The Reception of the Holy Spirit

[Mungo]

??? Couldn't the Buddhist or Muslim make the same assertion about their religion on the same basis? Your remark above is, basically, the fallacious "Argument from the Majority." At one time, a majority of people believed the sun revolved around the earth. They were all wrong.

Yes.
I was using the word cult from the social scientists definition which applies to any religion.
According to this article http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09a02.html Sociologists originally applied the word to some religious groups in particular way.

They used the word ‘church’ or ‘denomination’ for large identifiable groups in mainstream religion.

They then used the word ‘sect’ for small groups that broke away from these large groupings but still keep many of the beliefs and practices of the larger group.

However this left groups that did not fit into either of these categories. Any group that wasn’t a church or a sect was labelled a cult. It was a ‘left-over’ category. The Catholic Church comes into the first category and Pateism into the last.

From the article:
Social scientists have since set out to refine their definition of "cult" into something more descriptive and precise. Yet no matter what they came up with, they invariably saw cults as religious groups that stood over against the prevailing belief systems of the culture -- which, of course, were reflected and identified with the Judeo-Christian religious institutions.

Sects were recognized as offshoots that, for the most part, still held to the religious and cultural traditions from which they emerged. Cults, meanwhile, had a religious structure wholly alien to the prevalent religious communities. In a 1978 article written for the Annual Review of the Social Sciences of Religion, sociologist James T. Richardson explained that
a cult is usually defined as a small informal group lacking a definite authority structure, somewhat spontaneous in its development (although often possessing a somewhat charismatic leader or group of leaders), transitory, somewhat mystical and individualistically oriented, and deriving its inspiration and ideology from outside the predominant religious culture.

 

[Robert Pate]

Yes.
I was using the word cult from the social scientists definition which applies to any religion.
According to this article http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09a02.html Sociologists originally applied the word to some religious groups in particular way.

They used the word ‘church’ or ‘denomination’ for large identifiable groups in mainstream religion.

They then used the word ‘sect’ for small groups that broke away from these large groupings but still keep many of the beliefs and practices of the larger group.

However this left groups that did not fit into either of these categories. Any group that wasn’t a church or a sect was labelled a cult. It was a ‘left-over’ category. The Catholic Church comes into the first category and Pateism into the last.

From the article:
Social scientists have since set out to refine their definition of "cult" into something more descriptive and precise. Yet no matter what they came up with, they invariably saw cults as religious groups that stood over against the prevailing belief systems of the culture -- which, of course, were reflected and identified with the Judeo-Christian religious institutions.

Sects were recognized as offshoots that, for the most part, still held to the religious and cultural traditions from which they emerged. Cults, meanwhile, had a religious structure wholly alien to the prevalent religious communities. In a 1978 article written for the Annual Review of the Social Sciences of Religion, sociologist James T. Richardson explained that
a cult is usually defined as a small informal group lacking a definite authority structure, somewhat spontaneous in its development (although often possessing a somewhat charismatic leader or group of leaders), transitory, somewhat mystical and individualistically oriented, and deriving its inspiration and ideology from outside the predominant religious culture.

Catholicism is a cult and the pope is the cult leader. If you don't adhere to the rules of the cult you will be anathema (kicked out of the Catholic church) The cult teaches that if you are not a member of the cult you are lost. This is why Catholics don't complain about the cult. Catholicism tries to dictate every facet of your life, which is a characteristic of a cult. It is all about control, control, control.

 

[Mungo]

Catholicism is a cult and the pope is the cult leader.

According to the definition I provided the Catholic Church is too big to be a cult.

I expect you have your own personal (worthless) definition as usual.

If you don't adhere to the rules of the cult you will be anathema (kicked out of the Catholic church) The cult teaches that if you are not a member of the cult you are lost. This is why Catholics don't complain about the cult. Catholicism tries to dictate every facet of your life, which is a characteristic of a cult. It is all about control, control, control.

Just about wrong in everything you say about the Catholic Church. Your post just shows how ignorant you are.

 

[WIP]

??? Couldn't the Buddhist or Muslim make the same assertion about their religion on the same basis? Your remark above is, basically, the fallacious "Argument from the Majority." At one time, a majority of people believed the sun revolved around the earth. They were all wrong.

Yes, I think we have to be careful about equating membership with truth. When the Christian Church was first started it was consisting of only a handful. Thankfully, their lack of membership numbers didn't equate to being a cult even though they were considered a cult (The Way) by the unbelieving Jews of that day.

 

[Tenchi]

I was using the word cult from the social scientists definition which applies to any religion.

I see.

My own definition of "cult" derives from Scripture itself:

1 Corinthians 16:22
22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Galatians 1:6-8
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Jude 1:3-4
3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 2:1-3 (NASB)
1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;
3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

Inspected under the light of God's word, not social "scientists," the RC church, despite its size, qualifies as a cult, a source of "another Gospel" that is contrary to what was preached by the apostles in the record of the New Testament.

 

[jaybo]

I see.

My own definition of "cult" derives from Scripture itself:

1 Corinthians 16:22
22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Galatians 1:6-8
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Jude 1:3-4
3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 2:1-3 (NASB)
1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;
3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

Inspected under the light of God's word, not social "scientists," the RC church, despite its size, qualifies as a cult, a source of "another Gospel" that is contrary to what was preached by the apostles in the record of the New Testament.

I find it interesting that there is no mention of the Catholic denomination in the Bible, nor is there any mention of a pope. They falsely claim to be the first church, which is untrue. The first church was composed entirely of Jews. And they claim that Peter was the first Pope, the same guy whom Jesus called "Satan" and a stumbling block. Amazing!

 

[for_his_glory]

That’s just the point, I do believe what Jesus said, but I don’t believe that Jesus said what Nicodemus said. The idea, born again, was a joke by Nicodemus, and moreover can sound like reincarnationalism. Tyndale was not ‘born again’, BTW—check out his translation. The flow of dialogue was that Jesus used an ambivalent phrase, gennēthē anōthen. Nicodemus fed it back in the daft sense as ‘born again’. Jesus twitted him, explaining that he had meant it in its other sense, not another birth of the biological kind, but a new kind of birth, spiritual birth from the spirit. The best versions to capture the flow are the RSV/WEB/CEB, while I rate 18 versions as unsatisfactory, the worst being the CJB/EJB.

John 3:1-15 was a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus who was a Pharisee brought up under the law, but knew not the Spiritual things Jesus was trying to explain to him about being born again as Nicodemus replied: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus continues to explain what the Spiritual birth is. This was a serious question Nicodemus asked and not a joke or in a joking manner to make fun of Jesus.

I've never heard of these various versions of the Bible you listed and looked them up as mostly being used by the Catholic Church. I looked up the CJB and is a Messianic Jewish Bible that incorporates Hebrew and Yiddish expressions written in the Jewish English language

You can rate any Bible you want to, but it's only your opinion which one is the best. I use the KJV and find it to be enough for me.

 

[for_his_glory]

Anymore bashing of the Catholic Church will be deleted and might cause one to be banned from this thread. If you do not agree then at lease grant them courtesy to be understood and acknowledge their views. These are violations of the ToS 1.1 and 1.4

 

[DJT_47]

Right. Baptism is a work of the law. Any religious thing that we do is a work of the law. This is why Paul said, "By the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight" Romans 3:20.

A work of what law? It's a command as well as the means of becoming saved and a member of the Lord's body which is the church. How are you baptized into the body of Christ, the one body if not baptized? In Jesus own words "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". One condition dependent upon the other.

 

[Robert Pate]

A work of what law? It's a command as well as the means of becoming saved and a member of the Lord's body which is the church. How are you baptized into the body of Christ, the one body if not baptized? In Jesus own words "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". One condition dependent upon the other.

The Bible speaks of two baptisms, one of water and one which is spiritual.

Water baptism is a public profession of one's faith in Christ in which one identifies with the death and resurrection of Christ. The spiritual baptism is when God places the believer in Christ, Romans 6:3. This is when the life death and resurrection becomes theirs. When Jesus said, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" was spiritual baptism. Water baptism is a work of the law, because it is something that we do. We are not saved by what we do. We are saved by what Jesus did.

 

[Tenchi]

Anymore bashing of the Catholic Church will be deleted and might cause one to be banned from this thread. If you do not agree then at lease grant them courtesy to be understood and acknowledge their views. These are violations of the ToS 1.1 and 1.4

??? I don't understand you, here. What do you mean "understand and acknowledge their views"? Isn't it because I have done so that I am in disagreement with their views? How can I disagree with a view I don't understand, right? And am I not acknowledging their views when I disagree with them? But maybe you mean by "acknowledge," "accept as a correct alternative"? If so, wouldn't such an acknowledgement undercut my own views and disagreement with theirs? I find myself rather confused...

 

[jaybo]

There is a "protected space" subforum for Catholics. If RCC matters, including doctrine, are expressed in the theology forum then they can expect vigorous debate and disagreement. It is more appropriate to move a discussion of RCC doctrine if it is to be protected from criticism.

 

[DJT_47]

The Bible speaks of two baptisms, one of water and one which is spiritual.

Water baptism is a public profession of one's faith in Christ in which one identifies with the death and resurrection of Christ. The spiritual baptism is when God places the believer in Christ, Romans 6:3. This is when the life death and resurrection becomes theirs. When Jesus said, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" was spiritual baptism. Water baptism is a work of the law, because it is something that we do. We are not saved by what we do. We are saved by what Jesus did.

It is not a public profession of one's faith. That's nonsense! When the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized, who was there? Who was he trying to impress? The fact of the matter is it was just him and Philip in the middle of nowhere. When Philip preached the gospel of Christ to him, it obviously must have included the need for baptism, hence his question to Philip in Acts 8:36-37
"See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

So you can clearly see, he believed, he confessed his belief (Romans 10:9), and was immediately baptized. Why? For the remission of sins, to receive the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and to he added to the body of Christ (Acts 2:38-47).

 

[jaybo]

It is not a public profession of one's faith. That's nonsense! When the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized, who was there? Who was he trying to impress? The fact of the matter is it was just him and Philip in the middle of nowhere. When Philip preached the gospel of Christ to him, it obviously must have included the need for baptism, hence his question to Philip in Acts 8:36-37
"See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

So you can clearly see, he believed, he confessed his belief (Romans 10:9), and was immediately baptized. Why? For the remission of sins, to receive the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and to he added to the body of Christ (Acts 2:38-47).

You are interpreting the Bible incorrectly in order to justify your doctrine.

It is a public profession of one's faith. Romans 6:4, "Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life."

Your example of the Ethiopian eunuch clearly shows your error. Why do you think he was trying to impress someone (other than God)? Is the purpose of baptism, to you, to show off? Really??? The Ethiopian wanted to be baptized as a statement of his new faith (as in Romans 6:4), not the remission of his sins or the "indwelling of the Holy Ghost"(as you claim). or to be added to the body of Christ.

Here is a clear example of your error. Acts 16:30-31, "Then he brought them outside and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Notice that Paul did not require the jailer to be baptized!

You need to align your theology with God's word!

 

[for_his_glory]

??? I don't understand you, here. What do you mean "understand and acknowledge their views"? Isn't it because I have done so that I am in disagreement with their views? How can I disagree with a view I don't understand, right? And am I not acknowledging their views when I disagree with them? But maybe you mean by "acknowledge," "accept as a correct alternative"? If so, wouldn't such an acknowledgement undercut my own views and disagreement with theirs? I find myself rather confused...

I am speaking about the ToS 1.1 and 1.4 please take the time to read them.

Every one has a view, opinion and understandings of scripture by how they allow themselves to be taught. Many believe everything that comes from the pulpit or rely on others to teach them as many things only makes common sense to them, but yet many think with a carnal mind. Many take the doctrines of their church and make scripture line up with that instead of allowing scripture to line up with what they say. There are rights as well as wrongs as we all see through a glass darkly, but when Christ returns then we will see and understand all truth.

It doesn't matter what church one chooses to attend as to God what matters is that one is Spiritually born again and indwelled with the Holy Spirit in order for one to enter into the Kingdom of God. What God recognizes in us is what spirit lives in our heart and who is or is not obedient to His commands. We all get it wrong at times within our understandings as we are always learning and need to be maturing in God's word as knowledge and truth only comes by the Holy Spirit teaching us all things God wants us to learn. No human holds all truths as we could never exhaust all the teachings within the word of God.

If we would just take the time to listen to the views and opinions of others and compare what they say with the scriptures they need to be giving for support then we can take those scriptures and study them for ourselves to see what others present actually lines up with the full context of scripture and not the other way around as many try to make scripture line up with what they say and believe.

ToS 1.3 Use self control and focus on reconciliation when discussing differences. Address the issue, not the person.

Talk out the indifferences as a mature Christian adult as we just might learn from others that might bring a new light to what we thought we understood as that has happen to me many times as the Holy Spirit works through others to correct us.

 

[for_his_glory]

It is not a public profession of one's faith. That's nonsense! When the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized, who was there? Who was he trying to impress? The fact of the matter is it was just him and Philip in the middle of nowhere. When Philip preached the gospel of Christ to him, it obviously must have included the need for baptism, hence his question to Philip in Acts 8:36-37
"See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

So you can clearly see, he believed, he confessed his belief (Romans 10:9), and was immediately baptized. Why? For the remission of sins, to receive the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and to he added to the body of Christ (Acts 2:38-47).

It can be a public profession of one's faith within the gathering of the congregation that rejoice with you or even in the moment like the Eunuch that wanted Philip .

As far as the Ethiopian Eunuch who was a Gentile, he wanted to be immersed in water as only an act of converting to Christianity as he already confessed Christ and was filled with the Holy spirit by the hearing of the word that brought about His faith.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

 

[Hopeful]

The Bible speaks of two baptisms, one of water and one which is spiritual.

Water baptism is a public profession of one's faith in Christ

Where is that written inn the bible?
It isn't.

in which one identifies with the death and resurrection of Christ.

There is no "identifies" involved, as it is an actual experience.
By water baptism, we can kill the old man and be raised with Christ to walk in newness of life.
And be made free from sin. (Rom 6:3-7)

The spiritual baptism is when God places the believer in Christ, Romans 6:3.

How does God's gift of the Holy Ghost equate to "burial", and "planting"? (Rom 6:3-5)
It doesn't, but "immersion" in water sure does.

This is when the life death and resurrection becomes theirs. When Jesus said, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" was spiritual baptism. Water baptism is a work of the law, because it is something that we do. We are not saved by what we do. We are saved by what Jesus did.

Sorry that someone has influenced you to ignore, defy, the Lord's, and Peter's commandment. (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)

 

[Hopeful]

You are interpreting the Bible incorrectly in order to justify your doctrine.

Who isnt?

It is a public profession of one's faith. Romans 6:4, "Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life."

How is that "professing one's faith"?
It is more accurately "acting on one's faith".

Your example of the Ethiopian eunuch clearly shows your error. Why do you think he was trying to impress someone (other than God)?

If as previously alluded to, he was "publicly professing...", who do you suppose was the "public"?

Is the purpose of baptism, to you, to show off? Really??? The Ethiopian wanted to be baptized as a statement of his new faith (as in Romans 6:4),

If it really was, it was a "profession" of his desire for the remission of his past sins.

not the remission of his sins or the "indwelling of the Holy Ghost"(as you claim). or to be added to the body of Christ.

Don't you think Philip had told the Ethiopian about Peter's message from Acts 2:38?
I do..."Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Here is a clear example of your error. Acts 16:30-31, "Then he brought them outside and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Notice that Paul did not require the jailer to be baptized!

Why does the next two verses then say..."And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." ?
Some knowledge of Jesus, and of salvation, is necessary for a man to make an informed decision on which sort of life he will henceforth live.

You need to align your theology with God's word!

If the course of your salvation is true/correct, how has it satisfied Rom 6:7 for you?
"For he that is dead is freed from sin."
Are you now an ex-sinner?

 

[Hopeful]

It can be a public profession of one's faith within the gathering of the congregation that rejoice with you or even in the moment like the Eunuch that wanted Philip

Wanted Philip to what?

As far as the Ethiopian Eunuch who was a Gentile,

Wasn't he returning home from Jerusalem after worshipping God?
Did Gentiles do that in the OT?

he wanted to be immersed in water as only an act of converting to Christianity as he already confessed Christ and was filled with the Holy spirit by the hearing of the word that brought about His faith.

Where do you see that he received the gift of the Holy Ghost ?
Peter said the gift of the Holy Ghost was given after a repentance from sin and water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38)

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

That was Cornelius who received the gift of the Holy Ghost before baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of his past sins.
And that was a one time event to impress the Jews who came with Peter that God accepts Gentiles. (Acts 11:18)

 

[Robert Pate]

Where is that written inn the bible?
It isn't.

There is no "identifies" involved, as it is an actual experience.
By water baptism, we can kill the old man and be raised with Christ to walk in newness of life.
And be made free from sin. (Rom 6:3-7)

How does God's gift of the Holy Ghost equate to "burial", and "planting"? (Rom 6:3-5)
It doesn't, but "immersion" in water sure does.

Sorry that someone has influenced you to ignore, defy, the Lord's, and Peter's commandment. (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)

All that water baptism is going to do for you is get you wet. Paul said, "By the deeds of the law (what we do) no flesh will be justified in his sight" Romans 3:20. I am afraid that you are going to be in the "Lord, Lord, didn't we" group, Matthew 7:21-23.