Billy Graham

[Esaias]

Wow, did I kill the thread or what?

[Aquila]

CONTINUED...

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.

I simply let God be God. I cannot say with assurance that anyone like you mentioned is saved. Nor can I say with assurance that I know the mind of God so well that I know that there is absolute no way God would or could sovereignly choose to have mercy and grace on a soul that had only experienced repentance. Some things are best left in the hands of God. If someone were to day, "Well, I don't want to be baptized in the name of Jesus, I'd rather choose to rely on God's sovereign grace and mercy." I'd answer, "You can do as you wish. However, since you now know that the Bible commands us to be water baptized in the name of the Lord, there is no way you can claim ignorance. You need to search your heart. Are you refusing to be baptized out of rebellion? Fear? Anxiety, because someone you love wasn't baptized and has passed on? Regarding their soul, God is just. Allow Him, and Him alone, to be their judge. Fear? What is there to fear? Rebellion? Why try to prove a point at the cost of your soul? I admonish you to obey the Scripture and be baptized."

Acts 2:38 is the rule. Any exception is entirely up to God.

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.

I think you're taking this idea a lot farther than I would. It feels like I'm being pressed between affirming God's absolute sovereignty or affirming Acts 2:38.

There several ways I've seen this topic approached. The labels I'm giving them are only general descriptions, not actual terms. Here they are:

A.) 1-Stepper position. This position holds that Scripture only requires one to come to faith and repent. After repentance, salvation is assured. I don't believe that this is biblical. Because the Bible clearly teaches that through Acts 2:38 (repentance, JN baptism, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit) we experience justification, identification, and regeneration.

B.) "The Light Doctrine". This teaches that one is only responsible for the "light" (or revelation) they see and understand in Scripture and if they live in the fullness of this "light" they are assured salvation. Again, this flies in the face of the fullness of Acts 2:38. It would also imply that it is better to not understand the fullness of the NT teaching on salvation than to know and understand it.

C.) 2-Stepper. This is like the 1-Stepper argument. Only they choose two out of the three elements of Acts 2:38. Some say upon repentance and baptism, or repentance and Holy Ghost infilling, one is assured salvation.

D.) 3-Stepper (General). This teaches that one must experience the fullness of Acts 2:38 to be assured salvation. However, it is very general in it's approach, allowing for the historical development of the experience. Repentance, water baptism, and Holy Spirit infilling might have looked differently and have been referred to using different terms down through the ages. Baptismal formula illustrates Apostolic tradition vs. church tradition, but obedience to baptism is the rule. The Holy Spirit infilling may have not been spoken of using terms like "tongues" and "pray through", but may have been referred to or experienced as "spiritual ecstasy", "unintelligible weeping, sobbing, or utterance", being "falling prostrate as dead", accompanied with visions, dreams, miracles, healings, etc. Those who hold this position emphasize that the terms we use today and the manner of experience we have with Acts 2:38 may appear different than in centuries past, but underneath justification, identification, and regeneration are still taking place. Some will argue that even in other traditions today Christians repent, are baptized, and experience the baptism of the Spirit in various manners. I believe there is "some" intellectual merit to this argument. But one must be extremely cautious with how it is applied through one's study of history. Because not every visionary experience or "ecstasy" included an "unintelligible" experience. As can also be said of various Christian traditions alive today.

E.) 3-Stepper (Classical). This teaches that to be saved one must obey the fullness of Acts 2:38 in exactly the same manner as it is understood by 20th Century Apostolic Pentecostals; one must even use the very terms coined in the 20th Century for the experience, or they are lost. This position argues that prior to the 20th Century Apostolic revival no Christian was saved for nearly a 2,000 year period. Some try to make the case that various shady groups down through history held to their strict understanding of Acts 2:38. However, a thorough review of those groups in relation to their own theologians will reveal that they were often a far cry from believing in Acts 2:38 in the same manner as 20th Century Apostolic Pentecostals do. Any honest soul will see the sectarian extremism in this position. Even their revisionist rewriting of Christian history to claim historical spiritual ancestry is a brazenly dishonest pursuit that damages their testimony. But this view is clear, concise, and easy to cheer for, especially among those who have been lucky enough to experience Acts 2:38 in this manner.

And then there is the approach I was taught....

F.) 3-Stepper (Sovereign God). This view holds that regardless of who might or might not have held to an Acts 2:38 soteriology down through history, the fullness of Acts 2:38 has always been the standard and therefore only in the fullness of Acts 2:38 can one have assurance of salvation. Such assurance ended after the Apostles and was lost with the apostasy of the Roman church. Any Christian souls saved by God down through history who had not known of or experienced the fullness of Acts 2:38 were saved by a sovereign and merciful God on account of their faith in spite of their error, not on account of some measure of it. The same can be said of any Christian who hasn't experienced or come to understand Acts 2:38 today. Such a sovereign act of grace is not guaranteed. And therefore outside of Acts 2:38 there can be no assurance of salvation. The fate of "Christians" who do not understand or who have not experienced the fullness of Acts 2:38 is left entirely in the hands of God. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And we leave it at that.

I pray I've helped to clarify.

[JoeBandy]

Someone brought Mathew 7:14 into this discussion.. So lets bring Mathew 7:16-19 into it!!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

Someone brought Mathew 7:14 into this discussion.. So lets bring Mathew 7:16-19 into it!!

So, that covers James Dobson, Billy Graham, Claude Ely and Mother Teresa?

[Evang.Benincasa]

What a plant produces according to Jesus isn't about being a sweetie pie, because Jesus Himself, upbraided rebuked, in Spanish Bible "reproached" His apostles, because their lack of faith, and understanding Mark 16:14. The plant produces what its root system supplies. That root is Christ, and Jesus gave no leeway for anyone to get into the sheepfold any other way.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, that covers James Dobson, Billy Graham, Claude Ely and Mother Teresa?

Personally, I cannot say with any assurance that any of the above will be saved. However, I also cannot say with any certainty that they will be lost. I can say that I pray that a sovereign God will have mercy on their souls, because they didn't have the fullness of Apostolic truth. In the end, it's entirely up to Him, for He alone is worthy to judge. And in anything He chooses to do, shall not the judge of all the earth do right?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, that covers James Dobson, Billy Graham, Claude Ely and Mother Teresa?

Let me ask you a sincere question.

If, when you get to Heaven (assuming you make it), would you rejoice and give God all praise and glory should you find that He chose to have mercy on the above souls???

Would the Bride rejoice in seeing unexpected guests at the wedding feast?

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, that covers James Dobson, Billy Graham, Claude Ely and Mother Teresa?

I am just pointing out scriptures . You are the expert into forming them into meaning what you want them to.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

I am just pointing out scriptures . You are the expert into forming them into meaning what you want them to.

Joe, in all fairness... we all tend to read the Scriptures and formulate their meaning in accordance to our understanding. Let's not be too hard on EB. lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Joe, in all fairness... we all tend to read the Scriptures and formulate their meaning in accordance to our understanding. Let's not be too hard on EB. lol

He can be as hard on me as he can. Joe drinks OSPHO.
Anyway your excuse of everyone formulates the meaning of scripture is false.
Is that what Paul was doing? When the Anti-Missionary Rabbis claim that Paul created Christianity, they make the same statement. Also, now the logical outcome of your statement is no one understand the scripture. Paul would ask YOU, is Christ divided? Chris, no offense, but what you are proposing is that Christianity no matter what flavor (including your own) is shot in the head. Unable to determine the Holy from the profane.