The image of is of flames resting upon the heads of all in the upper room.Of coarse the traditional view (at least in our camp) has been that the fire over the head was shaped physically like a cloven tongue. So the image was of little fires, but not cloven tongue shaped fires?He argued vehemently that, on the basis of Acts 8, the Samaritan believers, who had been baptised by total immersion, had not received the Holy Spirit in any measure. He did not, of course, deny that they had received Christ.I have heard some say that the born again person received the Spirit of Christ at salvation. They then go on to talk as though a person who does not have the baptism in the Holy Ghost (term used in the Classical Pentecostal sense) does not have the Holy Ghost. This always made me squirm when I heard it; though when pressed to define what the mean they will say that the Spirit comes in at salvation, but they don't have the Baptism in the Holy Ghost. he only sign that a man is saved is that he has received something from Jesus Christ. Our part as workers for God is to open men’s eyes that they may turn themselves from darkness to light; but that is not salvation, that is conversion—the effort of a roused human being. I do not think it is too sweeping to say that the majority of nominal Christians are of this order; their eyes are opened, but they have received nothing. Conversion is not regeneration.The challenge for this thinking is that it leaves such a vast majority of Christians in a 'converted' state and not born again. That is hard for me to line up theologically because Jesus said "you must be born again." I equate the born again experience with regeneration. Yet, Acts 3:19 uses the word 'converted' in the KJV to describe the prerequisite for having your sins blotted out. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. Are we prepared to suggest that there is an interim place between conversion and regeneration that a person is 'saved' and are written in the book in order to deal with vast numbers who seem do not fit the criteria in the quoted portion of David Pawson's commentary? I have heard it said that God will save some by His mercy this way; but don't buy it personally. I agree that you must be converted and born again of the Spirit. Nothing less can be called salvation. This is why I preach and teach repentance and the born again experience so desperately. It's almost like I can hear the gainsayers saying, "Enough already, their saved, leave them alone!"The next question, inevitably, is when were the disciples regenerated? Well according to my understanding 'when they received the Spirit'. I understand this, but people want to know when they are saved from Hell. That is the highest concern in most cases. :-( That doesn't mean that I am saying that someone has to speak in tongues to be regenerate! I knew we would have to tackle this. Of coarse, the above is the opposite of the UPC position. They follow your theology quite close, but then say that regeneration requires tongues. My fear is that your understanding of this greatly limits the number of people who are 'saved' in our times. I am not saying you are wrong; but the very though of it is staggering.The last question: then if not tongues then what is the evidence?God Bless,-Robert

Br. Robert wrote:braham's life was unique in that it was at times a walk of faith and others it was theophanic. God spoke to him and Sarah 'face to face' at times, depending on how you view Genesis 18. This is not a mainstream priviledge for Christians.I am sorry, but I do not understand what you have said in the first sentence. What is theophanic? Yes, God spoke face to face through Jesus Christ to Abraham and Sarah. One must remember that the word of God was not written on paper during their lives. They did not have the Scripture, the oracles of God, to glean from. Their lives are the examples that are given to us in Scripture. Abraham's life was unique in that it was at times a walk of faith and others it was theophanic.Without knowing exactly what you mean, this statement seems to suggest that Abraham's life and faith was sporadic in nature. One cannot imply this for the Scriptures are given to us as God has determined. We are given only snapshots of faithful men's lives throughout Scripture. Abraham obeyed God and moved to a land of strangers. With every snapshot that is given we see the triumphs and stumbles of a man who is declared righteous by God. We see that in time Abraham was willing to give up to God the son he loved because of God's command. The process of sanctification is evident in God's workmanship. What would you say of the relationship that the writer of Psalm 119 has with the Lord? With this example we can now compare apples with apples. We are given an example of how God relates to a man who has the Scriptures to glean from. Is not the work of the Holy Spirit the same for this man as it is for us today?In ChristJeff

I am sorry, but I do not understand what you have said in the first sentence. What is theophanic? Hi Bro. Jeff,A theophany, being an apparation of God that can be discerned with the 5 senses, is not mainstream Christian priviledge. We walk by faith seeing Him who is invisible, by the word of God, the indwelling of the Spirit and the light of conscience, creation, and the law written on our hearts (Romans 1-2). Faith, now, cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God; and this faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Abraham walked by faith through obedience to the promises that God gave to Him during a theophany in the making of the covenant (burning lamp) and the theophany of the appearance of the three men. This is different than reading of God and knowing Him in the inner man as a resident of our human temples. In short, the method of revelation that God revealed Himself with differs with Abraham from us today. Jesus said it like this; Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed 'are' they that have not seen, and 'yet' have believed.(John 20:29 ASV)Without knowing exactly what you mean, this statement seems to suggest that Abraham's life and faith was sporadic in nature.I did not intend to mean that at all. I am suggesting that there is a difference in the way we receive the revelation of God today. If God walked into my room and began conversing with me audibly- it would change the whole way in which I relate to Him. I would still need to walk by faith though, because even the devils believe and tremble. They have seen, but they have not obeyed. What would you say of the relationship that the writer of Psalm 119 has with the Lord? With this example we can now compare apples with apples. We are given an example of how God relates to a man who has the Scriptures to glean from. I will give this some thought and get back to you.God Bless,-Robert

On the question of Psalm 119 I can’t concur that the Psalmist’s relationship with God is similar or the same as ours. Because the word of God that he spoke of would have been the Old Testament laws and not the person of Jesus Christ. Im am tredding a fine line here , but I pray you give me the benefit of the doubt as to what I am saying. It is not enough to be in love with the laws, we must love the God of the laws, the one revealed in that law. Case in point; when we go to God's word are we looking to learn about God or are we looking for sermon materials or doctrinal proof texts? You can be in love with doctrine and not know God. We have a better covenant established upon better promises, etc.. The 613 Laws of the Old Testament, also known as the Torah served as the primary basis of the Jews relationship with God after the Wilderness tabernacle was replaced with the Temple and it continued to be such until Christ, the Living Word appeared. These laws teach us about the character of God and are good if they are used lawfully. I took a class 5 semesters of 613 laws and have a copy of them in my library-w/commentary. It is a neat resource, but finding God in there would be difficult at best.I don’t want to say that the Jews worshipped the word of God instead of the God of the Word, but it certainly seemed to be the case later on with the Pharisees. In time, the Law was even higher exalted and a fence placed around it called the Talmud. I characterize the relationship by saying they took the Law, but rejected the glory. The Psalmist obviously was not in this vein, but it serves as a reference point to show the finality of bible worship. This is beyond sola scriptura and bibliolatry, it is an excessive affection to God’s word while simultaneously rejecting the God of the word. Reaching people like this is near impossible. God has to intervene in these cases. Like many other bible topics, it does not have to be one or the other, it can be both. God Bless,-Robert

Hi RobertThe challenge for this thinking is that it leaves such a vast majority of Christians in a 'converted' state and not born again. I have just listened to part of the Leonard Ravenhill video where he questions, or so I understood, as to whether 5% of the American congregations were really saved. I'm not agreeing with him as regards the numbers but I do believe he has a point. Vast numbers of 'people coming forward for salvation' (what do these phrases mean?!?) are led through a thought process and taught to pray two or three sentences in a sinner’s prayer. Where do these people stand? Yet, Acts 3:19 uses the word 'converted' in the KJV to describe the prerequisite for having your sins blotted out. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. I don't want to set more 'hares coursing' (as we say over here, meaning to cause a little panic among the little creatures) but 'conversion' is a curious term. I know that it has passed into our evangelical vocabulary but I am honestly not sure what it means biblically. Both words used for 'convert' really mean to re-turn, turn-around, or turn-right-around. We will all have heard some version of the joke about the drunk who said to the preacher; "I'm one of your converts". "I can tell" said preacher " if you were one of God's converts you wouldn't be drunk". But the bible never has 'God' has the subject of the verbs used here. In other words "God doesn't convert anyone". People convert people and on occasion people are required to convert themselves! Your Acts 3:19 is one of the latter. What I am getting at is the sense that 'convert' biblically means to turn around. It is never used of a 'convert', someone who has permanently turned around and the bible never refers to 'conversion' as a state of the person who has permanently turned around. What I am getting at is that 'converting' is a human response. The Reformed theologians have settled this in a different way. They hold that regeneration precedes conversion. God, they say, sovereignly regenerates a person who then ‘proves’ his regeneration by experiencing genuine repentance which includes turning from his sin. I think those who distinguish between conversion and regeneration, and who are of a less Reformed perspective usually have things the other way around. So what do they (and I would be more at home here than in the other camp) mean by conversion? I think they mean an initial response to the gospel. These folk have genuinely heard God and begun to respond to Him. (I am choosing my words carefully) If we have read the testimonies of some of the old saints there is often a process that has vanished from evangelical experience. I am referring to the painful time of seeking God in deep sin-consciousness. Spurgeon found the Lord as a teenager but often gave his testimony in these words; I was years and years upon the brink of hell—I mean in my own feeling. I was unhappy, I was desponding, I was despairing. I dreamed of hell. My life was full of sorrow and wretchedness, believing that I was lost.” Spurgeon was not alone in this experience; Fox and John Wesley suffered similarly. Wesley’s track can be traced a little more clearly. One writer who has tried to understand his diaries said On 5th March 1738 Peter Bohler counselled John Wesley to "Preach faith till you have it; and then because you have it, you will preach faith" and then goes on to say March 5-7th are the days of his intellectual conversion to Protestant truth, or rather the beginning of it, for that was a process. (Rattenbury, The Conversion of the Wesleys.) The phrase ‘intellectual conversion’ may be helpful. I believe that human ‘choice’ must always be part of God’s work in the soul, and ‘choice’ is often preceded by the mind’s judgement of certain issues. Rattenbury calls this a process, I think that is a good word in this context. I think processes are taking place long before they surface in ‘decisions’ or ‘conversions’. I careful examination of the Acts instances often indicates that there is more to the story than we first thought. The street preacher may say ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved’ (Acts 16:31) but that is a moment in a much fuller story. The man to whom it was said had spent the night listening to Paul and Silas singing God’s praise, and it had affected him. He had also had the jail fall in around his ears. He was also liable to execution if his prisoners escaped. The man was in great agitation when he asked the question “What must I do to be saved”. Paul and Silas had more to say than ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ’. They then “spoke to him the word of the Lord”. There is a lot of process surrounding this event, but the preacher usually extracts a single sentence as the ‘event’ which guaranteed the jailors salvation. What am I saying? I am saying that ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ’ is a great text if you are a jailor who has just experienced what this one has experienced. For others there will need to be some explanation and some process. I recall a story told about Paget Wilkes who as a missionary to Japan was translating for a visiting missionary in the red-light district of Kobe. The visiting missionary began “When Moses brought the children of Israel out of Egypt…” “Stop” whispered Paget Wilkes “it’s going to take me half an hour to explain who Moses is, another half hour to explain who the children of Israel are and another half hour to explain why they were in Egypt and why they were leaving. You’ll have to start somewhere else”. My point is God deals in lives and brings them to a place of readiness where they are ripe to hear the gospel. I suspect that much of our evangelical methodology is resulting in a harvest of unripe plums. God will never turn away those who come to Him but it may be a while before He can begin break up their old mind-sets and bring them ‘fleeing for refuge’. Ah, when did you last hear of one who came ‘fleeing for refuge’. The Philippian Jailor came ‘fleeing for refuge’, but many of our ‘converts’ have just strolled in to see what’s on the shelves.This post is not coming to any conclusions. I will stop and convert (return) later!

Br. Robert wrote: Because the word of God that he spoke of would have been the Old Testament laws and not the person of Jesus Christ. Im am tredding a fine line here , but I pray you give me the benefit of the doubt as to what I am saying. It is not enough to be in love with the laws, we must love the God of the laws, the one revealed in that law.I believe the Psalmist is not only speaking of the 613 laws but the entire word that he had up to the point in time when he wrote this Psalm 119. Most likely the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Job have been written by this time. God is present thoughtout these Scriptures. Where does Paul get most of his references from? The apostles preached from the OT Scriptures. But there is something more important than all of this. Listen to his words.103 How sweet are Your words to my taste,\t\tSweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 Through Your precepts I get understanding;\t\tTherefore I hate every false way. 105 Your word is a lamp to my feet\t\tAnd a light to my path. "The word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12Which words of God are able to be a "discerner" of the heart? When the Psalmist speaks of God's own personal judgements that God has brought upon the life of this psalmist, is this not the Father correcting the son?When the Psalmist speaks of God personally teaching him through the word of God, is this not the Father teaching a son? When the Psalmist prays, "Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things from Your law," by what means does God use to open his eyes to the wonders of God.When the Psalmist declares,"The entrance of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple," by what means does God use to bring understanding to the simple?These things that the psalmist writes about: words, commandments, statute, precepts, ordinances, testimonies, and judgements are more than just words printed on a tablet of stone. These things describe a relationship between God and man. These things transform the life of this man. And we know that the law given on Mount Sinai cannot make anything perfect, yet this man that writes this psalm speaks of something more than the covenant of Mount Sinai, he speaks of the covenant made with Abraham. Back at youIn ChristJeff

Quote: That doesn't mean that I am saying that someone has to speak in tongues to be regenerate! I knew we would have to tackle this. Of course, the above is the opposite of the UPC position. They follow your theology quite close, but then say that regeneration requires tongues. My fear is that your understanding of this greatly limits the number of people who are 'saved' in our times. I am not saying you are wrong; but the very though of it is staggering.The last question: then if not tongues then what is the evidence?I have just visited the UPC site; they are pretty thin on the ground over here although I have met some of their folks in missionary contexts. You are right that our theologies are pretty close, but it all founders on the notion of ‘tongues’ being the initial evidence. During the Pentecostal part of my pilgrimage I was very close to the AoG in the UK and attended their churches for about 3 years. At this time I was a believer in tongues as the initial evidence. I don’t want to make much of this, but during the early charismatic times in the UK I was fairly ‘high profile’ in early events and would have been viewed as more Pentecostal than Charismatic; the charismatic being more associated with what they called the ‘historical churches’. I have personally prayed for hundreds to receive the Spirit, and in those days, always expected (and told them to expect) tongues. My expectations were nearly always realised. For almost two years I attended what was generally regarded as the most extreme church in the AoG (UK). – Hockley Pentecostal Mission. This is just background to illustrate that I am not just a theoretic pente but a dyed-in-the-wool pente, so I do know ‘where they are coming from’.The AoG in the UK don’t have a space for ‘second blessing holiness’ in their theology so my personal experience of a deep dealing with sin was always difficult to place. I was always aware that I had experienced something ‘subsequent’ (to use one of their favourite words) to what they termed ‘Baptism in the Spirit’. My late teens and early twenties were a whirl of evangelistic and ‘charismatic’ activity. There was certainly power to do; I just seemed to lack the power to be. A private desperation and meeting with God marked the breaking of some inward powers and made a different quality of life possible. If I were to define things by Paul’s words; Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2Co 5:17 KJV), then ‘new-creaturehood’ became a conscious experience at this time. Things that had dogged and crippled me all through my activities were broken; old things passed away. I want to make it clear, however, that I don’t base my theology on my experience. I try to understand my experience in the light of my theology.I understand too your anxiety with the question of ‘how many then are saved’? ‘Saved’ is another evangelical buzz-word which is hard to define. The scriptures use the concept in past, present and future tenses. The evangelical concept is generally of a state of ‘salvation’ which is equated to that other state of ‘conversion’. To me, salvation is a relationship with God through Christ made real in the power of the Spirit. When that relationship is ‘right’ I am saved. The Lord is constantly becoming my Salvation. When temptation comes and I call upon His name, salvation comes again. The notion of ‘salvation’ as a state into which I have passed is not one I identify with. The name of the Lord is a safe stronghold, the righteous runs into it and is safe. The evangelical definition of salvation seems to mean that I will go to heaven when I die irrespective of anything that intervenes between now and then. I don’t find that mood in the scriptures. My confidence is in His faithfulness but a see too thick a scattering of warnings to leave me complacent in this.And now, “the last question: then if not tongues then what is the evidence”. The evidence that He has come is that you know He has come. If you stepped in through my front door and I said ‘what is the evidence that you have arrived?’ I think you would say ‘I am the evidence, I’m here’. This is why I nearly always speak about a conscious receiving of the Holy Spirit. I put no confidence in external manifestations or in deductions drawn from proof texts; both of these have their place but are not be confused with ‘receiving the Spirit’. Of course, if you remained in my house I would expect to notice all kinds of evidence that you were around, but none of them would be the absolute proof that I experienced when you stepped inside.John says He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. (1Jo 5:10 KJV) That, to me, is the proof of genuine faith. I can believe, I do believe… Wesley’s testimony, again, is interesting in this matter. In his journal he distinguishes his attitude of heart after Fetter Lane to that before Fetter Lane, by saying "I had even then the faith of a servant, though not that of a son”. In a letter sometime later to someone questioning his experience he wrote With regard to my own character, and my doctrine likewise, I shall answer you very plainly. By a Christian I mean one who so believes in Chris as that sin hath no more dominion over him; and in this obvious sense of the word I was not a Christian till May 24th, last past. For till then sin had the dominion over me, although I fought with it continually; but surely then, from that time to this it hath not such is the free grace of Christ. What sins they were which till then reigned over me, and from which by the grace of God I am now free I am ready to declare on the house top. if it may be for the glory of God. If you ask by what means I was made free (though not perfect, neither infallibly sure of my perseverance). I answer, by faith in Christ; by such a sort of degree off faith as I had not till that day. This is also interesting because although Wesley preached Christian Perfection there is no evidence that he ever claimed or testified to the experience. But just look at the way he relates his ‘conversion’. Wesley identified a particular ‘kind’ of faith that he calls ‘filial faith’ the faith of a son. No doubt Wesley has Galatians in mind But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (Gal 3:22-25 KJV) Paul says speaks plainly here of a ‘faith that would afterwards be revealed’. After the law. This gives us a timeline and shows that Paul is speaking of something that did not exist before or during the law, but came afterwards. When was the Law finished? At the cross. This ‘faith’ that Paul refers to is post-Calvary. For Wesley, in Fetter Lane, faith came; filial faith. Wesley's Journal of May 24, 1738: In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society on Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death. With Paul, John Wesley could say ‘faith has come’So to me ‘assurance’ is the evidence, but not the kind of ‘assurance’ that is created in our counselling rooms. This is how a man knows he is a genuine believer on the Son of God; he has the witness in himself.

I think that one of the most dangerous places for a man to be is where he thinks he is a "Christian", but he is not.According to Ravenhill as Ron pointed out 95% of people in churches are in this state (although I agree with Ron this is 'probably' less - although we really do not know :-( )

Ah, when did you last hear of one who came ‘fleeing for refuge’. The Philippian Jailor came ‘fleeing for refuge’, but many of our ‘converts’ have just strolled in to see what’s on the shelves.Hi Bro. Ron,I think my favorite Gospel hymn is Rock of AgesRock of Ages Cleft For MeLet Me Hide Myself in TheeLet the Water and the BloodFrom Thy wounded Side Which FlowedBe of Sin the Double CureSave From Wrath and Make Me Pure...Fled for refuge... what an awesome passage to build a doctrine. I say we need it and fast.God Bless,-Robert

These things that the psalmist writes about: words, commandments, statute, precepts, ordinances, testimonies, and judgements are more than just words printed on a tablet of stone. These things describe a relationship between God and man.Hi Bro. Jeff,I don't dispute this. I simply am saying that many have read and studied the Bible and used it to drift farther and farther from God. I have a number of tractates on this in the articles section. One of them is called, "The Bath Kolh" and another has "the struggle for authority" in the title.God BLess,-RObert

When that relationship is ‘right’ I am saved. Do you view this in the Oberlin Theology sense or do you have a different sense? Finney felt that when a Christian sinned they were right back on the same footing with God as would be a sinner. I have always taught that the sins outlined as "They who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God" sins (sins unto death); were what bring our relationship with God and subsequent salvation into question. In other words, I would not want to have died in a bed of adultery or during a robbery attempt. That is a silly example, but understand that some in my camp have a step on the crack and break your mothers back view of salvation. My confidence is in His faithfulness but a see too thick a scattering of warnings to leave me complacent in this.Amen!

Do you view this in the Oberlin Theology sense or do you have a different sense? Finney felt that when a Christian sinned they were right back on the same footing with God as would be a sinner.I have tried on several occasions to get by head around Finner's writings but so far unsuccessfully. His writing is so relentless and if you can't amen each step the whole things grinds to a halt!No I don't see an individual sin as undoing my whole relationship with God. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1Jo 2:1-2 NASB)...even if I sin, I still have my Advocate standing for me in heaven's court. Both the following verses have a strong sense of pattern rather than an individual transgression. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (1Co 6:9 KJV)Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:21 KJV)

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (1Co 6:9 KJV)Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:21 KJV)Do the verb tenses in these passages indicate a pattern of behavior? Is this a warning against the practice of these sins as opposed to an individual sin?My second point as it pertains to the Holy Spirit soteriologically is that a person must be deemed 'lost' or 'yet in their sins' once the Holy spirit has departed. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Romans 8:9 KJV) This seems to play out in the warnings against grieving and quenching the Holy Spirit through a pattern of unrepentant sinful behavior. In the Old Testament (especially Ezekiel 8-10) there is an occasion where the Spirit of God left the Temple. It was at that point judgment came. Can we turn the discussion at this point to what it means to grieve and quench the Holy Spirit? What is means when a person has done despite unto the Spirit of grace to where there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins? To bare thorns and briars instead of fruit? To be anathema and adokimos? God Bless,-Robert

Quote: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (1Co 6:9 KJV) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:21 KJV)Do the verb tenses in these passages indicate a pattern of behavior? Is this a warning against the practice of these sins as opposed to an individual sin?If you look carefully you will see that there are no verbs associated with these sins in the first text, but we can deduce something very clearly from the second.The underlined verb is prassōA primary verb; to “practise”, that is, perform repeatedly or habitually (thus differing from G4160 - poieO, which properly refers to a single act); by implication to execute, accomplish, etc.; specifically to collect (dues), fare (personally): - commit, deeds, do, exact, keep, require, use arts.In addition it is the present participle, which signifies ‘the doing one’ as a characteristic. ie the bus driving one, would be the bus-driver, characteristically. This very strongly gives the image of an habitual condition or characteristic. The NASB gets this sense well; envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:21 NASB)

Br Ron wrote two pages ago:But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (Joh 15:26 KJV)Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. (Joh 16:7-11 KJV)From the last quotation in particular it will be seen that this event could never have occurred previously. It had to be predated by 'the prince of the world' judgment ie the cross, and His ascent to His Father. Samual Chadwick wrote;The Holy Spirit does nothing of Himself, neither does He do anything for Himself. His mission is to glorify Christ, and all He does is based upon the finished work of Christ. He could not be given until Jesus was glorified, and in experience there can be no Pentecost until there is a Coronation.How does the Holy Spirit accomplish this work in an individual? In ChristJeff

How does the Holy Spirit accomplish this work in an individual?By changing us into the image of Christ from glory to glory. This question is akin to my questions- in that the work ceases when we quench, grieve, and resist the Holy Ghost. I was hoping we could discuss those elements, but we may have to look at the "how" the Holy Spirit does the work. Perhaps we could be content to know that He does the work by the use of various means- especially the Word of God. Yet, the striving of the Spirit with man has been going on long before the written word (Genesis 6). This leads me to think that it is mostly on a level unseen and unutterable.

Br. Robert wrote:Perhaps we could be content to know that He does the work by the use of various means- especially the Word of God.Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."Scripture says that the word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Where in Scripture does it give us insight into how the word of God, does indeed, discern our thoughts and intents? What result comes from this work of God's word revealing to us the thoughts and intents that exist within our hearts? In ChristJeff

Scripture says that the word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Where in Scripture does it give us insight into how the word of God, does indeed, discern our thoughts and intents? I think this passage will suffice for an observation. The Word of God is here and in other places symbolized by a Sword. That Word (sword) is known as the Sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6). This indicates that the Spirit of God must make application of the Word to our hearts in order for it to be effective. There are at least two words for the word "word" in the Greek; Rhema and Logos. Hence, Philologos- Philo-Logos: "Fond of the word." Logos, in my understanding, is the written word. Rhema is when the Holy Spirit make application of the word. It is a "Word in due season." The Word we need to hear at this moment. Rhema is the Sword (in the hand, as it were) of the Holy Spirit. When the Word is drawn by the Spirit through anointed sound preaching, it forces a division. The hearer is forced to take sides. Will you stand with truth- or will you make excuses?. Will you be honest with yourself and God and come into agreement with what He is saying, or will you harden yourself against the Spirit and that Word?An example of how the Word is handled comes in the story of the sons of Sceva. Here were some guys adjuring a demon by the Jesus that Paul preached. They were trying to weild the Word of God in their own carnal strength. Only the Holy Ghost can weild the Word to set captives free and pull down strongholds. This is a very Pentecostal approach that leans on the Holy Ghost in prayer and communion to find out what is the "Word" for the congregation or ourselves right now. This is a little different than expository preaching. It is preaching to speak to the issues in the congregation, based upon what God (as we say it) "lays a subject on our heart." If we are sensitive to God in prayer, desiring to preach what God lays on our heart, we bring a sword to the situation. People are brought face to face with a Rhema word from God. These things may make many uncomfortable, but I would expect that every minister should prayerfully consider what they preach and teach. God Bless,-Robert

Br. Robert wrote: The hearer is forced to take sides. Will you stand with truth- or will you make excuses?. Will you be honest with yourself and God and come into agreement with what He is saying, or will you harden yourself against the Spirit and that Word?120 My flesh trembles for fear of You,\t\tAnd I am afraid of Your judgments. 75 \tI know, O LORD, that Your judgments are right,\tAnd that in faithfulness You have afflicted me. My wife and her friend are doing a Bible study together and the last few weeks the focus has been acknowledging the sin in our lives. My wife's friend acknowledged that the Spirit had been convicting her about a certain tv show. Then the next week, she gave in to her fleshly desires and began to watch the show. She testified that she sensed God was there in the room with her. The conviction of sin was oppressive. She gave in to the Holy Spirit and turned the tv off. I hear your words Brother Robert, the sword is powerful. As you said, "The hearer is forced to take sides." His judgements of our lives will cause our flesh to tremble.God Bless Jeff

I hear your words Brother Robert, the sword is powerful. As you said, "The hearer is forced to take sides." His judgements of our lives will cause our flesh to tremble.I am waiting for Bro. Ron to input on the logos / rhema thing. I hope he shows me mercy. :-) The words are difficult to speak to and I may have jumped the gun; nevertheless, that has been my understanding.God Bless,-Robert

Many are influenced by the teachings of dispensational theology. This is a famous section of Scripture which is taken to describe the day of Pentecost and there afer. Listen to the Word.Ezekiel 36Ezek. 36:22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, “Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD,” says the Lord GOD, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God."Here God says that He will restore Israel to the land. And part of the promise is,"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you..., and then God declares:27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.Please note that when God puts His Spirit in them, it causes them to walk in His statutes and they will keep My judgments and do them. Now does this pretain to the 613 commandments given of Mount Sinai or something more? Does the Palmist of 119 speak of something more than the 613 commandments? Brother Robert this is not only directed at you but for all to question what they believe and to all to meditate on His Word.In ChristJeff

Please note that when God puts His Spirit in them, it causes them to walk in His statutes and they will keep My judgments and do them. Now does this pretain to the 613 commandments given of Mount Sinai or something more? I absolutely believe that God has put His law into our hearts and in our minds is writing them. (Jeremiah 31:33) It is a major aspect of the New Covenant. The problem with the 613 commandments is that many of them deal with the sacrificial system that has now been done away with in Christ. However, the eternal aspects of God as it pertains, not to temporal dealings with man, but in the eternal reality of His character are what is being written. I have often said it is the hand of God forming the inner man into the image of Christ. It was a light thing for God to form man's body from dust (it had no free moral agancy), it would be quite a different thing to form His inner man that indeed has a free moral agancy. It is the whole potter and clay thing. When we were sinners our heart was hard and it took a chisel to chisel out 10 basic commandments; but with our new heart, a fresh piece of clay (as it were), God can write whatever He wants. What He writes then becomes the criteria that our conscience uses to discern right and wrong. It is like the conscience's 'reference' guide. This is why Paul said to use caution in dealing with those who had a weak conscience, etc. They had not come to an understanding yet that certain things (like eating certain meats) were no longer sins. yet if they partook of them believing it was sin- it was sin to them. They did not partake in faith and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. This is what caused the condemnation for eating- the ate believing it was sin when in fact it may have not been. We are now speaking of a level of Christianity that rarely gets taught. We are dealing with the doctrine of the conscience. Genuine Christians walk before God with no conscious sin. This does not mean they are perfect as it pertains to the 613 laws; it means they are walking perfectly in harmony with what God has written on their hearts, or what they believe to be right and wrong. Do a topical study of the conscience and you will find that it is the end of the commandment to have a conscience void of offence towards God and man. Examples:1 Timothy 3:9Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.KJV2 Timothy 1:3I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;KJV1 Peter 3:21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:KJVThe passage that most pertains to what we are discussing is found in 1 Timothy 1:5-7:Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.KJVI have been around people who are what we would call 'Judaizers' today. They want people to come back under the law as much as is possible. I understand their point in wanting to see righteousness and holiness; but they are going about it all wrong. They have gone as far as to extrapolate the commandments that can be kept today and have ignored the others. The law is good if it is used lawfully. Sinners tremble at the law. We can also learn a lot about God reading them and understand what it really means to love God and our neighbor. However, this is something that must be done by the Holy Spirit in light of New Testament revelation. We can get into some dangerous areas if were not careful. Sorry to ramble...God Bless,-Robert

Br. Robert wrote:This is why Paul said to use caution in dealing with those who had a weak conscience, etc. They had not come to an understanding yet that certain things (like eating certain meats) were no longer sins. yet if they partook of them believing it was sin- it was sin to them. They did not partake in faith and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. This is what caused the condemnation for eating- the ate believing it was sin when in fact it may have not been. You thought reminds me of this Scripture:Gal. 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. In ChristJeff

I suspect that much of our evangelical methodology is resulting in a harvest of unripe plums. God will never turn away those who come to HimWhat about those who have been raised in Christianity and continually go on rejecting the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Is there a limit to their hardness of heart? Their queching of the Spirit? Their resisting the Holy Ghost? How great is the gulf between quenching and blasphemy?God Bless,-Robert

What about those who have been raised in Christianity and continually go on rejecting the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Is there a limit to their hardness of heart? Their queching of the Spirit? Their resisting the Holy Ghost? How great is the gulf between quenching and blasphemy?I am unusually pragmatic here. My sense is that as long as someone is saying 'yes' to God they are on safe ground. (notice how carefully I expressed that!) But when someone sets they face in a 'no' to what they know God is saying they are automatically narrowing the window of opportunity for God's word to have access. If they persist the window will close.Will it ever open again? Of this I am sure, that anyone who is asking this question may be assured that in their case the window is still open. Their conscience is still touchable. Those who never even think of asking the question may be those for whom the window has closed until further notice.

My sense is that as long as someone is saying 'yes' to God they are on safe ground.Do you have a 'doctrinal position' or a rule of thumb for describing the state of a person who has 'fallen from grace.' In other words, at what point, in your understanding is a person's name blotted out of the Book of Life?God Bless,-Robert

Logos and rhema: an excursus.In a sense I think the emphasis is that in logos it is the content of the word that is paramount; while in rhema it is the fact of the utterance. Vine says:"the expression of thought," not the mere name of an object, (a) as embodying a conception or idea, e.g., Luke_7:7; 1_Cor_14:9,19; (b) a saying or statement, 1.\tby God, e.g., John_15:25; Rom_9:9; Rom_9:28, RV, "word" (AV, "work"); Gal_5:14; Heb_4:12; 2.\tby Christ, e.g., Matt_24:35 (plur.); John_2:22; John_4:41; John_14:23 (plur.); John_15:20. In connection with 1(1) and 1(2) the phrase "the word of the Lord," i.e., the revealed will of God (very frequent in the OT), is used of a direct revelation given by Christ, 1_Thess_4:15; of the gospel, Acts_8:25; Acts_13:49; Acts_15:35,36; Acts_16:32; Acts_19:10; 1_Thess_1:8; 2_Thess_3:1; in this respect it is the message from the Lord, delivered with His authority and made effective by His power (cp. Acts_10:36); for other instances relating to the gospel see Acts_13:26; Acts_14:3; Acts_15:7; 1_Cor_1:18, RV; 2_Cor_2:17; 2_Cor_4:2; 2_Cor_5:19; 2_Cor_6:7; Gal_6:6; Eph_1:13; Php_2:16; Col_1:5; Heb_5:13; sometimes it is used as the sum of God's utterances, e.g., Mark_7:13; John_10:35; Rev_1:2,9; (c) discourse, speech, of instruction, etc., e.g., Acts_2:40; 1_Cor_2:13; 1_Cor_12:8; 2_Cor_1:18; 1_Thess_1:5; 2_Thess_2:15; Heb_6:1, RV, marg.; doctrine, e.g., Matt_13:20; Col_3:16; 1_Tim_4:6; 2_Tim_1:13; Titus_1:9; 1_John_2:7;While for rhema he has:rhema denotes "that which is spoken, what is uttered in speech or writing;" in the singular, "a word," e.g., Matt_12:36; Matt_27:14; 2_Cor_12:4; 2_Cor_13:1; Heb_12:19; in the plural, speech, discourse, e.g., John_3:34; John_8:20; Acts_2:14; Acts_6:11,13; Acts_11:14; Acts_13:42; Acts_26:25; Rom_10:18; 2_Pet_3:2; Jude_1:17; it is used of the Gospel in Rom_10:8 (twice), Rom_10:17, RV, "the word of Christ" (i.e., the "word" which preaches Christ); Rom_10:18; 1_Pet_1:25 (twice); of a statement, command, instruction, e.g., Matt_26:75; Luke_1:37, RV, "(no) word (from God shall be void of power);" Luke_1:38; Acts_11:16; Heb_11:3. The significance of rhema (as distinct from logos) is exemplified in the injunction to take "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God," Eph_6:17; here the reference is not to the whole Bible as such, but to the individual scripture which the Spirit brings to our remembrance for use in time of need, a prerequisite being the regular storing of the mind with Scripture. My hesitation to be more precise is partly due to the angle that ‘word of faith’ preachers have taken on this with the creation of Rhema Churches. The danger here is that some claim that the plain counsels of the ‘logos of God’ are not necessary commands (rhema) until God has spoken them afresh into a man’s heart. This does not match Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (Jam 4:17 KJV)Logos is that by which the inward thought is expressed, and the emphasis is upon the content. Whereas rhema is the utterance itself. I think logos is emphasising the fact that God has revealed His mind, whereas rhema is emphasising the fact that God has said it. I’m not convinced that the words can sustain the distinguishing features used by Paul Chong and Kenneth Hagin.Now was that merciful? :-P

Do you have a 'doctrinal position' or a rule of thumb for describing the state of a person who has 'fallen from grace.' In other words, at what point, in your understanding is a person's name blotted out of the Book of Life?The Lord knoweth them that are His and I can't imagine why He would ever want to tell anyone else, especially me! ;-) So the simple answer to the questions is 'no'. I do note that names are always removed from that book and never written into it. I have often pondered whether all names are in it at the start of human history but by its end they are definite omissions.

I’m not convinced that the words can sustain the distinguishing features used by Paul Chong and Kenneth HaginI seem to recall in one of our first discourses comparing something you had said to Hagin. I suppose I have reaped this one. :-) I certainly hope I'm not numbered with the transgressors. :-( I should stick with Paul's request for the Saints to Pray that utterance would be given him and just leave the whole rhema and logos thing alone. Like so many other things, any truth that might be there has been so blasphemed that you can't even use it. God Bless,-RobertP.S. That was merciful enough. :-)

I have often pondered whether all names are in it at the start of human history but by its end they are definite omissions.So are names ommitted based upon the absense of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? It would seem that this one factor, in this dispensation at least ( oh did I have to say that :-( ), is of supreme importance. And if we might wrap this thread up, I wonder if you might share with us your experience in shifting from believing that 'tongues' is the initial physical evidence of the second blessing to your current view and if you pray for people to be filled with this Spirit these days.God Bless,-Robert

I seem to recall in one of our first discourses comparing something you had said to Hagin. I suppose I have reaped this one.Can't even recall it! It must have been a very long time ago when we were both younger. 8-)

So are names ommitted based upon the absense of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? It would seem that this one factor, in this dispensation at least ( oh did I have to say that ), is of supreme importance.I suppose I don’t concentrate on this aspect of things very much. I long ago saw that no-one could say ‘come to the front and get your name in the book of life’ and since then have just regarded the phrase as a way of speaking of God’s abiding faithfulness. What I mean is ‘am I saved because my name is written there, or is it written there because I am saved?’1. And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. (Phi 4:3 KJV) What is the significance of this phrase? Just, I think, that God will not forget their labours. Their labours will follow them and nothing be forgotten. The idea of writing something down was to give it lasting consequence.[2] He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. [/b] (Rev 3:5 KJV) This is more ominous but then all the blessings are for the ‘overcomers’ in these verses. The implication is that those who do not ‘overcome’ stand in danger of their name being removed from the names of God’s people.3. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev 13:8 KJV) This is more difficult. Is this a Hebraic parallelism? (which would be very much at home in the Hebraic patterns of the Revelation) In other words, is it another way of saying the same thing but with a different emphasis? Again, are their names ‘not’ there because they are worshippers of the beast which arises from the sea? Or are they worshippers of that beast because their names are not in the book? I’m not trying to confuse, it’s just that the phrase seems to me to indicate permanency rather than any pre-destiny. 4. The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. (Rev 17:8 KJV) When time intersects with history we get things which our instinct wants to put into chronological order but may not be intended to give us a before and after pattern. History is already written, in the past tense, by the God who was and is and is to come.I think all ‘rewards’ will be dependent not upon the experiences that we had but upon our faithfulness to what God entrusted to us. In this sense I think those of the New Covenant will be held the more accountable than those of a previous era who did not have such privileges. There is a verse in the Proverbs which is often in my mind; A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren. (Pro 17:2 KJV) I do not believe that ‘sonship’ as described in the New Testament was available before Pentecost, but I see that there is a principle at work in this verse which makes it clear that we shall be held accountable for what we were given and how we acted in stewardship of that privilege.

So are names ommitted based upon the absense of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? It would seem that this one factor, in this dispensation at least ( oh did I have to say that ), is of supreme importance.I suppose I don’t concentrate on this aspect of things very much. I long ago saw that no-one could say ‘come to the front and get your name in the book of life’ and since then have just regarded the phrase as a way of speaking of God’s abiding faithfulness. What I mean is ‘am I saved because my name is written there, or is it written there because I am saved?’1. And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. (Phi 4:3 KJV) What is the significance of this phrase? Just, I think, that God will not forget their labours. Their labours will follow them and nothing be forgotten. The idea of writing something down was to give it lasting consequence.[2] He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. [/b] (Rev 3:5 KJV) This is more ominous but then all the blessings are for the ‘overcomers’ in these verses. The implication is that those who do not ‘overcome’ stand in danger of their name being removed from the names of God’s people.3. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev 13:8 KJV) This is more difficult. Is this a Hebraic parallelism? (which would be very much at home in the Hebraic patterns of the Revelation) In other words, is it another way of saying the same thing but with a different emphasis? Again, are their names ‘not’ there because they are worshippers of the beast which arises from the sea? Or are they worshippers of that beast because their names are not in the book? I’m not trying to confuse, it’s just that the phrase seems to me to indicate permanency rather than any pre-destiny. 4. The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. (Rev 17:8 KJV) When time intersects with history we get things which our instinct wants to put into chronological order but may not be intended to give us a before and after pattern. History is already written, in the past tense, by the God who was and is and is to come.I think all ‘rewards’ will be dependent not upon the experiences that we had but upon our faithfulness to what God entrusted to us. In this sense I think those of the New Covenant will be held the more accountable than those of a previous era who did not have such privileges. There is a verse in the Proverbs which is often in my mind; A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren. (Pro 17:2 KJV) I do not believe that ‘sonship’ as described in the New Testament was available before Pentecost, but I see that there is a principle at work in this verse which makes it clear that we shall be held accountable for what we were given and how we acted in stewardship of that privilege.

I do not believe that ‘sonship’ as described in the New Testament was available before Pentecost, but I see that there is a principle at work in this verse which makes it clear that we shall be held accountable for what we were given and how we acted in stewardship of that privilege.This is quite sobering! i was teaching one time and to my dismay was befuddled by a questing offered right in the middle of a point I was making. I was teaching on our accountability to God and how that "every idle word a man shall speak they shall give an account in the day of judgment." I was pointedly asked, "Is that 'words' that are 'under the blood' or every word we speak?" I was stunned and answered, "I'm not sure." My point is, the person seemed to suggest that we could 'plead the blood' over their whole life and therefor be unaccountable before God for anything they do. They have a belief they can just make 'blanket' prayers for forgiveness that absolve them from accountability before God. What is your feeling on this?God Bless,-Robert

My point is, the person seemed to suggest that we could 'plead the blood' over their whole life and therefor be unaccountable before God for anything they do. They have a belief they can just make 'blanket' prayers for forgiveness that absolve them from accountability before God.What is your feeling on this?mmmm My feeling is that it is just another evangelical superstition. I'm sure God is not nearly such a good theologian as I am :-? and that if the prayer is genuienly prayed that God will accommodate it without any problem.I hear such peculiar things prayed and sung, but I know that God is not stumbled by our efforts. My real anxiety is that the pray-er believes that a form of words has some inherent power. As I have said before, this is magic not faith. 'the blood' was for God's benefit and observation not Satan's. 'When I see the blood I will pass over you'.

So do you think we, as Christians, will answer to God (give an account) for every idle word we speak?

Br. Robert wrote:I certainly hope I'm not numbered with the transgressors. I should stick with Paul's request for the Saints to Pray that utterance would be given him and just leave the whole rhema and logos thing alone. Like so many other things, any truth that might be there has been so blasphemed that you can't even use it. As it is now so it was back then:Ezekiel 13Ezek. 13:3 Thus says the Lord GOD: “Woe to the foolish prophets, who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! 4 O Israel, your prophets are like foxes in the deserts. 5 You have not gone up into the gaps to build a wall for the house of Israel to stand in battle on the day of the LORD. 6 They have envisioned futility and false divination, saying, “Thus says the LORD!’ But the LORD has not sent them; yet they hope that the word may be confirmed. 7 Have you not seen a futile vision, and have you not spoken false divination? You say, “The LORD says,’ but I have not spoken.” Ezek. 13:8 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: “Because you have spoken nonsense and envisioned lies, therefore I am indeed against you,” says the Lord GOD. 9 “My hand will be against the prophets who envision futility and who divine lies; they shall not be in the assembly of My people, nor be written in the record of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter into the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the Lord GOD. Ezek. 13:10 “Because, indeed, because they have seduced My people, saying, ‘Peace!’ when there is no peace—and one builds a wall, and they plaster it with untempered mortar— 11 say to those who plaster it with untempered mortar, that it will fall. There will be flooding rain, and you, O great hailstones, shall fall; and a stormy wind shall tear it down. 12 Surely, when the wall has fallen, will it not be said to you, “Where is the mortar with which you plastered it?’ ” I believe there is no difference, listen again to the root of the problem: 6 They have envisioned futility and false divination, saying, “Thus says the LORD!’ But the LORD has not sent them; yet they hope that the word may be confirmed. "They prophesied on their own and then hoped that God would confirm their prophesy. That is putting the cart before the horse. Likewise they prophesied, "Peace." Yet God was angry with that generation, and judgment was near. What is the content of what we hear today? It is the opposite of the message that God gave Ezekiel to preach. What can be learned from this Scripture? At times false prophets abound, yet there are a few who God is using. So Br. Robert I would encourage you not to give up but to perservere. Through the use of the word of God He will teach us to discern between good and evil. Don't give up because of false prophets. Seek God and He will show you the difference between logos and rhema.In ChristJeff

Thanks for the encouragement Bro. Jeff,I heard Leonard Ravinhill briefly touch on this issue in the interview video. It was based on II Corinthians 11:13-15; for those such 'are' false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ, for even the Adversary doth transform himself into a messenger of light and no wonder then, if also his ministrants do transform themselves as ministrants of righteousness -- whose end shall be according to their works (YLT) This passage seems to clearly indicate that the enemy has agents in church pulpits! A "preacher of righteousness" that is actually sent from the Devil? Could it be that the Holy Spirit is so 'inactive' in the lives of Christians that they cannot discern the difference between true and false ministers of the Gospel? These things are spiritually discerned. I have a 'practical' rule of thumb; if their message does not match the obvious condition of the world and the Church, they are obviously false. Would God send His ministers to preach a word contrary to His peoples condition? Would the Great Physician prescribe an false prescription for a sick Church? Would He give them a sugar pill when they need the antidote for sin? Would He bid them to look upon a golden Rolex or the Brazen Serpent? If God were to pull back the covers and expose the 'shepherds' for who they really are in many ministries, it would probably scare us to death. I have always said, there are 3 types of people in the average church: sheep, goats, and wolves. Has it happened in our generation like Paul feared that after his departure grievious wolves would enter in not sparing the flock? Think of how weighty some of his letters were like Galatians, leveling anathema on the heads of false teachers. How much more so in our day, if we only had the discernment to see them and the boldness to rebuke them! How much more in our times do we not need a fresh infilling of the Holy Spirit to equip us to weild the word of God! Titus dealt with liars, evil beasts, and slow bellies and was told to rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith. Don't blunt the sword- rebuke them SHARPLY. That is the prescription for these people. That is the procedure we need.God Bless,-Robert

Logos and rhEma: part 2I sometimes use Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testament (1865). He is still regarded as the master in this field. I thought I would look to see if he had anything pertinent to say to our studies.He doesn’t line logos with rhEma directly. He has topics on 1. laleO, legO (lalia, logos)2. logos, phone3. logos, muthOsHis writings are very condensed and he used great slabs of quotations in Latin which is no help for me, but it is interesting that he did not see particular significance in logos, rhEma. This indicates that the whole thesis of the ‘word of faith gurus’ (WOF) is a novel interpretation of these words. I am not a traditionalist but I think it very unlikely that such a fundamental issue as the WOF would want to make this is dubious when it has no provenance.His comments on ‘logos’ ‘lalia’. Speaking of the verbs (legO, and laleO) he says “if in ‘lalein’ (laleO) the fact of uttering human speech is the prominent action, the legein (legO) it is the words uttered, and these are correlative to reasonable thoughts within the breast of the utterer.” He goes on to say that a parrot might ‘laleO’ as its emphasis is ‘utterance’ but that a parrot could never ‘legO’ as “in the legein lies the thought of the mind, as the correlative to the words of the lips and the necessary condition of them.laleO expresses the fact of opening the mouth to speak, as opposed to the remaining silent, but legO proceeds to declare what the speaker actually said.He then comments “They that are of God hear God’s words, his rhEmata (plural of rhEma) as elsewhere (John 3:34, 8:47), his lalea as here, it is called; which they that are not of God do not and cannot hear.”This may all sound a bit abstruse but he then goes on to quote Philo. “Philo makes the distinction of the logos and the rhEma to be that of the whole and its parts.” I think this is interesting. I think it implies that behind ‘logos’ is the thought, while behind ‘rhEma’ is the ‘logos’. Both are parts of the function of speech. It cannot be proved that ‘rhEma’ is the particular injection of a command which has power in a way that ‘logos’ does not. It is interesting that in my Newberry Bible he always indicates ‘rhEma’ in the margin by the word ‘utterance’. The ‘logos is rhEma-ed’. The ‘logos’ comes to us in ‘rhEmas’ but any word of God that comes to us is a ‘rhEma’. rhEma is just the mechanics of voicing the logos.Just my thoughts…

The ‘logos’ comes to us in ‘rhEmas’ but any word of God that comes to us is a ‘rhEma’. rhEma is just the mechanics of voicing the logos.Thanks Bro. Ron,How then can we describe the phenomana of "A word in due season." Not in the word of faith sense, but in the pastoral sense. I am thinking about the Sword of the Spirit, or the Word in the hand (as it were) of the Holy Spirit, used for a definite time, place, and circumstance. The "He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches" 'thing'. God Bless,-Robert

Hi Robert How then can we describe the phenomana of "A word in due season." Not in the word of faith sense, but in the pastoral sense. I am thinking about the Sword of the Spirit, or the Word in the hand (as it were) of the Holy Spirit, used for a definite time, place, and circumstance. The "He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches" 'thing'. A man hath joy in the answer of his mouth; And a word in due season, how good is it! (Pro 15:23 ASV) I think is just the synchronising of the Spirit in the way He brings the word of God to us ‘seasonally’. It is a reference to its ‘aptness’. The ‘word’ of the Spirit is, I think, the piercing word that pins us to the spot, rather than belabours us with a blunt instrument.I am sure that in a corporate and personal sense we know the times when the Lord spoke exactly to our condition in such a way that we knew ‘this is the day’. That might happen as a result of my daily reading, or might just be the strains of a chorus that I hear. I think we ought not to seek for this in that such seeking like leave us open to other spirits putting verses under our noses; as did Satan in the Lord’s temptation. The safer thing is to have an open heart and let the word find us; He knows where I am.At the another level Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. (Mat 24:45-46 ASV) it is the responsibility of the ‘faithful and wise servant’ to give appropriate ‘words’ at appropriate times. God is always speaking, I think, but we have to come within the sound of His voice. Sometimes a simple act of obedience can open up vast areas of truth. It’s just that we have taken the step that brought us within the sound of the voice.Is this what you mean?

He knows where I amYou said it all right here! And I can testify to the truth of it many times over. Is this what you meanAbsolutely!God Bless,-Robert

Br. Ron wrote:it is the responsibility of the ‘faithful and wise servant’ to give appropriate ‘words’ at appropriate times. God is always speaking, I think, but we have to come within the sound of His voice. Sometimes a simple act of obedience can open up vast areas of truth. It’s just that we have taken the step that brought us within the sound of the voice.This has been my experience. The act of obedience has come when the carnal mind refuses to hear the words of Scripture, yet as I read Scripture the same struggle always surfaces. This struggle is centered in self-preservation. When I submit to His word, He becomes evermore large in my world. The things of my world take on more of what Scripture does in me, and casts out the pollution of the wisdom and philosophies that are against the lesson that is learned in that season.Oswald Sanders writes about the substance of Joshua's faith was found in meditating on the word of God."Then he was Commanded to Mediate on the Word.“This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night…for then shalt thou make they way prosperous and then thou shalt have good success.” Vs 8-9The written Word of God was henceforth to be his hand-book, his manual of instruction in warfare. Obedience to it would constitute the secret of his success. This, not the might of his sword, was Joshua’s only equipment, even as it was Christ’s in His conflict in the Wilderness. If he did not literally soak himself in the Word, his strength and courage would ooze out of his fingertips when he came to meet the foe. In it he was to find his marching-orders, the science of warfare and the plan of his campaign. Had Joshua lived in our day, he would not, like so many professing Christians today, have saturated himself in magazines and tasty novels, but in the Word of God, of which he then had only a very small portion. Is this what you are doing? The recruit must master his weapons long before he reaches the front lines. Neglect of meditation—hard thinking, not dreamy reverie—on the Word of God, is the most fruitful source of lost spiritual blessing and anemic spiritual life. Note that from Eph. 5:18 and Col. 3:16 we learn that the same results follow in Christian character and relationships, from being filled with the Spirit, and being filled with the Word. You will remain filled with the Spirit only so long as you remain filled with the Word. " The above quote is of Oswald Sanders and not Br. Roberts.Br. Robert, I agree with your response. The only way one can discern between the world and God, the evil and the good, is if he immerces himself in the word of God. To me this is really what water baptism represents. To be wash by the living water, cleanses us from the pollution of Satan's world.In ChristJeff

I wrote:To me this is really what water baptism represents. To be wash by the living water, cleanses us from the pollution of Satan's world.I need to clarify this thought. Sorry.Jesus testified:John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."To me, to be immerced in His living water, is to be baptized and filled with His Spirit. The living water comes by hearing His word. John 5:24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live."If we are filled with His word, we are filled with His Spirit. That is if we hear His word. To me Scripture teaches that there is a difference between those who hear His word, and those who hear and don't obey. In ChristJeff

I started reading the book of Acts this week and a thought came to mind. It is concerning Pentecost. Also my son prepared a lesson this weekend for our family. He covered the life of Joseph. These two circumstances brought together a question. I began to search this thread to see if this topic was covered but I soon lost patience with my search. Peter testifies that: Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."The manifestation of the out pouring of the Holy Spirit spoken of by Joel, concerns visions,dreams, and prophesy. Many talk of speaking in tongues, yet Joel speaks of visions and dreams and prophesy. As the book of Acts unfolds, we are given witness to visions, dreams, and prophesy. In similar ways, Joseph was given visions, dreams, and prophesy. Why do we concentrate on tongues and not visions, dreams, and prophesy?In ChristJeff

Hi Bro. Jeff,Why do we concentrate on tongues and not visions, dreams, and prophesy?There are many aspects of this question so I will let others weigh in on it. I think that the 'turn off' to visions, dreams, and prophesy has been the abuse that has occured via the use of them. It has burned a lot of people until they don't feel they can trust any means God uses to break through and reveal himself to them. So many 'flakey' things have muddied the waters. Discernment has been thrown to the wind in many circles resulting in a major crackdown of trust. Even in Pentecostal circles we are not seeing folks receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking on tongues. The rate of atrition will leave Pantecostalism a mere 'name only' in time. It is a MAJOR concern for Classical Pentecostals. There was a time when 'tongues' was a big issue in our circles; yet many places of worship are in no wise like unto the Pentecostalism of old. The emphasis on holiness and the Baptism in the Spirit is dwindling by the day. God Bless,-Robert

The rate of atrition will leave Pantecostalism a mere 'name only' in time. I dare say that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is mostly already nothing more but a mere paper doctrine in America. One Pentecostal church I went to for nearly 3 years, I only saw one person come to salvation, and none received the baptism of the Spirit. There is very little life anymore in the Pentecostal circles.

There is very little life anymore in the Pentecostal circlesThis is a sad reality. It is ironic that the first lesson I taught this year to our adults at church was on the birthplace of the modern day Pentecostal movement under Charles Parham of Bethel Bible College. That place is called "Stone's Folly" and its in Topeka, Kansas. And then last week Topeka was again in the news where the baby had been found that had been taken from its mothers womb. The woman called her husband from Topeka to tell him she had given birth. I did a study of Topeka once and found that there is a good possibility that the root word for Topeka is actually "TOPHET." There are some radical so called 'preachers' there that told of it so I did some investigating. I found a document that referred to topeka as Tophet in the early days of the town. As Pentecostal's we used to say that we could move next door to 'hell' and have revival if God poured out His Spirit. This week I see the contrast of just where we are in America and especially in Pentecostal circles. Will we have another outpouring of the Spirit that leads us to a deep walk with God in holiness and sobriety or will we have the madness of sin that was all but personified in this act of terror upon that pregnant lady. Topeka comes to my mind. What a contrast between the two! What will it be? More horror or more Holy Spirit? We decide. God wants to pour out His Spirit. Will it be revival or mere survival?God Bless,-Robert

In the book, The Heavenly Man, there are many testimonies of visions, dream, and prophesy. The manifestations of the out pouring of the Holy Spirit in China resembles the church of Acts. Why is this out pouring not happening in America or Europe? In ChristJeff

Why is this out pouring not happening in America or Europe? Hi Bro. Jeff,One thing to consider is that the so-called 'prophets' and others that promote bizarre manifestations have muddied the waters until when God does speak to one of us in a dream or vision or prophesy we dare not tell it for fear of being 'tarred and feathered' with the others. Especially here in Kansas City you have to be carefull what you say. The KC prophets handed that to us. I don't want to be labeled with them. :-( God is doing these things here in America and I'm sure in England,etc., but for the most part the people are keeping the stuff between them and God. God has shown me a lot of stuff that I will keep to myself, but where you will see it is in the urgency with which I minister. God Bless,-Robert

I came across this recently and thought it might interest some. It is an exposition of 1 Cor 12:13. I can't commend the whole of the site but thought this article was worth passing on.

That is simply wrong, and implies that the Holy Spirit is the person baptizing the individual. If that is what Paul meant, he would have used the preposition "dia," which means "by" or "through" and indicates agency. ... This fictitious "baptism" has been called the "Baptism of the Spirit" by many groups. There is no such thing as a baptism by the Spirit.I received my bachelor's degree in theology from the national (USA) Assemblies of God Bible college, Central Bible College. They really made sure and point this out to me. They said that it is "incorrect" Scripturally to refer to the Acts 2:4 experience as the baptism "of" the Sprit. They pointed out that it is correct to say baptism "with" or "in" the Holy Ghost, but not "of" since Jesus does the baptism. (Lk. 3:16) Great point here.Now I wonder if you guys can help me here. In my pursuit of truth as found in the Bible, I have recently drifted away from a "second work" theology of baptistic Pentecostalism. The reason for this is the Scriptural foundation I used to lean on for a post-resurrection born again experience for the disciples was Jn. 20:21 where Jesus breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Ghost. Well, I was reading along in John and saw something that I should have seen long ago:"... for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." (Jn. 16:7)This really messed me up (in a good way). I realized, "Hey, Jesus had not gone away in Jn. 20:21 and therefore the Comforter was not availible for indwelling (he "shall be in you") until Jesus went away.And true to form we see that on the day of Pentecost, Peter testifies that Pentecost was the first time the Holy Ghost was poured out. Acts 2:33 "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."Sounds a lot like John 14:16,17a:"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;17\tEven the Spirit of truth..."So my theology is different now. OK, to baptism and my question. In the article, Warner makes this statement:It is the "one baptism" Paul mentioned in Ephesians 4:5. Humans beings act on Christ's behalf to submerge the body in water, and simultaneously Christ Himself baptized the human spirit in the Holy Spirit.I really have a problem receiving this because of Acts 8:12 "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." So they were baptized. But it wasn't until later that we read that they received the Holy Ghost.Acts 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:15\tWho, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:16\t(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)17\tThen laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."So it seems pretty clear to me that they didn't receive the Holy Ghost in baptism. I wrote to Warner about this and he said that this was a giving of spiritual gifts, but that they received the Holy Ghost in baptism in water. I wrote him back and told him that I had a really hard time with that because the scripture here says nothing of "gifts" but speaks of the Holy Ghost Himself. Verse 16 is pretty clear to me, "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them."So what is the deal? When does a person receive the Holy Ghost? This is essential for us to know because the Scripture tells us that if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his (Rom 8:9). We also are told that the way we know that Jesus is in us and we are in Him is by the Spirit he has given us (1 Jn. 3:24; 4:13). I have recently submitted to the Word when it teaches that not only repentance and faith (both essential), but baptism is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38) and is how we are united with Christ's death, burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:1ff). Right now it seems that the first three are what we do "towards God" and giving the Spirit is what He does "towards us". The first three seem to be us receiving (accepting) Him. The last (receiving the Spirit) seems to be Him receiving (accepting) us."Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him." (2 Corinthians 5:9)This is my heart's cry.I really value your input here. Coming out of classical Pentecostal doctrines is quite a new thing for me (past few years). I just want to walk in truth.Thanks again for your input.Blessings,RT

RTI share something of your background and something of your pilgrimage. The body of your last post is similar to my own conclusions but with one important distinction. I don't think the integration of 'baptism in water' and 'baptism in Spirit' is really so watertight . (sorry about that metaphor!!) There are some traditional positions regarding the place of water baptism.The Roman Catholics, of course, believe in baptismal regeneration. This gets pretty close to the position adopted by quite a few that 'water baptism' is an essential part of 'full initiation into Christ'. It sounds good until you ask how far am I initiated into Christ if I have not submitted to water-baptism?The Baptist position, traditionally, is that water baptism is a public testimony to faith in Christ and the public initiation into 'church'. The consequence of this is that while the Catholic water-baptises in order to secure salvation, the Baptist only water-baptises when he is sure salvation has already taken place.I don't think either of these fit the biblical data. It seems to me that water-baptism was part of the public commitment to the Lordship of Christ and the response of a 'good' conscience towards God. It is the God ordained pattern of human response to the word of God. It is man's response to the word of God and the NT pattern seems to be that God's response to man's response was Spirit-baptism.I do not think water-baptism is at the forefront of Paul's thought in Rom 6. Rom. 6:4 we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk. This is Young's Literal Translation. Notice the phrase 'the baptism (in)to the death'. I believe this is Spirit-baptism.Col. 2:12 being buried with him in the baptism, in which also ye rose with [him] through the faith of the working of God, who did raise him out of the dead. in Young's has the same construction and I believe this is a reference to Spirit-baptism too. The construction 'the baptism' is found in these passages Matt. 20:22-23; 21:25; Mark 10:38-39; 11:30; Luke 7:29; 20:4; Acts 1:22; 10:37; 18:25; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12 and it is worth checking them out in Youngs to get the feel of them.The conscious reception of the Holy Spirit is such a norm in the NT that it becomes the obvious question and the indisputable illustration. Acts 19:2 he said unto them, ‘The Holy Spirit did ye receive — having believed?’ and they said unto him, ‘But we did not even hear whether there is any Holy Spirit;’ Gal. 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? The references to 'for remission of sins' are as follows Matt. 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Luke 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, Luke 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. In each instance the word 'for' is 'eis'. If it meant us to understand that baptism was necessary for remission of sins the Greek preposition would have been 'ina'; in order that. 'eis' is the preposition of movement. It can mean 'towards this end'. In other words it can indicate the intention/target rather than the direct cause. The article I hypertexted shows this use of 'eis' in 1 Cor 12:13. This part of the article certainly squares with my understanding of this use of the Greek preposition 'eis'.

I wanted to post comments under this heading instead of getting off topic under another.Concerning baptism of water, and of the Holy Ghost, I would like to submit the following.You are not required to first be immersed in water to then be baptized by the Holy Ghost, as this was my personal experience. As Ravenhill says, the man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.Acts 10:[47] Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?[48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.So, I know that I still need to be baptized in water, but it is not a prerequisite.Concerning a second, or successive baptism of the Holy Ghost, many great soulwinners of the past documented having more than one baptism of the Holy Ghost. Duncan Campbell, Charles Finney, etc. Here is the link to Duncan Campbell's experience:https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=380&commentView=itemComments Concerning the likeness of water baptism to Holy Ghost baptism, this is something God just gave me last night. There are many cases where God reflected the trinity throughout Scripture. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob / Jesse, David, and Solomon / Peter, Stephen, and Paul.If you will notice in the gospels, it is John that fathers the preaching of Jesus. He is the forerunner of Christ and a reflection of the Father. Christ comes to Him and submits to John's baptism, not to submit to John personally, but 'fulfil all righteousness.' He then had the Holy Ghost descend upon Him. This moment was the converging of John as a relfection of the Father, with Christ, and the dove of the Holy Ghost. So it is not just a reflection of Holy Ghost baptism, but of all three persons of the trinity.So here is my question, if we are to baptize others in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the baptism of the Father speaking of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, or something else? There is obviously a baptism of the Lord Jesus (water), and of the Holy Ghost (fire). What is the baptism of the Father?

Dear BrethrenOn this site is sermons of Erlo Stegen. He has some wonderful sermons on the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Once you've listened to them, you will understand more of the role of this baptism and its connection in the individual believer as well as Revival!I have listened to some of these on cassette, but dont know which of his concerning this subject is on this site. But nevertheless, have a look.In Him,Gery.

Wow. The Lord IS good.

At service this Sunday the Lord put on a few peoples hearts something similar. That we are beautiful in his sight. That the Lord did not make a mistake in who He made us to be. That we need to go out into the world and proclaim His goodness and truth among the Nations that do not call on His name.

Lots more...