Where are all the Acts 2:38 folks (3-steppers)??

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What are your thoughts on post #1073?

I think there are occasions when baptism and "speaking in tongues" isn't a likelihood before death.

I think you underestimate God's mercy and power that He would extend to a repentant soul.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Mizpeh, do you think there is any significance to the change in grammar between verse 3 and 5?

Verse three says born again to SEE the kingdom
and first 5 says born of water and Spirit to enter the kingdom.

Prax, I had a really long discussion with Pelathais on John 3:3-5 near the end of this thread.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=212

There is more near the end of the thread, I just don't have time at the moment to cut and paste.

Anyways, the short version, I see born of the water and Spirit to be an elaboration on what it means to be born again.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Aquila

A woman was dying. She had a series of heart attacks and they continued to stablize her each time her heart stopped. She was connected to so many machines keeping her stable it would have taken a truck to move her and all necessary equipment. These machines were assisting her with breathing, administering doses of medication to assist the heart, medication to thin the blood, etc. Moving her would kill her. She could nod her head and was crying. She could answer simple yes or no questions. She struggled to say one word, with tubes obstructing her ability to properly speak, she said, "...preacher..." The staff began the effort to track down the local chaplain. One of the staff, an Apostolic lay preacher, offers to pray for her while they paged the chaplain. This staff member held her hand and prayed with her that the Lord would hear her prayer, they pled the blood of Jesus over her and prayed with her for God to forgive her of all her sins. They ask that God would comfort her in her time of need and that all fear would be gone. Though she mostly gave weak nods and some gurgled words ("Amen,""Jesus save me,"'Sorry Jesus") she wept with tears streaming down the sides of her face. Shortly after closing the prayer she became unstable, her heart stopped, and they never could recover her.

Unbaptized and unable to "speak in tongues" was she saved? Should the Apostolic (a family member) have just stood by without praying for her?

I knew you would do this!

If this dying woman is being assisted by a breathing machine, a ventilator, then she would not be awake. And if she were dying they would discontinue all support and she would die quickly, maybe one breath. I am answering your questions by the things I have seen as a nurse.

It appears you have watched too many drama shows.

God is able to do what you think is impossible and heal any repentant dying person. We never know what is going to happen, so I would pray with someone who is dying and wanted prayer.

What if I prayed for this hypothetical woman and instead of dying she lived and was healed? What then? Is that a possibility? I'd rather discuss the scriptures than madeup scenarios.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What are your thoughts on post #1073?

I think there are occasions when baptism and "speaking in tongues" isn't a likelihood before death.

NO....Even if it is a sprinkle then pray over it.

Here is the other thing, one must be a clean vessel for the infilling of the Holy Ghost, or as we say "have your heart right". This is done through "true" repentance. God wants everyone to be saved so that none may perish. All that being said. If someone "truly" repents why would they not recieve the Holy Ghost as evidence of speaking in tongues.

To me salvation is at the infilling (ducking). Anyone can say they have repented, but only God knows the heart, and if the heart of repentance is true and pure then the infilling WILL follow. Seek and ye shall find. It is our promise from Him. If the God Almighty fills one with His spirit then whether or not that one is saved is no longer a question. Baptized or not. Yet one should at least be sprinkled in prayer and faith,,,at least.

Ok people, let the next hundred pages begin.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I knew you would do this!

If this dying woman is being assisted by a breathing machine, a ventilator, then she would not be awake. And if she were dying they would discontinue all support and she would die quickly, maybe one breath. I am answering your questions by the things I have seen as a nurse.

It appears you have watched too many drama shows.

God is able to do what you think is impossible and heal any repentant dying person. We never know what is going to happen, so I would pray with someone who is dying and wanted prayer.

What if I prayed for this hypothetical woman and instead of dying she lived and was healed? What then? Is that a possibility? I'd rather discuss the scriptures than madeup scenarios.

Agreed, these situations questions God in the least. If God knows the heart to know the person will accept salvation then God will make a way. If that person is on their death bed with no physical way of salvation then what makes you think man can change that. You don't know that persons heart, God does. He didn't give the couple who lied a chance to turn from their ways, he struck them dead for lying. God's justice is rightous.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I knew you would do this!

If this dying woman is being assisted by a breathing machine, a ventilator, then she would not be awake. And if she were dying they would discontinue all support and she would die quickly, maybe one breath. I am answering your questions by the things I have seen as a nurse.

It appears you have watched too many drama shows.

God is able to do what you think is impossible and heal any repentant dying person. We never know what is going to happen, so I would pray with someone who is dying and wanted prayer.

What if I prayed for this hypothetical woman and instead of dying she lived and was healed? What then? Is that a possibility? I'd rather discuss the scriptures than madeup scenarios.

Mizpeh...you have no idea.

[Sam]

Joan Baez said that her mother once advised her, "If you ever have your choice between facing a real lion and a hypothetical lion, choose the real lion because it is much less dangerous."

[Apprehended]

Here is a senario that I've seen many times...

John Doe is baptized in Jesus' name, gets the Holy Ghost and his life proves that he never repented.

Jane Doe repents and is baptized but never gets the Holy Ghost.

Jack Jones gets the Holy Ghost but is never baptized neither does he ever repent, as evidenced by his life.

Then here come the modern day Professors of the Law to tells the rest of us what happened in each case...according to their own three step theories, having been schooled in Acts without having been schooled in the Gospels.

In the case of John Doe, the Professors of the Law will probably hypothesize that surely they repented even if but for a moment...just long enough to get the Holy Ghost.

How silly! It is true that, according to Peter that God once winked at ignorance but now commands all men everywhere to REPENT. Add whatever definition that you choose to the word, but anything less than a change of direction of one's life is short of repentance.

In the case of Jane Doe, she found that an encounter with Jesus Christ changed her life internally, externally and eternally as evidenced by the level of godliness in her life after the encounter. I have been in the presence of sanctified lives that have never received the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues that leaves me looking quite deficient in the "holiness" department by comparison, even though I speak in tongues frequently.

Jack Jones gets the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues just sitting in his pew listening to the preaching of the Word. He gets up and walks right out the door, not repenting, to live his same old life of sin without ever going to the water.

Without being schooled in the GOSPELS, being schooled in Acts only, this senario leave one, two and three steppers baffled and at a loss as to how to explain it...though some, from Acts and the Epistles may foolishly try.

This discussion of steps one, two and three will surely go on forever with no resolution (as it has for decades in modern Pentecost) without being schooled by Jesus in the Gospels. It would be my strong suggestion that the Gospels should be read and studied at least to the ratio of ten to one to Acts and the Epistles, paying the most careful attention to the words of Jesus. By studying the Words of Jesus in the Gospel, we are better equipped to understand the words and teachings of the Apostles without becoming "one or two verse Charlies."

Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone. The Apostles are not. It is from the Chief Cornerstone that all things are measured...including the Apostles who can be misunderstood without a clear understanding of the Gospels. There was a reason Paul told his followers to follow him AS he followed Christ. Paul recognized the principle. We are members of the Body of Christ which life is derived from the Words of Jesus. Christ, not Peter is the head. It was not Peter that said, "He that heareth my words and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man who dug deep and builded his house upon the rock...," it was Jesus. Though Jesus commended the Words of his disciples to all who would hear them, (hearing them is hearing Him) they preached and taught the words of Jesus, not their own.

Here, I will make a statement that will surely bring on a critique of my words but here it is anyway: I believe it a mistake to place the words of the Apostles on the same level as the Words of Jesus. I don't recall any of the Apostles making such a claim. (I stand to be corrected) Nowhere did any of the Apostles say, "The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are Life," but Jesus did. Neither did any of them say, "Now you are clean through the Word that I have spoken unto you," but Jesus did. The Apostles themselves declared that they did not preach themselves, but Christ...that is, the Words of Jesus. They subordinated themselves and their words to the Words of Jesus from the Gospels. There is a principle here that I think that we should examine.

Well, I rambled on and on but, I deleted about half of what I wrote here. I am ready to be corrected but I think that I am right while at the same time, concededing to the principle that there is no contradiction in the "word of God" from Genesis to Revelation, only a contradiction in perception that can be corrected with a clearer revelation of the Words of Jesus from the Gospels.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I truly loved the illustration a brother gave about conception.

A child is conceived in the womb and there is no apparent evidence that a new life has begun, yet the child is alive...it is a life. However, upon birth it breaks the water and is seen by all. Then it takes it's first breath.

Is it possible that the salvation of a soul begins at repentance and it is therefore spiritually conceived; yet evidence of this new life isn't witnessed until it matures and is water baptized? Then this soul takes it's first breath by receiving the Holy Ghost?

To deny that a soul doesn't experience salvation and new life in Christ at repentance would then be the same as arguing that a child isn't truly alive upon conception.

That would mean that some may be saved, yet find their life in the Kingdom of God miscarried before reaching full maturity. However, if they live and mature they will be water baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost and experience the Kingdom of God in their lives.

But, Aquila, if the child never makes it to the place of taking a breath and dies in the womb do you celebrate its birthdate?

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Here is a senario that I've seen many times...

John Doe is baptized in Jesus' name, gets the Holy Ghost and his life proves that he never repented.
(this we call "backsliden" not "non-repentence")

Jane Doe repents and is baptized but never gets the Holy Ghost.
(if Jane was truly seeking the HG and never got it then I would question the repentance)

Jack Jones gets the Holy Ghost but is never baptized neither does he ever repent, as evidenced by his life.
(Again, backslider, we do stumble sometimes you know, after all you can't recieve the HG in the first place without true repentance.)

Then here come the modern day Professors of the Law to tells the rest of us what happened in each case...according to their own three step theories, having been schooled in Acts without having been schooled in the Gospels.

In the case of John Doe, the Professors of the Law will probably hypothesize that surely they repented even if but for a moment...just long enough to get the Holy Ghost. (otherwise you would be saying John Doe should have been "perfect")

How silly! It is true that, according to Peter that God once winked at ignorance but now commands all men everywhere to REPENT. Add whatever definition that you choose to the word, but anything less than a change of direction of one's life is short of repentance. (so then we have to be "perfect" to be saved?)

In the case of Jane Doe, she found that an encounter with Jesus Christ changed her life internally, externally and eternally as evidenced by the level of godliness in her life after the encounter. I have been in the presence of sanctified lives that have never received the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues that leaves me looking quite deficient in the "holiness" department by comparison, even though I speak in tongues frequently. (what power of God do you possess exactly that gives you such insight to ones inner sanctity?)

Jack Jones gets the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues just sitting in his pew listening to the preaching of the Word. He gets up and walks right out the door, not repenting, to live his same old life of sin without ever going to the water. (Would not happen)

Without being schooled in the GOSPELS, being schooled in Acts only, this senario leave one, two and three steppers baffled and at a loss as to how to explain it...though some, from Acts and the Epistles may foolishly try.

This discussion of steps one, two and three will surely go on forever with no resolution (as it has for decades in modern Pentecost) without being schooled by Jesus in the Gospels. It would be my strong suggestion that the Gospels should be read and studied at least to the ratio of ten to one to Acts and the Epistles, paying the most careful attention to the words of Jesus. By studying the Words of Jesus in the Gospel, we are better equipped to understand the words and teachings of the Apostles without becoming "one or two verse Charlies."

Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone. The Apostles are not. It is from the Chief Cornerstone that all things are measured...including the Apostles who can be misunderstood without a clear understanding of the Gospels. There was a reason Paul told his followers to follow him AS he followed Christ. Paul recognized the principle. We are members of the Body of Christ which life is derived from the Words of Jesus. Christ, not Peter is the head. It was not Peter that said, "He that heareth my words and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man who dug deep and builded his house upon the rock...," it was Jesus. Though Jesus commended the Words of his disciples to all who would hear them, (hearing them is hearing Him) they preached and taught the words of Jesus, not their own.

Here, I will make a statement that will surely bring on a critique of my words but here it is anyway: I believe it a mistake to place the words of the Apostles on the same level as the Words of Jesus. I don't recall any of the Apostles making such a claim. (I stand to be corrected) Nowhere did any of the Apostles say, "The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are Life," but Jesus did. Neither did any of them say, "Now you are clean through the Word that I have spoken unto you," but Jesus did. The Apostles themselves declared that they did not preach themselves, but Christ...that is, the Words of Jesus. They subordinated themselves and their words to the Words of Jesus from the Gospels. There is a principle here that I think that we should examine. (Didn't Jesus teach that the Holy Ghost would guide their tongues, they would be lead to speak by the Spirit? is the Spirit not God?)

Well, I rambled on and on but, I deleted about half of what I wrote here. I am ready to be corrected but I think that I am right while at the same time, concededing to the principle that there is no contradiction in the "word of God" from Genesis to Revelation, only a contradiction in perception that can be corrected with a clearer revelation of the Words of Jesus from the Gospels.

a