When did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit?

[Twilight]

If the "kingdom of grace" was not introduced in Eden, what is the Gospel then? If the grace of the Holy Spirit was not available after the fall through faith in the merits of a Saviour to come, what then?

Was Abraham, Moses, all the prophets saved by law-keeping or by grace obtained through faith in the merits of the promised Saviour?

According to your understanding, Moses did not have the Spirit dwelling in him? the Spirit was with him but not in Him?

sky

Where in the bible do you find the term "kingdom of grace" Sky?

I do not find that term in the bible.

My concern is that it then "muddies" the water as we discuss the "kingdom of God".

Because we are now talking at cross purposes.

--------------

The "kingdom of God" was established at a specific point in time.

That is clear from the bible.

Before that time, the Isrealites were under the old covenant.

It may well be, that many by faith entered into the new covenant, I do not have the answer to that.

But the simple point is, that the "kingdom of God" was established at a specific time, it heralded specific events.

I would ask that you supply scripture, if you think this chronology is wrong?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

To say that the Spirit could not indwell... ...the disciples of Christ could not receive the Holy Spirit until Jesus was glorified is, from what I understand, both from the Scriptures and the SoP, not bibllically sound.

"The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." Titus 2:11.

sky

Notice that there are two different experiences.

1. The Spirit with us, calling us to repentance.

2. The Spirit in us, bringing sanctification and the personal presence of Christ.

This is clear from the scripture.

Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

At this point of John 14:17, it is clear that the disciples did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

They did have the Spirit with them, but not in them.

These points were established earlier in the thread my friend, did you read them?

(I think they were established earlier, if not, I will repost the point). :-)

Mark :-)

[skyblue888]

You have never heard of "the Word of the Kingdom," or of "the Word of His grace," or of "the kingdom of His grace," or of "the kingdom of His dear Son"?

These are different ways of speaking of "the kingdom of God within you."

"The kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Rom.14:17.

Is that not the "kingdom of God within you" that Jesus spoke of?

This is the kingdom of grace and certainly it was established even before the foundation of the world.

"Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Some translations say, "before the foundation of the world."

You have not yet addressed this passage: "The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." Titus 2:11.

sky

[Twilight]

You have never heard of "the Word of the Kingdom," or of "the Word of His grace," or of "the kingdom of His grace," or of "the kingdom of His dear Son"?

These are different ways of speaking of "the kingdom of God within you."

"The kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Rom.14:17.

Is that not the "kingdom of God within you" that Jesus spoke of?

This is the kingdom of grace.

sky

The term "kingdom of grace" is not in the bible Sky.

Which then means it is not a biblically accurate term that can be studied in biblical context in relation to "kingdom of God".

That then means that it is a phrase that can be "adjusted" without any recourse to the bible to establish its meaning.

Which is why I do not think we can use that term in this attempt at a bible study.

If we look at the terms "kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God", which are both biblical, we can then discuss the sciptural applications of these ideas.

But if something is not in the bible, how can we discuss it?

Mark :-)

[skyblue888]

There is such a thing as the "kingdom of God" which is the kingdom of His grace which is the kingdom of God within us as Jesus spoke of in Luke 17:21 and referred to by Paul in Romans 14:17.

Can we agree on that without muddying the waters?

sky

* I am positive that there is at least one verse in the NT that says, "kingdom of grace" or "kingdom of His grace."

By comparing Scripture with Scripture we have: "preaching the Gospel of the kingdom." Matt.4:23. "to testify to the Gospel of the grace of God." Acts 20:24.

From these two passages, we have the Kingdom of the grace of God.

Right?

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

I don't think we want to have one portion of Scripture "refuting" another, but, instead, we should look for a position that harmonizes all that the Bible has to say on a subject.

Indeed...

The simple point here is that the "kingdom of God" was established when Christ ascended to the Father and Satan was cast down.

Once that was established, the Holy Spirit was given in the upper room.

This was a totally new dispensation because it was tied to the New Covenant:

Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].

It was at this point that the "indwelling of the Spirit" was given specifically, during the 50 days leading up to pentecost, the early and latter rain..

It was a New Covenant reality.

Then we can notice what the focus of Christ was for the next 40 days.

He taught them something, something He had been teaching them all along, but which they had never received properly.

He was teaching them about:

Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

The kingdom of God.

How it relates individually and how it relates corporately to the church.

Then it was this teaching, this understanding of the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit/Kingdom of God", that Jesus taught.

Why is this important?

Simple.

If we are to experience the latter rain, we have to follow the same process.

We have to be born again, we have to receive the breathing of the Holy Spirit in the upper room.

Then we have to learn about the Kingdom of God.

When we have that, we must pray for the outpouring.

Then the Lord will pour out the Holy Spirit to enable us to take the Gospel to the world.

Mark...

So you're seeing the New Covenant as a dispensational thing? You see it as being something different than the Everlasting Covenant? How do you see that people were saved before the New Covenant era?

[Musicman1228]

I really don't understand all this talk about multiple Covenants; Old, New, middle. If God is the same yesterday, today and forever then He would only have ONE Covenant and it would never change. Does God need a New Covenant that is changed from the Old one? Or does He need us to understand the significance of the Covenant that He gave Israel at Sinai (Deut.4:13).

[pnattmbtc]

I really don't understand all this talk about multiple Covenants; Old, New, middle. If God is the same yesterday, today and forever then He would only have ONE Covenant and it would never change. Does God need a New Covenant that is changed from the Old one? Or does He need us to understand the significance of the Covenant that He gave Israel at Sinai (Deut.4:13).

You mean the Covenant He gave to Abraham? That's the one we should be concerned with.

[wayfinder]

The covenant God gave to Abraham was that He would make of him a great nation/kingdom. The promise of land for this kingdom was to be the land of Abraham's sojourning (Canaan) The sign of this covenant was circumcision. The covenant by which the kingdom was joined to God (marriage) was the Ten Commandments, which was kept in a gold box in the most holy place in the temple, this box was aptly called the ark (container) of the covenant.

[pnattmbtc]

The promise to Abraham was the earth made new. Romans 4:13, Hebrews 11, 2 Peter 3, and Acts 7 all bear this out. There are probably other passages as well, but this is what comes off the top of my head.

Quote:

13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.(Romans 4:13)

Quote:

8By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

9By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

11Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

12Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

14For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

15And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

16But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. (Hebrews 11)

Quote:

13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (2 Pet. 3:13)

(This is the promise given to Abraham.)

Galatians 3 is another place that speaks to this.

[Martus]

Welcome Martus. :-)

What are your thoughts on the subject at hand?

Have you read through the thread?

(Please ignore the off-topic parts).

Mark

1. passionate and many

2. not at all

3. I understand, no prob

I wish I had the time and rest to address, read and respond regarding threads addressing the Holy Spirit of promise especially in these last days.

Greetings.

[wayfinder]

Did you notice that all your texts were from Paul or his protege Luke or the unknown writers of Hebrews and "Peter"

Genesis 17:6 "I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you.

7 "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

8 "I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession ; and I will be their God."

9 God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.

10 "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.

11 "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.

12 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner , who is not of your descendants.

I prefer going to the source for the information rather than someone elses opinion of it.

[pnattmbtc]

You don't accept Scripture? I don't know that we have a basis to carry on a conversation. I don't know what your accept.

[wayfinder]

I accept the words of God as given through His prophets and apostles. I do not accept the word of a committee as to what the words of God are. The committee which was commissioned by Constintine to determine what would be allowed in the Christian canon. This committee was responsible for giving us the Universal Christian Church or Catholic Church and the "Bible". The "Old Testiment" the words of the eyewitnesses and earwitnesses to the testimony of the Son of God and the disciple John who also received the testimony for the end of time and recorded it in the "Revelation". We only have the testimony of the committee that they insured that everything they included in the canon are the words of God, no where in the Bible will you find that God said "the Bible is My Word".

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Welcome Martus. :-)

What are your thoughts on the subject at hand?

Have you read through the thread?

(Please ignore the off-topic parts).

Mark

1. passionate and many

2. not at all

3. I understand, no prob

I wish I had the time and rest to address, read and respond regarding threads addressing the Holy Spirit of promise especially in these last days.

Greetings.

Hey Martus, welcome to the forum!

[pnattmbtc]

This is a bit vauge. Are you saying you accept the Old Testament and the writings of John? This includes John, his 3 epistles, and Revelation? And that's it?

That Abraham was promised the earth made new is evident from Genesis. Stephen, in Acts 7, makes his argument on the basis of Genesis.

Paul also reasons from the Old Testament in regards to Abraham. He didn't make things up; he simply explained them. The gospel that Paul preached is all there in the books of Moses.

Paul got His gospel from Jesus Christ. What Paul speaks is so evidently the same thing Jesus Christ taught, I don't know how one could think they're different. Romans 12, for example, sounds like he was on the mountain with Jesus when He preached the Sermon on the Mount (Maybe that doesn't count, because it's Matthew?)

[Musicman1228]

Paul got his gospel from a being that called himself 'Jesus Christ', but no one, not even Paul, saw who really was speaking to him. We absolutely know for sure that Jesus Christ accepted the OT because He used this Scripture to defeat both Satan and the leadership of the Jews. We also know the the eyewitness Disciples (Matthew, Peter (Mark) and John) were told by Jesus that THEY would be lead by the Holy Spirit to remember everything that Jesus said to them. This trumps all non-eyewitness testimony from Paul, Luke and the unknown writer of Hebrews and 1 and 2 Peter, at least as far a I am concerned.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

This trumps all non-eyewitness testimony from Paul, Luke and the unknown writer of Hebrews and 1 and 2 Peter, at least as far a I am concerned.

What's wrong with 1 and 2 Peter?

[Musicman1228]

Textual criticism experts have looked at the language that was used in 1 and 2 Peter and have concluded that it is more sophisticated than Peter could have accomplished by himself. Peter did not write in Greek although he probably spoke a little. This is why he had to have Mark write his gospel for him. If this is true, and I believe that it is, then we don't really know who wrote 1 and 2 Peter, and in that case there would be cause to mistrust what is written in these books.

In any case I find it prudent to compare everything against the words and teachings of Jesus Christ as he spoke them to His own Disciples. This is eyewitness testimony and is far ahead of second hand testimony or circumstantial evidence.

[Guest]

Unless you were there, that's all you've got is second testimony.

Textual criticism experts have looked at the language that was used in 1 and 2 Peter and have concluded that it is more sophisticated than Peter could have accomplished by himself.

Would you like to know how much faith I have in the Textual criticism "experts"?

[Musicman1228]

Actually, no that is not correct. Eyewitness testimony is given by anyone who was there and did see and hear what happened, and who said what to whom. How this testimony is related to the jury (us) is immaterial; whether through direct verbal contact or written testimony it is still the same. Matthew, Peter, and John are the only Disciples in the Bible with eyewitness testimony. There were others but Constantine's henchmen chose not to include them. These Catholic leaders did choose to include Paul. They had to because without Paul there could not be a Roman Catholic Church. You are therefore allowing a Roman ruler to dictate to you what you believe to be God's own words. Interesting.

As to textual criticism experts; do you or do you not except the word of a self proclaimed textual criticism expert as true, when the name of that expert is Ellen White? Her writings act to you in very much the same manner as does a certified expert on ancient languages does to me, at least as far as you are concerned. I just choose to use other expert opinions rather than hers. Oh, of course, I forgot; she is infallible. Oops! My Bad.

[Twilight]

There is such a thing as the "kingdom of God" which is the kingdom of His grace which is the kingdom of God within us as Jesus spoke of in Luke 17:21 and referred to by Paul in Romans 14:17.

Can we agree on that without muddying the waters?

sky

* I am positive that there is at least one verse in the NT that says, "kingdom of grace" or "kingdom of His grace."

By comparing Scripture with Scripture we have: "preaching the Gospel of the kingdom." Matt.4:23. "to testify to the Gospel of the grace of God." Acts 20:24.

From these two passages, we have the Kingdom of the grace of God.

Right?

I would say here that we have to be strict with the biblical terms Sky.

Our own language and explanations are fine, but if we cannot build a biblical study on them, we should not use them in a study like this.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Indeed...

The simple point here is that the "kingdom of God" was established when Christ ascended to the Father and Satan was cast down.

Once that was established, the Holy Spirit was given in the upper room.

This was a totally new dispensation because it was tied to the New Covenant:

Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].

It was at this point that the "indwelling of the Spirit" was given specifically, during the 50 days leading up to pentecost, the early and latter rain..

It was a New Covenant reality.

Then we can notice what the focus of Christ was for the next 40 days.

He taught them something, something He had been teaching them all along, but which they had never received properly.

He was teaching them about:

Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

The kingdom of God.

How it relates individually and how it relates corporately to the church.

Then it was this teaching, this understanding of the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit/Kingdom of God", that Jesus taught.

Why is this important?

Simple.

If we are to experience the latter rain, we have to follow the same process.

We have to be born again, we have to receive the breathing of the Holy Spirit in the upper room.

Then we have to learn about the Kingdom of God.

When we have that, we must pray for the outpouring.

Then the Lord will pour out the Holy Spirit to enable us to take the Gospel to the world.

Mark...

So you're seeing the New Covenant as a dispensational thing? You see it as being something different than the Everlasting Covenant? How do you see that people were saved before the New Covenant era?

I am still exploring this, but one thought that comes to mind is that the Old Covenant allowed the "sin - repent" cycle and it could have been through this that people were saved (by faith of course).

In other words, they were saved through the blood of the lamb, but now they are saved through the blood of the lamb and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

It would fit, but I have not had time to study it out in detail, hence my concentration on the disciples experience.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

I accept the words of God as given through His prophets and apostles. I do not accept the word of a committee as to what the words of God are. The committee which was commissioned by Constintine to determine what would be allowed in the Christian canon. This committee was responsible for giving us the Universal Christian Church or Catholic Church and the "Bible". The "Old Testiment" the words of the eyewitnesses and earwitnesses to the testimony of the Son of God and the disciple John who also received the testimony for the end of time and recorded it in the "Revelation". We only have the testimony of the committee that they insured that everything they included in the canon are the words of God, no where in the Bible will you find that God said "the Bible is My Word".

[Twilight]

Folks, can we please leave the "Paul bashing" alone here.

There are plenty of other threads where this subject is open to discussion.

This discussion rests on the simple truth that all scripture is inspired.

If you do not agree or are not comfortable with that, then I would suggest this thread is not for you.

Mark :-)