NOW, When Is Someone Saved?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Socialite

That's okay. Maybe there's some other lurker on here that could use the ranting.

I'm not intimately involved in your life, part of your church, etc so it's not really personal at all. But you are most definitely in heresy

Absolutely!!! I've already heard from one of them. I believe you have to, Social.

[Cindy]

Wow, y'all are agreeing on something.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Matt. 3:13-17

Mat 3:13 ¶ Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.


Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?


Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.


Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:


Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.




To fulfil all righteousness!

Falla39

We might argue with each other, but we can't argue with Jesus. Praise the Lord!!!!

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Socialite

It's really easy to me, all the Apostles preached the same Gospel. Paul, who writes most of the NT, Peter, James, John, Mark, etc. They were disciples of Jesus. They taught what he taught. The Apostle's Doctrine is really Jesus' Doctrine.

The fact is the Jews in Jerusalem weren't assembled for an earth-shaking revival meeting. They already had met Jesus at previous Jewish feasts. Some had more than likely been on the Mountain listening to His sermon (Mt 5). They had seen His miracles and experienced the earth-shaking crucifixion and eclipse of the sun. These doubters were the ones to whom Peter addressed in his sermon. Peter was urging these religious folk to reconsider who Jesus was. It wasn't a message of hellfire and brimstone. Check it out for yourselves. It was an appeal to common sense, scripture and first hand testimony. These doubters saw the believers gathered "in one place" (may not have even been an upper room). They saw the Spirit of God (like cloven tongues like "as of fire") and heard the tongues. There was something absolutely convincing about the experience in order for Peter's words to have added an additional 3,000 to the ranks of Jesus Believers. What did Peter say?
"repent" (reconsider, have a different opinion) of their feelings of the identity of the Messiah. I think we have been given a far more "radical" definition of this word repent. It may not always involve the shedding of tears. It may only involve the cognition of placing Jesus in His proper place in life. This can be pretty emotional, but it isn't required to be.
"and be baptised in the name of Jesus...", in other words, IDENTIFY with Jesus. We know that at least 3,000 souls gladly reconsidered Jesus as the Messiah. There's no appeal to the Triunity of the godhead in Peter's sermon. It's all about repentance, ie; changing their minds about Who Jesus really was, and then, AFTER repentance, being baptised, identifying with and in the name of the Messiah.
The NT theology of baptism is expanded upon by Paul and Peter in their epistles, but the Acts account leaves no doubt as to what "formula" to use.

BTW, I use the term Triunity for those that may disagree with the Acts 2:38 method, not because the godhead is a triunity.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Sabby

The fact is the Jews in Jerusalem weren't assembled for an earth-shaking revival meeting. They already had met Jesus at previous Jewish feasts. Some had more than likely been on the Mountain listening to His sermon (Mt 5). They had seen His miracles and experienced the earth-shaking crucifixion and eclipse of the sun. These doubters were the ones to whom Peter addressed in his sermon. Peter was urging these religious folk to reconsider who Jesus was. It wasn't a message of hellfire and brimstone. Check it out for yourselves. It was an appeal to common sense, scripture and first hand testimony. These doubters saw the believers gathered "in one place" (may not have even been an upper room). They saw the Spirit of God (like cloven tongues like "as of fire") and heard the tongues. There was something absolutely convincing about the experience in order for Peter's words to have added an additional 3,000 to the ranks of Jesus Believers. What did Peter say?
"repent" (reconsider, have a different opinion) of their feelings of the identity of the Messiah. I think we have been given a far more "radical" definition of this word repent. It may not always involve the shedding of tears. It may only involve the cognition of placing Jesus in His proper place in life. This can be pretty emotional, but it isn't required to be.
"and be baptised in the name of Jesus...", in other words, IDENTIFY with Jesus. We know that at least 3,000 souls gladly reconsidered Jesus as the Messiah. There's no appeal to the Triunity of the godhead in Peter's sermon. It's all about repentance, ie; changing their minds about Who Jesus really was, and then, AFTER repentance, being baptised, identifying with and in the name of the Messiah.
The NT theology of baptism is expanded upon by Paul and Peter in their epistles, but the Acts account leaves no doubt as to what "formula" to use.

BTW, I use the term Triunity for those that may disagree with the Acts 2:38 method, not because the godhead is a triunity.

I mostly agree... mostly... and I'd add what they heard were people speaking in native languages of the audience. Peter's sermon was all centered and focused on the Messiah. You are absolutely correct. The 3,000 that day were added because they believed. (Of course, to make that fit, Ferd's camp has to say all 3,000 spoke in tongues too -- because without that fact, his idea about how we are saved is down the drain. With it, it's still incomplete, but it's too expensive of a detail to surrender to possibility)

To the topic of triunity -- do you believe the godhead is triune? Is there a threeness in the NT? Whether you call them modes, manifestations or roles, is there a triune nature of God revealed?

[Sabby]

I guess my point is that the day of Pentecost "moment" with Peter's message was more about Jesus Christ and knowing who He was than the verse, Acts 2:38. In many ways the emphasis is more upon the verse than the person, requirements than the relationship.

As far as a triunity? Ha! I should have been more clear about it. There's One Person, God, and He was manifested (came in the mode) in the flesh. The scriptures clearly prophesy about the LORD and the Lord; the LORD being God (the Spirit), and the Lord being the Son of God (or God manifest in flesh).
The part of God that exercizes His power is-in my opinion- the Word. It was His word that created, and still creates, healed and still heals, was revealed in power and still reveals in power. This same Word of God (not distinct from God but as a part of Him/His function/intrinsic to Him) was "robed" in flesh at birth in Beth-lehem. It was this incarnation that Paul wrote about in Galatians 4:4;
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law
This scripture could lead you to believe that the pre-existent Word (as God pre-existed before time) was rather a literal, tangible Son of God in the heavens prior to the incarnation. This is the position taken by many, however there is a subtle shift going on in some (formerly Southern Baptist) seminaries. When I went to seminary I took an apologetics/evangelism class taught by the Theology Dept head. He told me he does not believe in the eternal Sonship as defined by denominational doctrinal statements, but is willing to believe in the eternality of the Word who "became" flesh. His point was it seems to be that the argument about eternal Sonship (and the oneness position in general) is more over semantics (his word).
Now, if we can only get our oneness brothers to get past the semantics too!
We've much more in common with the rest of the church world than we have EVER been led to believe.
Praise GOD for the Jesus' name message, the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence that you can both "see and hear"! But godhead? I said it on another thread: there are some trinitarians that believe in "three gods", but most are as sincere as any oneness.
Let me add. At the merger in '45, I believe Bro. Howard Goss was the 1st Superintendent of the UPC. He considered Assembly of God folk as brothers in Christ.
Did Bro. Goss have a bad spirit, was he confused, weak on the message, or was his doctrinal attitude less of superiority than it was blessed revelation?

[NotforSale]

Wow, been busy all day at the office and decided to check in. I would be glad to clarify my post about "Buildings" becoming a "False Face" or hindering a person’s perspective about God and Faith.

Simplicity brings us closer to God and His purpose. Complexity divides, destroys, and only creates more Religion. Buildings lead people to complexity because they are manmade, just like an automobile complicates our lives; maintenance, insurance, gasoline, these and more bog our lives down with more to do, creating the Martha spirit.

Church buildings slowly evolve the people into the care, maintenance, and the competitive aspect of Faith, leading to a drained and falsified view of our Creator. In the over 30 years of my observance of church laity, the burden and prison of “Buildings” has completely exhausted the best of the best. People start out strong doing all of the things necessary to erect “God’s House” or buildings made with hands, while burn out sets in and concepts of Faith are destroyed or marred. Scrubbing a toilet, waxing a floor, and fixing the roof have replaced time spent on the Mount.

Looking at Scripture, Jacob called the stone of the Earth, Bethel, or God’s House. He received vision, God’s Will, and a New Birth experience without a Building. Look at Moses via the burning bush or on the mountain where God’s presence illuminated this man. Where did Abraham sacrifice? On the Mountain. Where did Elijah hear the still, small Voice? On a mountain. Why didn’t Jesus go to a Temple to pray during his greatest hour of need?

I have encouraged our Church to find that Garden or Mountain, as without these, the manmade Structure of Church will dominate with the darkness of Religion all because the very life of a Christian has been depleted maintaining these buildings that will turn to dust. We become Martha’s, running to and fro, unaware that God Created the Heavens and the Earth, not the Building we are calling Bethel.

If people don’t connect with God in the habitat that He made, the relationship God seeks in us during the cool of the day will be lost. Gardens will become skyscrapers, and the sensationalism of Religion will replace the powering sunset that no man can create. I personally feel, people can receive divine answers just like men of old did, if they would place themselves at the feet of the Master in His Domain called Creation.