The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

If you don't wish to discuss, I can respect that.

I wish you wouldn't answer inside of my quotes. When I try to respond I lose my text and have to drag yours down.

Acts as a narrative of the beginning of the church does not create a superiority of the book over all other books, nor make it the "standard" by which all others must be interpreted through. The fact is, Acts is a narrative, while many of the Epistles contain didactic and even theological material. They all have their own purpose. All are the Word of God, and inspired. This Acts-centric view is unique to Pentecostalism that has an insecurity complex with the whole of Scripture.

Therefore it's not a "moot point" as you suggest, since the writers didn't check-in with Luke before writing their letters. They were in agreement, that is for sure, but the writings were not reconciled through the specific writings we called the Acts of the Apostles. THAT, my sister, is absolutely ludicrous.

What you concluded with in the paragraph is (almost) true. Though different perspectives and purposes, most of the books in the NT contain reference to the Gospel. I'm not sure about the "promise of the Spirit" part. Many of them do talk about living in Christ (especially Pauline writings, not really Luke's focus).

I never said Acts was the superior book. It still shows how the NT church began. It is a point of reference and all of the Epistles are in agreement with what was written. Most all of the Epistles are addressed "unto the church of" or "called to be saints", etc. - established churches. It's just logical to follow this because of the addressed wording.

Truth, intertwining message? You are hung up on this. Validity was FAR MORE than if they faithfully represented the Gospel. But yes, of course, that would be one criteria to even know if it had the authority of an Apostle. The message is not as "intertwined" to the specificity that you regard it. John and Luke are two completely different writers, two vastly different purposes and perspectives. To read them as one is a hermeneutic 101 failure.

Intertwined to me is tied up together. John and Luke may be vastly different writers but their works agree - they are intertwined!

I'd open that up for a poll. HG with evidentiary tongues only you mean? Most believe in every function of the Spirit: from calling man to God, to faith and the indwelling at New Birth, to empowerment by Baptism in the Spirit, to His role in prayer (Romans 8), to His role in justification (Romans 5), to His role as a Counselor, and on and on.

You can start a poll if you want to. We've already been over all of this here and I still believe what I started out believing on FCF - just like everyone else. I think we just enjoy talking our heads off for no apparent reason. LOL!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Sam

I don't think anyone on here would say that we don't need the Holy Spirit to be saved. Some of us distinguish between a birth of the Spirit when the Spirit comes in to dwell and a subsequent baptism in the Spirit when the Spirit comes upon to fill and empower.

I don't see that, Sam. Never have been able to see that. I believe that God begins a work when you decide to turn to Him, but it doesn't mean you are spirit filled.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I wish you wouldn't answer inside of my quotes. When I try to respond I lose my text and have to drag yours down.


I never said Acts was the superior book. It still shows how the NT church began. It is a point of reference and all of the Epistles are in agreement with what was written. Most all of the Epistles are addressed "unto the church of" or "called to be saints", etc. - established churches. It's just logical to follow this because of the addressed wording.

Intertwined to me is tied up together. John and Luke may be vastly different writers but their works agree - they are intertwined!


You can start a poll if you want to. We've already been over all of this here and I still believe what I started out believing on FCF - just like everyone else. I think we just enjoy talking our heads off for not apparent reason. LOL!

I never said Acts was the superior book. It still shows how the NT church began. It is a point of reference and all of the Epistles are in agreement with what was written. Most all of the Epistles are addressed "unto the church of" or "called to be saints", etc. - established churches. It's just logical to follow this because of the addressed wording.

You haven't? Maybe I felt it was implied. "All books refer 'back' to this one"

Of course they are in agreement. Being agreement and saying the books don't have unique material, some new, some expanded on, etc is where what I am contending. I understand they are established churches. Nor is Acts the history of all individual churches. It's shows the continuation of Luke's account to Theopholis, how the church grew, how it was open to Gentiles "all who believed," how it was affirmed by signs and wonders, how great persecution fell on the church yet still it progressed, etc...

Intertwined to me is tied up together. John and Luke may be vastly different writers but their works agree - they are intertwined!

I think my point was valid, but if we insist on semantics, I'll agree with you. If by intertwined, you mean they are separate "braids" forming one picture or piece, then OF COURSE!

You can start a poll if you want to. We've already been over all of this here and I still believe what I started out believing on FCF - just like everyone else. I think we just enjoy talking our heads off for not apparent reason. LOL!

I really don't think you'll find even one person who doesn't agree to the role of the Spirit in salvation.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I know you were. LOL! But, I did feel that I should clarify my words.

You said "trouble" and I felt bad.

But Jeffery makes a nice point about the dating of Acts. Most of Paul writings were already circulating when Luke penned Acts. The whole "Acts 2:38" approach to soteriology demands that we place Acts ahead of all of the Epistles, the way Saint Jerome has arranged the NT.

Would our doctrine be different if the NT had been arranged according to when the individual documents were originally written?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Then we've made progress

So are you saying all that is written on salvation is exhaustive in Acts? Romans is only reiterating explanations of Acts? John is only mimicking the authoritative Acts? "More spiritual things?" Meaning?

Probably anything you needed to know about our initial salvation and the promise of God would be in Acts. I never said "exhaustive". The Epistles elaborate even more and cement what is taught in Acts, IMO.

I'd challenge you that there is more in Acts concerning the activity of the Spirit, the movement among people, groups and congregations, but there is not more in Acts with regard to theology, teaching, instruction, etc..

Again, I was speaking of our initial salvation. We know that we cannot be saved without continuing in the faith. The Epistles show us more.

Why wouldn't you go to Romans to learn how to be saved? Why such prejudice? Where do you get that from? If you want to know Paul's thoughts on salvation, you ought to read all of Paul's letters if that's important to you -- but don't twist and distort Paul's words into Luke's. The truth is, Luke says very little on "how to" anything. He is telling a story. A beautiful story. What a tragedy that we view this book as the Ultimate Creed of all Faith. That's insecurity and dishonesty at the core. Is Paul so ignorant not to articulate fully what he means by salvation? Really? Is Luke's focus in Acts to show us how to be saved? Are you sure??? I challenge you to study Acts asking some of those questions first.

Luke tells a whole lot about what do to. Goodness, are you kidding me?

How ridiculous for you to call me insecure and dishonest to the core. Puleeze, stop being so ridiculous. LOL!

[Fiyahstarter]

Originally Posted by Neck

The Devil believes and trembles but is also a being for which Christ did not die? So for the Devil to believe in an event that has nothing to do with his soul-less being does not attach any merit, to say that if the Devil believes and is not saved. Then we must do more than believe to start our salvation experience is nothing near the truth. A demon and a human are not subject to the same laws nor the does Grace or Mercy apply to a demon. The main problem with the Devil's belief is he is still holding out hope that he will not get his in the end.

(Re: the bolded/underlined)

I think I know quite a few people who are doing the same!

So... help me out here.

My husband believes. He earns an honest living. He takes care of his family. He doesn't hurt anyone. He does not go to church. He does not have a relationship with God. He likes to drink a few times a week. He chews tobacco. He loves his family. He does not lie nor cheat.

Saved or not Saved?

[Neck]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't see that, Sam. Never have been able to see that. I believe that God begins a work when you decide to turn to Him, but it doesn't mean you are spirit filled.

Just because 3 men at the alter tell you to repeat words after them in a speed manner and they then tell you that you spoke in tongues does not make you spirit filled either, we shall know them by their fruits...

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You can start a poll if you want to. We've already been over all of this here and I still believe what I started out believing on FCF - just like everyone else. I think we just enjoy talking our heads off for not apparent reason. LOL!

Funniest thing I've read all day!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Probably anything you needed to know about our initial salvation and the promise of God would be in Acts. I never said "exhaustive". The Epistles elaborate even more and cement what is taught in Acts, IMO.
That's just an unfounded comment. I could go on and on why it is. But that's silly. Really PO.

Again, I was speaking of our initial salvation. We know that we cannot be saved without continuing in the faith. The Epistles show us more.
Romans is not just "continuing salvation."

Luke tells a whole lot about what do to. Goodness, are you kidding me?
No, I'm not kidding you. No one sees this as the purpose of Acts, nor as even a minor theme.

How ridiculous for you to call me insecure and dishonest to the core. Puleeze, stop being so ridiculous. LOL! Unless you are Pentecostalism in general, I wouldn't take it personal. If you believe you are Pentecostalism, then... well... I can't think of anything witty to comeback on.

Sorry... responding in bold is easier for me.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You said "trouble" and I felt bad.

But Jeffery makes a nice point about the dating of Acts. Most of Paul writings were already circulating when Luke penned Acts. The whole "Acts 2:38" approach to soteriology demands that we place Acts ahead of all of the Epistles, the way Saint Jerome has arranged the NT.

Would our doctrine be different if the NT had been arranged according to when the individual documents were originally written?

Pel,
Acts had already got a hold of them all before it was written. They were the beginning. What is the big deal of when Acts was written? How to continue, the letters from Paul, would have served them more.

The Epistles are addressed to established churches. Logically, we would figure that out.

And, if it were me, I would read Luke's letter - Acts 1:2 "Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:" I would want to start at the point of when Jesus was taken up and check out this Holy Ghost, when it occurred, what was involved.