The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

[rocknanchor]

Scripture nowhere teaches anything less.

Whether on the simplicity over the Spirit or any other Apostolic tradition handed down, the anti-hearing of faith brought to us by hermeneutical technique isn't content unless it garners disciples on both ends of the spectrum, fully catagoricalized or no "rightly" divisions at all.

Is correction counter to our nature? Of course it is, it is supremely difficult, but we love each other here and that is what sets us apart from the world.

So yes, we did provide citation, but for the present, you are 'categorically' - unwilling.

 

[Hermeneutico]

Whether on the simplicity over the Spirit or any other Apostolic tradition handed down, the anti-hearing of faith brought to us by hermeneutical technique isn't content unless it garners disciples on both ends of the spectrum, fully catagoricalized or no "rightly" divisions at all.

Is correction counter to our nature? Of course it is, it is supremely difficult, but we love each other here and that is what sets us apart from the world.

So yes, we did provide citation, but for the present, you are 'categorically' - unwilling.

It appears, that you brought a citation that you cannot explain - Romans 8:9.

If you're interpretation is correct, then supporting exegesis should not be a problem, right?

 

[Hermeneutico]

So yes, we did provide citation, but for the present, you are 'categorically' - unwilling.

Hi,

I was thinking about your statement....hmmm...

1. Bringing a citation without solid exegetical explanation is based upon a presupposition that the citation is understood correctly.
2. Yes, I'm old school. I categorically reject and I'm totally unwilling to embrace an exegetical fallacy known as "proof-texting." In serious about interpretation methodology. Why? Many false doctrines are based upon "proof-texting." As a student of Scripture, you should be concerned about that issue as well.
3. Being unwilling implies that I'm unrteachable. However, if I were to ignore sound interpretation principles, that would be unreachable. Why? Because then I'm making an assumption that my own interpretation is always correct.

Blessings bro

 

[ARBITER01]

Most classical Pentecostals, coming out of the evangelical stream of Christianity, created a partial-reception idea foreign to Reformation theology, Historical Theology, and the Bible.

I don't think you really have a clue what your talking about on our forum.

I'm Assemblies of GOD, and our position is clear,... we are sealed with The Holy Spirit at regeneration, then filled with Him post regeneration,... 2 separate events, 2 different experiences. This accords with the examples in Acts where the disciples were asked if they received The Holy Spirit after believing, and then received the filling with tongues or prophesying when hands were laid upon them.

Probably your position is mired from old translations such as the kjv.

 

[Hermeneutico]

I don't think you really have a clue what your talking about on our forum.

Hi,

Is this not a Pentecostal AND an Assemblies of God forum? Yes.

I can understand your reaction. Many Pentecostals are dismissive when other Pentecostals challenge a core belief system. However, that does not mean one does not understand a particular doctrinal perspective. Since you claim I do not understand the AOG perspective, I will share some background. I was radically converted in 1974 at an Assemblies Church in Eureka, CA. Soon after that, I was water baptized. I began taking correspondence courses from the AOC Bearean School of the Bible. By 1978, I began my formal educational journey at Bethel Bible College, an AOG college in Santa Cruz, CA when C.M. Ward was President. Since that time, I have acquired many educational goals.

I'm Assemblies of GOD, and our position is clear,... we are sealed with The Holy Spirit at regeneration, then filled with Him post regeneration,... 2 separate events, 2 different experiences. This accords with the examples in Acts where the disciples were asked if they received The Holy Spirit after believing, and then received the filling with tongues or prophesying when hands were laid upon them.

I know the AOG position, but it needs to be reworked. There are too many contradictions. A Pentecostal first coined the Partial-Reception term in the early 80s. I do believe it describes the AOG position quite well. Yes. the AOG teaches two separate events. I do as well. However, consistent hermeneutical application of all Scriptures regarding this topic does not agree that when one is indwelt with the Holy Spirit at regeneration, nor sealed with the Holy Spirit at regeneration.

I still teach two separate events, and I disagree with the nature of those events.

Probably your position is mired from old translations such as the kjv.

No, my position is mired in Greek, but I understand why being dismissive is necessary.

Blessings

 

[ARBITER01]

Hi,

Is this not a Pentecostal AND an Assemblies of God forum? Yes.

I can understand your reaction. Many Pentecostals are dismissive when other Pentecostals challenge a core belief system. However, that does not mean one does not understand a particular doctrinal perspective. Since you claim I do not understand the AOG perspective, I will share some background. I was radically converted in 1974 at an Assemblies Church in Eureka, CA. Soon after that, I was water baptized. I began taking correspondence courses from the AOC Bearean School of the Bible. By 1978, I began my formal educational journey at Bethel Bible College, an AOG college in Santa Cruz, CA when C.M. Ward was President. Since that time, I have acquired many educational goals.

You do know that academics have a relationship with their bible, not GOD, right? You trust people's opinions instead of The Holy Spirit and His leading. I don't see how posting your worldly accomplishments does you much good here, but hey, I guess someone out there needs to know it, right?

I know the AOG position, but it needs to be reworked. There are too many contradictions. A Pentecostal first coined the Partial-Reception term in the early 80s. I do believe it describes the AOG position quite well. Yes. the AOG teaches two separate events. I do as well. However, consistent hermeneutical application of all Scriptures regarding this topic does not agree that when one is indwelt with the Holy Spirit at regeneration, nor sealed with the Holy Spirit at regeneration.

I still teach two separate events, and I disagree with the nature of those events.


No, my position is mired in Greek, but I understand why being dismissive is necessary.

Blessings

The only "reworking" of our position is the terminology. We are only Spiritually immersed/baptized at our regeneration/born anew moment, otherwise there is no other Spiritual immersion. We can receive a biblical "filling" afterwards with the accompanying gifts if each of us seeks it from GOD, but there is no second "baptism of The Holy Spirit" as people in my denomination love to say.

That is the only change that needs to happen, and I don't foresee it happening any time soon, people are too quick to mention the second experience that way. Bad habits are hard to break.

 

[Hermeneutico]

You do know that academics have a relationship with their bible, not GOD, right? You trust people's opinions instead of The Holy Spirit and His leading. I don't see how posting your worldly accomplishments does you much good here, but hey, I guess someone out there needs to know it, right?

I would expect that answer. However, it is a logical fallacy. One does not discount the other. The most educated Apostle was the one God used to write most of the New Testament. God, the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Bible, had it written in specific languages, genres, figures of speech, etc... Many uneducated use the Holy Spirit as an excuse to violate Greek grammar (that the Holy Spirit inspired to have written) and come up with all kinds of weird theological ideas. Putting a premium on not having a theological education does not mean one is following the leading of the Holy Spirit. In my many years of ministry, I have found many are following themselves under the pretense of being led by the Holy Spirit.

Besides, I was not pointing to my educational background. I was pointing to my awareness of the positions being taught. It is essential to understand the context of what a person is saying.

The only "reworking" of our position is the terminology. We are only Spiritually immersed/baptized at our regeneration/born anew moment, otherwise there is no other Spiritual immersion. We can receive a biblical "filling" afterwards with the accompanying gifts if each of us seeks it from GOD, but there is no second "baptism of The Holy Spirit" as people in my denomination love to say.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. It is more than terminology. When one is born anew or regenerated, one does not receive the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That concept does not agree with Scripture. When one is baptized with the Holy Spirit, this event is when one receives the Holy Spirit Himself - His Indwelling. Separating the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit from the baptism with the Holy Spirit is inconsistent with the entire New Testament teaching.

 

[ARBITER01]

When one is born anew or regenerated, one does not receive the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That concept does not agree with Scripture. When one is baptized with the Holy Spirit, this event is when one receives the Holy Spirit Himself - His Indwelling. Separating the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit from the baptism with the Holy Spirit is inconsistent with the entire New Testament teaching.

You're teaching a controversial position that is outside of this forum. Attempting to say that when one is born again they are not given The Holy Spirit at that very point is false.

 

[Hermeneutico]

You're teaching a controversial position that is outside of this forum. Attempting to say that when one is born again they are not given The Holy Spirit at that very point is false.

Actually, it is the historical position of ancient Church for the First Thousand years of Christianity.

It is technically more controversial to teach a novel two part reception of the Holy Spirit. That was introduced by some early Pentecostals in their attempt to understand what was taken place.

As a Trinitarian Pentecostal, I disagree with the popular Pentecostal Position, as do other Pentecostals. So, all Pentecostals in this forum must agree with the AOG perspective?

 

[ARBITER01]

Actually, it is the historical position of ancient Church for the First Thousand years of Christianity.

It is technically more controversial to teach a novel two part reception of the Holy Spirit. That was introduced by some early Pentecostals in their attempt to understand what was taken place.

As a Trinitarian Pentecostal, I disagree with the popular Pentecostal Position, as do other Pentecostals. So, all Pentecostals in this forum must agree with the AOG perspective?

You and I will not get very far on this.

Trying to hold onto some historical position that equates to a born again experience minus The Holy Spirit won't go over well with many people in Christianity, not just on here. I don't know anyone in Christianity who was truly born again by the blood of Jesus that somehow managed to keep their uncontrolled sinful nature. The sealing of The Holy Spirit was to remove this sinful nature and give us His instead. We are made into His likeness, and that means we are just as much a child of The Holy Spirit at our rebirth as He was born in the world.

You're doctrinal position on this is flawed, not just false.

 

[Hermeneutico]

You and I will not get very far on this.

I don't know if that matters. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just stating what I believe is hermeneutically correct.

Trying to hold onto some historical position that equates to a born again experience minus The Holy Spirit won't go over well with many people in Christianity, not just on here.

1. I didn't say that the Holy Spirit isn't involved with being born again. It is important to not read into my position.

2. Perhaps you are not aware that ther are 23 different theological positions concerning the baptism wit/in/by the Holy Spirit.

3. FYI: This Christoan Forum includes Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox. Lutherans teach that one receives the Holy Spirit SIMULTANEOUSLY with water baptism. The Eastern Orthodox believe one receives the Gift of the Holy Spirit at Chrismation - AFTER a person is water baprized.

I don't know anyone in Christianity who was truly born again by the blood of Jesus that somehow managed to keep their uncontrolled sinful nature.

This has nothing to do with what I teach.

The sealing of The Holy Spirit was to remove this sinful nature and give us His instead.

Scripture nowhere teaches that sealing equates to receiving His Nature.

Second Peter 1:3–4 says, “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire” (ESV).

The verse plainly says that believers are made “partakers of the divine nature” through God’s promises

We are made into His likeness, and that means we are just as much a child of The Holy Spirit at our rebirth as He was born in the world.

We are children of God when we are born again. We are justified by faith. We are not justified by the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

You're doctrinal position on this is flawed, not just false.

Actually, if one uses conservative Biblical Hermeneutics, it is a more consistent perspective, having less points of contention than any other position.

 

[ARBITER01]

This has nothing to do with what I teach.

It has everything to do with what you teach.

We are born into a sinful nature from Adam at birth, but that sinful nature that dominates us throughout our lifetime is removed and replaced with a divine nature from Jesus when we are born again. The very reason we are no longer dominated by sin in our lives from that point on is because of The Holy Spirit placed in us as the promise of redemption,...

Eph 1:13 in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,––in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory.

You are teaching that we retain this inherited sinful nature at regeneration,.... and that is a flawed and false position according to scripture right there. That's what you get for trusting men and their opinions instead of properly searching things out with GOD.

 

[Hermeneutico]

It has everything to do with what you teach.

No, it has everything to do with misrepresenting what I teach.

We are born into a sinful nature from Adam at birth, but that sinful nature that dominates us throughout our lifetime is removed and replaced with a divine nature from Jesus when we are born again. The very reason we are no longer dominated by sin in our lives from that point on is because of The Holy Spirit placed in us as the promise of redemption,...

No conservative theologian on this planet teaches that man's sinful nature has been removed when man is born again. Here is one example from a conservative evangelical website:

"We will have a sinful nature until death. We don’t lose our sin nature once we receive Christ. The Bible says that sin remains in us and that a struggle with that old nature will continue as long as we are in this world. Paul bemoaned his own personal struggle in Romans 7:15–25. But we have help in the battle—divine help. The Spirit of God takes up residence in each believer and supplies the power we need to overcome the pull of the sin nature within us. “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:9). God’s ultimate plan for us is total sanctification when we see Christ (1 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 John 3:2).

Through His finished work on the cross, Jesus satisfied God’s wrath against sin and provided believers with victory over their sin nature: “‘He himself bore our sins’ in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24). In His resurrection, Jesus offers life to everyone bound by corrupt flesh. Those who are born again now have this command: “Count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:11)."

gotquestions.org/sin-nature.html

Eph 1:13 in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,––in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory.

You are teaching that we retain this inherited sinful nature at regeneration,.... and that is a flawed and false position.

You are the only person I have ever read in my over forty years of studying theology that said it is a flawed position to teach that we retain our sinful nature. Additionally, Ephesians 1:13 does not support your conclusion at all. If you really think it does, please exegete each phrase for me. I read Greek, and I do not see what you are reading at all.

Blessings

 

[ARBITER01]

No conservative theologian on this planet teaches that man's sinful nature has been removed when man is born again. Here is one example from a conservative evangelical website:

I could care less what theologians and scholars teach. A majority of them don't even have a right relationship with Jesus, let alone have The Holy Spirit teaching them, they rely on other people's opinions instead of GOD and His truth He reveals.

You are the only person I have ever read in my over forty years of studying theology that said it is a flawed position to teach that we retain our sinful nature. Additionally, Ephesians 1:13 does not support your conclusion at all. If you really think it does, please exegete each phrase for me. I read Greek, and I do not see what you are reading at all.

The scripture section I posted in Ephesians is quite clear we are sealed with The Holy Spirit after hearing the word of truth and believing. I'm not sure this really needs to go any further with you.

 

[Hermeneutico]

I could care less what theologians and scholars teach. A majority of them don't even have a right relationship with Jesus, let alone have The Holy Spirit teaching them, they rely on other people's opinions instead of GOD and His truth He reveals.



The scripture section I posted in Ephesians is quite clear we are sealed with The Holy Spirit after hearing the word of truth and believing. I'm not sure this really needs to go any further with you.

The Greek Aorist Participle used in verse 13 teaches plainly that the Indwelling/Gift of the Holy Spirit is given AFTER believing, not SIMILTANEOUS to believing.

The Holy Spirit doesn't agree with you, it seems.

 

[ARBITER01]

The Greek Aorist Participle used in verse 13 teaches plainly that the Indwelling/Gift of the Holy Spirit is given AFTER believing, not SIMILTANEOUS to believing.

The Holy Spirit doesn't agree with you, it seems.

The text from the Revised Version I use says: "having also believed" in that section of Ephesians I quoted from it. I used the word "believing" in my statement, as in it was a done deal, you are now a believer.

Is English giving you a problem?

 

[Hermeneutico]

The text from the Revised Version I use says: "having also believed" in that section of Ephesians I quoted from it. I used the word "believing" in my statement, as in it was a done deal, you are now a believer.

Is English giving you a problem?

I'm just clarifying the Greek. Do you have a problem with the language the Holy Spirit used to write the New Testament.

 

[ARBITER01]

I'm just clarifying the Greek. Do you have a problem with the language the Holy Spirit used to write the New Testament.

It seems you didn't understand me, or assumed something that made you look bad once I corrected you.

We can go round and round on this, I suggest we part ways.

 

[Hermeneutico]

It seems you didn't understand me, or assumed something that made you look bad once I corrected you.

We can go round and round on this, I suggest we part ways.

I'll trust my knowledge of Greek through the Holy Spirit over your private interpretation... so yes, I suggest we part ways.

Blessings

 

[ARBITER01]

I'll trust my knowledge of Greek through the Holy Spirit over your private interpretation... so yes, I suggest we part ways.

Blessings

lol, whatever buddy.