Deconstruction Part 2: Into Apostolicity
- Thread starter Episkopos
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Well if you are truly a truth seeker, then you will have studied the opposite view to yours, and know the names of the best apologists like Leighton Flowers. You should also have been informed that the Historic Faith taught the holiness doctrine that you wish to deny ie second blessing holiness which Wesley only taught in part.
ps the EO's ignored Augustine.
I'm not into Charismania-no offense.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Would you like me to break this down for you, flesh it out, context, cross referencing?
The phrase “Baptized (with, in, by) the Holy Spirit” shows up only three times (once in Mark and twice in Acts). Similar phrases don’t turn up more instances.
Third, the Word "is the vehicle of the Holy Spirit.
When the Word is read, the Spirit is present"
(Luther). Rather than words being a mere vehicle,
Jesus said, "The words that I speak unto you, they
are Spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). Whether
the Holy Spirit convicts, converts, quickens,
comforts, heals, guides, or strengthens, he always
does it by the Word. The Word may reach the heart
in the words of the preacher, the entreaty of a
friend, or even the warning of a foe.
All these
agencies God may use as instruments to declare his
Word. But it is of utmost importance to realize that
"God’s Spirit is annexed to his Word" (Calvin).
Being filled with God’s Spirit is the same as being
filled with God’s Word (see Ephesians 5:18;
Colossians 3:16). That is why Luke records that
every time someone was filled with the Spirit, he
opened his mouth and declared the Word of God
(Acts 2:4, 11, 22; 4:31; Luke 1:67; etc.). If man’s
heart is filled with the Spirit, he will give evidence
of it by speaking the words of God. "For he whom
God has sent speaks the words of God: for God
gives not the Spirit by measure unto him" (John
3:34). So when Paul commanded the Ephesians, "be
filled with the Spirit," he added by way of
explanation, "speaking to yourselves in psalms and
hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making
melody in your hearts to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:18,
19).
Much that is being said today about the impartation
of the Spirit is false. Many are claiming to have an
exciting experience in the Holy Spirit who is given
directly to them quite apart from any objective
revelation of God’s Word. There are signs,
miracles, tongues, laughter, and private revelations,
but the exposition of God’s Word is conspicuous by
its absence. In some charismatic meetings, the
reading of the Word of God is the least regarded
part of the meeting.
The only safe place for our feet is to stand with the
Reformers’ declaration that men do not receive the
Holy Spirit apart from the Word. He mediates
himself to us only through the Word. Warned
Luther: "Therefore I exhort you to be on guard
against those noxious spirits who say: A man
acquires the Holy Spirit by sitting in a corner, etc. A
hundred thousand devils he will acquire, and you
will not come to God." Therefore, we must affirm
that there is no sanctification for those who neglect
the Word.
Law and Gospel
The sanctifying Word comes to men in two forms–
Law and Gospel. God’s Word, as "the sword of the
Spirit" (Ephesians 6:17), has two cutting edges.
Says the Lutheran Formula of Concord, "These two
doctrines [Law and Gospel], we believe and
confess, should ever and ever be diligently
inculcated in the Church of God even to the end of
the world. . . ." The right use of God’s Word means
the right use of the Law and Gospel. For instance,
the Spirit uses the Law to convict of sin and wound
the conscience (Romans 7:7-13), but the Spirit is
not communicated to men through the law. "The
Spirit is life" (Romans 8:10), but "if there had been
a law given which could have given life, verily
righteousness should have been by the law"
(Galatians 3:21).
The Holy Spirit is communicated to men, not
through their hearing of the law nor by their doing
it, but by their understanding and belief of the
Gospel (Galatians 3:1-3). Says the apostle Paul to
the Thessalonians, "For our Gospel came unto you
not in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy
Ghost, and in much assurance . . ." (1 Thessalonians
1:5). When Peter went to the home of Cornelius, he
preached the message of forgiveness of sins through
Jesus Christ, and the revelation states, "While Peter
3
The Trinity Review August 1997
was speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on
all them which heard the Word" (Acts 10:44). We
see all sorts of gimmicks being resorted to today
that men may receive the Holy Spirit. Some
advocate five steps; others more or less. People
even take lessons on how to talk in tongues, or
laugh, or they do something else to manipulate
mind and emotions so that souls are carried away by
some spiritual euphoria called the baptism of the
Spirit. It is surely a sign of the end time, as Paul
declares, "Now the Spirit speaks expressly that in
the latter times some shall depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of
devils . . ." (1 Timothy 4:1). Let the priests of Baal
scream and laugh and work themselves up to a high
pitch of excitement around their altars, but let those
armed with the Gospel, like faithful Elijah, raise the
altar of God and place on it the true sacrifice for sin.
When God sees this sacrifice presented in faith, he
answers by fire. There can be no greater evidence of
the Holy Spirit’s presence than when the Gospel is
faithfully proclaimed and men believe on Jesus
Christ as Lord and Savior.
Besides the fact that the Holy Spirit comes to men
through faith in the Gospel (Galatians 3:13, 14)
(and it is his presence that sanctifies), the Gospel
brings with it a sanctifying influence: The Gospel is
a revelation of the divine character. The gift of
Christ reveals the Father’s heart. In the cross we see
truth and justice blended with mercy and
compassion. As his people behold God as revealed
in his crucified Son, the darkness of
misapprehension of God’s character is swept from
their minds, and they come to appreciate his beauty
of character. And the more they come to know him,
the more they admire his character. This has a great
sanctifying effect on the human character. "But we
all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory
of the Lord, are changed into the same image from
glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord" (2
Corinthians 3:18). The Gospel of the cross is a
revelation of God’s estimate of sin. Here we see that
sin is the most costly thing in the universe. The
unrelieved heinousness of sin is put on display in
the sufferings of God’s dear Son. God will by no
means spare the guilty. Sin merits awful
punishment. In this universe all debts must be paid.
Here is no easygoing benevolence that easily
overlooks sin. By the cross sin is discerned in its
hateful nature, and the believing soul is imbued
with the resolve to hate sin and drive it from the
soul.
The Gospel of God’s love and forgiveness becomes
the motive for all right conduct (2 Corinthians 5:14,
15). The strongest inducement for a Christian to
obey the divine law is the fact that he has been
graciously pardoned for having broken the law. He
follows after sanctification because he has received
justification. He obeys the law not in order to be
forgiven, but because he has been forgiven (William
G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology [Zondervan,
1969], 2, 558).
Nothing enters so fully into the motives of conduct
as a sense of the pardoning love of Christ.
Forgiveness of past sins becomes the greatest
incentive to avoid future ones. They are the great
promises of the Gospel which rouse the believer to
separate from everything displeasing to God (2
Corinthians 7:1; Romans 12:1; 2 Peter 1:4; etc.).
The Gospel does what the law cannot: bring life and
salvation to sinners. The ceremonial law points us
to Christ; the moral law drives us to Christ; and
Christ also points us back to the moral law as a rule
of life. Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my
commandments" (John 14:15). It was only when
Paul was delivered from the law as a covenant of
works that he could gratefully confess, "For I
delight in the law of God after the inward man . . ."
(Romans 7:22).
What is the difference between the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and "infilled" with the Spirit?
Is it a synecdoche?
Yes, I deny the so called second blessing Wesleyan holiness Movement-you show me Scriptures and we can discuss. Leighton is a Provisionist.
I would not argue from the JW point of view. I would argue from the Historic Faith, in that there are three stages to Theosis. JW only got to stage two which is known as Keswickian theology. The Historic Faith named that Illumination which was found in the Glorification of Christ.
So we could start off with Romans 7?
The two interpretations of Romans 7 which have dominated church history are the Primitive one and the Post-Primitive. Augustine held to the Primitive in his early years but, HE CHANGED HIS POSITION LATER. The reason that he changed his position was through his heated discussions with Pelagius. The thing is that there are two interpretations widely held since Augustine but the third has been mostly rejected (because it says that sinlessness is possible) This was the opposite of the view held by Augustine and widely held by the church until he changed to the new third way.
There can only be three interpretations of Romans7 and which one we accept shows our
whole attitude and position about this important doctrine of entire sanctification.
The Primitive view which is widely held today, is that Romans 7 describes the salvation experience and Paul is writing as an unregenerate soul. Augustine said Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is understood that man is here described who was never under grace
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homilies.
This is the view which the writer says that Augustine held until Pelagius challenged him over his view that man is totally
depraved. Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in his argument, Pelagius referred to the passage under consideration, saying that this was a palpable case in which, by the universal assent of the church, the state and character of the unregenerate man is described. He then asked, if approving the right, and hating the the wrong, and 'delighting in the law of God' did not imply that there was something
good even in such a man?
Augustine could not deny the fact, the case being so palpable, of the universal agreement of the church in the deduction that it was the unregenerate man referred to in the passage; nor did he perceive how, admitting the correctness of the universally received exposition, he could meet the argument of his opponent. Under such
perplexity, Augustine denied the validity of his own and the universal, and adopted the few and before, unheard of, exposition, a most needless resort and a most calamitous one for the spiritual good of the church C J Schmidz (Romans 7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Augustine DID NOT MOVE TO PELAGIUS' VIEW. Why? Because:- Pelagius taught that man could stop sinning and this was the point of the debate. Pelagius was trying to show Augustine that his view of Romans 7 was not the so called Primitive view but can be called the Apostolic view.. Augustine realized his first view was untenable that Paul described the unregenerate but the second view was untenable for Augustine because it says that man CAN stop sinning.
Pelagius taught the Apostolic view which is that Paul is speaking about the Christian in Romans 7 BUT NOT WHAT SHOULD BE HIS NORMAL CONDITION. Those who do not accept the view that it is a Christian speaking point to the fact that there is no mention of grace or of the work of the Holy Spirit in the chapter. But this is not because there is no Holy Spirit or grace. Far from it. The opposite is true actually. BUT THE PERSON DESCRIBING THE EVENT IS NOT AWARE OF IT.
It seems as though God has deserted actually, as the person comes to an extreme point because GOD HAS CONVICTED HIM OF HIS SINFULNESS. This is the stage of Purgation according to early teaching. Paul is discussing experience here not doctrine. He came to a point of time when he saw himself as God saw him as he sought righteousness through the works of the law. And all Christians seek to do this unless they adopt Augustines’ position and excuse their sin.
The reason why the Primitive view is wrong is due to misunderstanding of some of the early writers teachings in saying that Romans 7 is the unregenerate person. They meant by an unregenerate person A BELIEVER WHO HAD NOT COME TO THE SANCTIFICATION EXPERIENCE which was what Wesley meant by the 'Almost Christian' In the Bible, salvation
sanctification and justification are all one event but describing the differing aspects of it.
This means that one is not really saved until they are entirely sanctified. Jesus came to save us FROM our sins and until this is done, then we are still in them and not saved even though we have been given 'The power to BECOME the son's of God' as a possibility but not yet an actuality until the provision of sanctification through the cross, is appropriated by man and he is delivered from not just the penalty from sin but also the power and the presence. To say that Romans 7 cannot be the experience of a true Christian only means that the person HAS NOT EXPERIENCED IT THEMSELVES.
Many saints have and this is why they say along with Pelagius, the early church, and George Fox, that this is the experience of the Christian, under the hand of God, being shown the utter utter inability of man to be righteous by obeying His law whilst still in the flesh. The crisis experience described by Paul, has to be gone through ourselves.
So we could start off with Romans 7?
The two interpretations of Romans 7 which have dominated church history are the Primitive one and the Post-Primitive. Augustine held to the Primitive in his early years but, HE CHANGED HIS POSITION LATER. The reason that he changed his position was through his heated discussions with Pelagius. The thing is that there are two interpretations widely held since Augustine but the third has been mostly rejected (because it says that sinlessness is possible) This was the opposite of the view held by Augustine and widely held by the church until he changed to the new third way.
There can only be three interpretations of Romans7 and which one we accept shows our
whole attitude and position about this important doctrine of entire sanctification.
The Primitive view which is widely held today, is that Romans 7 describes the salvation experience and Paul is writing as an unregenerate soul. Augustine said Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is understood that man is here described who was never under grace
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homilies.
This is the view which the writer says that Augustine held until Pelagius challenged him over his view that man is totally
depraved. Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in his argument, Pelagius referred to the passage under consideration, saying that this was a palpable case in which, by the universal assent of the church, the state and character of the unregenerate man is described. He then asked, if approving the right, and hating the the wrong, and 'delighting in the law of God' did not imply that there was something
good even in such a man?
Augustine could not deny the fact, the case being so palpable, of the universal agreement of the church in the deduction that it was the unregenerate man referred to in the passage; nor did he perceive how, admitting the correctness of the universally received exposition, he could meet the argument of his opponent. Under such
perplexity, Augustine denied the validity of his own and the universal, and adopted the few and before, unheard of, exposition, a most needless resort and a most calamitous one for the spiritual good of the church C J Schmidz (Romans 7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Augustine DID NOT MOVE TO PELAGIUS' VIEW. Why? Because:- Pelagius taught that man could stop sinning and this was the point of the debate. Pelagius was trying to show Augustine that his view of Romans 7 was not the so called Primitive view but can be called the Apostolic view.. Augustine realized his first view was untenable that Paul described the unregenerate but the second view was untenable for Augustine because it says that man CAN stop sinning.
Pelagius taught the Apostolic view which is that Paul is speaking about the Christian in Romans 7 BUT NOT WHAT SHOULD BE HIS NORMAL CONDITION. Those who do not accept the view that it is a Christian speaking point to the fact that there is no mention of grace or of the work of the Holy Spirit in the chapter. But this is not because there is no Holy Spirit or grace. Far from it. The opposite is true actually. BUT THE PERSON DESCRIBING THE EVENT IS NOT AWARE OF IT.
It seems as though God has deserted actually, as the person comes to an extreme point because GOD HAS CONVICTED HIM OF HIS SINFULNESS. This is the stage of Purgation according to early teaching. Paul is discussing experience here not doctrine. He came to a point of time when he saw himself as God saw him as he sought righteousness through the works of the law. And all Christians seek to do this unless they adopt Augustines’ position and excuse their sin.
The reason why the Primitive view is wrong is due to misunderstanding of some of the early writers teachings in saying that Romans 7 is the unregenerate person. They meant by an unregenerate person A BELIEVER WHO HAD NOT COME TO THE SANCTIFICATION EXPERIENCE which was what Wesley meant by the 'Almost Christian' In the Bible, salvation
sanctification and justification are all one event but describing the differing aspects of it.
This means that one is not really saved until they are entirely sanctified. Jesus came to save us FROM our sins and until this is done, then we are still in them and not saved even though we have been given 'The power to BECOME the son's of God' as a possibility but not yet an actuality until the provision of sanctification through the cross, is appropriated by man and he is delivered from not just the penalty from sin but also the power and the presence. To say that Romans 7 cannot be the experience of a true Christian only means that the person HAS NOT EXPERIENCED IT THEMSELVES.
Many saints have and this is why they say along with Pelagius, the early church, and George Fox, that this is the experience of the Christian, under the hand of God, being shown the utter utter inability of man to be righteous by obeying His law whilst still in the flesh. The crisis experience described by Paul, has to be gone through ourselves.
Doesn't matter-what do YOU believe?
Origen (185-254 AD)
Origen, an early Christian scholar and theologian from Alexandria, interpreted Romans 7 as referring to Paul's experience as a believer.
Origen writes in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans:
"And who is not aware that the apostle in this passage, saying, 'I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing,' is not speaking as if he were in a state of ignorance, but with reference to those things which he had just said before, 'that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin'?"
Chrysostom (349-407 AD)
John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, interpreted Romans 7 as Paul's description of the ongoing struggle of a believer with sin.
Chrysostom writes in his Homilies on Romans:
"For when he says, 'To will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not,' he speaks not of a state of sin, but of a contest and a toil."
Chrysostom sees Paul's words as illustrating the Christian's struggle against the sinful inclinations of the flesh despite their desire to do good.
Cyril of Alexandria (376-444 AD)
Cyril of Alexandria, a prominent theologian and Patriarch of Alexandria, also understood Romans 7 as describing the struggle of a regenerate believer.
Cyril writes in his Commentary on Romans:
"For not as one that is unrighteous does he acknowledge himself to be a bondservant of sin; but as having been made anew in the Spirit, and longing to do better, and warring with the evil that is in the flesh, does he bewail himself, saying, 'O wretched man that I am!'"
Cyril interprets Paul's lamentation in Romans 7 as expressing the tension between the new life in Christ and the remnants of sin in the flesh.
Jerome (347-420 AD)
Jerome, a Latin priest and theologian known for his translation of the Bible into Latin (Vulgate), interpreted Romans 7 similarly.
Jerome writes in his Commentary on Galatians:
"For the apostle was now no longer speaking of the sinner before he had received the faith, but of the just man, who, after he has received grace and been justified, yet feels the stirrings of sin in his flesh."
Jerome understands Paul's description in Romans 7 as portraying the struggles of a justified believer wrestling with sinful desires.
Conclusion
These additional Church Fathers and theologians provide further historical perspectives on the interpretation of Romans 7 as describing Paul's struggles as a regenerate believer. Their writings reflect the widespread understanding within early Christianity and beyond that Paul was describing the ongoing battle with sin experienced by Christians, rather than his pre-conversion state.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD)
Augustine is one of the most influential Church Fathers and theologians in Christian history. He interpreted Romans 7 as describing Paul's struggles as a regenerate Christian.
Augustine writes in his work "On the Spirit and the Letter" (De Spiritu et littera):
"Who is the man who has not read or heard the Epistle to the Romans? And who is the man that has not heard, or that does not remember that passage wherein the apostle says: 'For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin'? But in this expression, 'I am carnal, sold under sin,' the apostle does not wish to be understood as if he were speaking of his present state, but of his past life, before he was freed from the flesh."
Augustine interprets Paul's struggle with sin in Romans 7 as describing his pre-conversion state, highlighting the transformation brought about by grace.
Martin Luther (1483-1546)
Martin Luther, the key figure in the Protestant Reformation, also interpreted Romans 7 as depicting Paul's struggles as a regenerate believer.
Luther writes in his commentary on Romans:
"Therefore, you should not understand Paul here as speaking of a wicked and unbelieving man, but of a man truly believing in Christ, who, however, cannot avoid sins and feels them bitterly, but overcomes them through faith in Christ."
Luther emphasizes that even believers struggle with sin but are justified through faith in Christ.
John Calvin (1509-1564)
John Calvin, another influential Reformer, interpreted Romans 7 similarly, viewing Paul's words as describing the struggles of a regenerate Christian.
Calvin writes in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:
"The person whom he introduces as complaining of the bondage of sin is not one under the law, but one who, instructed in the doctrine of Christ, recognizes his carnality, and, groaning under it, is vexed with the strife between the flesh and the Spirit."
Calvin sees Romans 7 as illustrating the ongoing conflict believers experience between their sinful nature and the indwelling Spirit.
What say you?
J.
I will not be able to get into this fully as it is bedtime for me, but I say that it is the words of a believer who otherwise could hardly say that he delights in the law.
It is the experience of the believer but the next part has been left out by those who follow the Reformers. I do not accept the teachings of the church after Constantine ruined it by the way unless they agree with the early teachings.
So the early quotations have been left unfinished in order to prove the theology that agreed with Gnosticism which was brought in by the philosopher Augustine.
The man struggles with unintentional sin, but moves forth to Romans 8 where he thanks God and thereafter walks in the Spirit. The reasons I will elaborate on tomorrow.
It is the experience of the believer but the next part has been left out by those who follow the Reformers. I do not accept the teachings of the church after Constantine ruined it by the way unless they agree with the early teachings.
So the early quotations have been left unfinished in order to prove the theology that agreed with Gnosticism which was brought in by the philosopher Augustine.
The man struggles with unintentional sin, but moves forth to Romans 8 where he thanks God and thereafter walks in the Spirit. The reasons I will elaborate on tomorrow.
I'll be here @Hepzibah but I'll let you know I believe Paul in Romans 7 is Paul the regenerate man and Romans 8 was not the Eureka moment for him.
That is, if you are familiar with the Grammars in Romans 7.
Johann
@Lizbeth
**Conclusions:
1. The book of Acts offers no real distinction between being Baptized in the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Holy Spirit. Really late thinkers, such as the early Pentecostals of 1901 onward, invented a distinction that could hardly be pressed from a New Testament perspective.
2. The New Testament displays many different demonstrations of the Spirit working in lives of believers, most usually with them speaking the word of the Lord with boldness. Tongues (in the book of Acts) is singularly connected with another person or group being brought into the faith that was previously not.
a. Acts 2 – Pentecost and the nations hearing the word of God in their own languages (known languages).
b. Acts 10 – The Gentiles being welcomed into the church. After they were heard to speak in tongues (very explicitly this meant understood languages), Peter could no longer hold off from allowing Gentiles into the Church.
c. Acts 19 - Paul met a group of John the Baptist believers, but who had not had a fuller faith, and therefore God graces them to speak with other languages to turn the final corner into the fuller faith (and this included prophesying as well).
**All three instances of tongues in the book of Acts have two important facts grounding them.
1) They were known languages, and not ‘angelic tongues’ or a ‘personal prayer language.’
2) Tongues (other actual languages) is directly connected with a fresh mission field, a people group that would not likely have been accepted without it by the Jewish Christians, or those whose faith lacked specifics about Jesus Christ.
Prescription and Description
Most of the above were descriptions of various experiences of people in the book of Acts. However, did the Apostles give a prescription of what we are to expect in our practice? This is not our experience, but rather the rule for the Church. The answer is YES! Now, before I get there, I want to mention how important the words in bold are. There is this very clear difference between such things, that if we are not careful, we can make a mess of Christian practice. It all comes down to the IS/OUGHT FALLACY.
The point, just because something is (description) does not mean it ought (prescription) to be. IS has everything to do with an event or many events happening. Example: “A lot of people sin.” Well, just because a lot of people sin (description), does not mean that they should sin (prescription).
Let’s show this with Scripture now too.
MOSES went up on a mountain to hear God (description). Does that mean that is a rule for all of us (prescription)? Obviously not. There is no rule for all people to hear God on mountains, even if Moses heard God on a mountain.
To prove his obedience, Abraham went to sacrifice his son (description of his actions), does that mean we all should do the same to prove our obedience to God (prescription)? Obviously not. In fact, we have a rule against it (thou shalt not kill)!
However, the early Pentecostals committed the is/ought fallacy. They turned in an is (description of what took place on the first Pentecost) into an ought (all people, if they are to be Baptized in the Holy Spirit must have a similar experience). Not only does this commit the is/ought fallacy, but this also messes up the very prescriptions/rules that are put in place to guide our practice. Again, just because an apostle/s experienced something, does not mean that we all will in the same way. I think this is exactly why it is confusing going into Scripture to find an answer to the question. Going in looking for a distinction between the two, tries to favor a Pentecostal distinction up front. One only finds such a distinction by straining to find it. Many people have been confused by this over the years, especially as they engage in more Pentecostal groups.
OK…now to the RULES/Prescriptions.
1. The Role of the HOLY SPIRIT is to reveal Jesus Christ to us and the world – Jesus makes it quite clear that the main role of the Holy Spirit is 1) To bring to remembrance all that Jesus said and taught (John 14:26) and 2) That he will point to Jesus and bear witness about Jesus Christ (John 15:26). Even more, he will guide the church into all truth (John 16:13).
I think this is why we see so many examples in the book of Acts, where the Apostles and others, who got filled or baptized in the Holy Spirit, were able to speak up with boldness and testify about Jesus Christ. That is the work of the Holy Spirit.
This should remind us, that the “tongues” in those passages of the book of Acts, are present in order to expand the mission of the church and give praise to God and make clear his message to other nations. That sounds exactly like what these passages in John teach.
2. How one (as a rule) receives the Holy Spirit – After Peter preached on Pentecost, he was asked by the crowd what they should do as a result of hearing the preaching. Peter’s answer has been the rule for the church ever since. He said, “Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
How does one receive the Holy Spirit? It is as simple as Peter outlined above.
Notice here, that Peter never advocates that everyone will speak in tongues or prophesy. Rather, they will receive God the Holy Spirit by converting to Christianity. Once again, I think this is where the early Pentecostals missed it. They had their eyes on a particular gift, and not on the Holy Spirit himself who is the ultimate GIFT. This is also where they committed the Is/ought fallacy.
Again, this is the rule. Which means, it can cover those persons who do have some kind of significant experience as well as those who do not have a significant experience.
1 Corinthians 12:3 further confirms this rule when it says, “No one can say, “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.”
3. The Holy Spirit Assures us of Christ’s Life (and thus salvation) in us who believe –
Romans 5:5 / 15:13 – Love has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, which confirms the hope we have in Christ.
1 Cor. 6:19 – Tells us our bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit, who continually leads us away from sin and to righteousness (context of the whole chapter as well).
Ephesians 1:13 that after conversion/believing, “You were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.”
Titus 3:5 tells us that we are saved and continually being renewed by the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit.
1 John 3:24 “And we know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.”
**The New Testament has a moderately strong understanding that the Holy Spirit who lives in us, can begin to make it clear to us that we are his children and are on the path to salvation. Sometimes this teaching has been called “assurance of salvation.”
4. God decides what gifts a person gets, not human beings and not a tradition by human beings.
We are guaranteed of the Spirit himself at conversion…that is the true gift we all get (Acts 2:38).
Beyond having the Holy Spirit and being more fully assured of salvation over time by the Holy Spirit, God can freely will to give us certain extra gifts as well.
These are Biblically called “gifts of the spirit” or “spiritual gifts” or even “graces of the Holy Spirit.”
The reason for God gracing us with certain gifts of the Spirit is for the “common good” (1 Corinthians 12:7).
All gifts are empowered by the Holy Spirit, “who apportions to each one individually as he wills.” That means, God decides.
I obviously do mean this to contradict the teaching of the Pentecostals who make it a rule that the ‘evidence of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues.’ God himself has told us differently.
5. The Holy Spirit leads us in Character Development, and to God Himself, who is perfect love.
The Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23)
Love is the greatest (1 Corinthians 13).
Holy Spirit Realization – That our life is about realizing more of Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, as bearers of the Holy Spirit in our lives, we can keep growing in realization of His work and ministry and thus, being filled one time is not enough, but rather being filled again and again, through praise, interaction with the Word, prayers from others, and much more.
Practically what does this all mean?
1. We are not trying to get people Baptized in the Holy Spirit in the sense that they have one event in their life. Instead, we are trying to get their whole lives to engage with the work of the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit Realization).
2. We are not to look for one sign as the guarantee of being filled with the Spirit, but instead are to trust that God has done the work for those who believe.
3. Our Job then, is to keep guiding people to rely on the Holy Spirit to enable them to preach the Word and live a holy life.
Once again, check out J.I. Packer’s “Keep in Step with the Spirit” to examine these issues more.
I am not "angry with ya"
J.
I believe this was his eureka moment, if we are to use that analogy,
Romans 7:25 KJV
. . . with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
The inner man is reborn, the flesh is not.
Much love!
Amen-I take it you are in agreement with me brother-that this is our brother Paul, the regenerate man in Rom 7? You may disagree, I won't be offended.
Shalom to you and family 11:10 PM
Johann.
Yes. I've studied this part of Scripture very much. One of the key points is where he says, "now it is no more I but sin that lives in me". This signifies a change, before, Paul was the sinner, now, Paul is a new man, no longer the flesh man, and sin lives in his flesh. This agrees with Galatians 5, the spirit lusts against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit.
It's the realization that he's been liberated from the flesh man with it's sin that gives him the awareness of his power over sin. I don't have to sin, because I'm not the flesh where sin lives.
Much love! And I hope you are having a very pleasant evening!
Thank you brother-something is wrong with my connection to this forum, very slow and ask for confirmation if I want to like your post-can you help me out?
Same here-I don't have to sin, but IF a commit an act of sin, not habitually, not living in a STATE of sin- we have an advocate with the Father
1 John 2:1-2 (NIV):
"My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
This passage from the first epistle of John reassures believers that if they sin, they have Jesus Christ as their advocate with God the Father. Jesus is described as the righteous one who serves as the atoning sacrifice for our sins, providing forgiveness and reconciliation with God. This verse emphasizes the role of Jesus Christ as the mediator and advocate for believers before God, demonstrating God's grace and mercy towards humanity.
Believe it or not, I have witnessed this verse butchered.
Maybe you "see" something I don't witness in me marks. If you think you detect a gift or something let me know, privately.
Now don't make a Charismatic out of me! Lol!
J.
Right, let's run this again,
Rom 7:7 Knowledge of Sin Comes through the Law
¶ What then shall we say? Is the law sin? May it never be! But I would not have known sin except through the law, for I would not have known covetousness if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” [A quotation from Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21]
Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin is dead.
Rom 7:9 And I was alive once, apart from the law, but when [*Here “when ” is supplied as a component of the participle (“came”) which is understood as temporal] the commandment came, sin sprang to life
Rom 7:10 and I died, and this commandment which was to lead to life was found with respect to me to lead to death.
Rom 7:11 For sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me .
Rom 7:12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
Rom 7:13 Internal Conflict with Sin [Not inspired]
¶ Therefore, did that which is good become death to me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be recognized as sin, producing death through what is good for me, in order that sin might become sinful to an extraordinary degree through the commandment.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold into slavery to sin [Literally “sold under sin”].
Rom 7:15 For what I am doing I do not understand, because what I want to do , this I do not practice, but what I hate, this I do.
Rom 7:16 But if what I do not want to do , this I do, I agree with the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 But now I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that lives in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that good does not live in me, that is, in my flesh. For the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I want to do , I do not do, but the evil that I do not want to do , this I do.
Rom 7:20 But if what I do not want to do , this I am doing, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that lives in me.
Rom 7:21 ¶ Consequently, I find the principle with me, the one who wants to do good, that evil is present with me. [Or “in me”]
Rom 7:22 For I joyfully agree with the law of God in my inner person,
Rom 7:23 but I observe another law in my members, at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that exists in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am ! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be [Some manuscripts have “But thanks be ”] to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself with my mind am enslaved to the law of God, but with my flesh I am enslaved to the law of sin.
Paul the regenerate man, in this passage, or not?
Similar threads
