Baptism/infilling of spirit

i noticed in the How can I die with Christ, when I'm dead in sin? (as a non-Christian)thread there was some talk about the baptism of the spirt. no one else started a thread so i thought i would! Ill ask some generic questions.. Are you filled, saved, or just sealed when you are saved? or none of the above? When you recive the baptism do you speak in tougues? Whats the difference of the infilling and baptism of the spirit? I know this is a hot topic that almost splits the body of christ in two (or man has split it) so remember to be full of love!

Thank you PreachParsley for starting the new thread.To make it easier to discuss, I've copied the other posts from the previous thread and pasted them below:wanderson’s original post:A question to start. Have you been baptized/filled with the Holy Spirit and Fire? By this we can know you are His(Romans 8:9) and capible of understanding spiritual truths, for truly what you intellectualy play/wrestle with is and are thoughts from the mind of Christ and can only be understood by the Spirit of Christ. If so what is the evidence of your filling?Krispy’s response:It has nothing to do with baptism by fire... and yadda yadda yadda... dont pay any attention to that. You received Holy Spirit baptism when you were saved. Without it you couldnt be saved. There are those who dont believe that, and they are wrong. There are those who seek "signs and wonders", but the Bible warns that many will come in the last days with signs and wonders and deceiving many.Stick to the Bible!Hope that helped,KrispyRon’s response to Krispy: Quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You received Holy Spirit baptism when you were saved. Without it you couldnt be saved. There are those who dont believe that, and they are wrong.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I just thought I ought to put up my hand at this point! My response:)I'm with Ron on this one.Krispy and Robert’s response:I'm game...; Count me in.wanderson’s final response:Your Quote: It has nothing to do with baptism by fire... and yadda yadda yadda... dont pay any attention to that. You received Holy Spirit baptism when you were saved. Without it you couldnt be saved. There are those who dont believe that, and they are wrong. There are those who seek "signs and wonders", but the Bible warns that many will come in the last days with signs and wonders and deceiving many.This is a interesting opinion, what is your biblical reference for this "specific" issue. I am not "seeking signs and wonders" but evidence of being "baptized" in the Holy Spirit.Please then expound on the following verse...Act 19:1 It was while Apollos was in Corinth that Paul passed through the inland districts and came to Ephesus. He found a few disciples there Act 19:2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered him, "No, we haven't even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." Act 19:3 He then asked, "Then into what were you baptized?" They answered, "Into John's baptism." Act 19:4 Then Paul said, "John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus." Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Act 19:6 When Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy. Act 19:7 There were about twelve men in all. Act 8:12 But when Philip proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, men and women believed and were baptized. Act 8:13 Even Simon believed, and after he was baptized he became devoted to Philip. He was amazed to see the signs and great miracles that were happening. Act 8:14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. Act 8:15 They went down and prayed for them to receive the Holy Spirit. Act 8:16 Before this he had not come on any of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Act 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. andAct 9:17 So Ananias left and went to that house. He laid his hands on Saul and said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were traveling, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." in conjuction with...Act 26:12 "That is how I happened to be traveling to Damascus with authority based on a commission from the high priests. Act 26:13 On the road at noon, O King, I saw from heaven a light that was brighter than the sun flash around me and those who were traveling with me. Act 26:14 All of us fell to the ground, and I heard a voice asking me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me? It is hurting you to keep on kicking against the goads.' Act 26:15 I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?' The Lord answered, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Act 26:16 But get up and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for the very purpose of appointing you to be a servant and witness of what you have seen and of what I will show you. Act 26:17 I will continue to rescue you from your people and from the gentiles to whom I am sending you. Act 26:18 You will open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light and from Satan's control to God, so that they might receive the forgiveness of sins and a share among those who are sanctified by faith in me.' Act 26:19 "And so, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. Act 26:20 Instead, I first told the people in Damascus and Jerusalem, then the whole countryside of Judea, and then the gentiles to repent, turn to God, and practice works that are consistent with such repentance. All of these verses show that people were saved first and followed after with the filling of the Holy Spirit.Show us 1 verse that shows that we recieve the Holy Spirit at salvation.In Love with a open mind,WilliamP.S. I will supply you at no charge a 7 part, down loadable series that reveals from a theological persective the truth of this matter, do you have the courage to listen?In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

I'd have to concede that, according to scripture, the infilling of the Holy Spirit comes through the laying on of hands by those who've already received it. It would also seem to be the case, tho I'll have to look more deeply into this, that those people, or some of them, had already received salvation when, later, they received the laying on of hands. Now, I know that a multitude of misguided individuals are running around sullying the waters, and doing/saying whacky things regarding the Holy Spirit. The reaction of other, more stayed, individual churches and persons is to villify all "moves of the Holy Spirit" as false. My experience is that those (churches & individuals) who don't try to, or ask for, the infilling of the Holy Spirit are surprisingly lacking in growth, salvations, outreaches that have lasting fruit, depth of relationship with God and one another, etc. That, after living in something like 9 different states, and attending myriad different churches, of every degree of belief in the present working of the Holy Spirit. It seems to me, and who am I to say know, that for a person or church to have a real, earth-shaking effect on the world around them, they have to elicit the works of Jesus, all of them, or a good many. That is just what I've seen in 40 some years of life, and 24 years of living for Jesus.Love ya,PastorPancho ;-)

what about Romans 8 v. 9?You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. I think the examples just show the grace of God - he won't leave a "believer" without the opportunity to belong to him! I've been in the position of believing but without the power not be controlled "by the sinful nature" as above - it's not very nice!

what about Romans 8 v. 9?You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.I think the examples just show the grace of God - he won't leave a "believer" without the opportunity to belong to him! I've been in the position of believing but without the power not be controlled "by the sinful nature" as above - it's not very nice!You may have noticed one or two folk who have said 'I agree with Ron'... this is almost certainly where we disagree, so I am not acting as spokesman for that group. :-) One of the problems we are going to have on this thread is that of terms used. I try to be accurate in using Bible terms, which differ quite often from the way that evangelicals use them. Please read carefully because I will be saying what I am saying and not what you think I am saying. :-) Many evangelicals use this verse to support their belief but it doesn't say what they have assumed it says. This verse does not say 'if I am Christ's I have His Spirit', it says 'if I have His Spirit I am Christs'. Can you see the difference? Evangelicals have created a method for becoming a Christian. They then say we are Christians because we have gone through a process; we are Christ's because we have gone through a process and... therefore because of this verse, they say, we have the Spirit.That is not what the verse is saying. The verse is saying that the criteria by which Paul judges that someone is Christ's is that they have the Spirit. Or to put it in the negative form in which he expresses it; ... if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (Rom 8:9 NASB)The question to ask here is not; "am I Christ's, because if so I have His Spirit"but"do I have His Spirit, because if so I am His'This is a fundamental difference between my understanding and most other evangelicals.

The question to ask here is not; "am I Christ's, because if so I have His Spirit"but"do I have His Spirit, because if so I am His'This is a fundamental difference between my understanding and most other evangelicals.Hi Bro. Ron,But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you (Romans 8:11)I always viewed this verse as meaning that if a person has the Holy Spirit then that Holy Spirit would resurrect them on that great resurrection day. If they did not, they would not be part of the first resurrection. Yet, I view the great evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the fruit of the Spirit. I take no real stock in miracles as many will do acts of dunamis and be lost. (Matthew 7:23) Traditionally I have taught and believed that a person truly born again received the Holy Spirit. As a Pentecostal, I also believe that there is a second baptism of power for service. This is a classical view. Maybe I am jumping the gun here. But, can you at least discuss my understanding of Romans 8:11?Thanks!-Robert

Well, I am a bit confused by which 'group' is refereed to here...But Ron, you can be my spokesman any day, especially on this one.Please read carefully because I will be saying what I am saying and not what you think I am saying.Just like that quote...Many evangelicals use this verse to support their belief but it doesn't say what they have assumed it says. This verse does not say 'if I am Christ's I have His Spirit', it says 'if I have His Spirit I am Christs'. Can you see the difference? Evangelicals have created a method for becoming a Christian. They then say we are Christians because we have gone through a process; we are Christ's because we have gone through a process and... therefore because of this verse, they say, we have the Spirit.It's all the difference in the world and this could be spread like a giant garment over a whole host of 'issues' that get misconstrued.It is still a process, obviously, but you don't become 'born again', you are born again, then...The question to ask here is not; "am I Christ's, because if so I have His Spirit"but"do I have His Spirit, because if so I am His'"Joh 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Joh 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

Ron Many evangelicals use this verse to support their belief but it doesn't say what they have assumed it says. This verse does not say 'if I am Christ's I have His Spirit', it says 'if I have His Spirit I am Christs'. Can you see the difference? Evangelicals have created a method for becoming a Christian. They then say we are Christians because we have gone through a process; we are Christ's because we have gone through a process and... therefore because of this verse, they say, we have the Spirit.I hope I have not misunderstood you here sir but if I may add another twist in the same loop:John1: 12 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: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.This is where my controversy with the evangelicals comes in. If you are unsaved, your will is definitely the will of the flesh is it not? You cannot be born by the will of the flesh. I do not find this to be a tragedy but rather a testimony of the enormity of God’s grace.James

This just came to mind;Eze 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: Eze 11:20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.Would only add, notice the "I"

Would only add, notice the "I"Noted sir! And underlined, and bookmarked... :-)

This verse does not say 'if I am Christ's I have His Spirit', it says 'if I have His Spirit I am Christs'. I must confess that, whilst I have not yet made up my mind on the key issue covered by this thread, I am a pedant and as such must point out the logical error in what you have said. What Paul says is 'If I do not have His Spirit I am not Christ's.' This is logically equivalent to the statement 'If I am Christ's then I have His Spirit' and not the other way around. You may not believe me about that, so I shall try to illustrate what I mean with the following discussion. We know that elephants are mammals. So the statement 'anything that is an elephant is a mammal' is true. Now this is logically equivalent to the statement 'anything that is not a mammal is not an elephant', which I am sure you would agree is also true. Note the change of order. Now consider the statement 'anything that is not an elephant is not a mammal'. That is certainly not true! For example, you are not an elephant but you are a mammal. Similarly, the logically equivalent statement 'anything that is a mammal is an elephant' is false.The question to ask here is not; "am I Christ's, because if so I have His Spirit"but"do I have His Spirit, because if so I am His'The question to ask is in fact "Do I have His Spirit, because if not I am not His". Note the totally different meaning.I must apologise for labouring the point, but I hope it has become clear that what Paul said was the same as "If you are Christ's then you have His Spirit", and not the other way around. Note that this does not imply a causal link.sfwc

Fellow pedantI hope that I do not come of as offensive but, in my own opinion, there is an error in your parallel. Well the analogy you have drawn is conveniently manipulated to fit your precepts. The initial statement has as its protagonist, the Spirit and not Christ (I am by no means saying that this is the divine order, but it is the order in this particular verse). Your second statement has as its protagonist, Christ. Essentially these two statements are different.What Paul says is 'If I do not have His Spirit I am not Christ's.' This is logically equivalent to the statement 'If I have his Spirit I am of Christ’.I am weary however of “logical” discussions in spiritual matters. Let us remember that the above statement is not a definition, but it is an aspect of being of Christ. Just as when it says, “God is love” this is not a definition, if it were we could simply reverse the order (love is God) and the meaning would be unchanged. This is not the case. Reversals are only completely true in absolute definitions and there are very few of those (if any) in the bible. James

I am weary however of “logical” discussions in spiritual matters.Noted sir! And underlined, and bookmarked... And a hearty amen! :-P

I am weary however of “logical” discussions in spiritual matters. Let us remember that the above statement is not a definition, but it is an aspect of being of Christ. Just as when it says, “God is love” this is not a definition, if it were we could simply reverse the order (love is God) and the meaning would be unchanged. This is not the case. Reversals are only completely true in absolute definitions and there are very few of those (if any) in the bible.Me too. and this logic tutorial above is sound as far as I can see. However the phrase God is love, is non-negotiable term; it is absolute and will accept no tweaking. What about 'if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His'? The underlined word is an emphatic pronoun. This is a very clear way of drawing attention to the person in question. Is it the equivalent of saying 'if any person does not have the Spirit of Christ, that very man is not His'. What can this mean other than what it says?I understand your strict logical thought flow here, but if we have a clear statement that "x minus 'having the Spirit' does not equal Christ's". I hope this does not offend. I know God cannot be reduced to a formula, I am just trying to understand the logic behind your thoughts.Now with that equation it is true that I cannot properly turn it into a positive statement and be logically watertight. It is logically possible, just in our reasoning, that it might still be true that someone might have the Spirit and still not be Christ's. (WHOA!!! I am not saying I believe that, just that it could be a possibility from the logic) It might be possible so to be safe I'll stick with the simple Biblical statement. [i]if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is not His[/u]How about a definition for 'His'? and, while we are here, a definition 'having the Spirit'?

Perhaps we should start be asking ourselves what are the objective facts concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In his first sermon, Peter said this, "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 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. (Acts 2:32-33)This passage says that the basis on which the Spirit was shed forth was the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God. Jesus is glorified, therefore the Spirit is shed forth. Jesus died on the cross, I have forgiveness of sin. Jesus rose from the dead, I have new life. Jesus is exalted in heaven, I have the Spirit shed forth. All is because of Him.We receive the forgiveness of sins by faith, and in the same way we receive the Holy Spirit. Is it possible that a child of God's sins are not forgiven by the blood of the Lamb? Therefore, is it possible that the Lamb has been glorified and God's child has not received the Holy Spirit?Those are the objective facts. What we all want to know is how does that become subjective experience?In Christ,Ron

Wow, in love I say, "Well said!". I was going to reply on the same vein but what you have said here is a vital biblical principle. Well done.

In talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit I believe it is necessary to differentiate between being born of the Spirit of God (born again) and therefore "having the Spirit of Christ" indwelling us, and being baptized in the Spirit of God. Every true believer has the Holy Spirit inside of them "as a deposit gauanteeing what is to come" but not all are filled or baptized with the Spirit; there is definitely a difference.For someone to say that we need to be baptized in the Holy Spirit to be saved is an error and for someone to say that we are automatically baptized in the Holy Spirit when we are saved is also an error. Jesus is a great example. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary and then later when he started his ministry he was endued with the power of the Holy Spirit, symbolyzing the baptism in the Holy Spirit.I hope this helpes in this discussionIn Christ, Jake Kail

I understand your strict logical thought flow here, but if we have a clear statement that"x minus 'having the Spirit' does not equal Christ's". I hope this does not offend. I know God cannot be reduced to a formula, I am just trying to understand the logic behind your thoughts.PhilologosI see exactly what you are saying sir and perhaps you will find my next statement amusing but maybe before we proceed with definitions, a definition of a definition is in order. I am not just trying to stir up controversy and a meaningless play on words but I think that we cannot proceed if our very definition of a definition does not line up.Let us take the example already given. An elephant is a mammal. The reason this is not an absolute definition is, a mammal is not necessarily an elephant. Perhaps one-step better would be, “an elephant is a 5 ton mammal with tusks and a trunk”. This is agreeable in that a 5-ton mammal with tusks and a trunk is in fact an elephant. This is indisputable but it is still not an absolute definition because it excludes elephants of a different weight (for not all elephants weigh 5-tons). We can see that the description is absolute but it is not absolute as a definition. God is love is an absolute description of God but it is not an absolute definition because it negate the other aspects of God. God does in fact hate some things and has no love for them, this does not fit our definition of God, but it does fit our description. I hope you see what I mean. At school we were taught that the only absolute science is mathematics, then a step after that is physics, then chemistry, the biology, the geography. This is because the more complex a subject is the less absolute its definition is. Spiritual subjects are the most complex of all and to come up with definitions for them is quite erroneous (in my opinion). James

I must in good concience state at this point that what is said here may seem to be logical from your point of view but you have atempted to prove 3 biblical principles here by this one verse as proof but this verse does not give support for any of these 3...1) Jesus died on the cross, I have forgiveness of sin2) Jesus rose from the dead, I have new life3) Jesus is exalted in heaven, I have the Spirit shed forth. All is because of Him. I repeat that you cannot prove any of the three Godly and very spiritual priniples with this verse nor can you define your oringinal statement,"Perhaps we should start be asking ourselves what are the objective facts concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit." I am interested in hearing God's thoughts and your on this matter but this verse I feel is a poor support from the way you've interpreted it. In Love. William

JKail wrote:In talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit I believe it is necessary to differentiate between being born of the Spirit of God (born again) and therefore "having the Spirit of Christ" indwelling us, and being baptized in the Spirit of God. Every true believer has the Holy Spirit inside of them "as a deposit gauanteeing what is to come" but not all are filled or baptized with the Spirit; there is definitely a difference.For someone to say that we need to be baptized in the Holy Spirit to be saved is an error and for someone to say that we are automatically baptized in the Holy Spirit when we are saved is also an error. Jesus is a great example. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary and then later when he started his ministry he was endued with the power of the Holy Spirit, symbolyzing the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Your thoughs are good for this dicussion, I would ask that you would use biblical reference to support your ideas to help us all understand what you are saying. William

Wanderson I repeat that you cannot prove any of the three Godly and very spiritual priniples with this verse nor can you define your oringinal statement,"Perhaps we should start be asking ourselves what are the objective facts concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit."I am interested in hearing God's thoughts and your on this matter but this verse I feel is a poor support from the way you've interpreted it. Now this is progress. I would say the following fact concerns the baptism of the Spirit:John3: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the SpiritWhat is to be born of the Spirit? James

you have atempted to prove 3 biblical principles here by this one verse as proof but this verse does not give support for any of these 3... 1) Jesus died on the cross, I have forgiveness of sin 2) Jesus rose from the dead, I have new life 3) Jesus is exalted in heaven, I have the Spirit shed forth. All is because of Him.The verse from Acts 2 that I quoted was simply to establish the basis for which the Spitit is poured out. My point is that all these things, forgiveness, regeneration, and outpouring of the Spirit are not based on our merit but on the merit of Christ. It is all to prove the greatness of Jesus Christ, as Peter said in the following verse, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."(Acts 2:36)On what basis are your sins forgiven? Is it because of your merits? No, it is because Jesus shed his blood, "... and without shedding of blood is no remission."(Hebrews 9:22). I am saying is that the principle on which we receive the Spirit is the same upon which we receive forgiveness. God "has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ Jesus", these blessings are given freely but on a definite basis, we must know on what ground they are appropriated. Putting our faith in what Jesus has already done, the objective facts become real experience when we have this revelation.In Christ,Ron

And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. I understand this Scripture in a different way. To me, someone who has the "Spirit of Christ," has the "testimony of Jesus."Rev. 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Scripture teaches that one can have the Spirit of God and still choose to be led by the flesh. One who continually chooses to be led by the flesh will not in the end have the "testimony of Jesus." Rom. 8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. Paul teaches that his brethren have a choice, continue to follow the flesh and not put to death the ways of the flesh, results in death. Now remember, one is dead before he receives the Spirit. So Paul is teaching that a believer, one who is alive, can die due to the choices he makes. Likewise one who submits to the Spirit will remain alive by the Spirit. I believe based on my witnessing my fellow friend and brother who prayed to know the baptism of the Spirit, that there truly is the work of God that empowers the individual to go on to glorify God in power and truth. I believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit is available to all who believe. Are we willing to put to death the ways of the flesh? I believe the virgin must seek to keep her lamp full of oil to know the love that God has for those who follow Christ. Those who have the "testimony of Jesus" will have full lamps.In ChristJeff

Thank you Ron for you post. I still find that from a doctrinal, biblical perspective you have not proven any point but still are using conjecture that no foundation can be built. Proving your stance on the issues of the Holy Spirit I feel would take much more specific text to help in this forum.William

This discussion is in grave danger of becoming fruitless because many questions have been asked and no questions have been given. I am guilty of answering in my head, then replying with a post and a different question. Let us review some of the questions that have been asked. I think if we address these then our discussion can progress:1)Are you filled, saved, or just sealed when you are saved? or none of the above? When you recive the baptism do you speak in tougues? Whats the difference of the infilling and baptism of the spirit?2)\tA question to start. Have you been baptized/filled with the Holy Spirit and Fire? By this we can know you are His(Romans 8:9) and capible of understanding spiritual truths, for truly what you intellectualy play/wrestle with is and are thoughts from the mind of Christ and can only be understood by the Spirit of Christ. If so what is the evidence of your filling?3)\tPlease then expound on the following verse...Act 19:1 It was while Apollos was in Corinth that Paul passed through the inland districts and came to Ephesus. He found a few disciples there Act 19:2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered him, "No, we haven't even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." Act 19:3 He then asked, "Then into what were you baptized?" They answered, "Into John's baptism." Act 19:4 Then Paul said, "John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus." Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Act 19:6 When Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy. Act 19:7 There were about twelve men in all. Act 8:12 But when Philip proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, men and women believed and were baptized. Act 8:13 Even Simon believed, and after he was baptized he became devoted to Philip. He was amazed to see the signs and great miracles that were happening. Act 8:14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. Act 8:15 They went down and prayed for them to receive the Holy Spirit. Act 8:16 Before this he had not come on any of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Act 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. andAct 9:17 So Ananias left and went to that house. He laid his hands on Saul and said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were traveling, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." in conjuction with...Act 26:12 "That is how I happened to be traveling to Damascus with authority based on a commission from the high priests. Act 26:13 On the road at noon, O King, I saw from heaven a light that was brighter than the sun flash around me and those who were traveling with me. Act 26:14 All of us fell to the ground, and I heard a voice asking me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me? It is hurting you to keep on kicking against the goads.' Act 26:15 I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?' The Lord answered, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Act 26:16 But get up and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for the very purpose of appointing you to be a servant and witness of what you have seen and of what I will show you. Act 26:17 I will continue to rescue you from your people and from the gentiles to whom I am sending you. Act 26:18 You will open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light and from Satan's control to God, so that they might receive the forgiveness of sins and a share among those who are sanctified by faith in me.' Act 26:19 "And so, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. Act 26:20 Instead, I first told the people in Damascus and Jerusalem, then the whole countryside of Judea, and then the gentiles to repent, turn to God, and practice works that are consistent with such repentance.4)what about Romans 8 v. 9?You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.5)\tThe question to ask here is not; "am I Christ's, because if so I have His Spirit"but "do I have His Spirit, because if so I am His'6)\tI always viewed this verse as meaning that if a person has the Holy Spirit then that Holy Spirit would resurrect them on that great resurrection day. If they did not, they would not be part of the first resurrection. But, can you at least discuss my understanding of Romans 8:11?7)John1: 12 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: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. This is where my controversy with the evangelicals comes in. f you are unsaved, your will is definitely the will of the flesh is it not?8)The question to ask is in fact "Do I have His Spirit, because if not I am not His". Note the totally different meaning9)What about 'if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His'? How about a definition for 'His'? and, while we are here, a definition 'having the Spirit'?10)Perhaps we should start be asking ourselves what are the objective facts concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit. What we all want to know is how does that become subjective experience?11)"Perhaps we should start be asking ourselves what are the objective facts concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit."I am interested in hearing God's thoughts and your on this matter but this verse I feel is a poor support from the way you've interpreted it.12)John3: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the SpiritWhat is to be born of the Spirit?I think we can all see how this can become ridiculous if we do not address the very fundamental questions asked here first. May I suggest that we do not raise any more question for a while but address the questions which have already bee asked. After we have revealed our thoughts and positions, some more fruitful discussion may come of this.

It may be that the weight of evidence needed to properly represent the fullest of this subject matter is impossible to bring out in a "forum" such as this. Frankly after reading this forum to this point and others and seeing the damaging comments that "brothers" make to each other I have no intention in futhering this forum or any other.

I must confess that, whilst I have not yet made up my mind on the key issue covered by this thread, I am a pedant and as such must point out the logical error in what you have said. What Paul says is 'If I do not have His Spirit I am not Christ's.' This is logically equivalent to the statement 'If I am Christ's then I have His Spirit' and not the other way around.You would not believe how many times I have read this post! I was doing OK until we got to the illustration! Still we pedants must stick together. ;-) I don’t think the above is ‘logically so’. The Holy Spirit is the seal of Sonship. If I do not have the Seal can I be a son? The point I was trying to make is that the criterion for sonship is the evident seal of ‘having the Spirit’. What I was criticising is the assumption that because an individual has gone through an evangelical process they are thereby ‘saved’. “Your name is written in heaven etc, you are a son of God and because you are a son you have the Spirit, Romans 8 says so.” Paul is talking about the evidence of the Spirit in the life of an individual and says the man that does not have the Spirit is not Christ’s. I was simply trying to point out that Paul as his eye on ‘the Spirit’ here; this is Romans 8, the most important chapter on the Spirit in the scripture… I think. This section is all about the work of the Spirit in the life of an individual. The impression to me is that it is the presence and activity of the Spirit which will convince Paul that someone belongs to Christ. A person may make all kinds of claims, evangelical or otherwise, but the ‘proof of the pudding’ is ‘having the Spirit’.The Spirit is the seal of Christ’s ownership, and hence one who has the Spirit is His. If he any man does not have the seal, that man (‘he’ emphasised) is not Christ’s. If we pick up Paul’s comments from the beginning of the chapter perhaps there is another term that we can use. In verse 9 he refers to the Spirit of Christ; in verse 2 he refers to the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, and he says that this law of this Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has radically changed something; it (the law of) has freed me from another law, the law of sin and death. It is the law which this Spirit has brought in which has transformed his experience. It is the presence and power of this Spirit which sets me apart as Christ’s.There is an OT incident which might illustrate. Israel have sinned and God has threatened to abandon them. He will still bless them and give them the Promised Land but He Himself will not go with them. The people are horrified and Moses pleads with God. God consents to Moses’ prayer; And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest. And he said unto him, If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence. For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth. (Exo 33:14-16 KJV) It was the presence of God which would identify the people of God. Their significance and unique identity was only that God was with them. You notice that Moses did not say ‘we are God’s people so His presence must be with us’. That would have been what Tozer would have called ‘a logical deduction drawn from proof texts’. But so often this is what people in our counselling rooms are hearing; “You are Christ’s so you do have His Spirit”. What I was trying to underline was that Paul is not saying ‘You are Christ’s so you do have His Spirit’, he was simply making the statement that if you do not have His Spirit you are not His. The question to ask is in fact "Do I have His Spirit, because if not I am not His". Note the totally different meaning.I must apologise for labouring the point, but I hope it has become clear that what Paul said was the same as "If you are Christ's then you have His Spirit", and not the other way around. Note that this does not imply a causal link.I don’t mind you labouring the point but I still can’t get to grips with this. How does a person become Christ’s? Is it not by receiving the Spirit of Christ? Notice that I am not defining what I mean by the phrase ‘receiving the Spirit of Christ’ as this stage but am just asking the question. I am not asking what the evidence of ‘receiving the Spirit might be’ but just asking the question… How does a person who is not Christ’s become Christ’s? This is why I said we would need to ask the question ‘what does “His” mean’. When did Paul become ‘His’? We have Paul’s testimony at the beginning of this chapter that ‘the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed me from the law of sin and death’. He had belonged to another king, sin and death, which had reigned over him, but at a point in time he was ‘freed’ from the law of that king. The means of his emancipation was the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Surely this was when he became ‘His’? When he came under the rule of another Will?

Jimm wrote:I am weary however of “logical” discussions in spiritual matters. Let us remember that the above statement is not a definition, but it is an aspect of being of Christ.I too find logic one of the least fruitful tools for understanding spiritual things. But it does have some use. After all, the apostle Paul himself used a fair amount of logic to press his points home. I find it is often particularly useful in showing an error. If you point out an error with a parable or an illustration or something like that, the listener can discount what you are saying as not applicable in the case under discussion. But the whole point of logic is that it is applicable in all earthly circumstances. Also, logic is something I can do. It is one of the few things that I feel able to make comments challenging what you are saying on the basis of. After all, you all seem to have a good deal more understanding of spiritual matters than I do.Now I don't believe Paul was making a definition in this verse any more than you do. Nevertheless, if you wish to manipulate the sentence without changing the meaning, you must do so in accordance with the principles of logic.sfwc

Have'nt read the whole thread so if this already in here forgive me.If the Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am Gods child, that to me indicates the sealing, the setting into the family of the most high and then everything else along the lines of Elephants etc. There is no assurance of salvation outside of that is there?

philologos wrote:What I was criticising is the assumption that because an individual has gone through an evangelical process they are thereby ‘saved’. “Your name is written in heaven etc, you are a son of God and because you are a son you have the Spirit, Romans 8 says so.” I see what you are saying, and indeed I would tend to agree with you. But I think that the problem is not that those referred to on this forum as evangelicals (what a malicious epithet!) have missed the technical meaning of the verse, but rather that they have missed the point. Now, I would say that the question 'do I belong to Christ' is harder to answer than some would have us believe. To assent to some statements and possibly pray a particular prayer is certainly not a suitable criterion. However, Paul provides a useful test for anybody wishing to answer this question properly. If you do not have His Spirit, then you cannot possibly be Christ's. This leads me to the conclusion that many who claim to be Christ's are not, on the basis that they do not have his Spirit.On the other hand, 'evangelicals' (the reason I am using the word so tentatively is that I would normally refer to myself as such and yet I disagree with the opinions you attribute to them. Maybe I'm just a rebel) would come to the verse with their own definition of what it means to be Christ's, and conclude His Spirit is in more people than is the case. In doing this, they not only miss the challenge of the verse, but they devalue the incredible holiness of Christ's Spirit. Nor do they realise this second error, and use it to correct the first.This section is all about the work of the Spirit in the life of an individual. The impression to me is that it is the presence and activity of the Spirit which will convince Paul that someone belongs to Christ. A person may make all kinds of claims, evangelical or otherwise, but the ‘proof of the pudding’ is ‘having the Spirit’.Think carefully about what you have said here. Paul is not saying here that the presence and activity of the Spirit will convince him that the person belongs to Christ (though I'm sure that it would, nevertheless a different scripture is needed to support that) but that the absence of the one will convince him of the absence of the other. Thankfully, you seem have the point in your final sentence. After all the principle of 'the proof of the pudding' is that you reject a pudding which tastes bad, and not vice versa.You notice that Moses did not say ‘we are God’s people so His presence must be with us’. That would have been what Tozer would have called ‘a logical deduction drawn from proof texts’. On a par with the mistake I mentioned earlier in this post.What I was trying to underline was that Paul is not saying ‘You are Christ’s so you do have His Spirit’, he was simply making the statement that if you do not have His Spirit you are not His.Paul does not say that 'You are Christ's, so you have His Spirit', but rather 'If you are Christ's, then you have His Spirit'. In fact the meaning may be closer to 'If you were Christ's, then you would have His Spirit'. I hope that you would not disagree with these statements. Nevertheless, writing it like this has a subtle implication: It suggests that you need to re-evaluate what it means to have Christ's Spirit, and not what it means to be Christ's. I can see how that could lead to error.I don’t mind you labouring the point but I still can’t get to grips with this. How does a person become Christ’s? Is it not by receiving the Spirit of Christ?And how does a person become a legal driver? Is it not by recieving a driving license? Note that this is a metaphor only as far as the logic goes. I am not implying that the Holy Spirit of Christ is anything like a driving licence. What a thought! Therefore I can make the statement 'If any man drives legally, then that man has a license'. I cannot, however, make the statement 'If any man has a license then he drives legally'. However, to get the point across better to those they pull over, the police would probably use the more Pauline turn of phrase 'If you don't have a license, sonny, then you aren't driving legally'.Really I think our positions are quite close, but then I have noticed that this can be a common misconception in people who have no idea what you are talking about. If, therefore, I have totally missed the point of what you were saying then feel free to clarify.sfwc

sfwc writes: This leads me to the conclusion that many who claim to be Christ's are not, on the basis that they do not have his Spirit.This was the exact purpose of my earlier comments. sfwc writes: On the other hand, 'evangelicals' (the reason I am using the word so tentatively is that I would normally refer to myself as such and yet I disagree with the opinions you attribute to them. Maybe I'm just a rebel) would come to the verse with their own definition of what it means to be Christ's, and conclude His Spirit is in more people than is the case. In doing this, they not only miss the challenge of the verse, but they devalue the incredible holiness of Christ's Spirit.I have the same dilemma. I regard myself as an evangelical but I cannot subscribe to many accepted notions of the evangelicals.sfwc writes: Paul does not say that 'You are Christ's, so you have His Spirit', but rather 'If you are Christ's, then you have His Spirit'. In fact the meaning may be closer to 'If you were Christ's, then you would have His Spirit'. I hope that you would not disagree with these statements. Nevertheless, writing it like this has a subtle implication: It suggests that you need to re-evaluate what it means to have Christ's Spirit, and not what it means to be Christ's. I can see how that could lead to error.And now I begin to see why I struggled with your earlier post. Do you regard Romans 8 as some kind of corrective against a false position or profession? I don’t see Paul as arguing a case here but simply expounding truth. Do you think he has an ‘opponent’ in mind as in his early rhetorical questioning?I think a fundamental question of the New Testament is ‘Did you receive the Spirit when you believed?’ Acts 19:2. This question has two powerful implications. It seems, from the logic of the question :-?, that it would be possible to believe and yet not receive the Spirit, and secondly, it must be possible to know whether you have received the Spirit or not otherwise there is no point in asking the question. This kind of thinking seems to be behind Paul’s question to the churches in Galatia. He knew what their experience was and used it to prove his point about faith and not works. This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Gal 3:2-3 KJV) It seems to me that his point could only have weight if the receiving of the Spirit had been a conscious experience in the lives of those to whom he was writing.The ‘trouble ahead’ area is how we describe the condition and expectation of those who have ‘believed’ and yet not ‘received’.

The ‘trouble ahead’ area is how we describe the condition and expectation of those who have ‘believed’ and yet not ‘received’. :-? Would this mean that a person was somehow in a state of limbo between conversion and regeneration?God Bless,-Robert

Jimm writes: Let us take the example already given. An elephant is a mammal. The reason this is not an absolute definition is, a mammal is not necessarily an elephant. Perhaps one-step better would be, “an elephant is a 5 ton mammal with tusks and a trunk”. This is agreeable in that a 5-ton mammal with tusks and a trunk is in fact an elephant.I'm beginning to develop something of a phobia about this particular elephant. He has a lot to answer for. It would be a pity for brethren to separate over an hypothetical elephant! :-DMy problem with this pesky packyderm is that the words we are using are labels rather than characteristics or experiences. Elephant is just a label, and a rose by any name would smell as sweet. (although I don't think elephants are particularly sweet smelling) Mammal is just another kind of label. But if someone says 'if it doesn't have grey crinkly skin, and a trunk it isn't an elephant', I think I might be permitted to say 'an elephant has grey crinkly skin, and a trunk'. But that would not be a complete and exclusive description of an elephant. For example, I might say 'if it doesn't have tusks and weigh 4 tons it is not an elephant; which is the equivalent of saying 'an elephant has tusks and weighs 4 tons'. The 'having' does not give us an exhaustive description of an elephant, and other descriptions could be equally valid. However it does give us a falsification criterion, in that it is absolutely true to say 'if it hath not grey crinkly skin and a trunk it is not a elephant'. So it must be possible to say to anyone who claims to be Christ's, do you have the Spirit?I am not suggesting this as a new opening question for the open-air meeting. :-( I am saying that anyone who says 'I am Christ's' must be able to say 'I have the Spirit', and if they can't say I have the Spirit I question whether they can say 'I am Christ's'.This is a thinking exercise at this stage not a pastoral one. I am just trying to get my thinking clear.

RpbertW writes: Would this mean that a person was somehow in a state of limbo between conversion and regeneration?Now we are going to have to define conversion and regeneration as well! ;-) I know that this is not a hostile question but I think we are going to have to be sure we at least all understand the same language even if we don't speak it.The word 'conversion', as far as I can ascertain, is never used with God as its subject in the New Testament. To put that into non-technical terms, the New Testament never attributes conversion to God. This will be a bombshell to many people, but I am speaking linguistically. The New Testament never makes a statement which could be paraphrased as 'God converted him'. Conversion is a man-centred word. The Greek words used are strephO and epistrephO; they simply mean to turn around. But God never turns anyone around; a man must turn himself around at God's command or enabling. Sometimes another person does the 'converting' but it is never God; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (Jam 5:20 KJV)Regeneration, birth from above, however always has the sense of God as the subject. It can have no other subject; not 'of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God'. It is always, and only, God who regenerates. So these two terms are not synonyms. The question then arises which comes first; the Calvinist has one answer and the Arminian has another. The Calvinist says regeneration effects conversion/repentance, the Arminian says regeneration is God's response to conversion/repentance. (those are massively oversimplified statements, but there is enough truth in them to sustain my point.) If the Calvinists are right there is no question to answer.But if there is a millisecond between conversion and regeneration, we have the same problem as if there were a week between conversion and regeneration. What is their condition and expectation in the period of that gap? What would have happened to the penitent thief if he had died in the gap between his 'conversion/repentance' and the Lord's word of acceptance? I believe God will always 'have time' to respond to genuine conversion/repentance, but then our question becomes 'what is genuine conversion/repentance'?

Hi Bro. Ron,The Greek words used are strephO and epistrephO; they simply mean to turn around. But God never turns anyone around; a man must turn himself around at God's command or enabling. Sometimes another person does the 'converting' but it is never God; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (Jam 5:20 KJV)May I take a moment to quote Finney Lecture XII:There are many passages which represent the conversion of sinners as the work of men. In Daniel, xii. 3, it is said, "And they that be wise, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as stars for ever and ever." Here the work is ascribed to men. So also in 1 Cor. iv. 15. "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel." Here the apostle explicitly tells the Corinthians that he made them Christians, with the Gospel or truth which he preached. Again, in James, v. 19, 20, we are taught the same thing. "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." I might quote many other passages, equally explicit. But these are sufficient abundantly to establish the fact, that the Bible does actually ascribe conversion to men.II. I proceed to show that this is not inconsistent with those passages in which conversion is ascribed to God.And here let me remark, that to my mind it often appears very strange that men should ever suppose there was an inconsistency here, or that they should ever have overlooked the plain common sense of the matter. How easy it is to see, that there is a sense in which God converts them, and another sense in which men convert them.The Scriptures ascribe the conversion of a sinner to four different agencies--to men, to God, to the truth, and to the sinner himself. The passages which ascribe it to the truth are the largest class. That men should ever have overlooked this distinction, and should have regarded conversion as a work performed exclusively by God, is surprising. So it is that any difficulty should ever have been felt on the subject, or that people should ever have professed themselves unable to reconcile these several classes of passages.Do you agree with Finney in this regard?God Bless,-Robert

Hi Bro Ron,I am saying that anyone who says 'I am Christ's' must be able to say 'I have the Spirit', and if they can't say I have the Spirit I question whether they can say 'I am Christ's'.Many evangelicals would answer this similarly to what I recently read in one of R.A Streett's writings; To confess openly one's total reliance on the Lord Jesus Christ is the initial evidence that he or she is truly indwelt by the Spirit of God. (bold added)Proof text:Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: (I John 4:2)God Bless,-Robert

Brother sfwc wrote:In fact the meaning may be closer to 'If you were Christ's, then you would have His Spirit'. If one has "His Spirit," does one's life represent the "testimony of Jesus?" If so, one must be filled with His Spirit in order for one's life to testify of the work that Jesus has done in one's life. Does Paul ever teach that one's life can glorify God without being filled? Were the Corinthians glorifying God?In ChristJeff

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: (I John 4:2) I would add this one as well:Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Cor 12:3Often thought of using that as a barometer to ask people who are a bit marginal.You would not have been born again but by the Spirit. Someone may believe in the Lord Jesus but is there a witness from Gods side that he is excepted. That exceptance only comes from the witness of the Spirit, which I believe is the momment of rebirth. I do not believe that we can hold a theological gun to Gods head and say based on his belief in Jesus he is saved and therefore must have the Spirit. The Spirit is only given when God himself witnesses by his Spirit to us. He speaks to us, it is not just our belief that makes us worthy to receive him.

Robert W part quotation: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you (Romans 8:11)I always viewed this verse as meaning that if a person has the Holy Spirit then that Holy Spirit would resurrect them on that great resurrection day.Hi Robert I hadn’t forgotten this but I have been a bit pressed for time. There a few ‘bodies’ in Romans and I think it is important to identify the corpse before we decide on its future. ;-) Twice in Romans Paul uses the phrase ‘mortal body’. I instantly prick up my ears when I see this kind of thing. Why should he suddenly need to put an adjective in front of the word body? I think one possibility is that he wants to be sure that you know what he is talking about. He has already spoken of the ‘body of sin’ which I think is a reference to the solidarity of the human race under the wrong head; in other words, the old man. In that section he suddenly adds the adjective ‘mortal’; 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. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. (Rom 6:6-12 KJV)I think he is distinguishing here between a spiritual body (of sin) and a mortal body.In Rom 8 he does the same again; And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (Rom 8:10-11 KJV) Is my ‘mortal body’ dead? I’m not sure I would understand what that could mean. Rom 8:10 refers to ‘the body’… which body? The last ‘body’ he mentioned was actually in Romans 7; O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Rom 7:24 KJV)Is it possible that in Rom 8:10 he is still referring to the ‘body of death’, but now, moving on he distinguishes the body he has in mind for this next statement, ie not the ‘body of death’ but ‘your mortal body’?This theme of the Spirit’s work in resurrection is clearly expressed in the second half of the chapter; 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 8:22-23 KJV) There is a future experience for the body in view here which Paul calls its ‘redemption’; I think this is a clear reference to the Resurrection. He refers to his current experience of the Spirit as ‘firstfruits’; that you will recall was the guarantee of the full harvest. The Holy Spirit’s current work in us is the guarantee that He will finish what He has begun, and that physical body, which is still part of the groaning creation, will know its ultimate redemption. In that sense the ‘having the Spirit’ is also a guarantee of the resurrection.Elsewhere the Spirit is referred to as the ‘down-payment’ or earnest; Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:14 KJV) The downpayment certainly implies that there is more to follow, but the downpayment also secured the title on the property. The word ‘earnest’ in biblical Greek is arrabOn; it is still used in modern Greek for an engagement ring. The word arrabOn is in fact from a Hebrew word; arabon; meaning a pledge for security and is used in the sordid story of Gen 38:17-20.The receiving of the Spirit is Christ’s pledge to and claim on the property. The picture of the Spirit as a seal has the same kind of imagery. It is the equivalent of putting your name on it to establish ownership.

Charles Finney Quotation: I proceed to show that this is not inconsistent with those passages in which conversion is ascribed to God.Robert W writes: Do you agree with Finney in this regard?I don't know any passages in which conversion is ascribed to God'

Hi Bro. Ron,I don't know any passages in which conversion is ascribed to God'This is an excerpt from a tractate series I am working on titled REAL REPENTANCE (Part 1): God strives with man to turn him to Himself, but men do always resist the Holy Ghost. God's goodness seeks to lead men to repentance (Romans 2:4). Acts 5:30, 31 teaches us that God desires to give us repentance and that He is not willing that any perish, but that all would come to repentance (II Peter 3:9). God made a way to grant the Gentiles repentance also as we read in Acts 11:18). But men are at war with themselves. The psalmist cries out for God to turn us again that we shall be saved (Psalm 80:19) John 6:44 tells us that none can come to the Father unless He draw them. And again we read, And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;... (II Timothy 2:24,25). We see in this and other passage that repentance is something that God grants to us if we respond to His Spirit rightly.The only direct passage I see here is Psalm 80:19. The others deal with God 'granting' repentance. Do you have any insiht into God 'granting' repentance?Thanks,-Robert

Ron My problem with this pesky packyderm is that the words we are using are labels rather than characteristics or experiences. Elephant is just a label, and a rose by any name would smell as sweet. (although I don't think elephants are particularly sweet smelling) Mammal is just another kind of label. But if someone says 'if it doesn't have grey crinkly skin, and a trunk it isn't an elephant', I think I might be permitted to say 'an elephant has grey crinkly skin, and a trunk'. Okay I will admit that it feels almost criminal to bring this up again but I would just like to clarify. As a description, what you have given about our annoying pachyderm is absolute. As a definition, this is not absolute. A description can be absolute as long as even just a few specimens adhere to the specifications, an absolute definition must be all-inclusive.Again as you rightly said, “This is a thinking exercise at this stage not a pastoral one. I am just trying to get my thinking clear.” My entire point here is to point out how difficult it is to define spiritual matters, we can describe them very accurately but to define them is more complicated. For example we cannot define what love is, but we can describe what it is and what it is not. In this case, I would suggest that the verse does not define what it is to be “of Christ” but, it describes what it is to be not of Christ. It can be said from the infallible word of God that that a description of a person who definitely is not of Christ is that he does not have His Spirit. The Spirit is one description of those who are of Christ, but what of those who shall say in that day Lord, Lord (Mathew7:22 On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?'). Does one not require the spirit to prophesy in the name of the Lord? These ones are clearly not of Christ, but they did have his Spirit. Sfwc I too find logic one of the least fruitful tools for understanding spiritual things. But it does have some use. After all, the apostle Paul himself used a fair amount of logic to press his points home. I find it is often particularly useful in showing an error. If you point out an error with a parable or an illustration or something like that, the listener can discount what you are saying as not applicable in the case under discussion. But the whole point of logic is that it is applicable in all earthly circumstances.The main thing about Paul is this; he was an apostle. Like the prophets, the writings of Paul are divinely inspired. His knowledge and wisdom was a spiritual gift not an act of intellect. I do not mean to sound condescending sir but these are not just letters written by a clever righteous man. I have no doubt that you know this already because as you have said, “it is applicable in all earthly circumstances”. This is where my question would appear, is the analysis of the scriptures earthly or spiritual? It might be distressing if we had to adhere to the intellect and personality of Paul however when we read it is comforting if say, “what is the spirit seeking to show me”, rather than “what was Paul thinking when he said this? What kind of a mood was he in? What were his circumstances? How did he feel about the people he was writing to?”You have not said all these things sir, but I am just trying to illustrate what I mean. It is easy for bible reading to become a mental exercise if we are too analytical (this lesson is largely directed towards me). As you have said, logic is for “earthly” interactions, spirit is for spiritual interactions.James

The only direct passage I see here is Psalm 80:19. The others deal with God 'granting' repentance. Do you have any insiht into God 'granting' repentance?Yes, I was really talking about the New Testament word and pattern. If we were looking at OT things we would have a different list. eg Ps 19:7, 51:13. But these verses are a different kind of 'turning', I think, relating to those who were already God's people but who needed to get back on track. This is not the same concept, I think, as the New Testament, and certainly not what we usually have in mind when we speak of 'conversion'. According to my Online Bible the Hebrew word is used over 1000 times but with a wide range of meanings including; return 391, ...again 248, turn 123, ...back 65, ...away 56, restore 39, bring 34, render 19, answer 18, recompense 8, recover 6, deliver 5, put 5, withdraw 5, requite 4, misc 40;

I would suggest that the verse does not define what it is to be “of Christ” but, it describes what it is to be not of Christ. It can be said from the infallible word of God that that a description of a person who definitely is not of Christ is that he does not have His Spirit.Yes, I take your point with the distinction between defining and describing in this particular verse. There are other verses however which added to Romans 8:9 begin to tighten the noose in a definition. I am thinking of James' axiom the body without the spirit is dead. and the Ezekiel prophecy where absolutely everything was in its right place but there was 'no spirit in them' (Ezek 37:8) John's Gospel comment 'it is the spirit that makes alive'. and the almost identical words from 2 Cor 3:6.

Do you regard Romans 8 as some kind of corrective against a false position or profession? I don’t see Paul as arguing a case here but simply expounding truth. Do you think he has an ‘opponent’ in mind as in his early rhetorical questioning?Well, not exactly. Certainly in Romans 8 I think Paul is expounding truth about the Spirit, but he appears (to me) to be applying it to the readers in v. 9-11. This gives explanation and hope to those who have the Spirit. But note the remark in verse 9a 'if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you'. This would have the effect of jolting those readers in whom the Spirit does not dwell (as you have pointed out, this is a recognisable condition), and I think verse 9b is intended partly as a challenge to such readers. But I don't think Paul has a specific opponent in mind.

Jimm wrote:This is where my question would appear, is the analysis of the scriptures earthly or spiritual? Undeniably the analysis of the scriptures is spiritual. But I would like to add some comments in case I appear contradictory. I do hope none of them are heretical, but if any are then feel free to correct me.1. Analysis of the scriptures involves using the brain. ->If the brain was not required at all, why have written scriptures? After all, the Spirit could simply impart the understanding to us directly without any need for such a thing.->If understanding flows directly from the text into us by operation of the Spirit, we have a similar problem.. why should I concentrate rather than just reading the words like a mantra?2. You can't understand scripture with only your brain, any more than you can take a photograph wtih only a film. Your brain is simply used by the Spirit as a tool to get the Truth into you. But it is used.3. Not only your brain plays this subsidiary role when you study scripture. For example, the emotions etc. are used. But the combination of all these things, independent of the Holy Spirit, is completely useless.Why did I mention the logicality of Paul? As a precedent, to show that spiritual matters are not exempt from profitable logical discussion.So does that mean that if I found that Paul was illogical I would reject him? Of course not: I would reject logic. But it is my belief that the Bible is entirely logically consistent (which would be astonishing for such a diverse book if we didn't know by Whom it was written), and indeed that it supports the use of logic in some circumstances (for example, the precedent given by Paul). It is easy for bible reading to become a mental exercise if we are too analytical (this lesson is largely directed towards me). As you have said, logic is for “earthly” interactions, spirit is for spiritual interactions.Thankyou for this kind rebuke. Pray that this error would depart from me completely.sfwcPS It's not Paul's apostleship which is the reason you believe what he says is it? Even apostles got things wrong sometimes. On the other hand, people who weren't apostles were used by God to write infallible scripture (for example Luke). The reason I believe what Paul wrote is that it was written by God, not that it was written by an apostle. (This is just a note; the implication is that you wrote something incorrect by an oversight rather than by having wrong beliefs.)PPS This is getting a little off-topic, so if I have made a mistake then it is probably a good plan to correct it in a different thread.

PreachParsley(sp) began this thread:Whats the difference of the infilling and baptism of the spirit?What is the difference? In ChristJeff

In a classic Campbell Morgan phrase...One BaptismMany FillingsConstant Anointing

In a classic Campbell Morgan phrase...One Baptismthis is a wonderful quote,can i ask, would anyone like to define their view of conversion? there seems to be many viewsThe diciples that paul met who had only recieved john's baptism for instance where they good believers converted born again or what? :-)

Delboy wrote: can i ask, would anyone like to define their view of conversion? there seems to be many viewsThe diciples that paul met who had only recieved john's baptism for instance where they good believers converted born again or what? I have listened to many and have read about some who have attempted to define conversion, the point of conversion, and the impact of circumstances that have led to conversion. I have read the testimony of John Wesley and Charles Finney. I have read many ideas here at SI.My conclusion thus far is that there is no means by which man can know when one is saved. John 3:8 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.”I have heard testimony of being baptised by the Spirit and falling down slayed by the Spirit. I have read positions held by Billy Graham, that when one prays for Jesus to be his Savior, he at that moment receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I have come to the conclusion at this point in my walk that no one can know the ways of God and how He works to save those that are His. Everyone tries to methodize something that cannot be. To me, it is all vainglory. To me, the only question that matters is this. Where am I dwelling today? Am I living as a pilgrim or an adulterer? Only the Holy Spirit can empower me to live as a pilgrim. In ChristJeff