pnattmbtc Posted February 19, 2010 Posted February 19, 2010 Has anyone (besides me) explained what they mean by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Twilight Posted February 19, 2010 Author Posted February 19, 2010 Has anyone (besides me) explained what they mean by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Yes Pnat. The literal personal indwelling presence of the third person of the Godhead being literally inside you, in person, individually... As the bible states. Note: Your explanation was not from the bible, it was resting on quotes from the SOP (which personally I thought were out of context). Please could you show, from the bible, your position. Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand...
Twilight Posted February 19, 2010 Author Posted February 19, 2010 Quote: What is also clear is that there is a hole in your position. You claim: 1.The Holy Spirit wasn't given (in the sense that one could receive the indwelling of the Spirit) until Jesus Christ was glorified. 2.When one is born again, one receives the indwelling of the Spirit. But if this is case, it follows that: 3.No one was born again until Jesus Christ was glorified. This conclusion is false, therefore one of your assumptions (or both) must be incorrect. I have been thinking about this. Now we have to consider what the Kingdom of God is and when it was introduced. If that is a specific experience that was not experienced before Christ, then the point would stand, would you agree? Mark :-) ___________________________________________________________ Mark, when, in your understanding, was "the kingdom of God," or "the kingdom of grace" first introduced? sky The bible is very clear on this. It gives a specific time when the Kingdom of God was established. Now I could give you the text, but that would spoil all the fun! Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand...
Twilight Posted February 19, 2010 Author Posted February 19, 2010 Originally Posted By: Twilight I have been thinking about this. Now we have to consider what the Kingdom of God is and when it was introduced. If that is a specific experience that was not experienced before Christ, then the point would stand, would you agree? You're suggesting that nobody was born again until after Jesus was glorified? And when saying that Nicodemus had to be born again to see the Kingdom of God He was not speaking of eternal life? This seems unlikely, as vs. 16, the one everyone knows, says that God gave His Son so that whosoever believed in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. So the context looks to be speaking of eternal life vs. perishing, which is not an experience which began after Christ was glorified, as, if this were the case, nobody who lived before this time could have eternal life, which is obviously false. If you read the verse again, Jesus is stating that unless you are "born" again, you cannot "see" the Kingdom of God. So the new birth is here given as the first step needed to "see" the Kingdom of God. I now realise that this was a "new" experience, that the patriarchs had not had. So Jesus is specifiying the conditions for receiving the "new experience", not the "old experience". Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand...
Twilight Posted February 19, 2010 Author Posted February 19, 2010 Originally Posted By: Twilight I have been thinking about this. Now we have to consider what the Kingdom of God is and when it was introduced. If that is a specific experience that was not experienced before Christ, then the point would stand, would you agree? You're suggesting that nobody was born again until after Jesus was glorified? And when saying that Nicodemus had to be born again to see the Kingdom of God He was not speaking of eternal life? This seems unlikely, as vs. 16, the one everyone knows, says that God gave His Son so that whosoever believed in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. So the context looks to be speaking of eternal life vs. perishing, which is not an experience which began after Christ was glorified, as, if this were the case, nobody who lived before this time could have eternal life, which is obviously false. Please also note Pnat, I am studying these things out as we converse. So your questioning is appreciated, the challenges are very useful. God bless. Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand...
skyblue888 Posted February 19, 2010 Posted February 19, 2010 Mark, the kingdom of grace was introduced in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve fell and they needed to be born again. By accepting the plan of salvation which was revealed to them after the fall, they were born again. They became new creatures in Christ Jesus by the Holy Spirit. "The kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Rom.14:16. sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Twilight Posted February 19, 2010 Author Posted February 19, 2010 Mark, the kingdom of grace was introduced in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve fell and they needed to be born again. By accepting the plan of salvation which was revealed to them after the fall, they were born again. They became new creatures in Christ Jesus by the Holy Spirit. "The kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Rom.14:16. sky Sky. :-) I am talking about the "Kingdom of God", which Jesus brought to us. In the very specific context of the biblical exposition of this. When was the "Kingdom of God", established, according to the Bible? I am not looking at anything other than the bible and what it has to say on the subject. I think you are reffering to what Ellen White has called the kingdom of grace possibly, but that is not the same thing. This is why we need to stick to the bible on this. Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand...
skyblue888 Posted February 19, 2010 Posted February 19, 2010 Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:21.This is not a temporal kingdom to be sure and it is not yet the kingdom which He will establish at His return, the kingdom of glory. The "Kingdom of God" is "the gospel of God" or the "kingdom of His grace" for it is "the gospel of the grace of God" or "the word of His grace." Acts 20:24,32. This "kingdom" was introduced in the garden of Eden immediately after the fall. "The kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Rom. 14:16. Sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
skyblue888 Posted February 19, 2010 Posted February 19, 2010 If you read the verse again, Jesus is stating that unless you are "born" again, you cannot "see" the Kingdom of God. So the new birth is here given as the first step needed to "see" the Kingdom of God. I now realise that this was a "new" experience, that the patriarchs had not had. So Jesus is specifiying the conditions for receiving the "new experience", not the "old experience". Mark :-) Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Dr. Rich Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 No wonder no one can see the Kingdom of Heaven, much less know who they are--because no one yet has been truly born again. Quote
Guest Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 You just keep right on believing that if you want to Rich. Although you are confusing being Born Again with being Sealed. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 Is there a difference between the two? If so, I guess I am am a little confused. Help me out here! Quote
Guest Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 If I thought I could I would. And yes there is a difference. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 Ok, I will settle for you telling us what the difference is between being born of the Holy Spirit (thereby being born of God, thereby being a son or daughter of God, thereby being in the family of God, thereby being on par with Jesus) and being sealed by God. This ought to be good! Quote
pnattmbtc Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 p:You're suggesting that nobody was born again until after Jesus was glorified? And when saying that Nicodemus had to be born again to see the Kingdom of God He was not speaking of eternal life? This seems unlikely, as vs. 16, the one everyone knows, says that God gave His Son so that whosoever believed in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. So the context looks to be speaking of eternal life vs. perishing, which is not an experience which began after Christ was glorified, as, if this were the case, nobody who lived before this time could have eternal life, which is obviously false. T:If you read the verse again, Jesus is stating that unless you are "born" again, you cannot "see" the Kingdom of God. So the new birth is here given as the first step needed to "see" the Kingdom of God. I now realise that this was a "new" experience, that the patriarchs had not had. So Jesus is specifiying the conditions for receiving the "new experience", not the "old experience". This didn't address the points made. Jesus was talking about receiving eternal life. Verses 14-16 make this clear. If nobody was born again until Christ's glorification, then nobody received eternal life until then as well. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Guest Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 Yes it would be good, if you had an open mind to recieve it. But you have taught me, that is not the case. Why would I waste more time showing you Bible texts, or principles of truth. You have broke me of doing that. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 Richard, what a weak answer! You sure are clever on how to weasel out of issues! Quote
Guest Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 When I proved that Jesus is looking for, and expects faith, what did you do? You kept right on telling the same lies, as if you hadn't been shown anything. I, and others have shown compelling evidence of this, but you still tell people they don't need faith. My time is more valuable than that. Quote
skyblue888 Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 Speaking of Nicodemus, we read "Here was a man in a high position of trust, a man who was looked up to as one educated in Jewish customs, one whose mind was stored with wisdom. He was indeed in possession of talents of no ordinary character." Testimonies to Ministers, pp.369,367. However, "Nicodemus had read the Scriptures with a clouded mind; but he now began to comprehend their true meaning. He saw that the most rigid obedience to the mere letter of the law as applied to the outward life could entitle no man to enter the kingdom of heaven. In the estimation of men, his life had been just and honorable; but in the presence of Christ he felt that his heart was unclean, and his life unholy." Desire of Ages, p.174. "Nicodemus related to John the story of that interview, and by his pen it was recorded for the instruction of millions. The truths there taught are as important today as they were on that solemn night in the shadowy mountain, when the Jewish ruler came to learn the way of life from the lowly Teacher of Galilee." Ibid, 177. The way of life: "Through faith we receive the grace of God; but faith is not our Saviour. It earns nothing. It is the hand by which we lay hold upon Christ, and appropriate His merits, the remedy for sin. And we cannot even repent without the aid of the Holy Spirit." Ibid,175. This was written for us: "The lesson to Nicodemus I present as highly applicable to those who are today in responsible positions as rulers in Israel, and whose voices are often heard in council giving evidence of the same spirit that Nicodemus possessed. Will the lesson given to the chief ruler have the same influence upon their heart and life? Nicodemus was converted as a result of this interview. The words of Christ are spoken just as verily to presidents of conferences, elders of churches, and those occupying official positions in our institutions. 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' 'A new heart also will I give you.'" T.M.369. sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Musicman1228 Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 When I proved that Jesus is looking for, and expects faith, what did you do? You kept right on telling the same lies, as if you hadn't been shown anything. I, and others have shown compelling evidence of this, but you still tell people they don't need faith. My time is more valuable than that. A statement, yes. Proof, no. We are all beset by translation issue in this discussion. The translators used 'faith' and 'trust' as meaning the same thing, therefore (and not unexpectedly) you use them in the same way. But they are not the same. As I see it Jesus is looking for people who will take the time to learn to trust Him completely. This process is called the process of Sanctification. When a person actually becomes Sanctified (just as Jesus was Sanctified) then they have moved from having 'faith' at the beginning of the process to having 'trust' as the end point of the process of Sanctification. The more we abide in the Words of Jesus Christ the less faith we need because we have developed more and more trust. Why doesn't this make sense to you? Quote
Guest Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 Why do you insist that you are wiser about words than the dictionary? Faith and trust are one and the same. There is no reason to be ignorant on this matter. Dictionary.com is your friend. Quote
Musicman1228 Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 Exactly. Which is why I feel very comfortable substituting 'trust' for 'faith' everywhere faith is used in Scripture. So, Richard, do you believe in the process of Sanctification? Quote
Guest Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 If you agree that faith and trust are the same, then why do you tell people they don't need faith? That is the same as saying: you don't need trust, since they are the same. Doesn't make a lot of sense. Quote
skyblue888 Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 "For in it--the Gospel--the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The Just shall live by faith." Rom.1:17. If there was a difference between faith and trust and we needed to go from faith to trust, I believe it would have said, from faith to trust! sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Guest Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 Exactly sky. And since musicman does not accept the writings of Paul, you need to quote where that originally came from. Which is Habakkuk 2:4 Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.