Calling on the Name of the Lord

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by houston

Where in the Bible is repentance likened unto death?

It seems to me like repentance is the missing doctrine of forsaking all.

Yeshua said we must forsake all to be his disciple. Turning from the old life to him. Luke 14:26

[FieryMethodist]

Salvation can be lost at the moment of a sin, but someone cannot be saved from Christ's work instantaneously?

I have observed the practice. Apostolics can say all they want to that they do not believe that they can lose their salvation at the moment of sin. Because: 1. All the anxiety of staying saved; 2. The sadness of despair about being scared to go to Hell after sinning before "praying through again;" 3. Not really being assured of salvation; 4. Being so self-focused maintaining personal salvation that people around you get left out, needs ignored, no outreach, because your to busy maintaining your own salvation? The behavior is practiced too much by apostolics to say that we do not believe we can lose our salvation.

-However-

Assurance is a Biblical doctrine.

I find it ironic that an Apostolic can lose their salvation in a moment in time, but we cannot experience a conversion for eternal assurance instantaneously.
We have to pray again, keep track again, speak over, seek Holy Ghost again, and pray in tongues again in order to think that God will accept us into heaven. I find it interesting that we have to process more and work more for God to forgive, redeem, and accept us. And, we can lose salvation quickly, but God cannot forgive, redeem, and accept us at the moment of faith.

And, we can lose our salvation quickly and spend more time to get God's approval, but we cannot simply believe, confess, and call on the name of the Lord to experience an instantaneous conversion?

Why can't we believe that Christ's work of suffering, dying, being buried, and being resurrected from the dead is enough to be assured that we are saved and having assurance that we are going to heaven?

Why do we have to be anxiety driven in order to go to the altar, but we cannot be assured by Christ?

Just some things to think about?
I kind of feel sorry for you guys,
God Bless, Greg N.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by FieryMethodist

Salvation can be lost at the moment of a sin, but someone cannot be saved from Christ's work instantaneously?

I have observed the practice. Apostolics can say all they want to that they do not believe that they can lose their salvation at the moment of sin. Because: 1. All the anxiety of staying saved; 2. The sadness of despair about being scared to go to Hell after sinning before "praying through again;" 3. Not really being assured of salvation; 4. Being so self-focused maintaining personal salvation that people around you get left out, needs ignored, no outreach, because your to busy maintaining your own salvation? The behavior is practiced too much by apostolics to say that we do not believe we can lose our salvation.

-However-

Assurance is a Biblical doctrine.

I find it ironic that an Apostolic can lose their salvation in a moment in time, but we cannot experience a conversion for eternal assurance instantaneously.
We have to pray again, keep track again, speak over, seek Holy Ghost again, and pray in tongues again in order to think that God will accept us into heaven. I find it interesting that we have to process more and work more for God to forgive, redeem, and accept us. And, we can lose salvation quickly, but God cannot forgive, redeem, and accept us at the moment of faith.

And, we can lose our salvation quickly and spend more time to get God's approval, but we cannot simply believe, confess, and call on the name of the Lord to experience an instantaneous conversion?

Why can't we believe that Christ's work of suffering, dying, being buried, and being resurrected from the dead is enough to be assured that we are saved and having assurance that we are going to heaven?

Why do we have to be anxiety driven in order to go to the altar, but we cannot be assured by Christ?

Just some things to think about?
I kind of feel sorry for you guys,
God Bless, Greg N.

[FieryMethodist]

The more I study it, the more I come to realize that conversion, justification, and "how to be saved" is instantaneous. Conversion is instantaneous the moment you believe and confess, put your trust [only] in Christ's work for your salvation. And at the moment you call on the name of the Lord, that the conversion occurs, you are saved, and you receive the assurance: Shall be Saved!

What kind of doctrine is that to be a Christian without any assurance? To not know your saved [having assurance] UNTIL you are in heaven?

Just some thoughts to consider?

God Bless,
Greg

[Nitehawk013]

How far does your assurance go?

Saved while being a drunk? Saved while beating your wife daily? Saved raping children? Saved being a theif? Saved watching porn all the time? Saved while coming out of the closet as a gay?

See, if your assurance is based only on "faith" and obediance or any works then you get this "once saved always saved, you can live a godless heathen scumbag lifestyle and yet still get to heaven" nonsense. James tells us pretty straight that we are judged and justified by what we DO, not simply mental ascent to an idea. REAL FAITH IS the action of obediance and works. If you don't show works and practice obediance...you don't have faith. Your faith is a fraud is actions don't show it.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by FieryMethodist

The more I study it, the more I come to realize that conversion, justification, and "how to be saved" is instantaneous. Conversion is instantaneous the moment you believe and confess, put your trust [only] in Christ's work for your salvation. And at the moment you call on the name of the Lord, that the conversion occurs, you are saved, and you receive the assurance: Shall be Saved!

What kind of doctrine is that to be a Christian without any assurance? To not know your saved [having assurance] UNTIL you are in heaven?

Just some thoughts to consider?

God Bless,
Greg

Why then were those believing the gospel in Acts not instantaneously regenerated by the Spirit the moment they believed? Why was there a delay of anywhere from moments to days before they received the Spirit?

[Real Realism]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Why then were those believing the gospel in Acts not instantaneously regenerated by the Spirit the moment they believed? Why was there a delay of anywhere from moments to days before they received the Spirit?

This has been the the question niggling at me for months, as I've reevaluated everything I've ever been taught.

No matter how much I disagree with traditional UPC approach to many "extra-Biblical" mandated applications of Scriptural principals - there is no way I can get past the fact that "baptism of the Spirit"/"the Spirit falling"/"receiving the Spirit" was accompanied by a very obvious external sign, tongues being the most common and consistently recorded. And Acts 8 being an example where the sign itself was not recorded, but you cannot deny there was a "delay" in the Spirit falling and that the sign was demonstrably external and noticeable.

The Spirit-filled experience is a promise to all believers. Why we would not encourage believers to seek this experience as they deepen their walk with God seems unfortunate and sad to me, as I continue to study the subject.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

It seems to me like repentance is the missing doctrine of forsaking all.

Yeshua said we must forsake all to be his disciple. Turning from the old life to him. Luke 14:26

And that is what is missing in the Apostolic teaching on water baptism.

We either teach or imply a literal soul cleansing by the blood of Jesus in the waters of baptism if the Name of Jesus is called over the candidate.

What nonsense!!

We should be stressing the concept of "forsaking all' to the candidate, that by being baptized in the name of Jesus, they are submitting to his authority (and yes, the term "in the name" is referring to a submission to the authority), the One bearing the name. We should explain to the sinner seeking repentance that Christ's blood purchased them for God as well as paid the penalty for their sins, and earned him (Christ) the right to be their Lord. Thus by being baptized in his name, they are agreeing that only his blood can judicially declare them not guilty before a holy God, that his blood purchased them for God, this his (Christ) sacrifice earned him the right to be Lord of all, and that forgiveness of their sins hinges on them accepting all the above. Thus their baptism becomes the point in time they will always remember that they began to yield their members as instruments of righteousness and yielded the temple of their body for God to live in.

But apostolics usually touch none of those points when baptizing someone. They put ALL the emphasis on the vocalization of the name instead of the authority the name bears, and shout and dance that another sinner "got baptized the right way". They declare that the sinner has been "washed in the blood", and that is usually the only time the candidate hears about the blood at all during this whole process.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

We should be stressing the concept of "forsaking all' to the candidate, that by being baptized in the name of Jesus, they are submitting to his authority (and yes, the term "in the name" is referring to a submission to the authority), the One bearing the name. We should explain to the sinner seeking repentance that Christ's blood purchased them for God as well as paid the penalty for their sins, and earned him (Christ) the right to be their Lord. Thus by being baptized in his name, they are agreeing that only his blood can judicially declare them not guilty before a holy God, that his blood purchased them for God, this his (Christ) sacrifice earned him the right to be Lord of all, and that forgiveness of their sins hinges on them accepting all the above. Thus their baptism becomes the point in time they will always remember that they began to yield their members as instruments of righteousness and yielded the temple of their body for God to live in.

Shouldn't this be presented in the evangelistic preaching/teaching? Thus, a person coming to be baptised would already understand the basics - that by being baptised into the name of Jesus Christ they are publicly affirming they are on the Lord's side, lock stock and barrel?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Shouldn't this be presented in the evangelistic preaching/teaching? Thus, a person coming to be baptised would already understand the basics - that by being baptised into the name of Jesus Christ they are publicly affirming they are on the Lord's side, lock stock and barrel?

Yes it should, and you would think that in a church that actually believes that baptism is more than just an "post salvation, outward sign of an inward act", that these things would be stressed. Often times they are not.