Where does it say in the Bible which books belong in the Bible?

[faithbeliever1]

Is there an inspired table of contents in the Bible?

[Vambram]

Please check out the following weblink,
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=697 (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=697)
The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture
By:
J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M. (http://www.bible.org/author.php?author_id=22)

It is a long, 13 page document when copied and pasted onto Microsoft Word. However, I believe that this is one of the best explanations and one of the better detailed explanations about the canon of Scripture.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Is there an inspired table of contents in the Bible?

There isn't one.

Luckily, Jesus didn't intend for us to go by written word as a sole rule of faith.

[Hentenza]

There isn't one.

Luckily, Jesus didn't intend for us to go by written word as a sole rule of faith.

Really? mmmm..... Oh I get it. He wanted us to go by what man said instead of his written word. Ok, then!!!;)

[flod logic]

Yes. Clearly not considering it as the only rule of faith means replacing it outright...

[SeraphimSarov]

.

[SeraphimSarov]

.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Really? mmmm..... Oh I get it. He wanted us to go by what man said instead of his written word. Ok, then!!!;)

Jesus didn't write the bible.

The Holy Spirit inspired men to write it. He left us the Holy Spirit, not the bible.

The Holy Spirit teaches through men he left with His authority- that is, the Catholic Church and her bishops (apostles).

[FreeinChrist]

As a reminder, here are the FSRs:
http://foru.ms/t5769410-please-read-current-rules-as-of-7-25-07.html

This has been moved to "Ask a Fundamentalist"

[minister50]

Jesus didn't write the bible.

The Holy Spirit inspired men to write it. He left us the Holy Spirit, not the bible.

The Holy Spirit teaches through men he left with His authority- that is, the Catholic Church and her bishops (apostles).
The Scriptures say:

(2 Timothy 3:15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

(2 Timothy 3:16) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

(2 Timothy 3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

(Isaiah 40:8) The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

(John 17:17) Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

(Psalms 119:105) NUN. Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

[BBAS 64]

Jesus didn't write the bible.

The Holy Spirit inspired men to write it. He left us the Holy Spirit, not the bible.

The Holy Spirit teaches through men he left with His authority- that is, the Catholic Church and her bishops (apostles).

Good Day, Spiritual

How do you know that?

In Him,

Bill

[BigNorsk]

There is a verse that actually gave the old testament canon.

Luk 11:51 NET.
(51) from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation.

Which if you take the way the Jewish Old Testament was ordered, that's the first person who died in the Old Testament to the last person who died in the Old Testament. You don't see that with the order that we put the books.

Also the three division of the Old Testament are given.

Luk 24:44 NET.
(44) Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled."

As for the New Testament, well, if I remember right, the gospel of Luke is called scripture, and Paul's writings are called scripture. I don't remember the references right now, sorry.

Marv

[JohnChapter14]

Jesus didn't write the bible.

The Holy Spirit inspired men to write it. He left us the Holy Spirit, not the bible.

The Holy Spirit teaches through men he left with His authority- that is, the Catholic Church and her bishops (apostles).

Oh I see. So I should follow whatever they tell me: which would have involved the Spanish Inquisition and the crusades. That is a half correct assertion.

We are commanded to love others, walk according to the Spirit and drink in the Spirit, and growing that mustard seed, which is the Word of God, within our hearts. This living word is what we need to focus on. The bible is a guide.

I guess I should go about a listen to certain men and venerate Mary with shrines and such, right? And don't forget I have to pledge my alliegence to the Pope now by bowing down to him and kissing his ring, right?

[JoeV]

And don't forget I have to pledge my alliegence to the Pope now by bowing down to him and kissing his ring, right?
Bowing down to the Pope is not a requirement for being Catholic. Belief in his Apostolic Succession is, however.

[JoeV]

Luk 24:44 NET.
(44) Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled."

That couldn't be the whole OT, the historical books were left out.

[NotreDame]

Is there an inspired table of contents in the Bible?

Well, the Old Testament was already in existence before Jesus' feet ever touched the dirt of the earth. The New Testament, specifically the Gospels, were compiled and considered "canon" by the early Christians, as opposed to the erroneous idea Eusebius and Constantine did it.

In fact, by the time Eusebius and Constantine enter the equation, the Christian community was unanimous, if not then there was a vast consensus, in regards to the books known as the Gospels and a few other NT books. In other words, it was the Christian community, and not so much the church, which compiled what we know today to be the New Testament.

[LivingWordUnity]

Oh I see. So I should follow whatever they tell me: which would have involved the Spanish Inquisition and the crusades."The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world. While the Arabs were busy in the seventh through the tenth centuries winning an opulent and sophisticated empire, Europe was defending itself against outside invaders and then digging out from the mess they left behind. Only in the eleventh century were Europeans able to take much notice of the East. The event that led to the crusades was the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Christian emperor in Constantinople, faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it. More than he wanted, in fact." -By Thomas F. Madden Crusade Propaganda
The abuse of Christianity’s holy wars.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...mY2YjM3ZTRiZDQ (http://[/FONT)=

Here is an article about the Spanish Inquisition:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp (http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/SPANINQ.HTM)

And here is another article about the Crusades:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/05/jihad_begot_the_crusades_1.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/05/jihad_begot_the_crusades_1.html)

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Good Day, Spiritual

How do you know that?

In Him,

Bill

To answer your question, we need to go to another forum or contact via PM.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Well, the Old Testament was already in existence before Jesus' feet ever touched the dirt of the earth. The New Testament, specifically the Gospels, were compiled and considered "canon" by the early Christians, as opposed to the erroneous idea Eusebius and Constantine did it.

In fact, by the time Eusebius and Constantine enter the equation, the Christian community was unanimous, if not then there was a vast consensus, in regards to the books known as the Gospels and a few other NT books. In other words, it was the Christian community, and not so much the church, which compiled what we know today to be the New Testament.

I can answer this on another forum here if you'd like.

[DeaconDean]

What we have here, is, failure ta communicate.


This is just a freindly reminder that this is the "Ask a Fundamentalist" and not "Debate a Fundamentalist."

You may ask questions regarding our beliefs, but once you have been given an answer, you absolutely may not debate it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[FreeinChrist]

Some sites I have found interesing:

http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
Shows how the ECF viewed the various books in regards to the NT.

[DeaconDean]

I just want to add this one thought.

Lets just suppose for the sake of argument, Apostolic Succession was the general rule.

Lets do a modern experiment.

Get 25 people.

Put them in a circle.

Start with #1, and tell them something in their ear, and have them passit to the next person.

Then in turn, have #2 pass it on to #3, and so on and so on.

Then at the end of the circle, have person #25 say out loud what they were told.

Then compare it to what was actually told to person #1.

I garrentee that it will be 100% wrong.

That is why, the oral tradition as one tradition holds to, could be in error.

During the first century missionary journies I have no doubt they taught the traditions the apostles taught, but since "oral tradition" can be twisted and distorted over time, the onlt reliable thing we are left with is the written word.

And that is what Paul taught in 2 Thes. 2:15.

Those churches had the choice of following the teaching of Paul himself or by his epistle. And since we don't have his "oral" tradition preserved, we must fall back on the written Word of the scriptures.

So could you garrentee me that what is being taught today is the exact same thing taught "orally" 2000 years ago without error and without being tainted?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[FreeinChrist]

....the quote I wanted was left out. ..




Actually, no the historical books are not left out.
The Hebrew Bible was divided into three sections - the Torah (books of Moses), the prophets, and the writings which started with Psalms.

they also placeed Chronicles at the end so that the first murder recorded in scripture up to the time of Jesus is that of Abel and the last is of Zechariah.

[LivingWordUnity]

DeaconDean,

You forgot to add the Holy Spirit to that experiment.

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in all truth. (John 16:13)

And it says in the Bible that the Holy Spirit was passed on by the laying on of hands. (Acts 8:18) The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches call this apostolic succession or the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

[DeaconDean]

DeaconDean,

You forgot to add the Holy Spirit to that experiment.

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in all truth. (John 16:13)

And it says in the Bible that the Holy Spirit was passed on by the laying on of hands. (Acts 8:18) The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches call this apostolic succession or the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Actually, you had better go back and read that passage of scripture again, for it does not say that Holy Spirit would "guide the church in all truth."

It actually says:

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." -Joh 16:13 (KJV)

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead the individual, not the corporate "church" to all truth, and Jesus also said the the Holy Spirit would show you the individual believer, thing to come.

And once again, must I remind you that this is not the place to promote ones personal religion?

As John Gill comments, Simon saw that by the laying of hands, the Holy Spirit came upon these individuals. And Simon saw that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were made visible:

Whence it appears, that the Holy Ghost, or his gifts, which were received by imposition of hands, were something visible and discernible; and so something external, and not internal; otherwise they would have been out of Simon's reach,...he saw, that upon this men began to prophesy, and to speak with divers tongues they had never learned, and to work miracles, cure men of their diseases, and the like: and when he observed this,...to purchase such a power of conferring the like gifts, on whomsoever he should lay his hands: hence buying and selling spiritual things, or what relate thereunto, are commonly called "simony": a vice which has greatly prevailed in the church of Rome, and among its popes; and who therefore may be more properly called the successors of Simon Magus, than of Simon Peter.

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=ac&chapter=8&verse=18

This passage does not speak of "Apostolic Succession."

This passage is about somebody thinking that the Holy Spirit and the gifts that come as a result, can be bought.

Matthew Henry says the same thing:

The wicked proposal that Simon made, by which his hypocrisy was discovered (v. 18, 19): When he saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given (which should have confirmed his faith in the doctrine of Christ, and increased his veneration for the apostles). it gave him a notion of Christianity as no other than an exalted piece of sorcery, in which he thought himself capable of being equal to the apostles, and therefore offered them money, saying, Give me also this power. He does not desire them to lay their hands on him, that he might receive the Holy Ghost himself (for he did not foresee that any thing was to be got by that), but that they would convey to him a power to bestow the gift upon others. He was ambitious to have the honour of an apostle, but not at all solicitous to have the spirit and disposition of a Christian. He was more desirous to gain honour to himself than to do good to others. Now, in making this motion, (1.) He put a great affront upon the apostles, as if they were mercenary men, would do any thing for money, and loved it as well as he did; whereas they had left what they had, for Christ, so far were they from aiming to make it more—(2.) He put a great affront upon Christianity, as if the miracles that were wrought for the proof of it were done by magic arts, only of a different nature from what he himself had practised formerly. (3.) He showed that, like Balaam, he aimed at the rewards of divination; for he would not have offered money for this power if he had not hoped to get money by it. (4.) He showed that he had a very high conceit of himself, and that he had never his heart truly humbled. Such a wretch as he had been before his baptism should have asked, like the prodigal, to be made as one of the hired servants.

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=ac&chapter=8#Ac8_18

That is why Peter rebuked Simon in verse 20:

"thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." -Acts 8:20 (KJV)

And how about the household of Cornelius?

Peter saw the that the Holy Spirit had fallen on Cornelius without the laying on of hands, for Peter himself says:

" Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" -Acts 10:47 (KJV)

Sorry. But that ain't the case.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[BigNorsk]

And what do we see in the very next passage after Peter was supposedly made the head of the church? We see him step up and try to insert his desires over God's desires and we hear our Lord call him Satan and tell him to quite trying to be God. But to follow Jesus. The true head.

Many people to this day have sinful pride that they come from one of the Apostles, I am of Peter, I am of Thomas, and on and on. Each claiming this in some way makes them special and correct, and ruler.

Such was never supposed to be, all are to be of God, not committing Satan's original sin, not committing the sin of Peter.

Marv

[DeaconDean]

Phariseeism and Antinomianism unite, like herod and Pilate did, against the truth.

Arthur W. Pink, The Law and the Saint.

http://www.the-highway.com/Law_Pink.html

God Bless

Till all are one.

[DeaconDean]

In the Greek, John 16:13 reads as such:

"otan de elqh ekeinoV, to pneuma thV alhqeiaV, odhghsei umaV en th alhqeia pash: ou gar lalhsei af eautou, all osa akousei lalhsei, kai ta ercomena anaggelei umin."

-John 16:13 (GNT)

In this passage of scripture, there are two words which we should be concerned with:

"umaV" and "umin" from the Greek root word "su"

Now, according to the "New Analytical Greek Lexicon," By: Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, umsV, p. 417, this word is:

"accusitive, plural, 2 person, personal pronoun"

Because it is accusitive, this word is the direct object of the verb. "You" are receiving the action of something else.

In the Greek, this word in both singular and plural mean exactly the same thing, "you". Actually, in the plural, in the Kings English, it means "ye" but for our purpose, we'll use "you." (not I, 1st pers. sing, or we, 1st pers. plur, or he/she/it, 3rd pers. sing, or they, 3rd pers. plur)

And because it is a personal pronoun, this makes this word "you."

What is leading to all truth? The Holy Spirit.

And who is receiving the fruit of the work of the Holy Spirit? You. Period.

The Greek language show beyond a doubt that the work of the Holy Spirit here in John 16:13 is on the individual level and not on the corporate level.

And if we follow the teachings set forth earlier in this thread, then when Jesus is teaching or speaking to the disciples, these passages are exclusively for the disciples and nobody else, then we would have to throw out half of the entire Gospels because they don't apply to us, only to the disciples.

I can answer that in one word: BULL!

Fact, there was already a church in existance in Jerusalem, and the Bible bears witness to this:

"And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem;" -Acts 8:1 (KJV)

In Acts 12, we read:

"And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place." -Acts 12:17 (KJV)

Fleeing the persecution of Herod, Peter tells Rhoda to go and tell James and the other brethren the things which had taken place. Peter was not the head of the church in Jerusalem.

Furthermore, In Acts 15, we read:

"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." -Acts 15:7-11 (KJV)

Hearing the accusations of the Phariseeic Christians, (cf. Acts 15:1,5) Peter is the first to speak up.

Later, after Peter's speach, Paul and Barnabus are allowed to say what they have done. It is after this that James, the head of the church in Jerusalem, speaks with authority, not Peter:

"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." -Acts 15:13-20 (KJV)

The authority in the early primative church rested in Jerusalem, and in James, not Peter.

Furthermore, the first pope, Peter, rock of the church, is accused by Paul of being a hypocrite!

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" -Gal. 2:11-14 (KJV)

Fact: Three times Peter denied Jesus Christ. (cf. Mt. 26:70, 72, 74)

Fact: Three times Peter disobeyed God. (cf. Acts 11:10)

Fact: Peter was accused of hypocrisy. (cf. Gal. 2:11-14)

Kinda reveals something about the "human" side of the "Pope" doesn't it?

He is no better than me, he is no worse than me. he is the same as me, just a sinner saved by the grace of God!!!!!!!!

And what is an "apostle?"

apostoloV, 1) a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders 1a) specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ 1b) in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers 1b1) of Barnabas 1b2) of Timothy and Silvanus

http://www.greekbible.com/index.php

And according to my Lexicon, an apostolos, is: "a sending, office or duty of one sent as a messenger or agent; office of an apostle, apostleship, one sent as a messenger or agent, the bearer of commission, messenger, an apostle"

We are to go out and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, that makes us one who is sent, a messenger, an agent, an apostle, in a very real sense.

Continued...

[DeaconDean]

Charles Hodge sets forth the principles Jesus taught in John 16:8-15. (And they apply to everybody, not just on the corporate level, or just to the disciples)

I have Hodge's Systematic Theology, both in the three volume set, and on cd.

And in Volume I, he addresses the aspect of God as a trinity. And as a trinity, he addresses how each one works. And in volume I he addresses the Holy Spirit's work in salvation. (In order to understand the trinity properly, necessity dictates that any study of the Holy Spirit be placed in “Theology Proper” for who is the Holy Spirit but God the Spirit)

And how does the Holy Spirit work in salvation?

1) Conviction

2) Regeneration

3) Faith is given and the exercise of faith and repentance

4) Indwelling after repentance.

Sorry, but its not's me who don't understand.

So there is reason in the world for us to believe that the Holy Spirit absolutely comes by the "laying on of hands."

Cornelius and his house received the Holy Spirit without baptism and without the laying on of hands:

"...Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" -Acts 10:46-47 (KJV)

There is no reason in the world for us to believe that after the Holy Spirit has come into us, convicted us of sin, regenerated us, gave us faith, and led us to the exercise of faith through repentance, and then indwell us, that the Holy Spirit would depart, then after baptism or the "laying on of hands" would return to us.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[gracealone22]

In the Greek, John 16:13 reads as such:

"otan de elqh ekeinoV, to pneuma thV alhqeiaV, odhghsei umaV en th alhqeia pash: ou gar lalhsei af eautou, all osa akousei lalhsei, kai ta ercomena anaggelei umin." How does the Greek Orthodox Church interpret the Greek of the New Testament?

[DeaconDean]

How does the Greek Orthodox Church interpret the Greek of the New Testament?

Wait a minute.

This is oddly familiar.

I gotta go check something out.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[JoeV]

There is no reason in the world for us to believe that after the Holy Spirit has come into us, convicted us of sin, regenerated us, gave us faith, and led us to the exercise of faith through repentance, and then indwell us, that the Holy Spirit would depart, then after baptism or the "laying on of hands" would return to us.

Scripture does not support the view that there is a once-for-all reception of the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:16 says how the baptized had not received the Holy Spirit yet. Yet Acts 2:38 says that we will be filled with the Him through baptism. This supports the view that maybe the Holy Spirit is manifested in us in stages.

[DeaconDean]

Pinky, you give a whole new meaning to the phrase, "counter-intelligence."

You have the I.Q. of plaster.


Let me take the time to remind our Catholic visitors that you may not debate in the "Ask a Fundamentalist" area.

What is allowed are fellowship/encouragement posts.

And you may ask a question about our beliefs and/or doctrines.

But when you have had your question answered according to our beliefs, you absolutely may not debate our beliefs/doctrines in this room.

Carry on.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[JoeV]

My apologies, Deacon Dean. Then let me ask a question: where does Scripture support the view that when we receive the Holy Spirit, He will remain in us for eternity (resulting in salvation)?

[BigNorsk]

Joe,

I would point out a couple of things. One, if you want to debate, then one subforum down is debate with a fundamentalist.

Two, what you are asking will not have agreement within those under what would be called the fundamentalist umbrella. If you simple read the definition of a fundamentalist, you will see for instance that there is no form of Once Saved Always Saved, or Perseverance of the Saints in the definition.

I would say that the answer is clear. God can and does take his Holy Spirit from people to whom he has given it. Saul would be one example. He does retain the sovereignity over his books, so we see God blot out from his book the names of those who worshipped the Golden Calf, who united themselves with a false god. And we are given many admonitions to persevere, which become nonsensical if we can do nothing but.

Dean of course would completely disagree with all of that.

So it's really not a fundamentalist question.

Marv

[DeaconDean]

Dean of course would completely disagree with all of that.

So it's really not a fundamentalist question.

Marv

Brother, I can disagree with a person and still respect them.

It is our two lines of denominational convictions and doctrines which puts us at odds.

You say "spiritual" I say "memorial." You say "sprinkle" I say "immerse."

Personally, I have nothing against you, its our doctinal convictions which place us at odds.

Please remember that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[DeaconDean]

My apologies, Deacon Dean. Then let me ask a question: where does Scripture support the view that when we receive the Holy Spirit, He will remain in us for eternity (resulting in salvation)?

Before I do anything, let me say that this question is

http://bestsmileys.com/signs1/15.gif

However, I'll forego this just this once, and I'll try to explain my position.

I do disagree with Marv on one point:

God can and does take his Holy Spirit from people to whom he has given it. Saul would be one example.

The thing about this, Saul, is that at that time in history, God was the person in whom, Israel were to deal with. His "glory cloud" would overshadow the tabernacle whenever He was present. Now the Holy Spirit did work in the Old Testamant, that is a fact, but where the work performed by the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament differes from the New Testament is in the fact that the Holy Spirit was never a "permenant" resident in OT times. So God was within His right as Sovereign to give and take the Holy Spirit as He pleased.

However, that is not the case in the New Testament.

Jesus said:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" -Jn. 14:16 (KJV)

John Gill comments:

"that he may abide with you for ever:

not a few years only, as I have done, but as long as you live; and with all those that shall succeed you in the work of the ministry, and with the church, and all true believers unto the end of the world: this is a proof of the saints' final perseverance. When we consider these words, in connection with the preceding exhortation, to keep the commands of Christ, and as an encouragement so to do, it brings to mind a saying of R. Eliezer ben Jacob;

``he that does one commandment gets for himself (dxa jylqrp) , (ena paraklhton) , the very word here used, "one advocate", or "comforter"; and he that transgresses one command, gets for himself one accuser.'' But though the word signifies both an advocate and a comforter, the latter seems to be the meaning of it here, as being more suited to the disconsolate condition of the disciples."

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=joh&chapter=14&verse=16

Now, any answer I give from here on will put us at odds because I disagree that I had anything to do with my salvation. That was a work done in me soley by the Holy Spirit.

Now, on to the subject at hand, Charles Hodge explains the principle of "indwelling" by the Holy Spirit after regeneration.

"God, or the Spirit of God, testifies to the truth of the Scriptures and of the doctrines which they contain. This testimony, as has been seen, is partly external, consisting in prophecies and miracles, partly in the nature of the truths themselves as related to the intellectual and moral elements of the soul, and partly special and supernatural. Unrenewed men may feel the power of the two former kinds of testimony, and believe with a faith either merely intellectual and speculative, or with what may be called from its ground, a moral faith, which is only temporary. The spiritual form of testimony is confined to the regenerated. It is, of course, inscrutable. The operations of the Spirit do not reveal themselves in the consciousness otherwise than by their effects. We know that men are born of the Spirit, that the Spirit dwells in the people of God and continually influences their thoughts, feelings, and actions. But we know this only from the teaching of the Bible, not because we are conscious of his operations. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John iii.8.)"

Charles Hodge, Sysytematic Theology, Vol. III, Soterology, Chapter XVI, Faith, Section 4, Faith and Knowledge,
What is meant by the Testimony of the Spirit, p. 58.

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/h...ystematic3.pdf (http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/h...ystematic3.pdf)

In his exposition of John 16:8-10, we see that:

The Holy Spirit is the One who reproves the sinner of his sin.
Reproves him of his righteousness.
Reproves him of the Judgement.I have Hodge's Systematic Theology, both in the three volume set, and on cd.

And in Volume I, he addresses the aspect of God as a trinity. And as a trinity, he addresses how each one works. And in volume I he addresses the Holy Spirit's work in salvation.

And how does the Holy Spirit work in salvation?

1) Conviction

2) Regeneration

3) Faith is given and the exercise of faith and repentance

4) Indwelling after repentance.

So, if the Holy Spirit works in us to convict us of our sin, then regenerates us, gives us the faith to believe and repent, then "indwells" us, why would the Holy Spirit do all that, then leaves us, and then come back upon baptism?

Because He don't, that is, unless Jesus lied to us.

Because Jesus specifically said:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" -Jn. 14:16 (KJV)

Now, what does the word "abide" mean?

"menw - (meno) to remain, abide ; in reference to place; to sojourn, tarry; not to depart; to continue to be present; to be held, kept, continually; in reference to time; to continue to be, not to perish, to last, endure; of persons, to survive, live; in reference to state or condition; to remain as one, not to become another or different; to wait for, await one"

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3306&version=kjv

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would abide in us, not to depart, kept, held, continually, that he would not perish, but would last forever in us.

Now, are you saying that this isn't what Jesus said?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[DeaconDean]

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." -Acts 2:38 (KJV)

If one takes this piece of scripture and applies it universally, then we have a big problem.

1) How about the thief on the cross? Was he not saved on the cross beside Jesus? Did he receive baptism so that he could have the Holy Ghost?

2) Or how about Jesus' example of Lazarus. being comforted in Abraham's bosom. Was he baptized? Did he receive the Holy Spirit?

Now, these can be refuted simply by saying that at that time, the Holy Spirit had not yet been given. I'll admit that. But the Acts passage takes on further implications if taken literally and applied universally. As some do here.

In the Greek, Acts 2:38 reads as such:

"petroV de proV autouV, metanohsate, [fhsin,] kai baptisqhtw ekastoV umwn epi tw onomati ihsou cristou eiV afesin twn amartiwn umwn, kai lhmyesqe thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatoV:"

Our Greek word here is "baptisqhtw" and it is in the 3rd person, (he/she/it) singular, aorist, passive, imperfect.

What all this means is that the people were baptized "for the remission of sins" and that the gift of the Holy Spirit was a "by-product" of their being baptized. They weren't baptized just so they could receive the Holy Spirit, they were baptized for the remission of their sins.

And we know this to be true because the "baptisqhtw" being passive, shows that it was done "because of" something, not in the active role, in order to.

They were "baptized" because of "metanohsate" (repentance).

They were not "baptisqhtw" in order to, receive the Holy Spirit.

And furthermore, when Jesus came to the disciples in the "Upper Room," and said:

"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:" -John 20:22 (KJV)

Verse 19 plainly tells us that on the very day He arose, he appeared to the disciples, "in the midst' of them.

A simple study of the timeline shows that Jesus, after His resurrection, walked, talked, taught, and preached, for 40 days until His ascention. (Acts 1:3)

His ascention to heaven was after the 40 days. (cf. Acts 1:9-11) How is it then that the account of Pentecost wasn't until 41 days later? Are we to believe that the disciples had to wait 40-41 days before they received the Holy Spirit? And if this is the case, then Jesus' divine power was diminished by His death. Did not Jesus say to the fig tree:

"And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away." -Mt. 21:19 (KJV)

If we are to believe that the disciples had to wait 40-41 days to receive the Holy Spirit, then Jesus' divine power as God-in-the-flesh was diminished by His death because John 20:22 says they (the disciples) received the Holy Spirit then and there, not 40-41 days later.

And if so, then John 20:19, 22, are incorrect.

And furthermore, please show me where the disciples were baptized and received "the gift of the Holy Ghost."?

No sir, the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit would come, and convict (reprove) us of our sins. Jesus, God, and Jeremiah all state that it is the heart that is wicked, it is the seat of sin, and David teaches us that we need a new heart created in us. If the heart is the seat of sin, where does the Holy Spirit work? In the heart. So the Holy Spirit is already working from within.

I still repeat, "There is no reason for us to believe that the Holy Spirit would come to us, work in us to convict of sins, judgment, and righteousness, bring us to repentance, give us faith to believe, leave, then come back to repossess us later."

Charles Hodge talks on the working of the Holy Spirit:

"It is the special office of the Spirit to convince the world of sin; to reveal Christ, to regenerate the soul, to lead men to the exercise of faith and repentance; to dwell in those whom He thus renews, as a principle of a new and divine life. By this indwelling of the Spirit, believers are united to Christ, and to one another, so that they form one body. This is the foundation of the communion of saints, making them one in faith, one in love, one in their inward life, and one in their hopes and final destiny."

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Theology Proper, Chapter VIII, The Office of the Holy Spirit, The Spirit's Office in the Work of Regeneration, Section 4.

The duty of the Holy Spirit is to convict of sin, to reveal Christ, then to regenerate them and lead them to faith and repentance.

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/h...ystematic1.pdf (http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/h...ystematic1.pdf)

He goes further on to show:

Proof from Express Declarations of Scripture.

"That this is the Scriptural doctrine on the subject is plain from the express declarations of the Scriptures. Our Lord promised to send the Spirit for this very purpose. “He will reprove the world of sin,” especially of the sin of not believing in Christ; “and of righteousness,” that is, of his righteousness, — the rightfulness of his claims to be regarded and received as the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh, and the Saviour of the world, “and of judgment,” that is, of the final overthrow of the kingdom of darkness and triumph of the kingdom of light. (John xvi. 8.) Faith, therefore, is always represented in Scripture as one of the fruits of the Spirit, as the gift of God, as the product of his energy (Colossians ii. 12)."

Ibid, Vol. III, Soterology, Chapter XVI, Faith, Faith and Knowledge,
Proof from Express Declarations of Scripture., Section 1, p. 59

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/h...ystematic3.pdf (http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/hodge_systematic3.pdf)

It is very clear from Hodge's Systematic Theology, that the work of the Holy Spirit follows as such:

The Holy Spirit comes upon the sinner, works from within to convict the heart of sin, regenerates the sinner, gives the sinner the faith to believe and repent, then indwells the sinner.

In Hodge's Systematic Theology, in the section on "Theology Proper" he addresses the work and office of the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is God in the Spirit, it is altogether proper to place this in the section on "Theology Proper" before the section on "Soterology." And in the section addressing "Theology Proper," Hodge shows that the correct view, as is supported by John 16:8-10, is:

1) Conviction

2) Regeneration

3) Faith is given and the exercise of faith and repentance

4) Indwelling after repentance.

Only after regeneration, faith has been given, repentance has taken place, then (thus) does the Holy Spirit indwell the believer permenantly.

And just because the Spirit is working from within to convict the individual of sin, does not mean that He is already "indwelling" the person.

What about the person who goes to church, feels the unction of the Spirit leading them to the altar, and they refuse to submit?

There is such a thing as quinching the Spirit to the extent that He never works on you again.

So again, I repeat:


There is no reason for us to believe that the Holy Spirit would come to us, work in us to convict of sins, judgment, and righteousness, bring us to repentance, give us faith to believe, leave, then come back to repossess us later.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[JoeV]

Thank you, Deacon Dean. Since this is not a debate forum, I will not respond.