Saved WithOut The Holy Ghost ?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Ok, I see you addressed the "anyone" part...so I jumped the gun here not realizing it was presented already.

JRoc,

I agree with TRFrance about 'anyone' in this passage. In context it is referring to anyone in the Laodecian church. To extend it's meaning and move it to a bigger picture I would still have to say it can apply to anyone in church that has gone lukewarm or even to an individual saint who has gone lukewarm but not to a sinner.

Here is a post by Pelathais in which he describes a figure of speech called an elipsis which I think may be applicable here: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...2&postcount=10

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

JRoc,

I agree with TRFrance about 'anyone' in this passage. In context it is referring to anyone in the Laodecian church. To extend it's meaning and move it to a bigger picture I would still have to say it can apply to anyone in church that has gone lukewarm or even to an individual saint who has gone lukewarm but not to a sinner.

Here is a post by Pelathais in which he describes a figure of speech called an elipsis which I think may be applicable here: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...2&postcount=10

Mizpeh, I respectfully disagree...he ended it by saying:

"“Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what he is saying to the churches.”


Consider what is said to the Church of Philadelphia...do you think the promises here are also only for them and does not apply to anyone else?


“Because you have obeyed my command to persevere, I will protect you from the great time of testing that will come upon the whole world to test those who belong to this world. I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take away your crown. All who are victorious will become pillars in the Temple of my God, and they will never have to leave it. And I will write on them the name of my God, and they will be citizens in the city of my God—the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven from my God. And I will also write on them my new name."


Under the logic you are using, we would have to say that in context he was speaking only to Philadelphia and so it has nothing to do with us and those promises are not for us nor will we bear His new name.

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

JRoc,

I agree with TRFrance about 'anyone' in this passage. In context it is referring to anyone in the Laodecian church. To extend it's meaning and move it to a bigger picture I would still have to say it can apply to anyone in church that has gone lukewarm or even to an individual saint who has gone lukewarm but not to a sinner.

Here is a post by Pelathais in which he describes a figure of speech called an elipsis which I think may be applicable here: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...2&postcount=10

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Mizpeh, I respectfully disagree...he ended it by saying:

"“Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what he is saying to the churches.”


Consider what is said to the Church of Philadelphia...do you think the promises here are also only for them and does not apply to anyone else?


“Because you have obeyed my command to persevere, I will protect you from the great time of testing that will come upon the whole world to test those who belong to this world. I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take away your crown. All who are victorious will become pillars in the Temple of my God, and they will never have to leave it. And I will write on them the name of my God, and they will be citizens in the city of my God—the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven from my God. And I will also write on them my new name."


Under the logic you are using, we would have to say that in context he was speaking only to Philadelphia and so it has nothing to do with us and those promises are not for us nor will we bear His new name.

Furthermore, Revelations 1:3 says:

"God blesses the one who reads the words of this prophecy to the church, and he blesses all who listen to its message and obey what it says, for the time is near."

Surely, this includes us!

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Dan, who is he talking to, and what is he talking about? Is he not taking to a lukewarm church that needs to repent?

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION DOCTRINE.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Now repenting is a one stop ... good for all time step??

Repenting, no matter when it's done, has nothing to w/ salvation doctrine?

Are Once Saved, Always Saved?

Repentance is a lifestyle ... a turning to God ... that goes beyond your 2 minute altar call

*sigh"
Amazing.
Dan, I imagine you're a reasonably intelligent guy. So why is it that I have to clarify stuff to you that should be fairly obvious?

Let me go back to that concept you seem to be having trouble with: CONTEXT.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Now repenting is a one stop ... good for all time step??
Repenting, no matter when it's done, has nothing to w/ salvation doctrine?

1.. I never said or even implied that repenting is a: "a one stop ... good for all time step"
2... neither have I ever said or implied that "Repenting, no matter when it's done, has nothing to w/ salvation doctrine" .

I really have to wonder if you're really having a hard time understanding what I'm saying, or if you're just being purposely intellectually dishonest, just so you can keep arguing your point. I would hate to think that's what you're doing here, but honestly, it does seem like a distinct possibility.

Anyway.. I am simply saying that the repentance Jesus was taking about was for a group of SAINTS to repent. That passage had nothing to do with the repentance of sinners that come seeking salvation. Jesus was not talking about "altar call" -type initial salvation & repentance. He was talking about a lukewarm church turning back to him. That is why I said "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION" . Or, to say it a different way "this passage is not referring to salvation" . Got me now? Therefore, his reference to "coming in to sup with them" is irrelevant to the discussion of "at what point does does a newly repentant sinner receive the Spirit of Christ"

This all goes back to my basic point, which I believe others have made..

You were asked in essence: "what scriptures support your idea that one one immediately receives the Spirit of Jesus by faith when they first express belief?" Rather than just stick to with with verses that deal with the issue of salvation, You proceeded to give us a scripture that deals not with sinners coming to salvation, but a lukewarm church that needed to repent of its ways.

It's clear that in this passage, Jesus is saying he will come in and sup/commune with the church-members who repent and open the door of their hearts to him. These people were already saved, so salvation/infilling of the Holy Ghost is not the issue here. But you chose to apply this scripture to buttress your argument that Jesus comes immediately to live in the heart of sinners who come to him in repentance? If you honestly don't see any flaw there in supporting a doctrinal issue with that kind of argument, then you're really on dangerous ground, buddy.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Are Once Saved, Always Saved?

Repentance is a lifestyle ... a turning to God ... that goes beyond your 2 minute altar call

You're barking up the wrong tree again.

Yes, Dan I'm fully aware, there is repentance for saints as well as sinners. But the daily repentance that saints do, for their sins on an ongoing basis, is very different entity from the repentance of a sinner who is turning to God. I imagine you already know that.

But you chose to use a passage dealing with how Jesus was interacting with a lukewam church (saved folks)... and you take that as a proof-text on the issue of how Jesus will interacts with a repentant sinner... And this is a key scripture for you how a newly repentant sinner receives the Spirit of Christ ?

And the thing is, you don't seem to recognize it for being the flawed reasoning that it is. You don't see it for being the bad biblical exegesis that it is. What makes me sad is that many men who display a similar level of poor scholarship are actually pastoring, preaching and teaching people in thousands of churches all across our country and beyond!

Even from a secular debating point of view, such a specious line of argument would be seen as fatally flawed and totally lacking any merit. But from a spiritual point of view, its even worse. This kind of almost mindless cut-and-paste theology shows a dangerous lack of attention to detail when formulating or supporting doctrine.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Furthermore, Revelations 1:3 says:

"God blesses the one who reads the words of this prophecy to the church, and he blesses all who listen to its message and obey what it says, for the time is near."

Surely, this includes us!

And your point is??

The simple fact is, you cant use the the letters to the churches from the book of Revelation to form salvation doctrine.

I don't think thats a difficult principle at all for a Christian to understand, especially one who's been in church now for well over a decade.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

And your point is??

The simple fact is, you cant use the the letters to the churches from the book of Revelation to form salvation doctrine.

I don't think thats a difficult principle at all for a Christian to understand, especially one who's been in church now for well over a decade.

Oh sugar ... that's right ... salvation doctrine is found where??? only in the application of said doctine ... a historical book ... Acts ... but let's disregard the explanation given to new converts and maturing saints in the other NT books.

This is where you guys falter ... you rely on solely on a handful of passages in a historical book for what seems all of your doctrine.


J-Roc ... you've hit a grandslam .... do your trot. Let's scrap context for pretext.

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

And your point is??

The simple fact is, you cant use the the letters to the churches from the book of Revelation to form salvation doctrine.

I don't think thats a difficult principle at all for a Christian to understand, especially one who's been in church now for well over a decade.

I think I was pretty clear...the point is that you cannot say those words are exclusive to the churches named and that they have no application for Christians today. You'd have to say the same for the words spoken to the church of Philadelphia and you'd have to ignore what Christ says about "he who has ears to hear" since you'd think it was exclusive to the ears of the people of each church.

And who is using it to form a salvation doctrine...it was used to support, not form. The book of Romans is sufficient in forming the salvation doctrine.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

I think I was pretty clear...the point is that you cannot say those words are exclusive to the churches named and that they have no application for Christians today. You'd have to say the same for the words spoken to the church of Philadelphia and you'd have to ignore what Christ says about "he who has ears to hear" since you'd think it was exclusive to the ears of the people of each church.

I think what is clear is that you didn't seem to understand what Mizpeh was posting. He never said those words were exclusive to the churches named. He was simply saying they were primarily to the churches. Look again (highlighted in red)...

Originally Posted by mizpeh

JRoc,
I agree with TRFrance about 'anyone' in this passage. In context it is referring to anyone in the Laodecian church. To extend it's meaning and move it to a bigger picture I would still have to say it can apply to anyone in church that has gone lukewarm or even to an individual saint who has gone lukewarm but not to a sinner.

Mizpeh is just saying the letters were written to the 7 churches, and the meaning could be reasonably applied to other churches. He simply said the meaning of the text, especially Rev 3:20 under discussion, was not addressed to sinners but church folk.

J-rock , you were barking up the wrong tree with your post. No need for you to try to correct him on anything there, because what he said was very correct

Originally Posted by J-Roc

And who is using it to form a salvation doctrine...it was used to support, not form.

The letters to the churches in Revelation don't deal with the salvation issue at all. They cant be used to form salvation doctrine, and since they don't deal with salvation at all, they don't provide legitimate support for any salvation doctrine either, especially the issue under discussion (i.e. when does one receive the Spirit)

And the specific passage in question was used by your buddy Dan as a key passage supporting his contention that Jesus comes to live in a new convert upon belief/repentance. The counterpoint has already been made that the passage he was referring to had nothing to do with salvation of a sinner who comes to God. But it seems like Dan chose it because he felt it could "fit" his PCI doctrine. Or maybe he didn't really notice the proper context of that verse before it was brought to his attention here -- I don't know. Of course he hasn't acknowledged his incorrect usage of that verse, even though it should be clear to him by now. But it doesn't matter, the facts are well laid out for anyone who comes and reads this thread.

The fact is pretty simple, whether or not any of the PCI crowd wants to admit it or not. There are many salvation-related scriptures one can use to establish or support a doctrinal positions. But choosing a non-salvational passage (like Rev 3:20 etc.) just because the words seem to "fit", is sloppy stuff, to say the least. I think even responsible PCI folks who are intellectually honest will agree with that.

And as you can probably tell by now, I'm thoroughly convinced that the PCI folks in general employ a lot of doctrinal sloppiness in forming and supporting their salvation doctrine.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Oh sugar ... that's right ... salvation doctrine is found where??? only in the application of said doctine ... a historical book ... Acts ... but let's disregard the explanation given to new converts and maturing saints in the other NT books.

This is where you guys falter ... you rely on solely on a handful of passages in a historical book for what seems all of your doctrine.

Dan, once again you seem to prefer assumptions to facts.

I have never said salvation doctrine is found only in the book of Acts, have I ?
But you assume that.

The implementation of salvation doctrine is seen in the book of Acts, but there are scriptures related to salvation doctrine are found in other books also,(the gospels, epistles) as well as the book of Acts. The explanations in the epistles support the standard Acts 2:38 salvation plan, rather than undermine it ... although many PCI types try to use Paul's explanations to override the book of Acts pattern and to teach salvation doctrine from Romans, etc. ignoring the clear implementation of Jesus' instructions as seen in the Book of Acts.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This is where you guys falter ... you rely on solely on a handful of passages in a historical book for what seems all of your doctrine.

Assumptions once again. I'm not sure who "you guys" is supposed to refer to. I certainly don't rely on a handful of scriptures from the book of Acts as you seem to be incorrectly presuming. (And I certainly don't use non-salvational passages to support my positions on salvational doctrine, which seems to be a fairly common PCI practice)
Anyway, don't assume you know what my positions are on something if I haven't stated them.

[freeatlast]

I recall many times being taught that the Epistles were written to teach the church how to stay saved, not how to be saved.

Then God showed me the language Paul used was reminding them how they got saved. by grace thru faith in God's imputed rightousness.

I also recall the teachihg that no one was ever saved in the gospels...you know you only find salvation in the book of Acts

Then again God showed me that John wrote the book of John more than 20 years or so AFTER the day of Pentecost.

John had witnessed people speaking in tongues and had surely seen people being baptized by the time he got around to writting his account.

Don' you find it a bit amazing that John never speaks of or mentions this "pentecostal" stuff after being a Pentecostal preacher all those years.

Most Pentecostal preachers today can't get thru their introduction without reiterating the necesity of speakinjg in tongues to saved...let alobne write a whole book and never mention it.

John even declares why he recorded all his writing about how if you "believe" in Jesus you will have eternal life. John 20:31 "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that by believing ye may have life in his name."

I remeber well , lessons I recieved that stated every place in the book of Acts that someone got save it is recorded that they spoke in tongues.

HogWash !! Over 20 accounts of people or groups of people coming to faith in Christ and wee see only 3 or 4 accounts of tongues happening.

These were inagural events where we see tongues Jews / Samaritans/ Gentiles reciving salavation....the Samaritans and Gentiles just happened to speak in tongues as an evidence to the unbelieving Jews that were present. Jews that could not believe any body but them could be saved.

In no way does it state or imply that tongues will always occur when some one gets saved NOWHERE...but yet we ASSUME that it implys it will wlways happen.

We call our doctrine theology when it is no more than idealogy.

A handful of scripture pounded together to form a doctrine.

A doctrine that does not meld together with the whole of scripture

A doctrine that made one of leading bible schools ignore the book of Romans and not even teach Romans other than a handful of scriptures that seemed to fit with a tongues evidence salvation. Seemed to fit if you didn't read the rest of the book.