God IS Pouring Out His Spirit Upon ALL Flesh--Not Just Oneness Flesh

Originally Posted by Apprehended

In the Greek, the Word "forgive" is also interpreted as "remission." It is one and the same thing.

If someone ask God to forgive them, God is not going to give them the BAD NEWS, "Nope! I'm not going to forgive (remit) your sins, you low down rascal, I am going to continue to hold them against you and furthermore, I'm NOT going to cast them into the sea of forgetfullness." That is BAD news, usually propagated by inference by those whom have less than a full view of the Cross of Jesus which has been made alive effecatious by the resurrection.

Really, it is too bad that the Cross and the blood is not preached too much anymore. Where there is a dim revelation of its power to save, to heal and to empower for service, it is often neglected. That is the reason that I have often chided my own bretheren and fellowship for measuring the plumb line off the Acts and the Epistles rather than the Gospels...the Chief Cornerstone.

When there is a proper perspective of the Gospels, then a fuller, more rounded understanding of Jn 3:5/Acts 2:38 comes into focus after we become believers, following Jesus in the light a step at a time.

Instead of following Jesus as he leads us individually, one step at a time, we bcome cookie-cutter robots having a form of godliness only as robot soldiers whose spring has been fairly wound up and set loose upon the world. Hence, we become so THEOLOGICAL with very little of the life of the cross left in it.

I am determined to preach nothing less than Christ and Him crucified.

For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel.

Who said these things?

The gospel is about Jesus!

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Walkbyfaith7

Then Peter should have said:

Repent and you can get the Holy Ghost or if you don't, get baptized in Jesus name and then get the Holy Ghost.

No, its not that Peter "should have said" anything other than what he said.
He said what he said. Why should he have said it any other way? He said it the way God wanted him to say it.

The fact is, however he said it ,there would still be people out there finding a way to twist the word to suit themselves.

Originally Posted by Walkbyfaith7

I guess there wasn't an order do it? Apparently God can fill you with the Holy Ghost without your sins remitted?

WOW!

wow?? why the "wow!" ??
Is it not in your bible, Acts 10 that they received the Holy Ghost before they were baptized?

If you doubt that remission of sins comes at baptism, and if Acts 2:38 isn't enough for you on that... then tell us why Paul was told to "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord"? (Acts 22:16)


...

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

No, its not that Peter "should have said" anything other than what he said.
He said what he said. Why should he have said it any other way? He said it the way God wanted him to say it.

The fact is, however he said it ,there would still be people out there finding a way to twist the word to suit themselves.


wow?? why the "wow!" ??
Is it not in your bible, Acts 10 that they received the Holy Ghost before they were baptized?

If you doubt that remission of sins comes at baptism, and if Acts 2:38 isn't enough for you on that... then tell us why Paul was told to "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord"? (Acts 22:16)


...

Calling on the Name of the Lord in faith believing and trusting in the blood of Jesus ALWAYS washes away sin. Never fails.

Peter repeated an ancient scipture, "Whoso ever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be (delievered) saved."

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Calling on the Name of the Lord in faith believing and trusting in the blood of Jesus ALWAYS washes away sin. Never fails.

Peter repeated an ancient scipture, "Whoso ever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be (delievered) saved."

Good point there bro.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Calling on the Name of the Lord in faith believing and trusting in the blood of Jesus ALWAYS washes away sin. Never fails.

Peter repeated an ancient scipture, "Whoso ever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be (delievered) saved."

Originally Posted by Walkbyfaith7

Good point there bro.

So the "washing away of sins" he's referring to is accomplished not by the baptism he clearl speaks of in that verse, but by the "calling on the name of the Lord", huh?


ok.
Interesting analysis there. Quite selective, I must say.

carry on.

If you look at that verse and don't see that the "washing away your sins" is accomplished by the "being baptized" that he's speaking of ... then its because you just dont want to see it.


...

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

So the "washing away of sins" he's referring to is accomplished not by the baptism he clearl speaks of in that verse, but by the "calling on the name of the Lord", huh?


ok.
Interesting analysis there. Quite selective, I must say.

carry on.

If you look at that verse and don't see that the "washing away your sins" is accomplished by the "being baptized" that he's speaking of ... then its because you just dont want to see it.


...

Too many people are baptized whose sins are never washed away and continue to live in them. They go down a dry sinner and come up a wet one. On the other hand, I've never known a person who sincerely called upon the name of the Lord for forgiveness (remission) of sin that was REFUSED THAT FORGIVENESS.

Is it your experience that people go to the Lord in contrition, confession asking for remission (forgiveness) but leave their place of supplication wet with tears only to learn that they have been refused that forgiveness?

That does not sound like the Jesus that I read about in the GOSPELS. There, I learn that he refuses NONE who come to him in faith believing.

Again and again I say, "let us go back to the Gospels that we might better understand the Acts and the Epistles." Otherwise, it is like trying to understand Shakespeare without learning the alphabet.

[nwlife]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Good grief. Is that the best you can come up with? Please.
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here aren't you?

First of all, I don't know about "requiring men to remove their hat in order to pray". Never seen that specifically required "to pray". But I do know in apostolic churches men are expected not to have their hats on in the sanctuary or during church services. Big difference there. And that's a tradition, but A) its not doctrinal in nature a are the 2 practices I mentioned previously and B) its not in disobedience to any scripture!!. Besides, its a common "church tradition", not just apostolic churches.

But lets get serious here. You think asking men to take off their hats in church is on par with praying to Mary? Get real.

You have no idea how many times I hear that same remark from people, and especially over the pulpits. And yes, I have heard it in oneness churches (organizational and independents) preached from Mississppi, to NewMexio, texas, colorado and Utah. There are many who do make a doctrine out of it and do equate it to praying to idols.


ahh... and there is another, that is a direct decendant from the catholic church....When I have had been called into pastor's office to "confess" what I had done wrong. And I have seen many times people called into offices to "confess" their so called sins to the pastor. I have even seen a few pastors take was was "confessed" in private and preach about it in public.

And there is the deal about obeying the pastor no matter what he says, all under the saying "touch not my annointed". I am beginning to see it spring up with a vengence inside our ranks again. (while I don't say the pastor isn't to be obeyed, or respected, for he is, but he isn't the almighty, and not the person who determines my destiny. If I want someone to have that level of control over my life, I would join the catholic church.)

[nwlife]

There is much, much more, but I know no matter what I would say it would be twisted around by many.

Originally Posted by nwlife

You have no idea how many times I hear that same remark from people, and especially over the pulpits. And yes, I have heard it in oneness churches (organizational and independents) preached from Mississppi, to NewMexio, texas, colorado and Utah. There are many who do make a doctrine out of it and do equate it to praying to idols.


ahh... and there is another, that is a direct decendant from the catholic church....When I have had been called into pastor's office to "confess" what I had done wrong. And I have seen many times people called into offices to "confess" their so called sins to the pastor. I have even seen a few pastors take was was "confessed" in private and preach about it in public.

And there is the deal about obeying the pastor no matter what he says, all under the saying "touch not my annointed". I am beginning to see it spring up with a vengence inside our ranks again. (while I don't say the pastor isn't to be obeyed, or respected, for he is, but he isn't the almighty, and not the person who determines my destiny. If I want someone to have that level of control over my life, I would join the catholic church.)

If you disagree with the Pastors teaching that is sin you know
Even if there is no bible to back it he has superior spiritual knowledge.

[nwlife]

If he can show even by principles that are in the bible how the point is to be addressed, or show the particular problem in the local assembly and how he want's to address it, then I have no problem respecting what he says. But otherwise....I have come to just ignore most of it.