Saved WithOut The Holy Ghost ?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Br. Norris also taught a form of the light doctrine or something called the rightous the wicked and the holy

The "holy, righteous, and wicked" doctrine gives "wiggle room."

It allows a preacher to emphatically say that a person is not saved or is not a child of God without experiencing the two commands and one promise of Acts 2:38 but it leaves "wiggle room" so they don't have to say all of those who have not experienced those three experiences will go to Hell.

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Yes, Dan...that's exactly right....he fails to see how the gospel is succinctly taught here by Paul in (Romans 3:21-31)



But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

I love the message above.....that sweet gospel message!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Joelel

We find to receive him and believe is the same as being filled with the Holy Ghost.If a person is filled they receive the power to become a son of God when the Holy Ghost comes on them.

John.1
[12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

1John.5
[1] Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Yes ... receiving him, the Holy Spirit and Word Incarnate, through faith as our Savior, Sanctifier, and Lord .... results in our regeneration ... BEING BORN OF GOD ... OR OF THE SPIRIT..

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

What is your point for bringing up that it was addressed to the church if it is not to imply that its words are not for sinners?

Acts was written to Theophilus....do you negate it because it was addressed to him?

If it is not to imply that....then what does mentioning who it was addressed to have to do with the price of chicken?

J-Roc, you are soooooooo far out in left field with that I'm almost dumbstruck. I'm tired of you and others distorting the clearly meaning of my posts, and then telling me what I'm "implying". Your question will get no further response than that.

Either you're not paying attention, or you're really, really just not getting it. It's as if you're seeing what you want to see. So suit yourself, then, brother.

Blessings...

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

J-Roc, you are soooooooo far out in left field with that I'm almost dumbstruck. I'm tired of you and others distorting the clearly meaning of my posts, and then telling me what I'm "implying". Your question will get no further response than that.

Either you're not paying attention, or you're really, really just not getting it. It's as if you're seeing what you want to see. So suit yourself, then, brother.

Blessings...

You make me chuckle...

What's your purpose if it is not to dismiss the fact that the gospel message is found in the book of Romans? You'd like for everyone to think that we can only find the gospel message in the historical book of Acts. Gospel in a box neatly fitted in one verse in the 2nd chapter. It reminds me of the pledge of allegiance robotically recited at BOTT 2007 as led by A.M. to his choir.


Yet, what do you call this in Romans 3?


But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

SO TR..are you saying that the "filling of the spirit" is different from the receiving of the spirit that John said wasn't happening yet.

You see how i and others say there is a difference in being "filled with the spirit" and having received Christs spirit thru faith at repentance.

Two different things Having Christ dwelling in your life and being filled with the spirit are distinctly different experiences.

I've already dealt with that bro, in great detail, as a matter of fact.

....Earlier in this thread, if you want to go look.

[TRFrance]

Ok, Dan, once again the actual facts on the ground interfere with your theory/doctrine.
Your doctrinal carelessness is catching up to you again. First, lets briefly recap:

#1 --- You were already caught on the John 20 reference, claiming that the disciples received the Holy Ghost then, when its clear from scripture that they first received it on the day of Pentecost.
#2--- You were caught again when you used Rev 3:20 as proof that Jesus immediately comes into the heart of any believer that comes to him… (you were shown point blank that Rev 3:20 that is a non-salvation related passage,e not having anything to do with the topic at hand, because Jesus was talking about the Laodicean Christians , not about sinners receiving the salvation message)

Using non-salvation-related passages as key scriptures to establish or support your position on salvation doctrine (which is what you were doing) is just bad practice, to put it mildly. ..


Anyway.. this brings us to #3. Here we’ll see another example of the doctrinal sloppiness you keep demonstrating, which makes you less and less credible every time it reveals itself.

Watch real closely, D.
Lets start off with your own words here.

You say that John 7:39 should read The Holy Ghost was not yet [come], rather than “not yet given”.
As you say, in the original, it simply reads “the Holy Ghost was not yet” so the word “given” is supplied by translators, based on the verse’s context, for clarity’s sake. Fine. Understood, and agreed. After examining it in the original, I also believe it could also read “the Holy Ghost was not yet [manifested]”, but either word, I think, could still maintain the essential meaning of the text.


But for the sake of fitting it into your doctrine, you prefer (and almost insist on) using the word “come” in this context. It’s not that important for me to insist on using the word “come” or “given” in this passage, but obviously, it’s important to you, because of the [doctrinal] agenda you have in mind. But let’s follow along, and watch as you trip yourself up, in your careless zeal.

Anyway, to support your position further, you add this, from a Bible Commentary, the John Gill Exposition of the Bible:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given];

the word "given" is not in the original text; but is very properly supplied, as it is in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions. The Arabic version renders it, "for the Holy Ghost was not yet come";

he was; he was in being as a divine person, equal with the Father and Son, so he was from everlasting; and he had been bestowed in his grace upon the Old Testament saints, and rested in his gifts upon the prophets of that dispensation; but, as the Jews themselves confess F6,
``after the death of the latter prophets, Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi, the Holy Ghost removed from Israel.''
And they expressly say, be was not there in the time of the second temple. Maimonides says F7,
``they made the Urim and Thummim in the second temple, to complete the eight garments (of the priests) though they did not inquire by them; and why did they not inquire by them? because the Holy Ghost was not there; and every priest that does not speak by the Holy Ghost, and the Shekinah, does not dwell upon him, they do not inquire by him.''
They observeF8 there were five things in the first temple which were not in the second, and they are these,
``the ark with the mercy seat, and cherubim, the fire (from heaven), and the Shekinah, (vdwqh xwrw) , "and the Holy Ghost", and the Urim and Thummim.''
Now, though he had removed, he was to return again; but as yet the time was not come, at least for the more plentiful donation of him:

DAN…ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this here.
You choose to appeal to a commentary writer, who in turn relies on non-scriptural Jewish writings of people like Maimonides (a 12th century Jewish philosopher) ?? Please, STOP THE MADNESS!! Now you see why, over and over I keep saying you’re killing your own credibility. There’s a reason the non-scriptural Jewish writings, (Apocrypha, Talmud, etc), are not part of the Bible. I’m not even going to bother explaining that. I’m assuming you already know; or at least you should.

Nothing in the bible teaches that the Holy Ghost had left Israel after Malachi.( If there was indeed scripture for that, you would have used it, instead of relying on commentaries, and extra-biblical Jewish writers and philosophers.)

But after all that, you’ve built a case that doesn’t hold up to even the most basic scrutiny.

So let’s cut to the chase here…

First of all, does the scripture ever say that the Holy Ghost left after the death of Malachi? NO. It’s supposition at best; and man-made doctrine. But you choose to embrace that belief because you feel it fits into your doctrine.

But here’s the other problem. You’re saying the Holy Ghost left after Malachi, and had “not yet come” (i.e. not yet returned to Israel) at that point in time referred to in John 7:39.

But the Bible says the Holy Ghost had come upon Elizabeth and Zechariah in Luke 1, which of course, wasafter Malachi and before Jesus was even born! So, what’s the deal? Did the Holy Ghost leave after Malachi, come back briefly in Luke 1, and then leave again? That’s the only scenario that would fit the position you’re trying to teach here, ---that the HG was going to “come” back after having left Israel after the death of Malachi.

I think you might want to go back to the lab ...


...and work on that part of your doctrine, sir, since I see that you’re committed to advocating the PCI doctrine (that is, the Lite Version of the Gospel)

See, Dan… what you’ve done is gone again and pulled something out of some Commentary somewhere to support your point, and you don’t even see how you end up undercutting your own position and contradicting scripture in the process.

IMHO, you might want to spend more time in the Bible and less time in some of these Bible Commentaries. Your doctrinal sloppiness and lack of attention to detail is really showing itself. You’re trying so hard to support this PCI doctrine, that you’ll find whatever you can to support it.

Meanwhile I notice you have a tendency to try and sidestep the stuff that clearly shoots right through the heart of the doctrine you seem to love so much.

Anyway...have a great day, sir.
And meanwhile, have another sip of that PCI- Kool-aid !! LOL





.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

This is a very well laid out post, brother. Good work.

Thanks drummerboy.
(I meant to acknowledge your post earlier on.)

Anyway, this gives me an excuse/opportunity
to put up one of my favorite funny pictures:

[SDG]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Ok, Dan, once again the actual facts on the ground interfere with your theory/doctrine.
.

You're getting whooped duke, 'fess up ....

you couldn't handle it last nite ... so you whimpered.

That last post ... shows the antics of a prancing, hee-hawing, washed-up, prize fighter whose just been stung and knees buckled....

This discussion on the John 7:20 as prooftext to salvific tongues or "receiving the HG" ...

and reconciling it w/ your sacramentarian re-enactment doctrine, Grasshopper, is plain holey ...

1. in the misuse of a translated word that is not there
2. a confusing theology that mistakes glorification w/ ascension
3. inability to harmonize your salvific works-based pattern w/ the book of Acts in all instances and faith-based doctrine taught in the Epistles and Gospels.

For more on John 7:20 and it's ramifications w/ Christ's glorification and the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in us ... go to the following thread:

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=10503

Kudos on the flailing verbal energy ... but you got to work on the power behind your anemic unsubstantive haymakers.

[Sam]

Dan and TR France,

Why does this have to be about winning an argument or putting one another down?

There are obviously differences of opinion among us here on AFF on:
when a person is saved;
whether or not there is a difference between being born of the Spirit and being baptized in the Spirit;
whether folks were indwelt by the Spirit before Pentecost in Acts chapter 2;
whether sins are forgiven before or after water baptism;
and other things.

These differences of opinion on AFF represent differences of opinion among Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals. We're all in God's family. We're all brothers and sisters. Can't we just give an opinion without resorting to some of the things we say to one another here?