Do you want to know the truth?

I did indeed have a restful and rejuvenating nap. Thank you. I hope you did, too.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

the idea to know if another has the " Holy Ghost" is first to know that you do. Anyone can pull off a Sunday God bless you Jesus loves, but who they are on Monday most do not know. In addition, to be blunt, The Holy Spirit is not going to people in the church telling them " they do not have The Holy Ghost" and that one doesn't The Holy Spirit is doing what Jesus said HE would do. Reproving sin, speaking of Jesus, and bring in into our remembrance all that He taught as John 14 -16 chapters tells us. It is the self-examination that we each need. Not a critical spirit but a humble one. Trying to create condemnation of others is not even a doctrine it is judging others. We must take the beam out of our own eye. those who love much have been forgiving much.

Sorry to abbreviate the post to answer the question, but it's fairly safe to abbreviate when there is agreement. And I do agree that only the first verse was about physical water.

And I'll say this again perhaps only for others' sakes. But I really like that you highlight the non-physical mentions of water. There are so many times when scriptures are clearly not talking about H2O and I'd not even noticed how often that was being done. I think we can politely discuss whether any particular scripture is talking about physical water or spiritual water and whether or not those mentions have anything to do with baptism.

When it comes to the main topic of baptism(s), I'll try to use the phrase "water baptism" to mean the physical dunking of someone in H2O (for whatever purpose that might be). I'd use different wording when talking about spirit baptism.

I consider the phrase "born of water" to mean the same thing as 'water baptism' but I will probably avoid that usage in our discussions because I've heard some say that phrase means "physical infant birth" because they consider amniotic fluid to be the "water" being referenced.

My apologies if that's worded poorly. After my nap I made a 60 mile trip to get a car part, followed by a 50 mile trip to help my son.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

There's a difference between KNOWING if someone has the Holy Ghost and SAYING "You do or don't have the Holy Ghost". I did not say or suggest that there is a need to go through a church announcing "THIS one has the Holy Spirit. And THIS one does not". But there is a reason (perhaps even a need) to KNOW which one does and which one does not, of people you interact with.

Think about it from this perspective even though it's a hard one to swallow... If a person asks "Do I have the Holy Spirit now?" Are you going to guess? Because, if you don't KNOW whether they've got the Holy Ghost or not, you DON'T know if they're "saved".

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

You were telling in my response to you that :

There's a difference between KNOWING if someone has the Holy Ghost and SAYING "You do or don't have the Holy Ghost". I did not say or suggest that there is a need to go through a church announcing "THIS one has the Holy Spirit. And THIS one does not".


In your original post, I think you are doing just that or suggesting it.

"Once you know it, you should say it" would be an inaccurate portrayal of my meaning.

Even though it is an understandable assumption, it is still an assumption rather than a reality.

Another filter I have is approximately "You don't really know anything important until you know something so important that you have to keep it to yourself (except under specific circumstances)" <-- That's not precise wording but it at least conveys the idea that I differentiate between Knowing and Speaking.

Here's the same idea in scripture (which took a bit to find how it's worded):

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

I guess I could have added this as well:
A person's behavior on Monday does not change the fact that they did (or did not) have the Holy Ghost on Friday.

The Holy Spirit (once received) is a comforter that abides with us forever (John 14:16) ... even if we sin on Monday.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

P.S. I'd had this written but noticed CS1's posting. So I cut/pasted it here only after answering the intervening question.

One question I had was how do you determine who has the Holy Spirit and does not?

Another thought I had was people who have the Holy Spirit can still be wrong. They can still have wrong doctrine on some things and can misinterpret Bible verses. One thing I have been told with the Bible is context is important.

there is no filter we are to place our faith in the Lord Jesus as his word. Feelings doesn't = faith.

@CS1
It is very important to be able to recognize who does or does not have the spirit of God. It is not always beneficial to express that knowledge openly.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Good morning Kelby That was quite a road trip you had yesterday! I hope both your son and your car have benefited

Using the phrase "water baptism" to mean the use of physical water is a good idea There are quite a few times in Scripture where the necessity of baptism is being put forth when this distinction is not there, and yet people read earthly water into the verses. I believe it is erroneous to do so. I do not really agree that the water part of being born of water and the Spirit means amniotic fluid, either. I have seen people say that quite a few times over the years, but it just does not really resonate with me.

Once during a discussion of this type here on CC, somebody falsely accused me of telling people not to get water baptized. This person refused to acknowledge that nowhere in any of my posts had I ever even so much as hinted at such a thing. The discussion from my point of view is almost always focused on the meaning of water, and whether a person can be saved if they have not been water baptized. I have also pointed out that Jesus commanded the disciples to water baptize, while it was Peter who commanded believers to be water baptized. Water baptism sometimes preceded the advent of the infilling with the Holy Spirit, and other times came after or concurrent with water baptism. Water baptism in itself is not the saving unto life ever after element.

John the Baptist said Jesus would baptize with fire and the Sprit. Well, he did not say Jesus' Name, but we know that is Who he was talking about. We are also told there is one baptism. I cannot believe this refers to water baptism, especially considering that some are water baptized hoping it helps in their earth walk when they do not believe in their heart and confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord, and that God raised Him from death. Line by line and precept by precept it is interesting how we come to different conclusions. I would never actively discourage a person from getting baptized unless I knew for a fact that they did not believe the gospel, in the Biblical God, and Jesus Christ. Even so, I never have discouraged anyone from being water baptized

"Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them."

That's a good, valid, and appropriate question. When making the OP, I knew it would come up and was wondering if, and/or how best, to answer it.

What I decided is that I will avoid answering it directly for as long as possible.

The main reason is that it's important for people to realize the NEED for the answer. A subsequent reason is that people need to learn how to take those kinds of questions to God and let him teach and show them. That is of much more value than just blurting out an answer that seems unimportant.

That's exactly why we need to have a way to TEST not just other's doctrines, but our own and our own churches'. Think about it. You're more likely to be deceived by an error taught by a pastor you trust, than an error taught by some pastor you don't trust. <-- that should be a sobering thought. And it's part of the reason Jesus taught "if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the ditch". But don't let fear consume you. God has plenty of light to shine on any dark area. He just won't shine it if we prefer to stay in the darkness we know. (Choose light rather than darkness )

As for context... yes that's important. But people who fail to correctly understand a sentence are just as capable of misunderstanding the entire paragraph, page, or book. The bible doesn't say (anywhere that I know of) "make sure you know the entire context". But it does say "Lean NOT to your own understanding." and "Come unto ME, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" and "take my yoke upon you and learn of ME" and "They shall be all taught of GOD. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me". It is so very important that each of us learn how to take our concerns, fears, needs for understanding, etc directly to God instead of trusting either our own understanding of the sentence, paragraph, book...or that of our possibly blind (have you ever checked?) pastor.

I'm not knocking the role of pastors, or any other position, but I am suggesting there's a danger if we trust and rely on our pastor more than God. Know God for yourself. He's willing to teach you how to test things, discern, SEE, and understand accurately. He will never lie nor tell you an error. Can that be said of any current pastor?

Again, I'm not knocking pastors. I have one myself. But when I have a difficult question I KNOW that the answer God gives will be correct (even if it doesn't come as quickly as I might like). I only HOPE my pastor will have the correct answer when i ask him. So guess which one I'm more likely to ask. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" - John 10:27 KJV

My apologies if that was rant-ish. And thanks again for the great question.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

the point is for one to know the Spirit they must have Him themselves. the discernment comes from knowing the word of God and the Spirit of Truth as Jesus said. IF we judge ourselves we will not be judged.

Do you know there's a difference in receiving the Spirit at salvation, & the baptism of the Spirit that can happen later?
Just curious.

Yep, The trips were profitable for all involved.

Glad to see you're back. I have a tendency to analyze endlessly when someone leaves honest and important questions on the table. That cycle is easily broken when the other party is there to interact with.

I read your post then stepped off to the bathroom, thinking about what you said. And "line upon line, precept upon precept" stood out in a new way. First I thought "Yep, that's exactly how I intend to answer your posts...line by line, idea by idea ( or at least paragraph by paragraph because some can be summarized.)" But then I realized that's also the method God has taught me of how to break down a discussion and teach (or learn) any new concept. First step is to separate each point that is being stated (often there are SEVERAL within each sentence). Then find the EXACT point where the error(or disagreement) begins. Then start from a slightly earlier point (an earlier precept), preferably one of clear mutual agreement, and begin to question & highlight the truth vs. error at the point where the error (or disagreement) begins.

Mostly agreed. I believe it is possible to discover the distinction elsewhere (either through a clarification made elsewhere in scripture, or through prayer when God opens the understanding of what something actually means) BUT neither of those is helpful in a discussion if the other party doesn't see it the same way. So it's best to focus on areas where the meanings are clear and/or agreed.
Me either! It seems fruitless to say "You MUST be born of amniotic fluid." unless of course you're trying to start a doctrine of "Doomed from the Womb'd" for those whose sack was ripped prematurely. ( I only added the "apostrophe + d" to make it rhyme. lol) (Now I'm questioning my sense of humor. )
Actually, in order for water baptism to be effective (for lack of better wording) there always has to be a level of belief first. If a person doesn't believe they need to be water baptized, they WON'T get water baptized...and they WON'T receive the benefits of water baptism (whatever those are). That's why JESUS, not Peter, said "He that BELIEVETH and is baptized".

Agreed. Although I'm guessing some discussion should be had on the notion of concurrent. (for clarification if nothing else)

Agreed. But this is also where the main discussion must begin. And I'll throw you the big point right away. There is huge importance in knowing what EACH baptism is here to accomplish. You are correct that water baptism ISN'T a baptism into Life. Water baptism is a baptism into Death.. Spirit baptism is a baptism into Life. That's part of the reason we come up FROM water baptism (not staying in it) in similarity to the way Jesus came up FROM death (not staying in it). But even that secondary point may need much discussion.
"One baptism" It would need to clarify the other type of "baptism" if the spirit baptism hadn't already been mentioned a few phrases earlier. But that's one of those I'd prayed about so I won't get upset if you don't immediately agree.

My general stance is that unless clarification is made that it is Spirit baptism, the use of baptism refers to water baptism because that was the known baptism since the days of John's baptism. But that's only clarifying where I'm coming from and why. It's not something I'll get hateful over. It can be discussed.

I've already mentioned "line upon line" and a bit of how to address discords where they begin.

I don't remember you ever discouraging someone that wants a water baptism (whatever form or version that may be). So I hold nothing against you in that matter.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

I've heard several people say that. I don't say that I agree.

Most I've met that hold that doctrine also have a REALLY hard time differentiating between "belief" and "receiving the Holy Ghost".

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

There is indeed a diference between "born again of the Spirit" and "baptized in the Spirit"

this is a red herring because I never stated anything to you about receiving the Holy Spirit

I brought up water baptism as can be seen in my post. you are adding to what I stated

post: 4713049, member: 223505"]"Because baptism began as, and remains, the mechanism established by God for remission of sins (to those that believe)... and because remission of sins is a necessary element of salvation, YES, I believe baptism is necessary, not optional, if a person would like to claim the fullness of salvation." But Jesus didn't just die to grant us remission of sins...so unless people get the rest, they still can't claim fullness of salvation, even if they've gotten their sins washed away

so maybe 'Kelby' can explain what he means by water baptism is the mechanism established by God for the remission of sins, instead of trying to fudge around what he has said and try to make it seem like others are just not 'understanding' him

when someone states you must be water baptized to have your sins 'washed away', they are saying the blood of Christ is not enough

this is true