Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
Hey Ferd, I’m not creating division. I would preach ya and never speak ill of you. I’d gladly worship and praise the Lord with you any day. I’m just asking some important questions. This is a soteriological discussion and the statement was made by Mizpeh that the blood is applied at water baptism. That presents a soteriological problem that causes a contradiction between orthodox (what we believe to be right) with orthopraxy (what we rightly experience and practice). If one receives the Holy Ghost BEFORE water baptism…it’s evident that the blood is applied and sins are forgiven prior to water baptism. Since this is a discussion regarding 1 stepper vs. 3 stepper concepts, this experience cannot be denied, overlooked, or swept under the rug. It has to be explained. In all honesty, it nearly proves through biblical example and experience that the 1 steppers have a very solid theological point that works itself out in an experiential fashion in churches throughout the world.
It sounds like you received the Holy Ghost before you were water baptized just like so many of us.
When do you believe the blood was applied?
We agree that water baptism is a command. However, if the blood is applied at repentance, one who is unable to be water baptized may actually be saved. In addition, it means that failure to be baptized isn’t failure to be saved, but failure to obey…i.e. a sin. And then the question comes to mind, can the sin of not being water baptized properly be forgiven? This might explain how men such as William Tyndale were saved without a revelation full truth. However, to him that knows what is right and doeth it not…to him it is sin. Those who know the full truth are accountable to it and therefore if they CAN be water baptized and refuse to be…they will answer for it in the judgment.
But the final point is this…the blood being applied and the forgiveness of sins may very well take place at repentance and not water baptism.
|
I thank God that I am not a bible scholor. Sometimes it is good to just be a poor dumb kid from the back woods.
It must be the reason why, I can accept both views as being within "orthodxy"
I love the discussion especially when it is moving forward. I dont like it when it is a retread where old accusations are being repeated.
When the blood is applied is only one of the important questions.
What about this one "Can a person be saved and disobedient"?
if the blood is applied at repentance as you believe, but one never comes to obey the scripture that commands baptism in the name of Jesus, are they saved? they have not "obeyed" the Gospel, regardless of the application of the blood.
Threaded Mode
