Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Search For Similiar Threads Using Key Words & Phrases
baptism, baptized, holy spirit, salvation

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 03-10-2014, 09:45 AM
Pressing-On's Avatar
Pressing-On Pressing-On is offline
Not riding the train


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 48,433
Re: Is This True?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shazeep View Post
hmm. as one of the guests invited from the street (gentiles, pagans, ...), most of which managed to 'get' wedding clothes, it seems to me that the naked man still must rep a 'professed believer' in our lexicon, and not someone who never professed, and yet 'successfully' attended. And you say 'were given' wedding clothes, but aren't these our works, and the clothes rewards for them? Not to imply that your quote does not have some application--reading it from my pov just described threw me into this weird alt reflection of..."doer v sayer," and while i think the naked guy more closely reps those who cry Lord. Lord than those who said When did we see you?, it does intro an interesting, similar but different reflection.

You would have to convince me some more that naked guy repped those obviously surprised to be successfully invited for me to see that as contrasting evidence, which since he ended up with gnashed teeth i don't think is possible.



ok, now the workers who came late for the same wages accurately reps those who asked when did we see you thirsty, and give you water?, but not the naked man, who ended up rejected, imo.

also the naked man does not seem to rep someone 'saved,' with no 'clothing' (as in a believer's rewards), but someone who was 'invited from the street' (gentile), but had no works, not even unto salvation (asking Christ to come into his heart), neverminding about a 'believer' (who at least did all those things we accept as prerequisites for being saved, pentecostal style) who nonetheless had none of the works required to earn 'rewards' (sword, shield , helmet, beastplate, etc)...so, a more pointed parable for your argument, and one illuminating some other interesting parallels, but prolly still not enough to give Rex pause?

awesome kind of trichotomy goin on there, tho; i usually reserve the meatier study for after i'm fully awake, so my head is moving around all funny inside at the moment. i'll def check out the relation of the other parables you mention...but prolly one at a time!
I am working on a painting project as evidenced by my break last night to respond. I have a deadline, so I may not get to be involved much hereafter.

Anyway, I'm not willing to discuss anything concerning RJ other than to provide some good audio.

Nothing in those parables give me pause other than to understand that He came unto His own and His own received Him not. (John 1:1) So, He turned to the Gentiles.

From the point of inviting them to the wedding and the attendance of those invited, a process was in place that qualified them to wear the required wedding apparel. If that was not the case, I would wonder at the angst against the man who showed up without the proper apparel proving that he did not belong to the wedding party. I would be more concerned with the fact that it did not concern the man to be properly prepared before he showed up. It was a black tie event, so to speak. And it will be a black tie event at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

If God says only the righteous will inherit eternal life, the wedding guests were made righteous between point A and B. He doesn't say something in His Word and then make allowance for other interpretations.

He divides the wheat from the chaff (Matthew 3:12); the wheat from the tares (Matthew 13:26-27); the just from the wicked (Matthew 13:48-49); the wise from the foolish (Matthew 25:1-2); the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:33)

And, BTW, as much as some would like to be "accommodating", the Apostles only preached one message of salvation.
__________________

Last edited by Pressing-On; 03-10-2014 at 09:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 03-10-2014, 09:46 AM
justlookin justlookin is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 413
Re: Is This True?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RJR View Post
The message of remission of sins and the promise of the HG would begin at Jerusalem, Luke 24:47, Acts 11:15. St John 3 was before Christ suffered so we could experience the new birth, Luke 24:46-47, John 7:37-39. The thief and the encounter highlighted before in this post was before Jerusalem, in other words before the beginning!
If this is the case, one would have to reject the words of Jesus (as well as the words of many of the Apostles), correct Martha's answer and expectations concerning Jesus, and offer eternal life by some other means than "whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die". In other words, Jesus' salvation message, and promise of eternal life, was for just for a very very very short time period and was to be replaced by yet another message which resulted in eternal life for an individual. One cannot accept Jesus' words to Martha today and expect eternal life would be the result of following Him.

Within oneness Pentecostalism, dependent upon the teacher being a one stepper or a three stepper, certain salvation scriptures are offered as support for their salvation theology. So it is here.

Last edited by justlookin; 03-10-2014 at 09:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 03-10-2014, 10:48 AM
obriencp obriencp is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 441
Re: Is This True?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justlookin View Post
If this is the case, one would have to reject the words of Jesus (as well as the words of many of the Apostles), correct Martha's answer and expectations concerning Jesus, and offer eternal life by some other means than "whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die". In other words, Jesus' salvation message, and promise of eternal life, was for just for a very very very short time period and was to be replaced by yet another message which resulted in eternal life for an individual. One cannot accept Jesus' words to Martha today and expect eternal life would be the result of following Him.

Within oneness Pentecostalism, dependent upon the teacher being a one stepper or a three stepper, certain salvation scriptures are offered as support for their salvation theology. So it is here.


i'm probably going to get blasted for this, but here is a thought I just had.

Since Jesus' goal was to offer a way of salvation through faith in Him and a new testament/covenant (works of OT can no longer justify), I find it a little ironic that we spend so much time and energy trying to say water baptism is mandatory and without it, you'll be lost. If water baptism was a jewish tradition as to identify onesself with a sect or to testify of ones intent, is it at all possible that the same purpose applies today?

Let the beating continue...
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 03-10-2014, 02:33 PM
RJR RJR is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 301
Re: Is This True?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justlookin View Post
If this is the case, one would have to reject the words of Jesus (as well as the words of many of the Apostles), correct Martha's answer and expectations concerning Jesus, and offer eternal life by some other means than "whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die". In other words, Jesus' salvation message, and promise of eternal life, was for just for a very very very short time period and was to be replaced by yet another message which resulted in eternal life for an individual. One cannot accept Jesus' words to Martha today and expect eternal life would be the result of following Him.

Within oneness Pentecostalism, dependent upon the teacher being a one stepper or a three stepper, certain salvation scriptures are offered as support for their salvation theology. So it is here.
It appears it would be to your advantage to take a lesson of Bible believing. Bible faith is obedience not just a acknowledgement. Not only is believe and obedience used interchangeably in Rom 10:16, but is also evident by the scriptures involving John's baptism. Notice Mat. 21:25, how was it known they did not believe John's baptism was from heaven? Because they were not baptized, Luke 7:28-29. When one believes they will obey! Salvation is absolutely, positively NOT possible without obedience. Heb. 5:9, 2The 1:8, 1Pet 1:22, Acts 5:32, 1Pet 4:17. Faith is a persuasion and confidence and reliance in the immutability of the Word of God. When one believes they will gladly comply.

It also seems you are having difficulty accepting exactly what Jesus said in Luke 24:46-47, and that is it took Calvary for repentance and remission of sins to be preached in His name BEGINNING at Jerusalem. Did it begin at Jerusalem or not? Peter when giving witness to the authenticity of Cornelius experience stated its validity was predicated on the fact that Cornelius received it just as they had at the BEGINNING, Acts 11:14-17.

Heb. 5:16-19 lets us know that it takes death in order for a testament to be in force. Jesus was speaking in the future tense when he said upon this rock, I WILL build my church. The church is not spoken of in the present tense in the gospels. However, by the time you get to Acts 2:47, it is at that time not something he would build but rather something he was adding to.

In the OT they had to obey its prescription to be saved, obedience is required in every Biblical era. Again, one will not be, neither ever shall be, able to be saved without obedience.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 03-10-2014, 04:02 PM
RJR RJR is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 301
Re: Is This True?

Bible Believing & Its Evidence!


Belief: (Merriam-Webster dictionary) conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Heb. 11:6 must (necessary, binding), faith or believing (derivative of the same greek word) is necessary in coming to God, without faith or believing it is impossible to please God.

John 8:31,32 believing on God & continuing in his word leads to dicipleship & knowing the truth. Obviously, it takes more than believing alone

James 2:19 if believing was all that was necessary the devil could be saved, we know this is not possible. (Mat. 25:41, 2 Pet. 2:4 Jude vs.6). Read also James 2:14-26!

2 Thes. 1:7 it is essential for one to know & obey. (Heb 5:9, Acts 5:32, Rom. 6:17)

Isaiah 53:1 & Rom 10:16 Bible believing necessitates more than acceptance or simple acknowledgement. It requires obedience!

Mark 16:16 believeth & is baptized shall be saved. (not believeth & is saved then baptized!)

John 7:37-39 believeth as scripture hath said you shall receive the Holy Ghost!

Acts 19: 1-6 have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? How were you baptized?

John 3:5-7 ye must be born again! (Comprised of water & spirit)!

Acts 2:38

Examples: Acts 16:25-34 believing & baptized (Jailor)

Acts 8:26-39 believed with all his heart & was baptized. (Ethiopian eunuch)

Acts 10 (Cornelius) believed even received the Holy Ghost (spirit & water are both essential in new birth) yet was not considered saved until he obeyed what Peter told him that he MUST do! Acts 11:14-17.

Acts 9:3-10, Acts 22:12-16 Saul (name changed to Paul) repented, yet did not have his sins washed away until he was baptized. (yes, he did receive the Holy Ghost)

Mat. 7:21-23 is it possible to profess Christ, preach his name, yet be lost if you do not obey the gospel?


Please consider:

Eph. 2:8,9 not of yourselves does not exclude yourselves! Grace is God's provision, faith is mans provision! Rom 10:9-15 who saves? (God) who believes, confesseth & calls? (man)
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 03-10-2014, 06:44 PM
justlookin justlookin is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 413
Re: Is This True?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RJR View Post
It appears it would be to your advantage to take a lesson of Bible believing.
Ok, let's start the process of personal insults. That should be very productive.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 03-10-2014, 06:50 PM
RJR RJR is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 301
Re: Is This True?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justlookin View Post
Ok, let's start the process of personal insults. That should be very productive.
That was not intended as an insult, I say that with sincerity. When one makes assertions on a public forum, it should not be a surprise when they are challenged. It may be a little hurtful to you, but I am left with no other option based on what you have posted concerning believing.

I will again affirm, I am not interested in giving you any personal insult. If that was the way it came across I do apologize.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 03-10-2014, 06:58 PM
justlookin justlookin is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 413
Re: Is This True?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RJR View Post
That was not intended as an insult, I say that with sincerity. When one makes assertions on a public forum, it should not be a surprise when they are challenged. It may be a little hurtful to you, but I am left with no other option based on what you have posted concerning believing.

I will again affirm, I am not interested in giving you any personal insult. If that was the way it came across I do apologize.
Your insinuation is that you believe the bible and I don't. Simple as that. You of course have a right to your view and your opinion. Just a suggestion though, if you wish to discuss views it would behoove you to simply address the issues, not your personal view of the person you're in a discussion with.

So, continue in your belief that anyone who disagrees with you or challenges your view doesn't know the bible, if that's what makes you feel better about yourself. For me, I'm simply not going to interact with that spirit.

Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 03-11-2014, 08:17 AM
RJR RJR is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 301
Re: Is This True?

Quote:
Originally Posted by obriencp View Post


i'm probably going to get blasted for this, but here is a thought I just had.

Since Jesus' goal was to offer a way of salvation through faith in Him and a new testament/covenant (works of OT can no longer justify), I find it a little ironic that we spend so much time and energy trying to say water baptism is mandatory and without it, you'll be lost. If water baptism was a jewish tradition as to identify onesself with a sect or to testify of ones intent, is it at all possible that the same purpose applies today?

Let the beating continue...
Should they repent. Maybe repentance is only good in the OT?

Act 26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 03-11-2014, 01:04 PM
CC1's Avatar
CC1 CC1 is offline
Administrator


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 16,759
Re: Is This True?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On View Post
I know what is true. This message by Rex Johnson in Austin Texas - Christian Life Church. He isn't UPC anymore, but he preached the best message on salvation than I have ever heard - very excellent! If anyone says he does not preach Acts 2:38 anymore, you are wrong.

There are three parts (2/13/14;2/19/14;2/26/14) to the message entitled Questing for the Wind. Here is the Podcast:



https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/...in/id559933286

PO, are you sure Rex isn't UPC anymore? I have not heard this and I thought I would have. I know he had been headed that way for many years but the last stance I knew he had was that he was going to stay UPC until they forced him out. Maybe it isn't big news when the UPC loses a pretty major church / preacher anymore but I sure thought I would have heard about this one!
__________________
"I think some people love spiritual bondage just the way some people love physical bondage. It makes them feel secure. In the end though it is not healthy for the one who is lost over it or the one who is lives under the oppression even if by their own choice"

Titus2woman on AF
F


"We did not wear uniforms. The lady workers dressed in the current fashions of the day, ...silks...satins...jewels or whatever they happened to possess. They were very smartly turned out, so that they made an impressive appearance on the streets where a large part of our work was conducted in the early years.

"It was not until long after, when former Holiness preachers had become part of us, that strict plainness of dress began to be taught.

"Although Entire Sanctification was preached at the beginning of the Movement, it was from a Wesleyan viewpoint, and had in it very little of the later Holiness Movement characteristics. Nothing was ever said about apparel, for everyone was so taken up with the Lord that mode of dress seemingly never occurred to any of us."

Quote from Ethel Goss (widow of 1st UPC Gen Supt. Howard Goss) book "The Winds of God"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
is this true? Sister Alvear Fellowship Hall 1 05-30-2011 08:09 AM
is this true? Sister Alvear Fellowship Hall 10 04-07-2011 10:35 PM
Is this true? jfrog Fellowship Hall 11 03-17-2011 10:31 AM
Is This True? DanielR Fellowship Hall 4 05-05-2008 10:48 AM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by coksiw
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.