New Birth

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shag

It doesn't matter if you love God with all your heart, mind soul, & strength... It doesn't matter if you've repented of your sin, & are seeking 1st the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, or if you pray continually to know & fulfill Gods purpose in your life.. It doesn't matter if you spend your life trying to understand and obey Gods word. Or even study academicly to translate it into a readable language for others. None of it matters, because you're not born again if you have not spoken in tongues, or your baptiser didn't say "in the name of Jesus" when he put you under water. And millions upon millions have came up short, for centuries, never were born again, and will not go to heaven, because they didn't follow protocol according to the last few decades of basically the "UPCI's revelation" of being born from above. After all, Cornelius would not have made it to heaven.


That's a pretty hard pill to swallow.

Can you show that "millions upon millions" for "centuries" were in fact saved, according to your doctrine of salvation?

Because I suspect that a whole lot of them would not be in the boat you think they belong in...

[shag]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Almost as bad as it not mattering if Jesus is Son of God or that he so much as died on a cross!

It's one thing to divide on believing or not that Jesus is the son of God, quite another to not only believe He is, but be baptized and go on to love him with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, obey his words the best you know how, have a consistant prayer life, and spend most of your time daily trying to listen and heed his voice and instruction to know what to say to people(witnessing) for Christ. Spend ones life trying to be the Potters clay. Yet not having another person having spoken the name of Jesus aloud right before baptizing you, thereby spending ones life only to not make it to heaven. So much for John 6:35-37 and other parts of Johns letters, because the thankfully for us, the UPCI had a revelation a few decades back, now everyone since then has a chance to go to heaven.
Do you believe if you lived before the 20th century, do you believe you would've received the 3 step "revelation" that nobody else did back then, preceding the UPC?

[shag]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Can you show that "millions upon millions" for "centuries" were in fact saved, according to your doctrine of salvation?

Because I suspect that a whole lot of them would not be in the boat you think they belong in...

I can see where millions of people would think that 1 John 5:13, prior and following can be understood as trusting that they have salvation.
Believe means to trust in, cling to, and rely on. Which I guess is still not good enough, even tho John said it was. Did John mess up this scripture?


13 I write fthese things to you who gbelieve in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.



John has plenty of scripture like this, but I guess it's a good thing we all were born after the UPC discovered the 3 step revelation of true salvation a few decades ago, or we'd all miss heaven like everyone else in history. ??






Didn't many at the division of the UPC and assemblies believe that salvation came at repentance, or am I misinformed?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shag

I can see where millions of people would think that 1 John 5:13, prior and following can be understood as trusting that they have salvation.
Believe means to trust in, cling to, and rely on. Which I guess is still not good enough, even tho John said it was. Did John mess up this scripture?


13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

So they did not need to confess the Lord Jesus with their mouth and believe that God raised him from the dead? Paul preached a different salvation message?

What about Mark? Mark has Jesus declaring 'he that believes and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned'? Yet another salvation mesage?

John also said this:

1Jn 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

But then, John also said this:

1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.


So the homosexual who loves people is born of God and knows God, even if he has no concern for the gospel or for Jesus? What about the pagan in the jungles of Africa, who loves everybody he meets, apparently he is born of God and knows God?

This is what happens when we attempt to find ONE verse and make it the be-all, end-all of salvation doctrine. We wind up with multiple 'plans of salvation'.

The vast majority of those people throughout the centuries you speak of, believed one had to be baptised with the correct words spoken over you (the trinitarian formula), and that you had to take communion from a duly ordained PRIEST, and that you had to make Confession to a duly ordained priest, in order to have eternal life. They also sincerely believed that if you weren't a trinitarian you were lost. If you believed the priesthood was unnecessary you were a heretic and bound for hell.

But they got 'salvation' correct? How is that even possible? That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. People are going to be saved without the faintest clue how to be saved?

John has plenty of scripture like this, but I guess it's a good thing we all were born after the UPC discovered the 3 step revelation of true salvation a few decades ago, or we'd all miss heaven like everyone else in history. ??

Nobody's going to heaven to begin with, but that's another subject.

Almost every group prior to 1914, with the exception of the Quakers and some of the Baptists, believed that baptism was for the remission of sins, that it was a definite 'means of grace'. Lutherans believe baptism is for the remission of sins and is part of being 'born again'. Methodists likewise, Anglicans, Presbyterians who know their own doctrine, and many Baptists all believe baptism is part of 'becoming a Christian' and is MORE than a mere 'outward sign of an inward grace' as is popular among evangelicals today. I started several threads in the Debate section quoting Presbyterians, Reformed, and Baptist theologians and writers pointing out the HISTORY of the Protestant doctrines concerning baptism, conversion, regeneration, etc. I proved that what is commonly thought of today, 'just believe in Jesus and you're good to go' is a NEW DOCTRINE NOT SEEN PRIOR TO THE LATE 1800s/EARLY 1900s.

Sp again, do you even know what people actually taught and believed in those 'centuries past' about salvation? What exactly their 'hope' was? And are you sure it is the same thing you believe? Would it past muster, would it 'line up' with what you believe is 'the truth about salvation'?

Didn't many at the division of the UPC and assemblies believe that salvation came at repentance, or am I misinformed?

There were many early Pentecostals, non Oneness, who believed that unless one had the Holy Ghost baptism one was not born again. Others believed unless you experienced entire sanctification (and died without it) you would split hell wide open. That last view would probably cover the vast majority of Pentecostals prior to Arroyo Seco. So do you agree with them? Do you believe in entire sanctification as a definite experience, that is REQUIRED before you can receive the Pentecostal Holy Ghost baptism, and that without entire sanctification you had no Biblical certainty of heaven?

Welsey and all the early Methodists believed one was not born again and was not actually IN the New Covenant until one had been entirely sanctified. Did Wesley and the Methodists have it right?

Many of the Reformed persuasion believed one couldn't even repent or believe in Jesus until after one had been regenerated or born again. Were they correct? Did they have a grasp on the true gospel?

Many Baptists believed and still do believe that unless you are baptised by a Baptist (in their association) and remain a good Baptist in a Baptist church in their association you are lost as certainly as any pagan or catholic. Ever hear of Primitive Baptists? Or Regular Baptists?

I think you are confused as to what 'all those other Christians believed' and trust in. I think you imagine they believed pretty much as you do. I would almost bet money they did not and do not.

[mfblume]

Believing in the bible did not mean what we think today. It involved more. Jesus stated in John 17:20 that we must believe on him through the apostles' words. And when we read references to the need to believe such as in 1 John, without any clarification, we must go to where they actually preached to people, in Acts. There we find the full deal with how to believe and what it entailed.

[thephnxman]

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the
grace of Christ unto another gospel:..."

There are three witnesses to the gospel that saves: one witnesses to the whole
world; another; to the Jews and Samaritans; and the last, to the Gentiles.
Nevertheless, it is the same gospel.

Jesus: "He that believes AND is baptized SHALL BE saved...".

Peter: Repent and be Baptized EVERYONE...and you SHALL RECEIVE the gift
of the Holy Spirit...".

Paul: " I declare unto you the gospel; BY WHICH YOU ARE SAVED; how that
Christ DIED for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was BURIED,
and that he ROSE AGAIN the third day according to the scriptures...".

And yet, we must not ignore the doctrine of election. For there surely is a day
when the gospel will be preached no more, for all who will be saved WILL be
saved "...according to my gospel...".

Who is it that believes, but he that OBEYS?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Believing in the bible did not mean what we think today. It involved more. Jesus stated in John 17:20 that we must believe on him through the apostles' words. And when we read references to the need to believe such as in 1 John, without any clarification, we must go to where they actually preached to people, in Acts. There we find the full deal with how to believe and what it entailed.

Shag correctly noted the meaning of believe as being to fully trust and rely. Hes hardly speaking out on favor of easy believism. He's just pointing out the lunacy that any of you guys who are consistent condemn everyone. Not just unbelievers, not just quasi Christian groups, not just trinitarians, but also most oneness pentecostal consider a great number of other oneness pentecostals as damned also.

Wycliffe, Hus, Wesley, Edwards, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, all condemned. Hymn writers, Bible translators, missionaries, martyrs, essentially all lost, according to yall.

And thats just core doctrine. When God starts culling out all the compromisers had a TV, wore a necklace, ear ring, women who wore pants (ever) or trimmed their hair, guys who grew a beard, those who attended the movies, any who failed to pay 100% of 10% of their lifetime earnings, any who held incorrect eschatalogical views, etc, etc. Well then theres going to be about 13 people saved, and not even the apostles make the cut.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Believing in the bible did not mean what we think today. It involved more. Jesus stated in John 17:20 that we must believe on him through the apostles' words. And when we read references to the need to believe such as in 1 John, without any clarification, we must go to where they actually preached to people, in Acts. There we find the full deal with how to believe and what it entailed.

We believe on Jesus through the apostles words by reading what the apostles recorded about Him, more specifically the words of Jesus Himself.

You guys think someone can read every word Jesus spoke in the gospels and die lost without Acts. Missing the whole point of what it is to believe in Christ and willingly blind to the fact that even if we take the book of Acts as the handbook of salvation, the only people who spoke in tongues were the apostles, Cornelius' household, 12 Ephesians, and possibly the Samaritans in Acts chapter 8. This ignores the fact there is no indication that the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost spoke in tongues, the 5,000 of Acts 4:4, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, nor anyone else spoke in tongues. And also the plain meaning of 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, to say nothing of trying to force a cryptic tongues message into the new testament over the simple, clear, and oft repeated message that salvation is freely available to all who will repent of their sins and trust in Christ as Savior (no strings attached).

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

We believe on Jesus through the apostles words by reading what the apostles recorded about Him, more specifically the words of Jesus Himself.

You missed the point. Jesus told us to hear the apostles for he said they would explain how to believe on Him. That's Jesus' own words. He easn not talking about theyr writings of His ministry. He only spoke vaguely on many issues.

Joh 16:25 KJV These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

And He showed them via the Holy Ghost revelations they received after they were Spirit filled.

You guys think someone can read every word Jesus spoke in the gospels and die lost without Acts.

They ALMOST would die lost without Acts, because the apostles were said by Jesus to be the ones we must heed in order to believe on Him. Jesus said that, bro. But Luke 24:47-49 essentially is the directive for what Peter said in Acts 2:38.

Missing the whole point of what it is to believe in Christ and willingly blind to the fact that even if we take the book of Acts as the handbook of salvation, the only people who spoke in tongues were the apostles, Cornelius' household, 12 Ephesians, and possibly the Samaritans in Acts chapter 8.

Incorrect. The 120 spoke in tongues in acts 2. And each case where tongues are recored show the main pattern for what peoples, and need not be mentioned in detail each time it happened later. Even non-pentecostals and non-apostolics see that.

This ignores the fact there is no indication that the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost spoke in tongues, the 5,000 of Acts 4:4, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, nor anyone else spoke in tongues.

I disagree. The pattern was established.

And also the plain meaning of 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, to say nothing of trying to force a cryptic tongues message into the new testament over the simple, clear, and oft repeated message that salvation is freely available to all who will repent of their sins and trust in Christ as Savior (no strings attached).

Who said anything about strings? That's a critic's interpretation of the issue.

The Lord spoke saying the apostle's word about Jesus would explain how to believe on Him. And we see NO additional things said by the apostles UNTIL ACTS 2. Peter preached what Jesus told them to preach in Luke 24:47-49. And after Peter preached it, with ONLY THOSE WORDS uttered from the mouths of the apostles after Jesus left the world, we read of the APOSTLES' DOCTRINE.

Act 2:37-42 KJV Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Where else do we find the apostles teaching anything since Christ left the world that we could attribute to as being the apostles doctrine, aside from what we read in Acts 2? We no sooner see Peter preaching exactly what Jesus told them to in Luke 24, AND NOTHING ELSE UTTERED BY THEM, before we read the people all continued in the apostles' doctrine. The apostles' doctrine was clearly the entire sermon, not just Acts 2:38, of Acts 2. But definitely includes Acts 2:8. WHY LEAVE THAT OUT? WHY OMIT THAT? Just because some people never realized the clear point of it and the majority of self-affirmed Christians do not obey it? What kind of handling of Bible is that?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Shag correctly noted the meaning of believe as being to fully trust and rely. Hes hardly speaking out on favor of easy believism. He's just pointing out the lunacy that any of you guys who are consistent condemn everyone. Not just unbelievers, not just quasi Christian groups, not just trinitarians, but also most oneness pentecostal consider a great number of other oneness pentecostals as damned also.

Wycliffe, Hus, Wesley, Edwards, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, all condemned. Hymn writers, Bible translators, missionaries, martyrs, essentially all lost, according to yall.

And thats just core doctrine. When God starts culling out all the compromisers had a TV, wore a necklace, ear ring, women who wore pants (ever) or trimmed their hair, guys who grew a beard, those who attended the movies, any who failed to pay 100% of 10% of their lifetime earnings, any who held incorrect eschatalogical views, etc, etc. Well then theres going to be about 13 people saved, and not even the apostles make the cut.

Believe is what the apostles explained as believe. And everytime you count heads to determine doctrine, you're offkey, bro.

I fo rone said nothing about TV, and all the rest. You lump things and people together unjustly.

But although your 13 is a fierce exaggeration, even that's better than Noah's day where only 8 were saved.

I don't judge those partway through the plan of salvation. But I still preach Acts 2:38. Period. I am just a messenger, not the judge.