Billy Graham

[Aquila]

In short, Acts 2:38 can be dissected is as follows:

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent (unto justification by faith, Romans 5:1; Galatians 3:24; Ephesians 2:8), and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (unto identification with Christ, having the conscience cleansed, John 3:5; I Peter 3:21, and therefore forgiveness experienced), and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (unto regeneration, John 3:5; Romans 8:28–30; 2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 4:30; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 4:5; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:23) .

My point is... we do well to allow God to be the judge of those who may have experienced justification before God as a result of their repentance and faith, and yet had yet to move forward into the realities of identification and regeneration.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In short, Acts 2:38 can be dissected is as follows:

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent (unto justification by faith, Romans 5:1; Galatians 3:24; Ephesians 2:8), and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (unto identification with Christ, having the conscience cleansed, John 3:5; I Peter 3:21, and therefore forgiveness experienced), and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (unto regeneration, John 3:5; Romans 8:28–30; 2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 4:30; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 4:5; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:23) .

My point is... we do well to allow God to be the judge of those who may have experienced justification before God as a result of their repentance and faith, and yet had yet to move forward into the realities of identification and regeneration.

Weird. Paul wanted the Corinthians to judge the fornicator in chapter 5 and toss him to the curb directly into Satan's hands. He said he had already personally judged the situation having not even been present. He then reprimanded them for not having anyone wise enough to judge financial issues and fights between brethren in the church, then chided them for not realizing that saints are going to judge angels.

Aquila, what you're missing is this: you have a moving of the goal posts regarding salvation and the Gospel.

If you have a coworker who comes to you for prayer tomorrow and wants a Bible study and asks "What must I do to be saved?" You're going to preach the Gospel and the application of the same, right? You or an elder are going to baptize him in Jesus name and when he comes up out of the water singing in tongues, you're going to jump for joy and shout to the Lord, right?

So, if such a thing occurs, you have the goal posts of salvation and the Gospel in one place, for this coworker of yours.

But for Billy Graham or others, you have the goal posts of salvation and the Gospel in another location.

I'm sure you know the saying "Stick to your guns". And I'm sure you know what it means, too. But, while you're more than happy to pull your trigger on the man screaming at the altar for mercy or deliverance, and don't mind unloading on the sinner covered in snot and tears with tongues all around, your guns remain strangely holstered when it comes to this.

You keep saying you won't judge and are just letting God be God. But you are judging. When you write "no assurance", you mean you have judged that such a person might not be saved. But if that person might not saved, who else might not be saved? Who else might not have "full assurance"? How can you tell the difference?

At some point, you have to have met someone you felt died in "full assurance". I assume you have "full assurance" about yourself, your wife, your elders, and even people here at AFF. You called some people here the creme de la creme of Apostolic Pentecost (even though you keep saying we're not getting it, that we aren't very systematic in our approach, that we rush right past Acts 2:38 without comprehending the deeper realities of it???).

So, where does this "full assurance" come from? What sets these apart? What makes you know these are saved when you don't know or can't proclaim who IS NOT saved?

You can't have it both ways. But when you say you won't judge or try to be God for someone, you are judging that, even without correct doctrinal understanding of the Apostle's faith, even without correct application of the same, such a one might still make it, because of sovereignty and mercy. So, for this one, you've judged them sufficiently saved to make heaven if mercy will allow, despite missing the key components, and speak in the stead of God in order to do so, because ONLY GOD HAS THE RIGHT TO FOREGO AND RELENT. You say, God alone is judge. Then you say, "But these might make it", which is a judgment all the same.

To say God may allow these into eternal life is to say, on God's behalf, that God doesn't need to stick to His guns regarding what He has already established is the only plan of salvation. He can change His mind, if He wants to. He can quibble and waffle. He can nullify the Apostle's faith and its application for anyone He chooses, simply to be merciful, meaning Jesus is not as good as His Word, He's only a capricious respecter of persons. You are impugning the Lord, here, and I guess, for whatever reason, you don't see it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Weird. Paul wanted the Corinthians to judge the fornicator in chapter 5 and toss him to the curb directly into Satan's hands. He said he had already personally judged the situation having not even been present. He then reprimanded them for not having anyone wise enough to judge financial issues and fights between brethren in the church, then chided them for not realizing that saints are going to judge angels.

Aquila, what you're missing is this: you have a moving of the goal posts regarding salvation and the Gospel.

If you have a coworker who comes to you for prayer tomorrow and wants a Bible study and asks "What must I do to be saved?" You're going to preach the Gospel and the application of the same, right? You or an elder are going to baptize him in Jesus name and when he comes up out of the water singing in tongues, you're going to jump for joy and shout to the Lord, right?

So, if such a thing occurs, you have the goal posts of salvation and the Gospel in one place, for this coworker of yours.

But for Billy Graham or others, you have the goal posts of salvation and the Gospel in another location.

I'm sure you know the saying "Stick to your guns". And I'm sure you know what it means, too. But, while you're more than happy to pull your trigger on the man screaming at the altar for mercy or deliverance, and don't mind unloading on the sinner covered in snot and tears with tongues all around, your guns remain strangely holstered when it comes to this.

You keep saying you won't judge and are just letting God be God. But you are judging. When you write "no assurance", you mean you have judged that such a person might not be saved. But if that person might not saved, who else might not be saved? Who else might not have "full assurance"? How can you tell the difference?

At some point, you have to have met someone you felt died in "full assurance". I assume you have "full assurance" about yourself, your wife, your elders, and even people here at AFF. You called some people here the creme de la creme of Apostolic Pentecost (even though you keep saying we're not getting it, that we aren't very systematic in our approach, that we rush right past Acts 2:38 without comprehending the deeper realities of it???).

So, where does this "full assurance" come from? What sets these apart? What makes you know these are saved when you don't know or can't proclaim who IS NOT saved?

You can't have it both ways. But when you say you won't judge or try to be God for someone, you are judging that, even without correct doctrinal understanding of the Apostle's faith, even without correct application of the same, such a one might still make it, because of sovereignty and mercy. So, for this one, you've judged them sufficiently saved to make heaven if mercy will allow, despite missing the key components, and speak in the stead of God in order to do so, because ONLY GOD HAS THE RIGHT TO FOREGO AND RELENT. You say, God alone is judge. Then you say, "But these might make it", which is a judgment all the same.

To say God may allow these into eternal life is to say, on God's behalf, that God doesn't need to stick to His guns regarding what He has already established is the only plan of salvation. He can change His mind, if He wants to. He can quibble and waffle. He can nullify the Apostle's faith and its application for anyone He chooses, simply to be merciful, meaning Jesus is not as good as His Word, He's only a capricious respecter of persons. You are impugning the Lord, here, and I guess, for whatever reason, you don't see it.

Applause!!!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Weird. Paul wanted the Corinthians to judge the fornicator in chapter 5 and toss him to the curb directly into Satan's hands. He said he had already personally judged the situation having not even been present. He then reprimanded them for not having anyone wise enough to judge financial issues and fights between brethren in the church, then chided them for not realizing that saints are going to judge angels.

Judging the living is a far cry from judging the dead, in my opinion. If Billy Graham were alive today and we were all talking at a BBQ, and you shared Acts 2:38 salvation with him, warning that anything else isn't the complete message of the NT, I'd be backing you up. I'd be saying, "Amen". However, Billy Graham has passed from this life. His reward, whatever it is, is what it is. I can only pray that God have mercy, and leave it at that.

Aquila, what you're missing is this: you have a moving of the goal posts regarding salvation and the Gospel.

Where did I ever say that Billy Graham was, without a doubt, "saved"? Nowhere. When reflecting theologically, I voiced that those who have faith in Christ and have repented of their sins have done what was necessary to receive justification. In addition, I admitted that they have not been identified with Christ in baptism, nor have they received the regeneration that comes from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And so, for those precious souls who have indeed received justification through faith upon repentance and passed on... I can only pray that God have mercy upon them, seeing that they had yet to experience the fullness of NT salvation.

The goal posts aren't moved. If at some point I hope that a police officer would let a speeder off with only a warning, have I changed the speed limit? If the officer only issues a warning, has he changed the speed limit? Does that mean that when I teach my kids how to drive, I'm going to tell them to ignore the speed limits? God forbid! For no law has been changed. And anyone asking for instructions on driving will hear me tell them, "obey the speed limit".

I might pray that God have mercy on an Evangelical. However, I understand that even if God were to have mercy, it doesn't change Acts 2:38. And though I might pray that God have mercy on someone who didn't obey all of Acts 2:38, it doesn't mean that I'm going to tell others that they don't have to obey Acts 2:38.

No goal posts have been moved.

If you have a coworker who comes to you for prayer tomorrow and wants a Bible study and asks "What must I do to be saved?" You're going to preach the Gospel and the application of the same, right? You or an elder are going to baptize him in Jesus name and when he comes up out of the water singing in tongues, you're going to jump for joy and shout to the Lord, right?

Of course my dear brother. Why would anyone think otherwise?

So, if such a thing occurs, you have the goal posts of salvation and the Gospel in one place, for this coworker of yours.

But for Billy Graham or others, you have the goal posts of salvation and the Gospel in another location.

I must not be explaining it well.

God is sovereign. And God alone is the judge. And when God judges, a part of that judgment is the thoughts and intents of the heart. Knowing this, I only offer a prayer for people like Graham. And I leave the judgment in God's hands. Nothing God does changes the Gospel. In fact, any exception predicated upon God's sovereign mercy would make the rule. However, as I said before, based on my limited and imperfect understanding of Scripture, I'm hard pressed to see such a possibility. But since I'm not all knowing, I can't rule it out either.

With regards to "Christians" who followeth not us, I leave their judgment entirely in the hands of God. I will neither declare that they are in Heaven, nor will I declare that they are in Hell. I will tell what I know based on what I have studied. They didn't know or obey the fullness of the Gospel. If someone asks, "Bro. Chris, Billy Graham wasn't Apostolic. Will I see Billy Graham in Heaven?" I will only answer, "I don't know. That is entirely up to God. But YOU can KNOW that you are in the Lamb's book of life if you have obeyed the Gospel as preached in Acts 2."

I'm sure you know the saying "Stick to your guns". And I'm sure you know what it means, too. But, while you're more than happy to pull your trigger on the man screaming at the altar for mercy or deliverance, and don't mind unloading on the sinner covered in snot and tears with tongues all around, your guns remain strangely holstered when it comes to this.

I'm not sure if I understand your point here.

If both are alive and well before me... and one is indeed pleading for mercy at an altar... and another is worshipping with all their might... why would I pull my trigger or either of them?

You keep saying you won't judge and are just letting God be God. But you are judging. When you write "no assurance", you mean you have judged that such a person might not be saved. But if that person might not saved, who else might not be saved? Who else might not have "full assurance"? How can you tell the difference?

Anyone who has put their faith in Christ, but who have yet to understand or obey Acts 2:38 has no assurance of salvation. While living, I can only offer warning and admonition to obey Acts 2:38. After their passing, I let it go and allow God to be the judge. I might pray for God to have mercy. But such mercy would still be entirely God's prerogative.

Anyone who doesn't believe in Christ at all hasn't even the most remote chance of salvation.

At some point, you have to have met someone you felt died in "full assurance". I assume you have "full assurance" about yourself, your wife, your elders, and even people here at AFF. You called some people here the creme de la creme of Apostolic Pentecost (even though you keep saying we're not getting it, that we aren't very systematic in our approach, that we rush right past Acts 2:38 without comprehending the deeper realities of it???).

Indeed I have. I assume you've obeyed Acts 2:38 and that you live your life seeking greater Christlikeness. I'd say that you have full assurance that if you remain in this way, you'll make it. But if you, or me, or anyone else departs from this way... there is no assurance of anything. There's no assurance that one would have time to return in repentance. There's no assurance that one would even have the time for death bed prayer. And there is no assurance that God will have mercy. Although, I'm the sensitive buffoon that would be crying and praying that God forgive and bring such a poor soul home.

So, where does this "full assurance" come from? What sets these apart? What makes you know these are saved when you don't know or can't proclaim who IS NOT saved?

Acts 2:38.

TO BE CONTINUED...

[Amanah]

This is way different

Originally Posted by Amanah

Sinner's prayer:

"Dear God, I know I’m a sinner, and I ask for your forgiveness. I believe Jesus Christ is Your Son. I believe that He died for my sin and that you raised Him to life. I want to trust Him as my Savior and follow Him as Lord, from this day forward. Guide my life and help me to do your will. I pray this in the name of Jesus. Amen."

https://peacewithgod.net/

From this

Originally Posted by Aquila

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent (unto justification by faith, Romans 5:1; Galatians 3:24; Ephesians 2:8), and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (unto identification with Christ, having the conscience cleansed, John 3:5; I Peter 3:21, and therefore forgiveness experienced), and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (unto regeneration, John 3:5; Romans 8:28–30; 2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 4:30; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 4:5; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:23) .

[houston]

This is funny. I lean reformed. There are many reformed that are not cessationist. Why? Because that is not a logical conclusion. Many reformers were not cessationist. Sola scriptural is not false doctrine. Even while operating in spiritual gifts- the message has to line up with scripture.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by houston

This is funny. I lean reformed. There are many reformed that are not cessationist. Why? Because that is not a logical conclusion. Many reformers were not cessationist. Sola scriptural is not false doctrine. Even while operating in spiritual gifts- the message has to line up with scripture.

That's why I tried to use the term "historically".

In recent years some leading Reformed teachers have opened the door to the spiritual gifts. Good Reformed men like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Mark Driscoll, and others haven even testified to their believing that this gifts are "real"... although they almost universally testify that they have not personally experienced them, while downplaying their importance. A part of this is due to the overwhelming prevalence of the Charismatic renewal movement. Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Reformed, Episcopals, Presbyterians, etc. have all historically denied the validity of such gifts... with the Reformed screaming "SOLA SCRIPTURA!" the entire time. But within the past 70 years we've seen how members of all of these denominations have experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit and have experienced the gifts. And this Charismatic renewal movement is so prevalent in American Christianity that it is evident that should they take a hard line against the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gifts, they will find themselves in the minority rather quickly. The Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ) has brought them to their knees and caused them to open the door to His reality. Yet, in most Reformed circles who "claim" to believe in it... just try to practice it. You'll be shut down in a New York minute.

The notion that a divine utterance beyond the Word's of Scripture can be given, received, or experienced is not Sola Scriptura as it was historically understood. That's the leading reason why they historically opposed speaking in tongues since the beginning of the Pentecostal revivals in the early 20th Century.

When I see a Reformed teacher, preacher, or believer who states that they believe in the gifts, it's like seeing a person in a classically Cessationist tradition... with egg on their face, admitting that the Pentecostals were right... while they continue cling to their traditional Reformed theology out of pure stubbornness. lol

And even worse yet... I see Apostolics drifting into their classical Cessationist theology!

I have a theory as to why though.

We've neglected a systematic theological perspective of the doctrines of grace... from a purely Apostolic perspective, centered on Acts 2:38. Which is what I have presented above and have been working on for 11 years.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by houston

This is funny. I lean reformed. There are many reformed that are not cessationist. Why? Because that is not a logical conclusion. Many reformers were not cessationist. Sola scriptural is not false doctrine. Even while operating in spiritual gifts- the message has to line up with scripture.

Which reformers were "not cessationist"? The overwhelming majority of reformed people I've ever met did not believe tongues, prophesying etc were in operation today. They do not deny God can and does miracles, but none of them are charismatic or pentecostal. PC(USA) and OPC don't really count as reformed, by the way. And most Lutherans don't, either.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Which reformers were "not cessationist"? The overwhelming majority of reformed people I've ever met did not believe tongues, prophesying etc were in operation today. They do not deny God can and does miracles, but none of them are charismatic or pentecostal. PC(USA) and OPC don't really count as reformed, by the way. And most Lutherans don't, either.

Most miracles they depend upon are defined as miracles of providence, if I remember correctly.

[Amanah]

Billy Graham studied the bible for 70+ years, he had his chance and missed the boat, and deceived millions into thinking they were saved.