The Real Evidence of Salvation

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Seems self explanatory to me.

But that's not the subject of the thread.

I have never heard an apostolic preach on justification by faith. Not sure it unlearned or just scared of it.

[Truthseeker]

There some situations in acts they just believed and that's it. The Ethiopian just believed and baptized then left rejoicing. Did Phillip leave job undone?

[Truthseeker]

Galatians 3:26 KJV

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.



Why don't he confirm they were children of God by tongues?

[Truthseeker]

If speaking in tongues was a sign one was saved why isn't it mention to saints in any of the epistles? One of the main themes of pauls writings was to confirm the believers salvation and what Christ done for them.

[Real Realism]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

No one has denied the external visible manifestations of Acts 2,8, 10, and 19. The question isn't how did God show that the Spirit initially came on the Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles, but rather is this the normative universal experience for every single person who has been born again/saved in the history of the church?

I find it fascinating that some think that the "evidence" the apostles clearly looked for and noted as assurance that someone received the Holy Ghost is somehow unique only to how God poured out the Spirit on the Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles only.

So, let's set this up:

Philip/other new Christians were hanging out with the Samaritans, preaching to them...they clearly saw them convert to Christianity by believing the message and obeying the gospel, agreeing to be baptized. But they knew that they hadn't yet received the Holy Ghost somehow because SOME external sign was absent.

BUT, according to your assertions, they knew that the external sign was only because it was the first time they were preaching to the Samaritans. They wouldn't have been looking for an external sign to indicate the next group of converts received the Holy Ghost. Somehow - even though it's not recorded in Scripture anywhere - the apostles knew that the sign was only for the first outpouring of the Spirit to the Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans. Oh, wait, and I guess the Ephesian believers who Paul met, as well.

The absence of tongues being mentioned with every single passage that describes someone's first experience with the outpouring/baptism/being filled with the Holy Ghost is not enough evidence to ignore the fact of what IS recorded in Scripture.

We don't only have one, but TWO recorded "Holy Ghost outpouring" experiences, where the apostles felt it necessary to emphasize the importance of receiving the Holy Ghost subsequent to the act of repentance. If the Holy Ghost "falls" on someone without any external sign, and this happens at the point of belief/repentance, why do we have two instances in Scripture that specifically deal with an external sign showing subsequent experience of being "filled with the Holy Ghost" after the point of repentance?

Regardless of all the other assurances of someone's salvation - none of which I dispute - I still haven't seen a straight answer/explanation of why Acts 8 and 19 exist, what they're telling us, other than that they clearly indicate that someone can believe/repent without receiving the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost comes with some sort of external sign to makes it clear to all observers that it happened.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

There is absolutely no scripture anywhere that teaches explicitly that someone must speak in tongues to be saved.

There's that ole straw man again.

To my knowledge (and I'm always up for a good church history discussion) no post-apostolic/ante-nicean "father" wrote anything that would back up the notion that all who are saved will speak in tongues, except for perhaps Tertullian later in his life after he became a Montanist (how awkard is that when OPs have to use Tertullian to back as their historical source?). Oh yes you will say "their writings aren't authoritative", and I'll grant you that, but they do have some historical use, and do give us an idea about what happened in the early church, even if it is flawed, uninspired, and incomplete.

Have you ever read James Dunn? I guess not...

You know that NO ONE taught the "full package" "3 step" salvation until the 20th century, to say nothing of a 3 stepper who taught holiness standards.

All christian sects throughout history with the exception of a few Reformation era Pietist sects taught baptism was part of becoming a Christian. They may have differed in regard to terminology, but they all affirmed it was a definite 'means of grace'.

Repentance was also taught. Even paedobaptists have a vestige of this in Confirmation.

The Spirit baptism is where everyone fell off the bandwagon in a big way, but the vestige of even that remains in 'Chrismation' or 'Christening' rites among paedobaptists.

What you are really arguing for is the idea that 'the Pentecostal experience' is a recent phenomenon unattested to in 'church history'.

Bernard's book 'the New Birth' does a good job exploring statements by the Post Apostolic Fathers and the AnteNicene Fathers regarding operations of the Spirit, tongues, etc continuing throughout church history, until fading out commensurate with the rise of sacerdotal religion (catholicism). He includes an interesting quote from Chrysostom regarding 'what used to happen' - "Well, what did happen then? Whoever was baptised he straightway spoke with tongues."

So your claims about "church history" are in serious error.

There is no record of any group or sect teaching what OPs teach regarding salvation anywhere in church history, not just a group, but not even an individual that is documented.

This is laughable. Others (including Bernard and the trinitarian scholar Dunn) have proven already this claim is absurd.

Carry on.

[Michael The Disciple]

Dunn has the best reconciliation of the scriptures concerning repentance and baptism I have ever read.

[Jason B]

Bro Elias would you mind giving me some names? I've read the New Birth (twice), Tomas Weiser, William Chalfant, Talmadge French and Bernards A History of Christian Doctrine (all 3 volumes, twice) and if memory serves me right they didn't produce a single group that believed what the UPC believes is necessary for salvation. They try to pin the tail on people like Michael Servetus, some vague Anabaptists, Sabellius, and the like, but none of these people or groups believed in the "full package" of oneness theology, baptism in JN, regenerative tongues as the initial evidence, and strict outward holiness standards (including uncut hair doctrine). Now granted you can find groups that believed in two of theses things (such as anti trinitarians who baptized in Jesus name or groups like the montanists who apparently believed in speaking in tongues and strict outward standards- though they saw tongues as the gift of prophecy, not the initial sign of the infilling if the Spirit). In addition to these oneness leaning authors I've also read the majority of K. Lattourette's The History of Christianity vol.1, and Phillip Schaffs The History of the Christian Church vol. 1 & 2 and F.F. Bruce's New Testament History and there seems to be no witness anywhere to back up the initial evidence view. Now there is some compelling information that makes it tough for trinitarians, baptism in Jesus name as the way the church baptized into the 2nd century and you've got an argument backed up by the NT (not just Acts but the epistles too) and witnessed in church history. But tongues as THE initial evidence, no where.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Real Realism

I find it fascinating that some think that the "evidence" the apostles clearly looked for and noted as assurance that someone received the Holy Ghost is somehow unique only to how God poured out the Spirit on the Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles only.

So, let's set this up:

Philip/other new Christians were hanging out with the Samaritans, preaching to them...they clearly saw them convert to Christianity by believing the message and obeying the gospel, agreeing to be baptized. But they knew that they hadn't yet received the Holy Ghost somehow because SOME external sign was absent.

First, while its possible that Philip did know that they had not received the Holy Spirit, there is nothing in the text to prove that point. Luke's commentary (written some 20-30 years after the fact) tells us that when the apostles heard that Samaria had received the Word of God that Peter and John were sent, and after they got there they prayed for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Ghost. There is no indication in the text that Phillip considered these people as unregenerate because they had not spoken in tongues. It is quite possible that when Peter and John arrived he and they assumed they were going to help with the work of God in Samaria and perhaps none of them realized that God was about to pour out the Holy Ghost on the Samaritans with an outward manifestation (that we assume) was similar or identical to what happened on the day of Pentecost. I know in ministry there have been times when God did something special or extraordinary that was quite surprising and unexpected by me. Its not impossible that this outpouring of the Holy Spirit in this manner was a surprise to Philip, Peter, and John. I don't think there is enough evidence to argue dogmatically either way, but I do think at the very least it should be noted that
1)The text doesn't say that Phillip knew they needed to receive the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues
2)The text doesn't state that Phillip asked for Peter and John to come to Samaria
3)The text doesn't explicitly state that Peter and John came to Samaria so the Samaritans could receive the Holy Ghost (though that was the obvious effect/purpose in God's plan and providence)

We have to assume all three of those things, which in turn also leads to more questions, such as "*IF* Phillip knew the Samaritans had not received the Holy Ghost, was he unable to help them in this deficiency? Did his ministry lack power? Why go preach in the first place if your message can't save anyone? He should have taken a ministry team to begin with. Was Philip not a Holy Ghost filled man? And furthermore-can someone else receive the Holy Ghost based on the merits of the preacher? If Phillip preached truth to the Samaritans and tongues was the initial evidence shouldn't they have been able to receive it even if Phillip was powerless to give it, since it is a gift of God, not a gift of the evangelist? Did not Phillip have Holy Ghost? We have no record of him speaking in tongues-the only record of tongues speaking prior to this was in Acts 2, and we don't meet Phillip until Acts 8. Its quite possible he was a convert after Pentecost, and possibly (even likely) he was a Hellenistic Jew (which makes it unlikely he was among the 120 mostly Hebraic Jews of Acts ch.1). To me it seems everything makes sense to conclude from Acts 8:5-17 that God has a special plan and purpose for what happened in Samaria that day, just as he did for the day of Pentecost in AD30, and we miss that when we try to make that the normative pattern of salvation.
In fact we have witness within this same chapter that Phillip himself apparently didn't regard that as the normative salvation experience, nor tongues as the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost in every believers life.

In Acts 8:26-39, Phillip meets the Ethiopian Eunuch and he's right back to preaching the same thing he preached in Samaria with the same results (Acts 8:12/Acts 8:38)

Originally Posted by Real Realism

BUT, according to your assertions, they knew that the external sign was only because it was the first time they were preaching to the Samaritans. They wouldn't have been looking for an external sign to indicate the next group of converts received the Holy Ghost. Somehow - even though it's not recorded in Scripture anywhere -

I find it interesting you state that according to my assertions "they wouldn't have been looking for an external sign to indicate the NEXT GROUP OF CONVERTS received the Holy Ghost" Then you say its not recorded in scripture, and in fact, the very next conversion recorded in scripture (Ethiopian Eunuch) affirms what you say I am asserting.

Originally Posted by Real Realism

The absence of tongues being mentioned with every single passage that describes someone's first experience with the outpouring/baptism/being filled with the Holy Ghost is not enough evidence to ignore the fact of what IS recorded in Scripture.

Granted.

However the absence of any didactic or explicit teaching that tongues is the universal first experience of someone who has received the Holy Ghost anywhere in scripture, and especially the Epistles which seem to teach the opposite (and at the very least you must agree are silent concerning your assertion) do seem to me to be enough to throw the doctrine into serious doubt if not outright rejection.

Originally Posted by Real Realism

We don't only have one, but TWO recorded "Holy Ghost outpouring" experiences, where the apostles felt it necessary to emphasize the importance of receiving the Holy Ghost subsequent to the act of repentance. If the Holy Ghost "falls" on someone without any external sign, and this happens at the point of belief/repentance, why do we have two instances in Scripture that specifically deal with an external sign showing subsequent experience of being "filled with the Holy Ghost" after the point of repentance?

Apparently this was what God in His absolute divine sovereignty choose to use to teach the early church there was no more difference between the Jew, the Samaritan, and the Gentile. There seems to be at least the hint of this in scripture:

Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? 18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
Acts 11:17-18 (KJV)

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

There some situations in acts they just believed and that's it. The Ethiopian just believed and baptized then left rejoicing. Did Phillip leave job undone?

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

If speaking in tongues was a sign one was saved why isn't it mention to saints in any of the epistles? One of the main themes of pauls writings was to confirm the believers salvation and what Christ done for them.

Bump