View Full Version : The Difference Between the PCI of the Merger and the Current Counterfeits
Fireside
02-24-2007, 09:50 AM
so you are saying you are saved by your priestly works????
By grace are we saved through faith.
Come on, you aren't that dim.
Without obedience, we cannot access the benefits of God's grace.
Quit trying to put words in my keyboard.
Fireside
02-24-2007, 09:51 AM
Do a study on those who persecute the Church ... your scorn and contempt for the entire body is as clear as can be. I enjoy discussing anything with you because it's so predictable.
I have nothing but respect and love for the Body of Christ.
That Body is made up of those born of water and Spirit.
A person attends a UPC church and hears, and reponds to, the Gospel and repents of their sins and is to be baptized on Sunday. He is tragically killed in a car accident on Friday night. He he lost?
A woman repents of her sins in an ALJC church and is baptized according to Acts 2:38. She has not yet recieved the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Is she lost?
A man repents and is baptized according to Acts 2:38, and recieves the baptism of the Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues, but believe that forgiveness of sins in obtained through repentance. Is he lost?
They say silence is golden. But its also a form of deception. If you believe these persons are lost, then say it. We take pride in the fact that we are bold and secure in our beliefs. Are these people lost?
My answer? No, No. No.
From faith to faith.
crakjak
02-24-2007, 09:53 AM
Good discussion carry on.
Faith only folks are confused about what faith is. Their faith requires nothing and does nothing that is not Biblical faith. Read the faith chapter Hebrews 11 faith was active not passive.
This is a complete distortion of "by faith only" and I believe you know that, Bro. Steve!
I have nothing but respect and love for the Body of Christ.
That Body is made up of those born of water and Spirit.
The Body is made up of those born of God ... "from above" ....
freeatlast
02-24-2007, 09:53 AM
What about Lydia..what about the Philipian jailer..what about the 3000 then the 5000 added to ther church.
What about all the Acts language that identifies a person as added or a believer whaen they gladly received the word?
Sherri
02-24-2007, 09:54 AM
What about Lydia..what about the Philipian jailer..what about the 3000 then the 5000 added to ther church.
What about all the Acts language that identifies a person as added or a believer whaen they gladly received the word?
Those verses are generally ignored, didn't you know that????
Nahum
02-24-2007, 09:54 AM
Broad-brushing everyone with the "faith only" brush is extremely condescending and that more than anything is what makes me want to walk away from this kind of discussion.
It's a put-down, a direct one and an intentional one. "Faith only" people don't make baptism a requirement or Spirit baptism essential. Hello! :rolleyes:
Makes me mad to be honest. Maybe it's time to start doing a little brushing myself. :drawguns
Sister, you aren't referring to me are you?
What about Lydia..what about the Philipian jailer..what about the 3000 then the 5000 added to ther church.
What about all the Acts language that identifies a person as added or a believer whaen they gladly received the word?
Will you stop with the Acts revisionist history ... :killinme
Fireside
02-24-2007, 09:55 AM
I don't consider Felicity "faith only."
Like my tag line??? If Acts was obeyed ... we'd all get along. DW likes it.
crakjak
02-24-2007, 09:56 AM
No.
I am saying you can't stop partway and expect to receive the full benefit of God's provision.
No one is susgesting the we stop partway, rather that God's blessing and protection is on the person that has enter the GATE!:ranting
Felicity
02-24-2007, 09:56 AM
We're laughed at by outsiders who themselves see the hypocrisy represented by apostolic preachers who say one thing in the pulpit and another in the parlour.
Even those outside our ranks see the double standard and have heard the double talk so many need to get off their high horses of condemnation and judgmentalism and quit with the broadbrushing because they believe in essence not one whit differently than I do about salvation and who will and won't be saved.
In the long run it's up to God to judge but for heaven's sake if you believe something believe it and quit talking out of both sides of your mouths.
Thank you. :ty
No one is susgesting the we stop partway, rather that God's blessing and protection is on the person that has enter the GATE!:ranting
Thanks ... crakjak .. for making this plain for CS.
Perhaps PP you haven't examined your own wording of the PCI view
preach repentance, baptism and Holy Ghost infilling as necessary - but perhaps not necessary for salvation. They feel these things should be fulfilled to ensure obedience, or to enhance the believers life.
PP ... what is really going on here is an attempt to polarize/ or unite the Apostolic family under the "Acts 2:38" banner .... even MA was keen enough to pick up on this ... notice how he carefully crafted his support for TV evangelism by rallying the cry.
-----------------------
bump for PP.
Felicity
02-24-2007, 09:59 AM
I don't consider Felicity "faith only." I'm not! Anyone who believes that is wayyyyyyy out in left field. I mean come on for heaven's sake! :ranting
:)
rgcraig
02-24-2007, 10:00 AM
We're laughed at by outsiders who themselves see the hypocrisy represented by apostolic preachers who say one thing in the pulpit and another in the parlour.
Even those outside our ranks see the double standard and have heard the double talk so many need to get off their high horses of condemnation and judgmentalism and quit with the broadbrushing because they believe in essence not one whit differently than I do about salvation and who will and won't be saved.
In the long run it's up to God to judge but for heaven's sake if you believe something believe it and quit talking out of both sides of your mouths.
Thank you. :tyI like it when you get your dander up!
This is a very "between the eyes" post and will be hard for many to accept, but it rings so true.
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:00 AM
Okay then, freeatlast, Sherri and Daniel, we are all friends right?
I have nothing but respect for you. But give me a little latitude to explain myself, please.
1. Would you all agree that you have left what you once believed, or that you have left what you were once identified as?
2. Can you see Coonskinner's point that our doctrine is continually slammed and poked at, and dissed on these forums? Yet when we state any disdain for "belief only" doctrine we are viewed as intolerant and judgemental.
Surely you have viewed my posts enough to know that I try very hard to be anything but judgemental? We simply disagree - thats all.
I'm not! Anyone who believes that is wayyyyyyy out in left field. I mean come on for heaven's sake! :ranting
:)As I posted this morning, I don't know anyone who is 'faith only'...certainly not you and TB!!
I like it when you get your dander up!
This is a very "between the eyes" post and will be hard for many to accept, but it rings so true.
Yes indeed...
Felicity
02-24-2007, 10:03 AM
I like it when you get your dander up!
This is a very "between the eyes" post and will be hard for many to accept, but it rings so true. There are times to get the guns out and start using them. :drawguns LOL!
But I got to go to work .... :sad .... wish I could stay and discuss this more. There's more that could and should be said.
Okay then, freeatlast, Sherri and Daniel, we are all friends right?
I have nothing but respect for you. But give me a little latitude to explain myself, please.
1. Would you all agree that you have left what you once believed, or that you have left what you were once identified as?
2. Can you see Coonskinner's point that our doctrine is continually slammed and poked at, and dissed on these forums? Yet when we state any disdain for "belief only" doctrine we are viewed as intolerant and judgemental.
Surely you have viewed my posts enough to know that I try very hard to be anything but judgemental? We simply disagree - thats all.
No one has "left" what we believe PP ... by rightly dividing the Word ... it has become clearer ... at least in my book. It's ok to disagree .... but to put your head in the sand ... and act like the same segment you speak about when it comes to standards is not persecuting the rest of the Apostolic family on the issue of soteriology is missing it.
crakjak
02-24-2007, 10:07 AM
Yes, that's why they spoke in togues at Cornelius household, to convince the Jews who would not believe that the gentiles could be a part of the church.
Same thing with the Samaritans, who the Jews could never believe could be added the church.
God added this sign to their experience to help the UN believing Jew's to accept these other's into the church.
Henceforth Pauls admonition the Corinthian church that tongues were a sign to those who believe not.
Well said, what God uses for His purpose men make idols of, for example the brazen serpent in the desert. God used it to deliver for a particular sickness, and men maintained it on a pole and worshiped as an idol. Tongues did and do have a purpose, men force everyone to "get it" and thereby create false and counterfeit. Tell a man under duress that he must do all most anything and he will make it happen. In every reference of Spirit infilling the Spirit "fell" on them, absolutely no begging in sackcloth and ashes, it is a sovereign work of God.
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:09 AM
Perhaps PP you haven't examined your own wording of the PCI view
preach repentance, baptism and Holy Ghost infilling as necessary - but perhaps not necessary for salvation. They feel these things should be fulfilled to ensure obedience, or to enhance the believers life.
PP ... what is really going on here is an attempt to polarize/ or unite the Apostolic family under the "Acts 2:38" banner .... even MA was keen enough to pick up on this ... notice how he carefully crafted his support for TV evangelism by rallying the cry.
-----------------------
bump for PP.
But friend, you do the same thing when you continually slam my belief that Acts 2:38 is the proper response to the gospel message, and the only way to properly identify oneself as a believer.
Let me be clear. I am wondering if some of us are really part of the same movement. Our message is not unified. We are as different as apples and oranges. Our definition of what is Apostolic is so varied, it lacks a truly recognizable brand.
That being said, I would consider almost everyone on this board a dear friend.
crakjak
02-24-2007, 10:12 AM
I don't really care when you consider a person a church member.
God calls you his when you believe and recieve the word.
When a person comes to a realizatrion that they cannot save themselves , that Christ is all sufficient savior. When they trust him fully for their salvation and forgivness of sins. when they profess this faith to others and thru Godly sorrow for their past , they repent or turn from the direction of their before sinful life.
So yes, I beleive the word is clear that they are His or in "the church" before they ever seek and recieve the gift of tongues.
You have clearly defined the GATE or door to the sheepfold, and those that enter in find the life of God, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, until the full image of Jesus is formed in them.
freeatlast
02-24-2007, 10:12 AM
Okay then, freeatlast, Sherri and Daniel, we are all friends right?
I have nothing but respect for you. But give me a little latitude to explain myself, please.
1. Would you all agree that you have left what you once believed, or that you have left what you were once identified as?
2. Can you see Coonskinner's point that our doctrine is continually slammed and poked at, and dissed on these forums? Yet when we state any disdain for "belief only" doctrine we are viewed as intolerant and judgemental.
Surely you have viewed my posts enough to know that I try very hard to be anything but judgemental? We simply disagree - thats all.
Every side gets poked at PP.
Yes I feel we are all friends here.
I disagrere with Epley and Coonskinner on some issues but have much respect for them at the same time.
Yes, I have used to see the tongues and clothlines isssuse as they do but admit I have seen the light and embraced it.
But I still liove ya all.
Sorry if my zeal to see others realize the error of their doctrinal exegisis and come to a better understanding of Christ, as slamming them.
No worse than the slams we "coutetrfeit PCI" receice.
But friend, you do the same thing when you continually slam my belief that Acts 2:38 is the proper response to the gospel message, and the only way to properly identify oneself as a believer.
Let me be clear. I am wondering if some of us are really part of the same movement. Our message is not unified. We are as different as apples and oranges. Our definition of what is Apostolic is so varied, it lacks a truly recognizable brand.
That being said, I would consider almost everyone on this board a dear friend.
I am not slamming ... your belief in Acts 2:38 ... PP ... never ... I believe it too ... I am questioning how the the new PAJCers are using it and have made it THE MESSAGE ... rather than part of the response ...
I love the word Apostolic ... and consider myself one ... but I prefer ... like my Dad taught me .. that the highest position we hold in His Kingdom ... is ... A CHILD OF GOD.
Sherri
02-24-2007, 10:14 AM
Okay then, freeatlast, Sherri and Daniel, we are all friends right?
I have nothing but respect for you. But give me a little latitude to explain myself, please.
1. Would you all agree that you have left what you once believed, or that you have left what you were once identified as?
2. Can you see Coonskinner's point that our doctrine is continually slammed and poked at, and dissed on these forums? Yet when we state any disdain for "belief only" doctrine we are viewed as intolerant and judgemental.
Surely you have viewed my posts enough to know that I try very hard to be anything but judgemental? We simply disagree - thats all.
I don't think you come across as judgmental, PP, but I think we can all agree to disagree without calling people backsliders just because they have a different view.
As to point number 1.--I don't believe the way I did once, you are right on that. I was raised to be judgemental and I didn't even understand God's grace. I believed whatever was taught to me as a child without ever searching the Word for myself. I took on everything ANYONE preached against and quit doing it, just because I wanted so badly to be right and I just thought that men of God knew everything. I found out that they are fallible too, and that you have to work out your own salavation. I am much more secure in Christ that I used to be. I used to go to bed at night scared that the Rapture would happen, and I would be lost, just because I wasn't yet good enough (and that was AFTER we were in ministry).
As for #2--I would never slam your doctrine. I love what UPC stands for, and what they did for me in my life, in bringing me to the Lord. I don't disrespect anyone for what they believe. The difference is that I would never call them unsaved or backslidden just because they differ from me. I think that anyone who pushes some kind of "belief only" doctrine only wants an easy route to heaven and they don't really seek to please God. However, saying that, I don't know anyone on this forum who would fit in that slot.
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:15 AM
No one has "left" what we believe PP ... by rightly dividing the Word ... it has become clearer ... at least in my book. It's ok to disagree .... but to put your head in the sand ... and act like the same segment you speak about when it comes to standards is not persecuting the rest of the Apostolic family on the issue of soteriology is missing it.
I do agree there is a very small, but extremely vocal, segment of Apostolics that have made it their goal to pare off as many folks as possible. I am not one of them, and neither is Coonskinner.
My head is not in the sand. I am a very reality based and clear-thinking sort of fellow. This very often leads to my hands getting slapped.
But Daniel, if someone from outside of the movement, who had never been an Apostolic, viewed the changes in you, Sherri, and even Felicity, they would assume that you had left something you once believed in, and I'm not just talking about standards here.
Thats all I'm saying.
I do agree there is a very small, but extremely vocal, segment of Apostolics that have made it their goal to pare off as many folks as possible. I am not one of them, and neither is Coonskinner.
My head is not in the sand. I am a very reality based and clear-thinking sort of fellow. This very often leads to my hands getting slapped.
But Daniel, if someone from outside of the movement, who had never been an Apostolic, viewed the changes in you, Sherri, and even Felicity, they would assume that you had left something you once believed in, and I'm not just talking about standards here.
Thats all I'm saying.
PP ... PREPARE FOR COVER .. FIRE IN THE HOLE ....
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:19 AM
I don't think you come across as judgmental, PP, but I think we can all agree to disagree without calling people backsliders just because they have a different view.
As to point number 1.--I don't believe the way I did once, you are right on that. I was raised to be judgemental and I didn't even understand God's grace. I believed whatever was taught to me as a child without ever searching the Word for myself. I took on everything ANYONE preached against and quit doing it, just because I wanted so badly to be right and I just thought that men of God knew everything. I found out that they are fallible too, and that you have to work out your own salavation. I am much more secure in Christ that I used to be. I used to go to bed at night scared that the Rapture would happen, and I would be lost, just because I wasn't yet good enough (and that was AFTER we were in ministry).
As for #2--I would never slam your doctrine. I love what UPC stands for, and what they did for me in my life, in bringing me to the Lord. I don't disrespect anyone for what they believe. The difference is that I would never call them unsaved or backslidden just because they differ from me. I think that anyone who pushes some kind of "belief only" doctrine only wants an easy route to heaven and they don't really seek to please God. However, saying that, I don't know anyone on this forum who would fit in that slot.
There are many who push belief only, but I won't name them here - as it would add nothing to the dialogue.
rgcraig
02-24-2007, 10:20 AM
I don't think you come across as judgmental, PP, but I think we can all agree to disagree without calling people backsliders just because they have a different view.
As to point number 1.--I don't believe the way I did once, you are right on that. I was raised to be judgemental and I didn't even understand God's grace. I believed whatever was taught to me as a child without ever searching the Word for myself. I took on everything ANYONE preached against and quit doing it, just because I wanted so badly to be right and I just thought that men of God knew everything. I found out that they are fallible too, and that you have to work out your own salavation. I am much more secure in Christ that I used to be. I used to go to bed at night scared that the Rapture would happen, and I would be lost, just because I wasn't yet good enough (and that was AFTER we were in ministry).
As for #2--I would never slam your doctrine. I love what UPC stands for, and what they did for me in my life, in bringing me to the Lord. I don't disrespect anyone for what they believe. The difference is that I would never call them unsaved or backslidden just because they differ from me. I think that anyone who pushes some kind of "belief only" doctrine only wants an easy route to heaven and they don't really seek to please God. However, saying that, I don't know anyone on this forum who would fit in that slot.
Amen! Good post Sherri and it echo's how I feel.
philjones
02-24-2007, 10:21 AM
I don't know how Daniel would answer, but I will tell you how I believe. I believe you are saved from hell when you leave the Kingdom of darkness and enter into the kingdom of His dear Son (genuine repentance). Then you are to be baptized in water to identify with the Body of Christ, and you need to receive the Holy Ghost to be able to live an overcoming life in this present world.
We had 48 receive the Holy Ghost last year; we definitely push it as necessary in your life. We do not make it a requirement for membership.
I got the feeling that I was watching a great performance by Fred Astaire or Gregor Hines.
I would ask again, can one be saved without the Holy Ghost? Or maybe I should ask, is anyone able to live an overcoming life in this present world without it? If not, then is the non-overcomer going to be saved based on the repentance experience? If the answer is no then I would assert that you believe that the Holy Ghost is essential for a person to be saved or else those who do not overcome will be saved.:ty
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:22 AM
PP ... PREPARE FOR COVER .. FIRE IN THE HOLE ....
So be it. It's the truth. :dunno
I got the feeling that I was watching a great performance by Fred Astaire or Gregor Hines.
I would ask again, can one be saved without the Holy Ghost? Or maybe I should ask, is anyone able to live an overcoming life in this present world without it? If not, then is the non-overcomer going to be saved based on the repentance experience? If the answer is no then I would assert that you believe that the Holy Ghost is essential for a person to be saved or else those who do not overcome will be saved.:ty
Notice PP ... how this works ... Phil does not realize he is part of a culture ... that seeks to divide.
freeatlast
02-24-2007, 10:23 AM
I do agree there is a very small, but extremely vocal, segment of Apostolics that have made it their goal to pare off as many folks as possible. I am not one of them, and neither is Coonskinner.
My head is not in the sand. I am a very reality based and clear-thinking sort of fellow. This very often leads to my hands getting slapped.
But Daniel, if someone from outside of the movement, who had never been an Apostolic, viewed the changes in you, Sherri, and even Felicity, they would assume that you had left something you once believed in, and I'm not just talking about standards here.
Thats all I'm saying.
Gained a clearer understanding would be a better description PP. I am closer to God in my walk with Him now than I ever was before.
Knowing that my salvation is free gift from Christ has set me free to embrace Christ as he really is.
I serve and love out of gratitude, not obligation as before.
So many have said the same. That hey feel born again all over agian, when they clearly see the salvation message of the grace of God in a fuller way than they had before seen it.
Gained a clearer understanding would be a better description PP. I am closer to God in my walk with Him now than I ever was before.
Knowing that my salvation is free gift from Christ has set me free to embrace Christ as he really is.
I serve and love out of gratitude, not obligation as before.
So many have said the same. That hey feel born again all over agian, when they clearly see the salvation message of the grace of God in a fuller way than they had before seen it.
Real freedom ... freeatlast ... I am no longer a people-pleaser ... but a God-pleaser ...
Click here to dance (http://respiracreative.com/music/shackles.mp3)
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:27 AM
Gained a clearer understanding would be a better description PP. I am closer to God in my walk with Him now than I ever was before.
Knowing that my salvation is free gift from Christ has set me free to embrace Christ as he really is.
I serve and love out of gratitude, not obligation as before.
So many have said the same. That hey feel born again all over agian, when they clearly see the salvation message of the grace of God in a fuller way than they had before seen it.
Yes my friend, but my point is the word "backslider" that has offended so many. Even to the world the word would be applicable to some. A backslider is someone who leaves something they once believed.
Lets not be too hard on Coonskinner here.
I am not trying to be inflammatory, just "following the cloud" of conversation, as MOW would say.
Sherri
02-24-2007, 10:27 AM
I got the feeling that I was watching a great performance by Fred Astaire or Gregor Hines.
I would ask again, can one be saved without the Holy Ghost? Or maybe I should ask, is anyone able to live an overcoming life in this present world without it? If not, then is the non-overcomer going to be saved based on the repentance experience? If the answer is no then I would assert that you believe that the Holy Ghost is essential for a person to be saved or else those who do not overcome will be saved.:ty
I believe that there are people who will be saved without speaking in tongues, yes. I don't believe that a one time experience of tongues saves you. I think that the baptism of the Holy Ghost gives you power, and I don't know about everyone else, but I NEED THAT POWER. We tell everyone that it's something that they need, but we don't believe that it saves them.
Yes my friend, but my point is the word "backslider" that has offended so many. Even to the world the word would be applicable to some. A backslider is someone who leaves something they once believed.
Lets not be too hard on Coonskinner here.
I am not trying to be inflammatory, just "following the cloud" of conversation, as MOW would say.
America once believed in slavery and segregation ... have we backslid PP??? Of course, not
The term is being misused ... why do you insist on calling your friends and brethren such??? :ranting
rgcraig
02-24-2007, 10:29 AM
Yes my friend, but my point is the word "backslider" that has offended so many. Even to the world the word would be applicable to some. A backslider is someone who leaves something they once believed.
Lets not be too hard on Coonskinner here.
I am not trying to be inflammatory, just "following the cloud" of conversation, as MOW would say.
Backslider to me is someone who turns their back on GOD.
I think this has been a great discussion. Probably won't change anyone's mind and I'm not sure anyone is even trying to do that, but it's been a good exchange.
freeatlast
02-24-2007, 10:30 AM
Yes my friend, but my point is the word "backslider" that has offended so many. Even to the world the word would be applicable to some. A backslider is someone who leaves something they once believed.
Lets not be too hard on Coonskinner here.
I am not trying to be inflammatory, just "following the cloud" of conversation, as MOW would say.
So by this defintion those who embrace the oneness theolgy who once saw the trinity doctrine would be backsliders?
A person who thought it was OK to smoke and be saved but now they feel that a person should not smoke..is a backslider??
Backslider to me is someone who turns their back on GOD.
I think this has been a great discussion. Probably won't change anyone's mind and I'm not sure anyone is even trying to do that, but it's been a good exchange.
Thanks RG for a clear definition. :killinme
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:32 AM
Notice PP ... how this works ... Phil does not realize he is part of a culture ... that seeks to divide.
Careful! Don't lump him in with that lot.
You wouldn't want him to stereotype you now, would you?
THAT CULTURE gets way too much air time, and perhaps I am the most guilty of placing too much emphasis on them. I'm sick of 'em.
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:34 AM
America once believed in slavery and segregation ... have we backslid PP??? Of course, not
The term is being misused ... why do you insist on calling your friends and brethren such??? :ranting
Daniel, slavery and segregation are not religious beliefs.
Bad analogy.
Careful! Don't lump him in with that lot.
You wouldn't want him to stereotype you now, would you?
THAT CULTURE gets way too much air time, and perhaps I am the most guilty of placing too much emphasis on them. I'm sick of 'em.
Here lies the problem .... It has seeped into the churches filled w/ good people ... Phil is good people
Brett Prince
02-24-2007, 10:34 AM
It teaches that all will hear that voice. How? Through who? Great questions.
Through the one that is being born again of the Spirit. Jesus takes that tongue and does what he will with it.
Theo, I hate to say it, but you can't prove that. You can add to to this Scripture and make it say that, but you can't take it as it is and say it says tongues, or YOU speaking in tongues. It says that all who are born of the Spirit WILL HEAR HIS VOICE. That is it.
You hear that voice, but you can't tell where he's coming from with it, nor where he's going with it. In context, this is correct.
We've seen this ever since Pentecost. Spiritual Baptism. Required.Absolutely. How anyone can deny that one must be born of the Spirit is beyond me. This Scripture proves that, and it proves that those who are will hear His voice. But we cannot make it prove more. To do so is to stretch the Scripture and is not biblical purity.
Fireside
02-24-2007, 10:34 AM
Notice PP ... how this works ... Phil does not realize he is part of a culture ... that seeks to divide.
"When you can't refute the argument, marginalize the individual by accusing them of being part of some weird sub-culture that affects them in ways they cannot recognize."
An excerpt from "How to Obfuscate When Your Argument Is Thinner Than Sharecropper's Soup," by Daniel Alicea.
philjones
02-24-2007, 10:34 AM
Notice PP ... how this works ... Phil does not realize he is part of a culture ... that seeks to divide.
Nice judgment call, Danny Boy! You should ump in the majors!
What a joke!:tease :heeheehee
Daniel, slavery and segregation are not religious beliefs.
Bad analogy.
I think not.
Both were practiced by God-fearing Christian people ... remember the apology on the latter???.
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:36 AM
So by this defintion those who embrace the oneness theolgy who once saw the trinity doctrine would be backsliders?
A person who thought it was OK to smoke and be saved but now they feel that a person should not smoke..is a backslider??
They have been called much worse than backsliders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How about heretics, cult?
crakjak
02-24-2007, 10:36 AM
Okay then, freeatlast, Sherri and Daniel, we are all friends right?
I have nothing but respect for you. But give me a little latitude to explain myself, please.
1. Would you all agree that you have left what you once believed, or that you have left what you were once identified as?2. Can you see Coonskinner's point that our doctrine is continually slammed and poked at, and dissed on these forums? Yet when we state any disdain for "belief only" doctrine we are viewed as intolerant and judgemental.
Surely you have viewed my posts enough to know that I try very hard to be anything but judgemental? We simply disagree - thats all.
I am not accountable for what I believed by default or tradition, I am responsible for what the Holy Spirit leads and guides me in.
"When you can't refute the argument, marginalize the individual by accusing them of being part of some weird sub-culture that affects them in ways they cannot recognize."
An excerpt from "How to Obfuscate When Your Argument Is Thinner Than Sharecropper's Soup," by Daniel Alicea.
or we could revert to the CS playbook of Apostolic love ... call them backsliders, pathetic, or slack-jawed compromisers :tease
Fireside
02-24-2007, 10:37 AM
They have been called much worse than backsliders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How about heretics, cult?
And lumped in with Hitler.
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:37 AM
I think not.
Both were practiced by God-fearing Christian people ... remember the apology on the latter???.
Daniel, slavery and segregation were NEVER religious beliefs.
philjones
02-24-2007, 10:38 AM
or we could revert to the CS playbook of Apostolic love ... call them backsliders, pathetic, or slack-jawed compromisers :tease
Let me see Dan, Wasn't it you who used the holocaust example of traditional Oneness Pentecostals!
Come on Pot speak to the kettle!!! :tease :dunno :ranting
Daniel, slavery and segregation were NEVER religious beliefs.
Agreed .. but pulpits were filled with doctrinal exegesis on why the Bible said it was ok....
philjones
02-24-2007, 10:39 AM
Daniel, slavery and segregation were NEVER religious beliefs.
Unless you were British Israel in doctrine!:heeheehee
philjones
02-24-2007, 10:40 AM
Sorry to hit and run but my bride desires to go shopping and I do not want to put my "full" salvation to the test at this particular time!
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:40 AM
America once believed in slavery and segregation ... have we backslid PP??? Of course, not
The term is being misused ... why do you insist on calling your friends and brethren such??? :ranting
I have never called any of you a backslider! I only gave you the common understanding of what a backslider is. Now be nice to me, and apologize Bro.
:tease
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:41 AM
Agreed .. but pulpits were filled with doctrinal exegesis on why the Bible said it was ok....
All I am saying is that the analogy was not a good one for this discussion.
Let me see Dan, Wasn't it you who used the holocaust example of traditional Oneness Pentecostals!
Come on Pot speak to the kettle!!! :tease :dunno :ranting
El burro hablando de orejas .. the donkey speaking about [big] ears ...
You're right .. Phil ... I am man enough to stand behind my words ...
albeti ... I have never been self-righteous in the manner of making proclamations that traditional OP's are not saved or lost. That's from the TRADITIONAL playbook.
All I am saying is that the analogy was not a good one for this discussion.
neither is your definition for backslider. :tease
Fireside
02-24-2007, 10:43 AM
El burro hablando de orejas .. the donkey speaking about [big] ears ...
You're right .. Phil ... I am man enough to stand behind my words ...
albeti ... I have never been self-righteous in the manner of making proclamations that traditional OP's are not saved or lost. That's from the TRADITIONAL playbook.
We aren't always able to effectively evaluate ourselves because of certain biases. :)
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:43 AM
neither is your definition for backslider. :tease
HAHAHAHA!!!!:killinme
I have never called any of you a backslider! I only gave you the common understanding of what a backslider is. Now be nice to me, and apologize Bro.
:tease
I'm ss.... sss.... sss... ssoooo..... sorry.
Now apologize CS ... :dunno
Fireside
02-24-2007, 10:44 AM
I'm ss.... sss.... sss... ssoooo..... sorry.
Now apologize CS ... :dunno
Apologize for what?
We aren't always able to effectively evaluate ourselves because of certain biases. :)
Amen.
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:45 AM
Noun: backslider
Someone who lapses into previous undesirable patterns of behaviour
- recidivist, reversionist
Apologize for what?
the Jabberwock ...
Noun: backslider
Someone who lapses into previous undesirable patterns of behaviour
- recidivist, reversionist
did we go to a bible dictionary ... PP ... so we can look at the word in biblical context ... or are you seeking to fit it in ...???
crakjak
02-24-2007, 10:47 AM
Apologize for what?
For starting this thread. Good day to all!:drawguns :ranting :sad :tease
Nahum
02-24-2007, 10:51 AM
BACKSLIDE
Backslider (bak'-slid-er) cugh lebh: "The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways" (Prov 14:14). But the Revised Version (British and American) "backslider" conveys the wrong impression of an apostate. The Hebrew expression here implies simply non-adherence to the right, "The bad man reaps the fruits of his act" (Toy, Prov, in loc.).
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Backslider (bak'-slid-er) cugh lebh: "The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways" (Prov 14:14). But the Revised Version (British and American) "backslider" conveys the wrong impression of an apostate. The Hebrew expression here implies simply non-adherence to the right, "The bad man reaps the fruits of his act" (Toy, Prov, in loc.).
BACKSLIDE
Backslider (bak'-slid-er) cugh lebh: "The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways" (Prov 14:14). But the Revised Version (British and American) "backslider" conveys the wrong impression of an apostate. The Hebrew expression here implies simply non-adherence to the right, "The bad man reaps the fruits of his act" (Toy, Prov, in loc.).
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Backslider (bak'-slid-er) cugh lebh: "The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways" (Prov 14:14). But the Revised Version (British and American) "backslider" conveys the wrong impression of an apostate. The Hebrew expression here implies simply non-adherence to the right, "The bad man reaps the fruits of his act" (Toy, Prov, in loc.).
The book of Romans calls it moving towards 'godlessness' .... IMHO ...
Max Lucado, in his book , In the Grip of Grace says they're are godless folks sitting on the barstool, on the judge's chair and on the church pew.
Brother Price
02-24-2007, 10:58 AM
Backslider is one who has been saved from sin, and then because of various reasons, finds that the sin they left was more desired than the life they have in Christ, and then returns to that sin.
Backslider is one who has been saved from sin, and then because of various reasons, finds that the sin they left was more desired than the life they have in Christ, and then returns to that sin.
* as CS takes down notes furiously for tomorrow's message*
Brett Prince
02-24-2007, 11:22 AM
Poster Note: Please do not confuse Brother Price with Brett Prince.
Brother Price
02-24-2007, 11:38 AM
Poster Note: Please do not confuse Brother Price with Brett Prince.
Yes, I am younger and better looking! :D
The Kid
02-24-2007, 11:44 AM
...Backslider.
People can call me this all day long and I could really care less. They have no idea the intensity with which I approach the throne of my savior on a daily basis and the level of Grace that has been afforded to me and by which...I stand.
freeatlast
02-24-2007, 11:48 AM
...Backslider.
People can call me this all day long and I could really care less. They have no idea the intensity with which I approach the throne of my savior on a daily basis and the level of Grace that has been afforded to me and by which...I stand.
Yup..call us what ya like....Jesus calls us His.
OneAccord
02-24-2007, 12:12 PM
In carse it was missed, can anyone answer the following....
A person attends a UPC church and hears, and reponds to, the Gospel and repents of their sins and is to be baptized on Sunday. He is tragically killed in a car accident on Friday night. He he lost?
A woman repents of her sins in an ALJC church and is baptized according to Acts 2:38. She has not yet recieved the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Is she lost?
A man repents and is baptized according to Acts 2:38, and recieves the baptism of the Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues, but believe that forgiveness of sins in obtained through repentance. Is he lost?
They say silence is golden. But its also a form of deception. If you believe these persons are lost, then say it. We take pride in the fact that we are bold and secure in our beliefs. Are these people lost?
My answer? No, No. No.
Brett Prince
02-24-2007, 12:15 PM
Yes, I am younger and better looking! :D
Well...younger for sure. Better looking? Sure ain't saying much. It's like choosing which end to look at on a donkey! :D
I don't think you come across as judgmental, PP, but I think we can all agree to disagree without calling people backsliders just because they have a different view.
As to point number 1.--I don't believe the way I did once, you are right on that. I was raised to be judgemental and I didn't even understand God's grace. I believed whatever was taught to me as a child without ever searching the Word for myself. I took on everything ANYONE preached against and quit doing it, just because I wanted so badly to be right and I just thought that men of God knew everything. I found out that they are fallible too, and that you have to work out your own salavation. I am much more secure in Christ that I used to be. I used to go to bed at night scared that the Rapture would happen, and I would be lost, just because I wasn't yet good enough (and that was AFTER we were in ministry).
As for #2--I would never slam your doctrine. I love what UPC stands for, and what they did for me in my life, in bringing me to the Lord. I don't disrespect anyone for what they believe. The difference is that I would never call them unsaved or backslidden just because they differ from me. I think that anyone who pushes some kind of "belief only" doctrine only wants an easy route to heaven and they don't really seek to please God. However, saying that, I don't know anyone on this forum who would fit in that slot.
I am 'PAJC' in doctrine and still UPCI in affiliation, yet I can identify with much in this post...
There are times to get the guns out and start using them. :drawguns LOL!
But I got to go to work .... :sad .... wish I could stay and discuss this more. There's more that could and should be said.
Go get 'em, girl!!:drawguns :heeheehee
Backslider to me is someone who turns their back on GOD.
I think this has been a great discussion. Probably won't change anyone's mind and I'm not sure anyone is even trying to do that, but it's been a good exchange.
I agree with both statements...
One Accord ... of course they're saved ... I got one ....
If Christ enters our lives at repentance and confession,
Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
Be earnest, therefore, and repent. " '"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, (then) I will enter his house and dine with him, and he with me.
and I believe in the Oneness of God [which I do] ....
Does this mean that another person of the Godhead enters my heart when I receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost? Does this fit with our commonly held Oneness view of God?
These are questions to ponder. Do I pretend to have all the answers, no. But to discount and condemn divergent views simply because it doesn't fit our model is not fair.
The perspective might be different but the end results are the same.
Goss felt the Baptists would be saved ...
Howard Goss told Carl Ballestero at a camp meeting in Indiana that "even the Baptists will be in the Bride of Christ."
Nahum
02-24-2007, 01:19 PM
One Accord ... of course they're saved ... I got one ....
If Christ enters our lives at repentance and confession,
Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
Be earnest, therefore, and repent. " '"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, (then) I will enter his house and dine with him, and he with me.
and I believe in the Oneness of God [which I do] ....
Does this mean that another person of the Godhead enters my heart when I receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost? Does this fit with our commonly held Oneness view of God?
These are questions to ponder. Do I pretend to have all the answers, no. But to discount and condemn divergent views simply because it doesn't fit our model is not fair.
The perspective might be different but the end results are the same.
So now you are questioning the Oneness of God?
I guess the slippery slope theory is really true.
Brother Price
02-24-2007, 01:20 PM
A person attends a UPC church and hears, and reponds to, the Gospel and repents of their sins and is to be baptized on Sunday. He is tragically killed in a car accident on Friday night. He he lost?
Answer: Yes, but this has never happened and more than likely never will 1Peter 3:21 says that in like manner, baptism does now also save us. Mark 16:16 says the he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. So, that person is lost.
A woman repents of her sins in an ALJC church and is baptized according to Acts 2:38. She has not yet recieved the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Is she lost?
Yes, because the sign given through the Acts of the Apostles that someone has received the Holy Ghost is that they speak with tongues. Until she speaks with tongues, just as they did at Pentecost, she is lost.
A man repents and is baptized according to Acts 2:38, and recieves the baptism of the Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues, but believe that forgiveness of sins in obtained through repentance. Is he lost?
Answer: No. He has obeyed the Gospel. Misunderstanding the Gospel does not negate his faith that his sins have been washed away. His obedience to the Gospel is sufficient. Now, he can be discipled about how repentance does not save, but that baptism is where sins are remitted.
OK, I answered truthfully.
Brother Price
02-24-2007, 01:20 PM
Howard Goss told Carl Ballestero at a camp meeting in Indiana that "even the Baptists will be in the Bride of Christ."
Then he was wrong.
Brett Prince
02-24-2007, 01:21 PM
Answer: Yes, but this has never happened and more than likely never will 1Peter 3:21 says that in like manner, baptism does now also save us. Mark 16:16 says the he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. So, that person is lost.
Bro. Price, I am not saying you are wrong. I would suggest, though, that we should leave this person in the hands of a sovereign God--rather than presume.
stmatthew
02-24-2007, 01:22 PM
Howard Goss told Carl Ballestero at a camp meeting in Indiana that "even the Baptists will be in the Bride of Christ."
I wonder how often, and how vehemently Goss preached that one was to be baptized in Jesus Name, and receive the Holy Ghost??
I think the original thought of this thread is still that todays version of PCI (NOT ALL mind you) does not stress baptism in Jesus name as a must, and receiving the Holy Ghost as a must, as the old timers PCIers were said to have done. I was not back there, so I do not know this to be true or false. But this seems to be the question none the less.
stmatthew
02-24-2007, 01:25 PM
A person attends a UPC church and hears, and reponds to, the Gospel and repents of their sins and is to be baptized on Sunday. He is tragically killed in a car accident on Friday night. He he lost?
A woman repents of her sins in an ALJC church and is baptized according to Acts 2:38. She has not yet recieved the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Is she lost?
A man repents and is baptized according to Acts 2:38, and recieves the baptism of the Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues, but believe that forgiveness of sins in obtained through repentance. Is he lost?
They say silence is golden. But its also a form of deception. If you believe these persons are lost, then say it. We take pride in the fact that we are bold and secure in our beliefs. Are these people lost?
My answer? No, No. No.
If one did not receive the spirit, the bible (God) states that they are none of his.
Now, since the holy ghost comes by faith, if they did not receive it, did they have faith, or is God a liar?
Brother Price
02-24-2007, 01:27 PM
Bro. Prince. The answer I gave was from my reading and studying of the scriptures. We must understand that this merciful God we serve has established in His Word what it takes to be saved. These scenarios are simply fictional. His truth has been established from everlasting. One must repent of our sins, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. I am really stern on this, and will not change.
Modern PCIers? There really aren't any PCI or PAJCers left.
There is currently an organization called the PAJC.
Their web site is
http://www.pajc.org/index.html
When I was in St. Paul, MN in 1956/1957 a young lady from Cleveland, OH was there and the local church she belonged to was PAJC. She showed me a magazine from them. I don't know if the group at the above website is still that same group or not.
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 01:36 PM
Good to see you here, Sam.
Love ya bro
stmatthew
02-24-2007, 01:37 PM
Bro. Prince. The answer I gave was from my reading and studying of the scriptures. We must understand that this merciful God we serve has established in His Word what it takes to be saved. These scenarios are simply fictional. His truth has been established from everlasting. One must repent of our sins, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. I am really stern on this, and will not change.
Bro Price,
I agree with you. We have the Law of God, complete with the boundaries that they extend to as far as salvation is concerned. It is not a joyous thing that anyone would be lost, but lets face the fact that the bible is the measuring stick, and not us. If one has not obeyed the scriptures, we can tell their end according to the scriptures.
It bothers me that those that believe in the Apostolic doctrine are uneasy to declare the outcome of one that does not obey it. It sends an uncertain sound though the air, in my opinion.
whollyHis
02-24-2007, 01:37 PM
I have a sincere question, and I have asked it before- but got very few serious responses...
If you can 'be saved' without the NAme being applied in baptism, and you can be saved with or without speaking in tongues as the spirit of God giveth utterance (receiving the Holy Ghost), and you can be saved with, or without maintaining a code of dress that sets you apart from the world...What then, is the 'deciding factor' in this equation, of whether one makes into the Bride of Christ? What sets His children 'apart' from everyone else?
*Disclaimer....I am NOT judging any one group of folk. I sincerely WANT to have an answer to this question...
Good to see you here, Sam.
Love ya bro
Yes, it is!!:highfive
So now you are questioning the Oneness of God?
I guess the slippery slope theory is really true.
C'mon ... PP ... I'm as Oneness as you ... I was examining a different issue ... but you know that already ....:ty
Sammy boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 01:41 PM
So now you are questioning the Oneness of God?
I guess the slippery slope theory is really true.
The guy is using the thing as a hypothetical.
Lighten up...
Sheesh.............
Howard Goss told Carl Ballestero at a camp meeting in Indiana that "even the Baptists will be in the Bride of Christ."
They don't want to hear it ... the first UPCI superintendent is among many Apostolic greats that felt this way .... but ... they would rather marginalize modern PCIers ... as they did to Goss after not re-electing him in the early 1950's ... same M.O.
whollyHis
02-24-2007, 01:48 PM
I have a sincere question, and I have asked it before- but got very few serious responses...
If you can 'be saved' without the NAme being applied in baptism, and you can be saved with or without speaking in tongues as the spirit of God giveth utterance (receiving the Holy Ghost), and you can be saved with, or without maintaining a code of dress that sets you apart from the world...What then, is the 'deciding factor' in this equation, of whether one makes into the Bride of Christ? What sets His children 'apart' from everyone else?
*Disclaimer....I am NOT judging any one group of folk. I sincerely WANT to have an answer to this question...
*BUMP*
Brett Prince
02-24-2007, 01:59 PM
You brethren can use the Word of God as a measuring stick, certainly, and you have every right to declare someone lost if they do not measure up. I simply will not and cannot do so. I believe that we must leave these hypotheticals in the hands of God. He knows where there heart was, and what their intention was. He has been known to impute some things by faith--even when the person did not necessarily deserve it. I shall leave the imputing to Him.
Goss was marginalized after he was put out by the hardliners ... The same things being said in this thread about not being sold out on Acts 2:39... were said back then .... eery.
From TF's Christianity without the Cross
http://respiracreative.com/goss1.jpg
http://respiracreative.com/goss2.jpg
http://respiracreative.com/goss3.jpg
I have a sincere question, and I have asked it before- but got very few serious responses...
If you can 'be saved' without the NAme being applied in baptism, and you can be saved with or without speaking in tongues as the spirit of God giveth utterance (receiving the Holy Ghost), and you can be saved with, or without maintaining a code of dress that sets you apart from the world...What then, is the 'deciding factor' in this equation, of whether one makes into the Bride of Christ? What sets His children 'apart' from everyone else?
*Disclaimer....I am NOT judging any one group of folk. I sincerely WANT to have an answer to this question...
answer to the bold portion of the above question:
The transformation that occurs when a person comes to Jesus in repentance by faith and has his/her sins forgiven.
This is based on the following quote from the UPC articles of faith:
Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing
and forsaking of sins. We are justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1).
John the Baptist preached repentance, Jesus proclaimed it, and the apostles emphasized
it to both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2:38, 11:18, 17:30).
The word "repentance" means a change of views and purpose, change of heart,
change of mind, change of life, transformation, etc.
Jesus said, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3).
Luke 24:47 says, "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached
in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
stmatthew
02-24-2007, 02:10 PM
You brethren can use the Word of God as a measuring stick, certainly, and you have every right to declare someone lost if they do not measure up. I simply will not and cannot do so. I believe that we must leave these hypotheticals in the hands of God. He knows where there heart was, and what their intention was. He has been known to impute some things by faith--even when the person did not necessarily deserve it. I shall leave the imputing to Him.
Bro, I do not think we should just go around with bible in hand holding it up to each person and stating who is saved and who is not. But when a hypothetical situation is presented, to hold back the truth would be, to me, a disservice to the Gospel. The one usually presenting the hypothetical situation is usually attempting to undermind the gospel of truth, and neutralize its power to save. They give the situation in the hopes that we will cower and not stand for what the bible states very plainly it takes to be saved.
They don't want to hear it ... the first UPCI superintendent is among many Apostolic greats that felt this way .... but ... they would rather marginalize modern PCIers ... as they did to Goss after not re-electing him in the early 1950's ... same M.O.
Well, ya know, I was told, "Those men are dead and gone now!!" It's as if everything they taught and all that they meant in days gone by is without merit...shot down the tubes because "they were soft on the message" or "never believed the message."
And then I hear, "Well, they were coming out of denomintional churches and were not willing or unable to refute their own experiences there." In other words, our Pentecostal pioneers, not wanting to say they were never saved before, made excuses for themselves.
I have to tell you, it is disheartening...very troubling to know that the church history I thought I knew, I did not. It is equally troubling to read that the men I have held in such high regard spoken of with such disdain...just a shrug of the shoulders and a "they never believed it" and then go about our business?!
I don't get this...not at all!!
Brett Prince
02-24-2007, 02:28 PM
Bro, I do not think we should just go around with bible in hand holding it up to each person and stating who is saved and who is not. But when a hypothetical situation is presented, to hold back the truth would be, to me, a disservice to the Gospel. The one usually presenting the hypothetical situation is usually attempting to undermind the gospel of truth, and neutralize its power to save. They give the situation in the hopes that we will cower and not stand for what the bible states very plainly it takes to be saved.
Matt,
I understand your thinking. I get tired of 'winning' and just want some biblical purity. In the end, salvation IS in the hands of God.
Well, ya know, I was told, "Those men are dead and gone now!!" It's as if everything they taught and all that they meant in days gone by is without merit...shot down the tubes because "they were soft on the message" or "never believed the message."
And then I hear, "Well, they were coming out of denomintional churches and were not willing or unable to refute their own experiences there." In other words, our Pentecostal pioneers, not wanting to say they were never saved before, made excuses for themselves.
I have to tell you, it is disheartening...very troubling to know that the church history I thought I knew, I did not. It is equally troubling to read that the men I have held in such high regard spoken of with such disdain...just a shrug of the shoulders and a "they never believed it" and then go about our business?!
I don't get this...not at all!!
What's rich is that these men were shot down with the same vitriole back then .... and now ... ironically.... the new hardliners will dare say we're not really like the old PCI greats .... you can't win for losing ....
Theophilus
02-24-2007, 02:32 PM
Theo, I hate to say it, but you can't prove that. You can add to to this Scripture and make it say that, but you can't take it as it is and say it says tongues, or YOU speaking in tongues. It says that all who are born of the Spirit WILL HEAR HIS VOICE. That is it.
Is it not the Spirit that speaks through us as we speak in tongues? (See Acts 2:4) Is Jesus not that Spirit? Does He not, at that time, have control of the most unruly member of our body that no man can tame?
I'm not adding to that scripture, brother, but merely pointing out what is taking place during Spiritual Baptism as Jesus is so describing in simple Greek terms.
I'm saying that Jesus is clearly expounding for Nicodemus in John 3:8, as well as for all that read His Word, what He means by what will accompany the Spiritual Birth of everyone. Read it carefully, that "voice" that you hear, but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor where it goeth.
John 3:8
The wind(Spirit) bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound(voice) thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Examine the word for "whence"
Pothen 1.of place: from where, from what condition
2.of origin or source: from what author or giver
3.of cause: how is that?, how can that be?
Interesting?
It seems to me that this "voice" is characterized by Jesus to apparently be, at least in the eyes and ears of the beholder/receiver, coming from an uncertain origin, source, author or giver in an uncertain fashion. Neither can one tell where it is going next either. Hmmm.
Sounds like that voice that accompanies everyone Born of the Spirit is in an unknown tongue to me.
How many testimonies have a similar description of the receiving of the Holy Ghost?
Let's examine the Greek word that Jesus chose that was interpreted 'sound' here in John 3:8.
The Greek word is Phone with the following meanings:
1. a sound,
a. a tone of inanimate things, as musical instruments
2.a voice
a. of the sound of uttered words
3. speech
a. of a language, tongue
It occurs 141 times in the KJV New Testament and is translated as follows
be noised abroad + (1096), 1; noise, 1; sound, 8; voice, 131;
Paul used it in reference to various unknown tongues of men, to illustrate the effects of the unknown tongues of angels on the speaker and the hearer.
Consider 1 Cor 14:10-11
14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
Many of us recognize that this is smack dab in the middle of Paul's passage on the purpose, as well as the proper and improper use of unknown tongues.
How does Jesus seal up the teaching on Spiritual Birth and speaking in unknown tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance?
He teaches that this that He has just characterized will be the case with every one that is Born of the Spirit. Every one.
Doubtful that I can stress that enough here. What is the constant with Spiritual Baptism for every one? The sound as of a rushing mighty wind? Cloven tongues? Some other voice of His that we hear?
No. Every one is Born again of the Spirit as they speak in other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.
It says that all who are born of the Spirit WILL HEAR HIS VOICE. That is it.
Exactly, we hear His voice with the tongue that He chooses through us as our spirit prayeth, yet our understanding is without fruit though we be edified ourselves!
And this is what we see and hear fulfilled in Acts and beyond. Should it be any surprise that what we see Jesus teach about, as to what would take place with everyone being born of the Spirit, and what we see and hear taking place during the fulfillment of the Promise should be exactly the same thing, every time, with everyone? No, it really shouldn't.
Jesus has this thing about His Word and fulfillment. Like in John 3:8. Have I mentioned John 3:8? Did I mention that Jesus is teaching that what is being described here is how it will be with everyone that is born of the Spirit?
John 3:8 - The wind(Spirit) bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound
(voice) thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth:
so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
I can only hope that I've made myself clear here, at least to you....at least to those that take the matter seriously ;)
God Bless, Theo.
Felicity
02-24-2007, 02:34 PM
Well, ya know, I was told, "Those men are dead and gone now!!" It's as if everything they taught and all that they meant in days gone by is without merit...shot down the tubes because "they were soft on the message" or "never believed the message."
And then I hear, "Well, they were coming out of denomintional churches and were not willing or unable to refute their own experiences there." In other words, our Pentecostal pioneers, not wanting to say they were never saved before, made excuses for themselves.
I have to tell you, it is disheartening...very troubling to know that the church history I thought I knew, I did not. It is equally troubling to read that the men I have held in such high regard spoken of with such disdain...just a shrug of the shoulders and a "they never believed it" and then go about our business?!
I don't get this...not at all!!There have been many complaints about re-writing and/or denying some of our apostolic history. Don't know why anyone would want to do this really. What are they afraid of? (if indeed fear is a factor here). :dunno
I'm not a pci'er but I'm disappointed with the first post of this thread... How can CS make a statement like that when there is a plethora of documented evidence that suggests otherwise?
What's rich is that these men were shot down with the same vitriole back then .... and now ... ironically.... the new hardliners will dare say we're not really like the old PCI greats .... you can't win for losing ....
There have been many complaints about re-writing and/or denying some of our apostolic history. Don't know why anyone would want to do this really. What are they afraid of? (if indeed fear is a factor here). :dunno
afraid of being wrong is the common denominator .... in many aspects and issues.
They know John 3 but dont go beyond Acts .... 1 John 5:
1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten by God, and everyone who loves the father loves (also) the one begotten by him.
2
In this way we know that we love the children of God when we love God and obey his commandments.
3
For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome,
4
for whoever is begotten by God conquers the world. And the victory that conquers the world is our faith.
5
Who (indeed) is the victor over the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?........
OneAccord
02-24-2007, 02:39 PM
I beg to differ, Brother. This HAS happened before. A young brother repented in our church and aked to be baptized that night. The pastor put it off until the next Sunday. That Friday night before being baptized, he was killed in a car accident. So, even though he fully intended on being baptized, he is lost? What about the pastor... should he be lost as well, for not baptizing the man when he was ready? I respectfully disagree with your answers but I do appreciate that you have the integrity to answer.
Answer: Yes, but this has never happened and more than likely never will 1Peter 3:21 says that in like manner, baptism does now also save us. Mark 16:16 says the he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. So, that person is lost.
Yes, because the sign given through the Acts of the Apostles that someone has received the Holy Ghost is that they speak with tongues. Until she speaks with tongues, just as they did at Pentecost, she is lost.
Answer: No. He has obeyed the Gospel. Misunderstanding the Gospel does not negate his faith that his sins have been washed away. His obedience to the Gospel is sufficient. Now, he can be discipled about how repentance does not save, but that baptism is where sins are remitted.
OK, I answered truthfully.
Felicity
02-24-2007, 02:41 PM
I can only hope that I've made myself clear here, at least to you....at least to those that take the matter seriously ;)
God Bless, Theo.I think you've made yourself clear. :) That isn't the issue.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and exegesis with us. Can you think of another scripture/s that would affirm your understanding of John 3:8 and what it means and signifies?
Ferd did you really read verse 2???? Please analyze it ....And who has advocated non-obedience .????.. it's amazing ...
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 02:44 PM
They know John 3 but dont go beyond Acts .... 1 John 5:
1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten by God, and everyone who loves the father loves (also) the one begotten by him.
2
In this way we know that we love the children of God when we love God and obey his commandments.
3
For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome,
4
for whoever is begotten by God conquers the world. And the victory that conquers the world is our faith.
5
Who (indeed) is the victor over the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
Are you advocating that belief all by its little lonesome self saves?
Are you advocating that belief all by its little lonesome self saves?
nope ...
Are you advocating that belief all by its little lonesome self saves?
Charlie ...if you go back ... a few pages you'll see that this was part of a discussion on being born of God ... that Felicity, Theo and I were having ... but if some would like to twist this verse for easy believism I would stand on your side of the fence.
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 02:48 PM
nope ...
So when the cry comes up, "What must I do to be saved?", what is your answer?
Ferd did you really read verse 2???? Please analyze it ....And who has advocated non-obedience .????.. it's amazing ...
There I fixed it. my point is, you like to point out those scriptures that say we are saved when we love God but you seem to disreguard those that show the proof.
This notion that we dont have to do anything is silly.
Of course we cannot earn salvation, but that doesnt mean we are free to do what ever we want.
im getting tired head.
apersimmon
02-24-2007, 02:52 PM
I'm not a pci'er but I'm disappointed with the first post of this thread... How can CS make a statement like that when there is a plethora of documented evidence that suggests otherwise?
To be disappointed implies he has ANY sense of being obligated to you, or that you have any capacity to overview his thinking or expression. That's ridiculous. Who are you to be 'disappointed' in another person's post as if they have some responsibility to you? tv1a, isn't this really a subtle manipulation, when you say you are 'disappointed'?
philjones
02-24-2007, 02:53 PM
afraid of being wrong is the common denominator .... in many aspects and issues.
This is definitely true in TF's attempt to spin the history to his particular bias! If you are trying to persuade anyone, you do not further your cause by citing anything from TF. He is a spin doctor with specific bias!
philjones
02-24-2007, 02:54 PM
nope ...
Sure you are. it is amazing that you have so deceived even yourself!:tease
Mr. Steinway
02-24-2007, 02:56 PM
So when the cry comes up, "What must I do to be saved?", what is your answer?
I'm not Daniel, but my answer is somewhere between repentance and the list of "10,000 things that you must do exactly right or hell is your home" that the ultra-cons carry with them!
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 02:56 PM
So when the cry comes up, "What must I do to be saved?", what is your answer?
In case you missed this, Danny.
Brett Prince
02-24-2007, 02:58 PM
I can only hope that I've made myself clear here, at least to you....at least to those that take the matter seriously ;)
God Bless, Theo.
Theo,
I think you and I are understanding ONE thing differently...and that is WHO does the hearing. With tongues, others hear. With God speaking in your heart and mind, YOU hear.
That is what I believe this verse teaches, that if you are born of the Spirit, you, the newborn person, will hear the voice of God, NOT others around you.
So when the cry comes up, "What must I do to be saved?", what is your answer?
9/10 if this question is asked in earnest .. then their is true faith ....
I would preach what the Apostles did ... Repent and turn to God ....
Paul preached this to Agrippa and his court ...
We would then have a discussion about what a repentant life really looks like and what it means to confess Him as Lord of your savior... then I would sit down with them, like Paul did with the jailer ... speak about the Word of God ... I would stress that it is Christ that saves us ... and not our works.
We'd speak of the importance of baptism ... the wonderful promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost .... and the power it brings .... but it wouldnt stop there ... we'd talk about consecration, living a holy life, loving God with all we have, loving our neighbors ... what it means to know God in his power, resurrection, and fellowship of his suffering .... it's a faith walk, Charlie. A love relationship.
but true discipleship would take years ... Jesus spent 3 1/2 years discipling the twelve ...
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 03:02 PM
9/10 if this question is asked in earnest .. then their is true faith ....
I would preach what the Apostles did ... Repent and turn to God ....
Paul preached this to Agrippa and his court ...
We would then have a discussion about what a repentant life really looks like and what it means to confess Him as Lord of your savior... then I would sit down with them, like Paul did with the jailer ... speak about the Word of God ... I would stress that it is Christ that save us ... and not our works.
We'd speak of the importance of baptism ... the wonderful promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost .... and the power it brings .... but it wouldnt stop there ... we'd talk about consecration, living a holy life, loving God with all we have, loving our neighbors ... what it means to know God in his power, resurrection, and fellowship of his suffering .... it's a faith walk, Charlie. A love relationship.
but true discipleship would take years ... Jesus spent 3 1/2 years discipling the twelve ...
So at what point in your years of discipleship would they be considered "saved".
This really isn't that hard. Why are you sidestepping it?
philjones
02-24-2007, 03:03 PM
9/10 if this question is asked in earnest .. then their is true faith ....
I would preach what the Apostles did ... Repent and turn to God ....
Paul preached this to Agrippa and his court ...
We would then have a discussion about what a repentant life really looks like and what it means to confess Him as Lord of your savior... then I would sit down with them, like Paul did with the jailer ... speak about the Word of God ... I would stress that it is Christ that save us ... and not our works.
We'd speak of the importance of baptism ... the wonderful promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost .... and the power it brings .... but it wouldnt stop there ... we'd talk about consecration, living a holy life, loving God with all we have, loving our neighbors ... what it means to know God in his power, resurrection, and fellowship of his suffering .... it's a faith walk, Charlie. A relationship.
but true discipleship would take years ... Jesus spent 3 1/2 years discipling the twelve ...
Again, all this time I thought you no longer believed the truth. This is what occurs time and time again in the traditional OP church I attend. Do you for some reason feel that the normal presentation of the gospel in United Pentecostal churches differs significantly from this?
If you believe that you are sadly mistaken and have been misled!
Charlie ... who is sidestepping ???
"He that perseveres to the end shall be saved." [Matt 10:22; Matt 24:13; Mark 13:13]
Do you disagree ???
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 03:05 PM
Charlie ... who is sidestepping ???
"He that perseveres to the end shall be saved." [Matt 10:22; Matt 24:13; Mark 13:13]
Do you disagree ???
So no one is saved until the end??
Again, all this time I thought you no longer believed the truth. This is what occurs time and time again in the traditional OP church I attend. Do you for some reason feel that the normal presentation of the gospel in United Pentecostal churches differs significantly from this?
If you believe that you are sadly mistaken and have been misled!
Some present it this way .... and some will send you tell hell for not speaking in tongues .... right away.
So no one is saved until the end??
Whenever the end may be ... unless Charlie ...
Are you once saved always saved????
Again, all this time I thought you no longer believed the truth. This is what occurs time and time again in the traditional OP church I attend. Do you for some reason feel that the normal presentation of the gospel in United Pentecostal churches differs significantly from this?
If you believe that you are sadly mistaken and have been misled!
That's what happens when you get caught in the feeding frenzy ... Phil ... I have been discussion how some in the movement present God's salvation in a condemning fashion ... and without sound biblical precepts ...
:ty
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 03:13 PM
Whenever the end may be ... unless Charlie ...
Are you once saved always saved????
So are you leading me to believe that you do not think anyone at your church, including yourself, is saved because the "end" has not yet occurred?
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 03:13 PM
Again, all this time I thought you no longer believed the truth.
You never bothered to ask... you just assumed.
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 03:15 PM
You never bothered to ask... you just assumed.
Well, I have asked Dannyboy, and still haven't received a clear and concise answer.
So are you leading me to believe that you do not think anyone at your church, including yourself, is saved because the "end" has not yet occurred?
Answer my question first ... with details. :ty
Well, I have asked Dannyboy, and still haven't received a clear and concise answer.
Ah ... Charile ... got Lucy on your mind ... cause Phil got it.
philjones
02-24-2007, 03:18 PM
You never bothered to ask... you just assumed.
Actually, I was too busy defending myself and others from attacks to ask. When you are accused of spiritual holocaust and abortion and murder because of your beliefs you don't much time for congenial conversation!:ranting :tease :tease
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 03:19 PM
Answer my question first ... with details. :ty
ask the question again.
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 03:19 PM
Well, I have asked Dannyboy, and still haven't received a clear and concise answer.
I think if none of his responses in 65 pages of thread have been clear to you then you may as well give up asking because I don't think he can make it any more plain to you than he's already done for anyone else....
Why don't you stop trying to look for him to give you a canned answer that you can define him by and actually read his posts as a whole?
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 03:21 PM
Actually, I was too busy defending myself and others from attacks to ask. When you are accused of spiritual holocaust and abortion and murder because of your beliefs you don't much time for congenial conversation!:ranting :tease :tease
Uh pardon me, brother, but I believe those 'attacks' are a two way street... You're no more innocent in this than he is.
ask the question again.
Are you once saved, always saved? Why or why not?
Uh pardon me, brother, but I believe those 'attacks' are a two way street... You're no more innocent in this than he is.
Uncle Ron's here ... we better cool it. :killinme
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 03:25 PM
Uncle Ron's here ... we better cool it. :killinme
You're older than me sparky.
You're older than me sparky.
It is possible to have an uncle younger than you ... Einstein ...
Geez Louise.
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 03:27 PM
I think if none of his responses in 65 pages of thread have been clear to you then you may as well give up asking because I don't think he can make it any more plain to you than he's already done for anyone else....
Why don't you stop trying to look for him to give you a canned answer that you can define him by and actually read his posts as a whole?
How about a simple statement like, "I believe when one repents, is water baptized in Jesus name, and receives the holy ghost with tongues as the initial evidence that they have been born again, have the earnest of their inheritance, and are considered saved".
or maybe, "as soon as they believe in Jesus and make him Lord of their life, they are saved".
I asked a simple question because I did not go back and read 600+ pages to find out what he believes, and he seems to be espousing that when a person believes, they are saved.
I am not ashamed of my beliefs, and figured he wasn't either.
I'm not suggesting anyone owes me anything. When one expects a quality post from someone who has been know to provide in the past, one has a sense of letdown when a post has less substance than tofu. The rant and rave crowd gets a thrill from it.
Which is worse? Someone who presents data with an agenda or an organization who supresses the data that suggest history isn't as accurate as desired?
To be disappointed implies he has ANY sense of being obligated to you, or that you have any capacity to overview his thinking or expression. That's ridiculous. Who are you to be 'disappointed' in another person's post as if they have some responsibility to you? tv1a, isn't this really a subtle manipulation, when you say you are 'disappointed'?
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 03:28 PM
It is possible to have an uncle younger than you ... Einstein ...
Geez Louise.
Well, ya got me there, but it ain't the norm, George Jefferson.
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 03:29 PM
Are you once saved, always saved? Why or why not?
No. The bible is very plain that you can walk the path, and then leave it. It does not unbirth you, but your final location can be changed by your current course.
I think you're real question is when is salvation made afforded to us, Chuck ... and you'll get the standard PCI answer from me ...
Nahum
02-24-2007, 03:34 PM
I'm not suggesting anyone owes me anything. When one expects a quality post from someone who has been know to provide in the past, one has a sense of letdown when a post has less substance than tofu. The rant and rave crowd gets a thrill from it.
Which is worse? Someone who presents data with an agenda or an organization who supresses the data that suggest history isn't as accurate as desired?
That supposed lack of substance has now garnered almost 700 posts!
As to your last question, neither is preferable. Your question must be rhetorical.
Coonskinner stated his opinion. That's all. And so far we've had many more
"easy believism" posters on this thread that freaky-conservatives.
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 03:36 PM
I think you're real question is when is salvation made afforded to us, Chuck ... and you'll get the standard PCI answer from me ...
That is all I was trying to know. I would not want to misrepresent anyone.
:ty
That supposed lack of substance has now garnered almost 700 posts!
As to your last question, neither is preferable. Your question must be rhetorical.
Coonskinner stated his opinion. That's all. And so far we've had many more
"easy believism" posters on this thread that freaky-conservatives.
Which of the two ... PP ... might give you more glimpses at truth ??? Or should we rely on Hall's historical books only ....???
Nahum
02-24-2007, 03:37 PM
I think you're real question is when is salvation made afforded to us, Chuck ... and you'll get the standard PCI answer from me ...
Here is what I have gathered from the 700 posts on this thread.
Daniel believes faith that brings repentance is all that is necessary to save.
But he thinks it would be really terrific if someone would go ahead and get baptized afterwards, and that the Holy Ghost is an unsolicited gift.
That is all I was trying to know. I would not want to misrepresent anyone.
:ty
Im glad we were able to clarify both of our positions .... :highfive :heeheehee
Theophilus
02-24-2007, 03:39 PM
I think you've made yourself clear. :) That isn't the issue.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and exegesis with us. Can you think of another scripture/s that would affirm your understanding of John 3:8 and what it means and signifies?
Ah, good afternoon Felicity, I just read your PM, Thanks.
You're welcome. I have given many other scriptures throughout this discussion that pertain to the fulfillment of the New Birth teaching from John 3 that mainly occur in the 2nd chapter of Acts where the New Birth was initially fulfilled. Of course there are many other references to it throughout Acts and within the Epistles. Howbeit, again, the main correlation occurs at the point of fulfillment, just as with the other prophesies and foreshadowing.
For example, another interesting foreshadowing to the event on the day of Pentecost is found in John as well. Very deep and mysterious book that John and many clues therein.
John 20
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. 21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Interesting foreshadowing of the Day of Pentecost. They didn't receive the Spirit here, rather Jesus was giving clues or signs for that which was to come in the upper room where the breath of new life would flow as the sound of a rushing mighty wind in the way of that sign that preluded the Spiritual Birth as part of the New Birth taught by Jesus in John 3. And of course as it was prophesied, that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire, we see the cloven tongues occurring in tandem to illustrate the event in this light as well.
It surely must have been a quickening event wherein all this should take place at once in the sight of His Disciples in order to fulfill so many of Jesus’ teachings, foreshadowing, and prophesies. God Bless, Theo.
Nahum
02-24-2007, 03:40 PM
Which of the two ... PP ... might give you more glimpses at truth ??? Or should we rely on Hall's historical books only ....???
I couldn't care less about Hall, or Bernard, or Yadon or even Andy Urshan!!!!
What does the WORD say? That's all that matters to me. If you haven't noticed by now, I find myself very conservative and rigid on doctrine, and increasingly liberal on social issues.
Here is what I have gathered from the 700 posts on this thread.
Daniel believes faith that brings repentance is all that is necessary to save.
But he thinks it would be really terrific if someone would go ahead and get baptized afterwards, and that the Holy Ghost is an unsolicited gift.
That sounds a lot like the PAJC spin said of Goss and the others ...
:dunno PP ... really now ...
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 03:41 PM
I couldn't care less about Hall, or Bernard, or Yadon or even Andy Urshan!!!!
What does the WORD say? That's all that matters to me. If you haven't noticed by now, I find myself very conservative and rigid on doctrine, and increasingly liberal on social issues.
The club is growing! :highfive
Nahum
02-24-2007, 03:43 PM
That sounds a lot like the PAJC spin said of Goss and the others ...
:dunno PP ... really now ...
Daniel!!!! This is maddening.
I am not spinning and you know it. I have absolutely no agenda here.
Daniel!!!! This is maddening.
I am not spinning and you know it. I have absolutely no agenda here.
PP ... you have an agenda. :tease
philjones
02-24-2007, 03:46 PM
Uh pardon me, brother, but I believe those 'attacks' are a two way street... You're no more innocent in this than he is.
I do not think I have ever accused anyone of intentionally murdering or torturing anyone spiritually. Find the post and prove it. I can clearly point out the ones where it was said.
I certainly do not deny my position on the gospel and that I think the PCI perspective is incorrect. That said, i do not think that anyone who changes their position is intentionally trying to present a weak doctrine that will lead folks to hell. That was the implication of many of the posts here.
You seem to have a preconceived idea that I have changed simply because you have changed or that because I have friends to your right that I am sitting in judgment or condemnation of you. You are wrong. I will repeat what I stated in another post to you. I am the same guy in every way that I was sitting in PF Chang's. My question would be are you?
You need to back up a step or two and shake off a little of your self righteous holier than thou attitudes and remember that this is a discussion board and we all have opinions and all have some that are right and some that are wrong!
Nahum
02-24-2007, 03:46 PM
PP ... you have an agenda. :tease
Tell me what it is, Oh great swamie?:killinme
I do not think I have ever accused anyone of intentionally murdering or torturing anyone spiritually. Find the post and prove it. I can clearly point out the ones where it was said.
I certainly do not deny my position on the gospel and that I think the PCI perspective is incorrect. That said, i do not think that anyone who changes their position is intentionally trying to present a weak doctrine that will lead folks to hell. That was the implication of many of the posts here.
You seem to have a preconceived idea that I have changed simply because you have changed or that because I have friends to your right that I am sitting in judgment or condemnation of you. You are wrong. I will repeat what I stated in another post to you. I am the same guy in every way that I was sitting in PF Chang's. My question would be are you?
You need to back up a step or two and shake off a little of your self righteous holier than thou attitudes and remember that this is a discussion board and we all have opinions and all have some that are right and some that are wrong!
I think ... um... PP's on first on your list ... he started that thread ... that's the guy w/o an agenda ... When you're done w/ him ... you come 'round and we'll talk .... :killinme :heeheehee :tease
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 03:50 PM
Here is what I have gathered from the 700 posts on this thread.
Daniel believes faith that brings repentance is all that is necessary to save.
But he thinks it would be really terrific if someone would go ahead and get baptized afterwards, and that the Holy Ghost is an unsolicited gift.
That sounds a lot like the PAJC spin said of Goss and the others ...
:dunno PP ... really now ...
What!! Goss did not believe that salvation came at repentance??
philjones
02-24-2007, 03:53 PM
I think ... um... PP's on first on your list ... he started that thread ... that's the guy w/o an agenda ... When you're done w/ him ... you come 'round and we'll talk .... :killinme :heeheehee :tease
We, PP and I, have already dealt with our issues and got all that straight. I perceive that you and i have done the same. We differ on when the fullness of saving faith is accomplished... I see the repentant individual as a convert but not born again you see them as born again but not in full obedience and definitely not empowered to overcome... but we are in agreement in the presentation of the fullness of the provision that God has made available by his incarnation and subsequent sacrifice on the cross.
It just seems that my dear friend Ron feels it is his job to point out what he sees as an inconsistency in the presentation or posting of anyone who is not PCI or is to his right on any issue.
crakjak
02-24-2007, 03:54 PM
In carse it was missed, can anyone answer the following....
Of course not , to all! :killinme
We, PP and I, have already dealt with our issues and got all that straight. I perceive that you and i have done the same. We differ on when the fullness of saving faith is accomplished... I see the repentant individual as a convert but not born again you see them as born again but not in full obedience and definitely not empowered to overcome... but we are in agreement in the presentation of the fullness of the provision that God has made available by his incarnation and subsequent sacrifice on the cross.
It just seems that my dear friend Ron feels it is his job to point out what he sees as an inconsistency in the presentation or posting of anyone who is not PCI or is to his right on any issue.
Im glad we're seeing eye to eye ...
Hey Ron ... now YOUR IT.
What!! Goss did not believe that salvation came at repentance??
Any takers ON THIS ONE??? ... when I say something Charlie hears WAH WAH WAH
Nahum
02-24-2007, 03:58 PM
Any takers ON THIS ONE??? ... when I say something Charlie hears WAH WAH WAH
Thats what we all hear when you say something! :tease
Theophilus
02-24-2007, 03:59 PM
Theo,
I think you and I are understanding ONE thing differently...and that is WHO does the hearing. With tongues, others hear. With God speaking in your heart and mind, YOU hear.
That is what I believe this verse teaches, that if you are born of the Spirit, you, the newborn person, will hear the voice of God, NOT others around you.
Brother Prince,
With tongues, everybody hears. See Acts 2 and See Paul's teachings on the subject in 1 Co 14.
The Spirit gives the utterance during Spiritual Birth to be heard, not to give the heart and mind a secret message. Jesus gives every indication that the voice is heard.
This is the topic Spiritual Birth, but rather it is a sub topic of the New Birth that includes both being born of the water and the Spirit in the 3rd chapter of John. We see both aspects fulfilled in Acts 2 as well as beyond.
We've been discussion the subtopic within the New Birth mostly, but let's not forget the total teaching nor the total fulfillment. God Bless, Theo.
Thats what we all hear when you say something! :tease
Sure ... Pig Pen.
Brett Prince
02-24-2007, 04:00 PM
Brother Prince,
With tongues, everybody hears. See Acts 2 and See Paul's teachings on the subject in 1 Co 14.
The Spirit gives the utterance during Spiritual Birth to be heard, not to give the heart and mind a secret message. Jesus gives every indication that the voice is heard.
This is the topic Spiritual Birth, but rather it is a sub topic of the New Birth that includes both being born of the water and the Spirit in the 3rd chapter of John. We see both aspects fulfilled in Acts 2 as well as beyond.
We've been discussion the subtopic within the New Birth mostly, but let's not forget the total teaching nor the total fulfillment. God Bless, Theo.
Think about how the voice is characterized by Jesus in His teaching here.
To believe what you believe here, you have to introduce these characterizations that you present that are not at all present in the Words of Christ.
You lost me here.
You might have to type more slowly. :D
I don't think I am adding to or taking away from the passage. I think it is rather simple. I think He is alluding to the concept that His sheep know His voice.
crakjak
02-24-2007, 04:02 PM
Howard Goss told Carl Ballestero at a camp meeting in Indiana that "even the Baptists will be in the Bride of Christ."
Praise God, I know lotsa Baptists that are in the Bride of Christl
Praise God, I know lotsa Baptists that are in the Bride of Christl
Ever eat at Cracker Barrel??? ... oh ... hallelujah ....
Charlie Brown
02-24-2007, 04:04 PM
Any takers ON THIS ONE??? ... when I say something Charlie hears WAH WAH WAH
:killinme
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 04:06 PM
It just seems that my dear friend Ron feels it is his job to point out what he sees as an inconsistency in the presentation or posting of anyone who is not PCI or is to his right on any issue.
Whatever bro.
Feel free to say/believe/think/espouse whatever it is that you want.
However, when you claim it to be biblical truth and use it as a measuring stick of others to determine their spirituality... their salvation... and their eternal resting place, it MUST be backed by Biblical Truth and NOT a regurgitated recent tradition held by an 'elect few' and use handful of loosely thrown together scripture pasages that build a house of popsicle sticks with a sandy foundation....
Felicity
02-24-2007, 04:07 PM
So no one is saved until the end??If we can have no assurance of salvation until we either find ourselves on one side or other of the Pearly Gates then surely what an inconsequential and ineffective salvation we have.
Whatever bro.
Feel free to say/believe/think/espouse whatever it is that you want.
However, when you claim it to be biblical truth and use it as a measuring stick of others to determine their spirituality... their salvation... and their eternal resting place, it MUST be backed by Biblical Truth and NOT a regurgitated recent tradition held by an 'elect few' and use handful of loosely thrown together scripture pasages that build a house of popsicle sticks with a sandy foundation....
Feel the heat .. big boy .... but great answer :ty
Theophilus
02-24-2007, 04:09 PM
You lost me here.
You might have to type more slowly. :D
I don't think I am adding to or taking away from the passage. I think it is rather simple. I think He is alluding to the concept that His sheep know His voice.
Sorry! :dunno
This has nothing to do with the New Birth process that is being taught here in John 3, that is initially fulfilled in action and word in the 2nd chapter of Acts.
The teachings that you are confusing the New Birth with take place seven chapters later. You're simply out of context. God Bless, Theo.
Theo ... strictly a hypothetical ..
and I know I'm going to get slammed for asking ...
what if ... we didn't have John 3:3 or Acts 2:38 ... or both ...Let's say ... scholars find out they are not divinely inspired ... would your faith slacken ...would your house of cards still stand ??? Do you have enough scripture to support your soteriological view ... Just asking ...
P.S.
I am glad both verses are God-breathed and inerrant .... and they are there ... Just probing Theo ... that's all ....
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 04:14 PM
That's it Dan... you're going to be tarred and feathered now for questioning the scripture!
philjones
02-24-2007, 04:23 PM
Whatever bro.
Feel free to say/believe/think/espouse whatever it is that you want.
However, when you claim it to be biblical truth and use it as a measuring stick of others to determine their spirituality... their salvation... and their eternal resting place, it MUST be backed by Biblical Truth and NOT a regurgitated recent tradition held by an 'elect few' and use handful of loosely thrown together scripture pasages that build a house of popsicle sticks with a sandy foundation....
thanks, Ron!
I am sorry for whatever it is that has happened between us. I love you but will no longer interact with you because I do not need the venom or the bile.
I pray that you and Dee find your soul satisfaction!
Again i am sorry for whatever it is I have done to cause you to feel so justified in being always caustic toward me. I am sincerely and greatly sorrowful!
You know my Pastor, Wendell Hutchins, once preached on this topic ... what would happen to our walls if someone took a brick out .... would are faith break or does it flex???
If you're interested ... you can download it
Welcome to Brick World -
http://respiracreative.com/bricks.mp3
The prequel to this message is ....
I Must Keep Painting ....
http://respiracreative.com/keeppainting.mp3
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 04:25 PM
thanks, Ron!
I am sorry for whatever it is that has happened between us. I love you but will no longer interact with you because I do not need the venom or the bile.
I pray that you and Dee find your soul satisfaction!
Again i am sorry for whatever it is I have done to cause you to feel so justified in being always caustic toward me. I am sincerely and greatly sorrowful!
I'm venomous? lol
Ok, Phil.
Sorry I give you that impression. Perhaps I should simply agree with whatever it is that you say from this point forward. Maybe that will make me less venomous to you.
I have been no more caustic toward you than you have to anyone here that disagrees with you.
philjones
02-24-2007, 04:25 PM
Feel the heat .. big boy .... but great answer :ty
What was so great about it friend? The judmentalism and the caustic attitude or was it the prejudice you like so much?
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 04:27 PM
You know my Pastor, Wendell Hutchins, once preached on this topic ... what would happen to our walls if someone took a brick out .... would are faith break or does it flex???
If you're interested ... you can download it
Welcome to Brick World -
http://respiracreative.com/bricks.mp3
The prequel to this message is ....
I Must Keep Painting ....
http://respiracreative.com/keeppainting.mp3 (http://respiracreative.com/keeppainting.mp3)
Two of my all time favorite Christian living sermons.
philjones
02-24-2007, 04:29 PM
I'm venomous? lol
Ok, Phil.
Sorry I give you that impression. Perhaps I should simply agree with whatever it is that you say form this point forward. Maybe that will make me less venomous to you.
No Ron, I expect you to change nothing. I have just noticed a distinct animosity towards anyone who is in any way traditional in their doctrine and position... surprisingly one you embraced at one point in your journey.
Again, I apologize for whatever offense you have received and am willing to do all I can to right any wrong. All I can, however, does not include compromising my beliefs and view of God's Word! I still hold to some absolutes. Do you?
No Ron, I expect you to change nothing. I have just noticed a distinct animosity towards anyone who is in any way traditional in their doctrine and position... surprisingly one you embraced at one point in your journey.
Again, I apologize for whatever offense you have received and am willing to do all I can to right any wrong. All I can, however, does not include compromising my beliefs and view of God's Word! I still hold to some absolutes. Do you?
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
whollyHis
02-24-2007, 04:31 PM
I have a sincere question, and I have asked it before- but got very few serious responses...
If you can 'be saved' without the NAme being applied in baptism, and you can be saved with or without speaking in tongues as the spirit of God giveth utterance (receiving the Holy Ghost), and you can be saved with, or without maintaining a code of dress that sets you apart from the world...What then, is the 'deciding factor' in this equation, of whether one makes into the Bride of Christ? What sets His children 'apart' from everyone else?
*Disclaimer....I am NOT judging any one group of folk. I sincerely WANT to have an answer to this question...
*BUMP!!!!!* :ranting
*BUMP!!!!!* :ranting
Sam answered your question whollyHis ... did it not fit your model????
RevDWW
02-24-2007, 04:34 PM
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Was this a hiss? What does this mean?
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 04:34 PM
I still hold to some absolutes. Do you?
No, Phil. I don't.
I've thrown the idea of there being any absolutes completely out the window.
Well, is that what you expected to hear? If so, then feel free to believe it.
If it's not what you expected to hear, then please feel free to take it in the spirit in which it was meant... which was to convey the hurt in my heart that you actually believe that simply because I don't see things exactly the way you do... I have thrown everything biblical out the window.
You want to know where this posting style comes from? There it is... right there. It's on the table.
whollyHis
02-24-2007, 04:35 PM
Sam answered your question whollyHis ... did it not fit your model????
sorry...didn't see it.:dunno
crakjak
02-24-2007, 04:36 PM
*BUMP*
Acts 2.21 "And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be SAVED!
Romans 5.10 "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, MUCH MORE, having been reconciled, we shall be SAVED by His life".
Roman 8.7-9 "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were STILL sinners, Christ died for us.
Much more then, HAVING NOW BEEN JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD, we shall be saved from the wrath through Him.
I Timothy 4.10 "For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, WHO IS THE SAVIOR OF ALL MEN, ESPECIALLY OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE. THESE THINGS COMMAND AND TEACH.
God is the author and the finisher of our faith, it is by Him and through Him that we have salvation. Your salvation is not in your hands it is in His hands, you can enter into salvation thru faith, or He will bring you to it thru fire. You are the creation of God and He will redeem all. In the process He is and will burn up all evil and wickedness, but He is not going to "torment endlessly" any of His children.
Was this a hiss? What does this mean?
Thou knowest.
Phil ... if you like I can be Ron's scapegoat ... Why not play w/ a while ...
philjones
02-24-2007, 04:41 PM
No, Phil. I don't.
I've thrown the idea of there being any absolutes completely out the window.
Well, is that what you expected to hear? If so, then feel free to believe it.
If it's not what you expected to hear, then please feel free to take it in the spirit in which it was meant... which was to convey the hurt in my heart that you actually believe that simply because I don't see things exactly the way you do... I have thrown everything biblical out the window.
You want to know where this posting style comes from? There it is... right there. It's on the table.
Ron,
that was not what I meant to imply. Boy am I doing a poor job of trying to mend a breach that is very important to me. It was my intent for the question to be rhetorical. It is obvious that you believe in absolutes. I was simply asking for permission to hold to mine without you judging me to be a condemner of everyone else.
I actually know of no one that believes every jot and tittle just like I do. That is not necessary for friendship or fellowship. Neither should disagreement be a cause for prejudicial attitudes. I have observed that you have altered some of your positions but I certainly have not ceased to consider you my brother.
You are very important to me and I would hope that our friendship transcends differences in beliefs.
I truly love you and Dee and count myself blessed to have had your friendship! I hope you feel the same!
crakjak
02-24-2007, 04:41 PM
You brethren can use the Word of God as a measuring stick, certainly, and you have every right to declare someone lost if they do not measure up. I simply will not and cannot do so. I believe that we must leave these hypotheticals in the hands of God. He knows where there heart was, and what their intention was. He has been known to impute some things by faith--even when the person did not necessarily deserve it. I shall leave the imputing to Him.
Since the death of Christ, God is NOT imputing our sins against us, however He is calling us to enter into the salvation that is already ours (Romans 5.10).
Paul call the message, the gospel of reconciliation. You will not find Paul declaring anyone, anywhere hell bound.
OneAccord
02-24-2007, 04:41 PM
*BUMP*
Seems your question is going unanswered so I'll take a stab at it. First of all, one of the problems in having a rational discussion here are definitions. Seems everyone has a different definaition to the word "saved". Yo me (an this is strictly how I defines the word, "saved" is that condition of the soul that has been forgiven of sin. I guess my definition is based on the old "saved, sanctifies and Holy Ghost filled" premise of days gone by. The word saved, to me means a person whose sin has been forgiven at repentance. And, yes, I do believe forgiveness of sins is obtained at repentance, just as the UPCI Articles of Faith state. I am not UPCI but do happen to agree witg their stated view that our sins are forgiven when we repent. They do not necessarily agree with their own Articles of Faith on this issue, but, I do.
I believe the Blood of Christ covers our sin when we repent. His blood is applied, if you will, when we repent, when we die to sin. Once we are washed in His Blood, then, as an act of obedience to the Word of God, we are submit to water baptism according to Acts 2:38. When God sees fit (whether before baptism, or after) we can be filled with the Holy Ghost as stated in Acts 2:4.
I believe, should a person die after repentance (prior to water baptism), he will be saved. However, if he is given the opportunity to be baptized, as an act of obedience to the Word of God, he must be baptized in water in Jesus' Name. I do not agree that forgiveness of sins is obtained through water baptism.
Of course, we are saved through Jesus Name. There is only one name given among men whereby we are saved. Everything, all that we have, all that we are, is because of the Name of Jesus.
philjones
02-24-2007, 04:42 PM
Phil ... if you like I can be Ron's scapegoat ... Why not play w/ a while ...
Huh?:dunno
Seems your question is going unanswered so I'll take a stab at it. First of all, one of the problems in having a rational discussion here are definitions. Seems everyone has a different definaition to the word "saved". Yo me (an this is strictly how I defines the word, "saved" is that condition of the soul that has been forgiven of sin. I guess my definition is based on the old "saved, sanctifies and Holy Ghost filled" premise of days gone by. The word saved, to me means a person whose sin has been forgiven at repentance. And, yes, I do believe forgiveness of sins is obtained at repentance, just as the UPCI Articles of Faith state. I am not UPCI but do happen to agree witg their stated view that our sins are forgiven when we repent. They do not necessarily agree with their own Articles of Faith on this issue, but, I do.
I believe the Blood of Christ covers our sin when we repent. His blood is applied, if you will, when we repent, when we die to sin. Once we are washed in His Blood, then, as an act of obedience to the Word of God, we are submit to water baptism according to Acts 2:38. When God sees fit (whether before baptism, or after) we can be filled with the Holy Ghost as stated in Acts 2:4.
I believe, should a person die after repentance (prior to water baptism), he will be saved. However, if he is given the opportunity to be baptized, as an act of obedience to the Word of God, he must be baptized in water in Jesus' Name. I do not agree that forgiveness of sins is obtained through water baptism.
Of course, we are saved through Jesus Name. There is only one name given among men whereby we are saved. Everything, all that we have, all that we are, is because of the Name of Jesus.
Amen ... OneAccord ....
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 04:43 PM
I truly love you and Dee and count myself blessed to have had your friendship! I hope you feel the same!
The feeling is mutual.
Consider this water under the bridge, at least that's the way I see it on my side of the bridge.
Huh?:dunno
If you like I can :drawguns with you ... it seems you like you've turned your attention to Ronzo ... so WASSUP :tease
rgcraig
02-24-2007, 04:44 PM
The feeling is mutual.
Consider this water under the bridge, at least that's the way I see it on my side of the bridge.
:bliss :bliss :bliss I love it!!!!!
philjones
02-24-2007, 04:45 PM
The feeling is mutual.
Consider this water under the bridge, at least that's the way I see it on my side of the bridge.
Done!
Thanks!:thumbsup
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 04:45 PM
Huh?:dunno
I think he meant, he'll take the heat for 'changing' my position...
Noble thought... on the surface, at least... but also extremely self-centered since he wants to take all the credit for my journey.
What am I gonna do with you, Dan?
crakjak
02-24-2007, 04:46 PM
This thread is making Coon proud!!! Hot and heavy for two days.
I think he meant, he'll take the heat for 'changing' my position...
Noble thought... on the surface, at least... but also extremely self-centered since he wants to take all the credit for my journey.
What am I gonna do with you, Dan?
Nah I was just trying to get the bully to play w/ me ... :ty :killinme :bliss
rgcraig
02-24-2007, 04:48 PM
It's been a great thread!
Iron sharpening iron!!!!!
philjones
02-24-2007, 04:49 PM
Nah I was just trying to get the bully to play w/ me ... :ty :killinme :bliss
Bully??? I can't help it if you come to a knife fight with a popgun!
No quiero a combatar, hermano! Quiero la paz!
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 04:50 PM
This thread is making Coon proud!!! Hot and heavy for two days.
Silence plebian!!!
:grumpy
:tease
Bully??? I can't help it if you come to a knife fight with a popgun!
No quiero a combatar, hermano! Quiero la paz!
Mi paz os dejo, mi paz os doy ... no como el mundo la da .. No se turbe vuestro corazon ni tenga miedo ...
I don't consider CS a freaky con... not yet that is..(lol) Why he would state something that evidence suggests otherwise.
My last question is not really a rhetorical question. Evidence shows there is a lot of history that is supressed. I may not agree w/ TF and his views, but there is no doubt there is an element of the upci that many would attempt to sweep under the rug. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I understand the victors have a right to write history in their favor. One cannot deny historical revisionism has taken place w/ the history of upci.
That supposed lack of substance has now garnered almost 700 posts!
As to your last question, neither is preferable. Your question must be rhetorical.
Coonskinner stated his opinion. That's all. And so far we've had many more
"easy believism" posters on this thread that freaky-conservatives.
philjones
02-24-2007, 04:55 PM
Mi paz os dejo, mi paz os doy ... no como el mundo la da .. No se turbe vuestro corazon ni tenga miedo ...
AMEN! y gracias!
I don't consider CS a freaky con... not yet that is..(lol) Why he would state something that evidence suggests otherwise.
My last question is not really a rhetorical question. Evidence shows there is a lot of history that is supressed. I may not agree w/ TF and his views, but there is no doubt there is an element of the upci that many would attempt to sweep under the rug. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I understand the victors have a right to write history in their favor. One cannot deny historical revisionism has taken place w/ the history of upci.
Well TV ... thanks for speaking truth.
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 04:56 PM
Mi paz os dejo, mi paz os doy ... no como el mundo la da .. No se turbe vuestro corazon ni tenga miedo ...
1Co 14:27-28 KJVR
(27) If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
(28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Ay-yo Danny.... shaddayoface!
1Co 14:27-28 KJVR
(27) If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
(28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Ay-yo Danny.... shaddayoface!
ay .. I thought you stepped away from all biblical principles ... How's Baal doing???
philjones
02-24-2007, 04:57 PM
1Co 14:27-28 KJVR
(27) If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
(28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Ay-yo Danny.... shaddayoface!
it is only unknown to you... and you live in Austin... for shame for shame1:tease :tease
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 04:58 PM
it is only unknown to you... and you live in Austin... for shame for shame1:tease :tease
:ranting :ranting GRRR!!!! :ranting :ranting
Truly Blessed
02-24-2007, 04:59 PM
The reason I don't believe the PAJC position on salvation is it simply isn't true.
It's not consistent with what is presented in the Bible.
It's not consistent with the obvious operation of the Spirit in the lives of those who lived during those years prior to the so called PAJC revelation of truth.
It's not consistent with my own personal experience with God.
It's not consistent with the experience of millions of Christians who come to faith in Christ and have a genuine spiritual transformation.
On the other hand, label it whatever you want, what I believe and teach is consistent with all of the above.
crakjak
02-24-2007, 05:04 PM
The reason I don't believe the PAJC position on salvation is it simply isn't true.
It's not consistent with what is presented in the Bible.
It's not consistent with the obvious operation of the Spirit in the lives of those who lived during those years prior to the so called PAJC revelation of truth.
It's not consistent with my own personal experience with God.
It's not consistent with the experience of millions of Christians who come to faith in Christ and have a genuine spiritual transformation.
On the other hand, label it whatever you want, what I believe and teach is consistent with all of the above.
I was about to write this thread off as having lost any semblance of substance and then you bring it on! Good post.
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 05:05 PM
The reason I don't believe the PAJC position on salvation is it simply isn't true.
It's not consistent with what is presented in the Bible.
It's not consistent with the obvious operation of the Spirit in the lives of those who lived during those years prior to the so called PAJC revelation of truth.
It's not consistent with my own personal experience with God.
It's not consistent with the experience of millions of Christians who come to faith in Christ and have a genuine spiritual transformation.
On the other hand, label it whatever you want, what I believe and teach is consistent with all of the above.
Hey TB. Good to see you my friend.
Thanks for wording it so well.
Brother Price
02-24-2007, 05:05 PM
The reason I don't believe the PAJC position on salvation is it simply isn't true.
It's not consistent with what is presented in the Bible.
It's not consistent with the obvious operation of the Spirit in the lives of those who lived during those years prior to the so called PAJC revelation of truth.
It's not consistent with my own personal experience with God.
It's not consistent with the experience of millions of Christians who come to faith in Christ and have a genuine spiritual transformation.
On the other hand, label it whatever you want, what I believe and teach is consistent with all of the above.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (Mark 16:15-18)
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 3:21)
This is not about interpretation, but about biblical truth. The truth is here, in these verses. Many can bring interpretations and their ideas, but it comes down to what scriptures says, what Jesus said and commanded. Without the waters of baptism, we are not saved, period.
OneAccord
02-24-2007, 05:20 PM
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (Mark 16:15-18)
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 3:21)
This is not about interpretation, but about biblical truth. The truth is here, in these verses. Many can bring interpretations and their ideas, but it comes down to what scriptures says, what Jesus said and commanded. Without the waters of baptism, we are not saved, period.
Of course its about interpretation. Every Scripture in the Bible is about interpretation. What do those Scriptures you quoted mean? Oh, I know what God said is absolute, but everybody interpretes the Scripture in the way they see it. We've got the Greek scholars who say the word "for" in Acts 2:38 means this or that. THAT is interpretation. You last statement is, in fact, an interpretation. here let me put it to the test...In Rom 10:9 Paul wrote, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
How do you interpret this verse in the absence of any mention of water baptism or recieving the Holy Ghost? Most people, because it doesn't fit their doctrinal position, just ignore it. But its there. So, it has to ne interpreted. I believe it was Paul who said "rightly dividing the word of truth", which means to interpret the Scriptures correctly, and not just ignore the Scriptures that don't quite meet our doctrinal views.
The reason I don't believe the PAJC position on salvation is it simply isn't true.
It's not consistent with what is presented in the Bible.
It's not consistent with the obvious operation of the Spirit in the lives of those who lived during those years prior to the so called PAJC revelation of truth.
It's not consistent with my own personal experience with God.
It's not consistent with the experience of millions of Christians who come to faith in Christ and have a genuine spiritual transformation.
On the other hand, label it whatever you want, what I believe and teach is consistent with all of the above.
Though we don't exactly agree here, it is always a joy to have you posting, Elder...you bring much to the table.:)
RevDWW
02-24-2007, 05:26 PM
Of course its about interpretation. Every Scripture in the Bible is about interpretation. What do those Scriptures you quoted mean? Oh, I know what God said is absolute, but everybody interpretes the Scripture in the way they see it. We've got the Greek scholars who say the word "for" in Acts 2:38 means this or that. THAT is interpretation. You last statement is, in fact, an interpretation. here let me put it to the test...In Rom 10:9 Paul wrote, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
How do you interpret this verse in the absence of any mention of water baptism or recieving the Holy Ghost? Most people, because it doesn't fit their doctrinal position, just ignore it. But its there. So, it has to ne interpreted. I believe it was Paul who said "rightly dividing the word of truth", which means to interpret the Scriptures correctly, and not just ignore the Scriptures that don't quite meet our doctrinal views.
Is "shalt" present tense or future tense?
Brother Price
02-24-2007, 05:28 PM
Of course its about interpretation. Every Scripture in the Bible is about interpretation. What do those Scriptures you quoted mean? Oh, I know what God said is absolute, but everybody interpretes the Scripture in the way they see it. We've got the Greek scholars who say the word "for" in Acts 2:38 means this or that. THAT is interpretation. You last statement is, in fact, an interpretation. here let me put it to the test...In Rom 10:9 Paul wrote, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
How do you interpret this verse in the absence of any mention of water baptism or recieving the Holy Ghost? Most people, because it doesn't fit their doctrinal position, just ignore it. But its there. So, it has to ne interpreted. I believe it was Paul who said "rightly dividing the word of truth", which means to interpret the Scriptures correctly, and not just ignore the Scriptures that don't quite meet our doctrinal views.
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)
Yes it does agree with what I believe after all.
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 05:29 PM
Is "shalt" present tense or future tense?
The word "shalt" isn't even there in the original text.
It's simply 'confess', as in 'acknowledge'...
DW ... there are refutations for each verse we present to defend our doctrinal views ...
It's not going to happen here tonight ... at least not by me ... no one is going to convert over tonight .... at least I dont think so ...
I would encourage, however you examine what others... other than your group say about verses in Mark 16 or 1 Peter ... will it shake your faith???
The word "shalt" isn't even there in the original text.
It's simply 'confess', as in 'acknowledge'...
Show off ...
RevDWW
02-24-2007, 05:32 PM
The word "shalt" isn't even there in the original text.
It's simply 'confess', as in 'acknowledge'...
Yanked your chain didn't I!:killinme
philjones
02-24-2007, 05:33 PM
DWW ... there are refutations for each verse we present to defend our doctrinal views ...
It's not going to happen here tonight ... at least not by me ... no one is going to convert over tonight .... at least I dont think so ...
I would encourage, however you examine what others... other than your group say about verses in Mark 16 or 1 Peter ... will it shake your faith???
So, Daniel, was the birth of the pentecostal movement a mistake and we should have never left what these others have to say? I am not sure you are fully aware of how what you say comes across. :) then again, you may!
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 05:34 PM
Show off ...
That ain't nun uh dat der fancy Methodology stuff, bubba...
it's just e-Sword, dude...
lol
That3754 if1437thou shalt confess3670 with1722 thy4675 mouth4750 the Lord2962 Jesus,2424 and2532 shalt believe4100 in1722 thine4675 heart2588 that3754 God2316 hath raised1453 him846 from1537 the dead,3498 thou shalt be saved.4982
(Rom 10:9 KJV+)
just one number. ;)
philjones
02-24-2007, 05:34 PM
DW ... there are refutations for each verse we present to defend our doctrinal views ...
It's not going to happen here tonight ... at least not by me ... no one is going to convert over tonight .... at least I dont think so ...
I would encourage, however you examine what others... other than your group say about verses in Mark 16 or 1 Peter ... will it shake your faith???
Also, there are refutations for all the refutations that your refuters have for our postions! so there!:killinme :bliss does that shake your faith?
So, Daniel, was the birth of the pentecostal movement a mistake and we should have never left what these others have to say? I am not sure you are fully aware of how what you say comes across. :) then again, you may!
the birth of the pentecostal movement has many strands PHIL ... cmon ... you know that ....
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 05:35 PM
Yanked your chain didn't I!:killinme
Sorry bro... you must have me confused with someone who still wears chains.
Mine were broken a long time ago... ;)
Ronzo
02-24-2007, 05:36 PM
Also, there are refutations for all the refutations that your refuters have for our postions! so there!:killinme :bliss does that shake your faith?
Doesn't shake my faith... but it does confuse me. lol
OneAccord
02-24-2007, 05:42 PM
See, every Scripture is about interpretation. Just like every American and Canadian law is about how that law is interpreted.
All readers interpret ...
RevDWW
02-24-2007, 05:43 PM
DW ... there are refutations for each verse we present to defend our doctrinal views ...
It's not going to happen here tonight ... at least not by me ... no one is going to convert over tonight .... at least I dont think so ...
I would encourage, however you examine what others... other than your group say about verses in Mark 16 or 1 Peter ... will it shake your faith???
Nah, won't shake my faith. :friend I had friends that were real heathens and it didn't bother me. I even had an Atheist that was a good friend. Didn't shake me. I love it when we can discuss our different views. I just don't like it when we take mean personal shots at each other.
I just don't understands what the big deal is, PCI says have faith and obey and PAJC say have faith and obey. Can any of us stand in His presence if we are disobediant?
Nah, won't shake my faith. :friend I had friends that were real heathens and it didn't bother me. I even had an Atheist that was a good friend. Didn't shake me. I love it when we can discuss our different views. I just don't like it when we take mean personal shots at each other.
I just don't understands what the big deal is, PCI says have faith and obey and PAJC say have faith and obey. Can any of us stand in His presence if we are disobediant?
You speak wisdom ...
RevDWW
02-24-2007, 05:45 PM
Sorry bro... you must have me confused with someone who still wears chains.
Mine were broken a long time ago... ;)
Now that was an excellant come back to something I was not implying......:highfive :killinme
Love ya Ron!
RevDWW
02-24-2007, 05:46 PM
You speak wisdom ...
Hey who signed on as me and made a wise comment????? :ranting :ranting :ranting
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.