The mind set on the flesh

[Hammster]

Ok, it says repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Would it be wrong to say you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit from repentance and baptism? In that case why? The Holy Spirit is the gift from repentance (and baptism). Doesn't that mean the same thing?

You are assuming one definition of “of”. So you are assuming that the Holy Spirit is the gift as opposed the Him giving the gift. This is the problem with trying to pull doctrine out of narratives, especially when using just one verse. And you are doing this to counter a passage of didactic teachings.

 

[d taylor]

I know all that. I thought you’d have something specific about when God changed his heart.

-

​

When he received The Holy Spirit, he became a born again. Belief and the changing happen at the very moment of belief. But Cornelius was not coming from a far way place from God, being that he was already doing good things.

Some people have to work for the food that which endures to everlasting life, that is they have to weed out all the false ways they have been taught. To find the food is receive by belief in Jesus.

How people get to God by belief in Jesus, is not a one way fits everyone.
A person who was raised an atheist, will have a different path to belief in Jesus. Than say a person who was raised up in a family who believed and taught their children, that it is belief in Jesus, that gives people God's free gift of Eternal Life.

 

[zoidar]

Where does it say that?

He obeyed Jesus.

and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
— John 9:7

Do you think the Bible spells out every time someone does something pleasing to God or every time someone angers God or is displeasing to Him? I don't!

 

[zoidar]

You are assuming one definition of “of”. So you are assuming that the Holy Spirit is the gift as opposed the Him giving the gift.

Would you mind being more clear? I don't see what "Him giving the gift" has to do with it or what different definitions of "of" there is or what difference it would make. I haven't seen you explain the meaning of the verse. I would really like you to that.

When I explain it, you just say it doesn't say that, that I assume things, instead of explaining what it says.

Are you saying what I wrote that the gift of the Holy Spirit is from repentance is a problem because I didn't write the gift of the Holy Spirit is bestowed us from God upon repentance? Is this your contention? I thought it was so obvious the Holy Spirit is bestowed us from God, that I saw no need to mention it.

This is the problem with trying to pull doctrine out of narratives, especially when using just one verse. And you are doing this to counter a passage of didactic teachings.

Pauls teachings can be very hard to get right. There are much debates about what he says. I look at the clearest passages first. I would say Pauls letters are ten times harder to get right than the Gospels. If you don't get the Gospels right first, I think you will fail with Paul.

We can discuss Rom 8:5-8 as well. It's of course in agreement with Ac 2:38.

 

[Hammster]

-

​

When he received The Holy Spirit, he became a born again. Belief and the changing happen at the very moment of belief. But Cornelius was not coming from a far way place from God, being that he was already doing good things.

Some people have to work for the food that which endures to everlasting life, that is they have to weed out all the false ways they have been taught. To find the food is receive by belief in Jesus.

How people get to God by belief in Jesus, is not a one way fits everyone.
A person who was raised an atheist, will have a different path to belief in Jesus. Than say a person who was raised up in a family who believed and taught their children, that it is belief in Jesus, that gives people God's free gift of Eternal Life.

Where does it actually say that he became born again when he received the Spirit? You are taking a narrative that you think explains everything and adding all sorts of insights. Thats not the best way to argue.

 

[Hammster]

He obeyed Jesus.

and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
— John 9:7

Do you think the Bible spells out every time someone does something pleasing to God or every time someone angers God or is displeasing to Him? I don't!

I think if you are going to use narratives to prove your point, they should actually say what you are trying to prove. You are speculating.

 

[Hammster]

Would you mind being more clear? I don't see what "Him giving the gift" has to do with it or what different definitions of "of" there is or what difference it would make. I haven't seen you explain the meaning of the verse. I would really like you to that.

When I explain it, you just say it doesn't say that, that I assume things, instead of explaining what it says.

Are you saying what I wrote that the gift of the Holy Spirit is from repentance is a problem because I didn't write the gift of the Holy Spirit is bestowed us from God upon repentance? Is this your contention? I thought it was so obvious the Holy Spirit is bestowed us from God, that I saw no need to mention it.

No, my problem is that you are assuming that the gift is the Holy Spirit and not from the Holy Spirit.

Pauls teachings can be very hard to get right. There are much debates about what he says. I look at the clearest passages first. I would say Pauls letters are ten times harder to get right than the Gospels. If you don't get the Gospels right first, I think you will fail with Paul.

We can discuss Rom 8:5-8 as well. It's of course in agreement with Ac 2:38.

I kinda wanted to discuss the clear teaching of Romans 8. That’s why it’s the basis of the OP. You have been avoiding it.

 

[d taylor]

Where does it actually say that he became born again when he received the Spirit? You are taking a narrative that you think explains everything and adding all sorts of insights. Thats not the best way to argue.

John states this most clearly, believe and cross from death to life, that is being born again.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

 

[Neostarwcc]

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
— Romans 8:5-8

When it comes to regeneration, there are two arguments. Or at least two that I know of. One is that we believe, and then are regenerated, and the other is that we are regenerated and then believe. I think the above passage makes a clear argument that we cannot believe prior to be regenerated. The reason is that faith or belief is something that pleases God. Being obedient to Christ’s command is something that pleases God. I also think that believing the gospel and being obedient or things that must be done in the spirit and not in the flesh. And the reason is, as the above passage says, we cannot please God in the flesh.

If the only way to pleaseGod is to be in the Spirit, then the argument would be that one must be in the Spirit before he or she can be obedient to Christ’s command to believe and repent.

Yet another fantastic thread my friend. It does a fantastic job of arguing that regeneration comes before faith without raising the clear teachings of scripture in regards to Total Depravity.

One thing I'd like to add though is that also from Romans 8 Paul teaches that its impossible to be in the Spirit and also be in the flesh. So also those born of the Spirit are always in the Spirit and those in the flesh are always in the flesh.

 

[Hammster]

John states this most clearly, believe and cross from death to life, that is being born again.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

Right, John said that those who passed from death to life are those who hear and believe. Much like Jesus says when He states:.

But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish—ever; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
— John 10:26-28

 

[zoidar]

Yet another fantastic thread my friend. It does a fantastic job of arguing that regeneration comes before faith without raising the clear teachings of scripture in regards to Total Depravity.

One thing I'd like to add though is that also from Romans 8 Paul teaches that its impossible to be in the Spirit and also be in the flesh. So also those born of the Spirit are always in the Spirit and those in the flesh are always in the flesh.

Limited atonement, John 3:16-18? I would like to see how one comes to that conclusion.

 

[zoidar]

No, my problem is that you are assuming that the gift is the Holy Spirit and not from the Holy Spirit.

Ah, why didn't you say so? Would have spared us many unnecessary posts.

We see from Ac 3:19 their sins will be wiped away upon repentance. How could their sins be wiped away if it doesn't mean they will receive the Holy Spirit upon repentance like Ac 2:38 says?

Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
— Acts 3:19

I kinda wanted to discuss the clear teaching of Romans 8. That’s why it’s the basis of the OP. You have been avoiding it.

No, not avoided it, postponed it, because I wanted to discuss Ac 2:38 first.

 

[Hammster]

Limited atonement, John 3:16-18? I would like to see how one comes to that conclusion.

Maybe for another thread, unless you can link it to the OP.

 

[Hammster]

Ah, why didn't you say so? Would have spared us many unnecessary posts.

No, not avoided it, postponed it, because I wanted to discuss Ac 2:38 first.

I didn’t know it was your OP.

 

[zoidar]

I didn’t know it was your OP.

We see from Ac 3:19 their sins will be wiped away upon repentance. How could their sins be wiped away if it doesn't mean they will receive the Holy Spirit upon repentance like Ac 2:38 says?

Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
— Acts 3:19

 

[Hammster]

We see from Ac 3:19 their sins will be wiped away upon repentance. How could their sins be wiped away if it doesn't mean they will receive the Holy Spirit upon repentance like Ac 2:38 says?

Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
— Acts 3:19

How is this related to the OP?

 

[zoidar]

How is this related to the OP?

I thought it was about if we can repent in the flesh or not.

I'm trying to show you, you are reading Rom 8:5-8 wrong, by proving your interpretation doesn't fit those passages of Acts.

 

[zoidar]

I think if you are going to use narratives to prove your point, they should actually say what you are trying to prove. You are speculating.

You do remember you brought up the blind man in John 9 as an example how God does miracles to people without them pleasing God? This rule apply to you as well right, that the narratives you use to prove your point actually say what you are trying to prove?

 

[Hammster]

I thought it was about if we can repent in the flesh or not.

I'm trying to show you, you are reading Rom 8:5-8 wrong, by proving your interpretation doesn't fit those passages of Acts.

How do you think this does that? I don’t see how the narrative goes against the didactic. It doesn’t say anything about when God changes a heart.

 

[Hammster]

You do remember you brought up the blind man in John 9 as an example how God does miracles to people without them pleasing God? This rule apply to you as well right, that the narratives you use to prove your point actually say what you are trying to prove?

I brought up the blind man because you asked for an example. It’s not my argument for the OP.