Check out some similar questions!

Tj3 · May 16, 2009, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by arcura

Tje,
Wrong!!!
The Church started with the Apostles just as the bible says.
Believe as you wish but your wishes will not change historical fact.
Fred

"The Church" did, but not your denomination or any others. Yours started in the 4th century.

Now, we have been over this many times. Rather than trying to hijack this thread with denominational prejudices against Christians not of your denomination, why not let us continue to discuss the topic at hand.

arcura · May 16, 2009, 08:57 PM

Yj3, You Know very well that the Catholic Church IS The Church Jesus founded, because it has been shown to you that it is.
I know that you refuse to believe it but that does not change historical and biblical fact.
Fred

Tj3 · May 16, 2009, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by arcura

Yj3, You Know very well that the Catholic Church IS The Church Jesus founded, because it has been shown to you that it is.
I know that you refuse to believe it but that does not change historical and biblical fact.
Fred

Fred,

Jesus founded NO denomination. The RCC was founded in the 4th century.

Now would you please stop trying to hijack this thread.

arcura · May 16, 2009, 09:04 PM

Tj3,
As you have been told by many several times when Jesus founded The Church there were not denominations. Denominations came along much later in history.
Trying to label The Catholic Church as a denomination way beck the is a futile effort and is of NOT consequence.
Fred

Tj3 · May 16, 2009, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by arcura

Tj3,
As you have been told by many several times when Jesus founded The Church there were not denominations. Denominations came along much later in history.

Fred,

You can tell me, but I don't have to believe you, especially when I can read history and scripture for myself, and see what the truth is about the later date for the founding of your denomination.

Please stop hijacking the thread.

Tj3 · May 16, 2009, 09:08 PM

Back to the topic...

Originally Posted by sndbay

Clearly both, up straightway out of the water: and the heavens opens, and the Spirit of God descends like a dove, and lighting upon.

This brings up two questions.

1) Scripture says ONE baptism not two, so it cannot be both.

2) Jesus IS God and therefore did not need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, nor did the indwelling of the Holy spirit begin until after Jesus' death and resurrection. Therefore the Holy Spirit coming as a dove does not and cannot represent the same thing.

arcura · May 16, 2009, 09:10 PM

Tj3,
I HAVE read history and the bible.
That is what I stopped being a fundamentalist Protestant.
Fred

Tj3 · May 16, 2009, 09:12 PM

Fine Fred - believe as you wish - back to the topic...

Originally Posted by sndbay

Clearly both, up straightway out of the water: and the heavens opens, and the Spirit of God descends like a dove, and lighting upon.

This brings up two questions.

1) Scripture says ONE baptism not two, so it cannot be both.

2) Jesus IS God and therefore did not need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, nor did the indwelling of the Holy spirit begin until after Jesus' death and resurrection. Therefore the Holy Spirit coming as a dove does not and cannot represent the same thing.

arcura · May 16, 2009, 09:13 PM

Thanks Tom.
As I said before I WILL believe as I want to.
Fred

Tj3 · May 16, 2009, 09:14 PM

Fine Fred - believe as you wish - back to the topic...

Originally Posted by sndbay

Clearly both, up straightway out of the water: and the heavens opens, and the Spirit of God descends like a dove, and lighting upon.

This brings up two questions.

1) Scripture says ONE baptism not two, so it cannot be both.

2) Jesus IS God and therefore did not need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, nor did the indwelling of the Holy spirit begin until after Jesus' death and resurrection. Therefore the Holy Spirit coming as a dove does not and cannot represent the same thing.

sndbay · May 17, 2009, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by Tj3

This brings up two questions.

1) Scripture says ONE baptism not two, so it cannot be both.

Everyone acknowledges that Christ was baptized in water and the HOLY SPIRIT came upon HIM. That is the ONE baptism!

To say it is not, makes void the word of God.

Originally Posted by Tj3

Jesus IS God

We are to confess Jesus as the begotten Son of God (another thread)

Originally Posted by Tj3

and therefore did not need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,

You obviously have not read previous scripture in which I reference this point.

1 Corthinians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Originally Posted by Tj3

nor did the indwelling of the Holy spirit begin until after Jesus' death and resurrection. Therefore the Holy Spirit coming as a dove does not and cannot represent the same thing.

The indwelling for us, of the Spirit of Christ as one with the HOLY SPIRIT was not possible before HIS death and resurrection. However, John was filled with the Holy Spirit from the time of being in his mother's womb.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

This is all so important in understanding the works of God. The acknowledge evidence in three identities being ONE.

Tj3 · May 17, 2009, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by sndbay

Everyone acknowledges that Christ was baptized in water and the HOLY SPIRIT came upon HIM. That is the ONE baptism!

To say it is not, makes void the word of God.

Again, that is not what scripture refers to as baptism of the Holy Spirit. Indeed the person who baptizes with the Holy Spirit is Jesus. Further, that ministry of the Holy Spirit did not begin until later, and lastly, Jesus is God - are you saying that Jesus, being the God man, also needed something more of God - God needed to indwell God?

This does not make logical sense, nor is it scriptural.

You obviously have not read previous scripture in which I reference this point.

1 Corthinians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, [B][U]but by the Holy Ghost.

I read it, agree with it, but I don't see how it validates your point. Please clarify.

The indwelling for us, of the Spirit of Christ as one with the HOLY SPIRIT was not possible before HIS death and resurrection. However, John was filled with the Holy Spirit from the time of being in his mother's womb.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Agreed. But there is a difference between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the filling of the Holy Spirit. In the OT, men could be filled with the Holy Spirit for a single purpose, for example:

Ex 31:1-6
31:1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 2 "See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. 3 And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, 4 to design artistic works, to work in gold, in silver, in bronze, 5 in cutting jewels for setting, in carving wood, and to work in all manner of workmanship.
NKJV

But that is not the same as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is only after the death of Christ that we have the indwelling ministry, confirmed by Jesus Himself:

John 7:37-39
37 On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." 39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
NKJV

Now if you try to equate the OT ministry of the filling of the Holy Spirit with the NT ministry of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then you are saying that Jesus erred when He said that this had not yet happened.

Akoue · May 17, 2009, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Tj3

You are basing your argument on assumed silence. And yet we find many references to people who have been saved while subsequently being sanctified, in scripture.

I don't see how I'm basing anything on any assumed silence. Perhaps you could explain what you have in mind.

In any case, your remarks here demonstrate once again that you are firmly in the grip of the view that regards salvation--and sanctification, and your recent remarks demonstrate--as an event rather than as a process. What you say here takes it for granted that someone was saved, that his or her salvation was complete and perfected, at a particular time (say, 3:14pm on November 11, 1974) and that that person was sanctified at a particular moment after that (say 7:18am on June 9, 1982). But, as my earlier post explained, there are reasons not to regard salvation--nor of sanctification--as a punctuated event but as a process that continues throughout one's life and, indeed, into the hereafter. I would argue that we are not passive spectators but active participants in this process adding--yes, "adding--our efforts to the transformative work work undertaken in us by God's unmerited grace.

The process of sanctification begins when the process of salvation begins; they are coterminous--in fact, they are one and the same process. One's salvation is not complete until one is perfected by participation in the Divine nature in eternity. That this is not a single event but rather a process is further reflected by the fact that the NT speaks of one's salvation in past, present, and future tenses. (Were it an event, it would make no sense for Scripture to speak of it in the present and future tenses--I am being saved, language that strongly suggests a process that is underway, and I will be saved.) I would be interested to see a passage from Scripture which states that the process of sanctification begins sometime after the process of salvation begins. If you know of one, please post it. I would have thought that one cannot be sanctified without being saved and that one cannot be saved without being sanctified.

Did you notice that Peter said that he had received the Holy Spirit just as they had - so are you saying that Peter did not yet have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

Well, as I've said before, I don't know what you mean by "indwelling" and that has a lot to do with the fact that I don't think that you know what you mean by it. As you deploy it on these boards it appears to me to be little more than a facon de parler. Other than quoting a couple of NKJV verses that include the word "dwell", I've never seen you actually explain what you take it to mean.

I am therefore not in a position to give an intellectually honest response to your question. What I can say is this: There is nothing in Acts 10 that is in tension with the idea that baptism in water is baptism by the Holy Spirit, that they are not two events but are in fact one and the same event. If you take there to be some problem that I am not seeing, kindly spell it out. From the fact that Cornelius received gifts of the Holy Spirit it doesn't follow that he was baptized thereby. And the text certainly doesn't say that he was baptized thereby, so it is wrong of you to attempt to construe it thus. You are, therefore, adding to the words of Scripture. As I said in my other post, not all actions of the Holy Spirit are baptismal in nature, and this is borne out by the fact that Cornelius received the gifts of the Holy Spirit and is then baptized. Clearly, the gifts he received were not baptismal in nature. This fact is reflected by the insistence of Peter that Cornelius be baptized at once. Clearly something is conferred by baptism--to be precise, baptism in water--that Peter felt it important for Cornelius to receive.

Tj3 · May 17, 2009, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Akoue

I don't see how I'm basing anything on any assumed silence. Perhaps you could explain what you have in mind.

If you believe that scripture says that we are not saved until we are fully snctified, then show us the specific references from the Bible.

In any case, your remarks here demonstrate once again that you are firmly in the grip of the view that regards salvation--and sanctification, and your recent remarks demonstrate--as an event rather than as a process.

Actually that is not true. As I have stated before, you do an extremely poor job of trying to tell me what I must believe. Stick to defending your position, and I will look after mine - deal?

Sanctification is a process - I have never said otherwise. Now rather than trying to bring forward strawmen, how about scriptural support for your position?

Well, as I've said before, I don't know what you mean by "indwelling" and that has a lot to do with the fact that I don't think that you know what you mean by it. As you deploy it on these boards it appears to me to be little more than a facon de parler. Other than quoting a couple of NKJV verses that include the word "dwell", I've never seen you actually explain what you take it to mean.

I take it at face value, Akoue. The Holy Spirit comes to indwell the believer. I do not understand what you problem in understanding this is. Do you not understand the word indwell? Please clarify. Maybe a good book on the ministry of the Holy Spirit might be helpful to you.

There is nothing in Acts 10 that is in tension with the idea that baptism in water is baptism by the Holy Spirit, that they are not two events but are in fact one and the same event.

Other than the fact that the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at an entirely different time, and before water baptism.

Akoue · May 17, 2009, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Tj3

"The Church" did, but not your denomination or any others. Yours started in the 4th century.

Now, we have been over this many times.

We have indeed been over it many times, this for the reason that you keep bringing it up. Now you have been shown many times to be in error regarding this pseudo-historical claim and yet you persistently insert it into discussions. I can only think that you do it for its shock-value, as a purely polemical maneuver that is and is intended to be sheer demagoguery.

Your historical claims have been systematically refuted. I have posted the names of several prominent and highly respected historians whose work gives the lie to your assertion that the Roman Catholic Church started in the fourth century, this for the benefit of people who may want to look into it one their own. Despite repeated invitations to do so, you have to date refused to post the names of prominent and highly respected historians of Christianity whose work supports your contention. You have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to vindicate your assertion--an assertion which is calibrated to elicit a response--and you have doggedly refused to provide any bibliographic support for it. Now you are big on giving credit to the work of others. You claim to have found this assertion defended in the work of prominent and reputable scholars. How about if you post names and titles here, in the interests of giving appropriate credit to the work of others, work from which you claim to have come by your belief that the RCC stared in the fourth century. If you'd rather not post it on this thread, you can just PM it to me. That way you won't be guilty of failing to acknowledge and give credit to the scholarly work of others.

Perhaps once I've had a chance to read them and acquaint myself with their arguments I can open a thread in the discussion forum where we can have a detailed conversation about the merits of your view. As I say, just post the bibliographic info here or, if you worry about hijacking the thread, just PM it to me. That should move things along nicely on this particular front. I look forward to seeing the stuff you've read.

Tj3 · May 17, 2009, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Akoue

We have indeed been over it many times, this for the reason that you keep bringing it up.

No, you have claimed many times that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. That is not compelling. If you think that you are right, then you must prove your position as anyone else. We even had a thread (maybe more than one) on this topic.

In any case, hijacking yet another thread with the effort to force your denominational teachings on others is not appropriate. Please stay on topic. Start another thread if you wish.

Wondergirl · May 17, 2009, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Tj3

If you think that you are right, then you must prove your position as anyone else. We even had a thread (maybe more than one) on this topic.

That position has been proven over and over again with more than adequate support. The only person who has not proven and supported his position is you.

Tj3 · May 17, 2009, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

That position has been proven over and over again with more than adequate support. The only person who has not proven and supported his position is you.

Your opinion is noted - but it remains solely that - your opinion. Knowing your beliefs on the topic, I'd be surprised if you said anything else.

Tj3 · May 17, 2009, 12:57 PM

Let's see if we can get back on topic...