O.B.N.C.

[Doug Brents]

Are you aware that at the beginning of the church things weren't unified as today. In fact, as by the time Paul wrote Gal 3. In v.2 and 5 he makes clear that receiving the Spirit is by faith or believing in Christ.

So you’re saying that God didn’t have it together when he started the Church? He wasn’t ready, so He allowed whatever happened to be good enough. But as He was able to organize Himself, He narrowed it down to just faith? Is that what you’re saying?

How stupid. No, there was no change in what was and what was not acceptable for entrance into the Church. It has ALWAYS been faith. That is what Peter said in Acts 2:38, and what every other preacher through all of Scripture has told his audience. But as we have discussed before, you have a faulty understanding of what faith is, so you disassociate any action from faith.

So what? The Spirit was given first to Jews, upon faith in the Messiah, and for Gentiles upon laying of hands by apostles.

No. The indwelling of the Spirit came to the Gentiles as it did to the Jews, through baptism in water.

Miraculous power came to them both, first the route tongues of fire, and thereafter through the laying on of hands by the Apostles (only).

But, by Acts 10 we see Gentiles receiving the Spirit on the basis of faith. Then, in Acts 19, some disciples received the Spirit by Paul's laying his hands on them. So it varied in the beginning. When Paul wrote Gal 3, it was uniform. The Spirit is received by faith in Christ.

You are confusing the indwelling and the working of miracles. The indwelling comes to each and every Christian when they enter into Christ (at baptism). But the miraculous power of the Spirit was only transferred with the laying on of hands by the Apostles; with the noted exception of the two instances of Spirit Baptism that I have already note).

First, scholars know that v.9-20 aren't in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, meaning all those verses were added later by scribes, NONE OF WHICH were inspired.

There is some debate on this, but I understand what you are saying. We can refrain from reference to the if you like. It makes no difference. What is said in them is the same as is said in many other places.

Second, can you prove that the scribe who added those verses wasn't referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that occurs at salvation? No, you can't.

I already have, but you refuse to see.

The Bible shows 2 for the NT. Water baptism is a symbol of the believer's identification with the Messiah. Baptism of the Spirit places the believer in union with Christ, per Eph 1:13,14 which is a real identification as God's own possession. 1:14 says so.

Again, you confuse the indwelling with Spirit baptism. There is ONLY ONE BAPTISM In the NT Church (Eph 4:5-6).

When Peter wrote "this water" in v.21 he was referring to literal water, like the flood from v.20. And He said literal water symbolizes the baptism that NOW saves you. iow, he was referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, EXACTLY like what we read in Acts 11 and Cornelius and family receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit when they believed.

Then Peter said "not the removal of dirt from the body". That is another reference to literal water, which DOES NOT SAVE. That's exactly what he said.

“who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. (of the Flood) 21 Corresponding to that (the water of the Flood), baptism (in water) now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,“
And yes, as we have already established, the water itself does not remove sin (baptism is not for the removal of dirt from the flesh), but it is an appeal to God for a clear conscience.

That comes from faith in Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, through faith in Christ.
But, again, as Acts 2:38 says, the indwelling (what you call the baptism of the Holy Spirit) is the result of water baptism, not in place of it.

Literal water is MEANINGLESS when a person gets saved, justified, receives eternal life.

Not according to Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, Eph 5:26, Rom 6:1-11 and Col 2:11-13. Since there is only one baptism in the NT Church, and it is something we are commanded to DO (not just RECEIVE), it is very clear that water baptism is what is being referred to in ALL of these passages.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You think it has to say “covenant” to be a covenant? Then you really will never understand covenant theology at all.

Then just explain HOW the soil parable constitutes a covenant, if you can.

Anyway, you can’t point out the cursings in the covenant, and it’s your OP. I’ll guess I’ll move on.

The OP wasn't about covenants. Didn't you read it before wading in?

But since YOU bring up covenants, can you describe the two kinds of biblical covenants?

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Are you aware that at the beginning of the church things weren't unified as today. In fact, as by the time Paul wrote Gal 3. In v.2 and 5 he makes clear that receiving the Spirit is by faith or believing in Christ.

So you’re saying that God didn’t have it together when he started the Church? He wasn’t ready, so He allowed whatever happened to be good enough

You've got to be kidding, right? I believe that God IS omniscient, so therefore, KNOWS everything that will happen. What is clear from Scripture is that at the beginning of the Church, things weren't uniform.

But as He was able to organize Himself, He narrowed it down to just faith? Is that what you’re saying?

I can't imagine where your imagination got this idea from. Salvation has ALWAYS been by faith in the Messiah.

How stupid. No, there was no change in what was and what was not acceptable for entrance into the Church. It has ALWAYS been faith.

Of course. So again, where in the world did your imagination pick up this foreign idea that I claim something else?

That is what Peter said in Acts 2:38, and what every other preacher through all of Scripture has told his audience. But as we have discussed before, you have a faulty understanding of what faith is, so you disassociate any action from faith.[/QUOTE]
As I pointed out, the audience that Peter was talking to had come to realize what they had done to the Messiah, in v.37. iow, they realized that they crucified the Messiah. So they asked the proper question: what shall we do? So v.38 was said to SAVED people. To presume v.38 applies to unsaved people is faulty.

No. The indwelling of the Spirit came to the Gentiles as it did to the Jews, through baptism in water.

You need to read Acts 10 and 11, which explains the account of Cornelius. They received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were water baptized.

But, in Acts 8, the Samaritans didn't receive the Holy Spirit until AFTER water baptism.

You are confusing the indwelling and the working of miracles. The indwelling comes to each and every Christian when they enter into Christ (at baptism). But the miraculous power of the Spirit was only transferred with the laying on of hands by the Apostles; with the noted exception of the two instances of Spirit Baptism that I have already note).

Again, your faulty imagination has led you to very erroneous conclusions. I have not confused the indwelling of the Spirit and working of miracles. That you conclude that shows how confused you are.

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
First, scholars know that v.9-20 aren't in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, meaning all those verses were added later by scribes, NONE OF WHICH were inspired.

There is some debate on this, but I understand what you are saying. We can refrain from reference to the if you like. It makes no difference. What is said in them is the same as is said in many other places.

Wrong. There are NO OTHER PLACES that say water baptism results in salvation.

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Second, can you prove that the scribe who added those verses wasn't referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that occurs at salvation? No, you can't.

I already have, but you refuse to see.

Cop-out response. If you really did, why is it so difficult to just repeat yourself. I am able to prove my claims every time I'm asked.

Those who CAN PROVE their claims do so. Any time they are challenged.
Those who CANNOT PROVE their claims only claim that they have. Whenever they are challenged.

Again, you confuse the indwelling with Spirit baptism. There is ONLY ONE BAPTISM In the NT Church (Eph 4:5-6).

It seems you are rather unfamiliar with the meaning and usage of "baptism". It came to mean "being identified with something else". The baptism of the Spirit is what Eph 1:13,14 is referring to; the placing the believer into union with Christ. Which marks the believer (identifies) as God's own possession.

“who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. (of the Flood) 21 Corresponding to that (the water of the Flood), baptism (in water) now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,“
And yes, as we have already established, the water itself does not remove sin (baptism is not for the removal of dirt from the flesh), but it is an appeal to God for a clear conscience.

Just look at biblehub.com and count the translations that use the word "symbolizes" for literal water.

Yes, through faith in Christ.
But, again, as Acts 2:38 says, the indwelling (what you call the baptism of the Holy Spirit) is the result of water baptism, not in place of it.

You still have no biblical evidence of that.

And there are examples that refute your claim, as I have shown. Cornelius received the Holy Spirit BEFORE being water baptized.

 

[Hammster]

Then just explain HOW the soil parable constitutes a covenant, if you can.


The OP wasn't about covenants. Didn't you read it before wading in?

But since YOU bring up covenants, can you describe the two kinds of biblical covenants?

I don’t know why you want to deflect. It’s your OP. You can’t show the blessings and cursings in the new covenant. I really wasn’t expecting you to. But it might be something you’ll want to study in the future so that you won’t make the huge mistake you made in the OP.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don’t know why you want to deflect.

What an odd statement. I haven't deflected.

This is what I asked you:
"But since YOU bring up covenants, can you describe the two kinds of biblical covenants?"

Since you failed to answer the question, it is YOU who deflects.

It’s your OP. You can’t show the blessings and cursings in the new covenant.

The OP isn't about covenants. It's about what an acronym means. Those who read the OP know that.

I really wasn’t expecting you to. But it might be something you’ll want to study in the future so that you won’t make the huge mistake you made in the OP.

OK, so show me my mistake. Can you do that?

 

[Hammster]

What an odd statement. I haven't deflected.

This is what I asked you:
"But since YOU bring up covenants, can you describe the two kinds of biblical covenants?"

Since you failed to answer the question, it is YOU who deflects.


The OP isn't about covenants. It's about what an acronym means. Those who read the OP know that.


OK, so show me my mistake. Can you do that?

Your mistake is not understanding that covenants contain both blessings and cursings. Your understanding has blessings, but no cursings.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your mistake is not understanding that covenants contain both blessings and cursings. Your understanding has blessings, but no cursings.

And, once again, I have asked for your explanation, but it seems you are either unable to, or just unwilling.

So, why do you even bother? If you aren't going to provide some explanation, there is no need to post.

 

[Hammster]

And, once again, I have asked for your explanation, but it seems you are either unable to, or just unwilling.

So, why do you even bother? If you aren't going to provide some explanation, there is no need to post.

I’ve explained what a covenant is in the Bible. I’ll be more than happy to explain further, especially about blessings and cursings, since that’s the focus here. Maybe that will help you to see where your error lies.

Let me know.

 

[fhansen]

Couldn't be more wrong.

Jesus was clear about WHEN a person possesses eternal life. John 5:24 says whoever believes possesses eternal life.

Then, Jesus said that recipients of eternal life (which is WHEN one believes) SHALL NEVER PERISH, in John 10:28.

Can you prove that these verses don't really mean what they say? Or just explain to me what they actually mean, if you can. Thanks.

The problem is yours, not mine. In my position no verses conflict while in yours they do, unless, again, one simply ignores the "inconvenient" verses.

This is the glaring conflict:

Jesus said in John 10:28 that recipients (believers) of eternal life shall never perish.

Your view is that believers, who have received eternal life CAN perish.

If you don't see the conflict here, why are we even having a discussion?

That question is for you to resolve, not me.

Before throwing insults, please address the conflict that I have just explained.

There wasn't a trace of insult in my statement, nor was any intended. And the "conflict" has been well addressed.

 

[fhansen]

I've shown you from the verses you have claimed to mean something other than what you think.

No, you've only done what you've accused me of-with faulty responses if any.

Past tense salvation: saved from the penalty of sin. Called justification.
Present tense salvation: saved from the power of sin. Called sanctification.
Future tense salvation: saved from the presence of sin. Called glorification.

Your comment above places sanctification or better called "spiritual growth" as something that can keep you out of heaven.

Pure, specualtive nonsense. Non-Christian, non-gospel. Sanctification is simply the continuation of the process begun with justification-there's no difference between the two. Salvation is a journey, sometimes short, sometimes long depending on how much time we're given. At the end of the day God judges how well we've fared, how well we've done with whatever we've been given.

 

[fhansen]

Correct. But to clarify, "death" refers to physical death, of which Scripture is full of examples.

Death refers to both, physical death paralleling spiritual death. For example, spiritual death is referred to in Rom 8:13:
"For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live."

Spiritual death is by far the worst, as it's end is hell.

 

[fhansen]

Can you explain HOW to access living by the Spirit? Or it is simply a part of being a Christian, and therefore automatic?

The life of the Spirit is realized in any who enter communion with God via faith. We can continue to take that relationship seriously, and produce much fruit through it, or we can also fail to do so-and break that relationship all over again.

 

[fhansen]

Jesus has given us an answer to that question. Those who believe in Him for savlation possess eternal life (John 5:24). And recipients of eternal life shall never perish (John 10:28).

Jesus also told us we must obey the commandments to gain eternal life. So the question remains, which is it? In my position there's no conflict.

 

[fhansen]

So you think that God finally "gives up" on His truly bad children?

God loves all humankind. We give up on Him-and He'll ultimately allow that. That's what hell is-eternal life apart from Him; eternal death, really.

 

[fhansen]

Scripture teaches that His "truly bad children" will be painfully disciplined, which may include physical death. There are many examples in Scripture.

All His children will experience physical death. But He's removed "the sting of death" for us. And some truly bad children will return to the spiritual death they began in.

 

[fhansen]

What do you mean by "applied them to themselves"? Your word choice leaves much to be improved on. Clear as mud.

It should be clear as mud only to anyone who wants to avoid looking. You're presumably one of millions who've thought those words applied to themselves in the absolute sense down though the centuries, more so during the last five centuries, perhaps. So...if thinking that we're saved, based on such verses alone, means that we're defintely saved, then anyone who's ever thought they were saved based on those verses, were/are saved. And yet Scripture tells us that not all who think they're saved, will be. And that makes a lot more sense to me.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I’ve explained what a covenant is in the Bible. I’ll be more than happy to explain further, especially about blessings and cursings, since that’s the focus here. Maybe that will help you to see where your error lies.

Let me know.

What a strange comment. How many times have I been ASKING for your explanations??

But it seems you'd rather just say what you would do than actually do it.

Suit yourself. Explain if you want or can.

I'm done asking. You already have all my questions.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Couldn't be more wrong.

Jesus was clear about WHEN a person possesses eternal life. John 5:24 says whoever believes possesses eternal life.

Then, Jesus said that recipients of eternal life (which is WHEN one believes) SHALL NEVER PERISH, in John 10:28.

Can you prove that these verses don't really mean what they say? Or just explain to me what they actually mean, if you can. Thanks.

The problem is yours, not mine.

I think you are confused. I don't have a problem.

That question is for you to resolve, not me.

That's your confusion. Yes, you have a problem that needs resolving.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Correct. But to clarify, "death" refers to physical death, of which Scripture is full of examples.

Death refers to both, physical death paralleling spiritual death.

Not in a single verse. It can't mean both. They are different.

For example, spiritual death is referred to in Rom 8:13:
"For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live."

If "living according to the flesh" results in spiritual death, what good is the gift of eternal life that Jesus gives to those who believe? Basically worthless, if your lifestyle determines where one goes after physical death.

1 John 5:16 is relevant here: If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.

Here, John is referring to God's painful discipline that leads to physical death. And there are many examples of God's discipline that leads to physical death.

Acts 5 - Ananias and Sapphira, 1 Cor 5:5 the incestuous man, 1 Cor 10:1-5 the entire first generation of the Exodus generation, minus Joshuah and Caleb.

Spiritual death is by far the worst, as it's end is hell.

Everyone is born spiritually dead. So one's lifestyle CANNOT result in spiritual death.

And there are no verses that show a person who possesses eternal life dying spiritually.

btw, IF IF IF someone who possesses eternal life can die spiritually, please explain how eternal life can die.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Can you explain HOW to access living by the Spirit? Or it is simply a part of being a Christian, and therefore automatic?

The life of the Spirit is realized in any who enter communion with God via faith. We can continue to take that relationship seriously, and produce much fruit through it, or we can also fail to do so-and break that relationship all over again.

This doesn't answer my question. Your first sentence suggests that for every saved believer, it is automatic. But then you ended up with failure.

So, try to be specific as to how to obey the command to "be filled with the Spirit", and how to "walk by means of the Spirit".

Thanks.