[Jason B]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Faith without works is dead. If a man has faith he is going to have works.

Yes, exactly, and every time I post many examples of people who believe in justification by faith and have the works to go with it, you guys change gears. When have I advocated cheap grace in this thread or any? The only way to conclude that is to twist my words.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I think the definition of faith is the problem. Some think it is easy believe ism, but faith is much deeper than.

I'm not even bothering to address this. Re-read my previous posts.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Faith is is reliance on God and His word. I don't want to get to deep, but I believe faith doesn't come through our conscious knowledge, it is given from God.

Go ahead and get deep.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I don't even think the history of catholics burning people is church history. It may be history, but it wasn't the Church. The Church would never produce such atrocities. If this history makes you feel better about your doctrinal stance that is all I need to know.

Really? This is so far from anything I've said, it doesn't warrant a response.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The problem is we have too many using the word of God without the Spirit of God.

And who are they? Me? Martyn Lloyd-Jones? David Wilkerson? Who are the men using the Word of God without the Spirit?
Who are the men using the Word of God with the Spirit?

It's interesting you guys reject the teaching of guys like Ravenhill, Lloyd-Jones, Wilkerson, Spugeon, etc (and I'm not saying these men are infallible, no man is) but will put up with the teaching of Steve Epley, Jeff Arnold [calling people stupid, and saying "whats wrong with you, you got a tumor on your head" and other such abusive tactics], Anthony Magnum saying "when I count to 3 every speak in tongues, 1,2,3, everyone speak in tongues, everyone in this building speak in tongues!), Stonekings "magic hair doctrine", etc.
You guys put up with things from men that 1 Timothy 3 says would disqualify them from being elders, and hold them up as "God's anointed" and then talk about these guys like I've mentioned and more (Edwards, Wesley, Moody, Newton, Hus, Wycliffe, MacArthur, Hudson Taylor, Ian Thomas, George Mueller, George Whitefield, etc) as not having the Spirit?

I can't see how you don't see how cult like that is.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

This is conjecture because it doesn't give all the details only summarizes the work that was taking place. If we had a hundred people show up in regular attendance at our church I would acknowledge them as church numbers, but that wouldn't make anyone of them saved.

So noting the 3,000 in Acts 2:41 didn't speak in tongues, that Peter preached in Acts 3 and didn't give the call of Acts 2:38 and that 5,000 believed as Acts 4:4 tells us (and again note that they didn't speak in tongues) is "conjecture".

You have 5,000 or 8,000 (if the numbers are meant to be taken together as so believe) people who didn't speak in tongues just 4 chapters into Acts. You call me pointing this out "conjecture" but you have no problem interpolating your view of the new birth, including speaking in tongues on all 8,000, without a shred of scriptural evidence?

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Even though the apostles gave these numbers it doesn't mean that all those people where going to be in heaven.

I would argue that the context of Acts 2:41 and 4:4 very strongly implies these were not false converts.

In response to the question
Can you answer why water baptism and speaking in tongues are not included amongst the various tests of genuine saving faith listed all throughout the book of 1 John?
You answered:

Originally Posted by good samaritan

It had already been established.

I refute that by noting that nothing John wrote in his book about the tests of true faith vs false faith wasn't "already established" elsewhere in scripture. If you write an epistle with purposing to make sure your readers can KNOW they have eternal life (as John plainly said was His goal to do 1 John 5:13), don't you think he'd mention things that are absolutely essential and necessary to salvation?

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Does baptism have to be seen in every verse and every instance to be proven?

No, neither repentance. But the big difference is between water baptism and speaking in tognues, that water baptism was the normative practice of the church from the beginning. Water baptism is mentioned to several times throughout the epistles. All through church history water baptism has been seen as the entrance into the covenant community. We have not only ABUNDANT scriptural witness that water baptism was NORMATIVE, UNIVERSAL, and expected of EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER in all times and place AND abundant witness for 20 centuries of church history that this has been the regular practice of essentially all expression of Christianity, orthodox, heretical or otherwise.

Perhaps you'd have a stronger case if Paul asked "do all get baptized?" But of course he does not.

Where as speaking in tongues occurs 4 times in the book of Acts, is mentioned only in the letter to the Corinthians of all the epistles (and that was the least mature of all the churches), the references to tongues are much more of a rebuke and correction than anything else, and Jesus only mentions tongues in Mark 16, and in a context which suggest that not every believer would speak in tongues (lest you will say that every believer must also heal the sick, cast out demons, take up serpents, and drink poison).

Beyond the fact that there is NO scriptural witness that tongues was anything more than a sign that God used, and a gift within the body (though not for everyone anymore than any other gift is for everyone), it has also never in all of church history been seen as normative for all believers, and not until 1901 was tongues connected with the very unique oneness Pentecostal doctrine of the initial evidence. I know you guys don't like this, but these are facts. There is a HUGE DISTINCTION between the way baptism is presented in the scriptures and then throughout church history and the way tongues are presented in the scriptures and throughout church history.
And NO, I am not making church history equal to or above scripture. I'm pointing out the fact that when your doctrine (of initial evidence) has never been taught until 1901, that's a major problem. It suggests, that maybe, just maybe, people with noble intentions arrived at an incorrect conclusion.