Re: Biblical Argument or Private Interpretation?
 

The plan for eternal life as taught by Jesus is seldom mentioned (unless I mention it) on these forums. I ask, why not start with Jesus. See what He says....and then go from there. Align your argument or interpretation with His words!

Re: Biblical Argument or Private Interpretation?
 

Jason wrote,
And what would that Word be? Just Believe?

For people to preach, just believe, would be like me saying, “All you have to do to live, is just breath.” Do you have to eat, to live? Or drink water? Or anything else?

Did the Jews believe? If they were saved they did. Didn't they also have to keep the Law?
Did Moses believe? Of course. Did he have to do anything else?
Did Abraham believe? Of course. And he was obedient.

Did the 120 in the Upper Room, believe? Of course. Then why was it necessary for them to receive the Holy Ghost?
Why did Peter tell the crowd, devout Jews, that they must repent. Be baptized in Jesus name and receive the Holy Ghost.

I could go on, but I believe you can get the point.

Did Peter tell them a lie? Just didn't know what he was talking about

It takes faith in Jesus, before a person will even come to repentance. But is that all?

.

All of those scriptures that say that we must believe, says nothing about repentance. And yet we know that a person that comes to God must repent. Nothing about baptism, yet the scripture tells us that we must be baptized.

TO BE CONTINUED

Re: Biblical Argument or Private Interpretation?
 

Ok Seekerman, here is Jesus words, just before He was translated. After He opened the Apostles eyes, to His real purpose in coming. Before that He always spoke in parables, and here is where it make the Plan of Salvation clear.

And the results was Acts 2:38 Obeying Jesus words.

And now Seekerman, What if Jesus asked you this question?

Seekerman, Why did you not obey what My Word says? What I groomed Peter and the other Apostles, to bring forth My Plan of Salvation to the world.
Just why are you kicking against the pricks?

Re: Biblical Argument or Private Interpretation?
 

Think I'll quit awhile, and let some of you answer.

Re: Biblical Argument or Private Interpretation?
 

Sister, why not simply study Jesus first and foremost? Find what He has to say about salvation, about eternal life. He's the savior, not Peter or Paul.

Re: Biblical Argument or Private Interpretation?
 

I just told you what He said about Salvation. And you asked the question in another Post, What if Jesus asked you this question.” Some of us answered you, but I see you don't want to answer the same question that I asked.

If you will look at the deeper facts of why Jesus came, you will find,

1. He taught the Law. Not just the superficial rituals of the Law, but the spirit of the Law. And the reason was, because He came to fulfill the Law. Which He did on the cross.

2. He could not teach the full Salvation Plan, therefore He taught in parables. The reason being, the Holy Ghost was not yet given, and could not be given until He was glorified. Therefore Jesus could not set up the church, but taught, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” meaning the Kingdom within. Jesus could not, did not set up the Church. By His death, He made the way for the Holy Ghost to come.

3. On His very last day on earth, He opened up the Apostles eyes to His purpose in coming, the Plan of Salvation. And then spent 40 days after His resurrection, giving COMMANDMENTS to the Apostles, as to how to set up the Church. Which probably 95% of Christendom have rejected.

The 4 gospels is the Life of Jesus, and reveals why He came.
The Book of Acts, is the carrying out of the Plan of Salvation that He came and died to send us.

I am appalled, that people that have known the Truth, think so little about this great Salvation. It seems they despise the Holy Ghost, because it comes with tongues. They say they believe in Jesus, but will not get baptized in His name.

I believe the reason is, “Give us a king, that we can be like the other nations.” Let's teach, just believe, baptize in the Trinity, so that we can be like the other Denominations. We don't want to be despised for the name of Jesus.

This way, is not popular.

And now Seekerman, if Jesus asked you this question, what would you say?

“Seeker man, My Plan is plain for those that have eyes to see, why didn't you follow My Plan?”

Re: Biblical Argument or Private Interpretation?
 

Cornelius was a devout, praying man that gave to help the less fortunate, but was lost and needed a preacher to instruct him about salvation.

Act 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
Act 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

Re: Biblical Argument or Private Interpretation?
 

We all know that Jesus was weak on the message. :heeheehee

Re: Biblical Argument or Private Interpretation?
 

Sister, I see what your saying, but it seems like you just keep coming back to the kind of statement you made above. I've already answered/clarified that remark here:

Re: Biblical Argument or Private Interpretation?
 

Sis. Renee, I'm going to start to answer some of your posts, and in doing so I mean no disrespect to you. You are a sincere lady, and your gentle spirit, love for God, and zeal for His Word comes across in your posts. I mean no personal offense to you in any way, but I do not believe that all of your assumptions are correct here, nor about the initial evidence doctrine. I am going to begin my response now, and in my future posts on this thread, please read them with the backdrop of my respect towards you as an older godly woman in the church, I seek to intreat you as a mother, as commanded in 1 Timothy 5:1-2, not come across as some young disrespectful know it all.
So your position is that the gospel that Jesus left and that the apostles were given barely endured beyond their lifetime, as was essentially lost for 1800 years? The true gospel and full Bible salvation wasn't even a part of 90% of the church age? All the great men, all the people who made serious contributions to the church, the men who bled and gave their lives to translate scripture, who were tortured in horrific ways simply for their faith in Christ, the men who wrote the hymns we sing today (Crown Him with many crowns, Amazing Grace, Rock of Ages, etc), all the men who translated the King James Bible, all the Trinitarian commentators that we oneness people have read to help us with our foundation for what we believe (remember that in the early 1900's essentially ALL oneness people were former Trinitarians)? All those preachers who preached in such a way that men were convicted to give their lives to God to the fullest extent, to preach the gospel all over the world, only to be eaten by cannibals, have their families killed, contact deadly diseases, and pay the ultimate price for the sake of furthering the gospel of Jesus Christ.......and that NONE of these men had the Holy Ghost? None of these men were saved? That all of these advances against the gates of hell were by the power of flesh and philosophy? That those great hymns were written by unregenerate people "in the flesh"? That the Word of God itself was translated by infidels who subscribed to paganism--and yet many oneness people to this day swear by that translation to the point they believe all others are perversions. And God's Spirit wasn't working redemption in any of these people (or very few)? Did God reveal justification by faith to Martin Luther, but refuse to fill him with His Spirit so as to leave Luther to burn in hell? Did God so stir John Wesley to seek after holiness, only to leave Him to try to achieve that holiness in the hopelessness of the flesh? Did God so stir up men like Jonathan Edwards and Billy Sunday and the like to preach against sin in such a powerful way, only to leave those who were so moved by their messages they felt as if the wrath of God could break forth on them at any moment, to die in their sins?

Did God "little by little" lead people out of the RCC but not save them? What good is being led from a burning house to fall off a cliff? Did God basically save no one from 100 AD-1900AD?

Furthermore, considering all the great contributions that many of these men made, whom most oneness Pentecostals (especially UC's) say aren't saved and never were saved--what significant contribution has oneness Pentecostalism added or made for the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

We have very few hymns, even fewer commentaries or scholarly works. We have made very little humanitarian difference (in the way of hospitals, orphanages, large amounts of aid to the poor and hungry of other nations, or even disaster victims around the world). That is not to say OPs do nothing, but just that their influence is so minute compared to that of all these other people who are not even supposed to be Christians, that we should be embarrassed if in fact we are the true church. If in fact we are the salt and light of this world. If in fact we have THE TRUTH in contradistinction to all other Christian denominations.

What has oneness Pentecostalism accomplished in 100 years? Seems to me like the fruit of the movement is more division and infighting than anything else. Perhaps oneness Pentecostalism is growing in overall adherents, but as various organizations/fellowships it seems like splitting, dividing, and breaking fellowship is all the rage.


I answered this in my previous post. But to my point in Acts 8, simply put, that is the only place in scripture where we see that someone is baptized and we are told they did not receive the Holy Ghost. I am putting forth the assertion that this is because it was a special circumstance in that God wanted to pour out the Holy Ghost in an external way on the Samaritans in the presence of the Jews, and particularly in the presence of Peter and John, so that there would be unity within the church (and the same for the Gentiles in chapter 10). I do find it interesting that later in the chapter Phillip preaches Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch and baptizes Him, and when the eunuch comes out of the water Phillip is gone. Was this man left without the Holy Spirit? Did he have to go back to Ethiopia and "seek/tarry" for the Holy Ghost? I don't believe so. Nor do I believe that the statement that he went on his way rejoicing implies He received the Holy Ghost as David Bernard has said. I would ask you, if that is your view, on what textual/hermeneutical grounds can we say the eunuch received the Holy Ghost because he experienced joy, when earlier in the chapter we are told the Samaritans experienced joy and DID not have the Holy Spirit? Again I say, it seems to be that God was doing something special and unique, for His purposes, in the city of Samaria, and Acts 8:12-17 does not represent the normative conversion pattern in church history, or even in the first century church.

I would further suggest that Acts 8:37-38 much more so reflects the normative conversion pattern in church history and the early church, as is much more consistent with the scriptures, including Acts 2:38 (when taken hand in hand with Acts 2:41).