Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The D.A.'s Office
Facebook

Notices

The D.A.'s Office The views expressed in this forum are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of AFF or the Admin of AFF.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 02-26-2007, 10:43 AM
J-Roc's Avatar
J-Roc J-Roc is offline
His word burns in my heart like a fire...Fire Fall Down


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley View Post
Much has been made as Holy Ghost is a gift thus not essential is Eternal Life essential it is a gift. Justification is a gift does one recieve it without faith and repentance. Thus your gift has a requirement via repentance but according to your "logic" on the gift of the Holy Ghost if a person does anything it is NOT a gift!!!!!!!!!!!


GIVE'M ENOUGH ROPE THEY ALWAYS HANG THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Eternal life is a gift and given because of what Jesus did

- Justification is a gift and is received by God's grace through faith, and not by works so that nobody (not even Epley) can boast

- Speaking in tongues is a gift and does not take place by any lingual calisthenics on your part...you can't twist God's arm (unless you think you are above Him)

- Lastly, when we talk about "free gift" it simply means that it is unearned (i.e. without merit, undeserving, unworthy). It is not implied that in receiving this gift, it is void of any form of action whether mental or physical on our part...it just means we are not righteous enough to receive any of His gifts.

Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 02-26-2007, 10:43 AM
Barb Barb is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
Say it one more time .....
No more, Daniel...I am bowing out of all of these discussions before my questions become something else in the mind of the faithful.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 02-26-2007, 10:45 AM
Steve Epley's Avatar
Steve Epley Steve Epley is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
Is the laver supposed to represent baptism ... Elder???
It is the initial representation of course like most types there are more fulfillments than the first but it is the first they washed withal!!!!!!!!!!!

Blood-water-oil-fire fulfilled the worshipper's journey to leave out any of those elements would disannul the the journey. Death would be the outcome of not having ONE element!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 02-26-2007, 10:52 AM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
More faulty theology ... I could quote Gillespie but according to you he's an apostate ... so here's Daniel Seagraves on the myth of equating the laver to baptism.

The author recognizes that "the Bible itself is the source of doctrinal typology" and that "it is imperative to avoid speculative and subjective interpretations concerning baptismal typology." He seems, however, not to have heeded his own advice on this matter. While the Tabernacle of old was definitely a figure (Greek parabole) (Hebrews 9:9), no New Testament verse seeks to interpret the meaning of each item associated with Tabernacle worship. By necessity, then, much of the interpretation regarding the Tabernacle is speculative at best. What the New Testament does clearly indicate is that the essential purpose of the Tabernacle worship, as a whole, was to prefigure the coming Christ and His role as the final and only efficacious sacrifice (Hebrews 9:8-14, 23-26; 10:1-21; Colossians 2:16-17; Galatians 3:24).

There are several reasons why the laver seems not to be an adequate type of water baptism:

1. Contrary to the author's assumption that the laver was "scheduled after the initial approach and sacrifice at the brazen altar and before entering the Holy Place," the laver was the first destination of the priest, even before approaching the brazen altar (Exodus 30:20; 40:12, 30-32). If the brazen altar represents repentance and the laver water baptism, this would place baptism before repentance in typology.

2. While the New Testament does assign specific typological meaning to certain Old Testament events and practices, it nowhere specifies the laver as a type of water baptism.

3. The laver was not a place of immersion, but mere washing.

4. The priests had to wash at the laver repeatedly each time they planned to minister. Water baptism is a one-time event.

If the laver is typical of any New Testament truth, it would seem more appropriate to consider it to be typical of the daily washing of believers by the Word of God, as seen in Ephesians 5:26: "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word."

The laver would seem an appropriate symbol of this for the following reasons:

1. It was covered with mirrors, reflecting the approaching priest's image. The New Testament compares the Word of God to a mirror in which men behold themselves (James 1:23).

2. The washing at the laver was a continual thing; the washing of water by the Word is a continuing process.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 02-26-2007, 10:54 AM
Nahum Nahum is offline
Registered User


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barb View Post
Coonskinner, I love ya dearly, but this is not an answer. I understand truth matters, but does it matter at what point salvation takes place if we have all obeyed Acts 2:38?!

Respectfully...
I think this is all a misrepresentation of facts.

Those of the so-called PCI camp view Acts 2:38 completely different than I, and traditional Apostolics, do. It matters because it seems there is an attempt to place less and less importance on the NECESSITY of water baptism and the Holy Ghost baptism. I mean, my goodness people, some of you have even went off the deep end and claimed repentance is not necessary to receive the Spirit of God!

The big dfference I see is that some of us believe obedience to Acts 2:38 is necessary for salvation. Others believe it is just a second blessing that would be terrific to receive if you ever get around to it. Those folks SAY they preach Acts 2:38, but I don't believe it.

The reason I don't believe it is because of the vitriol spewn on anyone who says this is THE way to respond to the gospel. If you loved the message, you wouldn't find ways to rip and tear it.

Let's not ..........-foot around the issue here. Some of you no longer believe it is necessary to be baptized in Jesus name, and receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Some don't even believe repentance is a requirement. This. my dear misguided friends, is the very definition of backslid. What is even worse is that you lead others into this heresy.

Now, go ahead and crucify me if you can't handle what I just said.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 02-26-2007, 10:54 AM
Felicity's Avatar
Felicity Felicity is offline
Step By Step - Day By Day


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley View Post
Barb the penitent that heard the PCI preacher or the PAJC and obeyed Acts 2:38 recieved the same idential experience the new birth whether they understood it or not. How those who claim to be the same as the PCI men of the past don't have the same emphasis they stress faith alone NOT even true repentance thus they do not recieve the same experience. So they are not the same.
Phooey!
__________________
Smiles & Blessings....
~Felicity Welsh~

(surname courtesy of Jim Yohe)
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 02-26-2007, 10:57 AM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
Quote:
Now, go ahead and crucify me if you can't handle what I just said.
Can someone please pass a hammer????
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 02-26-2007, 10:57 AM
Nahum Nahum is offline
Registered User


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,102
If you all believe Acts 2:38 so fervently, why do you continually rip and tear at it? It is as if you despise it. There have been many supposedly humorous remarks made against an emphasis on this response to the gospel, on this thread and others, in the last few days.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 02-26-2007, 10:59 AM
Coonskinner Coonskinner is offline
Non-Resident Redneck


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Poster View Post
If you all believe Acts 2:38 so fervently, why do you continually rip and tear at it? It is as if you despise it. There have been many supposedly humorous remarks made against an emphasis on this response to the gospel, on this thread and others, in the last few days.

The mockery tells the tale, Brother.

You have hit the nail on the head.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 02-26-2007, 10:59 AM
Nahum Nahum is offline
Registered User


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Poster View Post
I think this is all a misrepresentation of facts.

Those of the so-called PCI camp view Acts 2:38 completely different than I, and traditional Apostolics, do. It matters because it seems there is an attempt to place less and less importance on the NECESSITY of water baptism and the Holy Ghost baptism. I mean, my goodness people, some of you have even went off the deep end and claimed repentance is not necessary to receive the Spirit of God!

The big dfference I see is that some of us believe obedience to Acts 2:38 is necessary for salvation. Others believe it is just a second blessing that would be terrific to receive if you ever get around to it. Those folks SAY they preach Acts 2:38, but I don't believe it.

The reason I don't believe it is because of the vitriol spewn on anyone who says this is THE way to respond to the gospel. If you loved the message, you wouldn't find ways to rip and tear it.

Let's not ..........-foot around the issue here. Some of you no longer believe it is necessary to be baptized in Jesus name, and receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Some don't even believe repentance is a requirement. This. my dear misguided friends, is the very definition of backslid. What is even worse is that you lead others into this heresy.

Now, go ahead and crucify me if you can't handle what I just said.
bump
I would like a response to this post.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome
- by Costeon

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.