The relationship between the Remission of Sins, the Blood of Jesus, and receiving the Holy Ghost

Hi Blain,
Steven Covey taught that concept of "the best way to learn is to consider that you will soon be required to teach it to someone else" in his book "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" (Which I highly recomment). But I'm sure he wasn't the first. This may be a very bold statement but that's why I ask people (believers) to use what they currently know and see if they can discern who DOES and who DOES NOT have the Holy Ghost. If they can't then I suggest they may not really even know what the Holy Ghost is, and certainly shouldn't be suggesting they are an authority on the matter.

You might have to start asking specific questions regarding how to pray with "expectation of results" rather than praying with a "Gee, I hope it happens" because it will take some thorough explaining. But Do keep after me about it. I might need to start a different thread to address it without mixing purposes with this thread..

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

P.S. You're not alone in the experience of God's peace. My friend and I call it "meteor peace" because the first time I experienced it I was lying on my bed and felt such peace in God that I knew if a meteor crashed through my roof, it couldn't hurt me and I'd be OK. The second time I experienced it, I was again on my bed and felt such peace in God that I knew that even if a meteor crashed through my roof and demolished me, I would still be OK. (line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little, I learn)

I have tons of Scripture that I have collected into an Excel database that I use to help formulate ideas. I look at the preponderance of evidence to help form conclusions. So, when I offer ideas, they come from a set of evidence as compared to an opposing body of evidence.

When Paul said, regarding his former Sin Nature (before it was cut away and removed) . . .

Romans 7:18 NLT - "And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can't."

This would include the "choice" of turning to God. If under a Curse, the decision to choose God is impossible, thus Circumcision of the Heart is the necessary and logical first step to Salvation.

John 15:16 NLT - "You didn't choose me. I chose you. I appointed you to go and produce lasting fruit, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask for, using my name."

We don't make the choice to have God choose to extend His Grace upon us, that is His Choice and Election.

Exodus 33:19 NLT - "The LORD replied, "I will make all my goodness pass before you, and I will call out my name, Yahweh, before you. For I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose."

Again, I could post page after page after page of Scripture, but no one would read it. So, I offer up small nuggets at a time.

I just look to keep Gods reputation in tact.

I have studied fatalistic viewpoint for a long time. And it appears to do damage to the character of God. Not promote it.

That is why I am so against it..

Then like I said. It makes no sense that one is born again first. Before sin is even forgiven, Then they come to faith and are justified. Which that in itself is what cleanses us from sin. And makes us alive.

You're actually moving toward the other aspect of salvation that I'd so far left unsaid in this thread. It has to do with what made John the baptist (and his baptism) so important. It is stated so simply that we overlook what he was doing (both in believing what it says and acknowledging the magnitude of importance). Before Jesus even starts his own ministry, we read this regarding John the Baptist:


If we don't shy away from what that is saying, we learn that remission of sins was available at John's baptism BEFORE it was even possible to believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose the third day. Isn't that amazing?

And I should point out HOW that is possible. Remission of sins is only the removal portion...it is NOT the atonement portion. Through John's baptism sins were removed from the sinner and placed on Jesus so he could take them to the cross, as it is written:


Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Remission of sin has always been available. Abraham found it because he believed God. And it was counted to him as righteousness.

Abraham could not be seen as righteous unless his sin was remitted.

And notice it was remitted the same way ours is. By faith.

Salvation has always been by grace through faith.

I was referring to what happened prior to Saul receiving an evil spirit. (1 Sam. 15:13-24)

You're smarter than I. Circumcision of the heart is to simply remove a Curse.

Thats called justification.

Justification is wher the curse of law is removed, and we are seen as innocent, righteous.

I hear you, but . . . what did you think of the assertions that I was making, which is that John had been granted the function of removing the Curse of the Lord much like the seventy who were sent out were able to cast out demons, heal, etc? Who was performing the healings? The Seventy, or Christ THROUGH them?

Luke 10:17-19 KJV - "And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. 18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. 19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you."

Satan falling like lightning is what we essentially find in Colossians 2:9-15 where Circumcision of the Heart is clearly defined in it's Purpose and Work. It reads:

Colossians 2:13-15 NLT - "You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins. 14 He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross. 15 In this way, he disarmed the spiritual rulers and authorities. He shamed them publicly by his victory over them on the cross."

Jesus stating that he was Satan falling from the sky is equivalent to a public shaming, and more, total victory. So, we can see that the Seventy were also, very possibly, given the "power" to remove the Sinful Nature. But of course, they did not do so without the full knowledge and consent of Christ. For as the Luke passages above state, they were "given" the power to tread on serpents.

So back to John. I am asserting that John was given this same power; the Power to remove the Curse of the Lord. It is a simple task for them, or, the Lord to do. Just as easily as the Lord can apply this Curse, He too, can remove it. And this is exactly what I believe is taking place within the Baptism of John, and it is why those who receive "it" were able to believe whereas those who received the different baptism, they rejected the Plan of God. Now, we know that this is totally independent of receiving the Spirit, because in the story that we're discussing, Paul then lays his hands upon the group of people and they THEN received the Spirit.

John "prepared the way" meaning that it was his "baptism" or Holy Work that lifted the simple Curse of the Lord as defined in Galatians 3:13.

Galatians 3:13 NLT - "But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

Abel was the first True Prophet of God, so we know that he was alleviated of this Curse, lest he not be a True Prophet. Thus, Spiritual Circumcision has been taking place since the beginning.

And as stated before, this is why Jesus said that there is no one greater than John. No, Scripture does not tell us why, but if we put two and two together, the idea that he could "prepare the way" by removing the simple Curse . . . well, it makes perfect sense.

Does this makes sense to you?

Respect . . .

Ok. But I think that it is wise to just keep things simple. If we keep things simple, what I am offering will eventually make sense. Because you're clinging (and rightfully so . . . no disrespect, there) to your thinking, the things that I am offering will always be foreign.

It is simple

Believe call out on the name of the lord. Recieve his free gift of salvation

Justified, redeemed, spiritually circumcised through baptism of the spirit, born again, given eternal life. And the seal of the spirit Etc etc

does not get more simpler than that.

Under the Curse of the Lord, belief is impossible. This is the problem of the Curse.

@Everlasting-Grace

What does the below verse mean to you?

John 15:16 NKJV - "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you."

this is the attack on Gods character I was talking about. He claims to be a god of love, but only allowed a select few to even be given the ability to believe.

Thats not love.. in the pure sense of the word.

My bible says he loved the world. Well I was the world at one time. Thank God he loved the world (me) and while I was yet a sinner, died for me..

He chose judas too

why did Judas never repent?

while we are at it, He chose Israel. Why did Israel reject him?

Yes, your statement is bold and erroneous.

No, it is not Scriptural.

When a man asks Jesus to be Lord of his life, his sins are remitted by the Blood of Jesus, and he receives Holy Spirit. This is what it means to be born again.

John
3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

This is indeed what we see. From that, I learn "This is what is possible". It seems you took some other meaning.

Those two examples were indeed different from one another. <--I see that. Again, that tells me that BOTH of those scenarios are possible (otherwise they couldn't have happened).

BUT.. I'm guessing you want me to look at what most churches experience (which is pretty much nothing) and extrapolate that because those churches experience no outpouring that bears similarity to what was experienced and recorded in the book of Acts, somehow it is the book of Acts that is lacking something, rather than those churches. You are welcome (not encouraged) to make that conclusion, but I see little value in it because it suggests we should interpret the bible in terms of what we see, rather than what it says (if the two don't agree).

I'll stick to agreeing with the biblical accounts because my experience also fits the biblical model. Specifically, I've seen people receive the Holy Ghost before getting baptized, and I've seen people receive the Holy Ghost after getting baptized. Just like what is recorded in Acts.

That is just an error in logic, not even a scriptural argument. The word "after" implies a chronological order which often includes a separation in time (which is what we see in Acts).

My guess is that you don't even know how to tell if someone in your own church does or doesn't actually have the Holy Ghost. <--feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

U want to earn salvation

be my guest. I wont and can’t stop you

But just remember the jews tried that. They got shut down.

Much could be said. I hate typing and prefer talking when it comes to such heavy dialog that involves a plethora of ideas and concepts.

What about Judas Iscariot? Was he a person or a "devil"? Did Jesus die for a Devil? What about the bodies of flesh that we occupied by said devils? What about those from the Seven Nations? God called that they all be wiped out and destroyed. They were a part of the whole world. So, what is the "whole world"?

As as for the select few, the Bible is clear about the concept of the Holy Remnant. There can only, only be a select few. These would be the Vine of Christ, those of Imperishable Seed, and the rest? Well, were they not made for destruction? And if those who were made for destruction, those who I see as "humans" walking around like zombies (thus I am a stranger and alien in a foreign land), is it not His prerogative to create such beings? Should we really be concerned about those who are not of this Holy Vine? It seems to me that we're not really recognizing those who belong and those who do not belong. The world is so offended by the slaughtering in the OT, but wait a minute . . . who are we to suggest that we know who they even were? We don't know what, exactly, the Sons of God were doing back in Genesis chapter 6 . . . and then their re-appearance later after the flood.

It is vitally important, I think, to consistently ask ourselves this question as we read the entire Bible . . . "Who is Israel?" There was constant purifying taking place. Balaam and Balak . . . leading to the corruption of Isreal, hence 24,000 were killed in an instant plague until the rod was slammed through the Israelite shagging the abomination that worshipped Chemosh. Who is Israel? Who is the Remnant?

And what about this Remnant? The Remnant is a small Vine of people surrounded by corrupt "Israel" and Israel was surrounded by abominations . . . the Hittites, Canaanites, etc.

Seriously, I could go on and on . . . but I'm hungry and need to eat. haha

@Everlasting-Grace

What does the below verse mean to you? Were we chosen by God or did we choose God? What does the verse say?

John 15:16 NKJV - "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you."