I have my own views on the subject of the Godhead being 3 in 1 and will share them, but i would first like to get the boards view. :-D :-? This is a much debated topic and I am interested in your insight.
How can the creature search out the Creator?How shall the finite describe the Infinite?How can Man know God?The answer to these questions is more simple than might at first appear. God has chosen to reveal Himself. Mankind does not need to remain in ignorance of God. Finite creatures can know the unknowable. There are many things that man can know about God, because God wants man to know them. If God had remained silent, man would have remained ignorant. God has revealed Himself in nature, although that is now a very imperfect revelation. God has revealed himself through the Holy Scriptures, although even that is a very incomplete revelation. God has fully revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, whom the Scriptures describe as…“being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person.”The ancient Hebrews had been taught for centuries that…“the LORD our God is One God.”To this unchangeable truth Jesus added another…“I and My Father are One.”The Holy Spirit speaking through the apostle John confirms this brighter shining of truth, when He teaches something which unaided man could never have discovered. Introducing Jesus Christ as the Word, who became flesh and lodged among us, He reveals…“In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.”The Word who was with God and was God, bore eloquent testimony to the deity of the Holy Spirit when He declared that those who defamed the Holy Spirit, were committing blasphemy. And yet none of this changes the first unchangeable truth; “the LORD our God is One God.”Neither do they explain the mystery. God is One God, but Three distinguishable Persons, each of whom is completely God. This unfathomable mystery, the theologians call Trinity. A mystery which can never be explained, only illustrated. The creeds which came later from the councils of the early churches were not attempts to define God but rather attempts to exclude error.The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal, co-substantial, co-eternal. The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World. The Son sent the Spirit to make that salvation a personal reality to men and women.Man could know none of these things unless God had revealed them. Before this amazing self-revelation of the Eternal, Infinite, Triune God we can only wonder and worship.(Hebrews 1:3; Deuteronomy 6:4; John 10:30; John 1:1)His/YoursRon B
Hi Ron,Thanks for your response, and I totally agree with your insight.The reason I had inquired others views on this particular doctrine is that I have been attending an Apostolic Church the past several months and they believe in the "Oneness" doctrine. Of which I never really heard of except on another BB siteof which I was charged with because I had mentioned that I was baptised in the Name of Jesus.The church I attend is really on fire for Jesus, although there are a few things I disagree with, one is the speaking in tongues always accompanies the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which has already been addressed here (and quite admireably I might add) and the other is "Oneness" Doctrine.I see the 3 Persons displayed through out the bible such as "let Us make man in Our image" I have heard this explained away as He was speaking of the angels, but whats wrong with that way of thinking is the angels are not made in the image of God, we are.Another place it shows more than one person in the Godhead is Dan 7:13-14"I saw in the night visions, and, behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient Of Days, and they brought Him before Him.and there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him, His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."Now this passage of scripture to me anyway clearly shows the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit being humble as He is draws no attention to Himself.Another place it shows more than one person is John 1:1 " .... The Word was with God and the Word was God" and again in Acts 8:55"But he being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven and sawthe glory of God,and Jesus standing on the right hand of God"This to me clearly shows all 3 persons of the Godhead as seperate but one the same way that Christ says in John 17:11" That they may be one as We are."The body of Christ is made up of many individuals and yet we are one in Christ, the same is said of a husband and wife -- the two shall become one. even the name Eloheim is plural which allows for but doesnt teach the trinity per say.What I do like about the Pentecostal church is thier belief that all the gifts are in effect today as they were in the past, which sonme believe that they were only to jump start the church. But God hasnt changed -- we have.If I am wrong in my understanding, Please show me otherwise for I am somewhat confused. I believe my wife and I have been baptised in the Holy Spirit, But we dont speak in tongues and I believe that the Godhead consist of 3 seperate persons but yet in total unity (one) with each other. I do believe there are many fillings we experience through out our life time.Again Ron thanks for responding and I look forward to seeing others views on this as wellIn Jesus
HiPerhaps a word or two about Bible doctrine before we get on to details. How much do you think we know about God? How much do you think we have revealed about God in the Bible? For the first answer most thinking people would say the percentage is so small it doesn't even register. What about the second question? (Now please hear me out on this before you 'bin' me) God is so much bigger than His book. I think the answer to the second question is not much different to the first. Certainly, we have a sufficient revelation of God in His book; we have all that we need to know but that is still a tiny part of the total. Imagine a large circle and a tiny one placed inside it, sitting on the bottom of the big circle's arc but wholly inside the large circle. Now imagine a second tiny circle which intersects the first tiny circle but which has most of its area outside the first tiny circle and consequently most of its area outside the large circle. (have you ever played that game where you describe a spiral staircase without using your hands? :-))The larger circle is all the truth about God, tiny circle 1 is the biblical revelation of the whole scripture, tiny circle 2 is creation, religion, human insights. OK. The Bible is part of the whole truth of God, is without error as originally given. It is not the whole truth about God, to be so it would have to be infinite in its capacity. Only God can fully express God. It is however, in as much as it gives us, wholly reliable and wholly accurate, but incomplete as a revelation of God. The second tiny circle is human knowledge about God scattered in fragments, like the dying echoes of man's original knowledge, through religion and human insight. It sometimes has genuine revelation in it but it has so much mixture that it is wholly unreliable and in any case, there is no truth in that 2nd circle that is not already in the 1st tiny circle.Why am I saying all this? Simply because in one sense all our biblical theology is hypothesis. Given all the evidence we have, and presuming we have interpreted it correctly, what we produce is a 'best fit'. The Bible gives very few definitions. We have to remember all the time that we know a tiny part of all there is to know about God; maybe that's why we will need eternity.. to fill in the gaps? ;-) I am sure that the Trinitarian doctrine of God is utterly consistent with biblical revelation, but I have this hunch that God is a billion times more amazing than we are ever going to express in human language. I don't believe that 'Oneness/Jesus Only' really does justice to the evidence we have been given in the scripture, but I want to remain open hearted to the whole family of God. Creeds were originally created to exclude error, but have been used to exclude individuals. I am all for a clear statement of biblical truth but I won't use creeds or doctrinal statements to shut out someone who is my brother in Christ. We need to remember that whenever we shut someone out we are in danger of locking ourselves in. I love this quotation from Finneys Systematic Theology "I hold myself sacredly bound, not to defend these positions at all events, but on the contrary, to subject every one of them to the most thorough discussion, and to hold and treat them as I would the opinions of any one else; that is, if upon further discussion and investigation I see no cause to change, I hold them fast; but if I can see a flaw in any one of them, I shall amend or wholly reject it, as further light shall demand. True Christian consistency implies progress in knowledge and holiness, and such changes in theory and in practice as are demanded by increasing light."How different from the sobering comment of John Wesley's diary "I met with certain brethren who knew everything and therefore learned nothing".I think that is one of the objectives of this forum 'thorough, further, discussion and investigation'. Iron sharpens iron and we can and must learn from each other.More later on the specific questions.His/YoursRon B
Just picking up on what you said about the "baptism of the Holy Spirit", the bible never refers to a baptism of the Holy Spirit, it talks about baptism with the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33).When a person first believes on the Lord Jesus Christ they are baptised with the Holy Spirit in His death, burial and resurrection and put into the one Body, His body (Romans 6:3-4, 1 Cor 12:13, Col 2:12, 1 Peter 3:21)This baptism with the Holy Spirit is a one time non-experiential event as is Justification etc., what is experiential is the filing of the Holy Spirit which can happen at any time in a believers life, and especially happens when we are submitting to the will of God.This filing of the Holy Spirit enables us to do all things in the will of God, e.g. Speaking in tongues, speaking the Word of God with boldness, forgiving people, loving one another (Acts 2:4, Acts 4:8, Acts 4:31, Acts 7:55) Paul tells us in his letter to the Ephesians to 'be filled with the spirit' which is in the present tense and could be translated as 'be being filled with the spirit'.Baptism in water is a symbol of this union with Christ and is a outward sign to people that you are following Him, during the time when the book of acts was written if someone was baptised in water they may have been 'un-synagogued' for it! This is what is also known as baptism in the 'name' of Jesus Christ.
Amen Nasher,I do understand that Jesus is the one who does the baptism with The Spirit and am glad to see we are in agreement that this takes place the moment we repent and turn to Jesus for forgiveness and for redemption.And I really like what you have to say about the "fillings" of the Spirit. The gift that has been manifested in me is speaking Gods word with boldness and the gift of exhortation but no tongues as of yet but I do believe God will manifest this gift in me as well. But there are some who would make you feel that you havent been baptised in the Holy Ghost if you dont speak in tongues. not only is this non scriptural, it is dangerous to the individuals growth who is being made to believe in these "false truths" and they become discouraged and rejected.Jesus said "That it is inevitable stumbling blocks will come, but whoa to him through whom they come.It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.be on your guard! if your brother sins, rebuke him, if he repents, forgive him." Luke 17:1-3 NASBThe little ones I believe Jesus is speaking of are new converts and in verse 3 it appears to me anyway that who He is speaking to are believers. so if we are making believers feel in adequate because they dont manifest particular gifts of the Spirit -- we in fact cause them to stumble by causing confussion, inferiority, and even to doubt thier very salvation that God freely gave to them. and God says anything not of faith is sin so we therefor cause them to sin.Jesus said our worst enemies will come from within our own household. Now again I believe he is not only addressing our blood but our spiritual household (I.E. church) not an enemy that we go to dukes but an enemy to our spiritual growth.And so it again brings me to another teaching I am having trouble with and that is the teaching on "Oneness" is it or isnt it? is wrong to believe God exist in 3 persons But one Godhead? Now I dont consider my church my enenies but there is a bit of confussion on where I should be now --- can 2 walk together unless they agree?Your response and prayers are appreciated.In Jesus
Hi NasherThere has already been a fair bit on this topic which you will find under 'tongues'.I'm not quite sure what you mean by non-experiential. It is, after all, a 'baptism'. Is water baptism experiential? When I was baptised in water I was supremely conscience of water; when I was baptised in Spirit I was supremely conscious of 'Spirit'. Peter calls Noah's flood a baptism and Paul calls the Crossing of the Red Sea a baptism. I should think these baptisms were 'experiential'.I'm not trying to tie the Baptism in Spirit experience down to a particular manifestation i.e. tongues, but I do feel that 'baptism in Spirit' has to be a conscious experience.His/YoursRon B
maybe that's why we will need eternity.. to fill in the gaps?Ah, a thought snatched from my very mind!I am sure that the Trinitarian doctrine of God is utterly consistent with biblical revelation, but I have this hunch that God is a billion times more amazing than we are ever going to express in human language. I am guessing that your hunch is correct, even if it is off a couple billion :-D I love this quotation from Finneys Systematic Theology "I hold myself sacredly bound, not to defend these positions at all events, but on the contrary, to subject every one of them to the most thorough discussion, and to hold and treat them as I would the opinions of any one else; that is, if upon further discussion and investigation I see no cause to change, I hold them fast; but if I can see a flaw in any one of them, I shall amend or wholly reject it, as further light shall demand. True Christian consistency implies progress in knowledge and holiness, and such changes in theory and in practice as are demanded by increasing light."Think I have heard parts of this quoted before.This is definetely going up on the wall, great wisdom!I think that is one of the objectives of this forum 'thorough, further, discussion and investigation'. Iron sharpens iron and we can and must learn from each other.AMEN! Great thread Ron, "Come, let us reason together"
Hi Ron, assuming that we agree that baptism with the Holy Spirit happens at salvation, and some people cannot put a date or time on when they were saved/justified/baptised with the Spirit (myself included), then these people did not 'experience' it in the way that some others do.I think the reason why some people do 'experience' it is because they have been filled with the Holy Spirit at the same time or just after, like the Apostles in Acts 2.
Hi NasherNow you're going to have to define what you mean by 'salvation'. When was Abraham 'saved'? When were the disciples 'saved'? When Jesus said 'you will be baptised in the Holy Spirit not many days hence' did he mean you are not saved yet? 'Filled with the Spirit' and 'baptised in the Spirit' are not synonymous terms but they do sometimes refer to the same event.His/YoursRon B
1 Peter 3:21There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,No-one could be born again until pentecost because that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.I believe all those who 'believed' in God before Jesus came onto the earth were 'saved' (e.g. Abraham, Moses etc.) in a sense but I don't know how they were saved, i.e. I don't know when they were born again.Perhaps this is what Peter is refering to:1 Peter 3:19by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,Perhaps those who believed in God were all baptised with the Spirit at pentecost.
Hi NasherFrom your email I gather you are awaiting a further posting on this item. Lets see.There's a lot of stuff in your posting which I think needs a little untangling. Let me say generally that I think there are very few genuine synonyms in the scripture. The Bible is such an amazing thing in its meticulous use of terms and we often have to go back to individual words to be sure we are using them in a biblical framework.For example, as far as I know, the Bible nowhere states that Abraham is, was, or shall be 'saved'. This means that we have to define our terms before we can really make sense of one anothers' statements. Neither is there any statement that says 'Abraham is in heaven'. Please note I am not denying either of these statements, I am just saying that this is not the way God has expressed Abraham's current state.People often equate terms by saying conversion and regeneration are the same thing i.e that they are synonymous. Now they may (or may not) take place at the same time (synchronous) but they are not synonymous terms. Conversion is a human response to a word from God, New Birth is a divine action. (if you want to be technical, grammatically, the verb 'convert' never has God as the subject. The KJV 'be converted' is literally 'convert yourself' or 'turn around'.) This has important consequences for different schools of interpretation, e.g. for a thorough going Calvinist New Birth would definitely precede Conversion.Now which part of your email shall we pursue? 'believed/faith', or 'saved' or 'born again'? The 1 Peter reference is one of the most difficult verses to interpret but the verb translated 'preach' is not 'evangelise' but 'proclaim' and that would shape my interpretation.enough for now, which way shall be go next?
Hi Ron, you are right that the bible uses different terms for different things and that salvation and redemption are not synonyms, although one may include the other.The bible does not say that Abraham was 'saved' but is does say that he was 'justified', don't get me wrong i'm not trying to equate salvation with justification but I think justification is part of salvation.The bible does mention that Abraham is/will be in heaven in Matthew 8:11And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.The point I have been trying to make is that I believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit not only happens at salvation, but is the salvation itself, made possible by the cross of Christ, it is the time when we are baptised into Christ's death, burial and resurrection, it is when we become justified/adopted/redeemed/born again.
I am going to frustrate you more I'm afraid.your quote "The bible does mention that Abraham is/will be in heaven in Matthew 8:11And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." Do you equate the 'kingdom of the heavens' with 'heaven' itself? Can you see why this conversation is a struggle? ;-) The reason I am treading cautiously with 'the baptism with the Holy Spirit.. is the salvation itself' is because this forum will be visited by many who have their own working definition of 'Baptism in the Spirit' and they will almost certainly differ from mine, and perhaps yours. Its just that this is a public conversation (rightly so) and we have to make progress slowly.Here is a list of words that I would like you put into sequential order... decision for Christ, sanctified, justified, glorified, regenerated, converted, dedicated, invited Christ in, commitment, repented, believed, received the Spirit, received Christ, filled with the Spirit, baptised in the Spirit, the Spirit fell on them, sealed, adopted, anointed, given the earnest, justified, assured... Many of these words and phrases are not biblical which complicates the definition in that if I coin a word I can use it as I please, but if the Bible uses a word I ought to try to use that word biblically when I use it. If I then try to fit my own words into a biblical frameworks it can be fraught with difficulty and some danger. (I think you would be surprised to know how many psychological terms we evangelicals now use.)Different schools of interpretation put these words into different sequential order. The classic illustration would be people from a 'reformed' background who would put 'regeneration' right at the front and conclude that everything else is the consequence of God's initial regenerating act.If we agree as to our meaning of 'baptism in the Spirit' I have a lot of sympathy with your statements, but I want to be sure we are talking about the same thing.The important thing to me is that we are talking genuine experience in the Spirit and not 'logical deductions drawn from proof texts' (a Tozer quote) Paul referred to 'having begun in the Spirit' in Galatians. That beginning, as I see it, must be conscious otherwise Paul's proof falls down.What I am avoiding saying is that 'when someone puts up their hand in a meeting they are "saved", "born-again", "baptised in the Spirit". I do not equate human response with divine operation.
Hi Ron, I'll try and put them into an order, although some I will not because they are not strictly biblical terms/words. When I use '/' this means that I believe they happen at the same time...approximately! ;-) repented / believed / received Christjustified / baptised in the Spirit / sanctified / regenerated / sealed / adopted / anointed / given the earnest / glorifiedreceived the Spirit / filled with the Spirit / the Spirit fell on themglorifiedI have been listening to a well known reformist teacher talking about predestination, and as I understand their point of view, a person must first be regenerated before he/she can believe because the natural man is at enmity with God. If this is the case then how could Noah / Abraham / Moses etc. have had 'fellowship' with God?You may need to e-mail me your opinion on this one. ;-)
Email? C'mon. As Ron noted before, many others are probably watching. Emailing would be like turning off the movie in the theater in the middle of it and then telling only your friend the ending. Probably a lot of bummed people. Yet, I notice your "winky" face so I assume you are joking. Just wanted to put my vote in for "no email... please."
Hi Nasher, Hi ToddNo, we will keep the conversation public even though it is very likely that we shall be interruped by others! ;-) No, seriously, this is the great advantage of the 'forum'. (By the way do you know it is Latin for the public square or market place. So let all listen and join in. If that slows us down that might be to our advantage.)I think your 'reformist teacher' would probably say that Abraham WAS born again. This is not my view. You may have gathered that I am not a Calvinist. I'm not an Arminian either; Arminius was far too Calvinist for my liking! ;-) ;-) Did you know Arminius studied under Calvin's son-in-law?Anyway, back to your list. I didn't really expect you to do it; I was just making a point. Still, as you have lets take a look. I see you have 'glorified' in twice; into Second Blessings are we? ;-) I note too, more seriously now, that you have 'receiving Christ' in the first series but 'receiving the Spirit' in the third series. If Christ is present at the Father's right hand how do we receive Him on earth? Evangelicals have a lot to say about 'Christ in the heart' but the scriptures have very little to say. Eph 3:16,17 is the only reference. Here it shows clearly that 'Christ dwelling in the heart' is a direct result of an operation of the Spirit. "strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man, (so) that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith". This is a great verse which shows, among other things, that Christ dwells in the heart of the individual (your hearts); this is important in the light of Jer 31 etc where some might say that 'heart' is collective of the New Covenant people. The point is that without the operation of the Spirit Christ cannot dwell in the heart. So do we need to put your words into a different sequence?I'll pause a while and see if others have some comments to make...
Hi Ron, the reason why I have put glorified twice is because I believe we are glorified when we become a Christian, and during our life are being transformed from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:18); and I also believe we will be glorified (or our glorification will be complete) when we die and go to be with Him (John 7:39, John 12:16).I believe when the bible makes reference to 'receiving the spirit' it is not talking about the baptism with the Holy Spirit, i.e. the new birth. I believe it is talking about being filled with the spirit.However, some of the usages seem to refer to the baptism...(John 20:22)
Just one bite at a time!So we'll take just one bite and pause to see if any others would like to join in. (Come on in folks, the water's fine!)your quote "However, some of the usages ( receiving the Spirit) seem to refer to the baptism...(John 20:22)"I doubt that this is a reference to The Baptism for several reasons. Firstly, The tense used in 'Receive ye the the Holy Spirit'. is Aorist imperative which has a sense of 'do it now' or 'begin to do it now'. There is a definite sense of immediacy with this tense, implying that whatever was to happen was to happen then. This would not be the way to point them to Pentecost.Secondly, we can synchronise this 'John resurrection appearance' very clearly with a 'Luke resurrection appearance'. Luke 24:36. The Luke account has the thrilling words "then opened He their understanding, (in order) that they might understand the scriptures." To the Emmaus travellers He had opened the scriptures, but to the 11 in the upper room He opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures. John makes no mention of this, and Luke makes no mention of the command to 'Receive the Holy Spirit'. I think we have complementary accounts of the same issue. We sometimes forget that the 12 had a unique ministry in laying the foundations of revelation truth for the Church. Some folks ask where did Peter get the 'sermon' he preached on the day of Pentecost. I think he got it through 'receiving' a unique enabling of the Spirit given to the original 11. (in John 17:20) the Lord specifically prayed for the Apostles and those who would believe on Christ 'through their word'. The word of the apostles becomes the 'word of God'.)This would put this event into the same catagory as many OT incidents when the Spirit was given/received for specific tasks, rather than in the NT sense where the emphasis is much more on the 'being' than the 'doing'.So, to sum up, I don't think John 20:22 is a reference to The Baptism/Pentecost at all, but a unique enabling given to the men who are the 'foundation' laid upon The Foundation.another pause...
Ron, do you believe that when the apostles prayed for people to receive the Holy Spirit they were praying for the Baptism, the filling, or something else?
This discussion is locked.
