Bible Study Discrepancy with the Holy Spirit - (Surely Not)?

[golfjack]

reply

No problem Josh. I have enjoyed this discussion. In the Gospels the word Church is mentioned only once. So, if you are wondering about people in the days of the Gospel, where Jesus is on earth and not yet in His Glorified Body, I think the simple answer is that they weren't saved yet. Therefore, what did they fall away from? They couldn't take the persecution of the Jews, and just left the ministry of Jesus. If they died before the cross and as long as they kept the Torah, they would go to heaven. Then we see 2 Thess. 2:3, which says Let no one deceiive you by any means; for that dasy will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition. This verse tells me that the great Apostasy won't happen until the Church is raptured, and then the anti-christ will set up his kingdom when all hell will break loose. I believe the only Christians that are born again will be raptured. You know, we have saying they are Christians today, but are they really?


I use to struggle with the fact that Christians can lose their salvation, as you do. Let me give you a shorten version of a true story about a woman who committed Adultry: She, was a born again, spirit filled Christian. She was tempted by Satan, and he told her that she was beautiful and said she should have sex with other men. This thought was in her mind for quite awhile, kind of like a big black spot on her soul ( mind). Eventuually she gave into temptation and slept with another man and many other men followed after. So, as I pray and ask questions to God, He told me that He would forgive her a thousand times. So I kept praying for her and her husband. Then one day the Lord pointed out to me 1 John 5:16. The Lord told me not to pray for her because she while church in fron of the congregation, told Jesus to get out of her life forever, I will have nothing to do with you. You see, when she did that, she committed the sin leading to death ( Spiritual death). It's a shame she did this, but I believe the Word is correct.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[cyberjosh]

Thank you Golfjack. I think I will retire this study for a while until I can get some more answers from study and prayer. Let me comment on a thing or two first thought. Maybe we can continue to discuss the following instead of the main topic in the OP for now.

If they died before the cross and as long as they kept the Torah, they would go to heaven.

Eh, partly true however judgement (and immediate judgement for unbelievers - John 3:18) came upon people because of Jesus' presence and caused the 'rising and falling' of many (Luke 2:34). And since the Torah points to Christ I think their salvation still would have hinged upon their relationship with Jesus at the time regardless of whether their justification before God on account of Jesus was affected yet or not, they merely would have been in paradise if they were righteous like the criminal on the cross until Christ revealed himself to those in Paradise so that they could ride in his train and ascend to heaven with the other ressurected. Jesus was slain since the beginning of the world (Revelation 13:8), so I do think that the disciples would have fallen from the Gospel that Jesus preached presently during his ministry. I think at that time Jesus' Gospel called for men to stick with him while he was still on earth, but since men rejected him he had to die, be ressurected, and ascend to then send his Spirit and affect the justification of men's sins. Perhaps it was to remedy the failure and innability of the disciples to live up to the demands of the Gospel: to follow Jesus and enter into the Kingdom. And not to mention for all the OT righteous men who fell short of the perfect law.

Do you think that men could follow Jesus or much less obey the law without the regeneration of the Spirit by the blood of Jesus to account for shortcomings? The Holy Spirit is who conveys to us our justification from Jesus. Only by this covering are we aquitted, and yet we would still have been judged for falling short of that standard if Jesus had not affected Justification for all. Even the Patriach's righteousness was inadequate, thus why they remained in Paradise until Jesus came - for they could not enter heaven without Jesus. But righteousness was accounted to them through faith. Perhaps we should measure the Disciple's stance the same in relation to if they had faith and persevered with faith toward Jesus and his message. So I do think it was a little more for them than just obeying the Torah. But their failures I think were overlooked by the mercy of Jesus. However I'm not sure how relevant all this is to your original point. I would be honored if you would evaluate it anyway though.

--------------------------------------------

P.S. What really concerns me the most though, offshooting from the original premise of this thread, is trying to understand whether one can lose their salvation or not, and in relation to it know how to interpret each verse that may relate to salvation or beleif/unbelief. Here's the reason why: I'll try to dutifully study a passage and ascertain its meaning and sometimes I concult commentaries and they will contradict one another. On some questionable/difficult verses a commentator may say "This man fell away because he never had faith to begin with" and the other will say "This man has commited apostacy and rescinded his salvation". Yet both commentators are annoyingly persistant with their presuppositions and will interpret any related verse the same each time even at the cost of error. I don't think all similar verses suggest that a man can fall from salvation because of what the verse seems to portray (because some men never did believe in the first place) - though there do seem to be verses that suggest it - Neither do I think that all such verses point to a man who never believed in the first place - though there certainly are examples. Thus I need to know where & when to interpret each such verse as pointing to ungenuine belief or apostacy. These I have a hard time reconcilling because I see both and the verses seem related yet have different interpretations. This confuses me for the most part.

I hope you can see my concerns here. One example just to throw you a bone though would be the parable of the seed and the sower. I think that's all that needs saying. You should know that there is no shortage of different interpretations of that parable. SO which one is right in this instance about the interpretation of this parable and how can this remain consistant with the interpretaion of other such verses?

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[mutzrein]

Something to ponder:

There was a guy who came to Jesus who DID keep all the law and yet Jesus said there was one thing he lacked. What was it?

 

[golfjack]

reply

The parable of the sower: The parable begins with the Sower, who is Christ, going forth to sow seed, which is the Word of God. Men are born again by the Word. Born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abiedeth forever ( 1 Peter 1:23). Thoughts are things, and words are things which germinate and give forth to action. How much more the Word of God.

The seed is therefore the Word of the kingdom; and the field is the world, not geographically, but ethnologically, meaning the whole social order, including of all tribes and nations. The field has four kinds of soil, each pointing to a different class of hearers. Four iis the world number and in this case indicates the entire human race.

As the sower goes forth to sow, some of the seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up. The soil had been rich and abundant, but it had been rendered unreceptive by reason of hardness. It may have been hard by reason of its unresponsive nature, or perhaps because of influences that had been brought to bear upon it. Many are hardened because of circumstances and experiences they have had in life. Perhaps at one time the soil had been stirred up, but after a while the person settled back into a state of indifference. Many hearts become hard because divine influence has moved upon them and they have resisted it until finally the Spirit of God has been withdrawn. God says my Spirit shall not always strive with man ( Gen. 6:3). It is written that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but not until the king hardened it first ( Exod. 5:2; 7:22).

The birds of the air come and devour the seed. According to Jesus, the birds of the air represent the evil one. But there is still hope if the soil can be stirred up. A calloused man has had the hard core punctured and has in the end brought forth the best fruit in the field.

Next, the seed that fell on the stony ground.


May God bless, Golfjack

 

[Vic C.]

...3. And most importantly what lesson can we draw from these conclusions? If the disciple's situation does not directly parallel ours then we must be careful when we preach specific things about the disciples time when they following Jesus (we wouldn't want to falsely teach that one can deny Jesus and then be restored like Peter - unless we preached some form of Arminianism in which you can be saved, lose your salvation, and be saved again upon a whim - Do you see now the need for practical application and a proper conclusion?)...

Hi Josh,

Just a quick comment on the above because it sort of relates to the Hebrews passage discussed above:

This is classical Arminian doctrine concerning backsliding and salvation;

The willful, deliberate act of apostasy is irrecoverable; it is not possible to recover salvation once it has been lost

This is Wesley's view on this;

It is possible for long periods of backsliding to create a "shipwreck" of faith and loss of eternal life should it continue untended, but in spite of this God can radically call one back to saving grace.

You see, it's not exactly a whim, I don't believe God to be whimsical, it's all God's Grace in action.

... and then there is o.s.a.s.

I just wanted to clear up the "Arminian confusion". 8-) (I'm not specifically endorsing any of the above)

 

[cyberjosh]

I just wanted to clear up the "Arminian confusion".

Thank you Vic. Point noted. Would you grace us with your own opinion on some of the other points raised or would you rather avoid "fire walking" over this issue?

Next, the seed that fell on the stony ground.

This ought to be an interesting study/discussion. Please continue golfjack.

~Josh

 

[golfjack]

reply

Josh, I should tell you that I don't subscribe to anny Calvanistic or Armenian view about salvation.

The Stony ground: The soil is good but there is not enough of it. The result is that when the grain falls upon it, it germinates quickly, springs up and gives promise of bearing a substantial harvest. But since the rock hindered its roots going down, it put forth its energies upward into the stock. But alas, as there was little soil and moisture to feed the plant, it was unable to resist the scorching sun so it withered and died. This kind of upward soil represents the superficial and impulsive hearers of the Gospel.

This class of hearers received the Word with joy without consideration of the costs, hazards, and sacrifices involved. These people were like the rich ruler. These people did not realize that followin Christ means hard war against Satan, the world and sin

Not having stable roots, they fall away. By contrast, faith in the unseen causes the true Christian to count the present affliction light in comparison to the coming glory ( 2 Cor. 4:17-18),. The same trials and tribulations that overthrow others only cause him to send his roots down deeper.

These stony soil hearers are very numerous. They are found in every evangelistic campaign. You see them in church for awhile. But when the trials come, they seem to lapse into their old life.

Having said this, I think that we have to be diligent when winning the lost. Must encourage them to come to a Bible Based church and Bible study.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[golfjack]

reply

The soil that was choked with thorns: Nothing is said about the soil's being too hard or too thin. But the trouble was that is was sown with another kind of seed, that of thrones. Wheat and thorns cannot prosper together. The stronger will choke out the weaker. Weeds grow the rankest and fastest. Weeds shut out the air and light and they draw away from the good seed the moisture and nourishment necessary for growth. Thus the grain is dwarfed and stunted and unable to bring forth a harvest.

So it is with a mind in which the truth of God does not have room to grow. People get deeply involved in the cares of life. They are involved in the difficulties of business in which they are involved in. Or if they enjoy material prosperty, the deceitfulness of riches give such satisfacttion that they have less time to give to spiritual things. Evil tends to flourish, rather than good.

Many are trying to grow a crop of Christianity and worldliness at the same time. They seek to grow a double harvest. Of course, these things can only result in failure. In the end these people bring no fruit to perfection.


May God bless, Golfjack

 

[Vic C.]

I just wanted to clear up the "Arminian confusion".

Thank you Vic. Point noted. Would you grace us with your own opinion on some of the other points raised or would you rather avoid "fire walking" over this issue?

~Josh

:-D I don't know what I can contribute to this thread. I was skimming when I caught that bit about Arminianism. I remembered the classic and Wesleyan views frm a study on did on Calvinism and Arminianism not too long ago.

Did anyone mention Romans 6:16, 1 John 5:16 and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; are they related and do they have any bearing on this topic? Just thinking out loud. 8-)

 

[Guest]

golfjack - in my garden, while I try my best to keep all my soil fertile, it is not. When we look at the parable of the sower, we need to keep in mind that the soil being referred too was not in four seperate gardens - but rather one huge field. As a sower would sow the seeds, he would take the seed in his hand and freely scatter it around.

 

[cyberjosh]

Josh, I should tell you that I don't subscribe to anny Calvanistic or Armenian view about salvation.

Good. Me niether. Why else do you think I would ask questions that niether of those camps would ask?

 

[cyberjosh]

The soil that was choked with thorns: Nothing is said about the soil's being too hard or too thin. But the trouble was that is was sown with another kind of seed, that of thrones. Wheat and thorns cannot prosper together. The stronger will choke out the weaker. Weeds grow the rankest and fastest. Weeds shut out the air and light and they draw away from the good seed the moisture and nourishment necessary for growth. Thus the grain is dwarfed and stunted and unable to bring forth a harvest.

So it is with a mind in which the truth of God does not have room to grow. People get deeply involved in the cares of life. They are involved in the difficulties of business in which they are involved in. Or if they enjoy material prosperty, the deceitfulness of riches give such satisfacttion that they have less time to give to spiritual things. Evil tends to flourish, rather than good.

Many are trying to grow a crop of Christianity and worldliness at the same time. They seek to grow a double harvest. Of course, these things can only result in failure. In the end these people bring no fruit to perfection.

In your opinion golfjack, has such a person ever recieved salvation in the past sense of the word? If so then what is the Bible's basis for commanding and encouraging hope and rejoicing if the future is unsure? It isn't enough to rejoice in God's current saving grace if one can fall from it. The hope and rejoicing the Bible presents to us is in light of eternal salvation (our future hope of glory [Colossians 1:27] - and hope does not disappoint [Romans 5:5]), so how to we gauge this?

 

[golfjack]

reply

Josh, I believe there is always hope for anyone who choses to be saved. God is Good and Merciful. If one strays away, he can allways come back, just like the Prodical Son. Even after 19 years of being saved, I had many seeds. I really was ignorant and carnal. Then, after losing a great deal of money from a divorce, I really started to get serious, and God called me to the ministry of an Evangelist. I went to Bible School. My life hasn't been the same since. I guess, I am very compassionate love for the lost. I hope this answers your question.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Hi Cybershark

I just tried to skim through your thread quickly. I, like those who posted on the first couple of pages, had trouble trying to get the gist of the question. (I figured ya'll were over my head again )
Is it possible that there are two different groups of people that are referenced here.

Group 1.)
Born again Christians who have backslid.

Group 2.)
Those who followed Jesus for a time, learned the truth of the Gospel, became filled with the knowledge of the truth to the point that they could have made a decision to become born again, but turned away. To put it more bluntly, I believe that this group is called by God, and they answer "No".

 

[protos]

Sorry cyber, haven't read through all the pages because I'm in kind of a hurry. But if I'm understanding your question correctly, I think the answer is that the Holy Spirit took over after Jesus' Ascension. Before Jesus was incarnated, He was the overseer of the world. After though, becoming human, the Holy Spirit became this. So in a sense, there was a waiting period (I guess there's beaurocracy is in Heaven as well ), until the Holy Spirit could take over, but I think that Jesus is talking in context of Pentecost. I'm not exactly sure, tell me if I'm even talking about the same thing.

It may also have something to do with the special recognition of apostleship. After all, Jesus highly commended Peter for his answer, when the others' incorrect answers weren't scolded at all.

This is a crucial question which must be answered.

I sure know this feeling :D . But don't worry, patience and perserverance will answer them all. Maybe this is your test by Jesus to see whether you remain till the end.

 

[cyberjosh]

Sorry I've remained silent in this topic for so long. I actually have long since resolved this in my mind. I haven't figured out every reason why Jesus waited to mention their promises after they [the Disciples] had persevered with Him, but I neglected to remember that the disciples certainly had and remembered the promises from the OT of the Spirit being bestowed upon them and Jesus was merely reitterating it with authority by classifying who would recieve it. I didn't look at the OT promises when I had this in mind, so that sort of answers many of my questions. It was interesting the thought process I went through though when evaluating this. I know the fundamentals of Biblical truth so I was constantly criticising my own views in my mind (guarding myself from decieving myself) but I now see how people who evaluate certain issues in a limited context can lead themselves of on strange doctrines. I of course never engaged so far into it, for like I said I guarded myself by being critical yet inquisitive, but I can see where the beginning of such roads start, and from there you can build doctrines on shifting sands.

It was in interesting inquiry however, I'm glad I brought it up. It may prove the ground work for more of my future studies.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[stranger]

Sorry I've remained silent in this topic for so long. I actually have long since resolved this in my mind. I haven't figured out every reason why Jesus waited to mention their promises after they [the Disciples] had persevered with Him, but I neglected to remember that the disciples certainly had and remembered the promises from the OT of the Spirit being bestowed upon them and Jesus was merely reitterating it with authority by classifying who would recieve it. I didn't look at the OT promises when I had this in mind, so that sort of answers many of my questions. It was interesting the thought process I went through though when evaluating this. I know the fundamentals of Biblical truth so I was constantly criticising my own views in my mind (guarding myself from decieving myself) but I now see how people who evaluate certain issues in a limited context can lead themselves of on strange doctrines. I of course never engaged so far into it, for like I said I guarded myself by being critical yet inquisitive, but I can see where the beginning of such roads start, and from there you can build doctrines on shifting sands.

It was in interesting inquiry however, I'm glad I brought it up. It may prove the ground work for more of my future studies.

God Bless,

~Josh

Hi Cyber,

James 1:12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. NASB

Apparently approval is not immediate but only after perseverence. Likewise the crown of life is issued only after approval.

I think this fits in with the delay that you speak of in the granting of the Holy Spirit.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi Cyber,

James 1:12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. NASB

Apparently approval is not immediate but only after perseverence. Likewise the crown of life is issued only after approval.

I think this fits in with the delay that you speak of in the granting of the Holy Spirit.

Now that's interesting..... I will have to look up on that. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

 

[cyberjosh]

The fact (which I have now recognized) that the OT contains the same promise that Jesus relayed to the disciples changes the interpretation a little bit though, because the conditions Jesus gave had to have been contingent on the original conditions of the promise of the Spirit under the New Covenant in the OT. Also I read something in the Gospels the other day that got my head stirring. In the incident where Jesus' disciples came up to Jesus and protested to Jesus that others were casting out demons in Jesus name but were not following with them, Jesus replied to them not to hinder them because those who were not against them were for them. Thus that means they were following (after Jesus' name) but not physically following Jesus as an earthly disciple. Thus this creates a rift in a tight-knit interpretation that only "those who were with him from the beginning" (while on earth) were to recieve the Spirit. However in a transitional period in Acts, which I don't believe happens today, Paul ran upon some old disciples of John the Baptist but they had not recieved the Holy Spirit so Paul layed hands on them and baptised them again to recieve the Holy Spirit. Perhaps those not physically with Jesus or present at Pentecost were still following in his shadow (after his name) but had not recieved the Spirit. What do you think of these various details? How do they fit together?

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Because I have gained a slightly new perspective in light of recognizing the OT promise as fulfilled in the NT I may be more equiped to answer some of my own questions. However there were a few points that stand as they were originally presented by me: I still think we are not in as delicate of a position as the disciples.

1. Are we in as delicate a position as the disciples during Jesus' ministry (since they didn't have the Spirit, yet we do)?

This is a legitimate question, and though Jesus was there to strengthen them outwardly the Spirit refreshes us inwardly by bringing us into a closer communion with God than the disciples ever experienced. Thus I think this point stands. I don't think we are in as delicate a position.

2A.If so then did Jesus' teaching of "he who endures to the end shall be saved" refer to the temporal/transitory period where the Disciples could fall away from following Jesus and fail to recieve the Spirit?

Well in light of the promise given in the OT it was already to be expected, so it might be best to see Jesus' promise as relayed to them to be a promise of his continued presence. What do I mean by this? Well when Christ walked the earth he acted in lieu of the Holy Spirit for the disciples so they were currently living the promise of "God's Presence" (though in an unexpected physical manifestation - Jesus in the flesh) thus when Jesus had to ascend He had to assure them that He would not ultimately leave them or forsake them, thus he would send the Spirit to guide them in continuance of the walk they had already begun with Jesus. But though there is a contrast between Jesus' physical presence and the spiritual presence of the Holy Spirit inside of us, Jesus still equated it all with His own presence, because Jesus said " Lo I am with you, even to the end of the age." Jesus was continuing with them and the promise was a reasurement of the past promise but now to be fully manifested through the Spirit (the temporal, fleshly appearance of God was to end - thus then ushering in the full spiritual realities).

2B. If not then why did Jesus wait to give them the promises in light of their perseverance (detailed in OP)?

He waited because at that point he would depart from them and they needed encouragement that he would not forsake them. He was promising a connection with them even when he left them physically. Jesus was basically saying, "You've kept up your part so far, so don't worry, I'll keep mine up also, even if I am departing from this world."

3.

And most importantly what lesson can we draw from these conclusions? If the disciple's situation does not directly parallel ours then we must be careful when we preach specific things about the disciples time when they following Jesus (we wouldn't want to falsely teach that one can deny Jesus and then be restored like Peter - unless we preached some form of Arminianism in which you can be saved, lose your salvation, and be saved again upon a whim - Do you see now the need for practical application and a proper conclusion?)

This point is still also valid. There are alot of transitory elements in the Gospels which aren't entirely parallel to our situation today. That is why context must be looked at. Even in light of the OT (as I learned).

God Bless,

~Josh