The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[TheLegalist]

I think you do but I'll get more specific. Are the elements of repentance, baptism by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit as evidence by speaking in other tongues the ONLY way to heaven/salvation? Separate from the above description, is there any way to heaven/salvation?

it is the entrance point of specific aspects of our relationship unto eternal life which is all based upon faith.

expectations

hearing the Word
repentance/turning
result baptism which should be accompanied
by the manifestation of the Spirit before or after.
The apostles expected to see the Spirit manifested and so should we.
then we continue to walk according to his leading and revelation by his Word confirming.

[notofworks]

it is the entrance point of specific aspects of our relationship unto eternal life which is all based upon faith.

expectations

hearing the Word
repentance/turning
result baptism which should be accompanied
by the manifestation of the Spirit before or after.
The apostles expected to see the Spirit manifested and so should we.
then we continue to walk according to his leading and revelation by his Word confirming.


:lolDo you have any experience as a politician at a press conference? I'll try another way:

Aside from any other things that must be present, can a person make it to heaven that has not repented or been baptized by immersion in water, or been filled with the Holy Spirit as evidence by speaking in other tongues?

Yes? No?

[TheLegalist]

:lolDo you have any experience as a politician at a press conference? I'll try another way:

Aside from any other things that must be present, can a person make it to heaven that has not repented or been baptized by immersion in water, or been filled with the Holy Spirit as evidence by speaking in other tongues?

Yes? No?

I would say no...

[notofworks]

I would say no...


Ok, fine. I have never spoken in tongues. Is there any chance I'll go to heaven without doing so?

[KWSS1976]

Per your quote Legalist....Just what manifestation did the apostles see in the phillipian jailer that convinced them..

it is the entrance point of specific aspects of our relationship unto eternal life which is all based upon faith.

expectations

hearing the Word
repentance/turning
result baptism which should be accompanied
by the manifestation of the Spirit before or after.
The apostles expected to see the Spirit manifested and so should we.
then we continue to walk according to his leading and revelation by his Word confirming.

[TheLegalist]

Ok, fine. I have never spoken in tongues. Is there any chance I'll go to heaven without doing so?

I am not your judge God is. I believe the Spirit will manifest/pour out himself. Don't know you nor your story and even if I did doesn't matter as it's God who does the work not us. Can you be under the covenant of Christ without baptism? No! Did the Spirit manifest his acceptance to you? obviously no thus as far as I know. Did you receive the HS when you believed as Paul asked in Acts 19? It's not about blind faith one has but knowing by manifestation without question of witness. One cannot ask that question if blind faith of reception is what Paul was thinking.

[TheLegalist]

Per your quote Legalist....Just what manifestation did the apostles see in the phillipian jailer that convinced them...

He came into covenant at baptism. Whether he was filled by the Spirit, does the text say?

[notofworks]

I am not your judge God is. I believe the Spirit will manifest/pour out himself. Don't know you nor your story and even if I did doesn't matter as it's God who does the work not us. Can you be under the covenant of Christ without baptism? No! Did the Spirit manifest his acceptance to you? obviously no thus as far as I know. Did you receive the HS when you believed as Paul asked in Acts 19? It's not about blind faith one has but knowing by manifestation without question of witness. One cannot ask that question if blind faith of reception is what Paul was thinking.


Nooooooooooo.......please don't resort to the "God is the judge" speak. Come on, either stand for your position or don't. Either it's really important or it's not.

I have intense faith in Christ and my life is centered around Jesus. I believe I have the Holy Spirit in my life based a scripture. But I have not, and have absolutely no intention, to follow your formula. While I was baptized in Jesus' name, I do not baptize entirely that way.

So how much do you believe in your position? Do you believe in it enough to tell me that I will not be in heaven? And to make it easier, I'll add an answer to choose from.

Question:
Based on what I've said, will I be in heaven?

Answer:
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) I'm not sure.

[TheLegalist]

Nooooooooooo.......please don't resort to the "God is the judge" speak. Come on, either stand for your position or don't. Either it's really important or it's not.

I have intense faith in Christ and my life is centered around Jesus. I believe I have the Holy Spirit in my life based a scripture. But I have not, and have absolutely no intention, to follow your formula. While I was baptized in Jesus' name, I do not baptize entirely that way.

So how much do you believe in your position? Do you believe in it enough to tell me that I will not be in heaven? And to make it easier, I'll add an answer to choose from.

Question:
Based on what I've said, will I be in heaven?

Answer:
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) I'm not sure.

I have already answered your question. post 503 and I did not dodge. God is your judge in the present. Have you received the HS since or when you believed?

[notofworks]

I have already answered your question. post 503 and I did not dodge. God is your judge in the present. Have you received the HS since or when you believed?


But when I ask, point-blank, if I'm going to heaven, you won't answer.

Yes, I absolutely have been filled with the Holy Spirit as defined by scripture.

[TheLegalist]

But when I ask, point-blank, if I'm going to heaven, you won't answer.

Yes, I absolutely have been filled with the Holy Spirit as defined by scripture.

was it evidenced as Acts 2 for example "that we can see and hear"?

please explain "defined by scripture" and what that involves?

what do you not understand about "no" in 503? LOL!

YOU SAID...

"Aside from any other things that must be present, can a person make it to heaven that has not repented or been baptized by immersion in water, or been filled with the Holy Spirit as evidence by speaking in other tongues?

Yes? No?"


I SAID...

I would say no...

[KWSS1976]

Did others around you Legalist understand your tongues as they did in Acts 2?

[TheLegalist]

Did others around you Legalist understand your tongues as they did in Acts 2?

the point is KWS which you want to avoid and did so before in other threads is "witness" by the Spirit. Acts 11 he fell on them (ACTS 10:48 cf) just as he did on us at the beginning? Did Peter mention interpretation or understanding? No, but the evidence/witness and action BY the Spirit.

As Paul asked have you received the HS since or when you believed. Paul is not asking about a blind faith of reception but a manifested presence to know just like Acts 8 as he had not "fallen" upon any of them.

[notofworks]

was it evidenced as Acts 2 for example "that we can see and hear"?

please explain "defined by scripture" and what that involves?



Ephesians 1:13
I John 4:15
John 7:39.

Yes, people have seen and heard it.

[KWSS1976]

No the point is you used Acts2 as a reference....and got burned on it....you guys love to quote that verse but fail to see that all it is was understood diffrent language that the listeners understood. So if you use Acts 2 the tongues you speak must be understood be others just as it was then...

[TheLegalist]

Ephesians 1:13
I John 4:15
John 7:39.

Yes, people have seen and heard it.

ROFL

...you TOTALLY ignored the points of ACTS 19 and throw scriptures in about "believed".... seriously you can't answer the point of Acts 19 or Act 8 of people that HAD ALREADY BELIEVED and NOT RECEIVED and those of which Paul asked that DID THEY receive since they believed thus know. Not by confessing with mouth which anyone could do and never be changed but God's manifesting presence of acceptance. How in the world you bring up those in relation to my point is insane and ignoring what has been said.

[TheLegalist]

No the point is you used Acts2 as a reference....and got burned on it....you guys love to quote that verse but fail to see that all it is was understood diffrent language that the listeners understood. So if you use Acts 2 the tongues you speak must be understood be others just as it was then...

burned? ROFL your clueless on this and STILL don't answer the question. Your rambling about whatever was somehow proof is total ignorance of what was said! Congrats start dealing with the point of Acts 8 and 19.


Did you receive the HS when or since your believed?

[notofworks]

ROFL

...you TOTALLY ignored the points of ACTS 19 and throw scriptures in about "believed".... seriously you can't answer the point of Acts 19 or Act 8 of people that HAD ALREADY BELIEVED and NOT RECEIVED and those of which Paul asked that DID THEY receive since they believed thus know. Not by confessing with mouth which anyone could do and never be changed but God's manifesting presence of acceptance. How in the world you bring up those in relation to my point is insane and ignoring what has been said.


I'll add "Insane" to the long list of names I've been called on AFF. You asked if I'd received the Holy Spirit and I answered it so enjoy your roll on the floor! :)

NOTE: I just checked my list of names I've been called and someone's already called me, "Insane." Can you think of something a little more original? :lol

[TheLegalist]

I'll add "Insane" to the long list of names I've been called on AFF. You asked if I'd received the Holy Spirit and I answered it so enjoy your roll on the floor! :)

NOTE: I just checked my list of names I've been called and someone's already called me, "Insane." Can you think of something a little more original? :lol

wow so basically you have no witness by manifestation BY the Spirit as they expected in Acts 8 or as Paul looked for in Acts 19 post "belief". Simply believing is not automatic reception of the HS. Paul clearly shows this as does Acts 8.

[KWSS1976]

No I have never spoke in tongues see no need to since I believe....

1 Corinthians 14:22 (King James Version)

22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

[notofworks]

wow so basically you have no witness by manifestation BY the Spirit as they exepected in Acts 8 or as Paul looked for in Acts 19 post "belief". Simply believing is not automatic reception of the HS. Paul clearly shows this as does Acts 8.


Well, argue with the bible then:

Ephesians 1:13 And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago.

John 7:39 When he said "living water," he was speaking of the Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in him.

I John 4:15 All who proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God have God living in them, and they live in God.

[TheLegalist]

Well, argue with the bible then:

Ephesians 1:13 And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago.

John 7:39 When he said "living water," he was speaking of the Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in him.

I John 4:15 All who proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God have God living in them, and they live in God.

I am not arguing against but understanding them within context of what is meant by belief.

Ephesians doesn't negate a thing I have said WHEN YOU BELIEVED he identified with you as his own giving his Spirit?

Correct... How do you know WHEN he identified "WITNESSED/ACCEPTED" you? Which is the points I have been making! The texts has have nothing against the points which are raised. People had already believed and had not received... Paul asked HAVE YOU SINCE which means it is not automatic reception without knowing THUS NOT BLIND FAITH.

John 7:39 AGAIN BELIEVING is the point by which we CAN receive it does not mean WE HAVE! THUS PAUL'S QUESTION IN ACTS 19!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 John 4:15 This is true as a general statement of the saved. Was this true HOW YOU WANT IT TO MEAN AND REFER IN Acts 8? NO! Does Paul ask about confession or something WE do to confirm.... that you have received? NO! It's about THE SPIRIT and HIS MANIFEST PRESENCE!

As you KEEP dodging Acts 8 and 19

[Adino]

Bumped for Pressing-On (and/or like positional advocates)...

Me before:
Faith is itself obedience to the Gospel. Having a heart converted to faith in Christ IS how one 'obeys the Gospel.'

In Romans 10:16 Paul very clearly connects 'believing the report' (Isaiah 53:1) with obedience to the Gospel.

"But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?"Many miss the fact that the phrase "who hath believed our report" of Isaiah 53:1 is also connected to the heart conversion and healing spoken of in Isaiah 6:10, Matthew 13:15, Mark 4:11-12, John 12:37-40, and Acts 28:23-29. In these passages, the heart that understands and converts is healed (Mark uses "forgiven").

Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17), by hearing the Gospel (Acts 15:7), by believing the report of God which is the record he gave of his son (1John 5:10-13). The heart which hears the Gospel then understands and converts IS HEALED (Isaiah 6:10, Matthew 13:15, Mark 4:11-12, John 12:37-40, and Acts 28:23-29). The understanding and conversion which brings healing is of the heart. The heart which obeys the Gospel, by believing it, is healed/forgiven.

2Thessalonians 1:8 and 1Peter 4:17 should be seen in this light. The obedience to the Gospel IS the obedience of faith (Romans 16:26).

Again, to obey the Gospel is to believe it!

Do you deny that Scripture teaches a conversion of the heart is adequate 'obedience to the Gospel' to bring about the inner healing spoken of in my referenced passages?

[Michael The Disciple]

Well, argue with the bible then:

Ephesians 1:13 And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago.

John 7:39 When he said "living water," he was speaking of the Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in him.

I John 4:15 All who proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God have God living in them, and they live in God.

Ephesians 1:13 is a DIRECT REFERENCE to these very people he ministered to in Acts 19. When he mentioned THEM receiving the Spirit all you have to do is look at Acts 19 to see EXACTLY the situation he had in mind.

1: And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2: He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3: And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4: Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5: When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Acts 19:6

So when you see Ephesians 1:3 look back to the very experience Paul is writing about in Acts 19:6.

It CONFIRMS the doctrine that the Holy Spirit baptism is not automatic.

As to "rivers of living water" that is by no means automatic. It is a real experience. It is the "outpouring" prophesied by Joel.

[Pressing-On]

Bumped for Pressing-On (and/or like positional advocates)...

Me before:
Faith is itself obedience to the Gospel. Having a heart converted to faith in Christ IS how one 'obeys the Gospel.'

In Romans 10:16 Paul very clearly connects 'believing the report' (Isaiah 53:1) with obedience to the Gospel.

"But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?"Many miss the fact that the phrase "who hath believed our report" of Isaiah 53:1 is also connected to the heart conversion and healing spoken of in Isaiah 6:10, Matthew 13:15, Mark 4:11-12, John 12:37-40, and Acts 28:23-29. In these passages, the heart that understands and converts is healed (Mark uses "forgiven").

Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17), by hearing the Gospel (Acts 15:7), by believing the report of God which is the record he gave of his son (1John 5:10-13). The heart which hears the Gospel then understands and converts IS HEALED (Isaiah 6:10, Matthew 13:15, Mark 4:11-12, John 12:37-40, and Acts 28:23-29). The understanding and conversion which brings healing is of the heart. The heart which obeys the Gospel, by believing it, is healed/forgiven.

2Thessalonians 1:8 and 1Peter 4:17 should be seen in this light. The obedience to the Gospel IS the obedience of faith (Romans 16:26).

Again, to obey the Gospel is to believe it!

Do you deny that Scripture teaches a conversion of the heart is adequate 'obedience to the Gospel' to bring about the inner healing spoken of in my referenced passages?

Yes, I deny that scripture teaches a conversion of the heart is "adequate obedience to the Gospel".

The point of Romans 10:1 - "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved."

"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." Acts 5:30

"And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:.." Acts 10:39; Acts 13:24-52

Their belief and faith in Jesus Christ needed to be established before they could obey the Gospel. If "having a heart converted to faith in Christ IS how one 'obeys the Gospel", John the Baptist would not have preached a "baptism of repentance", Peter would not have preached what he did on the Day of Pentecost, and God would not have told Cornelius to send for Peter.

To say that what Peter preached is not the Gospel but our response to the Gospel is not totally accurate, IMO. What Peter preached, on the Day of Pentecost, is just as much a part of the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't believe you can separate the two - the belief and the obedience or response to.

[notofworks]

I am not arguing against but understanding them within context of what is meant by belief.

Ephesians doesn't negate a thing I have said WHEN YOU BELIEVED he identified with you as his own giving his Spirit?

••Actually, Ephesians 1:13 negates everything you've said. It very simply says, "And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago".

So do you believe that verse? Let's ask this...does every person who believes receive the Holy Spirit? That is what it says, so do you believe that? Would you take it to believe that if you believe, you will...as in a futuristic statement....receive the Holy Spirit?

Correct... How do you know WHEN he identified "WITNESSED/ACCEPTED" you?

••When I believed in my heart and confessed with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and that God has raised Him from the dead. Simple.

Which is the points I have been making! The texts has have nothing against the points which are raised.

••It has everything to do with it. It's a very simple statement that cannot be added to. Well, it can be added to, which you are doing, but it's not right.

People had already believed and had not received... Paul asked HAVE YOU SINCE which means it is not automatic reception without knowing THUS NOT BLIND FAITH.

••I'm gonna post something Chuck Smith said about this verse. I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'll put it in a separate post.

John 7:39 AGAIN BELIEVING is the point by which we CAN receive it does not mean WE HAVE! THUS PAUL'S QUESTION IN ACTS 19!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

••But it doesn't say, "If you believe you CAN receive". It says "Which will be given to everyone who believes."

1 John 4:15 This is true as a general statement of the saved. Was this true HOW YOU WANT IT TO MEAN AND REFER IN Acts 8? NO! Does Paul ask about confession or something WE do to confirm.... that you have received? NO! It's about THE SPIRIT and HIS MANIFEST PRESENCE!

As you KEEP dodging Acts 8 and 19

••What would you like to know...what Simon the sorcerer saw? There are a myriad of things he could have seen. Chuck Smith mentions the number of ways the Holy Spirit manifests itself. If you put Simon's testimony into a box where it can only mean "Tongues", you are doing the Holy Spirit a GREAT disservice. The Holy Spirit is SO much more and I hate to see you, or others limit it to that.




If one works hard enough at it, one can make any verse mean anything. And you've worked very hard.

[notofworks]

Here are the Chuck Smith notes which, I'm sure, you'll disagree with. But here they are nonetheless.





WHY WOULD PAUL ASK THIS QUESTION?
A. He no doubt saw that their experience in Christ was lacking something.
1. Maybe there was an absence of love.
a. One of the real marks of the truly Spirit filled life is love. The fruit of the Spirit is love.
b. This love is described as bringing joy and peace, and causing us to be longsuffering. It manifests itself in gentleness, goodness, meekness faithfulness and self control.
2. Maybe they lacked real zeal and enthusiasm for the things of the Spirit.
3. It could be that they lacked a real dynamic in their walk with Jesus, and their witness for Him.
4. Whatever it was that Paul noticed, he suspicioned their deficiency was due to the absence of the Holy Spirit.
B. It is one thing to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and quite another to be overflowing with the Spirit.
1. When on the feast day, recorded by John in chapter 7, Jesus stood and cried to the assembled multitude, "If any man thirst let him come unto Me and drink, and he that drinks of the water that I give, as the scripture says, out of his innermost being there will flow rivers of living water." John tells us that Jesus was speaking of the Spirit which was not yet given.
a. What did He say of the Spirit? He would be like a torrent of living water flowing out from your life.
b. The question really is not do you have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you, but do you have the Holy Spirit flowing out from your life like a torrent of living water?
2. You can pour water in a glass until the glass is full, but if you keep pouring, the glass will begin to overflow. There is a difference between full and overflowing.
C. Many have complained of the difficulty of living the Christian life, and have given up because they found that it was too difficult. It is not only difficult, it is impossible.
1. It is very frustrating to see the ideal and to admire the ideal, to admit to the ideal, and then be unable to live up to the standards of the ideal.
2. Paul spoke of that frustration in his own life in Romans 7. "I do the things I don't want to do, and I don't do the things I desire to do. I hate the things I do. I consent to the law that it is good, but I cannot perform that which is good. When I would do good, evil is present with me. My inward man delights in the law of God, but their is another law in my flesh that wars against my mind, and brings me into bondage to my flesh. Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of death?"
3. Paul then found his answer in chapter 8 as he speaks of the life in the Spirit. "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed me from the law of sin and death, for what the law could not do because of the weakness of my flesh, God has done for me by sending His Son in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in me as I walk after the Spirit. So then they who are in the flesh cannot please God, but we are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit if the Spirit of God is dwelling in us."
4. He shows me the ideal, and then gives me the power to live the ideal.
III. HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT? IS THERE SOMETHING MISSING IN YOUR WALK WITH THE LORD? ARE YOU LIVING A DYNAMIC CHRISTIAN LIFE?
A. On a scale of one to ten, where would you rate your fervency for Christ?
B. If Paul would meet you and visit for a while, would he be apt to ask you if you received the Holy Spirit when you believed?
C. Is the Spirit flowing forth from your life like a torrent of living water?
D. Would you like a new dynamic to live the Christian life?
E. Ask the Father for the gift of the Holy Spirit, that your life might overflow with His love and power. Jesus said that if you earthly fathers know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those that ask Him.

[pelathais]

Pel,

Dont fret! I am indeed a warrior of grace. Note what the Apostle says grace does:

11: For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12: Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Titus 2:13

It both brings salvation and teaches us to live a life of obedience towards Yeshua Messiah.
Yes! The topic of this thread is there in the first clause. "The grace of God brings salvation!"

The rest is important, but a topic for other threads.

Move Michael back over to our column, boys!

[pelathais]

NOW, NOW MICHAEL.... how dare you bring your legalism into this. You make God's grace noneffect by that teaching.... (sarcasm) Teaching us to do that which brings life.... oh come on didn't you know you are saved only by the work of the cross which is something he did and that you just stand there and God just gives you a eschatological acquittal RIGHT AT THE POINT! Works are meaningless in judgment... by works NO MAN IS JUSTIFIED... blah blah which is taken out of context. You have no standing before God by works and works don't effect your eternal standing..... (more sarcasm) LOL!
C'mon, T.L. You're so close as well!

What brings salvation in the verse Michael quoted? C'mon! Be a "Warrior for Grace!"

[pelathais]

I am not your judge God is. I believe the Spirit will manifest/pour out himself. Don't know you nor your story and even if I did doesn't matter as it's God who does the work not us. Can you be under the covenant of Christ without baptism? No! Did the Spirit manifest his acceptance to you? obviously no thus as far as I know. Did you receive the HS when you believed as Paul asked in Acts 19? It's not about blind faith one has but knowing by manifestation without question of witness. One cannot ask that question if blind faith of reception is what Paul was thinking.
Now, now... don't balk. You can either give this man the consolation that he has believed the Gospel or you can send him to hell.

Be a "straight shooter."

You said you weren't his judge and then you declared that the Holy Spirit had not "accepted him." How can you account for this?

But then again, "What brings salvation?" (see previous post).

[pelathais]

Ephesians 1:13 is a DIRECT REFERENCE to these very people he ministered to in Acts 19. When he mentioned THEM receiving the Spirit all you have to do is look at Acts 19 to see EXACTLY the situation he had in mind.
Uh... not "EXACTLY."

1: And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2: He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3: And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4: Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5: When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Acts 19:6

So when you see Ephesians 1:3 look back to the very experience Paul is writing about in Acts 19:6.

It CONFIRMS the doctrine that the Holy Spirit baptism is not automatic.

As to "rivers of living water" that is by no means automatic. It is a real experience. It is the "outpouring" prophesied by Joel.

Paul's ministry to the Ephesians spanned many more experiences than just those related to the former disciples of John. See Acts 18:19 (Jews in the synagogue), Acts 18:27 (Apollos who "believed through grace" and was thus added to the church), and continuing through all of chapter 19, we read of the numbers of believers growing).

The epistle to the Ephesians wasn't addressed to just "twelve men" (Acts 19:7), but to "the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." In that epistle Paul makes it a point to remind the Ephesians just how they were saved (Ephesians 1:7) and emphatically points out that it was a sovereign act of God Himself that brought salvation to the Ephesians ("from the foundation of the world" - Ephesians 1:4).

Just what did the disciples of John do at the "foundation of the world?" What were you doing?

None of us even existed yet! And yet, God was making a provision for our salvation.

Matthew 25:34; John 17:24; Acts 15:18; 1Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8.

Our salvation is the result of God's acts and His plans. He brought it about, not we ourselves (Ephesians 2:8-9).

You can't earn this gift. You don't deserve this gift and nothing that you or I do will change that. If we could change that fact, then it would no longer be a gift (Romans 4:4).

[Michael The Disciple]

Uh... not "EXACTLY."


Paul's ministry to the Ephesians spanned many more experiences than just those related to the former disciples of John. See Acts 18:19 (Jews in the synagogue), Acts 18:27 (Apollos who "believed through grace" and was thus added to the church), and continuing through all of chapter 19, we read of the numbers of believers growing).

The epistle to the Ephesians wasn't addressed to just "twelve men" (Acts 19:7), but to "the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." In that epistle Paul makes it a point to remind the Ephesians just how they were saved (Ephesians 1:7) and emphatically points out that it was a sovereign act of God Himself that brought salvation to the Ephesians ("from the foundation of the world" - Ephesians 1:4).

Just what did the disciples of John do at the "foundation of the world?" What were you doing?

None of us even existed yet! And yet, God was making a provision for our salvation.

Matthew 25:34; John 17:24; Acts 15:18; 1Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8.

Our salvation is the result of God's acts and His plans. He brought it about, not we ourselves (Ephesians 2:8-9).

You can't earn this gift. You don't deserve this gift and nothing that you or I do will change that. If we could change that fact, then it would no longer be a gift (Romans 4:4).

Acts 19 is THE up close picture of Paul ministering to win souls at Ephesus. It shows just what he SAID then also what he did.

Of course salvation is a sovereign act. When have I ever said it was not? God purposed before the world was to save who he was going to save and then HOW he would save them.

We see that demonstrated perfectly in Acts 19. It unfolds EXACTLY like Acts 2:38. He is the one who brought about their repentance and faith. Water baptism is HIS OPERATION just like Paul said in Col. 2. It is NOT the work of men.

The Holy Spirit is SENT BY HIM to indwell a believer to sanctify, guide into all truth, and give power for living the life and being a witness to it.

You need not persuade me of predestination. I have believed in it for many years.

[pelathais]

Acts 19 is THE up close picture of Paul ministering to win souls at Ephesus. It shows just what he SAID then also what he did.

Of course salvation is a sovereign act. When have I ever said it was not? God purposed before the world was to save who he was going to save and then HOW he would save them.

We see that demonstrated perfectly in Acts 19. It unfolds EXACTLY like Acts 2:38. He is the one who brought about their repentance and faith. Water baptism is HIS OPERATION just like Paul said in Col. 2. It is NOT the work of men.

The Holy Spirit is SENT BY HIM to indwell a believer to sanctify, guide into all truth, and give power for living the life and being a witness to it.

You need not persuade me of predestination. I have believed in it for many years.
I know, Michael, we're probably not that far apart either... but again, I think it's important to emphasize the "sovereign" element first. It was "sovereign grace" that saved the Ephesians (and us!).

And then, the rest of our lives began to unfold as we "rose" into the newness of life.

[Michael The Disciple]

I know, Michael, we're probably not that far apart either... but again, I think it's important to emphasize the "sovereign" element first. It was "sovereign grace" that saved the Ephesians (and us!).

And then, the rest of our lives began to unfold as we "rose" into the newness of life.

No one can be saved except by the sovereign grace of God. He draws men to do all he has said they must do to be saved. He orchestrates it all. Yet we go though the motions. We do what he says we must do. If we do not DO what he says to do we are not being saved by HIM.

[Adino]

Yes, I deny that scripture teaches a conversion of the heart is "adequate obedience to the Gospel".

The point of Romans 10:1 - "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved."

"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." Acts 5:30

"And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:.." Acts 10:39; Acts 13:24-52

Their belief and faith in Jesus Christ needed to be established before they could obey the Gospel. If "having a heart converted to faith in Christ IS how one 'obeys the Gospel", John the Baptist would not have preached a "baptism of repentance", Peter would not have preached what he did on the Day of Pentecost, and God would not have told Cornelius to send for Peter.

To say that what Peter preached is not the Gospel but our response to the Gospel is not totally accurate, IMO. What Peter preached, on the Day of Pentecost, is just as much a part of the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't believe you can separate the two - the belief and the obedience or response to.Please respond to the Scriptures listed, Bro... The Scriptures I listed speak of men 1) hearing the 'report' [notitia] 2) the heart understanding the report [assensus] 3) the heart converting [fudicia] and being healed. Knowledge (notitia) + mental assent (assensus) + trust (fiducia) = FAITH . The faith which came by hearing the word/report brought healing. Healing came with conversion. Do you deny that passing from unbelief to faith is a conversion?

I could approach this another way as well....

Acts 5:32 states that the Holy Ghost is given to those who 'obey' God. Cornelius was given the Holy Ghost in Acts 10. Tell me what Cornelius DID to obey God AFTER he heard the Gospel from Paul?

Paul said in Acts 15:7 that it was by his mouth the Gentiles were to hear the word of the Gospel and believe.

He goes on to say in 15:8 that God 'which knoweth the hearts' gave the Gentiles the Holy Ghost as witness to their belief in the Gospel.

Since the Spirit is given ONLY to those who OBEY God, I ask again... After he heard the Gospel from Paul, what did Cornelius DO as adequate obedience to God in order to fulfil the requirement for Spirit reception? What obedience to the Gospel did he do that resulted in Spirit reception?

[Pressing-On]

Please respond to the Scriptures listed, Bro... The Scriptures I listed speak of men 1) hearing the 'report' [notitia] 2) the heart understanding the report [assensus] 3) the heart converting [fudicia] and being healed. Knowledge (notitia) + mental assent (assensus) + trust (fiducia) = FAITH . The faith which came by hearing the word/report brought healing. Healing came with conversion. Do you deny that passing from unbelief to faith is a conversion?

I could approach this another way as well....

Acts 5:32 states that the Holy Ghost is given to those who 'obey' God. Cornelius was given the Holy Ghost in Acts 10. Tell me what Cornelius DID to obey God AFTER he heard the Gospel from Paul?

Paul said in Acts 15:7 that it was by his mouth the Gentiles were to hear the word of the Gospel and believe.

He goes on to say in 15:8 that God 'which knoweth the hearts' gave the Gentiles the Holy Ghost as witness to their belief in the Gospel.

Since the Spirit is given ONLY to those who OBEY God, I ask again... After he heard the Gospel from Paul, what did Cornelius DO as adequate obedience to God in order to fulfil the requirement for Spirit reception? What obedience to the Gospel did he do that resulted in Spirit reception?

Adino,
I've stated the basis of what I believe on this thread. If I expanded on that any further I would only be saying the same things over and over only in more detail. I remember talking with you on this subject at NFCF. Neither of us has changed what we believe. So, really, what's the point? There is no point. LOL!

[Adino]

No problem, Bro. I'll let you off the hook ;)

Q: What did Cornelius do in response to hearing the Gospel which brought Spirit reception?

A: Cornelius believed the Gospel. It was his obedience of faith which brought spiritual healing.

God bless...

[Esther]

I have not read this entire thread only bits and pieces and don't have time to read all of it at this time, so if this thought has already been expressed then I say that is good. :)

Without the cross there would be no salvation. That was God's part, not ours.

Jesus told Nicodemus you must be born of the water and the spirit to make heaven. (paraphased)

There are a number of things WE must do to be saved. We must believe that Jesus is the Christ. etc.

[Pressing-On]

No problem, Bro. I'll let you off the hook ;)

Q: What did Cornelius do in response to hearing the Gospel which brought Spirit reception?

A: Cornelius believed the Gospel. It was his obedience of faith which brought spiritual healing.

God bless...
Adino,
His faith did cause him to obey the Gospel that Peter preached. He obviously had already repented. He then, obediently, was baptized in Jesus Name. Nothing happened with Cornelius that wasn't preached by Peter. Cornelius still had to obey the command to be baptized.

What about when Paul passed through Ephesus and found certain disciples asking them - "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." (Acts 19:2)

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


These guys were presented the Gospel, had to have repented and were subsequently baptized. They were then filled with the Holy Ghost because they believed and obeyed.

So, yes, in both cases, the Word is true - "....and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." Acts 5:32

Trying to use Cornelius, alone, because he first received the Holy Ghost is not going to line up with all other accounts. Some are filled before and some after. God already knowing Cornelius' heart sent for Peter to expound on the whole matter of the Gospel. Cornelius' heart was being prepared ahead of time and I know that was God's doing because He most certainly wanted to open a very wide door to the Gentiles. Nothing could have happened to confirm that more - (Acts 10).

[Adino]

Adino,
His faith did cause him to obey the Gospel that Peter preached. He obviously had already repented. He then, obediently, was baptized in Jesus Name. Nothing happened with Cornelius that wasn't preached by Peter. Cornelius still had to obey the command to be baptized.

What about when Paul passed through Ephesus and found certain disciples asking them - "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." (Acts 19:2)

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


These guys were presented the Gospel, had to have repented and were subsequently baptized. They were then filled with the Holy Ghost because they believed and obeyed.

So, yes, in both cases, the Word is true - "....and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." Acts 5:32

Trying to use Cornelius, alone, because he first received the Holy Ghost is not going to line up with all other accounts. Some are filled before and some after. God already knowing Cornelius' heart sent for Peter to expound on the whole matter of the Gospel. Cornelius' heart was being prepared ahead of time and I know that was God's doing because He most certainly wanted to open a very wide door to the Gentiles. Nothing could have happened to confirm that more - (Acts 10).You missed the point. Cornelius received the Spirit only after he obeyed. Only those who obey God are given the Spirit. Cornelius could not OBEY the Gospel until he had heard it. Cornelius had not heard the Gospel until Paul told him in Acts 10:40-43.

Between the time he heard the Gospel and received the Spirit, Cornelius did nothing but believe. Since God gives the Spirit ONLY to those who obey, it must be concluded that a heart of faith itself was sufficient obedience.

If it was sufficient obedience for God to give the Spirit as witness to Cornelius' faith in the Gospel...... why not for Pressing?

[Pressing-On]

You missed the point. Cornelius received the Spirit only after he obeyed. Only those who obey God are given the Spirit. Cornelius could not OBEY the Gospel until he had heard it. Cornelius had not heard the Gospel until Paul told him in Acts 10:40-43.

Between the time he heard the Gospel and received the Spirit, Cornelius did nothing but believe. Since God gives the Spirit ONLY to those who obey, it must be concluded that a heart of faith itself was sufficient obedience.

If it was sufficient obedience for God to give the Spirit as witness to Cornelius' faith in the Gospel...... why not for Pressing?
Because it didn't happen the same way for the men that Paul ran across in Ephesus. That shows me that either way - you must obey what Peter preached. That is exactly what Cornelius did. It didn't matter that he received the Holy Ghost after repentance, he still obeyed and was baptized.

As I stated, using Cornelius alone isn't going to work. It didn't happen that way for the men in Ephesus. They did believe what Paul preached - they believed - but they did not receive the Holy Ghost until after they were baptized. Was the "answer of a good conscience" after baptism what they needed to believe they could be filled? Maybe so. Maybe Cornelius only needed repentance and an understanding to believe and have faith enough to be filled. Apparently he did. I do know that God knows the heart of every man and I leave that in God's hands. Either way, the Gospel is preached.

When the death, burial and resurrection is preached, willing hearts will respond and be filled. It doesn't make any difference to me when they are filled. I want to make sure they know what Peter preached - repent, be baptized and you will be filled. The promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

[Neck]

Anyone getting more saved or lost from this thread? Just wondering...

[notofworks]

Anyone getting more saved or lost from this thread? Just wondering...



:ursofunny:ursofunnyWell, The Illegalist told me I'm not going to heaven, so maybe so!

[TheLegalist]

You missed the point. Cornelius received the Spirit only after he obeyed. Only those who obey God are given the Spirit. Cornelius could not OBEY the Gospel until he had heard it. Cornelius had not heard the Gospel until Paul told him in Acts 10:40-43.

Between the time he heard the Gospel and received the Spirit, Cornelius did nothing but believe. Since God gives the Spirit ONLY to those who obey, it must be concluded that a heart of faith itself was sufficient obedience.

If it was sufficient obedience for God to give the Spirit as witness to Cornelius' faith in the Gospel...... why not for Pressing?

God had already seen his life as a God-Fearer and he had a good report among the Jews. Thus God knew by his actions his heart. Peter preaching was simple SHOW UP start preaching the gospel and witness the acceptance of the Gentiles. Peter then brings them into covenant with Christ by baptism.

[Pressing-On]

God had already seen his life as a God-Fearer and he had a good report among the Jews. Thus God knew by his actions his heart. Peter preaching was simple SHOW UP start preaching the gospel and witness the acceptance of the Gentiles. Peter then brings them into covenant with Christ by baptism.
:thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

Nor could they (or we!) "see God's" action when He counts us "righteous." There's nothing really to see any how (at least in this world).

Abraham was "accounted righteous" by God long before he ever acted upon his willingness to sacrifice his son.

The only verb that describes Abraham's actions in Genesis 15:6 is "believed." God's immediate response to that "action" is to count Abraham "righteous."

We are told to emulate this act of believing and to expect the exact same response from God (Galatians 3:6-14).

Whatever else that may happen in our lives will also require faith; however to be "justified" - that is, to have our sins forgiven and to be declared "righteous" in God's own eyes requires only faith in the provision that Jesus Christ has made for those sins at Calvary.

I take it for what it says, and I think that certainly includes what you've mentioned, but the connection between Genesis 15:6; Romans 4 and Galatians 3:6-14; can't be left out.

God accounts us righteous because of our belief in the saving power of the cross.

Yes, those Scriptures tell us what Jesus freely and willingly did for us. However, the word "free" also comes before us in Romans 5:15-19.

You keep going back to the requirement for the Christian believer to be obedient to God's commands, and you'll get no argument from me about that. However, this thread is about how "The Cross and the Cross Alone Can Save..."

What obedience is required for salvation? For our salvation?

Romans 5:19 - "... by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

Whose obedience is in mind here? Yours? Mine? No!

We are all made righteous by the obedience of a single individual. It was His obedience and His obedience alone that saves us. We are saved by "the obedience of one!"

Romans 11:5-6 clearly demands us to accept that this free gift comes without any "works" on our part.

Paul seems to be telling us, "it's one or the other" in Romans 11:5-6. It's either "grace" or it's "works." For whatever reason, he seems to come down rather heavily on the "grace" side of things.


Have a great day tomorrow, or "today" if that's when you see this. But then again, still have a great tomorrow whenever that gets here. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Pel,
I didn't forget about your last post to me. I just got a bit sidetracked. I guess I pretty well have exhausted my points and can't really add anything else to what I've already said.

Anyway, I wanted to thank you for the conversation! You were great in your presentation and approach. If I was going to converse with anyone where we had points of some disagreement, I would choose you! :friend

God Bless!

[TheLegalist]

••Actually, Ephesians 1:13 negates everything you've said. It very simply says, "And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago".

LOL! As usual you ignore the witness that receiving the HS is not by blind faith that you have. Congrats on your continued insistance in error. I have no problem with the verse as I can see it for what it is. You on the other hand really can't answer the questions presented and chuck doesn't either.

So do you believe that verse? Let's ask this...does every person who believes receive the Holy Spirit? That is what it says, so do you believe that? Would you take it to believe that if you believe, you will...as in a futuristic statement....receive the Holy Spirit?

Does a person receive the HS before baptism? I imagine you would say yes and I as well say yes you can. Yet THEY KNEW THEY DIDN'T BY SIMPLY BELIEVING!


••When I believed in my heart and confessed with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and that God has raised Him from the dead. Simple.

and the continuance of blind faith teaching when Acts clearly shows different.



••It has everything to do with it. It's a very simple statement that cannot be added to. Well, it can be added to, which you are doing, but it's not right.

yeaaaahhh.... the problem is like all your other friends is you make "faith" one thing and not about the whole. Typcal...

People had already believed and had not received... Paul asked HAVE YOU SINCE which means it is not automatic reception without knowing THUS NOT BLIND FAITH.

••I'm gonna post something Chuck Smith said about this verse. I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'll put it in a separate post.

yawn...

••But it doesn't say, "If you believe you CAN receive". It says "Which will be given to everyone who believes."

YES believes is a continous understanding it not about "once believed received." LOL!

••What would you like to know...what Simon the sorcerer saw? There are a myriad of things he could have seen. Chuck Smith mentions the number of ways the Holy Spirit manifests itself. If you put Simon's testimony into a box where it can only mean "Tongues", you are doing the Holy Spirit a GREAT disservice. The Holy Spirit is SO much more and I hate to see you, or others limit it to that.

hmm the continous witness is clear and the witness is that he "speaks" as a witness. That is how God is. The unruly member bears witness of the Spirit.

If one works hard enough at it, one can make any verse mean anything. And you've worked very hard.

yes and the believe only crowd has to ignore the points made.

[TheLegalist]

Here are the Chuck Smith notes which, I'm sure, you'll disagree with. But here they are nonetheless.





WHY WOULD PAUL ASK THIS QUESTION?
A. He no doubt saw that their experience in Christ was lacking something.
1. Maybe there was an absence of love.
a. One of the real marks of the truly Spirit filled life is love. The fruit of the Spirit is love.
b. This love is described as bringing joy and peace, and causing us to be longsuffering. It manifests itself in gentleness, goodness, meekness faithfulness and self control.
2. Maybe they lacked real zeal and enthusiasm for the things of the Spirit.
3. It could be that they lacked a real dynamic in their walk with Jesus, and their witness for Him.
4. Whatever it was that Paul noticed, he suspicioned their deficiency was due to the absence of the Holy Spirit.
B. It is one thing to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and quite another to be overflowing with the Spirit.
1. When on the feast day, recorded by John in chapter 7, Jesus stood and cried to the assembled multitude, "If any man thirst let him come unto Me and drink, and he that drinks of the water that I give, as the scripture says, out of his innermost being there will flow rivers of living water." John tells us that Jesus was speaking of the Spirit which was not yet given.
a. What did He say of the Spirit? He would be like a torrent of living water flowing out from your life.
b. The question really is not do you have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you, but do you have the Holy Spirit flowing out from your life like a torrent of living water?
2. You can pour water in a glass until the glass is full, but if you keep pouring, the glass will begin to overflow. There is a difference between full and overflowing.
C. Many have complained of the difficulty of living the Christian life, and have given up because they found that it was too difficult. It is not only difficult, it is impossible.
1. It is very frustrating to see the ideal and to admire the ideal, to admit to the ideal, and then be unable to live up to the standards of the ideal.
2. Paul spoke of that frustration in his own life in Romans 7. "I do the things I don't want to do, and I don't do the things I desire to do. I hate the things I do. I consent to the law that it is good, but I cannot perform that which is good. When I would do good, evil is present with me. My inward man delights in the law of God, but their is another law in my flesh that wars against my mind, and brings me into bondage to my flesh. Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of death?"
3. Paul then found his answer in chapter 8 as he speaks of the life in the Spirit. "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed me from the law of sin and death, for what the law could not do because of the weakness of my flesh, God has done for me by sending His Son in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in me as I walk after the Spirit. So then they who are in the flesh cannot please God, but we are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit if the Spirit of God is dwelling in us."
4. He shows me the ideal, and then gives me the power to live the ideal.
III. HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT? IS THERE SOMETHING MISSING IN YOUR WALK WITH THE LORD? ARE YOU LIVING A DYNAMIC CHRISTIAN LIFE?
A. On a scale of one to ten, where would you rate your fervency for Christ?
B. If Paul would meet you and visit for a while, would he be apt to ask you if you received the Holy Spirit when you believed?
C. Is the Spirit flowing forth from your life like a torrent of living water?
D. Would you like a new dynamic to live the Christian life?
E. Ask the Father for the gift of the Holy Spirit, that your life might overflow with His love and power. Jesus said that if you earthly fathers know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those that ask Him.


sheeesh talk about side stepping the issue that is still in front of your face. HEY CHUCK... you don't ask a question that would be redundant to ask if it was simply thought that one believed they had received the HS by blind faith. THE ISSUE STILL REMAINS! ONE WOULD EXPECT that question to be asked if there was a expectation of the manifested presence of the Spirit as witness. Especially since you have another witness that shows PEOPLE KNEW that they had not "received" the HS and simply believing and being baptized was not the expectation "to know" in Acts 8.

[TheLegalist]

:ursofunny:ursofunnyWell, The Illegalist told me I'm not going to heaven, so maybe so!

well based upon the end result I must say no.... That is what we call a logical conclusion. You knew the answer. Am I your judge? No! If I was I don't think I could do that to anyone. I leave it up to God. I teach what I believe is right and let him sort it out with righteous judgment.

[notofworks]

LOL! As usual you ignore the witness that receiving the HS is not by blind faith that you have. Congrats on your continued insistance in error. I have no problem with the verse as I can see it for what it is. You on the other hand really can't answer the questions presented and chuck doesn't either.



Does a person receive the HS before baptism? I imagine you would say yes and I as well say yes you can. Yet THEY KNEW THEY DIDN'T BY SIMPLY BELIEVING!




and the continuance of blind faith teaching when Acts clearly shows different.




yeaaaahhh.... the problem is like all your other friends is you make "faith" one thing and not about the whole. Typcal...

People had already believed and had not received... Paul asked HAVE YOU SINCE which means it is not automatic reception without knowing THUS NOT BLIND FAITH.



yawn...



YES believes is a continous understanding it not about "once believed received." LOL!



hmm the continous witness is clear and the witness is that he "speaks" as a witness. That is how God is. The unruly member bears witness of the Spirit.



yes and the believe only crowd has to ignore the points made.


So you believe Simon the sorcerer "saw" tongues? How does one do that? Are you speaking of the cloven tongues of fire resting on one's head or tongues that he was speaking? Whichever, I've never "seen" tongues. I've heard them (Alleged tongues, anyway). Earlier in Acts 8 it was noted the great joy that was present. Simon certainly could have seen that.

You yawned. Sorry for boring you.

You "Tongues-only" folks insist that Acts 2 is the benchmark for all history in establishing precedent for salvation. I have never seen tongues in my lifetime, allegedly or otherwise, nor anything else that happened in the upper room account. I've never seen any sound, come to think of it.

I've never seen fire on top of anyone's head, a rushing mighty wind, and I haven't seen people speak in a language that was intelligible to someone who speaks another language. Yet you "Tongues-only" people insist that we must do things just like Acts 2.

So I'll make a deal with you...when you see those things take place, I'll give tongues a shot. Until then, I'll fulfill every command the bible gives me for salvation and in the process, be empowered everyday of my life by the power of the Holy Spirit that resides in me! :)

[notofworks]

sheeesh talk about side stepping the issue that is still in front of your face. HEY CHUCK... you don't ask a question that would be redundant to ask if it was simply thought that one believed they had received the HS by blind faith. THE ISSUE STILL REMAINS! ONE WOULD EXPECT that question to be asked if there was a expectation of the manifested presence of the Spirit as witness. Especially since you have another witness that shows PEOPLE KNEW that they had not "received" the HS and simply believing and being baptized was not the expectation "to know" in Acts 8.



Well, write Chuck a letter and complain, then.

"This generation seeketh a sign." You're insisting on a "sign" aren't you?

[TheLegalist]

So you believe Simon the sorcerer "saw" tongues? How does one do that? Are you speaking of the cloven tongues of fire resting on one's head or tongues that he was speaking? Whichever, I've never "seen" tongues. I've heard them (Alleged tongues, anyway). Earlier in Acts 8 it was noted the great joy that was present. Simon certainly could have seen that.

You yawned. Sorry for boring you.

You "Tongues-only" folks insist that Acts 2 is the benchmark for all history in establishing precedent for salvation. I have never seen tongues in my lifetime, allegedly or otherwise, nor anything else that happened in the upper room account. I've never seen any sound, come to think of it.

I've never seen fire on top of anyone's head, a rushing mighty wind, and I haven't seen people speak in a language that was intelligible to someone who speaks another language. Yet you "Tongues-only" people insist that we must do things just like Acts 2.

So I'll make a deal with you...when you see those things take place, I'll give tongues a shot. Until then, I'll fulfill every command the bible gives me for salvation and in the process, be empowered everyday of my life by the power of the Holy Spirit that resides in me! :)

yes... you do bore me but it's not really you per se but the same old responses. After a while it gets old. Nothing has changed in the decades I have debated. Baptism, Works, Faith and all the rest...

Go for it.... live the life you believe he leads you to live. "If" it is his will you won't find argument from me.

[TheLegalist]

Well, write Chuck a letter and complain, then.

"This generation seeketh a sign." You're insisting on a "sign" aren't you?


:blah same out of context use as usual... Congrats. nah I would rather write to even worse people like Dillow, Stanley, and host of others...

[TheLegalist]

From RCC, all us Protestants are of a 'Reformed' nature.

No, I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not even overly concerned with what I'm called.

Do you believe in "original sin" doctrine?
Preservation of the Saints?
Unconditional Election?

[notofworks]

yes... you do bore me but it's not really you per se but the same old responses. After a while it gets old. Nothing has changed in the decades I have debated. Baptism, Works, Faith and all the rest...

Go for it.... live the life you believe he leads you to live. "If" it is his will you won't find argument from me.



:lolDo you have any idea how old it gets to hear the same old, "What did Simon see" question? But there's an issue that you "Tongues-only" folks ignore as well. I asked it and you completely blew it off. If the Acts 2 event is the benchmark for salvation, why have we never seen it repeated? Literally, I've never seen one element of that day take place.

[TheLegalist]

:lolDo you have any idea how old it gets to hear the same old, "What did Simon see" question? But there's an issue that you "Tongues-only" folks ignore as well. I asked it and you completely blew it off. If the Acts 2 event is the benchmark for salvation, why have we never seen it repeated? Literally, I've never seen one element of that day take place.

what was the benchmark? I stated before my point on this. Peter said in Acts 11 concerning the Gentiles the same thing happened to them concerning the Spirit they also experienced. What was that? Tongues as the manifest presence of the Spirit falling upon them and bearing witness.
Acts 8 which was before would be no different as they "expected" such a manifestation and KNEW they had not received.

[jfrog]

what was the benchmark? I stated before my point on this. Peter said in Acts 11 concerning the Gentiles the same thing happened to them concerning the Spirit they also experienced. What was that? Tongues as the manifest presence of the Spirit falling upon them and bearing witness.
Acts 8 which was before would be no different as they "expected" such a manifestation and KNEW they had not received.

Why do you assume they expected tongues in Acts 8? There was only one account of it before Acts 8... that's hardly enough to show how they would expect what happened once before to happen again right then.

[notofworks]

what was the benchmark? I stated before my point on this. Peter said in Acts 11 concerning the Gentiles the same thing happened to them concerning the Spirit they also experienced. What was that? Tongues as the manifest presence of the Spirit falling upon them and bearing witness.
Acts 8 which was before would be no different as they "expected" such a manifestation and KNEW they had not received.



No, you're not answering. The tongues experience originates in Acts 2...the hermeneutical term is, "The Law of the First Mention"...and is the original example used for "speaking in other tongues."

So I'm asking you, have you ever seen the Day of Pentecost elements take place, specifically:

1) Cloven tongues of fire set on heads;
2) Mighty Rushing Wind;
3) Spoken words that were understood by speakers of another language?

[TheLegalist]

Why do you assume they expected tongues in Acts 8? There was only one account of it before Acts 8... that's hardly enough to show how they would expect what happened once before to happen again right then.

ROFL!!! oh of course we see everything that ever happened in the pages of Acts.... LOL! If it was the normal experience which at this point would have been many years it simply a general point here and there by LUKE about these events explaining sometimes the whole mindset while limiting the experience to simply baptism of which many would have waited for the Spirit like Acts 8.

1) Acts 8 clearly shows expectation of reception not just simple belief. We can argue about what "it" was but the clear thing is that the expectation of receiving the Spirit is not of blind faith of reception. THEY KNEW THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED! You cannot say that about the blind faith position. That position does not fit Acts 8 or Acts 19. Belief is the basis needed to obtain or receive but it does not make for automatic reception which is also evidenced not the evidence of reception per these texts.

2) If was perceived normal to expect what in the world does a penning of "certain" events have to do with all that happened not written. You are acting like from Acts 2 to acts 8 nobody ever spoke in tongues again. That is how the books lays it out as stories but the book is limited in scope to some events not the whole of everything that ever happened. You assume it was not normal that it was not the norm I assume it was based on the expectation and the reaction of the people. Not simply because Luke did not get into detail on every account that ever happened. Acts 2 and 8 has quite a bit of time between them.

[TheLegalist]

No, you're not answering. The tongues experience originates in Acts 2...the hermeneutical term is, "The Law of the First Mention"...and is the original example used for "speaking in other tongues."

So I'm asking you, have you ever seen the Day of Pentecost elements take place, specifically:

1) Cloven tongues of fire set on heads;
2) Mighty Rushing Wind;
3) Spoken words that were understood by speakers of another language?

ROFL there is no "law of first mention".... that is so inconsistent. ROFL! HAHAHAHA now that was funny! People have basically used it for word meanings which "sometimes" is true in how it works but in others it is ignored. IN part yes it would be correct which would be common sense of language concerning root meanings of words but your use.......LOL! sorry doesn't work as a precedent. God consistently uses natural principles to give symbol but does not mean Acts 2 as a whole is a precedent. Tongues as witness is a natural element of symbol of God bearing witness and is consistent when the mentioning of the Spirit is being poured out. Nowhere does the other aspects carry into the rest of the experiences.

[KWSS1976]

I have never heard tongues as it was on this day speaking about the wonderful works of god I have never understood tongue at all so I guess the accounts we are hearing in the churches are not the same acts2 accounts..

5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

[notofworks]

ROFL there is no "law of first mention".... that is so inconsistent. ROFL! HAHAHAHA now that was funny! People have basically used it for word meanings which "sometimes" is true in how it works but in others it is ignored. IN part yes it would be correct which would be common sense of language concerning root meanings of words but your use.......LOL! sorry doesn't work as a precedent. God consistently uses natural principles to give symbol but does not mean Acts 2 as a whole is a precedent. Tongues as witness is a natural element of symbol of God bearing witness and is consistent when the mentioning of the Spirit is being poured out. Nowhere does the other aspects carry into the rest of the experiences.



WHAT????? Are you serious? Don't tell me you're one of those pew-jumpers that just regurgitates everything you've been brainwashed with and hasn't actually done any serious bible study!!! You really think there's no such thing as the hermeneutical law of "The Law of the First Mention"??

http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page56.html

You roll on the floor a lot, don't you? I would recommend you get up off the floor (you holy-roller you) and take a class in scripture exegesis......unless, of course, you think exegesis doesn't actually exist.

But I'm taking it you've never seen any of the things that happened on the Day of Pentecost.

[TheLegalist]

WHAT????? Are you serious? Don't tell me you're one of those pew-jumpers that just regurgitates everything you've been brainwashed with and hasn't actually done any serious bible study!!! You really think there's no such thing as the hermeneutical law of "The Law of the First Mention"??

http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page56.html

You roll on the floor a lot, don't you? I would recommend you get up off the floor (you holy-roller you) and take a class in scripture exegesis......unless, of course, you think exegesis doesn't actually exist.

But I'm taking it you've never seen any of the things that happened on the Day of Pentecost.

it is a principle one can possibly use, a rule of thumb of possiblity or technique to understand to search for depth to something. IT IS NOT A LAW! Do a little research and any theologian worth a dime will tell you what you just said is NOT THE LAW OF FIRST MENTION which is not even a law but a study tool of possibility to understanding NOT A LAW THAT IS STRICT!

Also hermeneutics IS MANS study rules and has nothing to do with GOD or whether it is right. Hermeneutics is like systematic theology..... ALL OVER THE PLACE!

[notofworks]

it is a principle one can possibly use, a rule of thumb of possiblity or technique to understand to search for depth to something. IT IS NOT A LAW! Do a little research and any theologian worth a dime will tell you what you just said is NOT THE LAW OF FIRST MENTION which is not even a law but a study tool of possibility to understanding NOT A LAW THAT IS STRICT!

Also hermeneutics IS MANS study rules and has nothing to do with GOD or whether it is right. Hermeneutics is like systematic theology..... ALL OVER THE PLACE!


So you're saying that Hermeneutics AND systematic theology isn't useful to you? I kinda picked that up in some of your ramblings.

I would recommend a good, solid class in Systematic Theology or really just a plain ole Hermeneutics class. I'm sure you can find something online so that you don't have to move your family. This will help you, unless of course, you don't believe systematic theology or hermeneutics exists.:lol

[TheLegalist]

So you're saying that Hermeneutics AND systematic theology isn't useful to you? I kinda picked that up in some of your ramblings.

I would recommend a good, solid class in Systematic Theology or really just a plain ole Hermeneutics class. I'm sure you can find something online so that you don't have to move your family. This will help you, unless of course, you don't believe systematic theology or hermeneutics exists.:lol

hmmm can only shake his head at the ignorance. Hermeneutics and systematic theology are speculative in nature overall. We extract from the text meanings in which we might be correct or not and then we attempt to understand what the author says. Then we attempt to understand him in relationship to everyone else with possible cross references and referencing. We create human systems and structures that are rigid that try to make it all work within our finite minds of how it all works. Yet how many systems are there? hmmm no the problem is I have read and studied "peoples" systems of structure and found them wanting. Sure some good things are found in different systems but the whole usually lacks somewhere and create issues because the something won't agree. Just like Luther and Romans 3:26... basically changed and ignored the text for his theological purpose.... I have studied systematic theology for years. God is consistent, thus he has structure but what I see out of many today in the protestant world.... SPARE ME I need to study MORE systematic theology from man. Talk about contradictive and somehow that is what I need? LOL! No thanks as I have ran that course long ago.

[notofworks]

hmmm can only shake his head at the ignorance. Hermeneutics and systematic theology are speculative in nature overall.


Well, we've made progress. You've gone from rolling in the floor to shaking your head. Much better, Illegalist. So are you suggesting that the thought-patterns of Systematic Theology and Hermeneutics are speculating and you aren't???

[Timmy]

hmmm can only shake his head at the ignorance. Hermeneutics and systematic theology are speculative in nature overall. We extract from the text meanings in which we might be correct or not and then we attempt to understand what the author says. Then we attempt to understand him in relationship to everyone else with possible cross references and referencing. We create human systems and structures that are rigid that try to make it all work within our finite minds of how it all works. Yet how many systems are there? hmmm no the problem is I have read and studied "peoples" systems of structure and found them wanting. Sure some good things are found in different systems but the whole usually lacks somewhere and create issues because the something won't agree. Just like Luther and Romans 3:26... basically changed and ignored the text for his theological purpose.... I have studied systematic theology for years. God is consistent, thus he has structure but what I see out of many today in the protestant world.... SPARE ME I need to study MORE systematic theology from man. Talk about contradictive and somehow that is what I need? LOL! No thanks as I have ran that course long ago.

:blink You have an alternative to so-called "human systems"?

[Aquila]

"Notice what large letters I use as I write these closing words in my own handwriting. Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised are doing it for just one reason. They don't want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save."

Galatians 6:11-12 NLT


These things really hit me today as I read this today:
1) The cross of Christ alone can save.
2) If we add one thing at all to the saving power of the cross, we can add anything. When does it stop?
3) Among all the debates as to how many steps there are to salvation, we seem to miss the fact that the only step that matters is the step taken by Christ on the cross.
4) There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save.

What about the notion that Salvation is a process that begins when one repents with saving faith?

For example, a man turns to Jesus and repents of his sins at home and then decides to go to church to be water baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost. While on the way to church he dies in a tragic car accident. Many would say he wasn't saved because he was never water baptized or filled with the Holy Ghost. But he was enrout with a faithful and obedient heart. Does God focus on the faith or the sacrament? I believe he was saved. However, if half way to church he changes his mind and decides to drive back home to drink bottle of vodka and dies in a tragic car accident he will be lost. This is because his faithless heart was full of rebellion.

I believe that God desires that all know him outside of the stained glass traditions of the Trinity. I believe that God desires all to repent of sin, be water baptized in Jesus name, and filled with the Holy Ghost. However, I don't see these as legalistic steps, but rather spiritual realities experienced while on the journey. I know men in other denominations who have set out on their journey with Jesus and they're sitll in the woods of tradition. This doesn't mean they aren't "saved"... it simply means that they haven't experienced the full NT experience. I believe God desires all believers to enter into that NT reality.

That's my take on it.

[TheLegalist]

:blink You have an alternative to so-called "human systems"?

hmm yeah.... God lead your understanding to know his will and way.

So which "system" you going to choose? considering the Bible was not written systematically which all systematic theologians concede and thus why so many systems exist to understand. Which are you going to choose? Have fun!

[notofworks]

:blink You have an alternative to so-called "human systems"?

He does, yes. It's called the "Illegalist Theology System". It's also called, in certain circles, "I make it mean whatever I want" system, the "It says what I think it says" system, the "I can't hear you" system, and the "I don't care what 3 billion theologians think" system.

[notofworks]

hmm yeah.... God lead your understanding to know his will and way.

So which "system" you going to choose? considering the Bible was written systematically which all systematic theologians concede and thus why so many systems exist to understand. Which are you going to choose? Have fun!


WHAT??? I thought systematic theologians were scattered, manmade, whatever else you bashed them with. Make up your mind, for crying out loud. You can't discredit them and then use them to prove your point, at the same time.

Seems like the scattered one is............YOU!!:lol

[TheLegalist]

Well, we've made progress. You've gone from rolling in the floor to shaking your head. Much better, Illegalist. So are you suggesting that the thought-patterns of Systematic Theology and Hermeneutics are speculating and you aren't???

your missing the point. Your pointing to "systematic theology and hermeutics" like some pure art realized when all it is worth is about the same as a commentary.... NOTHING BUT OPINION! AGAIN, sure somethings are worth noting but overall speculation is just that. THe SPIRIT leads. Get past your commentary on what and how to read the Bible form someone elses point of view including mine. Most protestant dogma makes a mockery of his word which came about by these systems that get proven wrong all the time.

[TheLegalist]

WHAT??? I thought systematic theologians were scattered, manmade, whatever else you bashed them with. Make up your mind, for crying out loud. You can't discredit them and then use them to prove your point, at the same time.

Seems like the scattered one is............YOU!!:lol

nice way to take it out of context... typical. Point is you make them like some end all when they EVEN say they are not....

[notofworks]

your missing the point. Your pointing to "systematic theology and hermeutics" like some pure art realized when all it is worth is about the same as a commentary.... NOTHING BUT OPINION! AGAIN, sure somethings are worth noting but overall speculation is just that. THe SPIRIT leads. Get past your commentary on what and how to read the Bible form someone elses point of view including mine. Most protestant dogma makes a mockery of his word which came about by these systems that get proven wrong all the time.


You're confused. :heeheehee

(my apologies to any who are offended)

[notofworks]

nice way to take it out of context... typical. Point is you make them like some end all when they EVEN say they are not....


You discredited them and then used them to validate one of your statements. Just trying to "keep it real" as they say.

It's a similar stra-teegery you're using when interpreting the bible.

[TheLegalist]

You're confused. :heeheehee

(my apologies to any who are offended)

:rolleyes2

[TheLegalist]

You discredited them and then used them to validate one of your statements. Just trying to "keep it real" as they say.

It's a similar stra-teegery you're using when interpreting the bible.

yeah... uh huh :nah

[notofworks]

yeah... uh huh :nah


Like that great theologian, Timmy, says, "Just sayin' ".

[Ferd]

Now I am confused.... about everything said in this thread...

the only thing I am not confused about is that the cross alone cannot save.

that aint biblical and not of works doesnt even believe that.

The cross will not save the unwilling. Salvation takes place when one turns to the cross... or more exact, when one embraces the Gospel (death, burial and resurrection)

There has never really been an argument about that.

The argument has always been what form that embracing takes.

[notofworks]

Now I am confused.... about everything said in this thread...

the only thing I am not confused about is that the cross alone cannot save.

that aint biblical and not of works doesnt even believe that.

The cross will not save the unwilling. Salvation takes place when one turns to the cross... or more exact, when one embraces the Gospel (death, burial and resurrection)

There has never really been an argument about that.

The argument has always been what form that embracing takes.


"The cross of Christ alone can save." That's a direct quote from The Holy Bible, so yeah, I believe it!:thumbsup

[TheLegalist]

"The cross of Christ alone can save." That's a direct quote from The Holy Bible, so yeah, I believe it!:thumbsup

which would or could be a reference to us needing to have the "faithfulness of Christ"

[notofworks]

which would or could be a reference to us needing to have the "faithfulness of Christ"



See, there you go again getting it to say what you want it to say. I think it's actually in reference to the fact that only the cross of Christ can save.

[TheLegalist]

See, there you go again getting it to say what you want it to say. I think it's actually in reference to the fact that only the cross of Christ can save.

no actually it is Jesus who said unless you take up your cross and follow.... What would be our cross? The same cross Christ had! John 15 unto death! Thus we follow him and it is not just about him dying but our following with the same burden unto our dying.

[Timmy]

no actually it is Jesus who said unless you take up your cross and follow.... What would be our cross? The same cross Christ had! John 15 unto death! Thus we follow him and it is not just about him dying but our following with the same burden unto our dying.

He also said you had to sell all you had and give it to the poor. OK, He didn't say that to you, but to one particular person. We can learn something from that exchange, I suppose.

He also said you had to hate your family. Yes, I know: hyperbole. He meant you had to love Him more than you love your family. (Do you?) And He said whoever forsakes houses, brothers, sisters, father, mothers, wife, children, or lands for His name's sake will be rewarded. Hyperbole? If so, hyperbole for what? For kinda forsaking those things and people? Neglecting your family's needs if necessary to advance the more important cause of the church? What does it mean? Or was it just for the twelve disciples he was addressing at the time? Those twelve who will sit on twelve thrones. You know -- Peter, John, Andrew, Judas Iscariot, ... Those guys. (Can't you just hardly wait to see Judas on one of those thrones? :lol)

[mfblume]

I have never heard tongues as it was on this day speaking about the wonderful works of god I have never understood tongue at all so I guess the accounts we are hearing in the churches are not the same acts2 accounts..

How would we know without knowing more than English?

[KWSS1976]

Cause those it Acts2 understood. The reason they understood was because God gave those speaking the gift to speak to all those people in there native languages.

[Neck]

:ursofunny:ursofunnyWell, The Illegalist told me I'm not going to heaven, so maybe so!

What is he going to do when he get's to heaven? Will he think he's is in hell once he see's you?

[notofworks]

What is he going to do when he get's to heaven? Will he think he's is in hell once he see's you?


:ursofunnyWell, the question might be, what if I don't go to hell and The Illegalist and I aren't in the same place?:lol

I've always said, in heaven we'll be surprised by two things: Who is there and who isn't!

[notofworks]

no actually it is Jesus who said unless you take up your cross and follow.... What would be our cross? The same cross Christ had! John 15 unto death! Thus we follow him and it is not just about him dying but our following with the same burden unto our dying.



Wait....so now it's OUR cross?

The statement is still true:

The cross of Christ alone can save.

[pelathais]

How would we know without knowing more than English?
Doesn't the Spirit already know what languages the hearers can understand and thus inspire those languages as in Acts 2?

[pelathais]

Pel,
I didn't forget about your last post to me. I just got a bit sidetracked. I guess I pretty well have exhausted my points and can't really add anything else to what I've already said.

Anyway, I wanted to thank you for the conversation! You were great in your presentation and approach. If I was going to converse with anyone where we had points of some disagreement, I would choose you! :friend

God Bless!
whoop! Got a bit sidetracked myself and only just now saw this... sorry.

Thanks P-O. I enjoy "talking" with you. Have a great day.

[TheLegalist]

Wait....so now it's OUR cross?

The statement is still true:

The cross of Christ alone can save.

sigh... The point was that the cross and his death is only one aspect of salvation and the cross is not simply about him dying but ALSO is a "type" in which we are to be. Thus John 15 and US doing his will as HE DID THE FATHER'S WILL! Yes the title is true but the cross of Christ is more than him simply dying but our dying as well as we take upon his cross and IF we do we abide in him as he did the Father.

[KWSS1976]

Wait did we die for our sins or did he die for our sins...Who died to cover our sins.....

[notofworks]

Wait did we die for our sins or did he die for our sins...Who died to cover our sins.....



Can't believe you don't have this figured out yet, KWSS. It's really very simple...Jesus died on the cross so that we could do a bunch of stuff to get saved. See there? Simple. Do you understand it now? Let me know if you need more help.

[KWSS1976]

And if we have to go through 10 steps to be saved then Jesus did not die to cover our sins as everyone states...he just died... and it is up to us to get the plan right to be saved..but everyone I talk to states Jesus died to cover our sins...so someone or something is incorrect....

[notofworks]

And if we have to go through 10 steps to be saved then Jesus did not die to cover our sins as everyone states...he just died... and it is up to us to get the plan right to be saved..but everyone I talk to states Jesus died to cover our sins...so someone or something is incorrect....



But THEN....there's all the stuff we have to do to STAY saved!

[mizpeh]

But THEN....there's all the stuff we have to do to STAY saved!You mean like loving God and loving one another? Like sowing to the Spirit? Like walking in the Spirit? ....that kind of stuff?

[notofworks]

sigh... The point was that the cross and his death is only one aspect of salvation and the cross is not simply about him dying but ALSO is a "type" in which we are to be. Thus John 15 and US doing his will as HE DID THE FATHER'S WILL! Yes the title is true but the cross of Christ is more than him simply dying but our dying as well as we take upon his cross and IF we do we abide in him as he did the Father.


Illegalist, I have a question for you....if one follows the things you believe are required, what then? Do you believe there are things that must be abstained from in order to stay saved and/or things that one must do to stay saved?

For example, paying tithes...how would you describe the spiritual condition of someone who doesn't tithe?

[TheLegalist]

Wait did we die for our sins or did he die for our sins...Who died to cover our sins.....

seriously...

Heb 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

Mat 5:23 So then, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift.

Eze 18:19 "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not suffer26 for his father's iniquity?' When the son does what is just and right, and observes all my statutes and carries them out, he will surely live.(SAME AS TODAY AND CHRIST'S COMMANDMENTS JOHN 15)
Eze 18:20 The person who sins is the one who will die. A son will not suffer27 for his father's iniquity, and a father will not suffer28 for his son's iniquity; the righteous person will be judged according to his righteousness, and the wicked person according to his wickedness.29
Eze 18:21 "But if the wicked person turns/repents/reconciles from all the sin he has committed and observes all my statutes and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
Eze 18:22 None of the sins he has committed will be held30 against him; because of the righteousness he has done, he will live.
Eze 18:23 Do I actually delight in the death of the wicked, declares the sovereign LORD? Do I not prefer that he turn from his wicked conduct and live?
Eze 18:24 "But if a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and practices wrongdoing according to all the abominable practices the wicked carry out, will he live? All his righteous acts will not be remembered; because of the unfaithful acts he has done and the sin he has committed, he will die.31(SAME PRINCIPLE TAUGHT in ROMANS 8)
Eze 18:25 "Yet you say, 'The Lord's conduct32 is unjust!' Hear, O house of Israel: Is my conduct unjust? Is it not your conduct that is unjust?
Eze 18:26 When a righteous person turns back from his righteousness and practices wrongdoing, he will die for it;33 because of the wrongdoing he has done, he will die.
Eze 18:27 When a wicked person turns from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will preserve his life.
Eze 18:28 Because he considered34 and turned from all the sins he had done, he will surely live; he will not die.


Atonement means nothing unless reconciliation is true and complete. You cannot partake of his atoneing aspect unless you come first reconciled to your brother or to whom you have offended. If you do he is just and faithful to forgive. Instead of the old sacrifice for justice we have Christ as the offering who brings justice IF we abide in him. He desires obedience NOT sacrifice and he offers it to THOSE WHO OBEY and abide in him and DO his commandments.

Salvation is by him who is the source and by obedience to obtain eternal life. He offers salvation to those who take up his cross and do what he says... If you don't you will be considered wicked and in the end slaughtered like those who did not want Christ to reign. Atonement can only be true when we do his will and are turned to do his will. cf John 15 and withered and cast out do to not abiding.

Luk 19:21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.'
Luk 19:22 He said to him, 'I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow?
Luk 19:23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?'
Luk 19:24 And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.'
Luk 19:25 And they said to him, 'Lord, he has ten minas!'
Luk 19:26 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
Luk 19:27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'"

[notofworks]

You mean like loving God and loving one another? Like sowing to the Spirit? Like walking in the Spirit? ....that kind of stuff?


Naaa....that's the easy stuff. Sounds too much like greasy-grace people. I'm talking about dressing the right way, tithing, obeying the pastor, making sure my sideburns don't past halfway down my ear....you know, the "deeper" stuff.

[notofworks]

seriously...

Heb 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,




Great verse. He certainly HAS provided the way of salvation to all who obey....who don't follow the rules of the world such as don't handle, don't eat, don't touch (Colossians 2), who obey the commands not to add anything or any steps to the simplicity of the gospel of the cross of Christ.

We agree on this one!! :)

[mfblume]

Doesn't the Spirit already know what languages the hearers can understand and thus inspire those languages as in Acts 2?

Sure the Spirit knows, but the bible never stated the Spirit inspires languages the hearers know for the tongue talkers to speak to them.

[mfblume]

Cause those it Acts2 understood. The reason they understood was because God gave those speaking the gift to speak to all those people in there native languages.

This is not always the case though. 1 Cor 14 says no one is edified in church but the speaker when the speaker speaks in tongues. That implies the tongues are not understood by anyone else.

[Ev. Duane Williams]

Yes, the Cross of Christ alone saves, but He died for all, so are all saved? Of course not, because many refuse to receive Salvation. So if we accept it, isn't the act of accepting Salvation "adding to" Paul's teaching on the Cross or trying to "earn your Salvation"? The question is how do we receive the Salvation of the Cross. Just as Paul himself did at Ananias' house, by repenting, being baptized in His Name, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Ev. Duane Williams]

Great verse. He certainly HAS provided the way of salvation to all who obey....who don't follow the rules of the world such as don't handle, don't eat, don't touch (Colossians 2), who obey the commands not to add anything or any steps to the simplicity of the gospel of the cross of Christ.

We agree on this one!! :)

But then, aren't the acts of obedience "works"? And wouldn't your "obedience" to not "add" anything be in itself adding something to the simplicity of the Gospel of the Cross of Christ? You see the wormhole that greasy grace is digging here? Just do what the Bible says, what Paul and the Twelve did, and you'll be saved. Doesn't get much simpler than that.

[KWSS1976]

But Mfblume thats a diffrent tongues then the Acts account so you guys say. Plus all he is saying is he would rather you prophesieth then speak in an unknown tongue so the chuch will be edified....

[TheLegalist]

Illegalist, I have a question for you....if one follows the things you believe are required, what then? Do you believe there are things that must be abstained from in order to stay saved and/or things that one must do to stay saved?

For example, paying tithes...how would you describe the spiritual condition of someone who doesn't tithe?

we tithe or give offering in principle being led by the Spirit. The giving is to those who need. Not a building, though that is beneficial and you should give to the building up of the body. The commandment of Christ is the basis of all law since the beginning. Mark 12:29-31 will always be true and application is always seen. His law is the same law he was judged under and we failed.

someone he doesn't tithe... Well...

1) are they following God's leading?
2) are they truly trusting in him or the flesh?

usually a person that doesn't give is failing in one of these two areas. We can give all we want but unless you are giving according to the Spirit leading you. You still could be robbing God as his will is what is perfect. If you don't know what to give 10% is always a good basis and I don't teach anything strict of what is the right amount. God will reward you and lead you seeing your reponse form the heart. God may ask you to store UP that which he has blessed you for a time of famine.

[notofworks]

we tithe or give offering in principle being led by the Spirit. The giving is to those who need. Not a building, though that is beneficial and you should give to the building up of the body. The commandment of Christ is the basis of all law since the beginning. Mark 12:29-31 will always be true and application is always seen. His law is the same law he was judged under and we failed.

someone he doesn't tithe... Well...

1) are they following God's leading?
2) are they truly trusting in him or the flesh?

usually a person that doesn't give is failing in one of these two areas. We can give all we want but unless you are giving according to the Spirit leading you. You still could be robbing God as his will is what is perfect. If you don't know what to give 10% is always a good basis and I don't teach anything strict of what is the right amount. God will reward you and lead you seeing your reponse form the heart. God may ask you to store UP that which he has blessed you for a time of famine.



:ursofunnyYES!!!! I knew it!! So now tithing gets added! It never ends!

What about a lady who obeys the steps you outline and continues to cut her hair, wear makeup, and the guy who won't shave (even when he's asked to)? What is their spiritual condition?

[notofworks]

But then, aren't the acts of obedience "works"? And wouldn't your "obedience" to not "add" anything be in itself adding something to the simplicity of the Gospel of the Cross of Christ? You see the wormhole that is digging here? Just do what the Bible says, what Paul and the Twelve did, and you'll be saved. Doesn't get much simpler than that.



Ahhhhhh......."Greasy Grace". I love that term.

Yes, those things are "works". Anything that's a "work" is a "work." They're described in James 2 as being a very important thing. But it doesn't enter into the discussion of salvation.

Well, it does, but it shouldn't.

[TheLegalist]

Great verse. He certainly HAS provided the way of salvation to all who obey....who don't follow the rules of the world such as don't handle, don't eat, don't touch (Colossians 2), who obey the commands not to add anything or any steps to the simplicity of the gospel of the cross of Christ.

We agree on this one!! :)

God's command to not eat of swine etc... is not of the world but a principle issue of order for which certain animals are made and is about basic health of consumption. We do not touch the unclean thing. That is still a principle. nothing directly defiles the Spirit except the heart is what defiles but that which we do touch and handle may bring defilement from the heart. Food in itself does not defile my Spirit but it does have a issue with my health. Thus why God said it is a abomination unto you not him. Spiritual and physical laws are two different things. You should love that which God has given and treat your body as he thought was best by not eating that which he thought was best not to eat. The gospel is about his dying and us doing his will to obtain eternal life likewise. We obtain by contract of obedience which was brought about by HIS sacrifice in which HE became the mediator or administrator of the covenant. Thus IF we do we abide and have assurity of eternal life. If we don't continue to abide we will be judged unfaithful and a wicked servant.

[TheLegalist]

Ahhhhhh......."Greasy Grace". I love that term.

Yes, those things are "works". Anything that's a "work" is a "work." They're described in James 2 as being a very important thing. But it doesn't enter into the discussion of salvation.

Well, it does, but it shouldn't.

sorry but works clearly is about salvation as our covenant is a contract "to do" to obtain eternal life.. You cannot abide unless "you do" and to abide in covenant with God is necessitated on YOU DOING as HE DID to be in relationship as Abraham was and judged faithful "to obtain" the promise! John 15.

[notofworks]

God's command to not eat of swine etc... is not of the world buta principle issue of order for which certain animals are made and is about basic health of consumption. We do not touch the unclean thing. That is still a principle. nothing directly defiles the Spirit except the heart is what defiles but that which we do touch and handle may bring defilement from the heart. Food in itself does not defile my Spirit but it does have a issue with my health. Thus why God said is is a abomination unto you not him. Spiritual and physical laws are two different things. You should love that which God has given and treat you body as he thought was best by not eating that which he thought was best not to eat. The gospel is about his dying and us doing his will to obtain eternal life likewise. We obtain by contract of obedience which was brought about by HIS sacrifice in which HE became the mediator or administrator of the covenant. Thus IF we do we abide and have assurity of eternal life. If we don't continue to abide we will be judged unfaithful and a wicked servant.


Don't let anyone condemn you by insisting on self-denial. And don't let anyone say you must worship angels, even though they say they have had visions about this. These people claim to be so humble, but their sinful minds have made them proud.


Col 2:19 But they are not connected to Christ, the head of the body. For we are joined together in his body by his strong sinews, and we grow only as we get our nourishment and strength from God.


Col 2:20 You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. So why do you keep on following rules of the world, such as,


Col 2:21 "Don't handle, don't eat, don't touch."


Col 2:22 Such rules are mere human teaching about things that are gone as soon as we use them.


Col 2:23 These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, humility, and severe bodily discipline. But they have no effect when it comes to conquering a person's evil thoughts and desires.




There it is, right there. Big as Dallas. (Is Dallas big?)

[notofworks]

sorry but works clearly is about salvation as our covenant is a contract "to do" to obtain eternal life.. You cannot abide unless "you do" and to abide in covenant with God is necessitated on YOU DOING as HE DID to be in relationship as Abraham was and judged faithful "to obtain" the promise! John 15.


Ok, Illegalist, mostly we're taking playful jabs at each other, here, but seriously.....How does one stay rapture-ready? What if a person misses tithing for two weeks, or says several vulgarities just before a fatal car accident. Yesterday, I was driving on the freeway and suddenly, there was no place to go except drilling a car going 30 mph, and I said.........well, never mind what I said, but it wasn't good. If I had collided and slipped into eternity.....what then?

I guess what I'm getting out, much are our works monitored to "stay saved"?

[mfblume]

But Mfblume thats a diffrent tongues then the Acts account so you guys say. Plus all he is saying is he would rather you prophesieth then speak in an unknown tongue so the chuch will be edified....

Tongues may serve different purposes as in the gift and the INITIAL evidence of Spirit baptism, but nothing in the bible says one purpose demands the hearers to understand the tongues and the other does not.

[KWSS1976]

But the intitial evidence the very first time it happened was an understood language the bible clearly tells us this...so why would the other accounts be any diffrent?????

[TheLegalist]

Don't let anyone condemn you by insisting on self-denial. And don't let anyone say you must worship angels, even though they say they have had visions about this. These people claim to be so humble, but their sinful minds have made them proud.


Col 2:19 But they are not connected to Christ, the head of the body. For we are joined together in his body by his strong sinews, and we grow only as we get our nourishment and strength from God.


Col 2:20 You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. So why do you keep on following rules of the world, such as,


Col 2:21 "Don't handle, don't eat, don't touch."


Col 2:22 Such rules are mere human teaching about things that are gone as soon as we use them.


Col 2:23 These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, humility, and severe bodily discipline. But they have no effect when it comes to conquering a person's evil thoughts and desires.




There it is, right there. Big as Dallas. (Is Dallas big?)

I guess God was a idiot then to give them as law. God didn't know what he was doing. You miss Pauls point and his teaching. Yeah Paul.... God changes his reasoning and opinions. Instruction by genetic code was clearly a thing from God as he only knew of these things! So you are saying God did not detest the eating of these things?

Isa 66:16 For the LORD judges all humanity
with fire and his sword;
the LORD will kill many.
Isa 66:17 "As for those who consecrate and ritually purify themselves so they can follow their leader and worship in the sacred orchards, those who eat the flesh of pigs and other disgusting creatures, like mice — they will all be destroyed together," says the LORD.
Isa 66:18 "I hate their deeds and thoughts! So I am coming to gather all the nations and ethnic groups; they will come and witness my splendor.

[TheLegalist]

Ok, Illegalist, mostly we're taking playful jabs at each other, here, but seriously.....How does one stay rapture-ready? What if a person misses tithing for two weeks, or says several vulgarities just before a fatal car accident. Yesterday, I was driving on the freeway and suddenly, there was no place to go except drilling a car going 30 mph, and I said.........well, never mind what I said, but it wasn't good. If I had collided and slipped into eternity.....what then?

I guess what I'm getting out, much are our works monitored to "stay saved"?

GOd will judge the whole of your works and your life. That is why it is a judgment by deeds. Search out your own salvation with fear and trembling. There is sin that does not lead to death. God is just and he knows who you are and what you are and the complete aspect of your heart. Not just a moment in time but the whole.

[mfblume]

But the intitial evidence the very first time it happened was an understood language the bible clearly tells us this...so why would the other accounts be any diffrent?????

This is ironic. The folks who claim tongues are NOT the initial evidence of Spirit Baptism claim so because the bible does not flatly say it is. Now we see your good self saying that tongues MUST be understood by the listeners, although the bible does not make that stipulation.

The fact is that SOMETIMES someone is present who understands the tongues, which happened with my own father who is German for instance. And I believe God did that for dad. I spoke in tongues and someone present heard me speaking the Pakistani language and told me what I said. But in other cases, there is no one present who understands the tongues. In either case, the bible may give instances of both sorts of occurrences, but it never stated anywhere that any form of tongues MUST be understood by hearers.

[notofworks]

I guess God was a idiot then to give them as law. God didn't know what he was doing. You miss Pauls point and his teaching. Yeah Paul.... God changes his reasoning and opinions. Instruction by genetic code was clearly a thing from God as he only knew of these things! So you are saying God did not detest the eating of these things?

Isa 66:16 For the LORD judges all humanity
with fire and his sword;
the LORD will kill many.
Isa 66:17 "As for those who consecrate and ritually purify themselves so they can follow their leader and worship in the sacred orchards, those who eat the flesh of pigs and other disgusting creatures, like mice — they will all be destroyed together," says the LORD.
Isa 66:18 "I hate their deeds and thoughts! So I am coming to gather all the nations and ethnic groups; they will come and witness my splendor.


Bolded question......Yes, I'm sure as heck saying that, at the time of the writing of Colossians, God did not detest the eating of those things. Didn't then, didn't now.

Are you seriously saying that we're obligated to practice the diet of the Old Testament? Are you seriously saying we're not supposed to eat pork?? Surely not. Are you a tongue-talking, three-step, Seventh Day Adventist? I can list quite a few things in the Law you don't obey.

And you ran off and left me with that thing about genetic code. What verse is that in?

[notofworks]

GOd will judge the whole of your works and your life. That is why it is a judgment by deeds. Search out your own salvation with fear and trembling. There is sin that does not lead to death. God is just and he knows who you are and what you are and the complete aspect of your heart. Not just a moment in time but the whole.


THAT'S EXACTLY THE ENTIRE POINT OF GRACE! It's the position of your heart, not the steps of legalism!!

[KWSS1976]

What does this portion of scripture tell us...

4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.


You guys will say speak in tongues as the spirit gives utterance but this clearly tells you when you speak in tongues (which by the way means language) (not Heavenly language)
that someone present will understand what you are saying..In your case MF that is correct if you started speaking German al of the sudden thats great than you could be telling your German friend about Jesus in a language he could understand...

[mfblume]

What does this portion of scripture tell us...

4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.


You guys will say speak in tongues as the spirit gives utterance but this clearly tells you when you speak in tongues (which by the way means language) (not Heavenly language)
that someone present will understand what you are saying..In your case MF that is correct if you started speaking German al of the sudden thats great than you could be telling your German friend about Jesus in a language he could understand...

The fact is that just because some people understood the tongues does not mean that will occur everytime someone speaks in tongues. There is no statement to teach this as doctrine.

[mizpeh]

THAT'S EXACTLY THE ENTIRE POINT OF GRACE! It's the position of your heart, not the steps of legalism!!There is a natural outflow of certain actions from a right heart.

You seem to be stressing one thing, while the Legalist stresses the other. It's BOTH.

James 2:14 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

[mfblume]

There is a natural outflow of certain actions from a right heart.

You seem to be stressing one thing, while the Legalist stresses the other. It's BOTH.

James 2:14 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD! Amen!

Legalism is not depending upon the cross for the "steps" to make us righteous, whereas grace depends on the work of the cross to make us righteous when it proposes one must obey the "steps" for salvation. Everyone seems to be talking past each other and missing this.

[KWSS1976]

Well I will use what scripture I have to go by and the "Heavenly language" thing I hear well I definitlly have not seen any scripture on that..thats just my 2cents...

[TheLegalist]

Bolded question......Yes, I'm sure as heck saying that, at the time of the writing of Colossians, God did not detest the eating of those things. Didn't then, didn't now.

Are you seriously saying that we're obligated to practice the diet of the Old Testament? Are you seriously saying we're not supposed to eat pork?? Surely not. Are you a tongue-talking, three-step, Seventh Day Adventist? I can list quite a few things in the Law you don't obey.

And you ran off and left me with that thing about genetic code. What verse is that in?

hmmm so God changes his mind on what is good for us to eat? Wow, what a God that thinks they are detestable things to eat because HOW HE MADE THEM and then turns right around and says they are ok to eat. Considering that they where considered clean and unclean before "the law". You have a God that is contradictive and can't make up his mind. Nice.

concering genentic code. God has order within order. Which is natural law. The reason God used genetic footprint in the establishing "clean and unclean" animals was because HOW HE DESIGNED BY ORDER and the what was considered clean and unclean was based on genetic patterns. THUS GOD HAD A REASON. Not just throwing stuff against the wall and seeing if it sticks!

[Timmy]

hmmm so God changes him mind on what is good for us to eat? Wow, what a God that thinks they are detestable things to eat because HOW HE MADE THEM and then turns right around and says they are ok to eat. Considering that they where considered clean and unclean before "the law". You have a God that is contradictive and can't make up his mind. Nice.

concering genentic code. God has order within order. Which is natural law. The reason God used genetic footprint in the establishing "clean and unclean" animals was because HOW HE DESIGNED BY ORDER and the what was considered clean and unclean was based on genetic patterns. THUS GOD HAD A REASON. Not just throwing stuff against the wall and seeing it it sticks!

Has God changed His mind about anything?

[TheLegalist]

There is a natural outflow of certain actions from a right heart.

You seem to be stressing one thing, while the Legalist stresses the other. It's BOTH.

James 2:14 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

I never said it was not from the heart the WHOLE POINT HAS BEEN LOVE FROM THE HEART! John 15 thus TO DO! The OT is clear and is consistent within the NT. We are going to be judged faithful to the contract or not to obtain salvation and that judgment will be upon did we love him to do what he commanded which declares us "right" at heart just like ABraham.

[TheLegalist]

Has God changed His mind about anything?

not concerning natural law and how God relates. God changes his judgments in "reaction" to our response but it is still based on lawful/righteousness of God that does not change. God considered it unclean for a reason. Is it a salvation issue directly? No! Food initself doesn't defile the Spirit. Our heart does. Food defiles our physical health. God laws where about the "whole" of life not just the spiritual.

[Timmy]

not concerning natural law and how God relates. God changes his judgments in "reaction" to our response but it is still based on lawful/righteousness of God that does not change. God considered it unclean for a reason. Is it a salvation issue directly? No! Food initself doesn't defile the Spirit. Our heart does. Food defiles our physical health. God laws where about the "whole" of life not just the spiritual.

Was disobeying "natural law" ever punishable as sin?

[notofworks]

hmmm so God changes his mind on what is good for us to eat? Wow, what a God that thinks they are detestable things to eat because HOW HE MADE THEM and then turns right around and says they are ok to eat. Considering that they where considered clean and unclean before "the law". You have a God that is contradictive and can't make up his mind. Nice.

concering genentic code. God has order within order. Which is natural law. The reason God used genetic footprint in the establishing "clean and unclean" animals was because HOW HE DESIGNED BY ORDER and the what was considered clean and unclean was based on genetic patterns. THUS GOD HAD A REASON. Not just throwing stuff against the wall and seeing if it sticks!

You can't be serious. Am I on Candid Camera?? Is someone going to jump out from behind a curtain and say, "Gotcha" and laugh at me for arguing with you about this stuff?

So did God change His mind? I don't know. Maybe it's better to say He "entered a mew phase" or "transitioned in the way He operated as part of an eternal divine plan." Whatever. I'll let you figure that out.

But am I to believe that you do the Guilt Offering, the Sin Offering, Burnt Offering, and that you have a pen full of goats and bulls to use for your sacrifices?

Do you shave? That's forbidden (Lev 19:27). Do you stone women for getting married and bleeding on their wedding night?

I must be on Candid Camera.

[notofworks]

There is a natural outflow of certain actions from a right heart.

You seem to be stressing one thing, while the Legalist stresses the other. It's BOTH.

James 2:14 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.


Understood. But the Illegalist and I are talking about salvation. And I'm asking, if any of those works fall off, do I lose my salvation? I think I'm hearing from The Illegalist, that I do.

[TheLegalist]

Was disobeying "natural law" ever punishable as sin?

Sure but it's a matter of application. Not all sin unto death. For a man to dress like a woman and woman like a man was against the nature of God's will for what man was supposed to be like as well as woman. Woman are not to take upon that which God ordained them to do and men as well. For a man not to provide as head it would be a sin. As he has forsaken his divine duties.
Defiling onesself with food was not a matter of "spiritual" uncleaness but of the flesh. God sees obedience to do what is best as righteous and not and unrighteous. Whatever action it is. God gave you a body as a blessing and he wants you to take care of it. Thus God gave eating instructions was it a cause of contention to the Gentiles who where coming to God? No! As it directly is not a "spiritual matter" of defling but a physical matter. Thus it is way down on the list still has meaning. Heavier matters must be addressed first then as God leads and they grow they should understand the others aspects of God's will as they study the his Word.

[KWSS1976]

NOW you can always get rebaptised everytime you sin that away you know your covered...lol.

[KWSS1976]

Leg.. they all dressed the same back then...so you will have to do better then that....

[notofworks]

NOW you can always get rebaptised everytime you sin that away you know your covered...lol.


Well, recently we discovered that Mizpeh believes that baptism forgives sin. So just to be safe, just in case she's right, I've been baptized 718 times in the last 3 weeks. And just to make sure it actually worked, I was baptized each time by both formulas, so actually it's 1,426 times for 718 sins. My skin is shriveled up like a prune.

[mizpeh]

Well, recently we discovered that Mizpeh believes that baptism forgives sin. So just to be safe, just in case she's right, I've been baptized 718 times in the last 3 weeks. And just to make sure it actually worked, I was baptized each time by both formulas, so actually it's 1,426 times for 718 sins. My skin is shriveled up like a prune.That's right...make fun of what I believe without ever engaging what I actually wrote and then further proceed to misrepresent what I said! :foottap

[KWSS1976]

Well if one says baptism forgives sin...then everytime you sin you must get rebaptised so you can get the sin removed...If one was to say that...

[notofworks]

That's right...make fun of what I believe without ever engaging what I actually wrote and then further proceed to misrepresent what I said! :foottap

I did engage what you wrote! You said that baptism forgives sins! But you gotta admit that my "prune" line was pretty funny!:lol

[notofworks]

Well if one says baptism forgives sin...then everytime you sin you must get rebaptised so you can get the sin removed...If one was to say that...


Yesterday was rough. I said some bad stuff on the freeway so we went through quite a bit of water. By bill's gonna be brutal this month.

[mizpeh]

I did engage what you wrote! You said that baptism forgives sins! But you gotta admit that my "prune" line was pretty funny!:lolSaying "baptism forgives sins" can be misleading.

[KWSS1976]

Really to be truly saved you must repeat the whole 10 step process over again...Because once you sin you are lost again so you must repeat the whole process over again..Cause if you sin then you don't have the Holyghost so therefore you have to go get the Holyghost again speak in tongues repent,baptised again the whole nine yards..

[notofworks]

Saying "baptism forgives sins" can be misleading.

Would you prefer, "Forgiveness takes place at baptism"?

[KWSS1976]

Wait I thought Forgiveness took place at Repentance...So what does the water do....

[TheLegalist]

You can't be serious. Am I on Candid Camera?? Is someone going to jump out from behind a curtain and say, "Gotcha" and laugh at me for arguing with you about this stuff?

So did God change His mind? I don't know. Maybe it's better to say He "entered a mew phase" or "transitioned in the way He operated as part of an eternal divine plan." Whatever. I'll let you figure that out.

But am I to believe that you do the Guilt Offering, the Sin Offering, Burnt Offering, and that you have a pen full of goats and bulls to use for your sacrifices?

Do you shave? That's forbidden (Lev 19:27). Do you stone women for getting married and bleeding on their wedding night?

I must be on Candid Camera.

hmmm so the OT speaks nothing of righteousness at all anymore. hmmm interesting. Considering Paul says different. So God's natural law of design and order unto purpose changed? Sorry but that doesn't change nor can it until heaven and earth pass away. Man was created for something as was woman. The creative order of God is complete and all is good for it's purpose and provided to us to know by his Word and through prayer.

So you basically make fun of God's law at the expense of justifying your position? Everything has a purpose and was ordained of God. Some as type and shadow and other as pure light. Somethings as in procedures change but those are based upon reality and shadow/type thus not done away but realized more perfectly in another way. Just as passover is seen more perfectly now but not done away. Why would you need to offer those offerings? They are but shadow and type. Though you could offer a offering unto God if you choose but a sin offering would not be about sin but rememberance and seeing the realization of Christ in it. Everything you do in life points to him and is honored by God when the heart is toward him in truth. Thus why Jews and James still did those things after the D,B,R and the Jews where zealous for the law. Why because they honored it from the heart and what it symbolized.

concerning those things.... why would we not do them or why would we. You explain why they are exempted?

So when you ask God about health and treating yoru body right I guess you ignore what food was best and what he said about food right?

[notofworks]

Wait I thought Forgiveness took place at Repentance...So what does the water do....


You're gonna have to talk with Mizpeh on that one. I get all these heresies confused!:heeheehee

[TheLegalist]

Well if one says baptism forgives sin...then everytime you sin you must get rebaptised so you can get the sin removed...If one was to say that...

KWS I have explained this to you before and you still bring up your lame reasoning.

[TheLegalist]

You're gonna have to talk with Mizpeh on that one. I get all these heresies confused!:heeheehee

So is John 15 and the conditions to abide in Christ forensic or intrinsic to salvation?

[KWSS1976]

Lame reasoning...Do explain please....

[TheLegalist]

Lame reasoning...Do explain please....

you FAIL to realize the whole of what repentance is. It is turning to God and away from sin. A unbeliever TURNS OBEYS CHRIST COMMAND and is baptized to be IN HIM and in COVENANT! How does a person THAT IS IN COVENANT have sins forgiven. JUST LIKE ANY OTHER TIME HE OBEYS THE COMMAND to turn from sin and he will abide again unto life. The difference is one who is not IN covenant and coming INTO vs the one who is IN covenant and has covenant promises already given and citizenship established and rights realized. BIG DIFFERENCE!

[KWSS1976]

Ok jo goes to church goes and repents gets baptised filled with the Holyghost with the evidence that you guys look for... Ok jo goes postal at work kills his coworkers the next day..Ok at this point what does he have to do to be back into God Grace or saved again

[TheLegalist]

Ok jo goes to church goes and repents gets baptised filled with the Holyghost with the evidence that you guys look for... Ok jo goes postal at work kills his coworkers..Ok at this point what does he have to do to be back into God Grace or saved again

wow... real hard... :nah

The law of repentance....


Eze 18:5 "Suppose a man is righteous. He practices what is just and right,
Eze 18:6 does not eat pagan sacrifices on the mountains4 or pray to the idols5 of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor's wife, does not have sexual relations with a6 woman during her period,
Eze 18:7 does not oppress anyone, but gives the debtor back whatever was given in pledge,7 does not commit robbery,8 but gives his bread to the hungry and clothes the naked,
Eze 18:8 does not engage in usury or charge interest,9 but refrains10 from wrongdoing, promotes true justice11 between men,
Eze 18:9 and follows my statutes and observes my regulations by carrying them out.12 That man13 is righteous; he will certainly live,14 declares the sovereign LORD.
Eze 18:10 "Suppose such a man has15 a violent son who sheds blood and does any of these things16 mentioned previously
Eze 18:11 (though the father did not do any of them).17 He eats pagan sacrifices on the mountains,18 defiles his neighbor's wife,
Eze 18:12 oppresses the poor and the needy,19 commits robbery, does not give back what was given in pledge, prays to20 idols, performs abominable acts,
Eze 18:13 engages in usury and charges interest. Will he live? He will not! Because he has done all these abominable deeds he will certainly die.21 He will bear the responsibility for his own death.22
Eze 18:14 "But suppose he in turn has a son who notices all the sins his father commits, considers them, and does not follow his father's example.23
Eze 18:15 He does not eat pagan sacrifices on the mountains, does not pray to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor's wife,
Eze 18:16 does not oppress anyone or keep what has been given in pledge, does not commit robbery, gives his food to the hungry, and clothes the naked,
Eze 18:17 refrains from wrongdoing,24 does not engage in usury or charge interest, carries out my regulations and follows my statutes. He will not die for his father's iniquity;25 he will surely live.
Eze 18:18 As for his father, because he practices extortion, robs his brother, and does what is not good among his people, he will die for his iniquity.
Eze 18:19 "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not suffer26 for his father's iniquity?' When the son does what is just and right, and observes all my statutes and carries them out, he will surely live.
Eze 18:20 The person who sins is the one who will die. A son will not suffer27 for his father's iniquity, and a father will not suffer28 for his son's iniquity; the righteous person will be judged according to his righteousness, and the wicked person according to his wickedness.29
Eze 18:21 "But if the wicked person turns from all the sin he has committed and observes all my statutes and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
Eze 18:22 None of the sins he has committed will be held30 against him; because of the righteousness he has done, he will live.
Eze 18:23 Do I actually delight in the death of the wicked, declares the sovereign LORD? Do I not prefer that he turn from his wicked conduct and live?
Eze 18:24 "But if a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and practices wrongdoing according to all the abominable practices the wicked carry out, will he live? All his righteous acts will not be remembered; because of the unfaithful acts he has done and the sin he has committed, he will die.31

continued in the NT

1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.

[KWSS1976]

Why are you in the old testament??? We are talking new testament

[Pressing-On]

Why are you in the old testament??? We are talking new testament
I John 2:1

[TheLegalist]

Why are you in the old testament??? We are talking new testament

and here is the issue... as usual protestant types don't understand that the foundational teaching OR "schooling" comes from the OT. God has laws by which he operates and THEY DON'T CHANGE! The whole of Jesus actions and response are based on the OT which WAS HIS LAW GIVEN AT SINAI! Are you calling Jesus ignorant of his own covenants? Are you saying the basis of all God's law is contrary to each other? Well "MARCION" you are alive and well!

2Ti 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Jesus teachings was BASED off of the OT and is consistent WITH IT as I have pointed out a million times on here. Give or take several hundred thousand.

[KWSS1976]

But you will be the first one to say that the thief on the cross his salvation does not work today...Cause basically all he did is repent he did not even do that..He just ask jesus to remember him....and what did Jesus tell him....but when a one stepper brings it up what would you say....

[TheLegalist]

Leg.. they all dressed the same back then...so you will have to do better then that....

oh of course.... we have God again being stupid and giving laws for the heck of it that never had any real application or meaning. Heck you couldn't tell the difference at all. God you just love to play around and just like making us do things without any regard or meaning for anyone. Ha.... what a God!

[TheLegalist]

But you will be the first one to say that the thief on the cross his salvation does not work today...Cause basically all he did is repent he did not even do that..He just ask jesus to remember him....and what did Jesus tell him....but when a one stepper brings it up what would you say....

ohh that's right... now we have salvation WITHOUT repentance at all. SHAZAM there ya go! I mean he was accessing the New Covenant right? Oh of course... I mean the testator was still alive and was not resurrected yet.... thus he has access to it right? :nah

[KWSS1976]

So according to the New testament what would Jo have to do to be saved again...

[notofworks]

hmmm so the OT speaks nothing of righteousness at all anymore. hmmm interesting. Considering Paul says different. So God's natural law of design and order unto purpose changed? Sorry but that doesn't change nor can it until heaven and earth pass away. Man was created for something as was woman. The creative order of God is complete and all is good for it's purpose and provided to us to know by his Word and through prayer.

So you basically make fun of God's law at the expense of justifying your position? Everything has a purpose and was ordained of God. Some as type and shadow and other as pure light. Somethings as in procedures change but those are based upon reality and shadow/type thus not done away but realized more perfectly in another way. Just as passover is seen more perfectly now but not done away. Why would you need to offer those offerings? They are but shadow and type. Though you could offer a offering unto God if you choose but a sin offering would not be about sin but rememberance and seeing the realization of Christ in it. Everything you do in life points to him and is honored by God when the heart is toward him in truth. Thus why Jews and James still did those things after the D,B,R and the Jews where zealous for the law. Why because they honored it from the heart and what it symbolized.

concerning those things.... why would we not do them or why would we. You explain why they are exempted?

So when you ask God about health and treating yoru body right I guess you ignore what food was best and what he said about food right?


This makes no sense. It's hard to even respond. There's not an ounce of logic, theology, or reason to it. So just answer the simple questions I asked...do you observe all the law and if not, which do you obey and why? How do you choose which part of the law to follow and which to ignore?

You've totally caught me off guard with this genetic/law/food stuff. I'm used to the step stuff, but this? Wow. I'd have to imagine you're all alone on this one, unless you enroll on a Seventh Day Adventist forum.

[notofworks]

ohh that's right... now we have salvation WITHOUT repentance at all. SHAZAM there ya go! I mean he was accessing the New Covenant right? Oh of course... I mean the testator was still alive and was not resurrected yet.... thus he has access to it right? :nah


No, no. The thief certainly DID repent! He very much repented.

[TheLegalist]

So according to the New testament what would Jo have to do to be saved again...

reeaaaaaaallllly you ask this after ALL I have written.... LOL! :ursofunny :thumbsup

[TheLegalist]

No, no. The thief certainly DID repent! He very much repented.

seeems KWS doesn't think so. I would say he did but hey... Still not under the NC.

[Jeffrey]

TheLegalist seems to think the New Covenant was literally something brand-new, rather than seeing the coming Messiah connected as part of a faithful plan of God to bring about salvation for the entire world. The cross was not a Plan B. When you use words like "accessing" a covenant, and require the so-called "testator" to have to be dead and resurrected before The Messiah, as the Son of God, has Sovereign Power to save whom he wants to save.

The Thieves on the cross have always been treated with contempt by 3-Steppers, and I don't blame them. They risk their entire worldview crumbling. This is where they cling to Darby and Scofield's twisted Dispensationalist theology.

[KWSS1976]

The thief did not out right ask for forgiveness is what I was saying...He just said this day remember me...or something to that effect

[TheLegalist]

TheLegalist seems to think the New Covenant was literally something brand-new, rather than seeing the coming Messiah connected as part of a faithful plan of God to bring about salvation for the entire world. The cross was not a Plan B. When you use words like "accessing" a covenant, and require the so-called "testator" to have to be dead and resurrected before The Messiah, as the Son of God, has Sovereign Power to save whom he wants to save.

The Thieves on the cross have always been treated with contempt by 3-Steppers, and I don't blame them. They risk their entire worldview crumbling. This is where they cling to Darby and Scofield's twisted Dispensationalist theology.


nice, poor reading and comprehension skills. You should know by now and stop skewing what I have said all along. The new covenant was based upon that which was old but realized through the death and quickening Spirit of Christ.

I have no problem with the theif on the cross not contempt. He was under what he was under.

[Jeffrey]

nice, poor reading and comprehension skills. You should know by now and stop skewing what I have said all along. The new covenant was based upon that which was old but realized through the death and quickening Spirit of Christ.

I have no problem with the theif on the cross not contempt. He was under what he was under.

"under what he was under"
Scriptural language here?

[TheLegalist]

"under what he was under"
Scriptural language here?

he was under the old covenant...

[mfblume]

The thief was not in a day when atonement had already been made. Atonement was not made until after Christ arose the third day and ascended to the holiest in Heaven.

At any rate, Jesus told the disciples at least 43 days after the thief died to BEGIN preaching repentance and remission of sins in His name at Jerusalem after the received the power from on high, which is Spirit Baptism. And they BEGAN preaching that message on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38. Why preach something else?

[TheLegalist]

The thief was not in a day when atonement had already been made. Atonement was not made until after Christ arose the third day and ascended to the holiest in Heaven.

At any rate, Jesus told the disciples at least 43 days after the thief died to BEGIN preaching repentance and remission of sins in His name at Jerusalem after the received the power from on high, which is Spirit Baptism. And they BEGAN preaching that message on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38. Why preach something else?

Mike... they don't want to get it. That's the thing. They have false views of works/law etc... which then goes and floods over to poor views of atonement and baptism, judgment and covenant requirements unto eternal life.

[mfblume]

The thief was not in a day when atonement had already been made. Atonement was not made until after Christ arose the third day and ascended to the holiest in Heaven.

At any rate, Jesus told the disciples at least 43 days after the thief died to BEGIN preaching repentance and remission of sins in His name at Jerusalem after the received the power from on high, which is Spirit Baptism. And they BEGAN preaching that message on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38. Why preach something else?

Luk 24:45-49 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (46) And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning (It had never before been preached, but would be preached after Acts 2) at Jerusalem. (48) And ye are witnesses of these things. (49) And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Act 2:36-39 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.


I just preached this Sunday night and we had a wonderful baptism in Jesus' name! ON RESURRECTION SUNDAY! Woohoo! :bliss

[Timmy]

he was under the old covenant...

What "old covenant"? That thief didn't even need an animal sacrifice for his salvation! What what that all about?

[mfblume]

What "old covenant"? That thief didn't even need an animal sacrifice for his salvation! What what that all about?

The point is that the thief was not under the new covenant for Christ had not even made atonement yet.

[Timmy]

The point is that the thief was not under the new covenant for Christ had not even made atonement yet.

Is it harder to be saved now, under the new covenant?

[Jeffrey]

The thief was not in a day when atonement had already been made. Atonement was not made until after Christ arose the third day and ascended to the holiest in Heaven.

At any rate, Jesus told the disciples at least 43 days after the thief died to BEGIN preaching repentance and remission of sins in His name at Jerusalem after the received the power from on high, which is Spirit Baptism. And they BEGAN preaching that message on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38. Why preach something else?

Actually, forgiveness and remission of sins was done prior to the Acts account, or the 43-day timetable. Secondly, we agree that the atonement was eschatologically significant, and that the access through Jesus after his resurrection was established. At the same time, it is undeniable to reject that the thief on the cross was granted salvation by faith. Of course, justification by faith is the whole of our salvation-history, going back to Genesis.

[pelathais]

he was under the old covenant...
Was he circumcised? Was he even Jewish?

[pelathais]

Is it harder to be saved now, under the new covenant?
Yup. You've gotta pull yourself down from the cross before you bleed to death or die of exposure and exhaustion, drag your limp and broken body into the city, ask what day it is - just to make certain that you CAN be saved, find an Apostolic minister (but NOT one of those Septuagint quoting First Century apostles), convince him that you really really are sorry for your sins and that you're not just doing this to date his 40 year old daughter, be baptized by complete immersion and hope that the old boy says the "magic words" - and then spring out of the water speaking some dialect of Medo-Parthia that will be recognized as "tongues" by some one close by, and then start wearing long sleeved shirts and plain oxford dress shoes WITHOUT the waxed tipped shoe laces.

You must scrape off all facial hair including guessing just exactly what this preacher believes to be the "allowable" length of a sideburn and not confuse that "standard" with another one in another town, you must pay 10% of your GROSS income as a tithe directly to the preacher - cash will help him avoid the tithe that he owes but never pays and get him around the IRS, then you must show up 4 times a week at the church's regular services (early for prayer and stay late for altar work), sing in the choir, teach Sunday School, drive a bus, mow the grass and bully the Baptists and the Wal-Mart. Then, and only then can you hope to maybe be saved. It's all still pretty iffy, though.

[BeenThinkin]

Yup. You've gotta pull yourself down from the cross before you bleed to death or die of exposure and exhaustion, drag your limp and broken body into the city, ask what day it is - just to make certain that you CAN be save, find an Apostolic minister (but NOT one of those Septuagint quoting First Century apostles), convince him that you really really are sorry for your sins and that you're not just doing this to date his 40 year old daughter, be baptized by complete immersion and hope that the old boy says the "magic words" - and then spring out of the water speaking some dialect of Medo-Parthia that will be recognized as "tongues" by some one close by, and then start wearing long sleeved shirts and plain oxford dress shoes WITHOUT the waxed tipped shoe laces.

You must scrape off all facial hair including guessing just exactly what this preacher believes to be the "allowable" length of a sideburn and not confuse that "standard" with another one in another town, you must pay 10% of your GROSS income as a tithe directly to the preacher - cash will help him avoid the tithe that he owes but never pays and get him around the IRS, then you must show up 4 times a week at the church's regular services (early for prayer and stay late for altar work), sing in the choir, teach Sunday School, drive a bus, mow the grass and bully the Baptists and the Wal-Mart. Then, and only then can you hope to maybe be saved. It's all still pretty iffy, though.

Wow! Well said. More truth than fiction! But, you did forget to mention that if and when you might consider yourself saved, you would then wake up each day, "scared to death you might still go to hell!"

Just.......
BeenThinkin

[mfblume]

Actually, forgiveness and remission of sins was done prior to the Acts account, or the 43-day timetable.

Maybe a shadow of it, but other than that, no.

Secondly, we agree that the atonement was eschatologically significant, and that the access through Jesus after his resurrection was established. At the same time, it is undeniable to reject that the thief on the cross was granted salvation by faith. Of course, justification by faith is the whole of our salvation-history, going back to Genesis.

One cannot be baptized into His death until after Christ had died and resurrected. All before the cross are saved by the same blood of Christ that occurred in time and space two thousand years ago. All had to show a faith that worked by way of a shadow dependent upon the cross in order to be saved by the atonement once it occurred. Such a shadow corresponds to our repentance and water baptism.

[mfblume]

Is it harder to be saved now, under the new covenant?

No.

[notofworks]

No.


I don't know. I think Timmy may have a legitimate point....IF.....one has to do all the tongues stuff. I mean, it's pretty fool-proof to get a bull & goat and drain the blood and go once a year and do all the offerings....it's lot of work, but hey, if I kill the goat, it's dead and I'm done.

On the other hand, if I have to go to the altar for 600 consecutive Sundays and beg God for the Holy Ghost and STILL maybe never get it, I might just opt for the OT plan.....

.......IF I have to do all that stuff.

[mfblume]

I don't know. I think Timmy may have a legitimate point....IF.....one has to do all the tongues stuff. I mean, it's pretty fool-proof to get a bull & goat and drain the blood and go once a year and do all the offerings....it's lot of work, but hey, if I kill the goat, it's dead and I'm done.

On the other hand, if I have to go to the altar for 600 consecutive Sundays and beg God for the Holy Ghost and STILL maybe never get it, I might just opt for the OT plan.....

.......IF I have to do all that stuff.

It is not us who does it. It is God who does the tongues stuff. :) The Spirit gives utterance, not self. And begging God is not the key. I personally know from experience that I sought the Spirit baptism for six months. The trouble was, that I knew I was not letting go of some sins, and when I let go of them I got the Spirit right away! I can only go by my experience.

It is not hard. Letting go of sin may be what is hard.

[notofworks]

It is not us who does it. It is God who does the tongues stuff. :) The Spirit gives utterance, not self. And begging God is not the key. I personally know from experience that I sought the Spirit baptism for six months. The trouble was, that I knew I was not letting go of some sins, and when I let go of them I got the Spirit right away! I can only go by my experience.

It is not hard. Letting go of sin may be what is hard.


That's always it, though.....if someone can't "Get the Holy Ghost" we just throw out the tried and true, "It's your fault" at them. And what we're saying is, as soon as YOU'RE GOOD ENOUGH you can get saved.

So you're saying that as soon as we let go of sin that we'll speak in tongues? What about the person who walks into a church never having heard of anything and, supposedly, "speaks in tongues"? Did they "let go of sin"? They haven't even had a chance to!

I'm sorry, Mike, but your post is filled with works....in my opinion. "As soon as you're good enough, you'll speak in tongues.

But while we were yet SINNERS, Christ died for the ungodly.

[KWSS1976]

Well someone find out who died first the thief or Jesus and you will have your answer...I have heard Jesus died first so whats that mean........

[Jeffrey]

Maybe a shadow of it, but other than that, no.



One cannot be baptized into His death until after Christ had died and resurrected. All before the cross are saved by the same blood of Christ that occurred in time and space two thousand years ago. All had to show a faith that worked by way of a shadow dependent upon the cross in order to be saved by the atonement once it occurred. Such a shadow corresponds to our repentance and water baptism.

I think we are having just a smidge of progress in our agreement.

I'm just curious why you believe the restored covenant ("new" covenant) requires anything more than faith to be effective... for initiatory/conversion purposes.

Your last few sentences: Faith corresponds with a shadow of water baptism and repentance? That's really stretching the undies, Mike.

[Jeffrey]

It is not us who does it. It is God who does the tongues stuff. :) The Spirit gives utterance, not self. And begging God is not the key. I personally know from experience that I sought the Spirit baptism for six months. The trouble was, that I knew I was not letting go of some sins, and when I let go of them I got the Spirit right away! I can only go by my experience.

It is not hard. Letting go of sin may be what is hard.

Wow, Mike.

Your post assumed the reason why some don't get the Spirit baptism is because they have certain sins that you didn't have? How do you "let go" of certain sins? I thought the Spirit was an empowerment to overcome sin? When you "let go" of these particular sins you talked about, did you ever struggle with them again? Ever fall into their trap again? Perfection ever since? If you did, and that's what kept you from receiving the Spirit, do you then "lose" the Spirit?

[notofworks]

Wow, Mike.

Your post assumed the reason why some don't get the Spirit baptism is because they have certain sins that you didn't have? How do you "let go" of certain sins? I thought the Spirit was an empowerment to overcome sin? When you "let go" of these particular sins you talked about, did you ever struggle with them again? Ever fall into their trap again? Perfection ever since? If you did, and that's what kept you from receiving the Spirit, do you then "lose" the Spirit?


I think Mike's post really illustrates the "other side" very well. If tongues really is a necessary element to salvation and IF God withholds the gift of the Holy Spirit until sin is eliminated from one's life, then clearly the position Mike supports is a system that requires man to get better before he is saved.

And such a statement is really, really, really, really scary.

This is really where I'd hope we would eventually arrive...the place where it's clear that "Three Steppers" believe in a system of salvation by works, believe in a system where we earn our salvation.

Several of you have parsed scripture and laid out quite an impressive exegetical argument...much better than I could. But the nuts and bolts of the whole thing? There is a large group of people here who believe they've earned their salvation.

[TheLegalist]

Was he circumcised? Was he even Jewish?

does it matter? Point is all pointed to Christ.

[TheLegalist]

Well someone find out who died first the thief or Jesus and you will have your answer...I have heard Jesus died first so whats that mean........

Death only concerned the OLD. THe new is death to the old and bringing unto NEW LIFE. THus our new covenant is about life as much as death. So the new covenant could not take place until well after the death of Christ at minimum AFTER the resurrection and possible Pentecost as he also had to ascend to sit with authority at the right hand. Thus he could not be the administrator or mediator of the new until he was in position to do so. He also had 40 days of purity...

[TheLegalist]

I think Mike's post really illustrates the "other side" very well. If tongues really is a necessary element to salvation and IF God withholds the gift of the Holy Spirit until sin is eliminated from one's life, then clearly the position Mike supports is a system that requires man to get better before he is saved.

And such a statement is really, really, really, really scary.

This is really where I'd hope we would eventually arrive...the place where it's clear that "Three Steppers" believe in a system of salvation by works, believe in a system where we earn our salvation.

Several of you have parsed scripture and laid out quite an impressive exegetical argument...much better than I could. But the nuts and bolts of the whole thing? There is a large group of people here who believe they've earned their salvation.

Is Christs command only forensic or intrinsic to salvation and eternal life?

oh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.
Joh 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
Joh 15:8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.
Joh 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.
Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
Joh 15:11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
Joh 15:12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends.
Joh 15:14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.
Joh 15:15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.
Joh 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
Joh 15:17 These things I command you, so that you will love one another.


What about
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

What about obedience?

Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Losing your life completely?

Mat 19:16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?"
Mat 19:17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."
Mat 19:18 He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Mat 19:20 The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?"
Mat 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

What about keep the commandments and negating all to follow Christ.

Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

obeying?

Rom 2:6 He14 will reward 15 each one according to his works :16
Rom 2:7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality,


what about BY perserverance in good works?

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

What about commandments?

[pelathais]

The point is that the thief was not under the new covenant for Christ had not even made atonement yet.
Do we have a special dispensation for the thief? The Law couldn't save him (Hebrews 10:4), and he died (presumably) before Jesus rose from the dead and certainly before Jesus ascended into heaven 40 days after that...

Just how was Jesus able to keep His promise to the repentant thief?

[pelathais]

One cannot be baptized into His death until after Christ had died and resurrected. All before the cross are saved by the same blood of Christ that occurred in time and space two thousand years ago. All had to show a faith that worked by way of a shadow dependent upon the cross in order to be saved by the atonement once it occurred. Such a shadow corresponds to our repentance and water baptism.
So then, you're saying that baptism is NOT essential for salvation because:

"ALL before the cross are saved by the same blood of Christ..." and,

"All had to show a faith that worked by way of a shadow dependent upon the cross..."

They were all saved by faith in the coming Messiah. We today are saved by faith in what that Messiah did approximately 2,000 years ago.

Right?

[mfblume]

Whew, got some catching up to do here! So many posts.

Do we have a special dispensation for the thief? The Law couldn't save him (Hebrews 10:4), and he died (presumably) before Jesus rose from the dead and certainly before Jesus ascended into heaven 40 days after that...

Just how was Jesus able to keep His promise to the repentant thief?

Anything, that occurred before the cross is one bracket of its own, including law, promise and Adam and Eve. And the HEART is the important factor. I already said this, which should cover all issues of this topic, but when God sees the heart that has the kind of faith THAT WORKS, it is the faith that works that saves.

It's the same situation as in the case of the hypothetical picture of someone who repented and is intent on getting baptized in obedience and dies on the way to church. Their heart had faith that works. That heart's faith was going to do something. That one is saved. Same with the thief. Jesus saw the heart of that man that had faith that works. He was saved.

It's so simple, but like Mizpeh said, so many here are missing the obvious issue that faith saves, but it is faith that works that saves, and not any other kind of faith.

So then, you're saying that baptism is NOT essential for salvation

No I am not. Baptism is part of salvation. I made that clear.

because:

"ALL before the cross are saved by the same blood of Christ..." and,

"All had to show a faith that worked by way of a shadow dependent upon the cross..."

They were all saved by faith in the coming Messiah. We today are saved by faith in what that Messiah did approximately 2,000 years ago.

Right?

No, I said that anything required to be DONE before the cross was a shadow of repentance and baptism that is REQUIRED AFTER THE CROSS. And these are not done by way of works without faith, but rather faith that works.

[mfblume]

Wow, Mike.

Your post assumed the reason why some don't get the Spirit baptism is because they have certain sins that you didn't have?

No it does not. lol. I already said I can only speak from experience, and that was my experience, so I cannot speak for other reasons.

I think Mike's post really illustrates the "other side" very well. If tongues really is a necessary element to salvation and IF God withholds the gift of the Holy Spirit until sin is eliminated from one's life, then clearly the position Mike supports is a system that requires man to get better before he is saved.


No, it means repentance is required to get saved. I had not truly repented.


And such a statement is really, really, really, really scary.

When misconstrued like you did with it, sure.

This is really where I'd hope we would eventually arrive...the place where it's clear that "Three Steppers" believe in a system of salvation by works, believe in a system where we earn our salvation.

You shock me. After all the statements I made that state baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more a work than repentance, and you still say this! Wow. Brother, I thought you were more honest about this than that.

Several of you have parsed scripture and laid out quite an impressive exegetical argument...much better than I could. But the nuts and bolts of the whole thing? There is a large group of people here who believe they've earned their salvation.

You really shock me with your words today. I was hestitant to agree. but now agree with Leg. that you simply do not want to see another perspective. I am disappointed.

Again, baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more a work than repentance is because repentance is reliance upon the work of the cross alone for forgiveness, and baptism likewise is useless without faith that the cross saves, and Spirit infilling shows God giving utterance for tongues taking away anything in our minds that might think we do not need the cross and God's power to effect anything. but I already said that, and to twist my words like you have here shows me you were not interested in what I actually believe after clearly stating it.

[mfblume]

I think we are having just a smidge of progress in our agreement.

I have no concern in agreeing with your stance but simply agreeing with scripture.

I'm just curious why you believe the restored covenant ("new" covenant) requires anything more than faith to be effective... for initiatory/conversion purposes.
Because the covenant simply said so.

Your last few sentences: Faith corresponds with a shadow of water baptism and repentance? That's really stretching the undies, Mike.

I think not. :) baptism doth also now even save us. How you can avoid that one is stretching things, bro. ;)

I don't know. I think Timmy may have a legitimate point....IF.....one has to do all the tongues stuff. I mean, it's pretty fool-proof to get a bull & goat and drain the blood and go once a year and do all the offerings....it's lot of work, but hey, if I kill the goat, it's dead and I'm done.

On the other hand, if I have to go to the altar for 600 consecutive Sundays and beg God for the Holy Ghost and STILL maybe never get it, I might just opt for the OT plan.....

.......IF I have to do all that stuff.

All we do is speak as God givers the utterance. Anyone who speaks in tongues knows this. How can "all this tongues stuff" be a work like you say if YOU speak in tongues and KNOW that it is no effort? Wow, bro. You shock me again.

[mfblume]

Mike... they don't want to get it. That's the thing. They have false views of works/law etc... which then goes and floods over to poor views of atonement and baptism, judgment and covenant requirements unto eternal life.

I agree. Notice there is no inkling of atonement concept in their words. KWSS even said that the difference of the cross is nothing as though it is a stretch to say that before the cross and after the cross there would be a huge difference. Wow. I ,mean, wow. WE are the ones speaking about atonement and covenantal issues that require an action on our parts by way of standing as faith that works, and by non means Works without faith. And that corresponds to James' words quite perfectly. It's a wonder Noah had to build an ark according to this doctrine!! Why did Abel have to offer a better sacrifice? Why did Abraham take one step at all to go to a land God promised? All of these acted by faith and that action was required and did not take the place of salvation by works any more than baptism and Spirit infilling do. Read Hebrews 11. ACTIONS AFTER ACTION AFTER ACTION by FAITH. They acted without any evidence that what was said was true, making it an act of faith. And that action alone did not save them since it was faith that works and was action of faith.

So, let us rip out the entire 11th chapter of Hebrews, for that is saying exacvtly what we have related to these folk. And let us rip out James 2, and, for Heaven's sake, remove Peter's words that say "Baptism doth also now even save us."

[mfblume]

Lest the actual beliefs we propose get buried with strawmen arguments:

The principle of why repentance is done is the same as baptism. Neither are works of flesh and self to make self righteous. And making self righteous is the ONLY ERROR of salvation by works in the context Paul meant it.

The correct emphasis is about the principle of what sort of works repentance and baptism are, without the baptismal regenerationalist argument which is error.

The issue is whether or not they are self efforts that are done through self-s abilities to make self righteous without God's grace making us righteous. Why does this keep getting away from THAT issue? That is the issue Paul dealt with in speaking of salvation by works, which is the implication folks give when they accuse people of saying we must speak in tongues to be saved?

Neither baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are actions of self making self righteous.

The bible never says the blood is applied at repentance.

The bible does not say what makes the blood applicable. That is something taken from the passover in Exodus where the blood is put on the doorway and the New testament does not use that language of applying the blood. So why use that reasoning? Let us use the reasoning articulated in the epistles.

Paul's arguments against "Works" were directed against "THE WORKS OF THE LAW." Evangelicals apply these statements to try and argue their thoughts on water baptism. While there can be a sort of "New Testament era" application concerning "the Works of the Law" (see any dress code thread), water baptism exists as something entirely apart from all of that.

Which is why baptism and tongues should not be referred to in speaking of what someone does to be saved, as though they were works of the law. So folks have to stop using that language, since that basis of works of law are what they are implying when they use it.


Water baptism and repentance are two different things that accomplish two different things in the life of the believer. Neither are "works" in New Testament theology. So no one here can criticize people who believe we need Spirit Baptism as part of new birth by saying we require tongues to be save

[TheLegalist]

I agree. Notice there is no inkling of atonement concept in their words. KWSS even said that the difference of the cross is nothing as though it is a stretch to say that before the cross and after the cross there would be a huge difference. Wow. I ,mean, wow. WE are the ones speaking about atonement and covenantal issues that require an action on our parts by way of standing as faith that works, and by non means Works without faith. And that corresponds to James' words quite perfectly. It's a wonder Noah had to build an ark according to this doctrine!! Why did Abel have to offer a better sacrifice? Why did Abraham take one step at all to go to a land God promised? All of these acted by faith and that action was required and did not take the place of salvation by works any more than baptism and Spirit infilling do. Read Hebrews 11. ACTIONS AFTER ACTION AFTER ACTION by FAITH. They acted without any evidence that what was said was true, making it an act of faith. And that action alone did not save them since it was faith that works and was action of faith.

So, let us rip out the entire 11th chapter of Hebrews, for that is saying exacvtly what we have related to these folk. And let us rip out James 2, and, for Heaven's sake, remove Peter's words that say "Baptism doth also now even save us."

very well put. As I have said forever.... works is about source. God is the author or we are the author of us saving ourselves. Heb 5:9 makes this teaching ABUNDANTLY CLEAR...

Heb 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

thus our source of obedience/works is that of Christ NOT OURSELVES. The problem is they want to group any activity as "personal works" and by doing so they make a mockery of the Word and a total contradiction. We can explain "faith that works" they can't. They make obedience "forensic" to salvation vs intrinsic. The Bible clearly teaches intrinsic relationship unto judgment to obtain.

[Pressing-On]

very well put. As I have said forever.... works is about source. God is the author or we are the author of us saving ourselves. Heb 5:9 makes this teaching ABUNDANTLY CLEAR...

Heb 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

thus our source of obedience/works is that of Christ NOT OURSELVES. The problem is they want to group any activity as "personal works" and by doing so they make a mockery of the Word and a total contradiction. We can explain "faith that works" they can't. They make obedience "forensic" to salvation vs intrinsic. The Bible clearly teaches intrinsic relationship unto judgment to obtain.

It's either interesting or sad that we used to converse and share, in the past (FCF, NFCF), on our views of various scriptures. Now we seem to come here to defend the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Of course, that is probably just my opinion. ;)

[mfblume]

very well put. As I have said forever.... works is about source. God is the author or we are the author of us saving ourselves. Heb 5:9 makes this teaching ABUNDANTLY CLEAR...

Heb 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

thus our source of obedience/works is that of Christ NOT OURSELVES. The problem is they want to group any activity as "personal works" and by doing so they make a mockery of the Word and a total contradiction. We can explain "faith that works" they can't. They make obedience "forensic" to salvation vs intrinsic. The Bible clearly teaches intrinsic relationship unto judgment to obtain.

And such reasoning from scripture is simply avoided. Anyone with any sense of understanding covenantal works realizes that every covenant has a part for each party to accomplish, otherwise the covenant is not in effect. To say all one needs is faith and repentance are TWO STEPS whether the "one step" folks agree or not. And baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more works for salvation than those two are.

God's part is to save and our part is to obey. If we claim God saves, then it is ridiculously moot for anyone to claim we believe in salvation by works.

The only way we could ever espouse salvation by works is to DENY that the cross is required in any form for us to be saved by baptism and Spirit infilling. Ironically, though. KWSS and others claim there is no real difference between the times before and after the cross. This implies that the cross is not necessary to save! And yet you and I are accused of salvation by works without the cross! Go figure.

[mfblume]

It's either interesting or sad that we used to converse and share, in the past (FCF, NFCF), on our views of various scriptures. Now we seem to come here to defend the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Of course, that is probably just my opinion. ;)

We'll see days more sorry than this, sister. Unfortunately, watch.

I think apostolic stances should be protected here. After all, we disallow attacks against Oneness.

[Pressing-On]

And such reasoning from scripture is simply avoided. Anyone with any sense of understanding covenantal works realizes that every covenant has a part for each party to accomplish, otherwise the covenant is not in effect. To say all one needs is faith and repentance are TWO STEPS whether the "one step" folks agree or not. And baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more works for salvation than those two are.

God's part is to save and our part is to obey. If we claim God saves, then it is ridiculously moot for anyone to claim we believe in salvation by works.

The only way we could ever espouse salvation by works is to DENY that the cross is required in any form for us to be saved by baptism and Spirit infilling. Ironically, though. KWSS and others claim there is no real difference between the times before and after the cross. This implies that the cross is not necessary to save! And yet you and I are accused of salvation by works without the cross! Go figure.

Very well said! There is just not anything else that could be said on this subject. We are walking in circles, articulating and arguing the same points over and over and over. I'm done! :thumbsup

[mfblume]

Very well said! There is just not anything else that could be said on this subject. We are walking in circles, articulating and arguing the same points over and over and over. I'm done! :thumbsup

Me, too. All that can be done is that our thoughts on how works are useless without dependence on the cross to save is to shove them further beneath a strawman argument.

[Pressing-On]

We'll see days more sorry than this, sister. Unfortunately, watch.

I think apostolic stances should be protected here. After all, we disallow attacks against Oneness.
Perhaps, if you feel led to do that. I can see why others haven't stuck around though. I used to think they should, but now I see why they don't. But, again, I think it would and should be a personal decision and one that I would respect either way.

[Pressing-On]

Me, too. All that can be done is that our thoughts on how works are useless without dependence on the cross to save will only be shoved further beneath a strawman argument.

Agree! :thumbsup

[TheLegalist]

It's either interesting or sad that we used to converse and share, in the past (FCF, NFCF), on our views of various scriptures. Now we seem to come here to defend the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Of course, that is probably just my opinion. ;)

sadly it is nothing but defending the faith anymore on these boards that now seem to be overun with sympathists to false teaching. Want to argue about minute things like preference in standards applied.... ok whatever. BASIC TEACHING ON what the basics are thrown out the window on what the covenant is let alone coming into covenant and baptism and God filling you with his Spirit. I see way to much reformed/protestant mentality on these boards and many don't even realize how much they are effected by such teachings. They may not hold to the hard theology but in part they have brought in bits and pieces that still smells the same with it's end results.

[notofworks]

No it does not. lol. I already said I can only speak from experience, and that was my experience, so I cannot speak for other reasons.

No, it means repentance is required to get saved. I had not truly repented.

When misconstrued like you did with it, sure.

You shock me. After all the statements I made that state baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more a work than repentance, and you still say this! Wow. Brother, I thought you were more honest about this than that.

You really shock me with your words today. I was hestitant to agree. but now agree with Leg. that you simply do not want to see another perspective. I am disappointed.

Again, baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more a work than repentance is because repentance is reliance upon the work of the cross alone for forgiveness, and baptism likewise is useless without faith that the cross saves, and Spirit infilling shows God giving utterance for tongues taking away anything in our minds that might think we do not need the cross and God's power to effect anything. but I already said that, and to twist my words like you have here shows me you were not interested in what I actually believe after clearly stating it.


Mike you can throw the verbal daggers and accusations all you like, but at the end of your tirade the fact still remains that you believe one has to eliminate sin from their life in order to get saved. I can sternly claim that because of the things you've said here and I'm just fitting the puzzle pieces together in a way you don't like. But they're your words, not mine.

You believe the infilling of the Holy Spirit as evidenced with tongues is a necessary part of salvation. You also said that sin must be eliminated from one's life in order to get those tongues.

Sorry Mike, but I'm just connecting the dots of your statements. I realize it's very uncomfortable for you, but it is what it is. And I'll strongly reject, every single time, the words of someone who believes we can improve ourselves and in so doing, improve our position with God and His grace.

I found it very scary when you first said it, and I find the table-turning to me, just as troubling.

Many in the "grace camp" accuse people in "your camp" of "salvation by works." Your position here only exacerbates that perception.

[pelathais]

does it matter? Point is all pointed to Christ.
Which is an excellent point. I'm glad to see you coming around to the idea that Jesus saves. If salvation came about through our own effort than it would no longer be a gift. Romans 5:19

[TheLegalist]

Which is an excellent point. I'm glad to see you coming around to the idea that Jesus saves. If salvation came about through our own effort than it would no longer be a gift. Romans 5:19

you need help as you lack comprehension

[TheLegalist]

Mike you can throw the verbal daggers and accusations all you like, but at the end of your tirade the fact still remains that you believe one has to eliminate sin from their life in order to get saved. I can sternly claim that because of the things you've said here and I'm just fitting the puzzle pieces together in a way you don't like. But they're your words, not mine.

You believe the infilling of the Holy Spirit as evidenced with tongues is a necessary part of salvation. You also said that sin must be eliminated from one's life in order to get those tongues.
Sorry Mike, but I'm just connecting the dots of your statements. I realize it's very uncomfortable for you, but it is what it is. And I'll strongly reject, every single time, the words of someone who believes we can improve ourselves and in so doing, improve our position with God and His grace.

I found it very scary when you first said it, and I find the table-turning to me, just as troubling.

Many in the "grace camp" accuse people in "your camp" of "salvation by works." Your position here only exacerbates that perception.

oh so TURNING FROM SIN/REPENTING is not necessary? ROFL!

[pelathais]

Whew, got some catching up to do here! So many posts.

Anything, that occurred before the cross is one bracket of its own, including law, promise and Adam and Eve. And the HEART is the important factor. I already said this, which should cover all issues of this topic, but when God sees the heart that has the kind of faith THAT WORKS, it is the faith that works that saves.

It's the same situation as in the case of the hypothetical picture of someone who repented and is intent on getting baptized in obedience and dies on the way to church. Their heart had faith that works. That heart's faith was going to do something. That one is saved. Same with the thief. Jesus saw the heart of that man that had faith that works. He was saved.
That's great. I hope you can understand the consternation of some of us who have been in this thread from the beginning. Only now has the discussion been turned around and pointed back at Jesus Christ and His gift of salvation. There was a knee jerk reaction early on that demanded that this focus be removed from Christ and be placed upon our own efforts.

It's so simple, but like Mizpeh said, so many here are missing the obvious issue that faith saves, but it is faith that works that saves, and not any other kind of faith.
What other kind of "faith" could anyone possibly have in Jesus Christ but faith that saves?

No I am not. Baptism is part of salvation. I made that clear.
But you said that "the guy who died in the car" was saved because of his faith. Baptism was not essential for him.

pelathais' earlier post:

They were all saved by faith in the coming Messiah. We today are saved by faith in what that Messiah did approximately 2,000 years ago.

Right?
No, I said that anything required to be DONE before the cross was a shadow of repentance and baptism that is REQUIRED AFTER THE CROSS. And these are not done by way of works without faith, but rather faith that works.
We are NOT saved by faith in what the Messiah did approximately 2,000 years ago?

woo-boy! Gotta start all over again:

Jesus saves.

Any arguments?

[pelathais]

Which is an excellent point. I'm glad to see you coming around to the idea that Jesus saves. If salvation came about through our own effort than it would no longer be a gift. Romans 5:19

you need help as you lack comprehension
I was "mistaken" in my belief that you "were coming around to the idea that Jesus saves?"

You do not believe that salvation is a gift, then?

[notofworks]

oh so TURNING FROM SIN/REPENTING is not necessary? ROFL!


You seriously need some help with your rolling problem.

You can't read. Or you don't want to. Mike said he had to "Let go of certain sins" in order to be saved/speak in tongues. And I'm saying that whether or not one stops sinning doesn't get them saved.

I've also seen many who "spoke in tongues" and were getting drunk and/or committing fornication before the day was done. So it seems some speak in tongues without "letting go of sin". So what's the argument now?

I'm theologically and spiritually offended by the notion that one can eliminate/let go/walk away from sin and improve their position with God.

[KWSS1976]

Futher more I have heard people speak in tongues and then turn around and cheat on there spouse....so whats up now......

[pelathais]

Further more I have heard people speak in tongues and then turn around and cheat on their spouse....so whats up now......
Sadly, the man who replaced me in the ministry because I was "hindering revival" sits in a prison cell today. And, I'm the "apostate?"

Nice.

[notofworks]

Sadly, the man who replaced me in the ministry because I was "hindering revival" sits in a prison cell today. And, I'm the "apostate?"

Nice.


Yeah, but did he speak in tongues?? That makes all the difference, Pel! :lol

[pelathais]

Yeah, but did he speak in tongues?? That makes all the difference, Pel! :lol
More than I, from what I heard for a time. Nobody brings him up anymore for some reason.

[notofworks]

More than I, from what I heard for a time. Nobody brings him up anymore for some reason.


Uncomfortable subject, I guess. Personally, I don't see how "tongues" can be connected to behavior, at any point, whether it be initially or later on.

[TheLegalist]

Futher more I have heard people speak in tongues and then turn around and cheat on there spouse....so whats up now......

hmmm then I question they had... maybe they are one of that had someone do the hallelujah tongue twist game... no matter the point still remains that reception is not by blind faith.

[TheLegalist]

That's great. I hope you can understand the consternation of some of us who have been in this thread from the beginning. Only now has the discussion been turned around and pointed back at Jesus Christ and His gift of salvation. There was a knee jerk reaction early on that demanded that this focus be removed from Christ and be placed upon our own efforts.

What other kind of "faith" could anyone possibly have in Jesus Christ but faith that saves?

But you said that "the guy who died in the car" was saved because of his faith. Baptism was not essential for him.


We are NOT saved by faith in what the Messiah did approximately 2,000 years ago?

woo-boy! Gotta start all over again:

Jesus saves.

Any arguments?

Yes he does but salvation comes with requirements!

[KWSS1976]

There was blind Bartimaeus..He had blind faith....God healed him....lol

[KWSS1976]

He had to have Blind faith cause he could not see Jesus.....

[TheLegalist]

:smack

[Timmy]

Yes he does but salvation comes with requirements!

So He'll save only those who deserve to be saved?

[TheLegalist]

So He'll save only those who deserve to be saved?

he will save the faithful.... pretty clear what scripture says just like Abraham. God gives mercy to the humble and resists the proud. hmmm sounds pretty conditional to me.

you don't understand Heb 5:9? Why do you fight scripture?

[TheLegalist]

I will ask this again from post 690....

Is Christs command only forensic or intrinsic to salvation and eternal life?

oh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.
Joh 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
Joh 15:8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.
Joh 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.
Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
Joh 15:11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
Joh 15:12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends.
Joh 15:14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.
Joh 15:15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.
Joh 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
Joh 15:17 These things I command you, so that you will love one another.


What about
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

What about obedience?

Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Losing your life completely?

Mat 19:16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?"
Mat 19:17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."
Mat 19:18 He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Mat 19:20 The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?"
Mat 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

What about keep the commandments and negating all to follow Christ.

Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

obeying?

Rom 2:6 He14 will reward 15 each one according to his works :16
Rom 2:7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality,


what about BY perserverance in good works?

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

What about commandments?

[pelathais]

he will save the faithful.... pretty clear what scripture says just like Abraham. God gives mercy to the humble and resists the proud. hmmm sounds pretty conditional to me.

you don't understand Heb 5:9? Why do you fight scripture?
T.L., you're probably a pretty good guy when you don't feel that you have to act so ornery. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Why do you keep moving past the subject of this thread? This thread isn't about "Christian Discipleship" or "How to Follow In the Footsteps of Our Savior," "How to Persevere" nor "What To Do After You've Received the Free Gift."

The thread simply deals with what it was that enabled to be saved in the first place. It was the cross.

This may seem to be a trivial point to some people but quite a bit of the NT is devoted to doing just this thing. Paul frequently felt that he had to remind the recipients of his epistles of what it was that saved them in the first place.

That's the topic of this thread. Everything that follows is vital and we talk about it all the time, but why is it so hard to get back to the cross?

[Jeffrey]

Whew, got some catching up to do here! So many posts.



Anything, that occurred before the cross is one bracket of its own, including law, promise and Adam and Eve. And the HEART is the important factor. I already said this, which should cover all issues of this topic, but when God sees the heart that has the kind of faith THAT WORKS, it is the faith that works that saves.

It's the same situation as in the case of the hypothetical picture of someone who repented and is intent on getting baptized in obedience and dies on the way to church. Their heart had faith that works. That heart's faith was going to do something. That one is saved. Same with the thief. Jesus saw the heart of that man that had faith that works. He was saved.

It's so simple, but like Mizpeh said, so many here are missing the obvious issue that faith saves, but it is faith that works that saves, and not any other kind of faith.



No I am not. Baptism is part of salvation. I made that clear.



No, I said that anything required to be DONE before the cross was a shadow of repentance and baptism that is REQUIRED AFTER THE CROSS. And these are not done by way of works without faith, but rather faith that works.

If it's the intention of faith, wouldn't the mean God grants salvation at faith, whether or not the "works" have played themselves out? It's the heart-level faith that saves. Not just intentionality for specific commands, but a heart that trusts God... and if you trust God, you will also be willing to do anything for that God. You are saying basically what we are saying.

[TheLegalist]

T.L., you're probably a pretty good guy when you don't feel that you have to act so ornery. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Why do you keep moving past the subject of this thread? This thread isn't about "Christian Discipleship" or "How to Follow In the Footsteps of Our Savior," "How to Persevere" nor "What To Do After You've Received the Free Gift."

The thread simply deals with what it was that enabled to be saved in the first place. It was the cross.

This may seem to be a trivial point to some people but quite a bit of the NT is devoted to doing just this thing. Paul frequently felt that he had to remind the recipients of his epistles of what it was that saved them in the first place.

That's the topic of this thread. Everything that follows is vital and we talk about it all the time, but why is it so hard to get back to the cross?


sigh... which you still fail to understand. THe cross does not save anyone by itself. Grace does not save by itself as (that was the grace) The Cross is the source by which the NC could come about. Does the "cross" ONLY compose the NC? NO! You are denying the cross as the cross is not just about CHrist BUT OUR CROSS AS WELL IN THE COVENANT! Also the resurrection is negated by your statement. We are not SAVED until the END. We are in covenant to obtain when he saves/rescues us from "sin" UNTO ETERNAL LIFE by which we SEEK TO OBTAIN! Salvation is not about a moment in time but the fulness of life judged and whether we are IN HIM!

[TheLegalist]

T.L., you're probably a pretty good guy when you don't feel that you have to act so ornery. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Why do you keep moving past the subject of this thread? This thread isn't about "Christian Discipleship" or "How to Follow In the Footsteps of Our Savior," "How to Persevere" nor "What To Do After You've Received the Free Gift."

The thread simply deals with what it was that enabled to be saved in the first place. It was the cross.

This may seem to be a trivial point to some people but quite a bit of the NT is devoted to doing just this thing. Paul frequently felt that he had to remind the recipients of his epistles of what it was that saved them in the first place.

That's the topic of this thread. Everything that follows is vital and we talk about it all the time, but why is it so hard to get back to the cross?

oh and by the way... I am a nice guy! :ursofunny

[Jeffrey]

No it does not. lol. I already said I can only speak from experience, and that was my experience, so I cannot speak for other reasons.



No, it means repentance is required to get saved. I had not truly repented.



When misconstrued like you did with it, sure.



You shock me. After all the statements I made that state baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more a work than repentance, and you still say this! Wow. Brother, I thought you were more honest about this than that.



You really shock me with your words today. I was hestitant to agree. but now agree with Leg. that you simply do not want to see another perspective. I am disappointed.

Again, baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more a work than repentance is because repentance is reliance upon the work of the cross alone for forgiveness, and baptism likewise is useless without faith that the cross saves, and Spirit infilling shows God giving utterance for tongues taking away anything in our minds that might think we do not need the cross and God's power to effect anything. but I already said that, and to twist my words like you have here shows me you were not interested in what I actually believe after clearly stating it.

What's shocking is that while I can repent because of faith, I can't fill myself with the Spirit and make myself speak in tongues (well, I probably could, but not the "legit" experience). Therefore, this Grace freely given is much more complicated. I have to wait to be saved. I have to go through a period of heart searching. I have to demonstrate that I really really really believe in Jesus. Then I have to prove that to others by speaking in tongues out loud in front of them. Mike, does that ever make you scratch your head??? It's so central to 3-stepper/UPC teaching, and does not seem even remotely central to Pauline theology on salvation. Paul missed a pretty important topic. You'd think this tongues-required-for-salvation thing would be a hot topic in the NT where everything else was. But no... no controversy with the Jews, Gentiles or any of the churches Paul writes too. The only remote controversy is the gifts of the Spirit at the public assembly. But nothing about this crown jewel of salvation that we dance around????? Salvation by faith, just as Abraham, but now you aren't saved until God fills you with the Spirit AND you speak with tongues? :nah

Surely you can understand why some of us aren't following the logic here.

[Jeffrey]

I have no concern in agreeing with your stance but simply agreeing with scripture.


Because the covenant simply said so.



I think not. :) baptism doth also now even save us. How you can avoid that one is stretching things, bro. ;)



All we do is speak as God givers the utterance. Anyone who speaks in tongues knows this. How can "all this tongues stuff" be a work like you say if YOU speak in tongues and KNOW that it is no effort? Wow, bro. You shock me again.

Faith corresponds with a shadow of baptism? I mean, where do we get this stuff. Baptism isn't a shadow of faith, even your proof-text articulates that. We error when we take Paul's analogous evidence (on issues that aren't baptism) and make it say things Paul was never saying. I will give you this: I definitely believe baptism is more than a mere symbol, but that there is something uniquely powerful happening at baptism. However, I am convinced by Paul's own words (and the Messiah's) that baptism is not a regenerative work, and that salvation has happened at faith in Jesus.

[TheLegalist]

What's shocking is that while I can repent because of faith, I can't fill myself with the Spirit and make myself speak in tongues (well, I probably could, but not the "legit" experience). Therefore, this Grace freely given is much more complicated. I have to wait to be saved. I have to go through a period of heart searching. I have to demonstrate that I really really really believe in Jesus. Then I have to prove that to others by speaking in tongues out loud in front of them. Mike, does that ever make you scratch your head??? It's so central to 3-stepper/UPC teaching, and does not seem even remotely central to Pauline theology on salvation. Paul missed a pretty important topic. You'd think this tongues-required-for-salvation thing would be a hot topic in the NT where everything else was. But no... no controversy with the Jews, Gentiles or any of the churches Paul writes too. The only remote controversy is the gifts of the Spirit at the public assembly. But nothing about this crown jewel of salvation that we dance around????? Salvation by faith, just as Abraham, but now you aren't saved until God fills you with the Spirit AND you speak with tongues? :nah

Surely you can understand why some of us aren't following the logic here.

yeah.... knowing they had not received the HS in Acts 8... no big issue. They only called down the Apostles... Paul asking have you received "since" or "when" you believed.... no big question or issue. As you view and most I know never ask such a question.... WHY? Because the blind faith view does not even think to ask such a question as it is thought autumatic upon belief.

[Jeffrey]

Lest the actual beliefs we propose get buried with strawmen arguments:

The principle of why repentance is done is the same as baptism. Neither are works of flesh and self to make self righteous. And making self righteous is the ONLY ERROR of salvation by works in the context Paul meant it.

The correct emphasis is about the principle of what sort of works repentance and baptism are, without the baptismal regenerationalist argument which is error.

The issue is whether or not they are self efforts that are done through self-s abilities to make self righteous without God's grace making us righteous. Why does this keep getting away from THAT issue? That is the issue Paul dealt with in speaking of salvation by works, which is the implication folks give when they accuse people of saying we must speak in tongues to be saved?

Neither baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are actions of self making self righteous.

The bible never says the blood is applied at repentance.

The bible does not say what makes the blood applicable. That is something taken from the passover in Exodus where the blood is put on the doorway and the New testament does not use that language of applying the blood. So why use that reasoning? Let us use the reasoning articulated in the epistles.



Which is why baptism and tongues should not be referred to in speaking of what someone does to be saved, as though they were works of the law. So folks have to stop using that language, since that basis of works of law are what they are implying when they use it.


So no one here can criticize people who believe we need Spirit Baptism as part of new birth by saying we require tongues to be save

Mike, Is circumcision equivalent to baptism, in terms of it being/or not being a "work?"

The issue is that we feel we can do something to earn salvation, when in fact, those who have received salvation did so after God chose them -- the Spirit called them, they responded with a heart of faith.

I would say that if I spoke in tongues and then was vindicated as saved, I feel mighty proud of my own participation in my salvation. If I toiled for 5 hours at an altar to search through evils in my heart, I feel like I earned my salvation. If I were to whip my back in an effort to make me more morally disciplined, I certainly would feel like I've earned my place.

Mike, the blood has already been applied once for all people. It was offered at the time of the Messiah's death. The access key has been turned. We enter into that covenant by faith alone.

[TheLegalist]

Faith corresponds with a shadow of baptism? I mean, where do we get this stuff. Baptism isn't a shadow of faith, even your proof-text articulates that. We error when we take Paul's analogous evidence (on issues that aren't baptism) and make it say things Paul was never saying. I will give you this: I definitely believe baptism is more than a mere symbol, but that there is something uniquely powerful happening at baptism. However, I am convinced by Paul's own words (and the Messiah's) that baptism is not a regenerative work, and that salvation has happened at faith in Jesus.

baptism is the realization of the cross... seriously how difficult is this?

Faith is defined by the word/context known to the hearer and believed unto what is said. The cross is faith... Baptism is faith.... Baptism is seen as the pointof the working of God in which we realize Christ and his cross being applied to us and thus we then "abide" in him. THAT IS FAITH!

[TheLegalist]

Mike, Is circumcision equivalent to baptism, in terms of it being/or not being a "work?"

The issue is that we feel we can do something to earn salvation, when in fact, those who have received salvation did so after God chose them -- the Spirit called them, they responded with a heart of faith.

I would say that if I spoke in tongues and then was vindicated as saved, I feel mighty proud of my own participation in my salvation. If I toiled for 5 hours at an altar to search through evils in my heart, I feel like I earned my salvation. If I were to whip my back in an effort to make me more morally disciplined, I certainly would feel like I've earned my place.

Mike, the blood has already been applied once for all people. It was offered at the time of the Messiah's death. The access key has been turned. We enter into that covenant by faith alone.


context... "faith" must be defined. The covenant is not just about hearing and thinking yeah I agree but it is a obligation due to contract. The blood being applied is about authority realized at which Christ can judge. His blood was spilled ONCE and by such he has authority over death, hell and the grave. We DO not realize his blood until we are united with him in his death/blood in baptism.

[Jeffrey]

very well put. As I have said forever.... works is about source. God is the author or we are the author of us saving ourselves. Heb 5:9 makes this teaching ABUNDANTLY CLEAR...

Heb 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

thus our source of obedience/works is that of Christ NOT OURSELVES. The problem is they want to group any activity as "personal works" and by doing so they make a mockery of the Word and a total contradiction. We can explain "faith that works" they can't. They make obedience "forensic" to salvation vs intrinsic. The Bible clearly teaches intrinsic relationship unto judgment to obtain.

What a beautiful chapter if I may add as well.

The writer's argument about how Jesus has become our High Priest. Jesus relates with us vv1-3, he is our Eternal highpriest vv. 4-6, and then the writer gets more to the point, using Jesus' relationship to the Father as an example of our relationship to him. "Though he was God's son, he learned trusting obedience by what he suffered, just as we do. Then having arrived at the full stature of maturity and having been announced by God as high priest he became the source of salvation for all who (believingly) obey him."

The point of this passage is not "how to be saved" but rather "Jesus understands weakness, temptation, testing and sin. So grow up! Be mature! This is a conversation from the end of Chapter 4 which continues through Chapter 6. His audience are those who have believed and are living like unbelievers. Paul says they have "re-crucified Jesus" in a sense.

Chapter 6 softens the rebuke from Paul in a reassurance of their salvation in Christ. God keeps his word and his promise.

All that to say, TL, I don't think proof-texts like this are the best way to "prove" baptismal regeneration.

[Jeffrey]

And such reasoning from scripture is simply avoided. Anyone with any sense of understanding covenantal works realizes that every covenant has a part for each party to accomplish, otherwise the covenant is not in effect. To say all one needs is faith and repentance are TWO STEPS whether the "one step" folks agree or not. And baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues are no more works for salvation than those two are.

God's part is to save and our part is to obey. If we claim God saves, then it is ridiculously moot for anyone to claim we believe in salvation by works.

The only way we could ever espouse salvation by works is to DENY that the cross is required in any form for us to be saved by baptism and Spirit infilling. Ironically, though. KWSS and others claim there is no real difference between the times before and after the cross. This implies that the cross is not necessary to save! And yet you and I are accused of salvation by works without the cross! Go figure.

This is where you're just wrong, Blume. You see, we CAN'T keep up our end of the bargain. That was obvious since Abraham on... that's the beauty of the Gospel. The covenantal part of that is God original covenant continued, he'd save those who believe in him by faith. He's made that possible through Jesus. To employ new ways of entering into covenant is simply in error. Repentance is what one does BECAUSE OF faith, not to prove their faith. Faith has already happened. We stand justified at that moment.

The cross makes all the difference in the world. What has not changed is God's everlasting and eternal covenant with His people, which was redeveloped in the New Testament to finally include Gentiles, part of God's plan all along (not just a Plan B repudiation against the Jews).

[Jeffrey]

We'll see days more sorry than this, sister. Unfortunately, watch.

I think apostolic stances should be protected here. After all, we disallow attacks against Oneness.

Unfortunately, what you define as "Apostolic" is not so easily definable, nor is "Pentecostal." This has been a problem since the turn of the last century. Fact is, most "Pentecostals" and "Apostolics" aren't 3-steppers. So if it goes by majority for definition, the position to maintain would be the Protestant call of salvation by faith. None of our brothers and sisters at Azusa traveled there to be saved. Ignorant preachers who felt they had to formulate a doctrine of their experience put together many of the doctrines taught in Pentecostal circles. The Spirit baptism renewal was not to redefine the theology of the church, as much as to reinstall the charismata back to the church.

[Jeffrey]

Me, too. All that can be done is that our thoughts on how works are useless without dependence on the cross to save is to shove them further beneath a strawman argument.

I admit some build straw men, because I know your intention is not to deny the cross. Though, the language of all is not a straw man... it's an articulation of what many feel your position implies, even though you wouldn't accept the statement.

[TheLegalist]

What a beautiful chapter if I may add as well.

The writer's argument about how Jesus has become our High Priest. Jesus relates with us vv1-3, he is our Eternal highpriest vv. 4-6, and then the writer gets more to the point, using Jesus' relationship to the Father as an example of our relationship to him. "Though he was God's son, he learned trusting obedience by what he suffered, just as we do. Then having arrived at the full stature of maturity and having been announced by God as high priest he became the source of salvation for all who (believingly) obey him."

The point of this passage is not "how to be saved" but rather "Jesus understands weakness, temptation, testing and sin. So grow up! Be mature! This is a conversation from the end of Chapter 4 which continues through Chapter 6. His audience are those who have believed and are living like unbelievers. Paul says they have "re-crucified Jesus" in a sense.

Chapter 6 softens the rebuke from Paul in a reassurance of their salvation in Christ. God keeps his word and his promise.

All that to say, TL, I don't think proof-texts like this are the best way to "prove" baptismal regeneration.

what in the world did I say about baptism regeneration. Plain texts tell you how that relates. As I have said before your view is skewed from start to end when you make baptism a "work" of "ours" to obtain covenant as your positions smell gives havoc to everything you believe in relation to the word of God.

[Jeffrey]

sadly it is nothing but defending the faith anymore on these boards that now seem to be overun with sympathists to false teaching. Want to argue about minute things like preference in standards applied.... ok whatever. BASIC TEACHING ON what the basics are thrown out the window on what the covenant is let alone coming into covenant and baptism and God filling you with his Spirit. I see way to much reformed/protestant mentality on these boards and many don't even realize how much they are effected by such teachings. They may not hold to the hard theology but in part they have brought in bits and pieces that still smells the same with it's end results.

Yeah, it's so sad when people question the sacred cows of modern Pentecostalism. I mean, questioning is a BAD BAD thing.

Your ideas and beliefs are shaped and formed by a religious background as well. Wesleyan, Methodist, Puritan, heck... even some Martin Luther to an extent! We are all products of history.

I think people like you and Blume are integral to forums like this. I really do. Though we disagree often, you give an articulate voice to your positions that unfortunately is quite uncommon.

[Jeffrey]

oh so TURNING FROM SIN/REPENTING is not necessary? ROFL!

Turning from sin is not a moralist's new year's resolution, I'm-going-to-be-perfect mental exercise. It's placing complete trust in Jesus. Turning TO JESUS. It's what happens at faith.

[KWSS1976]

dang Jeff you posting every 2min...lol

[Jeffrey]

hmmm then I question they had... maybe they are one of that had someone do the hallelujah tongue twist game... no matter the point still remains that reception is not by blind faith.

Well in fairness, it is a possibility for one to come to Jesus in faith and fall again. KSS must believe in a form of total perfection, a doctrine made popular by Wesley.

[Jeffrey]

So He'll save only those who deserve to be saved?

Wow. Timmy, in just a few characters said more than all of us have with this one question.

[Jeffrey]

he will save the faithful.... pretty clear what scripture says just like Abraham. God gives mercy to the humble and resists the proud. hmmm sounds pretty conditional to me.

you don't understand Heb 5:9? Why do you fight scripture?

CONDITIONAL????????? Holy ......... Seriously. Jesus died because we couldn't freaking live up to the "terms of conditions." He made a way!! If it's conditional, and his side of the bargain is like an earned wage, you've missed the entire Pauline thought of salvation by faith. I thought we were farther along than this!!!!

[Jeffrey]

yeah.... knowing they had not received the HS in Acts 8... no big issue. They only called down the Apostles... Paul asking have you received "since" or "when" you believed.... no big question or issue. As you view and most I know never ask such a question.... WHY? Because the blind faith view does not even think to ask such a question as it is thought autumatic upon belief.

You are speaking in parables or something. I need a ring decoder to decipher your message here. Let me try :)

Spirit baptism. Baptism in the Spirit. Promise of the Father.

I don't believe these are synonymous terms with every mention of "Spirit" in the Bible, but are a unique experience, particularly with the primary purpose of demonstrating God's acceptance of Jew AND Gentile in the Lukan narrative.

Acts 8 only tells us that it is expected that ALL can receive the Spirit after believing in Jesus. It is a gift for them that they can have. There is no regenerative talk in Luke's account. Surely you will admit that.

[Jeffrey]

baptism is the realization of the cross... seriously how difficult is this?

Faith is defined by the word/context known to the hearer and believed unto what is said. The cross is faith... Baptism is faith.... Baptism is seen as the pointof the working of God in which we realize Christ and his cross being applied to us and thus we then "abide" in him. THAT IS FAITH!

Agreed. :ursofunny Seriously. I agree.

It is an expression of faith. Is is some type of realization of what the cross has done. But it's NOT regenerative. We are saved the same way Abraham was, by faith. Only for us, the terms of our CONDITIONAL covenant are held up by a testator, Jesus Christ. So we have faith in Him and what He has done. WHAT A RELIEF!!!!

[Jeffrey]

context... "faith" must be defined. The covenant is not just about hearing and thinking yeah I agree but it is a obligation due to contract. The blood being applied is about authority realized at which Christ can judge. His blood was spilled ONCE and by such he has authority over death, hell and the grave. We DO not realize his blood until we are united with him in his death/blood in baptism.

When you say "realize" you are attempting to say that when we come to faith in Jesus, we are not justified at that point, but only after baptism. This just isn't accurate with Scripture.

Faith is not "hearing and agreeing" either, it's a heart-level expression of trust toward God, that certainly includes "hearing and agreeing." So this talk about faith being "mental ascent" is determined misunderstanding of what faith is. So yes, let's "define" faith :)

You are including blood with "death" to read your doctrine into what Paul has compared baptism to ("united in his death"). So not only am I not justified at faith, not forgiven at repentance, but the blood isn't even in the story until I've earned my way by being baptized? TL, that just doesn't add up for me. I'll give you that baptism has more significance than unfortunately many evangelicals today give it... but can't go that far with you. Sadly, that's not the end of the salvation game for you guys either... after the waters of baptism I now have to earn God's salvation by doing enough and being good enough for him to choose to fill me with Spirit baptism and speak in tongues.