Originally Posted by RJR (Post 1305041)

It sure seems the majority of the NT was written to people who had already experienced the New birth. I wonder if God missed the memo that says, after the new birth there is nothing to be said?

Originally Posted by RJR (Post 1305041)

It sure seems the majority of the NT was written to people who had already experienced the New birth. I wonder if God missed the memo that says, after the new birth there is nothing to be said?

Originally Posted by FlamingZword (Post 1305047)

Acts 2:38 is for salvation, that is it nothing else can be added to it.

The rest are instructions written for our growth, not for our salvation.
Salvation is one thing, growth is another thing.

Originally Posted by Disciple4life (Post 1305040)

When I started talking to OP twenty years ago they told me I needed to obey Acts 2:38. So it took awhile but I was baptized in Jesus Name and received the Holy Ghost baptism by the evidence of speaking in tongues.

But then they told me I had to believe that anyone who didn't follow Acts 2:38 was going to hell. I refused and said that anyone who wasn't obedient would answer to God.

To me it seemed they just wanted to keep adding more and more things to the "you have to this or your not saved" list. Eventually I was told that people who wear shorts go to hell to. To me that sounds ridiculous.

My point is that when something is (your strongest argument)your go to doctrine, you shouldn't have to add anything to it.

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 1305044)

I firmly believe that the Acts 2:38 is the biblical application of the Gospel. However, there is far more to salvation than repentance, baptism, and Holy Ghost infilling. My experience has been that most Apostolic Pentecostals are largely un-studied when it comes to the doctrines of redemption. Acts 2:38 (repentance, baptism, and Holy Ghost infilling) is only one doctrine of redemption known as "Conversion". There is far more to this that we neglect. Here's a short list of doctrines regarding the larger doctrine of redemption:

1. Election (God's choice of people to be saved)

2. Atonement (Christ's work of satisfying the law for the Elect)

3. Propitiation (Christ's satisfying God's wrath against the sins of the Elect - past, present, future)

4. The Gospel call (inner and outer call of God/Prevenient Grace)

5. Conversion (faith and repentance)

6. Justification (right legal standing/Imputed Righteousness)

7. Regeneration (being born again)

8. Adoption (membership in God's family)

9. Sanctification (right conduct in life leading to Christlikeness)

10. Perseverance (remaining a Christian)

11. Death (going to be with the Lord)

12. Glorification (receiving a resurrection body in sinless perfection)

Each doctrine above adds a different biblical perspective or dimension to our salvation. Notice... silly legalisms aren't a part of it.

Originally Posted by Disciple4life (Post 1305040)

When I started talking to OP twenty years ago they told me I needed to obey Acts 2:38. So it took awhile but I was baptized in Jesus Name and received the Holy Ghost baptism by the evidence of speaking in tongues.

But then they told me I had to believe that anyone who didn't follow Acts 2:38 was going to hell. I refused and said that anyone who wasn't obedient would answer to God.

To me it seemed they just wanted to keep adding more and more things to the "you have to this or your not saved" list. Eventually I was told that people who wear shorts go to hell to. To me that sounds ridiculous.

My point is that when something is (your strongest argument)your go to doctrine, you shouldn't have to add anything to it.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 1305056)

Wait..let me get this straight..they said unless you believe everyone else is going to hell you are not saved?

Wow...that's a new one to me. Never heard that. What church was this?

Originally Posted by Disciple4life (Post 1305040)

When I started talking to OP twenty years ago they told me I needed to obey Acts 2:38. So it took awhile but I was baptized in Jesus Name and received the Holy Ghost baptism by the evidence of speaking in tongues.

But then they told me I had to believe that anyone who didn't follow Acts 2:38 was going to hell. I refused and said that anyone who wasn't obedient would answer to God.

To me it seemed they just wanted to keep adding more and more things to the "you have to this or your not saved" list. Eventually I was told that people who wear shorts go to hell to. To me that sounds ridiculous.

My point is that when something is (your strongest argument)your go to doctrine, you shouldn't have to add anything to it.

Originally Posted by Disciple4life (Post 1305057)

RJR, I know what you are saying. But my point is why add something to your go to scripture. If John 3:16 is your go to scripture, if it is your best argument for the point you are making, why would add to it?

Originally Posted by Disciple4life (Post 1305040)

But then they told me I had to believe that anyone who didn't follow Acts 2:38 was going to hell. I refused and said that anyone who wasn't obedient would answer to God.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord (Post 1305087)

Even though people believe that you are going to hell if you don't believe in Acts 2:38, most won't openly condemn you, but.... it is still an unspoken understanding, that unless you are apostolic/AMF/UPCI through to the bone, complete with all the standards, there is a special place in hell reserved with your name on it... although most won't go so far to say that, but they do think it, and would say so, if questioned deeper about it.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword (Post 1305047)

Acts 2:38 is for salvation, that is it nothing else can be added to it.

The rest are instructions written for our growth, not for our salvation.
Salvation is one thing, growth is another thing.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord (Post 1305087)

Even though people believe that you are going to hell if you don't believe in Acts 2:38, most won't openly condemn you, but.... it is still an unspoken understanding, that unless you are apostolic/AMF/UPCI through to the bone, complete with all the standards, there is a special place in hell reserved with your name on it... although most won't go so far to say that, but they do think it, and would say so, if questioned deeper about it.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 1305120)

On principle, isn't this the case for every Christian denomination, though? Most believe that you must be saved or you will be lost, and they have various ideas about how one is saved. That isn't unique to Apostolics. Pretty much, if you believe you know what one must do to be "saved", then it follows that you also believe that if they do not do whatever it requires, they will be lost.

Originally Posted by justlookin (Post 1305121)

This is true. Almost all Christian denominations have a minimum requirement to miss hell. Except for the Universalists of course.

Originally Posted by kclee4jc (Post 1305161)

I am just as conservative as I have ever been on salvific and holiness issues.(just for the benefit of anyone who would question that-no holywood, long-sleeves, no jewelry, short-hair for me uncut for ladies....etc.)
I believe in a conservative holiness standard and I believe that when it is done out of true consecration of the heart, that it is pleasing to God. I believe that Acts 2:38 is the New Birth experience and is absolutely essential to be a part of the New Testament Church.
That being said, it is increasingly difficult for me to condemn ANYONE to Hell. I have come to the conclusion it is simply not my place, nor anyone else's to do so. It is the Church's job to preach the Gospel (which I believe includes holy living) as a way of escape and leave the final determination up to God.

Originally Posted by kclee4jc (Post 1305161)

That being said, it is increasingly difficult for me to condemn ANYONE to Hell. I have come to the conclusion it is simply not my place, nor anyone else's to do so. It is the Church's job to preach the Gospel (which I believe includes holy living) as a way of escape and leave the final determination up to God.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 1305162)

Yes, except for those pesky Universalists...who are obviously going to hell. :heeheehee



But what do you think about salvation? Obviously you stating what you think about salvation doesn't condemn or save anyone in actuality--only God can do that. So why be afraid to state your feelings on the matter? We all believe that something will send you to hell, right?

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, I'm a bit tired of other Christians trying to *shush* all the other Christians who want to state precisely what they believe or don't believe. It is quite possible that I've been guilty of that, too, with a misguided sense of gentility and compassion. Yes, I believe we should state the truth in love and be kind, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't state our beliefs for everyone to hear. In fact, if we truly believe, then we have an obligation to the Gospel to state it for everyone to hear.

Growing up in the church, I've heard many conversations that were peppered with, "So you think I'm going to hell?" or "So you think they're going to hell?" I still read and hear comments about how that stating definitive truths condemns that Christian or this one, but here's the deal:

1. We can't go back and save or condemn anyone who is already dead; they are in God's hands. No amount of stating any belief or renouncing any other belief actually condemns or saves millions of past Christians. Again, only God is their actual judge. Ergo, there is no harm in stating your beliefs, even if they are in conflict with centuries of traditional Christianity.

2. Stating what we believe right now is not only harmless, but obligatory. If you truly believe that you know what scripture says and means, then you have an obligation to share it with people who could potentially be lost from a lack of knowledge. While people who are already dead are in God's hands, people who are living today are, to some extent, in our hands. God has given us a commission, and I believe He will hold us accountable if we don't do our best to carry it out. That commission is teaching and baptizing. We aren't just instructed to share the Gospel message, either. Jesus said to teach people to observe all His commandments.

I guess I'm trying to say that I'm tired of the stigma surrounding stating absolutes and strong beliefs. As long as you speak the truth in love, you are harming no one by stating your beliefs, and, more importantly, there may be many people you will help. FTR, I didn't take your post to mean that you don't believe we should be witnesses; it segued into something I've been thinking about already. I believe Satan has shut the mouth of the church with the fear that we will condemn someone to hell. No worries, we don't have that power--so speaking about what we believe is perfectly acceptable.

Originally Posted by Carl (Post 1305205)

Right. But shouldn't the message be a positive one? Its what we get, not what we don't get that should be the motivation.

Originally Posted by justlookin (Post 1305209)

Yes, by all means the message should be a positive one.

I grew up hearing a fear message, the stories about the person who walked out of the church during an altar call and got killed in a car wreck. Fear was the motivating factor which caused folks to go to the altar and it was effective to a point. Actually, thinking about that time, the power of God was more prevalent also.

I'm not suggesting that the fear message should be the motivational message for those needing salvation, but I am saying that the fear message also has it's place in the salvation message. One can be, and should be, positive in presenting heaven instead of hell, but the negative of the destination of the individual who rejects Christ should be preached also. There is a reality of heaven and there is a reality of hell. Both should be preached and the responsibility is then placed on the individual. Accept or reject, the choice is up to them.

It's a serious thing and needs serious preaching.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1305213)

We had an evangelist visit who was wearing red pants and had them turn off the lights while he preached about hell. An elderly man was so scared he wet his pants all over one of the pews.

Originally Posted by justlookin (Post 1305214)

Hope he went to the altar after all that. :heeheehee

Originally Posted by RJR (Post 1305212)

Jud 1:22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
Jud 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Originally Posted by RJR (Post 1305063)

Why not, obedience to the word is important period? if one phrase was all that was necessary we have how many verses and chapters that are an exercise in futility. There is a reason Paul said he did not shun to declare unto them ALL the counsel of God, he wanted to be pure from the blood of all men, Acts 20:26-27. The scripture states as listed a few moments ago, it is because the received not THE LOVE of THE TRUTH, (not a love of a truth) that they might be saved, 2 Thes. 2:10.

Why put a penknife to it like they did in Jeremiah's day and act as if one part you will save while the others you do not like can be thrown into the hearth?

The WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth!

Originally Posted by RJR (Post 1305212)

Jud 1:22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
Jud 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1305216)

Do you think that we could view the first part of Jude 1:23 as also relating to Galatians 6:1? That is what comes to mind when I read, "save with fear".

"Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Galatians 6:1

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1305233)

*Bump* for RJR...

Originally Posted by RJR (Post 1305235)

I do think we need to carefully consider ourselves when also helping others. It certainly does have its applications. However, I truly think these other verses that I have provided have more of a parallel focus to the passage in Jude than Gal. 6:1.