Someone please define 1 step and 3 step theology!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

That's been addressed here many times before.

What people had previously was not the same Holy Ghost experience as what the NT church later received.

John himself said the Holy Ghost would not be given until after Jesus was glorified.

John 7:39: The Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.

In the Old Testament people were moved, filled, and energized by the Spirit. The Spirit is said to have been in them and to have come upon them. Under the New Testament we have all of that but we also have an experience called a baptism in the Spirit. Both John the baptizer and Jesus spoke of an experience in the Spirit that is similar to baptism in water.

Also, in the Old Testament, the work of the Spirit seems to be limited to certain people, places, and conditions whereas in the New Testament the work of the Holy Spirit is available to anyone at any time and in any place.

The New Testament is the day, age (or dispensation) of the Holy Spirit.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

hmmm, . . . repentance is a turning away from our sinful nature and turning towards God. This isn't a work but a change in our hearts. I believe repentance is separate from faith but also that true faith in God will result in repentance. We can't repent until after we have faith.

I do not disagree! My point was in the world of theology to many they are clearly seperate and one can be saved without repentance.


I will say though I have to disagree that repentance is not a work. A response to God is always a work/choice. People are so afraid of the term work it's sad. Different meaning of work and applications! I can say both one is saved by works and one is not saved by works and they both be true. It's what is meant by works and the context. Just like I can say law saves and law does not save.... context

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Sam

In the Old Testament people were moved, filled, and energized by the Spirit. The Spirit is said to have been in them and to have come upon them. Under the New Testament we have all of that but we also have an experience called a baptism in the Spirit. Both John the baptizer and Jesus spoke of an experience in the Spirit that is similar to baptism in water.

Also, in the Old Testament, the work of the Spirit seems to be limited to certain people, places, and conditions whereas in the New Testament the work of the Holy Spirit is available to anyone at any time and in any place.

The New Testament is the day, age (or dispensation) of the Holy Spirit.

In part I would agree... There is a difference though in the relationship to the Spirit than before. The Spirit was not on the hearts of man like now. Otherwise Jer 31:31-33 is contradictory.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Ok so the bible lies when it states Elizabeth was filled with the Holyghost?

Of course not.
It's about context, sir.

Lemme ask you this... using your logic.... does the bible lie in John 7:39 when it says "THE HOLY GHOST WAS NOT YET GIVEN ; because that Jesus was not yet glorified. ?

Why dont you deal with that scripture I presented to you? I see you totally ignored it.

It's not about the bible "lying". It's about knowing what a passage means in proper context.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Ok so the bible lies when it states Elizabeth was filled with the Holyghost?

No, many were filled with the Spirit under the Old Covenant.
The Apostle Peter said that the under the Old Covenant folks were moved (borne along) by the Spirit (2 Peter 1:21) and that the Spirit of Christ was in them (1 Peter 1:11).

Back then tongues were not mentioned in association with the Spirit's work.
I had a pastor who taught that in the Old Testament the evidence of the Spirit's infilling was prophecy and in the New Testament the evidence is tongues.

[KWSS1976]

Ok so John did not know what he was talking about cause he said the holyghost had not been given but elizabeth had it so did john not know what he was talking about?

[KWSS1976]

I am not trying to be hard here but come on guys it reads as it reads real simple...

[Sam]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Ok so John did not know what he was talking about cause he said the holyghost had not been given but elizabeth had it so did john not know what he was talking about?

At the time Jesus spoke the words recorded in John chapter 7 the Spirit was restricted to a certain group of people. After the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Spirit would be freely given to whomsoever wanted Him.

[KWSS1976]

So it all boils down to elizabeth really did not have the holyghost even though the bible tells us she did and john chapter 7 says she could not have had it...

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

So it all boils down to elizabeth really did not have the holyghost even though the bible tells us she did and john chapter 7 says she could not have had it...

Context!!