Deathbed Salvation

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

Question... what is the difference between Faith, Belief, and Repentance? Is there a difference? Can someone believe and not have faith? Can someone have faith and not repent? Can someone believe and not repent?

The issue of repentance is a whole different issue. You've made it sound as if belief and repentance are the same thing which would be convenient when interpreting the scriptures you posted.

They're not. You know it and I know it.

Repentance is an action. It is a turn away from ones sins and a changing of ones mind. You can indeed believe and not repent and my question to you as a "one stepper" is: which one is it? Is repentance what saves or belief what saves?

Do you really have to repent to be saved or just believe?

I know plenty of people that openly believe, and that haven't repented and the scriptures are clear that repentance is required (2 Peter 3:9; 2 Cor 7:10). Are these none repentent "believers" saved?

Acts 4:4 "Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand."

Were they saved SIMPLY because they believed? Did their belief save them? Or did they also have to repent? And if so, should we assume that these individuals here REPENTED because they believed and are therefore saved? Or just assume they just believed and maybe some repented maybe some didn't but they're saved because they believed? Where does it say also that they converted because of their belief?

The assumption here, with this verse by itself, SHOULDN'T be anything. They believed. That's all the passages say, not that they were saved, heaven bound, or that they did or did not follow the plan of salvation.

You say that logic says that we should embrace what happened 100% of the time. I say that logic says we should preach the entire process of conversion rather than the part that shows up the most or the part we like to preach and hope the rest doesn't matter.

Belief and faith is the basis for repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost. You must have faith to repent (John 14:17), baptism is based upon your confession of faith (Acts 8:37), and the Holy Ghost is received by faith (Matthew 7:11).

Our assumption should be that one who has faith does follows through with the new birth experience and lives according to the word of God afterwards. THAT should be the overall asumption.

Using your first verse as a prime example (and the same is true about similar verses):

Acts 4:4 "Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand."

It uses the word believed. Are we to assume that because they believed they repented? That seems to be the assumption you're making?

Moving on to the second verse which says this:
Acts 11:21 "And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord."

Here's where the problem with one steppers come in. We have an issue here. Acts 4:4 says that those who heard the word believed. Acts 11:21 says that those who heard the word believed and turned unto the Lord. So do we "assume" that those in Acts 4:4 BOTH believed AND turned to the Lord (the word "turn" here according to my concordance refers to conversion)? The believed and were converted. So if we are to assume that the people who believed in Acts 4:4 also converted, what else can we assume? Can we assume that all those who converted, converted in the same fasion as the first people who converted under the preaching of Peter in Acts 2:38.

Yes, I think that's the safest assumption. It's either that or we assume nothing and take it for what it says. The people in Acts 4:4 believed and may or may not have converted. The people in Acts 11:21 believed, and converted, and may or may not have converted the same way the people converted in Acts 2 under Peter's preaching. That's a pretty uncertain bet. I don't like being uncertain with peoples souls.

The safer assumption is the first and most obvious. The people in Acts 4:4 believed, were converted, and converted in the same fasion as the believers in Acts 2. Otherwise there's no consistency in scripture.

Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

Here's where the doctrine of making Acts the exclusive book for salvation is erroneous. The Epistles have every bit as much to do with the plan of salvation as Acts. Its obvious that false Gospels were being promoted in the early church and Paul spends a lot of his writing in the Epistles combating such. Paul wrote Romans at Corinth headed to an uncertain future in Jerusalem, possibly death. So Paul writes one of the most clear explanations of the Gospel one can find in the Scripture, Romans, a location that the Judaizers had yet to poison. Paul was proactively setting the record straight.

When you believe, you are made right with God. God credits that belief as righteousness, PERIOD. If water baptism was essential, speaking in tongues essential, why would Paul leave it out? Do I believe water baptism is important in the continued development and maturity of a new born child of God? Yes. Do I promote it? Every Sunday. Do I believe the baptism of the HG is a gift from God for every believer? Yes. I promote it every Sunday. But to say that when a person believes they are still lost? Ridiculous and unbiblical.

Faith/Belief are synonymous. Did the thief on the cross repent explicitly? No, but he said enough to demonstrate faith/belief in Jesus. He didn't grovel and confess his sins and ask Jesus tom forgive him. But Jesus obviously saw the condition of his heart and judged him worthy to enter heaven.

When the devout Jews were pricked in their hearts in Acts 2:36, that was evidence that they were smitten with godly sorrow. They didn't know what to do with what was already taking place. They were receiving Peter's message as truth and they were demonstrating faith/belief. If the Romans had burst on the scene breaking up the crowd and killed some of those folks, according to your theology, they would've gone to hell in spite of the remorse and conviction they felt. I say they believed God, and God would have counted it as righteousness.

Repentance is distinct from faith/belief. It is an action. Anyone who believes will be saved. Anyone who has faith will be saved. Anyone who repents will be saved. Anyone who is baptized will be saved. Anyone filled with the HS will be saved. Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Anyone who endures to the end will be saved.

You claimed that NO ONE converted in the Bible was converted without being baptized too. I showed otherwise. So do you agree not everyone recorded in Scripture is recorded as having been baptized? Will you retract that claim?

Also you don't address the fact that the recorded instances of people receiving the HG or the implication they did isn't consistent. Sometimes they were simply "filled", sometimes they spoke in tongues after a mighty rushing wind and cloven tongues of fire sat upon them, sometimes they spoke in tongues and magnified God, sometimes they spoke in tongues and prophesied. And then on many, most, occasions of recorded conversions, the baptism of the HG doesn't even occur but the converts are defined as believers or being added to the church.

The idea that A238 was how the Gospel was preached in every instance and that the three steps always occurred is simply not Biblically sound. The evidence just isn't there to support the notion.

Abraham believed God. He was justified by faith. Paul makes it clear so are we. After salvation occurs, we will be obedient and follow the commands of Scripture.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Sabby

This is amazingly GOOD!
Mt 7:28
And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
Mt 7:29
For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes

Mr 12:26
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Mr 12:27
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

Of COURSE people can be saved on their deathbeds! Is Jesus God OR NOT?

Why else go to visit the elderly and infirm, unless you knew you were TAKING JESUS WITH YOU? Why else pray for those with Alzheimer's unless you were TAKING JESUS WITH YOU?
I personally believe the biggest reason you don't see apostolics going to nursing homes, etc, is because they know they can't as easily fulfil their Acts 2:38 "commission" in those venues. Unfortunately, they shortchange the gospel by not ministering to these folks because they LIMIT God's grace and mercy as well as their own Apostolic authority. When we lay hands on the sick it doesn't mean they will always immediately hope to shout, jump from their beds and beg for water baptism, but they WILL be saved...
"A promise is a promise" indeed!

We need to "let" God be God and stop limiting His (and OUR) potential in Him.

The problem is that Apostolics believe that they are called to declare who is acceptably saved or not. Jesus said that everyone who is born of the Spirit is born invisibly, you can't see it, you can't predict where it's coming from or where it's going. Yet week after week people flock the altars as whistle blowers or thumb raisers or finger pointers determining who is saved and who isn't.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Sabby

It's Jesus and His gospel, which is much more than the verse, Acts 2:38 ('though it's part of the gospel)

The Gospel is defined in I Cor 15 clearly. It's the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Pete preached the Gospel PRIOR to A238.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Sabby

I believe this so strongly that once a week I visit the Alzheimer's Unit at the Veteran's Home. There I play some music and interperse the songs with sermonettes and prayers for all in attendance.
Apostolics more than any other people understand the power - or at least should - of the name of Jesus. And this is Who I take to these precious people...

Powerful! God bless your ministry!

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

This is essentially what I was asking many posts ago when I brought up "Well, what about all those living in South, Central, and North America immediately after the events of Acts chapter 2?", to which I got a sorta non-answer (which sounded more like a code phrase that the "Chief" would give to Maxwell Smart after which he would respond with "huh?").

Joseph Smith has the answer to that one. .....

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

Joseph Smith has the answer to that one. .....

Yes, HE identified the issue as well!

[Le Penseur]

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

Question... what is the difference between Faith, Belief, and Repentance? Is there a difference? Can someone believe and not have faith? Can someone have faith and not repent? Can someone believe and not repent?

The issue of repentance is a whole different issue. You've made it sound as if belief and repentance are the same thing which would be convenient when interpreting the scriptures you posted.

They're not. You know it and I know it.

Repentance is an action. It is a turn away from ones sins and a changing of ones mind. You can indeed believe and not repent and my question to you as a "one stepper" is: which one is it? Is repentance what saves or belief what saves?

Do you really have to repent to be saved or just believe?

I know plenty of people that openly believe, and that haven't repented and the scriptures are clear that repentance is required (2 Peter 3:9; 2 Cor 7:10). Are these none repentent "believers" saved?

Acts 4:4 "Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand."

Were they saved SIMPLY because they believed? Did their belief save them? Or did they also have to repent? And if so, should we assume that these individuals here REPENTED because they believed and are therefore saved? Or just assume they just believed and maybe some repented maybe some didn't but they're saved because they believed? Where does it say also that they converted because of their belief?

The assumption here, with this verse by itself, SHOULDN'T be anything. They believed. That's all the passages say, not that they were saved, heaven bound, or that they did or did not follow the plan of salvation.

You say that logic says that we should embrace what happened 100% of the time. I say that logic says we should preach the entire process of conversion rather than the part that shows up the most or the part we like to preach and hope the rest doesn't matter.

Belief and faith is the basis for repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost. You must have faith to repent (John 14:17), baptism is based upon your confession of faith (Acts 8:37), and the Holy Ghost is received by faith (Matthew 7:11).

Our assumption should be that one who has faith does follows through with the new birth experience and lives according to the word of God afterwards. THAT should be the overall asumption.

Using your first verse as a prime example (and the same is true about similar verses):

Acts 4:4 "Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand."

It uses the word believed. Are we to assume that because they believed they repented? That seems to be the assumption you're making?

Moving on to the second verse which says this:
Acts 11:21 "And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord."

Here's where the problem with one steppers come in. We have an issue here. Acts 4:4 says that those who heard the word believed. Acts 11:21 says that those who heard the word believed and turned unto the Lord. So do we "assume" that those in Acts 4:4 BOTH believed AND turned to the Lord (the word "turn" here according to my concordance refers to conversion)? The believed and were converted. So if we are to assume that the people who believed in Acts 4:4 also converted, what else can we assume? Can we assume that all those who converted, converted in the same fasion as the first people who converted under the preaching of Peter in Acts 2:38.

Yes, I think that's the safest assumption. It's either that or we assume nothing and take it for what it says. The people in Acts 4:4 believed and may or may not have converted. The people in Acts 11:21 believed, and converted, and may or may not have converted the same way the people converted in Acts 2 under Peter's preaching. That's a pretty uncertain bet. I don't like being uncertain with peoples souls.

The safer assumption is the first and most obvious. The people in Acts 4:4 believed, were converted, and converted in the same fashion as the believers in Acts 2. Otherwise there's no consistency in scripture.

You are using a common fallacy here in regards to the concept of believing on Jesus. It's common in OP circles because OP have made it so that there is a great deal of effort required for salvation (made it hard) and they contrast this with one of their favorite derogatory terms - "easy believism." There is no such "easy believism" when it comes to saving faith. Nobody here has mentioned a sinner's prayer or shaking the pastor's hand, yet you have mentioned it at least twice. Expressing faith in Christ is completely different from mere mental assent. Faith in Christ is not the same as going down a list of creedal statements and affirming, "Yep, I believe this,that, that, that, and oh yeah, that too." It's not about checking yes on all the forms. Faith does come coupled with repentance, thus the conflation in the language being used to describe the moment of justification. Sure - there are many that have "checklist faith," but just stating what you believe doesn't change your life, and doesn't redeem your soul. While I don't have a proof text to point to, the theme is evident - revealed throughout both the Old and New Testaments.