The Difference Between the PCI of the Merger and the Current Counterfeits

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by rrford

But is it optional for salvation or not? Can one be saved without it?

Define your it, the confusion is in the details.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Theophilus

That is your choice.

Check out the Greek, Jesus said nothing of the wind. It's a misinterpretation. The topic of the passage is Spirit, Jesus never deviated from it with His word use.

The word interpretted wind, is the same word Jesus was using for Spirit. The only ones that go off on some wind tangent are the nonSpirit filled interpreters that didn't get it. The Greek word for bloweth refers to breathing.

Joh 20:22 - And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Yet they didn't receive the Holy Ghost until Pentecost. This was a simple forshadowing.

Back to John 3:8, The word for sound is the Greek word for voice.

He's talking to Nicodemus about a voice that you can't understand that you hear. So is everyone born of the Spirit. We've seen it ever since Pentecost.

I'm sure that God touched your life at an early age, but we see evidence of such a thing in the Word even when people didn't receive the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. God Bless, Theo.

It's not so much a matter of personal choice. It's a matter of properly dividing the Word. This is a responsibility that has been given to us and one I take seriously so whatever decision I make as to what I do and don't believe scripture is saying has to be made in regard and in sync with what the Scripture is actually saying.

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

How can we know when the Spirit is moving or blowing? Because we hear it/Him and we feel it/Him. I certainly felt the wind/pneuma many many times before I became baptized in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues. People knew that I was feeling the Spirit because of the way I reacted to Him moving on me. It was evident.

I don't think that this "wind" or "pneuma" is referring to speaking in tongues although tongues is definitely one of the proofs of Spirit infilling and definitely the initial evidence.

Acts 2:2 says that there was the sound of a mighty rushing or violent wind that filled the place where the 120 were sitting but that happened and the sound and effect of the wind was heard and seen before anybody spoke in tongues.

Speaking in tongues was evidence that the Spirit had come and filled the disciples, but the Spirit of God was already present and moving and evident before that happened.

Hope this helps explain my understanding of what that scripture is saying even if you don't agree. It's okay if you disagree with me but I really and seriously don't want to be wrong or amiss in regard to what I believe Scripture is saying. I want to get it right!

It's so important to get it right!

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Theophilus

Hey Daniel, you can argue all night and maybe that is what the restless spirit wants and perhaps needs, but in the end you can't argue with Jesus.

John 3:5 - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

This verse does not confirm the OP version of Spirit birth.

[Brett Prince]

The official observer stands slack-jawed, but uncompromised...

I still believe what I believe.

This is the most interesting thread I have seen on here, the in-between, NFCF, and maybe FCF--for a long while.

Bravo, CS. Bravo, TB. Bravo DA. Thanks for making interesting (and you others that I didn't mention.)

[Brett Prince]

Originally Posted by crakjak

This verse does not confirm the OP version of Spirit birth.

Absolutely correct. It simply teaches that all who are born of the Spirit will hear voice of the Lord.

But, it does not confirm the PCI perspective, either. I personally think this Scripture is a moot point for this debate.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by crakjak

This verse does not confirm the OP version of Spirit birth.

I've always wondered why John 3:3 automatically equates certain things .....??? Just me???

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

Or their back bruised from the poundings...

Come on Ronz, I precieve that thou protest too much.

Originally Posted by crakjak

This verse does not confirm the OP version of Spirit birth.

One man's opinion. The OP's agree with it, Jesus led me to it, I experienced it. Go where you want to.

Again, hard to argue with Jesus, but many will try...all will fail.

Jesus said it, if you are not born of the Spirit, you will NOT make it.

Should we be so suprised that he clarifies to Nicodemus just how that happens a couple of verses later?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Theophilus

One man's opinion. The OP's agree with it, Jesus led me to it, I experienced it. Go where you want to.

Again, hard to argue with Jesus, but many will try...all will fail.

Jesus said it, if you are not born of the Spirit, you will NOT make it.

Should we be so suprised that he clarifies to Nicodemus just how that happens a couple of verses later?

Theo ... not all OP's .... Jesus is the gate ... and no one wants to argue with him ... but please .... examine regeneration from more than John 3 and Acts 2:38

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

Absolutely correct. It simply teaches that all who are born of the Spirit will hear voice of the Lord.

But, it does not confirm the PCI perspective, either. I personally think this Scripture is a moot point for this debate.

It teaches that all will hear that voice. How? Through who?

Through the one that is being born again of the Spirit. Jesus takes that tongue and does what he will with it. You hear that voice, but you can't tell where he's coming from with it, nor where he's going with it.

We've seen this ever since Pentecost. Spiritual Baptism. Required.