The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

They are all preaching the same message and do not stand on their own. It doesn't matter when any of it was written. It matters when it happened and it matters that they are all on the same page with their message. They are. The canon of the Bible was chosen for it's intertwining truths and message. Nothing stands on it's own.

You are right about what they preached. That is why I don't buy the "We only need the HG for empowerment", but it's not salvific." John does indeed refer to the Spirit in function AND it's role in salvation. We need the HG for both. It is the earnest of our inheritance.

Galatians speaks of receiving the Spirit by faith or by the law? And that we cannot be made perfect by the flesh, but by the Spirit. That allows me to know that it is not some "measure of the spirit" that some say they receive at repentance. The Bible doesn't ever bear it out that way. It does not say they received the HG any other way than how the Apostles identified their reception of the HG - speaking in tongues. But that issue has been discussed ad nauseam.

I believe, wholeheartedly, in Acts 2:38. I have never studied the Epistles where it did not take me back to Acts.

The Epistles SHOULDN'T take you "back" to Acts, since they were first written. They should all point you to Jesus.

You are incorrect when you say the canon was "chosen for its intertwining truths and message." The canon was selected on a multiple-point inspection test of validity, authenticity, etc. When I say they "stand on their own," I don't mean they are their own witness. Luke doesn't need Paul to explain what he means. They are each their own witness.

I don't think ANYONE on this forum believes the function of the Spirit is empowerment only. On the contrary, most see the Spirit active in even the "drawing men unto Christ." At the very beginning. It's what you see as the "Spirit" that begins controversy. When "Spirit" always means "glossolalia" and a crisis experience, emotional frenzy, etc... Luke's function of the Spirit is no less true than Paul's or John's. But in each testimony, the Spirit is unique. The Johannine perspective, for example, shows us that the believer is drawn to Christ, and indwelled by Christ by faith and believing, the theme of his Gospel. Luke is not intent on showing the role of the Spirit in salvation, or in any way does he even show it as a regenerative process. They are "on their own" here as a witness to the function of the Spirit. It both saves and empowers. But the experiences are not identical.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The Epistles SHOULDN'T take you "back" to Acts, since they were first written. They should all point you to Jesus.

Acts points to Jesus just like every other book. It doesn't matter where you start, you will still end up at the basis of the church. There is no Theologian that will dispute that Acts is the beginning of the church. Moot point when any of it was written down. It still happened. Those involved, at the time, didn't need it written down in some order. They were smack dab in the middle of it. All of the books deal with the death, burial, resurrection, the promise that the Gentiles are allowed in the New Covenant, the promise of His Spirit, Christian example and instruction to some degree and in some way.

You are incorrect when you say the canon was "chosen for its intertwining truths and message." The canon was selected on a multiple-point inspection test of validity, authenticity, etc. When I say they "stand on their own," I don't mean they are their own witness. Luke doesn't need Paul to explain what he means. They are each their own witness.

Same thing. You just said it in a different way. If they didn't have truth and an intertwining message, they wouldn't be valid.

I don't think ANYONE on this forum believes the function of the Spirit is empowerment only.

Well, yes some do. They say you don't need the HG to be saved, only for empowerment, which makes no sense, IMO.

On the contrary, most see the Spirit active in even the "drawing men unto Christ." At the very beginning. It's what you see as the "Spirit" that begins controversy. When "Spirit" always means "glossolalia" and a crisis experience, emotional frenzy, etc... Luke's function of the Spirit is no less true than Paul's or John's. But in each testimony, the Spirit is unique. The Johannine perspective, for example, shows us that the believer is drawn to Christ, and indwelled by Christ by faith and believing, the theme of his Gospel. Luke is not intent on showing the role of the Spirit in salvation, or in any way does he even show it as a regenerative process. They are "on their own" here as a witness to the function of the Spirit. It both saves and empowers. But the experiences are not identical.

I don't agree with you here and there is no sense in arguing about it. It's funny how some teach that you don't have to speak in tongues, but then they testify that they speak or have spoken in tongues. That is why that makes no sense to me.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Acts points to Jesus just like every other book. It doesn't matter where you start, you will still end up at the basis of the church. There is no Theologian that will dispute that Acts is the beginning of the church. Moot point when any of it was written down. It still happened. Those involved, at the time, didn't need it written down in some order. They were smack dab in the middle of it. All of the books deal with the death, burial, resurrection, the promise that the Gentiles are allowed in the New Covenant, the promise of His Spirit, Christian example and instruction to some degree and in some way.

Acts as a narrative of the beginning of the church does not create a superiority of the book over all other books, nor make it the "standard" by which all others must be interpreted through. The fact is, Acts is a narrative, while many of the Epistles contain didactic and even theological material. They all have their own purpose. All are the Word of God, and inspired. This Acts-centric view is unique to Pentecostalism that has an insecurity complex with the whole of Scripture.

Therefore it's not a "moot point" as you suggest, since the writers didn't check-in with Luke before writing their letters. They were in agreement, that is for sure, but the writings were not reconciled through the specific writings we called the Acts of the Apostles. THAT, my sister, is absolutely ludicrous.

What you concluded with in the paragraph is (almost) true. Though different perspectives and purposes, most of the books in the NT contain reference to the Gospel. I'm not sure about the "promise of the Spirit" part. Many of them do talk about living in Christ (especially Pauline writings, not really Luke's focus).


Same thing. You just said it in a different way. If they didn't have truth and an intertwining message, they wouldn't be valid.
Truth, intertwining message? You are hung up on this. Validity was FAR MORE than if they faithfully represented the Gospel. But yes, of course, that would be one criteria to even know if it had the authority of an Apostle. The message is not as "intertwined" to the specificity that you regard it. John and Luke are two completely different writers, two vastly different purposes and perspectives. To read them as one is a hermeneutic 101 failure.

Well, yes some do. They say you don't need the HG to be saved, only for empowerment, which makes no sense, IMO.
I'd open that up for a poll. HG with evidentiary tongues only you mean? Most believe in every function of the Spirit: from calling man to God, to faith and the indwelling at New Birth, to empowerment by Baptism in the Spirit, to His role in prayer (Romans 8), to His role in justification (Romans 5), to His role as a Counselor, and on and on.

I don't agree with you here and there is not sense in arguing about it. It's funny how some teach that you don't have to speak in tongues, but then they testify that they speak or have spoken in tongues. That is why that makes no sense to me.

If you don't wish to discuss, I can respect that.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

If you don't wish to discuss, I can respect that.

I wish you wouldn't answer inside of my quotes. When I try to respond I lose my text and have to drag yours down.

Acts as a narrative of the beginning of the church does not create a superiority of the book over all other books, nor make it the "standard" by which all others must be interpreted through. The fact is, Acts is a narrative, while many of the Epistles contain didactic and even theological material. They all have their own purpose. All are the Word of God, and inspired. This Acts-centric view is unique to Pentecostalism that has an insecurity complex with the whole of Scripture.

Therefore it's not a "moot point" as you suggest, since the writers didn't check-in with Luke before writing their letters. They were in agreement, that is for sure, but the writings were not reconciled through the specific writings we called the Acts of the Apostles. THAT, my sister, is absolutely ludicrous.

What you concluded with in the paragraph is (almost) true. Though different perspectives and purposes, most of the books in the NT contain reference to the Gospel. I'm not sure about the "promise of the Spirit" part. Many of them do talk about living in Christ (especially Pauline writings, not really Luke's focus).

I never said Acts was the superior book. It still shows how the NT church began. It is a point of reference and all of the Epistles are in agreement with what was written. Most all of the Epistles are addressed "unto the church of" or "called to be saints", etc. - established churches. It's just logical to follow this because of the addressed wording.

Truth, intertwining message? You are hung up on this. Validity was FAR MORE than if they faithfully represented the Gospel. But yes, of course, that would be one criteria to even know if it had the authority of an Apostle. The message is not as "intertwined" to the specificity that you regard it. John and Luke are two completely different writers, two vastly different purposes and perspectives. To read them as one is a hermeneutic 101 failure.

Intertwined to me is tied up together. John and Luke may be vastly different writers but their works agree - they are intertwined!

I'd open that up for a poll. HG with evidentiary tongues only you mean? Most believe in every function of the Spirit: from calling man to God, to faith and the indwelling at New Birth, to empowerment by Baptism in the Spirit, to His role in prayer (Romans 8), to His role in justification (Romans 5), to His role as a Counselor, and on and on.

You can start a poll if you want to. We've already been over all of this here and I still believe what I started out believing on FCF - just like everyone else. I think we just enjoy talking our heads off for no apparent reason. LOL!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I wish you wouldn't answer inside of my quotes. When I try to respond I lose my text and have to drag yours down.


I never said Acts was the superior book. It still shows how the NT church began. It is a point of reference and all of the Epistles are in agreement with what was written. Most all of the Epistles are addressed "unto the church of" or "called to be saints", etc. - established churches. It's just logical to follow this because of the addressed wording.

Intertwined to me is tied up together. John and Luke may be vastly different writers but their works agree - they are intertwined!


You can start a poll if you want to. We've already been over all of this here and I still believe what I started out believing on FCF - just like everyone else. I think we just enjoy talking our heads off for not apparent reason. LOL!

I never said Acts was the superior book. It still shows how the NT church began. It is a point of reference and all of the Epistles are in agreement with what was written. Most all of the Epistles are addressed "unto the church of" or "called to be saints", etc. - established churches. It's just logical to follow this because of the addressed wording.

You haven't? Maybe I felt it was implied. "All books refer 'back' to this one"

Of course they are in agreement. Being agreement and saying the books don't have unique material, some new, some expanded on, etc is where what I am contending. I understand they are established churches. Nor is Acts the history of all individual churches. It's shows the continuation of Luke's account to Theopholis, how the church grew, how it was open to Gentiles "all who believed," how it was affirmed by signs and wonders, how great persecution fell on the church yet still it progressed, etc...

Intertwined to me is tied up together. John and Luke may be vastly different writers but their works agree - they are intertwined!

I think my point was valid, but if we insist on semantics, I'll agree with you. If by intertwined, you mean they are separate "braids" forming one picture or piece, then OF COURSE!

You can start a poll if you want to. We've already been over all of this here and I still believe what I started out believing on FCF - just like everyone else. I think we just enjoy talking our heads off for not apparent reason. LOL!

I really don't think you'll find even one person who doesn't agree to the role of the Spirit in salvation.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You can start a poll if you want to. We've already been over all of this here and I still believe what I started out believing on FCF - just like everyone else. I think we just enjoy talking our heads off for not apparent reason. LOL!

Funniest thing I've read all day!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Funniest thing I've read all day!

Girl, you know this is true! LOL!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

...
Well, yes some do. They say you don't need the HG to be saved, only for empowerment, which makes no sense, IMO.
...

I don't think anyone on here would say that we don't need the Holy Spirit to be saved. Some of us distinguish between a birth of the Spirit when the Spirit comes in to dwell and a subsequent baptism in the Spirit when the Spirit comes upon to fill and empower.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Sam

I don't think anyone on here would say that we don't need the Holy Spirit to be saved. Some of us distinguish between a birth of the Spirit when the Spirit comes in to dwell and a subsequent baptism in the Spirit when the Spirit comes upon to fill and empower.

I don't see that, Sam. Never have been able to see that. I believe that God begins a work when you decide to turn to Him, but it doesn't mean you are spirit filled.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't see that, Sam. Never have been able to see that. I believe that God begins a work when you decide to turn to Him, but it doesn't mean you are spirit filled.

Just because 3 men at the alter tell you to repeat words after them in a speed manner and they then tell you that you spoke in tongues does not make you spirit filled either, we shall know them by their fruits...