Read the Seagraves Document....

Jermyn Davidson · #1 04-13-2010, 11:09 AM

Maybe I know why he decided to end his thorough 16-page paper on Justification with questions instead of statements.

I could be wrong, but if justification occurs at faith, then our sins are forgiven at faith. If our sins are forgiven at faith, then we are saved at faith.

If we are saved at faith, then our insistence that baptism in the Name of Jesus is the only salvational way of baptism is not correct, especially in light of the fact that baptism is no longer connected with justification/salvation.

I already thought the idea of my sins being washed away in baptism to be incorrect.

But if that is indeed incorrect, and if we are saved at faith, then the lack of a specific, consistent baptismal formula is no longer an issue.

In fact, it reduces the debate of baptism in the Titles vs baptism in the Name to the category of baptismal disputes addressed by Paul when he stated, "I am glad I baptized none of you...."

If we are saved at faith, then it becomes much more difficult to convince the masses that the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation.

Honestly, the fact that I am thinking like this disturbs me a great deal.

Maybe justification and salvation are two different deals.

That does not make sense to me either.

I am disturbed.

mfblume · #2 04-13-2010, 11:20 AM

The famous issue you raise here is solved by the fact that faith that justifies is faith that works. Without the works, the faith is not present nor real living faith that saves. That very issue is all over the forum lately. And some have claimed it is not complex, but you just proved it is.

deltaguitar · #3 04-13-2010, 11:21 AM

At least you aren't ignoring these problems.

I think many people within the UPC/Apostolic movement see exactly what you see but are fearful of where it leads. There is a cost to following what we believe to be true.

deltaguitar · #4 04-13-2010, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

The famous issue you raise here is solved by the fact that faith that justifies is faith that works. Without the works, the faith is not present nor real living faith that saves. That very issue is all over the forum lately. And some have claimed it is not complex, but you just proved it is.

It is very complex to try to make it work and keep the Apostolic identity.

Faith without works is indeed false faith but somewhere down the line works became necessary for new birth.

mfblume · #5 04-13-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

At least you aren't ignoring these problems.

I think many people within the UPC/Apostolic movement see exactly what you see but are fearful of where it leads. There is a cost to following what we believe to be true.

More correctly, there is a cost required of both sides of the issue to study righteousness and justification in the bible more, rather than just lay back on one's present incomplete understanding and make a premature final assessment. We all must learn that the hard way, unfortunately. Been there, done that. lol

Jermyn Davidson · #6 04-13-2010, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

The famous issue you raise here is solved by the fact that faith that justifies is faith that works. Without the works, the faith is not present nor real living faith that saves. That very issue is all over the forum lately. And some have claimed it is not complex, but you just proved it is.

It is very complex.

I complained about Seagraves ending his paper with questions instead of statements.

But after reading his paper, the only conclusion one can come to, that is if you agree with him, that salvation is established, a person is saved, at initial faith-- saving faith that he identifies with repentance only.

In his paper, he rejects the idea of associating justification with water baptism.

In his paper, he rejects the idea of associating justification with Spirit Baptism evidenced by speaking in tongues.

His paper makes sense to me.

In a way I have thought this way and was moving in that direction theologically BEFORE reading his paper.

Now, not only does he make sense, I don't see how anyone else can see this issue any other way, without adding to or twisting the Bible.

So yes, I am disturbed.

*AQuietPlace* · #7 04-13-2010, 01:03 PM

Do you have a link to his paper?

Jermyn Davidson · #8 04-13-2010, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Do you have a link to his paper?

It's linked on one of the threads on AFF.

Sam started the thread, "The Role of Justification"

TheLegalist · #9 04-13-2010, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Maybe I know why he decided to end his thorough 16-page paper on Justification with questions instead of statements.

I could be wrong, but if justification occurs at faith, then our sins are forgiven at faith. If our sins are forgiven at faith, then we are saved at faith.

If we are saved at faith, then our insistence that baptism in the Name of Jesus is the only salvational way of baptism is not correct, especially in light of the fact that baptism is no longer connected with justification/salvation.

I already thought the idea of my sins being washed away in baptism to be incorrect.

But if that is indeed incorrect, and if we are saved at faith, then the lack of a specific, consistent baptismal formula is no longer an issue.

In fact, it reduces the debate of baptism in the Titles vs baptism in the Name to the category of baptismal disputes addressed by Paul when he stated, "I am glad I baptized none of you...."

If we are saved at faith, then it becomes much more difficult to convince the masses that the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation.

Honestly, the fact that I am thinking like this disturbs me a great deal.

Maybe justification and salvation are two different deals.

That does not make sense to me either.

I am disturbed.

You are closer than you think. I will put it this way. One can be considered "just" in action before God and have not come into the covenant of Christ yet. Yet without God considering us "just" we cannot be saved.

Jermyn Davidson · #10 04-13-2010, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

You are closer than you think. I will put it this way. One can be considered "just" in action before God and have not come into the covenant of Christ yet. Yet without God considering us "just" we cannot be saved.

But he argues basis of our justification, and thus our righteousness is the blood of Jesus Christ-- not water baptism, not speaking in tongues.