Acts 10

[Arial]

not smart enough to understand your meaning please elaborate.

If you had actually dealt with the content of all the many posts you ignored, said you were going to deal with them but never have, you would be able to understand. I suspect you understand anyway as it is not difficult. This is just a deflection but one intended to keep the conversation going. For what? Your own entertainment? Killing time? Certainly, it is not for the purpose of listening and interacting with what you hear.

The completion of the recording of the new testament scriptures had nothing to do with the need of signs to confirm them as they were being written.

Surely you realize that teaching and evangelizing was going on constantly, verbally and in person throughout the NT era. That is the purpose of signs. What we have in our NT is the material that was preserved and deemed through careful examination to be doctrinally consistent, authentic and therefor included in the Protestant canon. It is there that those of us over the centuries who were not present, learn the same things they learned. Including the fact that the authority of the words we have were verified then through signs. Therefore, the church no longer needs those signs. The Bible is the authority.

I will let you figure it out. The only thing I will ask is why did Paul see the need to have them re-baptized to deal with receiving the spirit?

See thread the Baptism of John.

 

[BillyBob65]

@BillyBob wrote:
It is totally different than the indwelling spirit which we receive as a deposit to help produce the fruit of Gods will.

If you read this historically, this is not the case. If you know Galatians, you know that the apostle wrestled with the Jew-Gentile friction caused by the Judaizers' doctrines. They were dividing and bickering his Christians. So the Spirit, which 3:1 says comes by the declaration of the Gospel (this is broader than deal-closing evangelism), is given and would resolve the conflicts harming the Galatians. You will see that the way Judaizers went about was 'flesh' and the way of the Gospel was 'spirit.'

You are an 'experiential' reader. But that should be 2nd. After you have a grasp of the historic meaning, then some of our experience can help mop up. Not the reverse. We must primarily read in historical-grammatical sense, reading 'other people's mail from several centuries ago.'

I am sorry I am not equal to your most high education and just a simple body but I don't understand what the bickering in Galatians has to do with bringing the gentile into the kingdom? Galatians deal with Jews trying to make gentiles follow Jewish law not bringing them into the kingdom for they are already part of the kingdom.

Mod strike through edit: Violation of rule 2.1

 

[BillyBob65]

Surely you realize that teaching and evangelizing was going on constantly, verbally and in person throughout the NT era. That is the purpose of signs. What we have in our NT is the material that was preserved and deemed through careful examination to be doctrinally consistent, authentic and therefor included in the Protestant canon. It is there that those of us over the centuries who were not present, learn the same things they learned. Including the fact that the authority of the words we have were verified then through signs. Therefore, the church no longer needs those signs. The Bible is the authority.

See apparently it is you that is not reading what I post for this is almost exactly what I have been saying

 

[Arial]

See apparently it is you that is not reading what I post for this is almost exactly what I have been saying

This is what you said:

The completion of the recording of the new testament scriptures had nothing to do with the need of signs to confirm them as they were being written.

This is what I said:

One more question. The apostles were the 12 who were witness of the crucifixion and the resurrection as was required to be an apostle, and Paul who was directly appointed by a visit from the risen Christ to go to the Gentiles. They were also appointed to lay the foundation (doctrinal truths) of Christ's church, and that too ended with the death of the apostles. So, no more apostles. How then, if only an apostle can transfer this power of witness, is anyone to be a witness to the gospel as per Romans 10?

 

[BillyBob65]

I will let you figure it out. The only thing I will ask is why did Paul see the need to have them re-baptized to deal with receiving the spirit?

See thread the Baptism of John. (Arial)
Billy responded:
I read your thread on Baptism of John but didn't see the answer to my question please can you be so kind to spell it out ?

 

[JesusFan]

Church of Christ?
But those are very secretive,

or oneness Pentecostal

 

[Carbon]

I will let you figure it out. The only thing I will ask is why did Paul see the need to have them re-baptized to deal with receiving the spirit?

 

[BillyBob65]

One more question. The apostles were the 12 who were witness of the crucifixion and the resurrection as was required to be an apostle, and Paul who was directly appointed by a visit from the risen Christ to go to the Gentiles. They were also appointed to lay the foundation (doctrinal truths) of Christ's church, and that too ended with the death of the apostles. So, no more apostles. How then, if only an apostle can transfer this power of witness, is anyone to be a witness to the gospel as per Romans 10?

I will say with the help of the indwelling spirit through the word.

The word is recorded it does not have to be confirmed therefore it needs no signs of confirmation one needs to just point to the recorded word to be a witness for Christ. One uses the word as recorded not differing from the word but repeating it as is recorded and the indwelling spirit help to keep it in the truth as was recorded.

Simple just preach the word of God not mans version so study to show thyself approved and preach only the oracles of God.

 

[Arial]

See thread the Baptism of John. (Arial)
Billy responded:
I read your thread on Baptism of John but didn't see the answer to my question please can you be so kind to spell it out ?

Please don't make me having to keep fixing these things for you. If you need help or instruction in quoting and responding, ask. I will be happy to help.

The answer to your question is in the historic placement of John's baptism. Those in question would have been baptized by John showing their repentance, and they had not heard anything else. They were repentant already. but baptized into Christ---signifying their faith in him as being the one John said would come after him who would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Arial]

I will say with the help of the indwelling spirit through the word.

The word is recorded it does not have to be confirmed therefore it needs no signs of confirmation one needs to just point to the recorded word to be a witness for Christ. One uses the word as recorded not differing from the word but repeating it as is recorded and the indwelling spirit help to keep it in the truth as was recorded.

Simple just preach the word of God not mans version so study to show thyself approved and preach only the oracles of God.

Notice this post is responding to a quote that is attributed to no one. If there is no @Arial or you do not include the red-letter name identifying who said the words you quote---it will never show up in an alert to me. I came across this purely by accident.

My response to your post is:

Then why make the declaration that a person can only receive the power to evangelize if it is transferred by an apostle? Which you did in post # something. I am not going back through the thread to find it.

 

[Josheb]

I will let you figure it out.

Thanks, but I am specifically asking you for your viewpoint. Do you think Acts chapter 10 is the chapter that defines all other chapters on the subject?

The only thing I will ask is why did Paul see the need to have them re-baptized to deal with receiving the spirit?

????? Paul did not re-baptize them.

And that is not an answer to my inquiry. You posted this op. I have asked to valid and relevant questions and asked them for the purpose of discussing this op! Why are you not collaborating and expressing your views on your op? These questions are worded so they can both be answered with a single word. I'll add two more so as to offer you an opportunity to say more and move the conversation forward.

1. Do you think that chapter is the chapter that defines all other chapters on the subject?
2. If Acts 10 is not the definitive chapter, then which text do you think is definitive?
3. Were the people of Act 19:1-3, the people who had not received the Spirit when they believed, saved?
4. Both the OT prophets and the gospel era disciples (pre-Calvary) are reported to have experienced the features listed in Mark 16:17-20, yet they were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the post-Calvary and post-Pentecost regenerate and Spirit-baptized believer. Any related thoughts in that?

I look forward to reading your response.

 

[Josheb]

See apparently it is you that is not reading what I post for this is almost exactly what I have been saying

Then why be antagonistic and not simply say, "I agree"? A clarifying comment like, "...and that is what I have endeavored to communicate" could even be added in goodwill. Why adversely insinuate the other person is not reading your posts if there is agreement? Why decline to answer legitimate inquiries? Three posters have, in one way or another, expressed difficulty correctly understanding your posts and, each in their own way, endeavored to receive more information from you politely and respectfully. One post has already been edited to remove unnecessary and inappropriate content. We are trying to discuss this op with you. We want to have the conversation, or we would not be here.

So let me encourage you to take a moment and re-orient yourself.

There are a small handful of people bringing various matters to this discussion. Field each the best you can according to the ability God as provided you.

 

[BillyBob65]

Then why be antagonistic and not simply say, "I agree"? A clarifying comment like, "...and that is what I have endeavored to communicate" could even be added in goodwill. Why adversely insinuate the other person is not reading your posts if there is agreement? Why decline to answer legitimate inquiries? Three posters have, in one way or another, expressed difficulty correctly understanding your posts and, each in their own way, endeavored to receive more information from you politely and respectfully. One post has already been edited to remove unnecessary and inappropriate content. We are trying to discuss this op with you. We want to have the conversation, or we would not be here.

So let me encourage you to take a moment and re-orient yourself.

There are a small handful of people bringing various matters to this discussion. Field each the best you can according to the ability God as provided you.

Sorry I will try to do better. I will just take the warning and not try to defined myself please forgive me for my inability to express my vies adequately.

 

[BillyBob65]

Thanks, but I am specifically asking you for your viewpoint. Do you think Acts chapter 10 is the chapter that defines all other chapters on the subject?

????? Paul did not re-baptize them.

And that is not an answer to my inquiry. You posted this op. I have asked to valid and relevant questions and asked them for the purpose of discussing this op! Why are you not collaborating and expressing your views on your op? These questions are worded so they can both be answered with a single word. I'll add two more so as to offer you an opportunity to say more and move the conversation forward.

1. Do you think that chapter is the chapter that defines all other chapters on the subject?
2. If Acts 10 is not the definitive chapter, then which text do you think is definitive?
3. Were the people of Act 19:1-3, the people who had not received the Spirit when they believed, saved?
4. Both the OT prophets and the gospel era disciples (pre-Calvary) are reported to have experienced the features listed in Mark 16:17-20, yet they were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the post-Calvary and post-Pentecost regenerate and Spirit-baptized believer. Any related thoughts in that?

I look forward to reading your response.

1. I think this chapter deals with a lot of things so you will have to be more direct in what you are asking about which subject.
2. See above response.
3. I would have to say in that response that if Paul did re-baptized them because they did not receive the spirit and one has to have the spirit to be in Christ then yes Paul seems to think it was a sensational matter and needed to correct it.
4. Post Calvary the spirit worked as upon not with in as seen in many different ways including making a donkey speak but that did not in any way mean they had the indwelling spirit for the spirit was not available until after the cross as scripture lays out.
John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
So no the indwelling spirit was never before the cross only the spirit acting upon the subject.

 

[Josheb]

Sorry I will try to do better. I will just take the warning and not try to defined myself please forgive me for my inability to express my vies adequately.

Hey, all love, bro. This is the internet, you're new to this forum, and we're old folk (or shall I say DB-experienced ).

Just answer the questions asked.

1. I think this chapter deals with a lot of things so you will have to be more direct in what you are asking about which subject.
2. See above response.

What I am trying to get at is the matter of sound exegesis. No one verse, no one paragraph, no one chapter and no one book of the Bible defines anything at the expense of all else the Bible has to say on a matter. So the answer to the first question is an unqualified "No." No, Acts 10 does NOT define water baptism OR Spirit baptism. It is simply one chapter in a very large narrative on the subject of ritual baptism (baptism was a ritual that was generally (but not always) performed at the time of conversion or profession of faith. Similarly, the general precedent established in the New Testament is that indwelling and Spirit baptism co-occur, but they are not synonymous with one another. The thief on the cross is the anomaly, the exception to the rule with water baptism and the Acts 19 believers are the exception to the rule with Spirit baptism.

3. I would have to say in that response that if Paul did re-baptized them because they did not receive the spirit and one has to have the spirit to be in Christ then yes Paul seems to think it was a sensational matter and needed to correct it.

Paul did not re-baptize them. I'm not sure where you got the idea they were baptized with water again. The text states

Acts 19:1-7
1It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus and found some disciples. 2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7There were in all about twelve men.

When saying, "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" that should not be understood to be in conflict with being baptized "telling people to believe in the one who would come after [John]." There's was a baptism in which belief in Jesus was entailed as an inherent part of the ritual. There's no water baptism for believing in anyone else. John did not baptize people to believe in him. John baptized people to believe in Jesus, the one who would come after John. The Acts 19 text explicitly states they were "disciples." They believed in Jesus, not John. We can infer something was recognized in them that separated them from other disciples because Paul's question, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? That question implies Paul had reason to ask the question AND it implies the receipt of the HS is normally attained when a person believes, when s/he first believes or what we might call conversion or regeneration.

We might as ourselves, "If one of those twelve men had died as a disciple of Jesus before receiving the HS, would he have been saved from sin and received eternal life?" I'm gonna say the answer is "Yes, because salvation is by grace through faith." What would have happened if James or Stephen had been killed before Pentecost? Would their salvation be forfeit because they hadn't yet experienced the baptism of the HS? When did the repentant thief on the cross receive the baptism of the HS?

4. Post Calvary the spirit worked as upon not with in as seen in many different ways including making a donkey speak but that did not in any way mean they had the indwelling spirit for the spirit was not available until after the cross as scripture lays out.
John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
So no the indwelling spirit was never before the cross only the spirit acting upon the subject.

If you mean to say there is a difference between working "upon" someone or working on someone and working within someone then I completely agree BUT care should be taken so as to not create a false dichotomy. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions and the post-Pentecost standard operating procedure is that both indwelling and baptism co-occur at the time of conversion. Cornelius is just as much an anomaly as are the thief on the cross and the Acts 19 disciples. The examples that better reflect the normal operating procedures of God are Lydia and the jailer in Acts 16 (either that or neither ever received the Spirit since the text does not specify they did). Their conversion from death to life includes all the bells and whistles at one time. In fact, if the Cornelius of Acts 10 is the same Centurion as that of Matthew 8 and Luke 7 (and I think he is), then Cornelius, "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually," was saved in an Old Testament style salvation prior to being baptized. He'd match those listed in Hebrews 11.

I will suggest to you the diversity we see testified to in the epistolary exists for a reason, and part of that reason is so we do not become legalistic and start defining how God must work when He saves. Humans have a tendency to organize, structure, define, and ritualize. The theif on the cross gets saved one way but very soon after Calvary Jesus rises, teaches a huge ginormous bunch of new stuff, leaves to go sit enthroned in heaven, and then send the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to make the thief's salvation look sad and paltry in contrast to amazing life lived by Peter and Paul (and James, John, etc.). Neither should too much be made about the baptism of the Holy Spirit because the facts of scripture are that even though those men and women were regenerate, indwelt and baptized...... they were still a mess inside. God's work in and through Paul confronted the beliefs and practiced espoused by the council in Jerusalem, Peter had to be publicly corrected for gross hypocrisy, and God maintained a chronic correction of Paul lest he exalt himself.

Care should be taken so as not to over-discriminate between "on" and "in." because the prophets spoke of God working on them and in them, and Peter stated, "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Men were moved to speak by the Spirit of God. No one construes this to mean God was making the men become puppets and calling the puppet a "prophet." Pater is drawing a direct parallel between himself and the apostles, who partook in the role of a prophet, and the Old Testament prophets. Peter made that comparison, not me. Mark 16's list is not particularly new. The outpouring of the Spirit was new, both in substance and effect but the list in Mark 16 is not. That list is not exhaustive, either. The Spirit does much more than

• cast out demons,
• speak with new tongues;
• they will pick up serpents,
• if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them;
• lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.

AND..... the Mark 16 text connects those abilities to belief, not Spirit baptism. It's not that I think the inference is incorrect. The Spirit does empower all those feats, but the text itself correlates them to belief, not baptism. David was able to bring Saul relief from the evil spirit God had sent to torment Saul (1 Sam. 16). The apostles cast out demons when Jesus sent them out on their missions prior to Calvary. Tongues may be the exception, but Daniel is able to interpret the Aramaic written on the Babylonian Belshazzar's wall. Moses was able to make a bronze snake that healed people from the fiery serpents sent by God (Numbers 21). Elisha changed a pot of stew from poison to nourishment in 2 Kings 4, and he brought a young boy back from the dead. My point is not to deny the uniqueness of Pentecost, but to expound upon the work of God's Holy Spirit as something that is found throughout the entirety of scripture and therefore something we should consider holistically (within the context of whole scripture) and not define by one event in one chapter in one book of the Bible alone..... especially when the example of Cornelious is not SOP. In Acts 10 water baptism is provided after the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as evidenced by the fact the people were already speaking in tongues and exalting God).

The goal, after all, is to be like Jesus, not Moses, Elisha, Isaiah, Peter, or Paul. Are we going to pit Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18 and Romans 8:9 against one another? I, for one, don't want the Spirit merely "on" me, nor merely "in" me. I want to be so transformed that the Spirit and His work is so thorough within my being and my life that the two are indistinguishable.



(my apologies for the length)
.

 

[BillyBob65]

Hey, all love, bro. This is the internet, you're new to this forum, and we're old folk (or shall I say DB-experienced ).

Just answer the questions asked.

What I am trying to get at is the matter of sound exegesis. No one verse, no one paragraph, no one chapter and no one book of the Bible defines anything at the expense of all else the Bible has to say on a matter. So the answer to the first question is an unqualified "No." No, Acts 10 does NOT define water baptism OR Spirit baptism. It is simply one chapter in a very large narrative on the subject of ritual baptism (baptism was a ritual that was generally (but not always) performed at the time of conversion or profession of faith. Similarly, the general precedent established in the New Testament is that indwelling and Spirit baptism co-occur, but they are not synonymous with one another. The thief on the cross is the anomaly, the exception to the rule with water baptism and the Acts 19 believers are the exception to the rule with Spirit baptism.

Paul did not re-baptize them. I'm not sure where you got the idea they were baptized with water again. The text states

Acts 19:1-7
1It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus and found some disciples. 2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7There were in all about twelve men.

When saying, "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" that should not be understood to be in conflict with being baptized "telling people to believe in the one who would come after [John]." There's was a baptism in which belief in Jesus was entailed as an inherent part of the ritual. There's no water baptism for believing in anyone else. John did not baptize people to believe in him. John baptized people to believe in Jesus, the one who would come after John. The Acts 19 text explicitly states they were "disciples." They believed in Jesus, not John. We can infer something was recognized in them that separated them from other disciples because Paul's question, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? That question implies Paul had reason to ask the question AND it implies the receipt of the HS is normally attained when a person believes, when s/he first believes or what we might call conversion or regeneration.

We might as ourselves, "If one of those twelve men had died as a disciple of Jesus before receiving the HS, would he have been saved from sin and received eternal life?" I'm gonna say the answer is "Yes, because salvation is by grace through faith." What would have happened if James or Stephen had been killed before Pentecost? Would their salvation be forfeit because they hadn't yet experienced the baptism of the HS? When did the repentant thief on the cross receive the baptism of the HS?

If you mean to say there is a difference between working "upon" someone or working on someone and working within someone then I completely agree BUT care should be taken so as to not create a false dichotomy. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions and the post-Pentecost standard operating procedure is that both indwelling and baptism co-occur at the time of conversion. Cornelius is just as much an anomaly as are the thief on the cross and the Acts 19 disciples. The examples that better reflect the normal operating procedures of God are Lydia and the jailer in Acts 16 (either that or neither ever received the Spirit since the text does not specify they did). Their conversion from death to life includes all the bells and whistles at one time. In fact, if the Cornelius of Acts 10 is the same Centurion as that of Matthew 8 and Luke 7 (and I think he is), then Cornelius, "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually," was saved in an Old Testament style salvation prior to being baptized. He'd match those listed in Hebrews 11.

I will suggest to you the diversity we see testified to in the epistolary exists for a reason, and part of that reason is so we do not become legalistic and start defining how God must work when He saves. Humans have a tendency to organize, structure, define, and ritualize. The theif on the cross gets saved one way but very soon after Calvary Jesus rises, teaches a huge ginormous bunch of new stuff, leaves to go sit enthroned in heaven, and then send the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to make the thief's salvation look sad and paltry in contrast to amazing life lived by Peter and Paul (and James, John, etc.). Neither should too much be made about the baptism of the Holy Spirit because the facts of scripture are that even though those men and women were regenerate, indwelt and baptized...... they were still a mess inside. God's work in and through Paul confronted the beliefs and practiced espoused by the council in Jerusalem, Peter had to be publicly corrected for gross hypocrisy, and God maintained a chronic correction of Paul lest he exalt himself.

Care should be taken so as not to over-discriminate between "on" and "in." because the prophets spoke of God working on them and in them, and Peter stated, "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Men were moved to speak by the Spirit of God. No one construes this to mean God was making the men become puppets and calling the puppet a "prophet." Pater is drawing a direct parallel between himself and the apostles, who partook in the role of a prophet, and the Old Testament prophets. Peter made that comparison, not me. Mark 16's list is not particularly new. The outpouring of the Spirit was new, both in substance and effect but the list in Mark 16 is not. That list is not exhaustive, either. The Spirit does much more than

• cast out demons,
• speak with new tongues;
• they will pick up serpents,
• if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them;
• lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.

AND..... the Mark 16 text connects those abilities to belief, not Spirit baptism. It's not that I think the inference is incorrect. The Spirit does empower all those feats, but the text itself correlates them to belief, not baptism. David was able to bring Saul relief from the evil spirit God had sent to torment Saul (1 Sam. 16). The apostles cast out demons when Jesus sent them out on their missions prior to Calvary. Tongues may be the exception, but Daniel is able to interpret the Aramaic written on the Babylonian Belshazzar's wall. Moses was able to make a bronze snake that healed people from the fiery serpents sent by God (Numbers 21). Elisha changed a pot of stew from poison to nourishment in 2 Kings 4, and he brought a young boy back from the dead. My point is not to deny the uniqueness of Pentecost, but to expound upon the work of God's Holy Spirit as something that is found throughout the entirety of scripture and therefore something we should consider holistically (within the context of whole scripture) and not define by one event in one chapter in one book of the Bible alone..... especially when the example of Cornelious is not SOP. In Acts 10 water baptism is provided after the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as evidenced by the fact the people were already speaking in tongues and exalting God).

The goal, after all, is to be like Jesus, not Moses, Elisha, Isaiah, Peter, or Paul. Are we going to pit Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18 and Romans 8:9 against one another? I, for one, don't want the Spirit merely "on" me, nor merely "in" me. I want to be so transformed that the Spirit and His work is so thorough within my being and my life that the two are indistinguishable.



(my apologies for the length)
.

What I am trying to get at is the matter of sound exegesis. No one verse, no one paragraph, no one chapter and no one book of the Bible defines anything at the expense of all else the Bible has to say on a matter. So the answer to the first question is an unqualified "No." No, Acts 10 does NOT define water baptism OR Spirit baptism. It is simply one chapter in a very large narrative on the subject of ritual baptism (baptism was a ritual that was generally (but not always) performed at the time of conversion or profession of faith. Similarly, the general precedent established in the New Testament is that indwelling and Spirit baptism co-occur, but they are not synonymous with one another. The thief on the cross is the anomaly, the exception to the rule with water baptism and the Acts 19 believers are the exception to the rule with Spirit baptism.

Here is our problem, the thief on the cross is still in the transition era of John the baptist. He is not on the side of the cross where the baptism that Jesus was to baptize with the one in his name has been given. There is no way this could have applied to the thief. Now grant it it doesn't say he submitted to the baptism of John, but that is irreverent because Jesus was still alive this side of the new covenant, and could forgive sins as he pleases, but that only happened while he was still post cross. After the cross he set the plan of salvation in play. The gospel was to be preached and the believers were to submit in the manner that was commanded. The Gospel was to be preached to the Jews first and was according to scripture then the gentiles were to be added in and Acts 10 records the fulfillment of that.

Acts 19 teaches that even though the gentiles were in Gods favor they still had to enter into the covenant the same way the Jews did. God sent Peter to preach the gospel just as he did on the day of Pentecost. The same gospel found in Acts 2. The accompanying Jews doubted that God would have the gentiles included in the new covenant so God sent a sign to the Jews that this was his will. While Peter was still preaching the gospel of Acts 2 the spirit came UPON the gentiles the same way it did the Jews way back at Pentecost. This is the only time ever recorded that this happened after Pentecost and was to show the Jews that this was Gods will.

After this outpouring onto the gentiles that was foretold happened, Peter resumed the mission he was sent to do, and said that being God has chosen these gentiles who among the Jews could refuse water, He made it clear there that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ the only one he was commanded to baptize with for it is the baptism that John said Jesus would baptize the one in his name.

In all examples of the gospel being preached in Acts it always ends with the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. If you are unfamiliar with these I can look them up for you.

No, Acts 10 does NOT define water baptism OR Spirit baptism.

It does say that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is the water baptism and being the spirit works through the word, and the indwelling is attached to the baptism in the name of Christ, and it is God doing the transformation makes this the spirit baptism that Jesus was to baptize with. So they are one and the same.

Why are the Ephesians of Acts 19 the exception to the rule with Spirit baptism? It is because they were baptized with the wrong baptism. Johns baptism was no longer effective it served it purpose to usher in the baptism in Christ, name the spirit baptism that Jesus was to baptize with, the one that gives the indwelling spirit. It says that right there in the chapter.

There is a lot more to deal with in you post but being it is already long I will try to break it down in sections.

 

[BillyBob65]

Hey, all love, bro. This is the internet, you're new to this forum, and we're old folk (or shall I say DB-experienced ).

Just answer the questions asked.

What I am trying to get at is the matter of sound exegesis. No one verse, no one paragraph, no one chapter and no one book of the Bible defines anything at the expense of all else the Bible has to say on a matter. So the answer to the first question is an unqualified "No." No, Acts 10 does NOT define water baptism OR Spirit baptism. It is simply one chapter in a very large narrative on the subject of ritual baptism (baptism was a ritual that was generally (but not always) performed at the time of conversion or profession of faith. Similarly, the general precedent established in the New Testament is that indwelling and Spirit baptism co-occur, but they are not synonymous with one another. The thief on the cross is the anomaly, the exception to the rule with water baptism and the Acts 19 believers are the exception to the rule with Spirit baptism.

Paul did not re-baptize them. I'm not sure where you got the idea they were baptized with water again. The text states

Acts 19:1-7
1It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus and found some disciples. 2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7There were in all about twelve men.

When saying, "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" that should not be understood to be in conflict with being baptized "telling people to believe in the one who would come after [John]." There's was a baptism in which belief in Jesus was entailed as an inherent part of the ritual. There's no water baptism for believing in anyone else. John did not baptize people to believe in him. John baptized people to believe in Jesus, the one who would come after John. The Acts 19 text explicitly states they were "disciples." They believed in Jesus, not John. We can infer something was recognized in them that separated them from other disciples because Paul's question, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? That question implies Paul had reason to ask the question AND it implies the receipt of the HS is normally attained when a person believes, when s/he first believes or what we might call conversion or regeneration.

We might as ourselves, "If one of those twelve men had died as a disciple of Jesus before receiving the HS, would he have been saved from sin and received eternal life?" I'm gonna say the answer is "Yes, because salvation is by grace through faith." What would have happened if James or Stephen had been killed before Pentecost? Would their salvation be forfeit because they hadn't yet experienced the baptism of the HS? When did the repentant thief on the cross receive the baptism of the HS?

If you mean to say there is a difference between working "upon" someone or working on someone and working within someone then I completely agree BUT care should be taken so as to not create a false dichotomy. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions and the post-Pentecost standard operating procedure is that both indwelling and baptism co-occur at the time of conversion. Cornelius is just as much an anomaly as are the thief on the cross and the Acts 19 disciples. The examples that better reflect the normal operating procedures of God are Lydia and the jailer in Acts 16 (either that or neither ever received the Spirit since the text does not specify they did). Their conversion from death to life includes all the bells and whistles at one time. In fact, if the Cornelius of Acts 10 is the same Centurion as that of Matthew 8 and Luke 7 (and I think he is), then Cornelius, "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually," was saved in an Old Testament style salvation prior to being baptized. He'd match those listed in Hebrews 11.

I will suggest to you the diversity we see testified to in the epistolary exists for a reason, and part of that reason is so we do not become legalistic and start defining how God must work when He saves. Humans have a tendency to organize, structure, define, and ritualize. The theif on the cross gets saved one way but very soon after Calvary Jesus rises, teaches a huge ginormous bunch of new stuff, leaves to go sit enthroned in heaven, and then send the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to make the thief's salvation look sad and paltry in contrast to amazing life lived by Peter and Paul (and James, John, etc.). Neither should too much be made about the baptism of the Holy Spirit because the facts of scripture are that even though those men and women were regenerate, indwelt and baptized...... they were still a mess inside. God's work in and through Paul confronted the beliefs and practiced espoused by the council in Jerusalem, Peter had to be publicly corrected for gross hypocrisy, and God maintained a chronic correction of Paul lest he exalt himself.

Care should be taken so as not to over-discriminate between "on" and "in." because the prophets spoke of God working on them and in them, and Peter stated, "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Men were moved to speak by the Spirit of God. No one construes this to mean God was making the men become puppets and calling the puppet a "prophet." Pater is drawing a direct parallel between himself and the apostles, who partook in the role of a prophet, and the Old Testament prophets. Peter made that comparison, not me. Mark 16's list is not particularly new. The outpouring of the Spirit was new, both in substance and effect but the list in Mark 16 is not. That list is not exhaustive, either. The Spirit does much more than

• cast out demons,
• speak with new tongues;
• they will pick up serpents,
• if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them;
• lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.

AND..... the Mark 16 text connects those abilities to belief, not Spirit baptism. It's not that I think the inference is incorrect. The Spirit does empower all those feats, but the text itself correlates them to belief, not baptism. David was able to bring Saul relief from the evil spirit God had sent to torment Saul (1 Sam. 16). The apostles cast out demons when Jesus sent them out on their missions prior to Calvary. Tongues may be the exception, but Daniel is able to interpret the Aramaic written on the Babylonian Belshazzar's wall. Moses was able to make a bronze snake that healed people from the fiery serpents sent by God (Numbers 21). Elisha changed a pot of stew from poison to nourishment in 2 Kings 4, and he brought a young boy back from the dead. My point is not to deny the uniqueness of Pentecost, but to expound upon the work of God's Holy Spirit as something that is found throughout the entirety of scripture and therefore something we should consider holistically (within the context of whole scripture) and not define by one event in one chapter in one book of the Bible alone..... especially when the example of Cornelious is not SOP. In Acts 10 water baptism is provided after the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as evidenced by the fact the people were already speaking in tongues and exalting God).

The goal, after all, is to be like Jesus, not Moses, Elisha, Isaiah, Peter, or Paul. Are we going to pit Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18 and Romans 8:9 against one another? I, for one, don't want the Spirit merely "on" me, nor merely "in" me. I want to be so transformed that the Spirit and His work is so thorough within my being and my life that the two are indistinguishable.



(my apologies for the length)
.

When saying, "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" that should not be understood to be in conflict with being baptized "telling people to believe in the one who would come after [John]." There's was a baptism in which belief in Jesus was entailed as an inherent part of the ritual. There's no water baptism for believing in anyone else. John did not baptize people to believe in him. John baptized people to believe in Jesus, the one who would come after John. The Acts 19 text explicitly states they were "disciples." They believed in Jesus, not John. We can infer something was recognized in them that separated them from other disciples because Paul's question, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? That question implies Paul had reason to ask the question AND it implies the receipt of the HS is normally attained when a person believes, when s/he first believes or what we might call conversion or regeneration.

When John was telling people to believe in the one who would come after (John). John was referring to the baptism that JESUS would baptize with. The spirit baptism that Jesus baptizes with is that of Acts 2:38 that he put his name on. It is the only one he commanded his Apostles to baptize with. Ephesians 4:4 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? That question implies Paul had reason to ask the question AND it implies the receipt of the HS is normally attained when a person believes, when s/he first believes or what we might call conversion or regeneration.

Here is where your train goes of the rails. If as you want to believe that is was at the initial belief in the Gospel that they got the spirit then why did Paul connect it to the baptism. He clearly did if you are honest with your self. Paul did not ask then in what did you put your faith,he asked thenm then unto what were you baptized. be real with the scriptures or you will always miss the point. There was something wrong with the baptism they submitted tp not there faith. It was because they were baptized with the baptism of John. Johns baptism could never give the spirit cause Christ had not yet been glorified, The text is clear it was the baptism that was off.

 

[BillyBob65]

Hey, all love, bro. This is the internet, you're new to this forum, and we're old folk (or shall I say DB-experienced ).

Just answer the questions asked.

What I am trying to get at is the matter of sound exegesis. No one verse, no one paragraph, no one chapter and no one book of the Bible defines anything at the expense of all else the Bible has to say on a matter. So the answer to the first question is an unqualified "No." No, Acts 10 does NOT define water baptism OR Spirit baptism. It is simply one chapter in a very large narrative on the subject of ritual baptism (baptism was a ritual that was generally (but not always) performed at the time of conversion or profession of faith. Similarly, the general precedent established in the New Testament is that indwelling and Spirit baptism co-occur, but they are not synonymous with one another. The thief on the cross is the anomaly, the exception to the rule with water baptism and the Acts 19 believers are the exception to the rule with Spirit baptism.

Paul did not re-baptize them. I'm not sure where you got the idea they were baptized with water again. The text states

Acts 19:1-7
1It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus and found some disciples. 2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7There were in all about twelve men.

When saying, "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" that should not be understood to be in conflict with being baptized "telling people to believe in the one who would come after [John]." There's was a baptism in which belief in Jesus was entailed as an inherent part of the ritual. There's no water baptism for believing in anyone else. John did not baptize people to believe in him. John baptized people to believe in Jesus, the one who would come after John. The Acts 19 text explicitly states they were "disciples." They believed in Jesus, not John. We can infer something was recognized in them that separated them from other disciples because Paul's question, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? That question implies Paul had reason to ask the question AND it implies the receipt of the HS is normally attained when a person believes, when s/he first believes or what we might call conversion or regeneration.

We might as ourselves, "If one of those twelve men had died as a disciple of Jesus before receiving the HS, would he have been saved from sin and received eternal life?" I'm gonna say the answer is "Yes, because salvation is by grace through faith." What would have happened if James or Stephen had been killed before Pentecost? Would their salvation be forfeit because they hadn't yet experienced the baptism of the HS? When did the repentant thief on the cross receive the baptism of the HS?

If you mean to say there is a difference between working "upon" someone or working on someone and working within someone then I completely agree BUT care should be taken so as to not create a false dichotomy. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions and the post-Pentecost standard operating procedure is that both indwelling and baptism co-occur at the time of conversion. Cornelius is just as much an anomaly as are the thief on the cross and the Acts 19 disciples. The examples that better reflect the normal operating procedures of God are Lydia and the jailer in Acts 16 (either that or neither ever received the Spirit since the text does not specify they did). Their conversion from death to life includes all the bells and whistles at one time. In fact, if the Cornelius of Acts 10 is the same Centurion as that of Matthew 8 and Luke 7 (and I think he is), then Cornelius, "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually," was saved in an Old Testament style salvation prior to being baptized. He'd match those listed in Hebrews 11.

I will suggest to you the diversity we see testified to in the epistolary exists for a reason, and part of that reason is so we do not become legalistic and start defining how God must work when He saves. Humans have a tendency to organize, structure, define, and ritualize. The theif on the cross gets saved one way but very soon after Calvary Jesus rises, teaches a huge ginormous bunch of new stuff, leaves to go sit enthroned in heaven, and then send the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to make the thief's salvation look sad and paltry in contrast to amazing life lived by Peter and Paul (and James, John, etc.). Neither should too much be made about the baptism of the Holy Spirit because the facts of scripture are that even though those men and women were regenerate, indwelt and baptized...... they were still a mess inside. God's work in and through Paul confronted the beliefs and practiced espoused by the council in Jerusalem, Peter had to be publicly corrected for gross hypocrisy, and God maintained a chronic correction of Paul lest he exalt himself.

Care should be taken so as not to over-discriminate between "on" and "in." because the prophets spoke of God working on them and in them, and Peter stated, "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Men were moved to speak by the Spirit of God. No one construes this to mean God was making the men become puppets and calling the puppet a "prophet." Pater is drawing a direct parallel between himself and the apostles, who partook in the role of a prophet, and the Old Testament prophets. Peter made that comparison, not me. Mark 16's list is not particularly new. The outpouring of the Spirit was new, both in substance and effect but the list in Mark 16 is not. That list is not exhaustive, either. The Spirit does much more than

• cast out demons,
• speak with new tongues;
• they will pick up serpents,
• if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them;
• lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.

AND..... the Mark 16 text connects those abilities to belief, not Spirit baptism. It's not that I think the inference is incorrect. The Spirit does empower all those feats, but the text itself correlates them to belief, not baptism. David was able to bring Saul relief from the evil spirit God had sent to torment Saul (1 Sam. 16). The apostles cast out demons when Jesus sent them out on their missions prior to Calvary. Tongues may be the exception, but Daniel is able to interpret the Aramaic written on the Babylonian Belshazzar's wall. Moses was able to make a bronze snake that healed people from the fiery serpents sent by God (Numbers 21). Elisha changed a pot of stew from poison to nourishment in 2 Kings 4, and he brought a young boy back from the dead. My point is not to deny the uniqueness of Pentecost, but to expound upon the work of God's Holy Spirit as something that is found throughout the entirety of scripture and therefore something we should consider holistically (within the context of whole scripture) and not define by one event in one chapter in one book of the Bible alone..... especially when the example of Cornelious is not SOP. In Acts 10 water baptism is provided after the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as evidenced by the fact the people were already speaking in tongues and exalting God).

The goal, after all, is to be like Jesus, not Moses, Elisha, Isaiah, Peter, or Paul. Are we going to pit Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18 and Romans 8:9 against one another? I, for one, don't want the Spirit merely "on" me, nor merely "in" me. I want to be so transformed that the Spirit and His work is so thorough within my being and my life that the two are indistinguishable.



(my apologies for the length)
.

{quote] We might as ourselves, "If one of those twelve men had died as a disciple of Jesus before receiving the HS, would he have been saved from sin and received eternal life?" I'm gonna say the answer is "Yes, because salvation is by grace through faith." What would have happened if James or Stephen had been killed before Pentecost? Would their salvation be forfeit because they hadn't yet experienced the baptism of the HS? When did the repentant thief on the cross receive the baptism of the HS?[/quote] This does not give a direct thus saith the Lord and is designed to try to make loop hole is the word. God does warn in the parable of the women who went for more oil and missed the wedding invitation and was no longer let in. Lets just don't wait to find out and all will be okay.

The covenant before the new covenant came into being on Pentecost had its own way to be safe in the arms Of Christ so if they did as was told in the post Pentecost yes but if not no.

I have already dealt with the thief on the cross please read ghere.

 

[EarlyActs]

I am sorry I am not equal to your most high education and just a simple body but I don't understand what the bickering in Galatians has to do with bringing the gentile into the kingdom? Galatians deal with Jews trying to make gentiles follow Jewish law not bringing them into the kingdom for they are already part of the kingdom.

Mod strike through edit: Violation of rule 2.1

You would have to demonstrate that the race-nation of Jews at that time was already the kingdom.

 

[BillyBob65]

Hey, all love, bro. This is the internet, you're new to this forum, and we're old folk (or shall I say DB-experienced ).

Just answer the questions asked.

What I am trying to get at is the matter of sound exegesis. No one verse, no one paragraph, no one chapter and no one book of the Bible defines anything at the expense of all else the Bible has to say on a matter. So the answer to the first question is an unqualified "No." No, Acts 10 does NOT define water baptism OR Spirit baptism. It is simply one chapter in a very large narrative on the subject of ritual baptism (baptism was a ritual that was generally (but not always) performed at the time of conversion or profession of faith. Similarly, the general precedent established in the New Testament is that indwelling and Spirit baptism co-occur, but they are not synonymous with one another. The thief on the cross is the anomaly, the exception to the rule with water baptism and the Acts 19 believers are the exception to the rule with Spirit baptism.

Paul did not re-baptize them. I'm not sure where you got the idea they were baptized with water again. The text states

Acts 19:1-7
1It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus and found some disciples. 2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7There were in all about twelve men.

When saying, "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" that should not be understood to be in conflict with being baptized "telling people to believe in the one who would come after [John]." There's was a baptism in which belief in Jesus was entailed as an inherent part of the ritual. There's no water baptism for believing in anyone else. John did not baptize people to believe in him. John baptized people to believe in Jesus, the one who would come after John. The Acts 19 text explicitly states they were "disciples." They believed in Jesus, not John. We can infer something was recognized in them that separated them from other disciples because Paul's question, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? That question implies Paul had reason to ask the question AND it implies the receipt of the HS is normally attained when a person believes, when s/he first believes or what we might call conversion or regeneration.

We might as ourselves, "If one of those twelve men had died as a disciple of Jesus before receiving the HS, would he have been saved from sin and received eternal life?" I'm gonna say the answer is "Yes, because salvation is by grace through faith." What would have happened if James or Stephen had been killed before Pentecost? Would their salvation be forfeit because they hadn't yet experienced the baptism of the HS? When did the repentant thief on the cross receive the baptism of the HS?

If you mean to say there is a difference between working "upon" someone or working on someone and working within someone then I completely agree BUT care should be taken so as to not create a false dichotomy. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions and the post-Pentecost standard operating procedure is that both indwelling and baptism co-occur at the time of conversion. Cornelius is just as much an anomaly as are the thief on the cross and the Acts 19 disciples. The examples that better reflect the normal operating procedures of God are Lydia and the jailer in Acts 16 (either that or neither ever received the Spirit since the text does not specify they did). Their conversion from death to life includes all the bells and whistles at one time. In fact, if the Cornelius of Acts 10 is the same Centurion as that of Matthew 8 and Luke 7 (and I think he is), then Cornelius, "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually," was saved in an Old Testament style salvation prior to being baptized. He'd match those listed in Hebrews 11.

I will suggest to you the diversity we see testified to in the epistolary exists for a reason, and part of that reason is so we do not become legalistic and start defining how God must work when He saves. Humans have a tendency to organize, structure, define, and ritualize. The theif on the cross gets saved one way but very soon after Calvary Jesus rises, teaches a huge ginormous bunch of new stuff, leaves to go sit enthroned in heaven, and then send the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to make the thief's salvation look sad and paltry in contrast to amazing life lived by Peter and Paul (and James, John, etc.). Neither should too much be made about the baptism of the Holy Spirit because the facts of scripture are that even though those men and women were regenerate, indwelt and baptized...... they were still a mess inside. God's work in and through Paul confronted the beliefs and practiced espoused by the council in Jerusalem, Peter had to be publicly corrected for gross hypocrisy, and God maintained a chronic correction of Paul lest he exalt himself.

Care should be taken so as not to over-discriminate between "on" and "in." because the prophets spoke of God working on them and in them, and Peter stated, "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Men were moved to speak by the Spirit of God. No one construes this to mean God was making the men become puppets and calling the puppet a "prophet." Pater is drawing a direct parallel between himself and the apostles, who partook in the role of a prophet, and the Old Testament prophets. Peter made that comparison, not me. Mark 16's list is not particularly new. The outpouring of the Spirit was new, both in substance and effect but the list in Mark 16 is not. That list is not exhaustive, either. The Spirit does much more than

• cast out demons,
• speak with new tongues;
• they will pick up serpents,
• if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them;
• lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.

AND..... the Mark 16 text connects those abilities to belief, not Spirit baptism. It's not that I think the inference is incorrect. The Spirit does empower all those feats, but the text itself correlates them to belief, not baptism. David was able to bring Saul relief from the evil spirit God had sent to torment Saul (1 Sam. 16). The apostles cast out demons when Jesus sent them out on their missions prior to Calvary. Tongues may be the exception, but Daniel is able to interpret the Aramaic written on the Babylonian Belshazzar's wall. Moses was able to make a bronze snake that healed people from the fiery serpents sent by God (Numbers 21). Elisha changed a pot of stew from poison to nourishment in 2 Kings 4, and he brought a young boy back from the dead. My point is not to deny the uniqueness of Pentecost, but to expound upon the work of God's Holy Spirit as something that is found throughout the entirety of scripture and therefore something we should consider holistically (within the context of whole scripture) and not define by one event in one chapter in one book of the Bible alone..... especially when the example of Cornelious is not SOP. In Acts 10 water baptism is provided after the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as evidenced by the fact the people were already speaking in tongues and exalting God).

The goal, after all, is to be like Jesus, not Moses, Elisha, Isaiah, Peter, or Paul. Are we going to pit Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18 and Romans 8:9 against one another? I, for one, don't want the Spirit merely "on" me, nor merely "in" me. I want to be so transformed that the Spirit and His work is so thorough within my being and my life that the two are indistinguishable.



(my apologies for the length)
.

I am going to have to take a break .My thoughts are running together and I am not reading some of these thoughts close enough because this post is long. I already found A mistake I made in the post dealing with The baptism of John and the thief being post Pentecost when I meant to say pre Pentecost . I am not sure which post # that was in but forgive me for I am to tired to go back and find it.I will try to finish responding tomorrow Lords willing.