Apostolic Aversion to the Book of Romans

[Charnock]

I have been in the Apostolic movement for 35 years, and have rarely, if ever, heard Bible lessons or sermons from the Book of Romans.

Over the past few months, I have been creating my own personal commentary on Romans. The process has changed my life, forever.

I believe if there is a "plan," or "formula," for salvation it is found in Romans.

[Apprehended]

I have been in the Apostolic movement for 35 years, and have rarely, if ever, heard Bible lessons or sermons from the Book of Romans.

Over the past few months, I have been creating my own personal commentary on Romans. The process has changed my life, forever.

I believe if there is a "plan," or "formula," for salvation it is found in Romans.

I'm about as apostolic as a modern day apostolic can be. I teach a great deal from Romans. It is one my very favorite books...next to the gospel of John.

Also, you are right. There is a plan...a formula found in Romans. I've been meaning to start a brief commentary on Romans here. Been too busy with everything else.

[Sam]

I have the following in pdf format from Word Aflame:

Themes From A Letter To Rome by Daniel Segraves, copyright 1995

The Message of Romans by David Bernard, copyright 1987

I have not read either of them.

Wynn T. Stairs preached that salvation was best set forth in the Pauline letters at Harvey Camp in the 1960's according to Fudge on page 114 of his book.

S.G. Norris taught that ministers should not read publicly or preach from certain passages in Romans, Galatians or the text Ephesians 2:8-9 on the grounds that it could breed confusion among parishioners according to the Fudge book on page 142

[onefaith2]

I have the following in pdf format from Word Aflame:

Themes From A Letter To Rome by Daniel Segraves, copyright 1995

The Message of Romans by David Bernard, copyright 1987

I have not read either of them.

Wynn T. Stairs preached that salvation was best set forth in the Pauline letters at Harvey Camp in the 1960's according to Fudge on page 114 of his book.

S.G. Norris taught that ministers should not read publicly or preach from certain passages in Romans, Galatians or the text Ephesians 2:8-9 on the grounds that it could breed confusion among parishioners according to the Fudge book on page 142

Romans does not contradict apostolic doctrine on salvation. Romans 6 and Romans 8 solidifies the foundation for baptism and the HG for me! And Romans 3, 4, and 5 solidifies what happens at faith/repentance for me!

No apostolic should be ashamed or scared to preach from the book of Romans and I preach from it as well and our apostolic church just got finished with a complete study of Romans.

Who can separate us from the love of God?

You don't have to believe the Roman Road to read Romans!

I have Bernard's book on Romans. I don't agree with everything but he has some great insight and commentary and really will breed understanding to the book and couples with scriptures from all over the epistles, Gospels, and OT

[Praxeas]

I think the problem with most Apostolic churches is very little real "teaching"...it's usually quote 1 or 2 verses and preach a message.

And when there is teaching it's never book by book but subject by subject

[crakjak]

I think the problem with most Apostolic churches is very little real "teaching"...it's usually quote 1 or 2 verses and preach a message.

And when there is teaching it's never book by book but subject by subject

Interesting, but my past experience as well.

I found a love for expository teaching after attending independent churches that had pastors that had seminary degrees.

Current pastor has four or five college degrees, education does not assure wisdom, but when joined with a passion for scripture and a love for God, it can be a great combination.

[onefaith2]

I think the problem with most Apostolic churches is very little real "teaching"...it's usually quote 1 or 2 verses and preach a message.

And when there is teaching it's never book by book but subject by subject

Never? We just got out of a BOOK teaching on Romans..Using apostolic notes that go through our organization and others..

I don't think generalization is the best policy here. I've experience this but not in every apostolic church.

I remember Bro. Dillon's teaching on the entire book of revelation.. great points on what I heard.

[papapraiz]

Apostolic Pastor/teacher Steve Pixler is currently teaching through the book of Romans. You can listen to the teaching on his church podcast. You will be blessed by this and many of his other teachings. The link is http://www.acfw.org/sermons.aspx

[Michael The Disciple]

OneFaith

Romans does not contradict apostolic doctrine on salvation. Romans 6 and Romans 8 solidifies the foundation for baptism and the HG for me! And Romans 3, 4, and 5 solidifies what happens at faith/repentance for me!

Dittos

[aegsm76]

I think the problem with most Apostolic churches is very little real "teaching"...it's usually quote 1 or 2 verses and preach a message.

And when there is teaching it's never book by book but subject by subject

Amen to that.
Some churches seem to believe you cannot have "church" with teaching.
Having been in 4 churches over the last 15 years, it takes a balance of teaching and preaching.

[Rose]

No aversion to the Book of Romans in our UPC church... Our late Pastor did a whole series of in-depth study & teaching from the Book of Romans. I love expository teaching!

[mfblume]

I have been in the Apostolic movement for 35 years, and have rarely, if ever, heard Bible lessons or sermons from the Book of Romans.

Over the past few months, I have been creating my own personal commentary on Romans. The process has changed my life, forever.

I believe if there is a "plan," or "formula," for salvation it is found in Romans.

The plan of salvation in Romans is Romans 6, (not Romans 10 by the way. Romans 10 is a simplified generalization focusing on Israelites who must recognize Jesus as Messiah and Savior). But more than that, that is laid out because of the overall plan of MATURITY. And I say that while cherishing Romans as my favourite book of the Bible! I have preached more from Romans than anything else. :bliss

[mizpeh]

The plan of salvation in Romans is Romans 6, (not Romans 10 by the way. Romans 10 is a simplified generalization focusing on Israelites who must recognize Jesus as Messiah and Savior). But more than that, that is laid out because of the overall plan of MATURITY. And I say that while cherishing Romans as my favourite book of the Bible! I have preached more from Romans than anything else. :bliss You spell like a Brit! :heeheehee

[mfblume]

You spell like a Brit! :heeheehee

I am CANADIAN!! :thumbsup Americans dropped the "U" from these words. We use the Queen's English here. lol

[Truthseeker]

I think the problem with most Apostolic churches is very little real "teaching"...it's usually quote 1 or 2 verses and preach a message.

And when there is teaching it's never book by book but subject by subject

true, also more into having a move and such.

[notofworks]

I have been in the Apostolic movement for 35 years, and have rarely, if ever, heard Bible lessons or sermons from the Book of Romans.

Over the past few months, I have been creating my own personal commentary on Romans. The process has changed my life, forever.

I believe if there is a "plan," or "formula," for salvation it is found in Romans.



Well, you obviously don't know a darn thing about the bible. Can't believe your naivety. Romans, my friend, was written to people who are already saved and therefore, cannot contain ANY instruction about salvation whatsoever.;)

[Ron]

Romans is a fantastic book & we had excellent teaching on it a few years ago.
The key to Romans is found in that the letter was written to the Roman Church.
The Gospels point to Acts & Acts chapter 2 tells quite plainly how to be saved!

[notofworks]

Romans is a fantastic book & we had excellent teaching on it a few years ago.
The key to Romans is found in that the letter was written to the Roman Church.
The Gospels point to Acts & Acts chapter 2 tells quite plainly how to be saved!



See there? Just like I said, Paul would NEVER tell saved people how to be saved. I mean, have ANY of you pastors ever wasted time teaching things to your church that they already know?? Of course not!! Why, you would NEVER teach them the principles of tithing, would you? They already know!!! And you would never reinforce the principles of John 3 and Acts 2 and how they mean the same thing!!

Anyone who thinks that Paul would teach MAJOR doctrinal principles to a church in its infancy that was based on a movement which was also in its infancy, just doesn't understand the bible. Look, we all know that we only have to say things ONE TIME and they NEVER have to be taught again!!

Therefore, Romans contains ZERO salvational instruction!! Get it right, people!!!

[mfblume]

See there? Just like I said, Paul would NEVER tell saved people how to be saved. I mean, have ANY of you pastors ever wasted time teaching things to your church that they already know?? Of course not!! Why, you would NEVER teach them the principles of tithing, would you? They already know!!! And you would never reinforce the principles of John 3 and Acts 2 and how they mean the same thing!!

Anyone who thinks that Paul would teach MAJOR doctrinal principles to a church in its infancy that was based on a movement which was also in its infancy, just doesn't understand the bible. Look, we all know that we only have to say things ONE TIME and they NEVER have to be taught again!!

Therefore, Romans contains ZERO salvational instruction!! Get it right, people!!!

Romans certainly has salvational instruction, since those saved did not even know what happened when they got saved! They did not know Christ's death became their's when they were baptized. Ro 6:3-5.

[notofworks]

Romans certainly has salvational instruction, since those saved did not even know what happened when they got saved! They did not know Christ's death became their's when they were baptized. Ro 6:3-5.



Really??? But aren't you one of those guys that discounts Romans 10 because it was written to people who are already saved?

[Ron]

See there? Just like I said, Paul would NEVER tell saved people how to be saved. I mean, have ANY of you pastors ever wasted time teaching things to your church that they already know?? Of course not!! Why, you would NEVER teach them the principles of tithing, would you? They already know!!! And you would never reinforce the principles of John 3 and Acts 2 and how they mean the same thing!!

Anyone who thinks that Paul would teach MAJOR doctrinal principles to a church in its infancy that was based on a movement which was also in its infancy, just doesn't understand the bible. Look, we all know that we only have to say things ONE TIME and they NEVER have to be taught again!!

Therefore, Romans contains ZERO salvational instruction!! Get it right, people!!!

Romans in and of itself does not bypass nor negate the book of Acts nor the Gospels.
Bro Blume does get it right when he states we are Baptized with Christ.
How are we Baptized? By water in Jesus Name.

Only Apostolic Aversion I have to the Book of Romans is when it gets twisted in translation.

[Pressing-On]

Romans certainly has salvational instruction, since those saved did not even know what happened when they got saved! They did not know Christ's death became theirs when they were baptized. Ro 6:3-5.
Exactly - Amen! :thumbsup

[mfblume]

Really??? But aren't you one of those guys that discounts Romans 10 because it was written to people who are already saved?

No I am not. Romans 10 is not discounted at all. But it was written about JEWS who are not saved, not just anyone not saved. The context is saying that the JEWS need to get hold of Christ since Deut 30 applies to Christ. We cannot take Romans 10 and say all we need to do is believe in heart and confess with mouth to be saved, because Paul only used those terms since he was quoting Deut 30 where it told Israel that the WORD they must obey is in their heart and mouth. Otherwise Paul would not have used those terms.

The baptism in Romans 6 is where we see we die with Christ in baptism, not repentance by the way, and that shows us that the confession with MOUTH is actually part of the overall obedience must perform due to faith in the heart, which includes baptism. And I can prove that Romans 6 baptism is water baptism, and not a "dry baptism" like so many teach.

[Pressing-On]

No I am not. Romans 10 is not discounted at all. But it was written about JEWS who are not saved, not just anyone not saved. The context is saying that the JEWS need to get hold of Christ since Deut 30 applies to Christ. We cannot take Romans 10 and say all we need to do is believe in heart and confess with mouth to be saved, because Paul only used those terms since he was quoting Deut 30 where it told Israel that the WORD they must obey is in their heart and mouth. Otherwise Paul would not have used those terms.

The baptism in Romans 6 is where we see we die with Christ in baptism, not repentance by the way, and that shows us that the confession with MOUTH is actually part of the overall obedience must perform due to faith in the heart, which includes baptism. And I can prove that Romans 6 baptism is water baptism, and not a "dry baptism" like so many teach.

:hanky :hanky :hanky

[notofworks]

No I am not. Romans 10 is not discounted at all. But it was written about JEWS who are not saved, not just anyone not saved. The context is saying that the JEWS need to get hold of Christ since Deut 30 applies to Christ. We cannot take Romans 10 and say all we need to do is believe in heart and confess with mouth to be saved, because Paul only used those terms since he was quoting Deut 30 where it told Israel that the WORD they must obey is in their heart and mouth. Otherwise Paul would not have used those terms.

The baptism in Romans 6 is where we see we die with Christ in baptism, not repentance by the way, and that shows us that the confession with MOUTH is actually part of the overall obedience must perform due to faith in the heart, which includes baptism. And I can prove that Romans 6 baptism is water baptism, and not a "dry baptism" like so many teach.


What??? I thought for sure you and I have had bloody fist-fights over that before. You know, I'm sure we have. I wish I knew how to dissect the search engine here as good as DA does. He finds everything.

But anyway, yeah, Paul was using Deut 30:12 as a basis for his "Who shall ascend" statement, but that, in no way, changes his direct and absolute proclamation for salvation in verses 9, 10, 11, and 12.

Here we go again.:)

[notofworks]

:hanky :hanky :hanky



I can't believe you're cheering on a guy with a goatee who believes in short hair on women!:lol Sweet water cannot flow from a bitter well, right?;)

[Pressing-On]

I can't believe you're cheering on a guy with a goatee who believes in short hair on women!:lol Sweet water cannot flow from a bitter well, right?;)

:toofunny

[MissBrattified]

I have been in the Apostolic movement for 35 years, and have rarely, if ever, heard Bible lessons or sermons from the Book of Romans.

Over the past few months, I have been creating my own personal commentary on Romans. The process has changed my life, forever.

I believe if there is a "plan," or "formula," for salvation it is found in Romans.

I heard a Bible lesson from the book of Romans this past Wednesday night at NL. :) Seems like I hear from Romans quite often when HS is teaching.

[notofworks]

I heard a Bible lesson from the book of Romans this past Wednesday night at NL. :) Seems like I hear from Romans quite often when HS is teaching.



The Holy Spirit teaches at your church??? Wow.

[MissBrattified]

The Holy Spirit teaches at your church??? Wow.

It wasn't at my church, and it wasn't the Holy Spirit. :D

Romans 8:1-14

[mfblume]

What??? I thought for sure you and I have had bloody fist-fights over that before. You know, I'm sure we have. I wish I knew how to dissect the search engine here as good as DA does. He finds everything.

But anyway, yeah, Paul was using Deut 30:12 as a basis for his "Who shall ascend" statement, but that, in no way, changes his direct and absolute proclamation for salvation in verses 9, 10, 11, and 12.

Here we go again.:)

If Romans 6 did not say what it said, you might be on the button. But because Rom 10 reflects Deut 30 and strictly uses those terms in Deut. 30, and R6mans 6 emphasizes baptism as needful to die with Christ, I can only go so far with you. :D

[notofworks]

If Romans 6 did not say what it said, you might be on the button. But because Rom 10 reflects Deut 30 and strictly uses those terms in Deut. 30, and R6mans 6 emphasizes baptism as needful to die with Christ, I can only go so far with you. :D



:lol

Some of the greatest twisting of scripture known to mankind is required to make Romans 10 say something it doesn't! Let's see here....Paul quotes Deuteronomy 30 to use as a foundation, Romans 6 says, "Buried with Him in baptism", and therefore, Romans 10:9, which says, "For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved", doesn't actually mean what it says.

Got it. Makes perfect sense. :crazy

[mfblume]

:lol

Some of the greatest twisting of scripture known to mankind is required to make Romans 10 say something it doesn't! Let's see here....Paul quotes Deuteronomy 30 to use as a foundation, Romans 6 says, "Buried with Him in baptism", and therefore, Romans 10:9, which says, "For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved", doesn't actually mean what it says.

Got it. Makes perfect sense. :crazy

It means what it says, but you cannot remove it from context. Show me a place outside of the context of words to Jews about how Law pointed to Christ for salvation, within the scope of simply informing the lost of any people how to be saved, and you would have a case. That is where Pel and I came to loggerheads over the issue.

You also did not quote the pertinent part of Romans 6. Romans 6 says, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? ...Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Ro 6:3, 6

Show me how the body of sins is destroyed aside from baptism that makes His death become our deaths.

[notofworks]

It means what it says, but you cannot remove it from context. Show me a place outside of the context of words to Jews about how Law pointed to Christ for salvation, within the scope of simply informing the lost of any people how to be saved, and you would have a case. That is where Pel and I came to loggerheads over the issue.

You also did not quote the pertinent part of Romans 6. Romans 6 says, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? ...Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Ro 6:3, 6

Show me how the body of sins is destroyed aside from baptism that makes His death become our deaths.


Boy, THAT'S the truth!!!

How in tarnation do you turn this into Acts 2:38??:heeheehee

[mfblume]

Boy, THAT'S the truth!!!

How in tarnation do you turn this into Acts 2:38??:heeheehee

Hey, do not avoid it. Do you agree with Paul that baptism in Christ's death causes us to be crucified with him that the body of sin might be destroyed? Do you agree that it is only true for so many of us as have been baptized as Paul said?

Acts 2:38 is only saying what the rest of the bible says about salvation. :thumbsup Or do you think Acts 2:38 contradicts Romans 6?

[Rose]

Apostolic Pastor/teacher Steve Pixler is currently teaching through the book of Romans. You can listen to the teaching on his church podcast. You will be blessed by this and many of his other teachings. The link is http://www.acfw.org/sermons.aspx

We just started Romans in our daily bible reading... we will definitely check out this teaching.

Thanks!

[mfblume]

NOW, here is a thread where we spoke of Romans and baptism.

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=796718&postcount=112

Regarding confessing with mouth and believing in heart, look what we read about the Philippian jailer. Paul preached to the jailer and he baptized the man. How did that come about if Paul never preached baptism to him? I do not read of the jailer saying, "what is this water issue? I thought you just said believe."


Acts 16:31-33 KJV And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. (32) And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. (33) And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Obviously Paul's message included baptism both in Acts 16 and Romans 10.

[Sam]

I am CANADIAN!! :thumbsup Americans dropped the "U" from these words. We use the Queen's English here. lol

dropping the "U" reminds me of a post card that was available to send out to those who had not been to Sunday School recently or of a sign outside a church.

[mfblume]

dropping the "U" reminds me of a post card that was available to send out to those who had not been to Sunday School recently or of a sign outside a church.

HAHA! I actually had THAT VERY THOUGHT in my mind after I typed what I did. I wondered if someone would mention it.

[Pressing-On]

Hey, do not avoid it. Do you agree with Paul that baptism in Christ's death causes us to be crucified with him that the body of sin might be destroyed? Do you agree that it is only true for so many of us as have been baptized as Paul said?

Acts 2:38 is only saying what the rest of the bible says about salvation. :thumbsup Or do you think Acts 2:38 contradicts Romans 6?

This is such a beautiful and powerful truth! And I want to say that even though there are things we may not agree with in the UPC, this salvational truth means much more to us, in that, we are not going to jump ship for any other message. Aside from anything else, it is the foundational truth and beginning for any Christian. It is the basis of what I have always believed. I am not seeing this preached, in the areas I have lived and with people I have known. So, offer me something better and I will listen. JMO!

[mfblume]

This is such a beautiful and powerful truth! And I want to say that even though there are things we may not agree with in the UPC, this salvational truth means much more to us, in that, we are not going to jump ship for any other message. Aside from anything else, it is the foundational truth and beginning for any Christian. It is the basis of what I have always believed. I am not seeing this preached, in the areas I have lived and with people I have known. So, offer me something better and I will listen. JMO!

Amen. Think of it. Peter said the words of Acts 2:38 ON THE DAY THE CHURCH WAS BORN. That was the DAY of the PROMISE being fulfilled as spoken by Jesus. And people think Romans 10 trumps that?

[Charnock]

The root of most soteriology arguments is assumptive ignorance. We try to understand 1st century issues by viewing them through the polluted lens of modern, westernized, context. This leads to frustration and misinformation.

As first century Christians endured heavy persecution from the Roman Empire, most were forced into seclusion. Many of those who were not thrown into prison hid under ground, completely disconnected from anything resembling modern denominationalism and church structure. One of the rarely addressed consequences of this seclusion was a general ignorance of the contemporary epistles of the day. The content of each of the epistles was very specific to the recipient, as the apostles addressed problems confined to the reader and those submitted to his leadership. So it is doubtful that those who received the letters shared them with other churches, or people, outside of their geographical locale. This type of specificity is also found in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, chapters one through three. There, Jesus presented seven letters, penned by John, to seven different churches in Asia Minor. He dealt with each of the churches individually, recognizing their failures and accomplishments.

As we look at this pattern, we are forced to realize just how wrong it would be to assume that every congregation and saint of the first century had access to all of the Apostolic writings modern Christians take for granted. Today, we have the benefit of one simplified canon, which we try to understand through the principles of hermeneutics, but most early Christians never read the Gospels or knew the majority of the New Testament existed. How, then, did they understand the proper way to live, comprehensive soteriology, or godhead doctrine?

Are we to assume that James’ discourse on “faith without works” was made available to every church to which Paul served as an Apostle? I think not. Are we to assume that Paul’s writings were mass produced, and circulated among all of the saints? The answer is “no.” The printing press would not be invented until centuries later. At best, we may argue an assumption that these doctrines were spread perfectly by word of mouth, without any deviation. And yet that assumption is not valid, because as early as the close of the first century, false doctrine was rampant among Apostolics.

[Ron]

This is such a beautiful and powerful truth! And I want to say that even though there are things we may not agree with in the UPC, this salvational truth means much more to us, in that, we are not going to jump ship for any other message. Aside from anything else, it is the foundational truth and beginning for any Christian. It is the basis of what I have always believed. I am not seeing this preached, in the areas I have lived and with people I have known. So, offer me something better and I will listen. JMO!

Amen PO! Man did not give me this revelation of Acts 2:38 God did!
It is real plain to me.:thumbsup

[Sam]

It wasn't at my church, and it wasn't the Holy Spirit. :D

Romans 8:1-14

now that might not be good if it wasn't the Holy Spirit teaching
:heeheehee

[Charnock]

John McArthur says “When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost 3,000 were saved (Acts 2:41). Verse 42 says "they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine." Thirty years later everyone knew that the substance of revealed truth came through the apostles' doctrine. In 2 Timothy 2:2 Paul said to Timothy, "the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." But some at the church in Ephesus had deviated from the truth and were teaching error.”

[Sam]

:lol

Some of the greatest twisting of scripture known to mankind is required to make Romans 10 say something it doesn't! Let's see here....Paul quotes Deuteronomy 30 to use as a foundation, Romans 6 says, "Buried with Him in baptism", and therefore, Romans 10:9, which says, "For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved", doesn't actually mean what it says.

Got it. Makes perfect sense. :crazy

awww, you're probably quoting from that NLT (per)version......
:heeheehee:heeheehee

just kidding,
I like both the NLT and the (old) TLB (The Living Bible)

[Pressing-On]

Amen. Think of it. Peter said the words of Acts 2:38 ON THE DAY THE CHURCH WAS BORN. That was the DAY of the PROMISE being fulfilled as spoken by Jesus. And people think Romans 10 trumps that?
Amen! :thumbsup
Amen PO! Man did not give me this revelation of Acts 2:38 God did!
It is real plain to me.:thumbsup

Yes, Ron! Amen!!! God gave this revelation to me! :thumbsup

[Charnock]

In my opinion, Romans was written to counter the spread of false doctrine. It deals with the conundrums of liberty versus grace, circumcision versus uncircumcision, and the doctrine of assurance.

Paul spends 16 chapters comforting the church, clarifying the means of their salvation, the source of their salvation, and the strength of their salvation. He gives clear instructions not to "go back under the law." He speaks of being led by the Spirit instead of the law - which he says is sin.

[Sam]

Amen. Think of it. Peter said the words of Acts 2:38 ON THE DAY THE CHURCH WAS BORN. That was the DAY of the PROMISE being fulfilled as spoken by Jesus. And people think Romans 10 trumps that?

I don't think one passage of the NT trumps other passages of the NT.

[Charnock]

The root of most soteriology arguments is assumptive ignorance. We try to understand 1st century issues by viewing them through the polluted lens of modern, westernized, context. This leads to frustration and misinformation.

As first century Christians endured heavy persecution from the Roman Empire, most were forced into seclusion. Many of those who were not thrown into prison hid under ground, completely disconnected from anything resembling modern denominationalism and church structure. One of the rarely addressed consequences of this seclusion was a general ignorance of the contemporary epistles of the day. The content of each of the epistles was very specific to the recipient, as the apostles addressed problems confined to the reader and those submitted to his leadership. So it is doubtful that those who received the letters shared them with other churches, or people, outside of their geographical locale. This type of specificity is also found in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, chapters one through three. There, Jesus presented seven letters, penned by John, to seven different churches in Asia Minor. He dealt with each of the churches individually, recognizing their failures and accomplishments.

As we look at this pattern, we are forced to realize just how wrong it would be to assume that every congregation and saint of the first century had access to all of the Apostolic writings modern Christians take for granted. Today, we have the benefit of one simplified canon, which we try to understand through the principles of hermeneutics, but most early Christians never read the Gospels or knew the majority of the New Testament existed. How, then, did they understand the proper way to live, comprehensive soteriology, or godhead doctrine?

Are we to assume that James’ discourse on “faith without works” was made available to every church to which Paul served as an Apostle? I think not. Are we to assume that Paul’s writings were mass produced, and circulated among all of the saints? The answer is “no.” The printing press would not be invented until centuries later. At best, we may argue an assumption that these doctrines were spread perfectly by word of mouth, without any deviation. And yet that assumption is not valid, because as early as the close of the first century, false doctrine was rampant among Apostolics.

John McArthur says “When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost 3,000 were saved (Acts 2:41). Verse 42 says "they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine." Thirty years later everyone knew that the substance of revealed truth came through the apostles' doctrine. In 2 Timothy 2:2 Paul said to Timothy, "the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." But some at the church in Ephesus had deviated from the truth and were teaching error.”

In my opinion, Romans was written to counter the spread of false doctrine. It deals with the conundrums of liberty versus grace, circumcision versus uncircumcision, and the doctrine of assurance.

Paul spends 16 chapters comforting the church, clarifying the means of their salvation, the source of their salvation, and the strength of their salvation. He gives clear instructions not to "go back under the law." He speaks of being led by the Spirit instead of the law - which he says is sin.

The reason why we struggle with Romans is because it focuses on belief and confession instead of the baptisms of water and Spirit. Ignoring Romans is a huge mistake, because genuine faith in Christ, and confession, are the foundations of Christian conversion.

Talk in tongues all day long, but glossolalia is empty and meaningless without faith in the Savior. Submit to baptism if you will, but baptism is just a ritual if not coupled with genuine faith and confession.

[Ron]

I don't think one passage of the NT trumps other passages of the NT.

Amen! I agree 100% Sam!
That is why scripture needs to be "rightly divided" or taken in context with other scriptures including OT ones.

Acts 2:38 fulfills the Tabernacle & Jesus preaching of the Gospel!:happydance

God is good!:highfive

[Charnock]

I don't think one passage of the NT trumps other passages of the NT.

Amen! I agree 100% Sam!
That is why scripture needs to be "rightly divided" or taken in context with other scriptures including OT ones.

Acts 2:38 fulfills the Tabernacle & Jesus preaching of the Gospel!:happydance

God is good!:highfive

The early church did not even have a New Testament. How did they know what was right or wrong?

[Pressing-On]

Amen! I agree 100% Sam!
That is why scripture needs to be "rightly divided" or taken in context with other scriptures including OT ones.

Acts 2:38 fulfills the Tabernacle & Jesus preaching of the Gospel!:happydance

God is good!:highfive

Exactly! It is context, which includes planning and prophecy on God's part - the overview collides together when rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

That is why Mfblume can say - "Think of it. Peter said the words of Acts 2:38 ON THE DAY THE CHURCH WAS BORN. That was the DAY of the PROMISE being fulfilled as spoken by Jesus. And people think Romans 10 trumps that?"

And the bringing in of Deut 30 is an example of context colliding. It is awesome to find scriptures from the OT speaking of Jesus Christ in the NT! :thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

The early church did not even have a New Testament. How did they know what was right or wrong?

That is the reason Paul was addressing what he did in Romans.

[Charnock]

That is the reason Paul was addressing what he did in Romans.

Exactly.

[Ferd]

I feel sorry for all you people that have never had good teaching.

Romans is and always has been part of the teaching in all the churches I have been involved in.

nor has it been hidden away.

Silly.

[Pressing-On]

I feel sorry for all you people that have never had good teaching.

Romans is and always has been part of the teaching in all the churches I have been involved in.

nor has it been hidden away.

Silly.

:thumbsup :thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

Exactly.

:highfive

[mfblume]

In my opinion, Romans was written to counter the spread of false doctrine. It deals with the conundrums of liberty versus grace, circumcision versus uncircumcision, and the doctrine of assurance.

Paul spends 16 chapters comforting the church, clarifying the means of their salvation, the source of their salvation, and the strength of their salvation. He gives clear instructions not to "go back under the law." He speaks of being led by the Spirit instead of the law - which he says is sin.
I think Romans also teaches on how to have victory over sin and how to see atonement so that our oneness with Christ in His death causes us to expect victory instead of struggle. So leading of the Spirit instead of law works to that end.

[onefaith2]

The reason why we struggle with Romans is because it focuses on belief and confession instead of the baptisms of water and Spirit. Ignoring Romans is a huge mistake, because genuine faith in Christ, and confession, are the foundations of Christian conversion.

Talk in tongues all day long, but glossolalia is empty and meaningless without faith in the Savior. Submit to baptism if you will, but baptism is just a ritual if not coupled with genuine faith and confession.

People are using Romans 10 to disclude baptism or receiving the HOly Ghost.. Problem is PAUL himself included these in Romans 6 and Romans 8. The Roman Road is nothing but scriptural seclusion. Paul wrote a whole letter to the Romans, not just one chapter. You can't take Romans 10 and say that is who one gets saved and throw away Romans 6 and Romans 8..

Its the same as coming into the middle of a conversation.

I doubt the church originally had fragments of a letter. According to the Bible they were read the whole letter.

While I agree faith is the foundation. It was never interpreted as believing alone without response to that belief.

You said be submit to baptism but its just a ritual without faith.. That is right! I would also say, you said you have faith but refuse to be baptized.. you don't have true faith!

[Cindy]

Wow, so Apostolics is Charnock wrong? Apostolics don't have an aversion to the Book of Romans?

[mfblume]

Wow, so Apostolics is Charnock wrong? Apostolics don't have an aversion to the Book of Romans?

I would say it is not an aversion, but if anyone stays from Romans it is because Peter said Paul wrote some things hard to be understood.

[freeatlast]

I have been in the Apostolic movement for 35 years, and have rarely, if ever, heard Bible lessons or sermons from the Book of Romans.

Over the past few months, I have been creating my own personal commentary on Romans. The process has changed my life, forever.

I believe if there is a "plan," or "formula," for salvation it is found in Romans.

Something that changed the way I looked at the Epistles was realizing they were written to remind how WE GOT SAVED NOT how to stay saved as I had always been taught by my OP pastors.

[freeatlast]

I would say it is not an aversion, but if anyone stays from Romans it is because Peter said Paul wrote some things hard to be understood.

I think I recall hearing it said that ABI did NOT have a class on the book of Romans.

I heard the reason was Romans was just to hard to explain, in light of what 3 steppers believed the bible to say.

[Jason B]

Apostolic Pastor/teacher Steve Pixler is currently teaching through the book of Romans. You can listen to the teaching on his church podcast. You will be blessed by this and many of his other teachings. The link is http://www.acfw.org/sermons.aspx

His sermons are long-can you give us a summary?

[Jason B]

Romans does not contradict apostolic doctrine on salvation. Romans 6 and Romans 8 solidifies the foundation for baptism and the HG for me! And Romans 3, 4, and 5 solidifies what happens at faith/repentance for me!

No apostolic should be ashamed or scared to preach from the book of Romans and I preach from it as well and our apostolic church just got finished with a complete study of Romans.

Who can separate us from the love of God?

You don't have to believe the Roman Road to read Romans!

I have Bernard's book on Romans. I don't agree with everything but he has some great insight and commentary and really will breed understanding to the book and couples with scriptures from all over the epistles, Gospels, and OT


Romans DOES NOT at all speak of the necessity to speak in tongues. The Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, 7th Day Adventist, Catholics, and every Christian group that exists believe that Romans does not contradict their doctrine.

The fact of the matter is that the book of Romans is VERY dangerous to the contemporary "apostolic" doctrine, which ironically the apostles did not teach.

Onefaith, where do you find the initial evidence is tongues, or sepaking in tongues whatsoever in Romans?

[Jason B]

I have been in the Apostolic movement for 35 years, and have rarely, if ever, heard Bible lessons or sermons from the Book of Romans.

Over the past few months, I have been creating my own personal commentary on Romans. The process has changed my life, forever.

I believe if there is a "plan," or "formula," for salvation it is found in Romans.

Well my experience was limited to 10 years, but I echo your statements.

[Jason B]

Apostolic Pastor/teacher Steve Pixler is currently teaching through the book of Romans. You can listen to the teaching on his church podcast. You will be blessed by this and many of his other teachings. The link is http://www.acfw.org/sermons.aspx

Trying to listen to the first in the series, but I skipped to chapter 3. At the 1:23:00 mark He seems to equate baptism as the moment of justification.

Just curious about this because 1)justification is at the moment of faith, not baptism and 2)if someone is justified at baptism, well you know, what about that pesky tongues issue?

Papapraiz were you in attendance for the teaching, can you provide some context? There are 4 lessons an the first is 1hr 44M, so I don't really want to spend 8 hours listening today to get the entire context.

[freeatlast]

A question and answer From Bernie Gillespie, on the book of Romans.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Question: In reading your testimony I was surprised to read your claim that the United Pentecostal Church, in your experience, "neglected" the book of Romans and that you heard very little preaching on this book. This year the United Pentecostal Junior and Senior Bible Quizzing is on the book of Romans. If this book is so dangerous to the theology of the United Pentecostal Church, why would we allow our vulnerable children to memorize it? Just a thought.



Answer: Thank you so much for taking the time to write. I appreciate your interest in what I have written.

As you stated, my view is that, in my experience, the UPCI neglected the Book of Romans, and that I heard very little preaching on it. I stand by that statement. I was speaking of my own experience. I heard very little preaching or teaching on many of the significant sections of Romans. Most of the sermons centered on Romans 6 (baptism) and Romans 12:1-3 (with the emphasis on personal holiness). In Bible college, the class on Romans was lessons on selected verses which appeared to support UPCI doctrine, while other just as significant sections were not addressed. There was no instruction on the message of the whole book and how each chapter relates to the over-arching theme of Romans. I do not remember hearing any preaching while in the UPCI on the basic teachings of Romans 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, which are the core chapters, and lay out Paul's theology of salvation.

My experience includes 42 years in Oneness Pentecostal churches. I attended Apostolic Bible Institute, taught there for five years, spoke in 200 churches, visited many camps and conferences, spoke at Oneness Symposiums, read nearly every Herald, Conqueror, Home Mission, Foreign Missions, et. al. periodicals. In all that time, I heard very little preaching or teaching based on the core teachings of Romans.

These statements about Romans and the UPCI are not intended to question the general honesty of those in the UPCI. They are intended to explain why I did not understand the Gospel and why I was not taught it while in the UPCI. It was because certain verses and sections of the Bible were (over) emphasized because they seemed to support the UPCI doctrines, while other parts of the Bible were neglected because they posed a challenge to the UPCI interpretation. I have concluded that, while I was in the UPCI, I was not taught the true Gospel because of ignorance or incorrect Bible interpretation. To be fair, most of those in the UPCI are genuine, sincere and committed to what they believe because they are convinced their teachings are the truth. The question, in the main, is not honesty and integrity, as much as, ignorance or misinformation about what the Bible teaches about the Gospel.

For example, I never heard anyone state the following passage in its full context, let alone attempt to teach what it means (except verse 23 which I heard many times, but not in its proper context):

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (Romans 3:21-24)

The same is true for, "However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." (Romans 4:5), and "The words 'it was credited to him' were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness - for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead." (Romans 4:23,24). Other passages in Romans were not commonly addressed, such as:

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. KJV Romans 1:17

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. KJV Romans 3:26

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. KJV Romans 3:28

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: KJV Romans 5:1

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. KJV Romans 9:16

[freeatlast]

for the rest of the answer go to:

http://www.inchristalone.org/Romans%20&%20UPCI.htm

[papapraiz]

Trying to listen to the first in the series, but I skipped to chapter 3. At the 1:23:00 mark He seems to equate baptism as the moment of justification.

Just curious about this because 1)justification is at the moment of faith, not baptism and 2)if someone is justified at baptism, well you know, what about that pesky tongues issue?

Papapraiz were you in attendance for the teaching, can you provide some context? There are 4 lessons an the first is 1hr 44M, so I don't really want to spend 8 hours listening today to get the entire context.

Jason - I was not present for this class and have not reviewed the teaching.
The teaching did seem lengthy.

Personally, I see this passage below as connecting Justification to the entire new birth experience of water and Spirit.

1 Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Have a blessed weekend!

[crakjak]

A question and answer From Bernie Gillespie, on the book of Romans.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Question: In reading your testimony I was surprised to read your claim that the United Pentecostal Church, in your experience, "neglected" the book of Romans and that you heard very little preaching on this book. This year the United Pentecostal Junior and Senior Bible Quizzing is on the book of Romans. If this book is so dangerous to the theology of the United Pentecostal Church, why would we allow our vulnerable children to memorize it? Just a thought.



Answer: Thank you so much for taking the time to write. I appreciate your interest in what I have written.

As you stated, my view is that, in my experience, the UPCI neglected the Book of Romans, and that I heard very little preaching on it. I stand by that statement. I was speaking of my own experience. I heard very little preaching or teaching on many of the significant sections of Romans. Most of the sermons centered on Romans 6 (baptism) and Romans 12:1-3 (with the emphasis on personal holiness). In Bible college, the class on Romans was lessons on selected verses which appeared to support UPCI doctrine, while other just as significant sections were not addressed. There was no instruction on the message of the whole book and how each chapter relates to the over-arching theme of Romans. I do not remember hearing any preaching while in the UPCI on the basic teachings of Romans 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, which are the core chapters, and lay out Paul's theology of salvation.

My experience includes 42 years in Oneness Pentecostal churches. I attended Apostolic Bible Institute, taught there for five years, spoke in 200 churches, visited many camps and conferences, spoke at Oneness Symposiums, read nearly every Herald, Conqueror, Home Mission, Foreign Missions, et. al. periodicals. In all that time, I heard very little preaching or teaching based on the core teachings of Romans.

These statements about Romans and the UPCI are not intended to question the general honesty of those in the UPCI. They are intended to explain why I did not understand the Gospel and why I was not taught it while in the UPCI. It was because certain verses and sections of the Bible were (over) emphasized because they seemed to support the UPCI doctrines, while other parts of the Bible were neglected because they posed a challenge to the UPCI interpretation. I have concluded that, while I was in the UPCI, I was not taught the true Gospel because of ignorance or incorrect Bible interpretation. To be fair, most of those in the UPCI are genuine, sincere and committed to what they believe because they are convinced their teachings are the truth. The question, in the main, is not honesty and integrity, as much as, ignorance or misinformation about what the Bible teaches about the Gospel.

For example, I never heard anyone state the following passage in its full context, let alone attempt to teach what it means (except verse 23 which I heard many times, but not in its proper context):

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (Romans 3:21-24)

The same is true for, "However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." (Romans 4:5), and "The words 'it was credited to him' were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness - for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead." (Romans 4:23,24). Other passages in Romans were not commonly addressed, such as:

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. KJV Romans 1:17

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. KJV Romans 3:26

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. KJV Romans 3:28

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: KJV Romans 5:1

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. KJV Romans 9:16

Amen, I love the Book of Romans!!

[houston]

I feel sorry for all you people that have never had good teaching.

Sympathy or empathy? Either way, thank you. :(

[Scott Hutchinson]

I love reading the book of Romans in The ESV and the NASB.

[Jason B]

People are using Romans 10 to disclude baptism or receiving the HOly Ghost.. Problem is PAUL himself included these in Romans 6 and Romans 8. The Roman Road is nothing but scriptural seclusion. Paul wrote a whole letter to the Romans, not just one chapter. You can't take Romans 10 and say that is who one gets saved and throw away Romans 6 and Romans 8..
Its the same as coming into the middle of a conversation.

I doubt the church originally had fragments of a letter. According to the Bible they were read the whole letter.

While I agree faith is the foundation. It was never interpreted as believing alone without response to that belief.

You said be submit to baptism but its just a ritual without faith.. That is right! I would also say, you said you have faith but refuse to be baptized.. you don't have true faith!

Your correct, Paul wrote a whole letter to the Romans, so why are you ONLY beating the drum for Romans 6 & 8? How about dealing with chapters1,2,3,4&5 before skipping right to 6. Especially 3:21-5:1. Not too many water/spirit proponents want to toil there for very long, if it even gets a mention in passing.

Or treat it like some do, and just put oneness pentecostal definitions to the words, in doing so someone can say 4:16 "promise" refers to the Holy Ghost speaking with tongues (and yes I have seen this very thing spoken from the pulpit).

[Jason B]

People are using Romans 10 to disclude baptism or receiving the HOly Ghost.. Problem is PAUL himself included these in Romans 6 and Romans 8. The Roman Road is nothing but scriptural seclusion. Paul wrote a whole letter to the Romans, not just one chapter. You can't take Romans 10 and say that is who one gets saved and throw away Romans 6 and Romans 8..

Its the same as coming into the middle of a conversation.

I doubt the church originally had fragments of a letter. According to the Bible they were read the whole letter.

While I agree faith is the foundation. It was never interpreted as believing alone without response to that belief.
You said be submit to baptism but its just a ritual without faith.. That is right! I would also say, you said you have faith but refuse to be baptized.. you don't have true faith!
Where has anyone said any differently? Though I believe in justiifcation by faith, that does not neglect the necessity of water baptism. If someone truly has saving faith, they will not refuse water baptism, for they will be eager to indentify with Christ, and to show that the old man is dead and burried.

If someone refuses the oppertunity to be baptized, then certainly the validity of their faith is in question.

[commonsense]

In regard to Romans and ABI: it's over 40 years since I was at ABI , I'll admit to memory issues.......but I do know that we had lessons from Romans; probably not the entire book.

I just remember Bro Norris advising future preachers and teachers to not read the last part of Romans 1 from the pulpit. He basically wanted that section avoided. I think he felt it inappropriate for discussion in a public setting.

He told us to cross it out in our Bibles.............:foottap

[rgcraig]

In regard to Romans and ABI: it's over 40 years since I was at ABI , I'll admit to memory issues.......but I do know that we had lessons from Romans; probably not the entire book.

I just remember Bro Norris advising future preachers and teachers to not read the last part of Romans 1 from the pulpit. He basically wanted that section avoided. I think he felt it inappropriate for discussion in a public setting.

He told us to cross it out in our Bibles.............:foottap

Wow.

[Sam]

In regard to Romans and ABI: it's over 40 years since I was at ABI , I'll admit to memory issues.......but I do know that we had lessons from Romans; probably not the entire book.

I just remember Bro Norris advising future preachers and teachers to not read the last part of Romans 1 from the pulpit. He basically wanted that section avoided. I think he felt it inappropriate for discussion in a public setting.

He told us to cross it out in our Bibles.............:foottap

Yeah, just cross out that part of Romans....
How much more should we cross out?
Some people say Matthew 28:19 is false and was added by the Catholics in the 4th century.
Some say 1 John 5:7 was added by some monk at some time or another.
Then there's the first part of John chapter 8 and the last part of Mark 16 that some people say shouldn't be there, plus verses in Acts 8 and Acts 9. Where do we stop? If we're not careful, we'll wind up with most of the Bible on the floor of the editing room or burnt up with the trash like the king who used the penknife to "edit" the Word in Jeremiah chapter 36.

[Apprehended]

S.G. Norris was wrong about a lot of things.

Elder Kigore who sat on the Gen. Board with S.G. Norris said that the Gen. Board challenged him on a number of issues.

Of course he might say something like that since he was very deficient in correct views on a lot of things. A friend of mine who attended John Kershaw's church was very much into bible prophecy and had a lot of questions concerning Matthew 24. Brother Kershaw finally told him, "Ah, just cross that chapter out of the bible since it has nothing to do with you a Gentile since it was written to the Jews alone."

The truth is, there is not one jot, tittle or dot that I will cross out or ignore. In an effort to discredit the Word of God, there are those that will suggest such spiritually criminal acts. God delivered His Word to us exactly as He would have it given to us. I believe it all including the maps, concordance, the index and the words, "Genuine Moroccan Leather." If the enemy of our souls can cause questions to arise in our minds concerning the validity of God's Word on any point, he has a toe hold upon our spiritual grounds which he will never surrender but only make progress.

The whole of the Book of Romans is a very powerful Apostolic book. I've heard it taught from the beginning to end many times as I have also. It is one of my favorite books rivaling only to the gospel of St. John.

[onefaith2]

Romans DOES NOT at all speak of the necessity to speak in tongues. The Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, 7th Day Adventist, Catholics, and every Christian group that exists believe that Romans does not contradict their doctrine.

The fact of the matter is that the book of Romans is VERY dangerous to the contemporary "apostolic" doctrine, which ironically the apostles did not teach.

Onefaith, where do you find the initial evidence is tongues, or sepaking in tongues whatsoever in Romans?

There isn't mention of initial evidence. There is mention of receiving the Spirit and when they received the SPirit in the Bible, they spoke in tongues. Can you show us anyone in the book of Romans actually being described when they are receiving the Spirit???

[onefaith2]

Your correct, Paul wrote a whole letter to the Romans, so why are you ONLY beating the drum for Romans 6 & 8? How about dealing with chapters1,2,3,4&5 before skipping right to 6. Especially 3:21-5:1. Not too many water/spirit proponents want to toil there for very long, if it even gets a mention in passing.

Or treat it like some do, and just put oneness pentecostal definitions to the words, in doing so someone can say 4:16 "promise" refers to the Holy Ghost speaking with tongues (and yes I have seen this very thing spoken from the pulpit).

You need to look at David Bernard's book on Romans. There is a wealth of info with verse by verse description that doesn't say.. we are justified by faith by that means baptism and tongues...

Get out a little man and don't let certain preachers be the spokesman for a whole org based on their understanding :) Of course no UPC believer is going to agree with justification by faith according to the definition you ascribe to.

Jason if you tend to read any of my posts I quote from more than just these chapters of Romans. Baptism is dealt in Chapter 6 so I'm not going to go to chapter 3 on baptism nor chapter 6 on walking after the SPirit. This post of which you quote dealt only with the use of ROmans 10 for salvation. If you think I only read Romans 6 and Romans 8, then I guess you are mistaken my friend :)

Sidestepping the issue doesn't change a thing. Faith without action following believers go straight to Romans 10 for salvation. Are you saying you have never done or thought about using the "Roman Road"?

[pelathais]

A question and answer From Bernie Gillespie, on the book of Romans.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Question: In reading your testimony I was surprised to read your claim that the United Pentecostal Church, in your experience, "neglected" the book of Romans and that you heard very little preaching on this book. This year the United Pentecostal Junior and Senior Bible Quizzing is on the book of Romans. If this book is so dangerous to the theology of the United Pentecostal Church, why would we allow our vulnerable children to memorize it? Just a thought.



Answer: Thank you so much for taking the time to write. I appreciate your interest in what I have written.
...
These statements about Romans and the UPCI are not intended to question the general honesty of those in the UPCI. They are intended to explain why I did not understand the Gospel and why I was not taught it while in the UPCI. It was because certain verses and sections of the Bible were (over) emphasized because they seemed to support the UPCI doctrines, while other parts of the Bible were neglected because they posed a challenge to the UPCI interpretation. I have concluded that, while I was in the UPCI, I was not taught the true Gospel because of ignorance or incorrect Bible interpretation. To be fair, most of those in the UPCI are genuine, sincere and committed to what they believe because they are convinced their teachings are the truth. The question, in the main, is not honesty and integrity, as much as, ignorance or misinformation about what the Bible teaches about the Gospel.

For example, I never heard anyone state the following passage in its full context, let alone attempt to teach what it means (except verse 23 which I heard many times, but not in its proper context):

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (Romans 3:21-24)

The same is true for, "However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." (Romans 4:5), and "The words 'it was credited to him' were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness - for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead." (Romans 4:23,24). Other passages in Romans were not commonly addressed, such as:

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. KJV Romans 1:17

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. KJV Romans 3:26

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. KJV Romans 3:28

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: KJV Romans 5:1

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. KJV Romans 9:16

for the rest of the answer go to:

http://www.inchristalone.org/Romans%20&%20UPCI.htm

:thumbsup Thanks for sharing that quote and the link, Freeper.

I've been following this thread but haven't really had a chance to post something worthwhile. Freeatlast pretty much sums up my own views and the Gillespie quote mirrors my own experiences within the UPC and OP churches in general.

Romans is important and its message is lost by UPCers and so many other OPs because of the whole "verbatim preaching of the apostles to the lost in the Book of Acts..." doctrine. We were taught that the only Gospel message worth mentioning were the short snippets of statements found in Acts. We ended up ignoring all of the "... and with many other words did he exhort and testify..." Just what were those "many other words?"

Romans is the Gospel message - along with the rest of the NT (and even large parts of the OT!). Paul is telling the Romans (who had evidently never heard an apostle preach in person before, with the exception of a small handful perhaps) that he is preaching the Gospel in THIS epistle and that he will shortly come to them to preach the Gospel "to you which are in Rome..." (Romans 1:15-17).

The Book of Romans is the "verbatim preaching of the Gospel by the apostles..." just as much as the snippets of apostolic sermons that Luke records in Acts.

[onefaith2]

The Book of Romans is the "verbatim preaching of the Gospel by the apostles..." just as much as the snippets of apostolic sermons that Luke records in Acts. [/B]

The Book of ROmans deals with Faith, Baptism, Receiving the SPirit, confession, holy living.

Its all summed up in the book of Romans. THe Upci doesn't teach the "Roman Road" for salvation nor does it go to Romans 10:9 to show someone gets saved by confession alone. When you take portions of a book and make them soteriological and dismiss other portions of the book, you have problems.

THe UPCI will not do that and neither will I. The Book of Romans is the doctrine of salvation, all of it. NOt just a prayer, not just repentance, not just baptism, not just receiving the Spirit. You have to read the WHOLE book of romans to get it all.

Paul would shirk at some of his teachings being interpreted these days.. such as

1. Baptism isn't necessary, its only to testify what has already happened to you by faith

Yet Paul taught we are baptized into Christ death by baptism (not before)

2. Some people teach Justification by faith is confession alone and trust alone in Christ for salvation with no action of our own.

Yet Paul taught that we who believe and are in Christ need to walk after the SPirit in order not to fulfill the lust of the flesh. He also taught when we receive the Spirit of God, our mortal bodies will be quickened so we will not be debtors to the flesh and walking after the SPirit will prevent us from fulfilling our sinful desires.

3. Some people teach we receive the Holy Ghost at the moment of belief

Paul taught

Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


Folks Paul did not teach justification by faith like the evangelicals teach it. Paul also didn't recognize any doctrine that would disclude baptism or walking after the Spirit in regards to our salvation.

Paul taught against works of the law. He taught against circumcision being necessary or observing feast days or following the law of Moses.

[Ferd]

Taught SS from Romans this weekend. talked about Abraham and everything. it was awesome!

[Charnock]

Paul is telling the Romans (who had evidently never heard an apostle preach in person before, with the exception of a small handful perhaps) that he is preaching the Gospel in THIS epistle and that he will shortly come to them to preach the Gospel "to you which are in Rome..." (Romans 1:15-17). [/B]

Surely you're mistaken, Pel. After all, we've been told that Paul's letters were written to people who were already Holy Ghost filled. Why would he need to preach the Gospel there?

[onefaith2]

Surely you're mistaken, Pel. After all, we've been told that Paul's letters were written to people who were already Holy Ghost filled. Why would he need to preach the Gospel there?

Paul was teaching these people the theological make up of their salvation. Romans 10 dealt with Israel's salvation and what they would need to do.


He covered what happened in baptism in Romans 6, the basis of salvation is Romans 3-5 and the Struggle of sin in Romans 7 and the Liberation of the SPirit in Romans 8

[Sarah]

I've read this whole thread, and I have one question. After Peter had preached his Jesus message on the day of Pentecost, and those who were pricked in their heart, said 'what shall we do'....why, do you suppose, Peter didn't say...'confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead'? Why, oh why, did he 'confuse' the issue and tell them to repent, be baptized in JN, and receive the HG?

When it got down to where the rubber meets the road, Peter told them exactly what they should do. And we see people doing it, all through the book of Acts. And for the life of me, I don't see why people can't see that....

[Sam]

I've read this whole thread, and I have one question. After Peter had preached his Jesus message on the day of Pentecost, and those who were pricked in their heart, said 'what shall we do'....why, do you suppose, Peter didn't say...'confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead'? Why, oh why, did he 'confuse' the issue and tell them to repent, be baptized in JN, and receive the HG?

When it got down to where the rubber meets the road, Peter told them exactly what they should do. And we see people doing it, all through the book of Acts. And for the life of me, I don't see why people can't see that....

Peter had already told them how to get saved in verse 21.

Then in verse 38 he told them:
repent (get saved)
follow up that salvation experience with mikveh/baptism
and you too can receive the Promise of the Father which you've seen demonstrated here today.

[pelathais]

I've read this whole thread, and I have one question. After Peter had preached his Jesus message on the day of Pentecost, and those who were pricked in their heart, said 'what shall we do'....why, do you suppose, Peter didn't say...'confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead'? Why, oh why, did he 'confuse' the issue and tell them to repent, be baptized in JN, and receive the HG?

When it got down to where the rubber meets the road, Peter told them exactly what they should do. And we see people doing it, all through the book of Acts. And for the life of me, I don't see why people can't see that....

Peter didn't "confuse" anything. The corollary to Romans 10:9 is found in Peter's sermon at Acts 2:21.

Do you think Acts 2:38 wipes out the promise of Acts 2:21? Now, that would be confusing.

[pelathais]

The Book of ROmans deals with Faith, Baptism, Receiving the SPirit, confession, holy living.

Its all summed up in the book of Romans. THe Upci doesn't teach the "Roman Road" for salvation nor does it go to Romans 10:9 to show someone gets saved by confession alone. When you take portions of a book and make them soteriological and dismiss other portions of the book, you have problems.

This might be the core of our disagreement concerning the place of Romans and the message of "justification by faith." You appear to either believe that I (and others) think that one can be "saved by confession alone" and that we would use Romans 10:9, in this manner. Either that, or you are deliberately reducing the position of others to a straw man that you can more easily knock down.

Jesus saves. That is the message of the Gospel that Paul is preaching in the Epistle to the Romans. And, Paul is preaching the Gospel here. Rather than jousting with an opponent of your own creation why not engage the material here? If you have a complaint with the popular evangelistic tract known as "The Roman Road," then engage all of the material in the tract, not just a single verse.

THe UPCI will not do that and neither will I. The Book of Romans is the doctrine of salvation, all of it. NOt just a prayer, not just repentance, not just baptism, not just receiving the Spirit. You have to read the WHOLE book of romans to get it all.

And, isn't that what the others have been doing here? Referring to "the whole book" and the message found throughout?

Paul would shirk at some of his teachings being interpreted these days.. such as

1. Baptism isn't necessary, its only to testify what has already happened to you by faith

More straw men. Who has said, "baptism isn't necessary?" Who has said "baptism is only"... only anything? Baptism is a rich and complex discussion and a necessary and essential part of a new Christian's birth. Baptism isn't "only" anything.

Yet Paul taught we are baptized into Christ death by baptism (not before)

Well, you've got that sort of correct, and we probably would find agreement if we were to have a broader discussion. Jesus Christ was buried after He died. The burial in the tomb was NOT what killed Him. He died on the cross (Luke 23:46). It was necessary to bury Him because He died. The same is true, analogously, for the Christian. We die and then we are buried in the waters of baptism.

2. Some people teach Justification by faith is confession alone and trust alone in Christ for salvation with no action of our own.

You've again summed up the beliefs of others badly. Justification is by faith (Romans 3:28, Romans 5:1), however, reading further we see that this "justification" is "by His blood" (Romans 5:9). When you tangle with the "Justification by Faith" crowd, you had better realize that we are sustained in our beliefs by the blood of Jesus Christ. It is "only" anything. It is the blood of Jesus Christ that removes sin from the entire world! (John 1:29).

Yet Paul taught that we who believe and are in Christ need to walk after the SPirit in order not to fulfill the lust of the flesh. He also taught when we receive the Spirit of God, our mortal bodies will be quickened so we will not be debtors to the flesh and walking after the SPirit will prevent us from fulfilling our sinful desires.

This pertains to after the new birth. Our discussion is on the new birth as described by Paul in the Book of Romans and the way that many OPs avoid this discussion. Paul certainly talked about a lot of things. There were (and still are) many divergent aspects to our lives after we are justified by the blood of Jesus Christ.

Yet, if we get the "justified by His blood" part wrong, then everything we build will be upon a weak and sandy foundation. It won't last. We need something at the start that is strong, eternal and powerful enough to wash away all of our sins - and that is the blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:9).

3. Some people teach we receive the Holy Ghost at the moment of belief

Paul taught

Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


Folks Paul did not teach justification by faith like the evangelicals teach it. Paul also didn't recognize any doctrine that would disclude baptism or walking after the Spirit in regards to our salvation.

Paul taught against works of the law. He taught against circumcision being necessary or observing feast days or following the law of Moses.

"Like the evangelicals teach it" is a pretty broad brush and actually includes many different and competing belief systems. The point here is: Folks, Paul didn't teach salvation by works like the UPC and many other OPs teach it.

Salvation is a gift. If you've received the gift of salvation from the Savior - then there is nothing that you need to do to "earn" or "deserve" the gift that is freely given. He gives the gift. He saves. It was the righteousness of "One" that saves us (Romans 5:15-21).

[Chateau d'If]

Pentecost was for Believers

Peter's Pentecostal sermon, in Acts 2, perfectly mirrors the Gospel that Paul preached in his letter to the Romans.

Notice the chronology:

Those who believed in Christ obeyed His command to "tarry until ye be endued with power." They gathered in and Upper Room in Jerusalem because they believed His Word. I do not believe that they gathered in that room because they were seeking salvation. They were seeking power. Power to be witnesses, just as Jesus had promised.

After that power fell on those believers, the Spirit was demonstrated through Peter, who stood and began to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who were astounded at what they had seen, and heard.

Peter's message was an explanation of what had already happened. Jesus came. He lived. He was crucified at the hands of some of those assembled. All men shared culpability. His blood was on their hands. He was buried. He rose again.

In verse 21, Peter said, "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." By verse 37, those assembled began to ask "What shall we do?" This question proves that Peter's message had accomplished it's goal, because somewhere between verse 14 and 37, belief entered their hearts.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of the Lord." Romans 10:17

In other words, they heard the Gospel, and received it. And when belief arrived, they began to ask (paraphrasing) "What do we do now?"

After saving faith was present, Peter preached Acts 2:38.

After saving faith was present, "they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." verse 41

What word did they receive? Acts 2:38? Of course not, because there is no mention that those that received His word spoke in tongues. The word they received was the Gospel message. That Jesus is Lord and Savior. As they believed that message they responded by submitting to baptism.

Pentecost is for believers.

14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

37Now 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?

[pelathais]

Pentecost was for Believers

Peter's Pentecostal sermon, in Acts 2, perfectly mirrors the Gospel that Paul preached in his letter to the Romans.

Notice the chronology:

Those who believed in Christ obeyed His command to "tarry until ye be endued with power." They gathered in and Upper Room in Jerusalem because they believed His Word. I do not believe that they gathered in that room because they were seeking salvation. They were seeking power. Power to be witnesses, just as Jesus had promised.

After that power fell on those believers, the Spirit was demonstrated through Peter, who stood and began to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who were astounded at what they had seen, and heard.

Peter's message was an explanation of what had already happened. Jesus came. He lived. He was crucified at the hands of some of those assembled. All men shared culpability. His blood was on their hands. He was buried. He rose again.

In verse 21, Peter said, "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." By verse 37, those assembled began to ask "What shall we do?" This question proves that Peter's message had accomplished it's goal, because somewhere between verse 14 and 37, belief entered their hearts.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of the Lord." Romans 10:17

In other words, they heard the Gospel, and received it. And when belief arrived, they began to ask (paraphrasing) "What do we do now?"

After saving faith was present, Peter preached Acts 2:38.

After saving faith was present, "they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." verse 41

What word did they receive? Acts 2:38? Of course not, because there is no mention that those that received His word spoke in tongues. The word they received was the Gospel message. That Jesus is Lord and Savior. As they believed that message they responded by submitting to baptism.

Pentecost is for believers.

14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

37Now 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?

:thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

Pentecost was for Believers

Peter's Pentecostal sermon, in Acts 2, perfectly mirrors the Gospel that Paul preached in his letter to the Romans.

Notice the chronology:

Those who believed in Christ obeyed His command to "tarry until ye be endued with power." They gathered in and Upper Room in Jerusalem because they believed His Word. I do not believe that they gathered in that room because they were seeking salvation. They were seeking power. Power to be witnesses, just as Jesus had promised.

After that power fell on those believers, the Spirit was demonstrated through Peter, who stood and began to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who were astounded at what they had seen, and heard.

Peter's message was an explanation of what had already happened. Jesus came. He lived. He was crucified at the hands of some of those assembled. All men shared culpability. His blood was on their hands. He was buried. He rose again.

In verse 21, Peter said, "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." By verse 37, those assembled began to ask "What shall we do?" This question proves that Peter's message had accomplished it's goal, because somewhere between verse 14 and 37, belief entered their hearts.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of the Lord." Romans 10:17

In other words, they heard the Gospel, and received it. And when belief arrived, they began to ask (paraphrasing) "What do we do now?"

After saving faith was present, Peter preached Acts 2:38.

After saving faith was present, "they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." verse 41

What word did they receive? Acts 2:38? Of course not, because there is no mention that those that received His word spoke in tongues. The word they received was the Gospel message. That Jesus is Lord and Savior. As they believed that message they responded by submitting to baptism.

Pentecost is for believers.


No doubt they were in the Upper Room seeking power. The Word says, "But you shall receive power, after the Holy Ghost is come upon you:..." Act 1:8

But, the Word also says that it is the "earnest of our inheritance". That is a pledge given in advance.

And let's not forget Romans 8:9, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

That means that all those in the Upper Room were not only waiting for power, but for the earnest of their inheritance so that they could belong to God. That sounds as though it is also a part of our salvation as much as belief, repentance and baptism.

[onefaith2]

This might be the core of our disagreement concerning the place of Romans and the message of "justification by faith." You appear to either believe that I (and others) think that one can be "saved by confession alone" and that we would use Romans 10:9, in this manner. Either that, or you are deliberately reducing the position of others to a straw man that you can more easily knock down.
.

Pray this prayer with me. Jesus I know I'm a sinner and that God sent you to die for me. I know that I am in need of you and I believe that you gave your life for me. I accept your gift of salvation and receive you into my heart. Thank you for saving me.

This is what I'm talking about. Is this all you have to do to be saved??? Bible doesn't agree with this ONLY. Do you ONLY agree this is the ONLY thing you need? I'll await your comments.



Jesus saves. That is the message of the Gospel that Paul is preaching in the Epistle to the Romans. And, Paul is preaching the Gospel here. Rather than jousting with an opponent of your own creation why not engage the material here? If you have a complaint with the popular evangelistic tract known as "The Roman Road," then engage all of the material in the tract, not just a single verse.
.

Jesus saves through the plan that he created to save. Jesus doesn't save any other way than being born again, being changed. Paul taught when that would happen. Jesus said my sheep know my voice and follow me. Will you follow Jesus in faith, in the waters of baptism? Its up to you.




And, isn't that what the others have been doing here? Referring to "the whole book" and the message found throughout?
.

No from what I've seen people have been stating apostolics avoid the whole book and that is simply not true.




More straw men. Who has said, "baptism isn't necessary?" Who has said "baptism is only"... only anything? Baptism is a rich and complex discussion and a necessary and essential part of a new Christian's birth. Baptism isn't "only" anything.
.

Just about everyone that is against the apostolic belief of water baptism and the HG. Do you believe baptism is necessary to be saved or not?




Well, you've got that sort of correct, and we probably would find agreement if we were to have a broader discussion. Jesus Christ was buried after He died. The burial in the tomb was NOT what killed Him. He died on the cross (Luke 23:46). It was necessary to bury Him because He died. The same is true, analogously, for the Christian. We die and then we are buried in the waters of baptism.
.

No Paul said we are baptized in Christ's death. That is where the old man is crucified with him. We don't get crucified spiritually.

4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

It is baptism that puts us into his death. We don't die, he died and baptism is HOW we get into HIS death. Remember Jesus saves. We have to get into His Death.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

How are we united with him in death? Baptism.



You've again summed up the beliefs of others badly. Justification is by faith (Romans 3:28, Romans 5:1), however, reading further we see that this "justification" is "by His blood" (Romans 5:9). When you tangle with the "Justification by Faith" crowd, you had better realize that we are sustained in our beliefs by the blood of Jesus Christ. It is "only" anything. It is the blood of Jesus Christ that removes sin from the entire world! (John 1:29).
).

Look I've been baptist and know what the Baptist teach. I got saved in the church there. I know what they teach regarding how to be saved. If you have had different experience that thats fine. I'm sure there are a whole myriad of beliefs out there and I've tried to study everyone I can. We are justified by his blood at calvary. We become a child of God by faith and we are united in that bloody death by baptism.



This pertains to after the new birth. Our discussion is on the new birth as described by Paul in the Book of Romans and the way that many OPs avoid this discussion. Paul certainly talked about a lot of things. There were (and still are) many divergent aspects to our lives after we are justified by the blood of Jesus Christ.
).


John said he that is born of God sinneth not. One that is born of God does not continue in sin. If they are continuing in sin, they are not born of God. Its that simple. That doesn't mean when you sin, you loose salvation. It means when you continue in sin and do not repent, you revert back to your old state. The OP view is that people are not completely saved till they make it to heaven. Salvation is then a process and an event. The event can happen but the process not completed and destroy what the event set up. That is why the difference of opinion.

In my opinion, Not OP's, baptism and the Holy Ghost deal with sanctification and repentance deals with justification. I believe both are necessary to make heaven our home. Both are works of Christ in us.

[*AQuietPlace*]

I've read this whole thread, and I have one question. After Peter had preached his Jesus message on the day of Pentecost, and those who were pricked in their heart, said 'what shall we do'....why, do you suppose, Peter didn't say...'confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead'? Why, oh why, did he 'confuse' the issue and tell them to repent, be baptized in JN, and receive the HG?

When it got down to where the rubber meets the road, Peter told them exactly what they should do. And we see people doing it, all through the book of Acts. And for the life of me, I don't see why people can't see that....
Just one small point.... he didn't tell them to receive the Holy Ghost. He said they would receive it.

[onefaith2]

No doubt they were in the Upper Room seeking power. The Word says, "But you shall receive power, after the Holy Ghost is come upon you:..." Act 1:8

But, the Word also says that it is the "earnest of our inheritance". That is a pledge given in advance.

And let's not forget Romans 8:9, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

That means that all those in the Upper Room were not only waiting for power, but for the earnest of their inheritance so that they could belong to God. That sounds as though it is also a part of our salvation as much as belief, repentance and baptism.

Lets add Romans 8:11-13

With the spirit we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. How can someone "stay" saved without the Spirit???

[onefaith2]

Just one small point.... he didn't tell them to receive the Holy Ghost. He said they would receive it.

Exactly and who wouldn't think it is mortally wrong to tell someone they don't need something that Jesus said every believer would receive?

[Pressing-On]

Lets add Romans 8:11-13

With the spirit we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. How can someone "stay" saved without the Spirit???
Yes, the necessary benefit just keep adding up, doesn't it? :thumbsup

[freeatlast]

Exactly and who wouldn't think it is mortally wrong to tell someone they don't need something that Jesus said every believer would receive?

Am astounded that anybody can say to someone who has just wept in altar, repenting and commiting to God.....

....nice try, you almost got it. You try this week to make yourself good enough for God and come back next Sunday and try again.

How can anyone redeem this statement to ANY kind of sound doctrine.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I like Romans the 11th chapter although alot of misunderstanding has come from that chapter.

[Jason B]

I've read this whole thread, and I have one question. After Peter had preached his Jesus message on the day of Pentecost, and those who were pricked in their heart, said 'what shall we do'....why, do you suppose, Peter didn't say...'confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead'? Why, oh why, did he 'confuse' the issue and tell them to repent, be baptized in JN, and receive the HG?

When it got down to where the rubber meets the road, Peter told them exactly what they should do. And we see people doing it, all through the book of Acts. And for the life of me, I don't see why people can't see that....


So how do you explain Peter's quote in Acts 2:21, as well as his words in Acts 3:19 and 10:43?

[Jason B]

No doubt they were in the Upper Room seeking power. The Word says, "But you shall receive power, after the Holy Ghost is come upon you:..." Act 1:8

But, the Word also says that it is the "earnest of our inheritance". That is a pledge given in advance.

And let's not forget Romans 8:9, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

That means that all those in the Upper Room were not only waiting for power, but for the earnest of their inheritance so that they could belong to God. That sounds as though it is also a part of our salvation as much as belief, repentance and baptism.
Say what? So all the disciples, Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all the 20. The same people who had already been preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, healing the sick, casting out devils, didn't "belong" to God until Acts 2?

Come on. Seriously?

James Anderson mentioned that He would like to see a oneness pentecostal translation of the Bible. At the Bible bookstore, I see many "themed" Bibles. The students Bible, the camoflouge Bible, the hunters Bible. If the oneness translation comes out, the perfect design would be a pretzel twist. :heeheehee

[Jason B]

Pray this prayer with me. Jesus I know I'm a sinner and that God sent you to die for me. I know that I am in need of you and I believe that you gave your life for me. I accept your gift of salvation and receive you into my heart. Thank you for saving me.

This is what I'm talking about. Is this all you have to do to be saved??? Bible doesn't agree with this ONLY. Do you ONLY agree this is the ONLY thing you need? I'll await your comments.
And yet I have seen criminals pray just such a prayer and live a more changed life, on fire for God, than most tongue speaking pentecostals I have ever met.

It just can't be that easy, it just can't. :ranting


Thats why I said, you completely miss the enitre point of 3:21-5:1. How difficult was it for Abraham? How and when was He saved? Was it not when He BELIEVED God and followed him? Was it when He was circumcised OR before? And why does it even matter to us when Abraham was right with God? Or rather why does it matter to Abraham what Genesis 15:6 says since He had been dead 400 years when Moses penned it, by the inspiration of the holy Spirit, so that Paul, writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could say "these things were written for YOUR (the churchs) sake."

But it can't be that easy. It just can't. :ranting

[Jason B]

Look I've been baptist and know what the Baptist teach. I got saved in the church there. I know what they teach regarding how to be saved. If you have had different experience that thats fine. I'm sure there are a whole myriad of beliefs out there and I've tried to study everyone I can. We are justified by his blood at calvary. We become a child of God by faith and we are united in that bloody death by baptism.

So were you saved as a Baptist, or were you lost until you spoke in tongues?

[RandyWayne]

And yet I have seen criminals pray just such a prayer and live a more changed life, on fire for God, than most tongue speaking pentecostals I have ever met.

It just can't be that easy, it just can't. :ranting


Thats why I said, you completely miss the enitre point of 3:21-5:1. How difficult was it for Abraham? How and when was He saved? Was it not when He BELIEVED God and followed him? Was it when He was circumcised OR before? And why does it even matter to us when Abraham was right with God? Or rather why does it matter to Abraham what Genesis 15:6 says since He had been dead 400 years when Moses penned it, by the inspiration of the holy Spirit, so that Paul, writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could say "these things were written for YOUR (the churchs) sake."

But it can't be that easy. It just can't. :ranting

Sort of like the thief on the cross?

(But we all know it can't be THAT easy...)

[Jason B]

Lets add Romans 8:11-13

With the spirit we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. How can someone "stay" saved without the Spirit???

Come on. I know plenty of people who haven't spoken in tongues who have lived for Christ for years.

I also know alot of people who have spoken in tongues who are as unstable as it gets. Who are in and out of church, who are exremely spiritually immature, and because they live under constant condemnation (because LAW brings condemnation) they always struggle in their walk with God, and the end result is they live quite worldly, and come to church every year or two or so and "pray through" but it is always more short lived than the last time.

I have also known those good tongue speakin' pentecostal who never miss a service, but have no joy, gossip, and are spiritually prideful. They think themselves to be just as righteous as the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14.

I have also known those who speak in tongues, who were no doubt Christians, filled with the love of God, some of the best Christians I know.

The only people that we know of who spoke in tongues in the churches had incest, church fights, public intoxication, and were the most carnal of all Christians. Speaking in tongues is neither a sign of salvation NOR spiritual maturity.

[RandyWayne]

Am astounded that anybody can say to someone who has just wept in altar, repenting and commiting to God.....

....nice try, you almost got it. You try this week to make yourself good enough for God and come back next Sunday and try again.

How can anyone redeem this statement to ANY kind of sound doctrine.

I was just going to type this very thing until I saw your post.

[Jason B]

Sort of like the thief on the cross?

Yep. But the thief on the cross died immediately. I am speaking of people who live(present) and lived (past) for God while in prison, and also after getting out of prison. Also, even those who convert in their jail cell WANT to be baptized. Onefaith2 seems to miss the point that the repentant sinner, who has been justified WANTS to be baptized and identify with Christ. There were 2 who got baptized last week in the county jail.

Maybe I should tell them they they are still lost since they didn't speak in tongues, that ought to encourage them.

[Jason B]

Exactly and who wouldn't think it is mortally wrong to tell someone they don't need something that Jesus said every believer would receive?

Who wouldn't think it is mortally wrong to tell someone that they DON'T have something God in fact promised to give to those who ask Him? (Luke 11:13)

Furthermore, your own post witnesses against your position, read it one more time:
Exactly and who wouldn't think it is mortally wrong to tell someone they don't need something that Jesus said every believer would receive?
Exactly.

[RandyWayne]

Yep. But the thief on the cross died immediately. I am speaking of people who live(present) and lived (past) for God while in prison, and also after getting out of prison. Also, even those who convert in their jail cell WANT to be baptized. Onefaith2 seems to miss the point that the repentant sinner, who has been justified WANTS to be baptized and identify with Christ. There were 2 who got baptized last week in the county jail.

Maybe I should tell them they they are still lost since they didn't speak in tongues, that ought to encourage them.

I am quite sure that had the thief been let down from the cross he would have eventually been baptized. But he was NOT let down and was with God in paradise by days end. WHY would the good Lord let such a story appear in his Word if it sent countless millions to hell by confusing the TRUE 3-step salvation plan? <he said sarcastically>

[Pressing-On]

Say what? So all the disciples, Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all the 20. The same people who had already been preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, healing the sick, casting out devils, didn't "belong" to God until Acts 2?

Come on. Seriously?

James Anderson mentioned that He would like to see a oneness pentecostal translation of the Bible. At the Bible bookstore, I see many "themed" Bibles. The students Bible, the camoflouge Bible, the hunters Bible. If the oneness translation comes out, the perfect design would be a pretzel twist. :heeheehee

If you want to ignore Romans 8:9.... It clearly says that "ANY MAN" - "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.:

That includes you and all the 120 in the Upper Room. Jesus told them to tarry for it and they did. They didn't try to bypass anything Jesus wanted and required them to have.

[Jason B]

There isn't mention of initial evidence.
Exactly. And if this evidence was HEAVEN or HELL, don't you think it would have been mentioned?

There is mention of receiving the Spirit and when they received the SPirit in the Bible, they spoke in tongues.
We've already been through this forever and a day. I'm not getting on that merry go round again. But all I will say at this time concerning your statement is PROVE IT.

Can you show us anyone in the book of Romans actually being described when they are receiving the Spirit???

Well, since Abraham is the only personal example in Romans, I suppose not. HOWEVER Abraham as the personal example is our example of salvation. Salvation has been the same from the beginning. This is what Hebrews 11 is about. Salvation has always been by the grace of God (reference Noah in Genesis 6:8) which he justifies the sinner by faith (Abraham in Genesis 15:6). This is the thought that the writer of Hebrews uses in Hebrews 11. I will grant the argument that Hebrews 11 is not specifically about salvation, but rather the power of faith. But the only people who were ever right with God were those who lived by faith. Plenty of people have been circumsised who died lost. Plenty of people have been baptized who died lost. And there will be people who spoke in tongues and kept standards, and died lost, because they were never justified by faith.

Furthermore the book of Romans DOES tell us that as sinners the wrath of God abides on us, we are children of wrath, condemned, and even enemies of God. But when we are justified by faith we are no longer condemned (one cannot be justified and condemned at the same time)(Romans 5:18). We are at peace with God (Romans 5:1), thus we are no longer his enemies. We are no longer children of wrath(Romans 5:9), but we are now the Sons of God by adoption, and as such we are joint-heirs with Christ(Romans 8:14-17), and those whom He has justified, He will also glorify(Romans 8:30).

Justification, Redemption, Adoption, Regereration all happen simultaneously. When we are justified we are redeemed, when are redeemed we are regenerated by the Spirit of God, and when God places His Spirit within us we are his sons by adoption. These aren't steps these are things which happen (from the human standpoint) all at once, at the moment of faith. You may say-ahh, but you're leaving out repentance. Not so. For the moment one comes to true faith, they will confess their sinful state and follow Christ.

[Jason B]

If you want to ignore Romans 8:9.... It clearly says that "ANY MAN" - "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.:

That includes you and all the 120 in the Upper Room. Jesus told them to tarry for it and they did. They didn't try to bypass anything Jesus wanted and required them to have.

Oddly enough, I've never seen anyone who believes in justification by faith say that anyone is saved without the Spirit.

Furthermore, if you INSIST of a faulty hermenutic which applies Romans 8:9 (with tongues implied-in your opinion) prior to pentecost, then NO ONE was ever Christ's prior to acts 2.

PO-your making the mistake many pentecostals do with tongues and the Spirit, turning it into requirement instead of understanding it is a free gift. Have you ever read NOW's thread "Christmas Gifts"? Or even Luke 11:13?

[Pressing-On]

Oddly enough, I've never seen anyone who believes in justification by faith say that anyone is saved without the Spirit.

Furthermore, if you INSIST of a faulty hermenutic which applies Romans 8:9 (with tongues implied-in your opinion) prior to pentecost, then NO ONE was ever Christ's prior to acts 2.

PO-your making the mistake many pentecostals do with tongues and the Spirit, turning it into requirement instead of understanding it is a free gift. Have you ever read NOW's thread "Christmas Gifts"? Or even Luke 11:13?

Thanks, Jason. A free gift is something I can't give myself. That's all the "free" is talking about.

[Jason B]

Thanks, Jason. A free gift is something I can't give myself. That's all the "free" is talking about.

Its also means something that cannot be earned or worked for, and doesn't need to be begged for. :):highfive

[Pressing-On]

Its also means something that cannot be earned or worked for, and doesn't need to be begged for. :):highfive

I never implied you had to beg or work for it.

Clearly Paul was concerned when he met up with some disciples in Ephesus - "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." Acts 19:2

You are making it complicated, or rather, taking away the seriousness of it and I'm just quoting scripture. :D

[mfblume]

I never implied you had to beg or work for it.

Clearly Paul was concerned when he met up with some disciples in Ephesus - "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." Acts 19:2

You are making it complicated, or rather, taking away the seriousness of it and I'm just quoting scripture. :D

:thumbsup

[Jason B]

I never implied you had to beg or work for it.

Perhaps YOU did not, however it is well witnessed that that very things happens at pentecostal alters weekly all over the country.

Clearly Paul was concerned when he met up with some disciples in Ephesus - "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." Acts 19:2
Question. Have you ever considered that the BIBLE tells us that not all of John's disciples were disciples of Jesus? In fact we see them seperate from the disciples in John 3:25-26, Matthew 9:14, Matthew 11:2, Luke 11:1, and possibly alluded to in John 4:1. Therefore it is quite posible, even likely that those who Paul met were not Christians who didn't have the Holy Spirit, but those who had been baptized by John (or some of John's disciples) and did not know that Jesus was the Messiah. If they were not "Christians" then it would make perfect sense that they would not have recieved the Holy Ghost. I confess to being at somewhat of a loss as to why they would confess no knowledge of the Holy Ghost considering John's message (Matthew 3:11), though one must admit that problem is greatly multiplied if they were actually already Christian disciples, and knew nothing of the Holy Ghost.


You are making it complicated, or rather, taking away the seriousness of it and I'm just quoting scripture. :D
I am doing neither. Mormons, Catholics, and JWs can quote scriptures till the cows come home, simply putting a scripture out there doesn't prove a point, it is about rightly dividing the word.

[Pressing-On]

Perhaps YOU did not, however it is well witnessed that that very things happens at pentecostal alters weekly all over the country.
Maybe so, but it doesn't happen at my church.

Question. Have you ever considered that the BIBLE tells us that not all of John's disciples were disciples of Jesus? In fact we see them seperate from the disciples in John 3:25-26, Matthew 9:14, Matthew 11:2, Luke 11:1, and possibly alluded to in John 4:1. Therefore it is quite posible, even likely that those who Paul met were not Christians who didn't have the Holy Spirit, but those who had been baptized by John (or some of John's disciples) and did not know that Jesus was the Messiah. If they were not "Christians" then it would make perfect sense that they would not have recieved the Holy Ghost. I confess to being at somewhat of a loss as to why they would confess no knowledge of the Holy Ghost considering John's message (Matthew 3:11), though one must admit that problem is greatly multiplied if they were actually already Christian disciples, and knew nothing of the Holy Ghost.
It doesn't seem unreasonable that stragglers were around after John's message who had no idea what went on in the Upper Room at Jerusalem. They were from Ephesus, weren't they?

Paul was making sure they understood that the Kingdom of God had come and what that entailed - being spirit filled. Nothing surprising about that.

I am doing neither. Mormons, Catholics, and JWs can quote scriptures till the cows come home, simply putting a scripture out there doesn't prove a point, it is about rightly dividing the word.
I agree with you here.

[pelathais]

Pray this prayer with me. Jesus I know I'm a sinner and that God sent you to die for me. I know that I am in need of you and I believe that you gave your life for me. I accept your gift of salvation and receive you into my heart. Thank you for saving me.

This is what I'm talking about. Is this all you have to do to be saved??? Bible doesn't agree with this ONLY. Do you ONLY agree this is the ONLY thing you need? I'll await your comments.

Again, you seem to be missing my point. I obviously have no way of knowing the condition of anyone's heart who has "prayed" that prayer. I don't even know anyone who actually prayed like that to "get saved." Nobody. And I come from a line of preachers going back to at least the 1600's and have been around Pentecostal/Crazymatic/Evangelical types my entire life.

You need just one thing in order to be saved. You need a Savior. This fact appears to be completely excluded from your theology as presented here so far. Just how can you be saved without the Savior?



Jesus saves through the plan that he created to save. Jesus doesn't save any other way than being born again, being changed. Paul taught when that would happen. Jesus said my sheep know my voice and follow me. Will you follow Jesus in faith, in the waters of baptism? Its up to you.

This is a good paragraph - however, just how is one one "changed" in the process of being "born again?" Is this something that YOU do? Nope.

Job 9:20, Luke 10:27-29; Romans 3:20, Romans 3:28; Romans 4:5, Romans 9:11 - 16, Romans 9:30, Romans 11:6; Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:16-21; Ephesians 2:4, Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:4-7.


No from what I've seen people have been stating apostolics avoid the whole book and that is simply not true.

Statements that include words like "whole," "all of" and "always" will probably tend to overstate their premise. Just try preaching a sermon on "Justification By Grace" at a meeting of OPs from different churches, though.

The combination of using the "code words" justification and grace coupled with the need for the different pastors present to try and show who among them is "the toughest on doctrine" will prove to be volatile, to say the least.

I think that's what folks are saying and not that OPs completely "ignore" the book of Romans altogether. Both my kids (the ones still at home) are in Bible Quizzing. This year the material is "Living Letters" (basically the Pauline epistles starting with the letter "T"), last year was Acts. I think the year before was Romans. In any event, Romans is a regular part of the material that they cycle through.

Romans is obviously recognized as a part of the Bible, at least. But look at how someone like Dan Segraves' book on Romans was received back in the 1980s. There was a literal hissy-fit in many quarters. DKB's response wasn't something that DKB had planned on doing at that time, but he was literally hounded to "respond" with something "tougher."

That his "response" was in the tone of a gentleman speaks volumes with regard to DKB's character (IMHO). But just mentioning the themes in Romans will push so many buttons across the OP world that it's probably the uproar that people want to avoid, more than the book itself.


Just about everyone that is against the apostolic belief of water baptism and the HG. Do you believe baptism is necessary to be saved or not?

I believe that the only thing necessary for salvation is a Savior and one's belief that this Savior can indeed save (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3-6, Romans 4:9, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:20-25; Galatians 3:6-14; Hebrews 11:6).

Romans 4:21 sort of sums up my position - and probably sums up my own life experience as well, on this topic. Include Hebrews 11:1 and Hebrews 11:6 along with that.

I'm not "against" the current (upper case "A") Apostolic teaching regarding water baptism and the Holy Ghost. I just don't find the current trend to represent enough of what God is doing here.


No Paul said we are baptized in Christ's death. That is where the old man is crucified with him. We don't get crucified spiritually.

4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

It is baptism that puts us into his death. We don't die, he died and baptism is HOW we get into HIS death. Remember Jesus saves. We have to get into His Death.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

How are we united with him in death? Baptism.

What I said was:

Originally Posted by pelathais :


...
Well, you've got that sort of correct, and we probably would find agreement if we were to have a broader discussion. Jesus Christ was buried after He died. The burial in the tomb was NOT what killed Him. He died on the cross (Luke 23:46). It was necessary to bury Him because He died. The same is true, analogously, for the Christian. We die and then we are buried in the waters of baptism.

To which you respond, "No?" I think we're talking past each other to some degree, here. Just consider your next statement:

Look I've been baptist and know what the Baptist teach. I got saved in the church there. I know what they teach regarding how to be saved. If you have had different experience that thats fine. I'm sure there are a whole myriad of beliefs out there and I've tried to study everyone I can. We are justified by his blood at calvary. We become a child of God by faith and we are united in that bloody death by baptism.

How were you "saved" there? By being a "better Baptist" than the rest? Of course not. The Savior saved you.

My own Baptist roots stem from Anglican "Separatists" who were also influence greatly by the Wesleys and other aspects of the Holiness movement. Today, my brother's church (a Southern Baptist church) is probably the only one in the family that really represents one of the modern "mainstream" Baptist traditions. But believe me, you won't get "saved" there by simply reciting a rehearsed prayer. LOL.


John said he that is born of God sinneth not. One that is born of God does not continue in sin. If they are continuing in sin, they are not born of God. Its that simple. That doesn't mean when you sin, you loose salvation. It means when you continue in sin and do not repent, you revert back to your old state. The OP view is that people are not completely saved till they make it to heaven. Salvation is then a process and an event. The event can happen but the process not completed and destroy what the event set up. That is why the difference of opinion.

In my opinion, Not OP's, baptism and the Holy Ghost deal with sanctification and repentance deals with justification. I believe both are necessary to make heaven our home. Both are works of Christ in us.

And this probably represents the "broader discussion" where I felt that we would find agreement. That last paragraph sums up my opinion as well - though I quibble endlessly about "sanctification." Ask anyone.


:thumbsup

[Digging4Truth]

I have been in the Apostolic movement for 35 years, and have rarely, if ever, heard Bible lessons or sermons from the Book of Romans.

Over the past few months, I have been creating my own personal commentary on Romans. The process has changed my life, forever.

I believe if there is a "plan," or "formula," for salvation it is found in Romans.

I preach out of Romans more than any other book.

It is a great book and I'm glad you are enjoying your study so much. I fully understand why.

[onefaith2]

Am astounded that anybody can say to someone who has just wept in altar, repenting and commiting to God.....

....nice try, you almost got it. You try this week to make yourself good enough for God and come back next Sunday and try again.

How can anyone redeem this statement to ANY kind of sound doctrine.

I don't believe in anything you just said. You might want to try and talk to the hardliners about this one. I believe a person becomes part of the body by faith and baptism. THe HG is a promise that they WILL receive, might be same day or 10 years. Thats HOW I can redeem sound doctrine. You are letting the fact that some do not receive the HG override what the Bible teaches. You adapt your doctrine, not throw it away.

[onefaith2]

And yet I have seen criminals pray just such a prayer and live a more changed life, on fire for God, than most tongue speaking pentecostals I have ever met.

It just can't be that easy, it just can't. :ranting


Thats why I said, you completely miss the enitre point of 3:21-5:1. How difficult was it for Abraham? How and when was He saved? Was it not when He BELIEVED God and followed him? Was it when He was circumcised OR before? And why does it even matter to us when Abraham was right with God? Or rather why does it matter to Abraham what Genesis 15:6 says since He had been dead 400 years when Moses penned it, by the inspiration of the holy Spirit, so that Paul, writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could say "these things were written for YOUR (the churchs) sake."

But it can't be that easy. It just can't. :ranting

They weren't changed by a prayer my friend. They were changed by the Holy Ghost. If there is no changing experience to accompany the prayer, it is just words.

Abraham believed God and then later proved that he believed God. God didn't know he truly trust him until... I'm waiting for it.. please tell us Jason.. WHEN did God say.. for now I know that thou fearest God

Jason I believe that righteousness is imputed at the moment of belief like you. Unlike you I believe the work of salvation goes beyond just this imputation of righteousness. Like Paul I believe we need to be put into Christ's death at baptism. Like Paul I believe we need the Holy Ghost to quicken our mortal bodies to walk after the Spirit. You can agree or disagree but the Bible is truth and that will never change. God Bless you though for your input.

[onefaith2]

Come on. I know plenty of people who haven't spoken in tongues who have lived for Christ for years.

I also know alot of people who have spoken in tongues who are as unstable as it gets. Who are in and out of church, who are exremely spiritually immature, and because they live under constant condemnation (because LAW brings condemnation) they always struggle in their walk with God, and the end result is they live quite worldly, and come to church every year or two or so and "pray through" but it is always more short lived than the last time.

I have also known those good tongue speakin' pentecostal who never miss a service, but have no joy, gossip, and are spiritually prideful. They think themselves to be just as righteous as the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14.

I have also known those who speak in tongues, who were no doubt Christians, filled with the love of God, some of the best Christians I know.

The only people that we know of who spoke in tongues in the churches had incest, church fights, public intoxication, and were the most carnal of all Christians. Speaking in tongues is neither a sign of salvation NOR spiritual maturity.

Wow but you didn't mention the carnal christians who haven't spoken in tongues.. BIAS'd my friend!

Jason so would you mind rewinding time and giving God your Holy Ghost experience back because based on what you said it did nothing for you :)

Paul said it would quicken our mortal bodies. WHen they got the Spirit, they spoke in tongues. Maybe the christians you observed have spoken in tongues, just not in churches. Maybe the christians you observed haven't spoken in tongues but prophesied. Maybe the christians you observed have the SPirit of God without the initial evidence. I don't know but the scripture says when they were filled with the spirit they spoke in tongues. As for me and my house, we want the same "that" spoken by the prophet joel.

When I got this Holy Ghost experience, I was changed. I had never loved anyone like that until I received it. So while Jason it seems your experience did nothing for me, it has changed me and millions around the world. So these good loving Christians that haven't received this experience, ITS FOR YOU!! is my message to them.

[onefaith2]

So were you saved as a Baptist, or were you lost until you spoke in tongues?

I was saved according to baptist doctrine. I was changed truly when I received the Holy Ghost and was baptized in Jesus name. I became a believer as a Baptist and a child of God as a baptist, but I still needed more to be truly changed.

[onefaith2]

Who wouldn't think it is mortally wrong to tell someone that they DON'T have something God in fact promised to give to those who ask Him? (Luke 11:13)

Furthermore, your own post witnesses against your position, read it one more time:

Exactly.

My own post solidifies my position. I don't believe in half born Christians. If they have repented and been baptized, they are promise to receive the Holy Ghost. That is my final answer.

I guess it was mortally wrong for Mary and Peter and the apostles to wait in the upper room till they had received the SPirit because they already had it?

I guess it was mortally wrong for Peter and John to pray for those Samaritan believers after they had been baptized to receive the Spirit or for Paul to go around asking believers had they received the Holy Ghost since they believed?

Well you know if Paul did it, I think its safe.. don't you?

[onefaith2]

Yep. But the thief on the cross died immediately. I am speaking of people who live(present) and lived (past) for God while in prison, and also after getting out of prison. Also, even those who convert in their jail cell WANT to be baptized. Onefaith2 seems to miss the point that the repentant sinner, who has been justified WANTS to be baptized and identify with Christ. There were 2 who got baptized last week in the county jail.

Maybe I should tell them they they are still lost since they didn't speak in tongues, that ought to encourage them.

Onefaith2 doesn't miss anypoint. Onefaith2 recognizes that the repentant sinner is made a child of the Lord by faith and will be baptized into Christ's death to kill the old man. Onefaith2 was speaking against those who teach repeat a prayer and thats all you need to do. Without the born again work starting in your life, its empty religion and too many people have been swindled by a spirit of hell escapism, not Saviour love and servitude.

[onefaith2]

Oddly enough, I've never seen anyone who believes in justification by faith say that anyone is saved without the Spirit.

Furthermore, if you INSIST of a faulty hermenutic which applies Romans 8:9 (with tongues implied-in your opinion) prior to pentecost, then NO ONE was ever Christ's prior to acts 2.

PO-your making the mistake many pentecostals do with tongues and the Spirit, turning it into requirement instead of understanding it is a free gift. Have you ever read NOW's thread "Christmas Gifts"? Or even Luke 11:13?

I believe Romans 8:9 refers to receiving the work of Christ and Romans 8:11 refers to the Holy Ghost baptism.

I cannot understand how someone can be put into Christ's death by baptism and not be Christ's

[onefaith2]

Again, you seem to be missing my point. I obviously have no way of knowing the condition of anyone's heart who has "prayed" that prayer. I don't even know anyone who actually prayed like that to "get saved." Nobody. And I come from a line of preachers going back to at least the 1600's and have been around Pentecostal/Crazymatic/Evangelical types my entire life.


You need to walk in my shoes for a while. I've had good Baptists tell me all the time, all you need to do is repeat this prayer and mean it. You are going to heaven. Seriously you have never been exposed to this?


You need just one thing in order to be saved. You need a Savior. This fact appears to be completely excluded from your theology as presented here so far. Just how can you be saved without the Savior?


Yes and how does one get into the death of the Saviour.. Romans 6 tells us Pel. Jesus told us in mark 16:16 too, but thats not part of the original ;)




This is a good paragraph - however, just how is one one "changed" in the process of being "born again?" Is this something that YOU do? Nope.

Job 9:20, Luke 10:27-29; Romans 3:20, Romans 3:28; Romans 4:5, Romans 9:11 - 16, Romans 9:30, Romans 11:6; Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:16-21; Ephesians 2:4, Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:4-7.


Sure all those scriptures is what God does, here is what WE do.

Repent - Luke 13:3, Mark 1:15, Mark 6:12, Matthew 3:2, Luke 13:5, Acts 2:38; are you suggesting God repents for us to?


Be Baptized - Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:1-7, Galatians 3:27; are you suggest God gets baptized for us to?

These are things WE do. You said

Is this something that YOU do? Nope

Pray tell me how are we NOT involved at all in being born again?



Statements that include words like "whole," "all of" and "always" will probably tend to overstate their premise. Just try preaching a sermon on "Justification By Grace" at a meeting of OPs from different churches, though.



Well I've done it at a few churches. Its fun to see the 'light' go that we can't save ourselves fully, that we need grace, that apart from God our holiness is rags. Thats some of the best teaching we can give a Christian who wants desperately to make it to heaven.

[Scott Hutchinson]

There is alot of meat in Romans chapters 9,10,11.

[pelathais]

You need to walk in my shoes for a while. I've had good Baptists tell me all the time, all you need to do is repeat this prayer and mean it. You are going to heaven. Seriously you have never been exposed to this?

The "and mean it" part is what you at least appeared to have been leaving out earlier. But yes, Acts 2:21 tells us basically the same thing. It's not EVERYTHING there is to a Christian life - but calling out to God in sincere repentance is the proper place to start.


Yes and how does one get into the death of the Saviour.. Romans 6 tells us Pel. Jesus told us in mark 16:16 too, but thats not part of the original ;)

Romans 3:24-26. The remission of sins and justification is found in "believing in Jesus Christ." Later, in Romans 6, Paul takes up the issue of Christians continuing to "live in sin" even after their conversion. He answers this "question" emphatically with a "God forbid."

Paul then goes on to tell how the Christian believer has already been (in the case of his immediate audience, the church in Rome, it's past tense) "buried with Christ." This burial marks a delineation in their lives between the "old life of sin" and the "new life of righteousness." They are "dead" and "buried" - just as Christ died and was buried only to rise again to a new life. Take Romans 6:4 in its complete context.

We "died" by being "crucified with him" (Romans 6:6). This is as much an identification with Christ as the "burial" mentioned in verse 4. But, Paul's rather emphatic point to the Roman believers is that they should also be "in the likeness of Christ" in the resurrection (Romans 6:5). That is, they should be living new lives now.

The "identification" with Christ that you seek is found in water baptism (Romans 6:4). I believe that you are absolutely correct about this. But the same identical identification is found in repentance (Romans 6:6) and the "resurrection" (Romans 6:5). In another place Paul says:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Galatians 2:20-21


Sure all those scriptures is what God does, here is what WE do.

Repent - Luke 13:3, Mark 1:15, Mark 6:12, Matthew 3:2, Luke 13:5, Acts 2:38; are you suggesting God repents for us to?

Be Baptized - Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:1-7, Galatians 3:27;

Wait! Wait just a second.

"Sure all those scriptures is what God does..." ??? Don't move so speedily past the things "that God does." This foundation - the foundation laid in our lives by God Almighty Himself is the most important part of our lives. Let's not sweep past it in haste to compose a "To Do" list for ourselves.

Examine the foundation. It is laid and made up with precious stones. Beneath the "Street of Gold" - a street that we indeed are to walk upon, where we fulfill our lives and the course set for us - beneath that street is a foundation (Revelation 21:19-20 with Ephesians 2:19-22).

We must "take heed" to what we lay upon this foundation (1 Corinthians 3:9 - 17). There is only one foundation and no man can lay another. That foundation is Jesus Christ. This foundation is eternal (2 Timothy 2:19) and unmovable. It demands our attention.


are you suggest God gets baptized for us to?

In a sense, even you have said that He does (Romans 6:4). When you went down into the waters of baptism, He was already there.


These are things WE do. You said

Is this something that YOU do? Nope

Pray tell me how are we NOT involved at all in being born again?

Well, hopefully you and I showed up for the occasion. :thumbsup And remember, you added the "NOT involved at all." That's not something I said.

Watch out for the "binary thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_thinking)." Binary Opposition is the bane of Western Civilization and has been responsible for slowing our development and causing more great misunderstandings than any other facet of human culture. But that will lead us immediately off topic... http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon11.gif



Well I've done it at a few churches. Its fun to see the 'light' go that we can't save ourselves fully, that we need grace, that apart from God our holiness is rags. Thats some of the best teaching we can give a Christian who wants desperately to make it to heaven.

And, at this point I find myself in complete agreement with you.

[onefaith2]

The "and mean it" part is what you at least appeared to have been leaving out earlier. But yes, Acts 2:21 tells us basically the same thing. It's not EVERYTHING there is to a Christian life - but calling out to God in sincere repentance is the proper place to start.


Pel there is a big difference between and they that call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved AND they that call upon the name of the Lord is saved

When Jesus himself said

many shall come to me saying Lord, Lord

'depart from me thy worker of iniquity'



Romans 3:24-26. The remission of sins and justification is found in "believing in Jesus Christ." Later, in Romans 6, Paul takes up the issue of Christians continuing to "live in sin" even after their conversion. He answers this "question" emphatically with a "God forbid."



Pel I see salvation as a whole, not just the initial beginning. If we believe but revert back to sin, we will not be saved without turning away. The only way we can turn away is to be buried with Christ, identify with his death. I agree we are forgiven at repentance but that won't help us in the future unless we identify with Christ's death.



The "identification" with Christ that you seek is found in water baptism (Romans 6:4). I believe that you are absolutely correct about this. But the same identical identification is found in repentance (Romans 6:6) and the "resurrection" (Romans 6:5). In another place Paul says:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Galatians 2:20-21



I do not find the same identical death. I've read Romans 6 hundreds of times. Baptism is the only way Paul identifies that we are put into his death. not by repentance, not by his resurrection, but by baptism. If that is done in repentance, why would it need to continue to be done in baptism and the resurrection?




Wait! Wait just a second.

"Sure all those scriptures is what God does..." ??? Don't move so speedily past the things "that God does." This foundation - the foundation laid in our lives by God Almighty Himself is the most important part of our lives. Let's not sweep past it in haste to compose a "To Do" list for ourselves.


I don't sweep past it one bit. My whole to do list would be nothing if He hadn't made the first move. That does not mean I am free not to make the necessary moves I have to make. Just because salvation is available doesn't exclude us from taking the steps to take ahold of it.





In a sense, even you have said that He does (Romans 6:4). When you went down into the waters of baptism, He was already there.



Jesus isn't there in the waters physically. Our spirits meet his in his death through baptism. I see it a little differently but same premise. He isn't getting baptized with us each time though. He did it Himself to fulfill all righteousness.





And, at this point I find myself in complete agreement with you.

I am glad that you are but in essence if either of us is against the scripture in its fullness, we must both change.

[CC1]

I have been in the Apostolic movement for 35 years, and have rarely, if ever, heard Bible lessons or sermons from the Book of Romans.

Over the past few months, I have been creating my own personal commentary on Romans. The process has changed my life, forever.

I believe if there is a "plan," or "formula," for salvation it is found in Romans.

I have not had a chance to read this thread yet because Romans is one of my favorite subjects and I keep waiting until I have time to read it all, which apparently is never going to happen.

My pastor just concluded a short time ago a series of sermons covering the book of Romans. It is an amazing book and as you stated does contain the "plan" for salvation.

[pelathais]

Pel there is a big difference between and they that call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved AND they that call upon the name of the Lord is saved

When Jesus himself said

many shall come to me saying Lord, Lord

'depart from me thy worker of iniquity'

In Matthew 7:22, Jesus is describing a group of people who spoke to Him "in that day" - or the Day of Judgement. The Lord "never knew them" because they had failed to heed the promise of Acts 2:21, in the days before the Judgement. Matthew 7:22, doesn't really apply to anyone who sincerely "calls upon the Lord" for salvation "while it is still day."

It seems to me that if we attempt to make it fit, we would end up a bit too much on the predestination side of things. In that area where the Lord Himself deliberately selects souls for damnation and there is nothing those damned souls can do about it.


Pel

It's " pelathais " or "pel" if you must.


I see salvation as a whole, not just the initial beginning. If we believe but revert back to sin, we will not be saved without turning away. The only way we can turn away is to be buried with Christ, identify with his death. I agree we are forgiven at repentance but that won't help us in the future unless we identify with Christ's death.

Yet, the Romans, or at least some among the Romans, appeared to be behaving as if they could "abound" in sin because grace was also in abundance (Romans 6:1). Though, this is most likely a case of Paul asking a rhetorical question rather than responding to a need to admonish the church in Rome. However, his frequent denunciation of sinful practices, especially in chapter one, does give me the impression that he was concerned with the behavior of the larger Roman culture persisting within the church.

In this case, he reminds the Romans that they were already "buried with him by baptism into death." The baptism was no guarantee nor even a sufficient cause to prevent anyone from continuing in sin. The remedy to the sin problem was to be "raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father" so that they could "walk in newness of life."

And yet... even this "resurrection" was a past tense event for the Roman believers. And so, you are correct in saying that "salvation [is] a whole, not just the initial beginning." At least in IMHO, you are correct.


I do not find the same identical death. I've read Romans 6 hundreds of times. Baptism is the only way Paul identifies that we are put into his death. not by repentance, not by his resurrection, but by baptism. If that is done in repentance, why would it need to continue to be done in baptism and the resurrection?

Because, as you yourself have said, "salvation [is] a whole, not just the initial beginning." We are "crucified with Christ" on the cross through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior. Jesus died on the cross. Paul doesn't repeat the same refrains through Romans 6:4-6, correlating each even in our Lord's passion and resurrection to the pattern types in our own conversions, but what is "crucifixion" if not a "death?"

It's how He died. In a type and shadow, it's how we "die" to an old life of rebellion against God.


I don't sweep past it one bit. My whole to do list would be nothing if He hadn't made the first move. That does not mean I am free not to make the necessary moves I have to make. Just because salvation is available doesn't exclude us from taking the steps to take ahold of it.

You've attributed too much to my statement again. I don't think that you've "swept past it" in your own life and ministry. But I don't know you, I don't know your life nor have I been impacted by your ministry. My comments are strictly limited to the things that I can "see and hear" - just the yammering that we do here on AFF.

I got a little preachy but it felt good. Thanks.


Jesus isn't there in the waters physically. Our spirits meet his in his death through baptism. I see it a little differently but same premise. He isn't getting baptized with us each time though. He did it Himself to fulfill all righteousness.

I see it as an idealized path through life. The life of Jesus followed the pattern of Moses' life and ministry, the life of Joseph, the pattern of Israel's forging from a small clan into a nation. Over and over again we see the pattern of going from a period of testing or turmoil and then a passage through water and into a "new life."


I am glad that you are but in essence if either of us is against the scripture in its fullness, we must both change.

[Jason B]

I don't believe in anything you just said. You might want to try and talk to the hardliners about this one. I believe a person becomes part of the body by faith and baptism. THe HG is a promise that they WILL receive, might be same day or 10 years. Thats HOW I can redeem sound doctrine. You are letting the fact that some do not receive the HG override what the Bible teaches. You adapt your doctrine, not throw it away.

So someone can be part of the body of Christ, and NOT have the Holy Spirit for 10 years (per your example)? Exactly where do you find that in the scripture? And how do you reconcile that view with Romans 8:9?

[Jason B]

They weren't changed by a prayer my friend. They were changed by the Holy Ghost. If there is no changing experience to accompany the prayer, it is just words.
How about responding to my points instead of responding to a strawman. Obviously a prayer in and of itself changes no one. However, true faith, which issues in repentance, and finds expression in the form of prayer, and God's response to that prayer can indeed change someone. I agree that change comes from the Holy Ghost(not speaking in tongues), which is given to those who BELIEVE. When God forgives the sinner, he saves the sinner (at justification) that sinner is given a new nature, because He is born again by the Spirit, and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to Him. He is a son of God by adoption. This all happens from mans point of view simultaneously. If someone truly has saving faith WORKS will always follow (Ephesians 2:10).

[Jason B]

Wow but you didn't mention the carnal christians who haven't spoken in tongues.. BIAS'd my friend!
The "carnal christians who haven't spoken in tongues" are non-sequitur. The whole discussion revolves around speaking in tongues being some initial evidence, by which we all know that those who do this have the Spirit and those who do not, have not the Spirit and are none of His. Thus, the point made is that speaking in tongues is neither a proof of the Holy Spirit and especially not of spiritual maturity AND that those who have had this experience often live a similar lifestyle to those who have not, and are frequently MORE CARNAL and MORE WORLDLY than Christians who do not speak in tongues, but are mature in their faith.


Jason so would you mind rewinding time and giving God your Holy Ghost experience back because based on what you said it did nothing for you :) Paul said it would quicken our mortal bodies.
WRONG. Speaking in tongues is not to be synonymous with the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost (not tongues) is what has given me the ability and desire to live for God these 11 years. It is the promise in Romans 8:11 coupled with my belief in the ressurection of Jesus Christ that gives me faith and confidence than God will raise me up. I never said the Holy Ghost did nothing for me. Reading comprehension. :)

WHen they got the Spirit, they spoke in tongues. Maybe the christians you observed have spoken in tongues, just not in churches. Maybe the christians you observed haven't spoken in tongues but prophesied.
Nope the ones I am referencing are quite open about not speaking in tongues. And none of them claim to be prophets.

Maybe the christians you observed have the SPirit of God without the initial evidence.
Had the Spirit of God but did not have the evidence?

I don't know but the scripture says when they were filled with the spirit they spoke in tongues. As for me and my house, we want the same "that" spoken by the prophet joel.
Did Joel mention tongues? How do we know we have what Joel spoke of unless we see visions?

So these good loving Christians that haven't received this experience, ITS FOR YOU!! is my message to them.

And if they don't speak in tongues-is your message "your going to hell?"

[Pressing-On]

So someone can be part of the body of Christ, and NOT have the Holy Spirit for 10 years (per your example)? Exactly where do you find that in the scripture? And how do you reconcile that view with Romans 8:9?

I don't believe you are in the body without the Holy Ghost.

II Thessalonians 2:13 says, "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

Hebrews 2:11 " 11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,"

Which makes us belong to Him:

Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

You cannot be sanctified without His Spirit. You cannot belong to God without His Spirit.

And, yes, I believe the initial evidence is tongues. I am not saved because of the tongues, but because I am filled with His Spirit. The tongues are just the evidence you have His Spirit. Of course, our salvation is ongoing. (I Peter 1:5)

These two passages are plenty enough for me to understand that the Disciples identified the evidence as tongues.

Acts 10:45 "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For (because/for indeed) they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Acts 19:6 "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

And I believe that in Acts 19:6, when it says, "...and prophesied", that it is showing that the "gifts of the spirit" were immediately in operation. I refer to I Cor 14, especially verse 1, "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."

I also see it being very important to Paul that all believers were filled, as in Acts 19:2, "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."

[Jason B]

I don't believe you are in the body without the Holy Ghost.
Nor do I. However oneness pentecostal theology normally demands tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit, which makes them salvational, and there is no way to wiggle around it. I believe that no one is in the body without the Spirit (for by ONE Spirit we are ALL baptized into one body).

And since I mentioned that passage from 1 COrinthians 12, which says that if you have the Spirit, you are in the body, why aren't the trinitairan pentecostals which HAVE exhibited the tongues evidence been excepted within the oneness movement, if it is the baptism of the Spirit which places us in the body?


II Thessalonians 2:13 says, "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

Hebrews 2:11 " 11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,"

Which makes us belong to Him:

Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

You cannot be sanctified without His Spirit. You cannot belong to God without His Spirit.
Amen.

And, yes, I believe the initial evidence is tongues.
Which is a completely indefensible position to hold. No offense.

I am not saved because of the tongues,
Yes, I've heard, just like someone bought the shoes and tongues came with them, right? You say your not saved because of tongues, and I understand what your saying, but if you never spoke in tongues would you still believe yourself to be saved? Do you think that those who have not, do not, and died and never did speak in tongues are/were saved?


These two passages are plenty enough for me to understand that the Disciples identified the evidence as tongues.

Acts 10:45 "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For (because/for indeed) they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Acts 19:6 "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

And I believe that in Acts 19:6, when it says, "...and prophesied", that it is showing that the "gifts of the spirit" were immediately in operation. I refer to I Cor 14, especially verse 1, "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."

I also see it being very important to Paul that all believers were filled, as in Acts 19:2, "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."

First, I'm not denying tongues were a sing of the Spirits coming, especially in the book of Acts. What I am saying is there is no strong evidence it happened every time, no exceptions, to everyone who was saved, and in fact there is abundance of scripture (including in Acts) which implicitly or explictly states that speaking in tongues was unusual, though not unheard of, phenomena.

The tongues in Acts were always languages, not sounds or gibberish, and there is good reason to believe there was understanding/interpretation in each case-which would be in line with 1 Corinthians 14, the most ignorned Bible chapter in Pentecost (well, that and Romans 4 ;) ).

I want to comment more on Acts 10:46, but I'm not up to it. Let me make this quick point: If all the Gentiles, and for that matter EVERYONE who was born again in the church spoke in tongues (and we know in Acts it was literally multiple thousands, possibly millions) then why did Peter in Acts 15 (SEVERAL years after the events of Acts 10 & 11) have to refer back to Cornelius' house, if that was indeed the normative experience of ALL Gentiles?

[Pressing-On]

Nor do I. However oneness pentecostal theology normally demands tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit, which makes them salvational, and there is no way to wiggle around it. I believe that no one is in the body without the Spirit (for by ONE Spirit we are ALL baptized into one body).
I also believe that no one is in the body without the Spirit. I believe that evidence of having received His Spirit is tongues. But focusing on the gift and not the Giver is not a good idea. But, I think it's hard not to do that when it is the evidence. I think that hinders some from receiving His Spirit. They want to speak in tongues more than looking to Jesus. Teaching should try to focus more on the Giver, showing that the gift is poured out more freely if you aren't focusing so much on the evidence/act.

And since I mentioned that passage from 1 COrinthians 12, which says that if you have the Spirit, you are in the body, why aren't the trinitairan pentecostals which HAVE exhibited the tongues evidence been excepted within the oneness movement, if it is the baptism of the Spirit which places us in the body?

I don't believe that all people who say they are Trinitarians are actually of the Trinity. They just word things differently. We confuse them, they confuse us. It's who is sitting on the throne in heaven that counts. If they believe there are three - then they are wrong. Revelations 4:9-11 needs to be their answer - Him, not they.


Which is a completely indefensible position to hold. No offense.
None taken, but I'll never agree with you on that. ;)

Yes, I've heard, just like someone bought the shoes and tongues came with them, right? You say your not saved because of tongues, and I understand what your saying, but if you never spoke in tongues would you still believe yourself to be saved? Do you think that those who have not, do not, and died and never did speak in tongues are/were saved?
Hilarious!

If I never spoke in tongues, I would know I didn't receive His Spirit. It's wrong to focus on tongues, so I'm not going to let you take me down that path with your questioning.

I don't know what God wants to do with every man. I know what He has called me to and that is what I teach. He is ever merciful and allowed David to enter into the Tabernacle and eat the shewbread because he was hungry. That was against the rules. That doesn't make me spin around trying to find outs for people. I stand and teach on what I know to be truth and let God handle the rest. I don't think any of us feel real comfortable sitting on a throne. ;)

First, I'm not denying tongues were a sign of the Spirits coming, especially in the book of Acts. What I am saying is there is no strong evidence it happened every time, no exceptions, to everyone who was saved, and in fact there is abundance of scripture (including in Acts) which implicitly or explictly states that speaking in tongues was unusual, though not unheard of, phenomena.
It was strong evidence to me. So, no point in going any further with the conversation. No offense.

The tongues in Acts were always languages, not sounds or gibberish, and there is good reason to believe there was understanding/interpretation in each case-which would be in line with 1 Corinthians 14, the most ignorned Bible chapter in Pentecost (well, that and Romans 4 ;) ).
I just look at the across the board, plain written scriptures and don't try to figure out who was gibbering and who was intelligible. God had a plan, the plan was set out from the beginning, there is only one God and one faith. If we walk in our own personal sincerity and integrity and He shows us something else along the way, it's fine with me. But as I do walk, I will walk a straight line and not waver with doubts that I think are unfounded. It isn't productive for me. If I believe one thing, that's the thing I am going to believe and teach - unless, as I stated, He shows me more or something else.

I want to comment more on Acts 10:46, but I'm not up to it. Let me make this quick point: If all the Gentiles, and for that matter EVERYONE who was born again in the church spoke in tongues (and we know in Acts it was literally multiple thousands, possibly millions) then why did Peter in Acts 15 (SEVERAL years after the events of Acts 10 & 11) have to refer back to Cornelius' house, if that was indeed the normative experience of ALL Gentiles?
I'm too tired to study this last part. I'll get back with you later, if I don't forget. LOL!

[UnTraditional]

There is initial evidence of baptism of the Holy Ghost, and then there are the fruit of the Spirit. I do believe that tongues are the initial evidence of the baptism, but as a believer matures, the fruit become more the proof than just speaking in tongues. Now, here is something that I agree strongly with, something that you said, PO:

I also believe that no one is in the body without the Spirit. I believe that evidence of having received His Spirit is tongues. But focusing on the gift and not the Giver is not a good idea. But, I think it's hard not to do that when it is the evidence. I think that hinders some from receiving His Spirit. They want to speak in tongues more than looking to Jesus. Teaching should try to focus more on the Giver, showing that the gift is poured out more freely if you aren't focusing so much on the evidence/act.

Amen! When we teach on the baptism, our focus should be on Jesus, and Him alone. The issue of tongues should be part of the teaching, that it is the initial evidence, but that should in no way be the focus of the teaching. Christ is our focus.

[Pressing-On]

I want to comment more on Acts 10:46, but I'm not up to it. Let me make this quick point: If all the Gentiles, and for that matter EVERYONE who was born again in the church spoke in tongues (and we know in Acts it was literally multiple thousands, possibly millions) then why did Peter in Acts 15 (SEVERAL years after the events of Acts 10 & 11) have to refer back to Cornelius' house, if that was indeed the normative experience of ALL Gentiles?
The "normative experience" isn't what I see the issue being in Acts 15.

Paul and Barnabas start out by giving evidence that the Gentiles had been converted into the church.

"...declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren." Acts 15:3

"And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;" Acts 15:8

Notice how verse Acts 15:8 correlates with Acts 10:45-46, identifying how they knew the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost.

10:45 "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 10:45

10:46 "For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter," Acts 10:46

The issue being discussed is that the Jews continued in their attendance to temple service and conformity to the the Jewish customs and wanted the Gentiles to do the same. "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." Acts 15:5

That didn't have anything to do with or make it confusing that everyone had received the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues. They were settling a dispute in the early church about the law of Moses. No big deal. The drastic change between the Old and New Covenant was going to bring on some problems. Was John Mark bucking up against what they had discussed and settled in Jerusalem concerning the Gentiles and the Law of Moses? What was his contention?

[onefaith2]

So someone can be part of the body of Christ, and NOT have the Holy Spirit for 10 years (per your example)? Exactly where do you find that in the scripture? And how do you reconcile that view with Romans 8:9?

Because the Bible shows baptism and receiving the HG as two distinct occurences.

How in the world can you be put into Christ by baptism and yet not be a child of his until you receive the Spirit? I could post several scriptures but please ponder this for a moment.


Secondly If you read Romans 8:9-11 real closely, Paul is describing the Spirit of Christ and the SPirit of God. IF christ is in us the body is DEAD because of sin but the spirit is life because of righteousness (His righteousness)..THEN if you read Romans 8:11 but if the Spirit Him who raised Christ from the dead dwell in you, your mortal bodies will be quickened.

SO Christ in you, body is dead, Spirit of God in you body is quickened.. do you see the difference in description like I do?

Now there is only One Spirit but that One SPirit has many different works, justification, sanctification, etc.

Therefore I interpret Romans 8:9 as justification or Christ's work in us and I interpret Romans 8:11 as the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

[onefaith2]

How about responding to my points instead of responding to a strawman. Obviously a prayer in and of itself changes no one. However, true faith, which issues in repentance, and finds expression in the form of prayer, and God's response to that prayer can indeed change someone. I agree that change comes from the Holy Ghost(not speaking in tongues), which is given to those who BELIEVE. When God forgives the sinner, he saves the sinner (at justification) that sinner is given a new nature, because He is born again by the Spirit, and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to Him. He is a son of God by adoption. This all happens from mans point of view simultaneously. If someone truly has saving faith WORKS will always follow (Ephesians 2:10).

I responded to your posts. The Bible disagrees with prayer only for salvation. Prayer is here, he that calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved ( you interpret this verse as IS SAVED and it doesn't say that!) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. TWO things in this verse, belief and baptism.. Your insistence of baptism as a work that we do is both inconsistent and illogical. We repent, God forgives.. WE get baptized, GOd indentifies US with Christ's death.. both are necessary if you want to live an overcoming life. Only the overcomers can make heaven their home.

[onefaith2]

I don't believe you are in the body without the Holy Ghost.

II Thessalonians 2:13 says, "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

Hebrews 2:11 " 11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,"

Which makes us belong to Him:

Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

You cannot be sanctified without His Spirit. You cannot belong to God without His Spirit.

And, yes, I believe the initial evidence is tongues. I am not saved because of the tongues, but because I am filled with His Spirit. The tongues are just the evidence you have His Spirit. Of course, our salvation is ongoing. (I Peter 1:5)

These two passages are plenty enough for me to understand that the Disciples identified the evidence as tongues.

Acts 10:45 "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For (because/for indeed) they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Acts 19:6 "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

And I believe that in Acts 19:6, when it says, "...and prophesied", that it is showing that the "gifts of the spirit" were immediately in operation. I refer to I Cor 14, especially verse 1, "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."

I also see it being very important to Paul that all believers were filled, as in Acts 19:2, "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."

Lets address this here..

Do you believe baptism and HG are two separate things?

IF so then how are you put into Christ by baptism but still not in the body still you receive the Holy Ghost?

That makes no logical sense.

Paul asked in Acts 19, Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed. He interpreted this group as believers and evidently thought they were baptized. He did not tell you, hey you aren't in the body till you speak in tongues. Acts 2:38 tells us what to do, repent and be baptized and then tells us what God will do, fill us with the Holy Ghost. HG is required but not to put us in the body.. thats done in belief and baptism! Know ye not that so many of us that were baptized were baptized into his death? Ye put on Christ by baptism. You can't put on someone or be put in someone and still not BE IN someone. Think guys.

Again notice the different between Romans 8:9 abnd Romans 8:11.. what differences do you see. How does Paul describe the work of the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of GOd?

According to the Bible

Galatians 3:26
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,

How do you get in Christ Jesus? Believe and be baptized into Him.

1 John 5:1
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

When we believe the new birth begins in Christ, it didn't say wait until tongues, it said believe that Jesus is the Christ... tongues is the evidence that God has sealed us with the earnest of our salvation.

Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

If the Holy ghost is a stamp of approval or a seal, how then can there be nothing done inside first?

The believe that you are not a child of God until you receive the Holy Ghost I find inconsistent with scripture.

Now is the HG necessary? According to the BIble it is. How is a child of God going to live victoriously for Christ and please Him and walk after the SPirit if he or she has not been filled with the SPirit? IF one is not sealed with the Spirit, would it not be easier to lose what God has already placed inside?


Come let us reason together

[Pressing-On]

Lets address this here..

Do you believe baptism and HG are two separate things?

IF so then how are you put into Christ by baptism but still not in the body still you receive the Holy Ghost?

That makes no logical sense.

Paul asked in Acts 19, Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed. He interpreted this group as believers and evidently thought they were baptized. He did not tell you, hey you aren't in the body till you speak in tongues. Acts 2:38 tells us what to do, repent and be baptized and then tells us what God will do, fill us with the Holy Ghost. HG is required but not to put us in the body.. thats done in belief and baptism! Know ye not that so many of us that were baptized were baptized into his death? Ye put on Christ by baptism. You can't put on someone or be put in someone and still not BE IN someone. Think guys.

Again notice the different between Romans 8:9 abnd Romans 8:11.. what differences do you see. How does Paul describe the work of the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of GOd?

According to the Bible

Galatians 3:26
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,

How do you get in Christ Jesus? Believe and be baptized into Him.

1 John 5:1
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

When we believe the new birth begins in Christ, it didn't say wait until tongues, it said believe that Jesus is the Christ... tongues is the evidence that God has sealed us with the earnest of our salvation.

Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

If the Holy ghost is a stamp of approval or a seal, how then can there be nothing done inside first?

The believe that you are not a child of God until you receive the Holy Ghost I find inconsistent with scripture.

Now is the HG necessary? According to the BIble it is. How is a child of God going to live victoriously for Christ and please Him and walk after the SPirit if he or she has not been filled with the SPirit? IF one is not sealed with the Spirit, would it not be easier to lose what God has already placed inside?


Come let us reason together

I'll have to think about your post for a bit before I can respond. And I am getting ready to go out of town for a few days, but I will eventually respond to your post. I want to know for certain what I believe, so I don't want to respond too quickly. I'll print your post and take it with me. :D

Great conversation! :thumbsup

[onefaith2]

The "carnal christians who haven't spoken in tongues" are non-sequitur. The whole discussion revolves around speaking in tongues being some initial evidence, by which we all know that those who do this have the Spirit and those who do not, have not the Spirit and are none of His. Thus, the point made is that speaking in tongues is neither a proof of the Holy Spirit and especially not of spiritual maturity AND that those who have had this experience often live a similar lifestyle to those who have not, and are frequently MORE CARNAL and MORE WORLDLY than Christians who do not speak in tongues, but are mature in their faith.
?"
No this discussion revolves around Romans. It is you who started talking or rather bashing initial evidence. I simply tried to point out you are bias'd in your premise that you did not mention Christians who haven't spoken in tongues that are carnal. Your post only revealed your intent to show tongues has no merit, when in fact tongues has great merit ( or at least that is what I got out of your post, feel free to correct me). Now I ask you again do you want to give that back to God since it seems it did nothing to you?


WRONG. Speaking in tongues is not to be synonymous with the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost (not tongues) is what has given me the ability and desire to live for God these 11 years. It is the promise in Romans 8:11 coupled with my belief in the ressurection of Jesus Christ that gives me faith and confidence than God will raise me up. I never said the Holy Ghost did nothing for me. Reading comprehension. :)
?"

And they were all filled with the HG and began to speak in tongues.. Yes tongues are associated with the HG, at least the HG of the NT. IF God is giving the HG any other way, than thats great. But we only have Bible to go on, not a good feeling. Bible says they spoke in tongues when they received the HG and I spoke in tongues when I received the HG. My Spirit witnesses with their spirit and millions of others have done the same.

SO are you saying you had the same fire, same zeal, same determination prior to your tongues experience?




Nope the ones I am referencing are quite open about not speaking in tongues. And none of them claim to be prophets.
?"

Then kindly tell them God has the gift of the HG with tongues for them just like he did for believers in the NT!



Had the Spirit of God but did not have the evidence?

?"

You said they had the HG without tongues or at least you implied that. If they do have the HG, they got it without initial evidence. That is also something not found in scripture. I hope you are right!




Did Joel mention tongues? How do we know we have what Joel spoke of unless we see visions?
?"

Because Peter said, This is that (which ye now see and hear) and that was them talking with tongues as the HG filled them! I don't have to see visions if I at least experienced THAT which they did.



And if they don't speak in tongues-is your message "your going to hell?"

Nope. My message is God loves you and will give the HG to you as that is his promise. I treat them as a child of God. I haven't made it to heaven either, its all apart of the process!

[Pressing-On]

Again notice the different between Romans 8:9 abnd Romans 8:11.. what differences do you see. How does Paul describe the work of the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of GOd?


Just quickly and I probably should have taken more time, but I don't see a difference in Romans 8:9 and Romans 8:11.

Actually, on the surface, it appears that Romans 8:9 is emphatic that you could be buried with Christ and put on Christ, BUT if you do not have His Spirit dwelling in you, you do not belong to Him at all. So, I think we are identified with His death, but we also need the resurrection - His Spirit to complete the work.

Why would Paul ask the men at Ephesus whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed? Why was that so important for him to know and why was it so important for them to understand?

[onefaith2]

Just quickly and I probably should have taken more time, but I don't see a difference in Romans 8:9 and Romans 8:11.

Actually, on the surface, it appears that Romans 8:9 is emphatic that you could be buried with Christ and put on Christ, BUT if you do not have His Spirit dwelling in you, you do not belong to Him at all. So, I think we are identified with His death, but we also need the resurrection - His Spirit to complete the work.

Why would Paul ask the men at Ephesus whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed? Why was that so important for him to know and why was it so important for them to understand?

Because without it our mortal bodies cannot be quickened and we will fail much more when trying to follow the Spirit. Romans 8:11 answers the question.

Do you not see the Bible supports a portion being put into Christ but yet not receiving the HG? If you don't then you admit a person doesn't have JEsus until they receive the Spirit, while the Bible preaches we are put into Jesus and take on Jesus in water baptism.

Again how can you be put into someone's death and put on someone but not really have that someone? That doesn't make logical sense.

We do need the resurrection but not for the reason of being put into Christ. We already got into Him by faith and baptism.

I believe the HG is active in faith and baptism. The HG draws us to repent and we respond. That doesn't mean we are "filled" with the HG. The HG has much more works than just spiritual gifts and the baptism.

[Pressing-On]

Because without it our mortal bodies cannot be quickened and we will fail much more when trying to follow the Spirit. Romans 8:11 answers the question.

Do you not see the Bible supports a portion being put into Christ but yet not receiving the HG? If you don't then you admit a person doesn't have JEsus until they receive the Spirit, while the Bible preaches we are put into Jesus and take on Jesus in water baptism.

Again how can you be put into someone's death and put on someone but not really have that someone? That doesn't make logical sense.

I believe the HG is active in faith and baptism. The HG draws us to repent and we respond. That doesn't mean we are "filled" with the HG. The HG has much more works than just spiritual gifts and the baptism.

Tell me what this means to you in Romans 8:9.

"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." KJV

"But if anyone does not possess the [Holy] Spirit of Christ, he is none of His [he does not belong to Christ, is not truly a child of God]." Amplified Bible

"(And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.)" NLT

"People who don't have the Spirit of Christ in them don't belong to him." CEV

"And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ." NIV

[jfrog]

Tell me what this means to you in Romans 8:9.

"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." KJV

"But if anyone does not possess the [Holy] Spirit of Christ, he is none of His [he does not belong to Christ, is not truly a child of God]." Amplified Bible

"(And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.)" NLT

"People who don't have the Spirit of Christ in them don't belong to him." CEV

"And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ." NIV

PO, just as pentecostals must maintain that there are at least two types of tongues in order to line up with 1 Corinthians 12 (not all speak in tongues) you should afford others the same luxury of being able to maintain that the bible has two usages of Spirit and that when it comes to Romans 8:9 the Spirit it is talking about is not the same usage as the one in Acts 2.

[Pressing-On]

PO, just as pentecostals must maintain that there are at least two types of tongues in order to line up with 1 Corinthians 12 (not all speak in tongues) you should afford others the same luxury of being able to maintain that the bible has two usages of Spirit and that when it comes to Romans 8:9 the Spirit it is talking about is not the same usage as the one in Acts 2.

Are you affording back? :D

"...to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:" I Corinthians 12:10.

The "divers kinds of tongues" is coming from the idea of having being born in anther country, a different language spoken. It isn't talking about "different" in that it is "separate" from another. And it is also coupled with interpretation - tongues and interpretation.

The only difference in tongues (and not making it a separate issue, only in the operation of) is personal edification and for the church in tongues and interpretation. Same Spirit, same tongue, different operation.

[jfrog]

Are you affording back? :D

"...to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:" I Corinthians 12:10.

The "divers kinds of tongues" is coming from the idea of having being born in anther country, a different language spoken. It isn't talking about "different" in that it is "separate" from another. And it is also coupled with interpretation - tongues and interpretation.

The only difference in tongues (and not making it a separate issue, only in the operation of) is personal edification and for the church in tongues and interpretation. Same Spirit, same tongue, different operation.

I don't understand what you are getting at.

[Pressing-On]

I don't understand what you are getting at.

"Divers kind of tongues - genos", doesn't mean it is a separate kind of tongues. It comes from the idea of a variant language. "... because that every man heard them speak in his own language." Acts 2:6. That is what I Cor 12:10 is talking about.

I Cor 12:30 "Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

You will notice that tongues and interpretation are mentioned together, again. Not all will be used in this gift. That doesn't mean you won't be filled with His spirit, speaking in tongues. It's not the same issue.

[onefaith2]

Tell me what this means to you in Romans 8:9.

"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." KJV

"But if anyone does not possess the [Holy] Spirit of Christ, he is none of His [he does not belong to Christ, is not truly a child of God]." Amplified Bible

"(And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.)" NLT

"People who don't have the Spirit of Christ in them don't belong to him." CEV

"And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ." NIV


To me that means if we do not the have work of Christ in us (Spirit does the work) or another words if our sins are not washed in his blood and we are not united to His Spirit for justification, then we are not His.

Notice the usage in Romans 8:10:.. if Christ in you, the body is dead

Notice the usage in Romans 8:11.. If Him that raised up Christ dwell in you, your mortal bodies will be quickened.

The SPirit of Christ must then be talking about the work of the Spirit of his flesh, his body in our sins, in the absolution of sins and NOT the work of the HG to empower us to live after the Spirit.

Since Jesus has a dual nature, One God and one man and Jesus is the same ONE Spirit than that One SPirit can have the work both of the flesh to resolve our sins and of deity, to empower us.

[mfblume]

Just a comment/observation. It seems some folks are looking for everything that distinguishes Oneness Pentecostalism/Apostolic movement from any other group in order to somehow shoot it down to make it look in error. Not everything Apostolic is wrong, you know. :lol But some folks have a vendetta! I mean, come on. It IS an Apostolic forum, for goodness' sakes.

Just saying.

Carry on.

[jfrog]

"Divers kind of tongues - genos", doesn't mean it is a separate kind of tongues. It comes from the idea of a variant language. "... because that every man heard them speak in his own language." Acts 2:6. That is what I Cor 12:10 is talking about.

I Cor 12:30 "Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

You will notice that tongues and interpretation are mentioned together, again. Not all will be used in this gift. That doesn't mean you won't be filled with His spirit, speaking in tongues. It's not the same issue.

But that goes with what I am trying to say. You separate what the tongues in Acts 2 are from what the ones in 1 Corinthians 12 are. So how can it be wrong for a person to separate what the Holy Ghost is in Acts 2 from what the Spirit of God is in Romans 8:9?

[Pressing-On]

Just a comment/observation. It seems some folks are looking for everything that distinguishes Oneness Pentecostalism/Apostolic movement from any other group in order to somehow shoot it down to make it look in error. Not everything Apostolic is wrong, you know. :lol But some folks have a vendetta! I mean, come on. It IS an Apostolic forum, for goodness' sakes.

Just saying.

Carry on.

Isn't that the truth and we are on an "Apostolic" forum! Oh, you already said that. LOL! It is just surreal! :wacko

[jfrog]

Just a comment/observation. It seems some folks are looking for everything that distinguishes Oneness Pentecostalism/Apostolic movement from any other group in order to somehow shoot it down to make it look in error. Not everything Apostolic is wrong, you know. :lol But some folks have a vendetta! I mean, come on. It IS an Apostolic forum, for goodness' sakes.

Just saying.

Carry on.

:thumbsup

Yall still believe in Jesus so your right about not everything Apostolic being wrong... jkjk ;) :thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

But that goes with what I am trying to say. You separate what the tongues in Acts 2 are from what the ones in 1 Corinthians 12 are. So how can it be wrong for a person to separate what the Holy Ghost is in Acts 2 from what the Spirit of God is in Romans 8:9?
I don't separate that at all really. It is the Gift in operation. We try to cubby hole everything and separate it ourselves. In reality, it is the self-same Spirit.

[onefaith2]

I don't separate that at all really. It is the Gift in operation. We try to cubby hole everything and separate it ourselves. In reality, it is the self-same Spirit.

That Spirit can have multiple works in us for salvation. You can't even come to Christ without the SPirit drawing you. Jesus has a dual nature. Why is it hard to consider the HG has a dual work?

Just saying.

[jfrog]

I don't separate that at all really. It is the Gift in operation. We try to cubby hole everything and separate it ourselves. In reality, it is the self-same Spirit.

I give up. :thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

I give up. :thumbsup

:toofunny :thumbsup

[onefaith2]

I give up. :thumbsup

lol

To be honest jfrog if I didn't see the dual work of the Spirit, I'd probably not be Apostolic. Thankfully the Lord gave me solace in Paul's words the way I read them.

[jfrog]

:toofunny :thumbsup

PO, you might be the only person more stubborn than me... lol

[Pressing-On]

That Spirit can have multiple works in us for salvation. You can't even come to Christ without the SPirit drawing you. Jesus has a dual nature. Why is it hard to consider the HG has a dual work?

Just saying.

Well, frog was making it sound like a "different" tongue and it isn't. It's the same Spirit, same tongue - different operation.

[onefaith2]

Well, frog was making it sound like a "different" tongue and it isn't. It's the same Spirit, same tongue - different operation.

Yes different operation .. same gift. I totally agree. My comment was based on Romans 8:9 and Romans 8:11 as a dual work.

I remember when I first encountered problems with initial evidence doctrine. It was a battle but so glad I still believe in the "THAT" spoken by the prophet Joel!

[Pressing-On]

PO, you might be the only person more stubborn than me... lol

:D

When I worked, I was a great salesman. Oops, salesperson. LOL!

[Pressing-On]

Yes different operation .. same gift. I totally agree.

Right, that was my point. :thumbsup

[jfrog]

:D

When I worked, I was a great salesman. Oops, salesperson. LOL!

You sure you weren't a saleswoman?

[onefaith2]

I am also thankful I don't have to avert from the Book of Romans to be Apostolic! :)

[Pressing-On]

Yes different operation .. same gift. I totally agree. My comment was based on Romans 8:9 and Romans 8:11 as a dual work.

I remember when I first encountered problems with initial evidence doctrine. It was a battle but so glad I still believe in the "THAT" spoken by the prophet Joel!

I don't see a dual work when I read Romans 8:11; 8:9. When I read it, I have to try and not press a view. If I feel I am doing that, to even satisfy you, I have to back away and think about it. Just being honest here.

[onefaith2]

I don't see a dual work when I read Romans 8:11; 8:9. When I read it, I have to try and not press a view. If I feel I am doing that, to even satisfy you, I have to back away and think about it. Just being honest here.

So honestly your body is dead (Romans 8:9) but quickened (or risen) at the same time Romans 8:11? These are the questions I had to ask myself.

So you can be put into Christ by baptism in water but not have him until the HG?

These two things don't add up in scripture (to me) if that is so :)

[Pressing-On]

You sure you weren't a saleswoman?

They changed that in the early 90's, I think. We weren't allowed to say anything but "Salesperson". It was so annoying to me. I remember picking up a paycheck and asking a woman if she was one of the new "salesmen". She said, curtly, "Salesperson". I replied, "Sorry, I don't have an identity problem." LOL!

I don't remember when they changed actress to actor. Now, everyone is an actor. Just very annoying to me. :thumbsdown

[Pressing-On]

So honestly your body is dead (Romans 8:9) but quickened (or risen) at the same time Romans 8:11? These are the questions I had to ask myself.

So you can be put into Christ by baptism in water but not have him until the HG?

These two things don't add up in scripture (to me) if that is so :)

I see the death, burial AND resurrection taking place and we need all three applied to our lives. I must die, be buried and I must have resurrection. Romans 8:9 says, without the Spirit we are none (not, neither, never) his. So, if I am just wet or buried and never get up, I am just wet or buried. I need to get up.

[onefaith2]

I see the death, burial AND resurrection taking place and we need all three applied to our lives. I must die, be buried and I must have resurrection. Romans 8:9 says, without the Spirit we are none (not, neither, never) his. So, if I am just wet and never get up, I am just wet.

I see all three needed as well. I also see that we need to be apart of the body of Christ and that we are his when we repent and are baptized into him.

Romans 8:9 says without the Spirit of Christ we are none of His. You have the Spirit of Christ begin working in you at repentance according to Jesus no man can even come to Him except the Spirit draw him. Jesus also said that the HG would flow out of a person. So something must be IN a person in order for something to flow OUT of a person.

Think about it.. how are you dead and quickened at the same time?

Think about it if you got baptized first and put on Christ, how are you not part of his yet?

It took me a WHILE to see this. So dont think thinking any differently comes easy or without much prayer and seeking God and the scripture and talking with saints or ministers.

Now what I believe does not make me teach people don't need the HG to help them make heaven their home. I would never say that as without the HG, I don't see how I would have ever been changed!

Thanks

[onefaith2]

They changed that in the early 90's, I think. We weren't allowed to say anything but "Salesperson". It was so annoying to me. I remember picking up a paycheck and asking a woman if she was one of the new "salesmen". She said, curtly, "Salesperson". I replied, "Sorry, I don't have an identity problem." LOL!

I don't remember when they changed actress to actor. Now, everyone is an actor. Just very annoying to me. :thumbsdown

What urks me is Happy Holidays versus Merry Christmas..:foottap

[Pressing-On]

I see all three needed as well. I also see that we need to be apart of the body of Christ and that we are his when we repent and are baptized into him.

Romans 8:9 says without the Spirit of Christ we are none of His. You have the Spirit of Christ begin working in you at repentance according to Jesus no man can even come to Him except the Spirit draw him. Jesus also said that the HG would flow out of a person. So something must be IN a person in order for something to flow OUT of a person.

Think about it.. how are you dead and quickened at the same time?

Think about it if you got baptized first and put on Christ, how are you not part of his yet?

It took me a WHILE to see this. So don think thinking any differently comes easy or without much prayer and seeking God and the scripture and talking with saints or ministers.

Now what I believe does not make me teach people don't need the HG to help them make heaven their home. I would never say that as without the HG, I don't see how I would have ever been changed!

Thanks
I agree with your second paragraph. :thumbsup

Right, to the second statement in bold. It isn't something I'm going to latch onto immediately. But, I am enjoying the discussion. Thanks for taking the time.

I think God rolls like a tide and I don't want to put little pieces of paper in cubby holes of separation when I don't have to. Operation and separation are huge differences in terminology to me.

[Pressing-On]

What urks me is Happy Holidays versus Merry Christmas..:foottap

Yes, it likes capitulating.

[Pressing-On]

So you can be put into Christ by baptism in water but not have him until the HG?


Barnes:
Rom 13:14
But put ye on - Compare Gal 3:17. The word rendered “put ye on” is the same used in Rom 13:12, and is commonly employed in reference to “clothing” or “apparel.” The phrase to “put on” a person, which seems a harsh expression in our language, was one not infrequently used by Greek writers, and means to imbibe his principles, to imitate his example, to copy his spirit, to become like him.

So Lucian says, “having put on Pythagoras;” having received him as a teacher and guide. So the Greek writers speak of putting on Plato, Socrates, etc. meaning to take them as instructors, to follow them as disciples.

So, apparently, we are copying His example of burial.

Okay, standing hard on Romans 8:9. :heeheehee

[onefaith2]

Barnes:
Rom 13:14
But put ye on - Compare Gal 3:17. The word rendered “put ye on” is the same used in Rom 13:12, and is commonly employed in reference to “clothing” or “apparel.” The phrase to “put on” a person, which seems a harsh expression in our language, was one not infrequently used by Greek writers, and means to imbibe his principles, to imitate his example, to copy his spirit, to become like him.

So Lucian says, “having put on Pythagoras;” having received him as a teacher and guide. So the Greek writers speak of putting on Plato, Socrates, etc. meaning to take them as instructors, to follow them as disciples.

So, apparently, we are copying His example of burial.

Okay, standing hard on Romans 8:9. :heeheehee

Bible says we are planted together with him into his death. Reread Romans 6.

So again how can we be together with him and not be his?

[onefaith2]

I agree with your second paragraph. :thumbsup

Right, to the second statement in bold. It isn't something I'm going to latch onto immediately. But, I am enjoying the discussion. Thanks for taking the time.

I think God rolls like a tide and I don't want to put little pieces of paper in cubby holes of separation when I don't have to. Operation and separation are huge differences in terminology to me.

Yeh and I wonder why sometimes we get frustrated when denominal people don't see baptism in jesus name or the HG with tongues immediately. A belief system is something that takes a while to mold when it contradicts something one has always been taught.

"Buy the truth and sell it not" is a good motto. We just need to know what is truth and what is not.

[mfblume]

Yeh and I wonder why sometimes we get frustrated when denominal people

I get frustrated when people say DENOMINAL when there is no such word, and it should be DENOMINATIONAL.

LOLOL

JUST KIDDING! :D

[Pressing-On]

Bible says we are planted together with him into his death. Reread Romans 6.

So again how can we be together with him and not be his?

Planted with him - following His example, becoming a disciple. "Becoming" being the operative word.

Romans 6:4 "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,"

Romans 6:5 "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:"

We are simply following his example at death, having our sins remitted and an answer of a good conscience.

He then goes on to say, Romans 6:11 "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Romans 8:13 "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

Romans 8:14 "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."

The more I read Romans, the more I think that people are not being taught that you MUST be filled with His Spirit. Not only for empowerment, but for salvation.

First thing Paul asked the men from Ephesus - "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed." He knew they would have repented and been baptized, if they believed. He wanted to know if they had been filled with the Spirit. They couldn't be a part of the NT Church without it.

I think we need to stop being so enamored with The Passion of the Christ type movies and understand something about His Resurrection.

[Pressing-On]

I get frustrated when people say DENOMINAL when there is no such word, and it should be DENOMINATIONAL.

LOLOL

JUST KIDDING! :D

Like, The Anti-Christ? ;)

[Jason B]

The "normative experience" isn't what I see the issue being in Acts 15.

Paul and Barnabas start out by giving evidence that the Gentiles had been converted into the church.

"...declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren." Acts 15:3

"And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;" Acts 15:8

Notice how verse Acts 15:8 correlates with Acts 10:45-46, identifying how they knew the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost.

10:45 "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 10:45

10:46 "For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter," Acts 10:46

The issue being discussed is that the Jews continued in their attendance to temple service and conformity to the the Jewish customs and wanted the Gentiles to do the same. "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." Acts 15:5

That didn't have anything to do with or make it confusing that everyone had received the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues. They were settling a dispute in the early church about the law of Moses. No big deal. The drastic change between the Old and New Covenant was going to bring on some problems. Was John Mark bucking up against what they had discussed and settled in Jerusalem concerning the Gentiles and the Law of Moses? What was his contention?

I agree with you PO that the context of Acts 15 is concerning the Gentiles relationship to the Law. However, your explaination actually did not answer the point I raised.

My point is that the Jerusalem Council happened several years after the events of Acts 10 (if I'm not mistaken appox. 15 years later). This is well after Paul and Barnabas had been converting Gentiles by the hundreds. And yet when the dispute seemed to be at a stalemate, the tipping point was in v.7 when Peter stood up and referenced the manifestation of tongues in Acts 10, (appox. 15 years back). So then, my reasoning and questioning asks, *IF* *ALL* of the Gentiles who were being converted were speaking in tongues WHY did Peter have to reference what happened at Cornelius' house several years later when the debate was raging. Why not just say "since ALL of the Gentiles speak in tongues, we know that God accepts them." Why reference something that happened 15 years ago, if it happened everytime someone was converted (daily in the early church)?

Hopefully you understand what I am saying, I feel as if I am not articulating this the way that I want to.

[*AQuietPlace*]

I agree with you PO that the context of Acts 15 is concerning the Gentiles relationship to the Law. However, your explaination actually did not answer the point I raised.

My point is that the Jerusalem Council happened several years after the events of Acts 10 (if I'm not mistaken appox. 15 years later). This is well after Paul and Barnabas had been converting Gentiles by the hundreds. And yet when the dispute seemed to be at a stalemate, the tipping point was in v.7 when Peter stood up and referenced the manifestation of tongues in Acts 10, (appox. 15 years back). So then, my reasoning and questioning asks, *IF* *ALL* of the Gentiles who were being converted were speaking in tongues WHY did Peter have to reference what happened at Cornelius' house several years later when the debate was raging. Why not just say "since ALL of the Gentiles speak in tongues, we know that God accepts them." Why reference something that happened 15 years ago, if it happened everytime someone was converted (daily in the early church)?

Hopefully you understand what I am saying, I feel as if I am not articulating this the way that I want to.
I understood it. That's a good point.

[Pressing-On]

I agree with you PO that the context of Acts 15 is concerning the Gentiles relationship to the Law. However, your explaination actually did not answer the point I raised.

My point is that the Jerusalem Council happened several years after the events of Acts 10 (if I'm not mistaken appox. 15 years later). This is well after Paul and Barnabas had been converting Gentiles by the hundreds. And yet when the dispute seemed to be at a stalemate, the tipping point was in v.7 when Peter stood up and referenced the manifestation of tongues in Acts 10, (appox. 15 years back). So then, my reasoning and questioning asks, *IF* *ALL* of the Gentiles who were being converted were speaking in tongues WHY did Peter have to reference what happened at Cornelius' house several years later when the debate was raging. Why not just say "since ALL of the Gentiles speak in tongues, we know that God accepts them." Why reference something that happened 15 years ago, if it happened everytime someone was converted (daily in the early church)?

Hopefully you understand what I am saying, I feel as if I am not articulating this the way that I want to.
Where were you getting the information about the time frame between chapter 10 and 15?

And I did get what you were saying. I guess I am just viewing it another way.

First of all, Acts 10:46 says, "For they heard them speak with tongues..." So, it happened and there is no denying it. You are asking, "Why not just say "since ALL of the Gentiles speak in tongues, we know that God accepts them?".

My answer is that he did not say it that way, because that was not the issue at all, ever.

I look at Acts 15 and instead of asking why Paul and Barnabas are bringing up the issue with the Gentiles, I am wondering why in the world he is having to remind the Jews that the Gentiles do not have to follow the Law of Moses? Why after 15 years (I read it could have only been 10 years or, possibly, referring to when Peter received the Keys to the Kingdom), if that is the time span, is Paul having to deal with the Jews on this issue? It looks like, IMO, that as time evolved, the Jews were worried that Paul and Barnabas were trying to end the Jewish ceremonies and they didn't want that to happen. The Law of Moses was the law of God and was unchangeable to them - Proselytes should be circumcised. It was a salvational issue for them.

So, IMO, he is reminding the Jews that God had accepted the Gentiles a long time ago. Verse 7, says that, "after much disputing", Peter stands up. It is like he is saying, "Okay, you guys, this is the deal." Putting out his case, again, that salvation came about just like it did for the Jews. It isn't a matter of them not knowing that the Holy Ghost was poured out, IMO. It is the issue of why the Jews didn't think it was enough? They didn't fully understand and viewed Jesus' ministry as carrying out promises, but not to come and destroy divine authority that was already established.

I get the impression the Jews felt there were two factions present and they wanted them combined, on the side of Moses' Law. Mainly, because they felt they were God's chosen people. That is prejudice right there and Peter was influenced by it himself.

I think it is interesting how difficult it must have been for the Disciples to make the transition, herding people along, between the Old and New Covenant, trying to bring about unity in the body. I do not envy their task. I don't have any information that gives those details, but I would sure love to read something on it.

Anyway, it isn't possible for me to view that passage as a confusion and proof not everyone spoke in tongues. It was about the Jews trying to make the Gentiles conform to the Law of Moses.

[Sam]

I get frustrated when people say DENOMINAL when there is no such word, and it should be DENOMINATIONAL.

LOLOL

JUST KIDDING! :D

What do you mean there is no such word as "denominal"?
I've heard that word for over half a century.
We've created it and we use it as a word.
The dictionaries just haven't caught up with us yet.

[Hoovie]

What do you mean there is no such word as "denominal"?
I've heard that word for over half a century.
We've created it and we use it as a word.
The dictionaries just haven't caught up with us yet.

It is in some dictionaries.

[mfblume]

It is in some dictionaries.

I stand corrected! You are right. But it is not what people have used it for when substituted for the correct term DENOMINATIONAL.

denominal

de·nom·i·nal [ di nómmən'l ]


adjective
Definition:

formed from noun: describes parts of speech that are formed from or have the same form as a noun, e.g. the verb "to butter"

[pelathais]

Just a comment/observation. It seems some folks are looking for everything that distinguishes Oneness Pentecostalism/Apostolic movement from any other group in order to somehow shoot it down to make it look in error. Not everything Apostolic is wrong, you know. :lol But some folks have a vendetta! I mean, come on. It IS an Apostolic forum, for goodness' sakes.

Just saying.

Carry on.

I haven't quite been able to follow some of the divergent points that some are making here, but to question and even argue about the different flavors of "Apostolic doctrine" is, ironically, a very Apostolic behavior. :lol