born of water

[Sean]

Yes. You mentioned Titus 3:5 and we (Sean and I) have debated this passage on other threads. You, Sean, are adamant that this passage is speaking of water baptism because the word "washing" is there. I, however, do not believe this verse has anything to do with water baptism. It is by His Mercy that the Spirit washes us and regenerates us, not by works we have done. If one understands Titus 3:5 without wrongfully inserting "water baptism" into it, you can say with confidence that yes, "the Spirit remits sins!!!" QUOTE OBRIENCP




Please show me a passage that says the Holy Ghost remits sins.

(and dont use this verse!!!...38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins.)...LOL

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Sean

Yes. You mentioned Titus 3:5 and we (Sean and I) have debated this passage on other threads. You, Sean, are adamant that this passage is speaking of water baptism because the word "washing" is there. I, however, do not believe this verse has anything to do with water baptism. It is by His Mercy that the Spirit washes us and regenerates us, not by works we have done. If one understands Titus 3:5 without wrongfully inserting "water baptism" into it, you can say with confidence that yes, "the Spirit remits sins!!!" QUOTE OBRIENCP




Please show me a passage that says the Holy Ghost remits sins.




(and dont use this verse!!!...38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins.)...LOL

I personally do not say that the Spirit baptism remits sins. The word remit simply means to forgive as in forgive a debt owed. I believe that part happens normatively at baptism. God forgives and us reckons us righteous based on the merits of Christ. Then at Spirit baptism he literally cleanses us from the effects of sin in our inner man, our conscience. Because he reckoned us righteous when we were baptized by faith, he can then restore unto us that which Adam forfeited thus making us (as opposed to reckoning) righteous. He breathes into us that which was breathed into Adam and was later lost due to sin.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That seems to be speaking more about old versus new rather than sinful versus pure.

But, isn't that the conversation Jesus is having with the Pharisees? Luke speaks of repent/repentance more than any of the other Gospels.

Luke 5:21 "And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?"

Aren't they aware this "new" being presented is about repentance?

The "old v. new" is about "sinful v. pure"? Isn't it?

[shazeep]

i sure thought so, at least in the context...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

But, isn't that the conversation Jesus is having with the Pharisees? Luke speaks of repent/repentance more than any of the other Gospels.

Luke 5:21 "And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?"

Aren't they aware this "new" being presented is about repentance?

The "old v. new" is about "sinful v. pure"? Isn't it?

When it comes to new wine and old bottles I think Jesus is speaking to the pharisees abotu the difference between disciples of John and His own. It pointed at fasting.

Luk 5:33-39 KJV And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink? (34) And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? (35) But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days. (36) And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. (37) And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. (38) But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. (39) No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Times were changing. The Church was not in effect yet until Acts 2. When the bridegroom was taken in the ascension, then the church would fast and pray. But the changeover of times was occurring, depicted by the old bottles referring to people still under the old covenant as opposed to the new covenant life of the wine inside such people. Not until the Holy Ghost made the old bottles new, after the Lord went away to sit on the throne to shed forth that Spirit, did the new wine come with the true reasons the church should fast then in place. But not before.

It was a contrast between NEW COVENANT people and OLD. Getting the disciples of Christ to fast before the bridegroom departed shows the fasting of the church was associated with the time AFTER the new birth experience began. And until then, the OLD DAY of Law was still in effect. So, I think it's more of Old ways versus New ways between Law and Grace that is contrasted.

[Hesetmefree238]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The blood is never said to be applied at any given point in particular compared to other points in salvation. I don't know who started the idea otherwise. It's certainly not biblical any more than God being unable to dwell in an unclean temple is biblical.

The blood being applied is a figurative term that simply refers to when an individual first begins to receive the redemptive benefits (sins forgiven, cleansing, pardon, etc....) of the blood of Christ. I believe this happen when we repent and trust in Christ's redemptive sacrifice as an atonement for our sins. I don't believe anyone can be filled with the Holy Ghost without the application of the blood as I mentioned earlier. I do agree with you in that the application of the blood is an ongoing process as you referenced in 1 John 1:7, the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (cleanseth refers to an ongoing process)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Hesetmefree238

The blood being applied is a figurative term that simply refers to when an individual first begins to receive the redemptive benefits (sins forgiven, cleansing, pardon, etc....) of the blood of Christ. I believe this happen when we repent and trust in Christ's redemptive sacrifice as an atonement for our sins. I don't believe anyone can be filled with the Holy Ghost without the application of the blood as I mentioned earlier. I do agree with you in that the application of the blood is an ongoing process as you referenced in 1 John 1:7, the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (cleanseth refers to an ongoing process)

It STARTS at repentance, yes. But, as you agreed, it is ONGOING.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

When it comes to new wine and old bottles I think Jesus is speaking to the pharisees abotu the difference between disciples of John and His own. It pointed at fasting.

Luk 5:33-39 KJV And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink? (34) And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? (35) But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days. (36) And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. (37) And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. (38) But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. (39) No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Times were changing. The Church was not in effect yet until Acts 2. When the bridegroom was taken in the ascension, then the church would fast and pray. But the changeover of times was occurring, depicted by the old bottles referring to people still under the old covenant as opposed to the new covenant life of the wine inside such people. Not until the Holy Ghost made the old bottles new, after the Lord went away to sit on the throne to shed forth that Spirit, did the new wine come with the true reasons the church should fast then in place. But not before.

It was a contrast between NEW COVENANT people and OLD. Getting the disciples of Christ to fast before the bridegroom departed shows the fasting of the church was associated with the time AFTER the new birth experience began. And until then, the OLD DAY of Law was still in effect. So, I think it's more of Old ways versus New ways between Law and Grace that is contrasted.

Thanks for the response. I have a few more questions, but I need to study a little more to pose them to you.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Sean

Because my brother...the Name of Jesus is SACRED, PRECIOUS, POWERFUL, SALVATION, HEALING, GLORIOUS, DEMON CASTING....etc,

How can ANYONE refer to the Name that is above every name as MAGIC or MYSTICAL and say they are walking in the Spirit? Look at this verse...
Phil 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;


I heard a man once call the Name of Jesus "our little magical formula" in a water baptism debate(he was baptist). This sent cold chills down my spine!!!

You are essentially saying the same thing, yet you are Pentecostal. Sorry bro., calling the name of my savior "magic" or "incantation" or "mystical" or any other derogatory term is not a good position for a Christian to take.

If the name is that important, why don't you use Yeshua?

[houston]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Let me clarify. I'd say that normatively one would indeed invoke the name of Jesus when confronting a demon. But personally I would do so by informing him from the start that I am a disciple of Jesus Christ endowed with authority to cast out devils. After that there would be no need to repeat over and over "in the name of Jesus!" which can itself become vain repetition.

You're going to have a conversation with the demon? If you have the authority to cast it out you should be able to tell it to "go" and it would leave.