Baptism of the Holy Spirit, is not at salvation

[ezra]

I am not sure if the annointing is the same as having the spirit fall upon you. I

the spirit is in us the anointing
2 Corinthians 1:21 21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us.
the anointing is symbolic of the spirit equipping / empowering us for service. once again your welcome to your belief. i realize you have a good education been involved in ministries .
i come from the Holy ghost school of hard knocks . i do my own research. i ponder over it very close if a light goes off i go along with it.. if a light does not come on or i see red flag of caution i let it be..
i dont like playing follow the leader games .it is good to have a leader in church/pastor AND he has to lead by example .
i read the description of your church.. i could visit there with out any problems..
my whole point is we are not going to agree on every thing.

paul did not agree with Barnabas on wanting to bring mark in.. so they separated it all worked out paul and peter did not agree. but yet peter preached 3 thousand got saved.. that is the anointing . paul was true man of God a loner one might say

 

[godsquadgeek]

the spirit is in us the anointing
2 Corinthians 1:21 21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us.
the anointing is symbolic of the spirit equipping / empowering us for service. once again your welcome to your belief. i realize you have a good education been involved in ministries .
i come from the Holy ghost school of hard knocks . i do my own research. i ponder over it very close if a light goes off i go along with it.. if a light does not come on or i see red flag of caution i let it be..
i dont like playing follow the leader games .it is good to have a leader in church/pastor AND he has to lead by example .
i read the description of your church.. i could visit there with out any problems..
my whole point is we are not going to agree on every thing.

paul did not agree with Barnabas on wanting to bring mark in.. so they separated it all worked out paul and peter did not agree. but yet peter preached 3 thousand got saved.. that is the anointing . paul was true man of God a loner one might say

Some ministries have a greater anointing than others simply because they are more faithful to teach the things God wants us to teach.

 

[dirtfarmer]

because his writings are inspired by God, thats why. Although some hyper dispensationalists will attempt to chop up scripture in a million pieces. However I believe:
2 Timothy 3:16-17New King James Version (NKJV)
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

and taking scissors out and cutting out all of Johns work, especially when his gospel was written to gentiles, is in error.

see some hyper dispensationalists will chop out all of the beatitudes and declare then not for doctrine in the church age, and only applicable to the kingdom age. Of which I think that too is extreme. I believe proper hermeneutics is to accept every word that Jesus said, including old testament and the ten commandments, and apply them to every day life. Some scriptures cancel out the others, such as the age of grace, but still just because the law was done away with, it does not mean that we are not to follow the law,

Romans 3:31New King James Version (NKJV)
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

why would Jesus say that if faith meant that we need not repent and follow the laws that God has ordained that we follow? I believe all scripture is God breathed and good for doctrine. But as far as church official ordinances, I believe JEsus must have said it in the gospels, acts must have lived out what Jesus said, and the epistles must have confirmed its use in the later church. Baptism and communion are two such ordinances. But as far as doctrine, official. The more books the better. Tongues, I am not sure if Jesus mentioned them. But the church sure did, because the holy spirit was not come when Jesus was here.

hello godsquadgeek, dirtfarmer here

You do know and realize that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was not scripture when it was written. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 scripture means the old testament.

I believe that all scripture is God breathed, but you cannot apply all scripture to the Church. If we were to apply all scripture to the Church as doctrine we would still be bringing lambs and rams, flour and oil to the temple in Jerusalem of the feast days. That is why 2 Timothy 2:15 that we are to study to show ourselves approved as a workman without shame. How do we do this? By rightly dividing the word of truth, applying those thing that are written to the Jews to the Jews, and the things that are written to the Church to the Church.

What you get if you don't "rightly divide" the word is confusion and God is not the author of confusion.

 

[godsquadgeek]

hello godsquadgeek, dirtfarmer here

You do know and realize that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was not scripture when it was written. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 scripture means the old testament.

I believe that all scripture is God breathed, but you cannot apply all scripture to the Church. If we were to apply all scripture to the Church as doctrine we would still be bringing lambs and rams, flour and oil to the temple in Jerusalem of the feast days. That is why 2 Timothy 2:15 that we are to study to show ourselves approved as a workman without shame. How do we do this? By rightly dividing the word of truth, applying those thing that are written to the Jews to the Jews, and the things that are written to the Church to the Church.

What you get if you don't "rightly divide" the word is confusion and God is not the author of confusion.

God who exists beyond time and space inhabited the writers of the new testament individually as they wrote. When 2 tim 3:16 was written is ill-relevant due to the fact the writer (which is God) is outside of time and space. I believe that addresses most of your points, let me know if I didn't address anything you say. If your point was true, then 2 Timothy 2:15 only apply to that book and books written before it. This theory if applied universally would be very damaging, for instance in 2 Pet. 1:20-21, where it says no prophesy is of private interpretation, would only apply to old testament as well. So Jesus prophecies would be of private interpretation, and would therefore be invalid. Without valid prophecy it is possible to confuse the validity of Jesus message. And therefore you would have ruined most of the Bible based on that one hermeneutic.

 

[dirtfarmer]

God who exists beyond time and space inhabited the writers of the new testament individually as they wrote. When 2 tim 3:16 was written is ill-relevant due to the fact the writer (which is God) is outside of time and space. I believe that addresses most of your points, let me know if I didn't address anything you say.

hello godsquadgeek, dirtfarmer here

It didn't address it at all. The "writers" of scripture were men and they were given the exact words to write. Those that pinned scripture were within "time and space". In Daniel 5 when " came forth fingers of a man's hand" might be the only place that I know of that might be said "GOD WROTE", but other than that , I know of no other place that could be said "GOD WROTE". He did cause Baalim's donkey to speak

 

[godsquadgeek]

hello godsquadgeek, dirtfarmer here

It didn't address it at all. The "writers" of scripture were men and they were given the exact words to write. Those that pinned scripture were within "time and space". In Daniel 5 when " came forth fingers of a man's hand" might be the only place that I know of that might be said "GOD WROTE", but other than that , I know of no other place that could be said "GOD WROTE". He did cause Baalim's donkey to speak

so then your hermeneutic would ruin prophecies of Jesus as I stated. Please address full post I wrote. Let me post the part you did not address: This theory if applied universally would be very damaging, for instance in 2 Pet. 1:20-21, where it says no prophesy is of private interpretation, would only apply to old testament as well. So Jesus prophecies would be of private interpretation, and would therefore be invalid. Without valid prophecy it is possible to confuse the validity of Jesus message. And therefore you would have ruined most of the Bible based on that one hermeneutic that scripture is only valid in reverse, toward the part of scripture already canonized.

 

[godsquadgeek]

have never been a member nor attended a... what is referred to as a "charismatic" church (is that the correct term ?).

When you truly believe in your heart (don't lie to yourself) that Jesus is Lord and God raised him from the dead, you are saved. He says "will be" because that is an action before the born again experience of the Holy Spirit becoming One with you at the time you believe (He is Lord and resurrection)

I'm glad you used that verse for Proof Texting but it completely reinforces my position, If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Do you see that conditional word at the beginning? it is the biggest two letter in the English Language. it is present in my NASB litteral translation as well as in my Young's Litteral Translation, YLT.

I will confess to being as Conservative as I can manage but that is because I believe the Word of God is exactly that and I do not find humor there, He is serious and I will continue to repent. God bless.

the spirit is in us the anointing
2 Corinthians 1:21 21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us.
the anointing is symbolic of the spirit equipping / empowering us for service. once again your welcome to your belief. i realize you have a good education been involved in ministries .
i come from the Holy ghost school of hard knocks . i do my own research. i ponder over it very close if a light goes off i go along with it.. if a light does not come on or i see red flag of caution i let it be..
i dont like playing follow the leader games .it is good to have a leader in church/pastor AND he has to lead by example .
i read the description of your church.. i could visit there with out any problems..
my whole point is we are not going to agree on every thing.

paul did not agree with Barnabas on wanting to bring mark in.. so they separated it all worked out paul and peter did not agree. but yet peter preached 3 thousand got saved.. that is the anointing . paul was true man of God a loner one might say

Afterglow. not many churches have afterglows' it's a pentecostal thing, my version of this has been through calvary chapels. It's a time to have the gifts of the holy spirit flow. Applegate Christian Fellowship (in oregon) had an afterglow one evening. In an afterglow prayer meeting a daughter brought her mom to a meeting and the mom was an unbeliever. the daughter said she felt a touch from God and that she thought she was healed. A moment later the daughter screams out. And the daughter says, why did you do that?" And everyone looks at them. And the mom said, I knew you had no feeling in your lower back, so when you said you were healed I jabbed you with a nail file. I didn't believe you were healed (But now I do). Later that evening her unbelieving mother was saved. Another story of an afterglow. The late Chuck smith senior was holding an afterglow one evening at his church, and his wife felt the need to speak in tongues. And she did. and there was a lady that overheard the tongues, and wanted to be saved. And he asked what made you decide to be a christian? Well your wife, although she didn't speak french, spoke praises to God in a perfect aristocratic french language, and I was amazed and wanted to be saved.

 

[dirtfarmer]

so then your hermeneutic would ruin prophecies of Jesus as I stated. Please address full post I wrote. Let me post the part you did not address: This theory if applied universally would be very damaging, for instance in 2 Pet. 1:20-21, where it says no prophesy is of private interpretation, would only apply to old testament as well. So Jesus prophecies would be of private interpretation, and would therefore be invalid. Without valid prophecy it is possible to confuse the validity of Jesus message. And therefore you would have ruined most of the Bible based on that one hermeneutic that scripture is only valid in reverse, toward the part of scripture already canonized.

hello godsquadgeek, dirtfarmer here

Jesus was God revealed as Son. Jesus could interpret scripture on his own, he didn't need to compare scripture with scripture. If you want to believe that those things that Jesus stated when he walked on this earth are not valid, that is your right, but I believe that he could interpret scripture because he was God manifest in the flesh. He even told Nathanael before Philip call him, he saw him while he was under the fig tree.

 

[godsquadgeek]

hello godsquadgeek, dirtfarmer here

Jesus was God revealed as Son. Jesus could interpret scripture on his own, he didn't need to compare scripture with scripture. If you want to believe that those things that Jesus stated when he walked on this earth are not valid, that is your right, but I believe that he could interpret scripture because he was God manifest in the flesh. He even told Nathanael before Philip call him, he saw him while he was under the fig tree.

wait a minute, you believe He is God manifest in the flesh based on two things his miracles and his prophecy. But as I stated The Bible validates prophecy in the verse I posted in 2 Pet. 1:20-21 is a key verse that refutes the notion that prophets made up the prophecies, like nostradamus a false prophet did. So if you remove that verse from being applicable to verses in the new testament and only applicable to verses in the old testament, what is to say Jesus was no different than nostradamus? See we need all of scripture to be profitable for doctrine. So you can't simply apply your hermeneutic to 1 john and not to 2 peter due to complications. And so you can see now, why I choose not to use that hermeneutic and why I don't adhere to hyper dispensationalism, I don't choose to interpret some verses for only certain groups, especially in the new testament.

 

[dirtfarmer]

wait a minute, you believe He is God manifest in the flesh based on two things his miracles and his prophecy. But as I stated The Bible validates prophecy in the verse I posted in 2 Pet. 1:20-21 is a key verse that refutes the notion that prophets made up the prophecies, like nostradamus a false prophet did. So if you remove that verse from being applicable to verses in the new testament and only applicable to verses in the old testament, what is to say Jesus was no different than nostradamus? See we need all of scripture to be profitable for doctrine. So you can't simply apply your hermeneutic to 1 john and not to 2 peter because of inherent problems, so you can see now, why I choose not to use that hermeneutic.

hello godsquadgeek, dirtfamer here

You are trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I never stated that I based my belief that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh by his miracles and his prophecy.

In John 5:39 Jesus said," Search the scriptures: for in them ye believe that ye have eternal life: (and) they are they that which testify of me."
Our eternal life is not in scriptures but in Jesus Christ himself. Scriptures are word pictures that reveal him to us, but the written word has no life within themselves.

 

[godsquadgeek]

hello godsquadgeek, dirtfamer here

You are trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I never stated that I based my belief that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh by his miracles and his prophecy.

In John 5:39 Jesus said," Search the scriptures: for in them ye believe that ye have eternal life: (and) they are they that which testify of me."
Our eternal life is not in scriptures but in Jesus Christ himself. Scriptures are word pictures that reveal him to us, but the written word has no life within themselves.

it's impossible not to, so....I feel your argument is backed into a corner here. So if you come up with something compelling let me know, until then I will politely bow out.

 

[WIP]

My point was we were.saved by faith plus repentance , John 3:16 proves the faith part.

I'm still not seeing it. John 3:16 only talks about believing. I don't see anything in that verse regarding faith or repentance. Here it is from the NKJV. Show me the part that speaks directly of repentance or faith.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

 

[FreeGrace]

well if you have never been baptized by the holy spirit, I highly recommend asking God for a fresh filling of His spirit.

What? Every believer is baptized with the Holy Spirit at salvation. That's why John said this about Jesus and His ministry:
John 1:33 - And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

And every gospel records this statement: Matt 3:11, Mark 1:8, and Luke 3:16. And John distinguished between his baptism with water and Jesus' baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire.

It is something that happens in suppliment to being saved and is renewable and a regular source of extra power.

I comes with being saved. However, please explain how the Holy Spirit is "renewable". And, does the Holy Spirit supplement our own power? Seems so, from your comment.

 

[FreeGrace]

Hebrews six talks about a sin that is vital to salvation (blasphemy of the holy spirit).

If it does, why was the verse number left out? It seems your posts are deliberately vague. Please be specific when speaking about any verse in any chapter of any book. Thanks.

All over the new testament Jesus and his disciples state that if you don't do righteousness, you are not righteous.

Sure. Experientially. But positionally, being in union with Christ (Eph 1:13) we are declared righteous. There is a huge difference between positional righteousness and experiential righteousness. Are you aware of this?

A tree that bears no fruit will be chopped down and thrown in the fire. Matt 7:19, Matt 3:10 And at least three verses in 1 john 2, that you refuse to refute. So I guess we are done here.

Not yet. It seems your default understanding of "fire" is hell. So, please explain what this verse means:
Mark 9:49 - Everyone will be salted with fire.

 

[FreeGrace]

godsquadgeek said: ↑
My point was we were.saved by faith plus repentance , John 3:16 proves the faith part.

I'm still not seeing it. John 3:16 only talks about believing. I don't see anything in that verse regarding faith or repentance. Here it is from the NKJV. Show me the part that speaks directly of repentance or faith.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

In fact, there are many verses that speak of salvation by faith/believing with no mention of repentance.

Here's a classic:
Acts 16:30-31
30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

 

[WIP]

godsquadgeek said: ↑
My point was we were.saved by faith plus repentance , John 3:16 proves the faith part.

In fact, there are many verses that speak of salvation by faith/believing with no mention of repentance.

Here's a classic:
Acts 16:30-31
30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

I understand. I'm just trying to get godsquadgeek to explain why he used John 3:16 as a proof text for his argument that we are saved by faith.

 

[ezra]

Afterglow

what is it ?

 

[godsquadgeek]

so then your hermeneutic would ruin prophecies of Jesus as I stated. Please address full post I wrote. Let me post the part you did not address: This theory if applied universally would be very damaging, for instance in 2 Pet. 1:20-21, where it says no prophesy is of private interpretation, would only apply to old testament as well. So Jesus prophecies would be of private interpretation, and would therefore be invalid. Without valid prophecy it is possible to confuse the validity of Jesus message. And therefore you would have ruined most of the Bible based on that one hermeneutic that scripture is only valid in reverse, toward the part of scripture already canonized.

I'm still not seeing it. John 3:16 only talks about believing. I don't see anything in that verse regarding faith or repentance. Here it is from the NKJV. Show me the part that speaks directly of repentance or faith.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

many times in the bible belief is synonymous with faith. romans 10:9 mention believing and being saved, as the only requirement for salvation. Yet elsewhere we know this believe is actually faith. Ephesians 2:8. So it contradicts and unless they have different methods of salvation, we must look at faith and belief as being synonymous to avoid contradiction in thought, and to use proper hermeneutics.

 

[godsquadgeek]

what is it ?

it is a meeting designed for the use of spiritual gifts.

 

[ezra]

why not use them every service after all they are for the edifying of the body