KJVThumper 

My replies in black, yours in blue:

Methinks you are merely tripping over semantics. - KINGSTING

No, you are the one doing this by taking semantics that say people were "filled with" to be the same as the people in the church age who have the Holy Ghost dwelling in them full time which gives them power over sins as spoken of in Acts 1:8.  - KJVThumper 

I do not equate all the biblical examples of receiving the Spirit of GOD with the infilling, born again, experience as described in the Book of Acts, in the manner you falsely accuse me of doing. Show me where I stated this was precisely the same thing as Pentecost.

I said plainly in my first mentioning that people of old were moved upon by the Holy Ghost.  This would be temporary instances and not the full time measure the Church has.  Them having only temporary experiences in the old testament, - during prophesies, revelations, even times of battle - were the reasons Paul wrote much of what he wrote in Romans.  They could not live the life that is mandated in the new testament. The point I made was clear. KJVThumper 

Where have I disagreed with this? You stated plainly that people of old did not receive God. PERIOD. Rather it is you, who equated the receiving of the Holy Ghost with act of the infilling of the Holy Spirit during Pentecost to be one in the same thing. Here is the proof:

Men of God received the Holy Ghost in Old Testament times as well. - Kingsting

No they did not.  They were moved upon by the Holy Ghost, but they did not receive him in the new testament book of Acts measure, because the perfect sacrifice had not yet been made. -KJVThumper 

"And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied." (Luke - Chapter One)

Christ was not yet born at the time that this occured. Even if he had been, it would have still been in the fullness of times, UNDER THE LAW. How do you say then that Zacharias, of whom the scripture here states, filled with the Holy Ghost and prophecying in the Spirit, DID NOT receive the Holy Ghost? Where have I confused this for Pentecost? I maintain that Zacharias did indeed receive the Holy Ghost at that time. You are welcome to think what you like BUT be careful... eternity is too long to be wrong.

I'm not surprised that you were eager to get off the "sanctify whoever you come to the Lord with"  

Again you falsely accuse me. You would assume that I am "eager" to avoid embracing a certain matter that you set before me here, in quotation marks, that I, myself, did not state. Now you accused me of hypocrisy when I asked if these did not "receive" God that you do certainly imply that they reject Him. In fact, I asked if this was your line of reasoning. Please remember my statement:

There is no FENCE SITTING with God: You either receive Him or, you reject Him.

 KJVThumper ... Do you receive the above statement as true, or do you reject it as a falsehood? I would surely like to know.

We took this detour when you asserted that the only marriages that God recognizes are marriages between Holy Ghost filled people.  

What you assert is an absolute lie! 

It is so stupid and novice that it is not even worth refuting!  

For the record, this is what I stated:

 Prior to this, all marriages are full of fornication.

 

I stand by this statement with respect to ungodly marriage. If they have not fully repented, and are not born of the water and of the spirit, in Jesus name, both of those aforementioned vessels are full of fornication. This matter is not even worth debating. - Kingsting

 

Please acknowledge the PRESENT TENSE of the above statement. The Holy Spirit was certainly not poured out on "all flesh" during Old Testament times. This does not take away from the fact that the sanctification of any marriage in the flesh (past, present, or future)comes from ON HIGH. Today, we are without excuse. The Holy Ghost is given. All sanctification comes from the Holy One.

 

Now it may be well and true that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that some marriages today have indeed some measure of sanctification in grace prior to the rebirth of the husband and/or wife in that marriage. To be sure, God is merciful and just. This is NOT to say that that marriage is without fornication -  it still needs a good cleaning before the sanctification that MOVES upon that marriage is totally lost. The Lord knows when to remove His hand.

 

As I stated previously: It is only a matter of time before the gracious blessing that the Lord suffers on the behalf of the ignorant departs and the corruption sets in. It is like forgiveness without repentance.  At the end of the day unsanctified marriage is full of fornication and the cycle repeats.

 

I also maintain, The fleshly and carnal union of two evils (in other words without sanctification) is still evil. If some here would like to believe that the carnal union of two evils is sanctifed and approved of God and not evil, they are entitled to anathema- just as they are entitled to continue serve their god in the flesh for the rest of their days.

There were married men in the old testament, like King Ahaz, who were absolute devils. 

Burned some of his infant children in the fire to devils. 

Yet this devil was able to legitimately marry and conceive a righteous son named Hezekiah.  So all of your mouth about how only Holy Ghost filled people can legitimately marry is nothing but heresy that helps keep people in their sins and still on their way to hell to be with the likes of king Ahaz.

None of this takes away from that fact that ALL SANCTIFICATION is from God and no other. If you are trying to persuade me to believe that king Ahaz received the sanctification from on high and that his marriage was not without FORNICATION sir, you waste your time. It was indeed a marriage full of fornication and all manner of spiritual uncleanness. It was carnal. If you are trying to convince me that the sanctification of Hezekiah was not from the Holy Ghost then I really believe that you need to examine your heart before God.

Please allow me to exemplify the hypocrisy of your own words in  your false accusations regarding me:

"I never said they rejected God.  You added that like a dishonest hypocrite.  Isn't that what bishop called you?" 

I did not say God sanctifies whoever you come to the Lord with. You added that like a dishonest hypocrite. Isn't that what you are?

I forgive you. Satan called Christ a hypocrite too. If you maintain that ungodly marriage is sanctified and approved of by God then you have bigger problems than you realize. It is just this sort of thinking that encourages your own "sanctify whoever you come to the Lord with" mentality. As for me, I will stand on the promises of God to lift up the name of Jesus, who said:

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.<o:p></o:p>