QUOTES FROM LUKELUKE:
100% honesty....
In regards to an "agenda". I wrote my posts with a strong conviction that the doctrine of a second 'baptism' in the Spirit is wrong. On the one hand, I did want to prove the point that it was wrong (but not to win an argument, rather because I see it as really important to address and I see it as not from God, so my first reaction is to combat it for the sake of releasing others from a prison of lies and infirm foundations), BUT on the other hand I simply wanted to see how people obviously on the 'other end of this spectrum' would interpret certain verses, to find out/explore their justification for believing this.
I hear you saying here something like: a voyage of discovery about how others interpret Scriptures; but not trying to be "bossy" (though you have been a tiny bit, I believe without meaning to be); as well as seeking to expose errors that you see by strong conviction. Note: "for the sake of releasing others from a prison of lies and infirm foundations" is all very strong, my friend. I see and quite understand your PASSION for whatr you believe. But what it says to me is that you are the one with the truth, not us, and you are going to tell us the truth to fix us up. First of all: this wins no friends and so blocks your efforts to help us; second it can be seen as arrogance, whether you meant this or not. All of this Note is aimed at being positive, loving, and helping, okay.
Otherwise, I can handle all of that so far as I can see. Thanks for the explanation and for not getting mad at me for querying if you did have an 'agenda'. (So common that people do...)
Discussion or whatever one may call it on forum threads is an utter waste of time unless each will obey God's command to LOVE the other, and also to RESPECT him/her (my Beloved has been known to say that respect is the highest form of love, and when you digest this fully you can see the wonderful truth of it). Respect means I will LISTEN to you and do my very best to HEAR what you are saying - NOT dismissing anything you say. In fact I will actually put myself on your side in order to try and hear and understand you.
THIS IS MY QUERY I NEED EXPLAINING:
Eph 1:13.
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed (πιστευω = I believe in, trust in, have faith in) in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit
How would someone who gives their life to God in a trust (not head knowledge, but genuine) not be therefore FILLED with the Holy Spirit.
For the sake of 'argument' I can't see why a saved person who is not filled with the Spirit could not claim this verse for his very own. Sealed means, well, simply sealed as God's own by His Spirit. I believed this long before I felt that I was filled. I would expect most new Believers to learn of this truth, filled or otherwise. That is, this is a GREAT verse, but I can't see how it implies anywhere that filling is required in order to be sealed by the Spirit. If I'm missing something, Luke, please point it out to me.
The difference is that I see the Scriptures teaching that FILLING happens when you become a Christian, but you say that this happens later at a separate point of time (no matter in China or here, whether closer or further apart from initial response to God you seem to put across two events)....?
I totally accept that you believe the Scriptures teach filling at one's conversion. Our discussion here is to try and see if this is so from/in the Scriptures!! Note: at no time when trying to explain what I sadly see happening in the West (i.e., mostly later filling) was I meaning to imply that this is ALWAYS the case, NOR that it intrinsically HAS to be the case! NOT AT ALL. In fact I earnestly wish that I'd been filled at conversion!!
Your testimony was this...
"Looking at Scriptures this is impossible." NOTE: as you started off here, this is again very black and white, Luke. "Impossible?" Absolutely outside the realm of possibility? Are we trying TOGETHER to find the truth here, or are you 100% CERTAIN that you are right, i.e., that YOUR interpretation of the Scriptures is absolutely right and that of others is wrong? That's how it comes across.
You could have easily said this better, e.g., "BM, the way I see the Scriptures I just can't see how this could have been true for your life." That allows the other guy some room to explain HIS position rather than feeling shot down by your strong b & w statement. [Maybe you're getting tired of me trying to help you be gentler and looking more carefully at the other guy and his position - but I hope not!! Cos I'm with you in this search for the truth, okay, NOT agin you.]
What could have happened was that you walked away after your were saved and lost salvation (Heb 6), or that you were not truly 'saved' to begin with - i.e. went to an emotional altar call that did not preach Gospel and repentance, but preached that He will make your life better. Therefore not responding to the Gospel, but a better life.
I neither walked away nor lost salvation EVER!! From the moment of my conversion and even before, I was and have been ALL FOR GOD!! I've sinned, sure, like us all, but I've not had even ONE DAY of rebellion nor ONE DAY of separation from Him (including during deliberate sin for a time). The realisation of this truth of 52 years came just recently and quite stunned me at such an evidence of God's astonishing grace!!!
However my first contact with God WAS indeed very imperfect: bad teaching and understanding, lack of detail, and so on - JUST LIKE FOR MOST WESTERN CHRISTIANS!!! I was NOT looking for a "better life" nor responding to emotionalism - both most serious Western church problems (my conversion was entirely between me and God, not in a church).
I WON'T TELL YOU HOW YOUR LIFE WENT, but this is confusing to me especially in my eyes because being born again means that you have the Spirit.
Hector, I'm not meaning to confuse you, my friend, no way! "Means you have the Spirit." - I've already said that a new Christian HAS to have the Spirit or salvation is impossible. I've then simply said further that it seems that Westerners MOSTLY don't appear to get FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT till later - or even not at all.
What seems to be happening here is that as I convey to you salvation as I experienced and understand it, it conflicts strongly with what you believe. You may be RIGHT! So no need for confusion for now. These are just two different situations - and two different understandings of them. For the time being please try to just accept this.
You said that "it seems pretty clear" that you were born again. If you could tell by the Lord changing you and fruit, then He only does that by the power of the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:24 = your new self has been CREATED). If you could see fruit, then the Holy Spirit is the only thing able to CREATE fruit in you (Gal 5:16-26). If you were experiencing Godly changes in attitudes, then it is clear you were already filled as "no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except IN the Holy Spirit"... Didn't you call Jesus your Lord?
NO! At conversion, aged 18, first time I found anyone who could tell me anything about salvation, I was told Jesus was my Saviour! Lord, most sadly, was entirely absent! Even Billy Graham who I heard here in 1959 talked almost all about Jesus as Saviour, not as Lord. FAULTY PREACHING! I was 31 before I heard about Jesus' Lordship, from a tape by an Anglican Priest, accepted Him as my Lord there and there (a very interesting story to this as I "walked the plank"!) Then at age 61 I chose to go one step further by making Jesus my Master, gave up all of my rights, with me as His bond-slave (bondman - hence the name) FOREVER!!
As for fruits, changing, etc., that's more difficult. On another Christian forum, a 17 yr old girl once told me straight out how she'd fooled her parents, Youth Pastor, other kids, and all the church folk for years that she was a born again Christian - but she wasn't! "It's as easy as anything," she assured me!! I know I worked at living as a Christian would/should. I did understand how to believe in Him, and was (imperfectly) following Him to the best of my knowledge and ability at that time. I did quite a deal of preaching when I was around 19 (NONE about the Holy Spirit!) I studied the Scriptures seriously, worked with others in evangelism, was a most earnest and serious Christian young man. JUST LIKE PLENTY OF OTHERS AROUND ME!!
If I really was born again as I believe, I can see no evidence of being filled with the Spirit. That came a lot later.
Anyway, please don't take offense I WON'T TELL YOU HOW YOUR LIFE WENT, but this is exactly what I don't see lining up with truth...
You can say what you like to me, Luke, I will NOT take offense. (Only seek to "correct" you if I can see a better way for you to do things - because I love you!! You don't have to take my "correction" either, only if you choose to.)
~Side note~
Not that I was there, and not saying that everything that was preached was right, but if you understand that they (like me) don't preach 'baptism of the Spirit' (as you see it) is because all it is is a PHRASE used to describe what happens WHEN you are saved. I.E. another way the bible describes being: "Saved", "born again", "baptised in the Holy Spirit", "In Jesus", "In the body of Jesus", "Christian", "in The faith". Therefore teaching being saved IS similarly teaching to be baptised in the Holy Spirit.
Yup, I quite get what you're saying. Cannot say that I'm yet convinced that it's quite as clear cut at that - WISH IT WAS!!! - but as my current health allows I'm researching hard on this, and will write again as soon as I can.
In love and honesty,
Luke.
And to you, my friend!!
- BM
(Are you Gold Coast, Queensland, or some other place?)