The Real Evidence of Salvation

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by renee819

Jason, you are always falling back on, “The normative universal experience”

After 325AD, several hundred years, “The normative universal experience” was to be a Catholic. Did that make Catholicism true?

Renee that's not my main argument, its just a side note wherein I'm basically noting that if those who say that tongues are the only initial evidence that someone is saved, and without which they are lost (as Hometown Guy did earlier in this thread) then we must deal with the fact that that is not born out in history, leaving us with two conclusions:
1)Essentially no one was saved at the very least from the 2nd through the 19th centuries
2)God has always saved people throughout the church age, although it is obvious the majority have not spoken in tongues who did the most to further the gospel, and so perhaps those who insist on the initial evidence doctrine are mistaken (wrong).


In addition to this we also have to deal with the fact that even now not everyone who seeks the Holy Ghost receives it. Luke 11:13 presents it as a gift, something that is bestowed upon us by God, not something that is worked for or begged for, or labored for over long hours over many nights and even years at an altar. No, its a promise that God has promised if we ask for it He will give it. He's more willing and eager to give the Holy Ghost as we would be to give food to our own hungry children. But what we observe is many times the exact opposite-we see weeping, wailing, begging, and people going away "empty" being told to "keep trying" or "you almost got it" and other such NONSENSE. Beyond these things tongues in the Bible are languages, not unintelligible sounds or rapidly repeated syllables (in this way the Pentecostal/charismatic experiences manifestations that are common to certain aspects of paganism-including a lack/loss of self control, which is CONTRARY to the fruit of the Spirit). Simply put, I'd sum up by saying a lot of what we see in Pentecostal churches isn't even biblical. Its not the same type of tongues as acts, some manifestations are the opposite of what we are told the Holy Spirit himself would produce, and so even if the doctrine made sense in theory, it fails in practice.

And just to tie this in with this thread, NONE of these things are said to indicate, be signs, or evidences of true salvation according to the Bible.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Renee that's not my main argument, its just a side note wherein I'm basically noting that if those who say that tongues are the only initial evidence that someone is saved, and without which they are lost (as Hometown Guy did earlier in this thread) then we must deal with the fact that that is not born out in history, leaving us with two conclusions:
1)Essentially no one was saved at the very least from the 2nd through the 19th centuries
2)God has always saved people throughout the church age, although it is obvious the majority have not spoken in tongues who did the most to further the gospel, and so perhaps those who insist on the initial evidence doctrine are mistaken (wrong).


In addition to this we also have to deal with the fact that even now not everyone who seeks the Holy Ghost receives it. Luke 11:13 presents it as a gift, something that is bestowed upon us by God, not something that is worked for or begged for, or labored for over long hours over many nights and even years at an altar. No, its a promise that God has promised if we ask for it He will give it. He's more willing and eager to give the Holy Ghost as we would be to give food to our own hungry children. But what we observe is many times the exact opposite-we see weeping, wailing, begging, and people going away "empty" being told to "keep trying" or "you almost got it" and other such NONSENSE. Beyond these things tongues in the Bible are languages, not unintelligible sounds or rapidly repeated syllables (in this way the Pentecostal/charismatic experiences manifestations that are common to certain aspects of paganism-including a lack/loss of self control, which is CONTRARY to the fruit of the Spirit). Simply put, I'd sum up by saying a lot of what we see in Pentecostal churches isn't even biblical. Its not the same type of tongues as acts, some manifestations are the opposite of what we are told the Holy Spirit himself would produce, and so even if the doctrine made sense in theory, it fails in practice.

And just to tie this in with this thread, NONE of these things are said to indicate, be signs, or evidences of true salvation according to the Bible.

There are so many problems with your line of 'reasoning' it's not even funny.

history - were all things written down? No? then lack of history simply means lack of evidence. Absence of evidence is NOT PROOF OF ABSENCE.

Must there be a continuously existing visible church? If so, then you better get ready to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy...

You beg the question when you say 'God has always saved people... but without any evidence of tongues...'

Peter declared the initial evidence doctrine when he said 'this is that'. We need to match our experience to the Word, not try to twist the Word to match our experience (or lack thereof).

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

history - were all things written down? No? then lack of history simply means lack of evidence. Absence of evidence is NOT PROOF OF ABSENCE.

Must there be a continuously existing visible church? If so, then you better get ready to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy...

Is it your position that the Church of the Living God wasn't a visible, viable, and powerful church in the 1800s but suddenly became that way in the early 1900s?

[renee819]

Oh Jason, Jason, I see so many wrong assumptions in your writing, it's impossible to answer them all. And most have been answered by others, but do you believe them?

Jason wrote,

1)We can know that we are saved if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah/Christ, that He came in the flesh, made atonement for our sins, and is God. These are the theological tests

No! No! No!, The people that know what you wrote above, can now, REPENT. But a lot of people know that, but don't repent. Some repent and backslide. Just because they know that, does not mean that they are saved.

Most of the rest of what you wrote in your first Post, is after a person is born again, and continuing in the Faith.
I don't know why you don't see that the Epistles were written to people that were already born again. And the mention of “tongues” in 1 Cor. 12, is not even about the evidence of the Holy Ghost.
It is one of the “gifts of the Spirit” that some, not all receive, After they receive the Holy Ghost.

You can't have the “gifts' without the “Giver.” That is why Evangelicals don't have the gifts and so they say, 'that they have ceased.”

[Jason B]

Renee I'm not saying that believing certain things about Jesus save us. Try to find one post of mine where I'm arguing in favor of salvation by mental assent. The subject of the thread is evidence of salvation, not how to be saved.

[renee819]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Is it your position that the Church of the Living God wasn't a visible, viable, and powerful church in the 1800s but suddenly became that way in the early 1900s?

Seekerman did you never read about the Early rain and the Latter rain?

Joel 2:23 Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the LORD your God: for he hath given you the former rain moderately, (PENTECOST) and he will cause to come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in the first month. (EARLY 1900'S)
:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit

.

And Peter said, “This is that.”

Constantine almost stomped the Church out. But God in His mercy, sent us the Latter rain.

Some that look at everything in the flesh, is going to say, that is natural rain, but other scriptures point out that it is Spiritual.

[renee819]

Jason wrote,

Renee I'm not saying that believing certain things about Jesus save us. Try to find one post of mine where I'm arguing in favor of salvation by mental assent. The subject of the thread is evidence of salvation, not how to be saved

.

Then Jason what are you saying here?

1)We can know that we are saved if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah/Christ, that He came in the flesh, made atonement for our sins, and is God. These are the theological tests

“ We can know that we are saved if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God”---mental assent--+---- knowing that we are saved?

[hometown guy]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Throw a party and shout "amen"! I've always been sickened by the way OPs get glee over people who don't measure up to their theology burning in hell. Preach about grace and be maligned and labeled "weak on the message" if not an outright compromiser or apostate. Preach on people who don't keep standards or who don't believe in the same soterieology going to hell and see if you don't get an avalanche of amens.

Glee from it??? To the contrary. I preach it because I want people to see the truth. Did jesus glee from mark 16:16 or John 8:24 and I could go on and on but no he did it to show them truth

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by renee819

Jason wrote,
.

Then Jason what are you saying here?

“ We can know that we are saved if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God”---mental assent--+---- knowing that we are saved?

I'm talking about the 3 categories in
1 John. You cherry picked one of the three to make a point or perhaps simply misunderstood my point. John also teaches that true believers must pass the moral and social tests also. I laid out all 3 of these in the opening post. To ignore the essentiality of the other two categories is to miss my whole argument from 1 John.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by hometown guy

Glee from it??? To the contrary. I preach it because I want people to see the truth. Did jesus glee from mark 16:16 or John 8:24 and I could go on and on but no he did it to show them truth

I'm not going to judge your motives but I've been in enough pentecostal services to know it is the case and I'm far from the only one to notice it.