Forgiveness and/or Remission

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

A person CANNOT separate the obedience and faith. One without the other is in vain. If Moses said he believed God but did not place the blood on the post of the door he would not have been spared the judgment. One can go through the motions of obeying yet NOT believing it is in vain. Obeying from the heart that form of doctrine is what delivers from sin.

Notice the following, Steve:

1Jn 5:12-13 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Now one of the passages I've already offered:

John 20:25-31 "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." Christ appears and says to Thomas, "...be not faithless, but believing." Thomas then believed and Christ continued, "...because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." The author of John continues, "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Christ identified the heart conversion of Thomas as faith ("..be not faithless, but believing"). He went on to say those who have faith (i.e., those whose hearts convert to faith in Him as did Thomas) are the blessed.

The author of the Gospel of John and of 1John identifies faith as that moment the heart converts to belief in Jesus Christ. This same author states that the man who believes is the man who has eternal life (1Jn 5:13; Jn 20:31) and is the man who has passed from death unto life (Jn 5:24).

Are you suggesting that Christ and the author of John's gospel and epistle did not know what they were talking about?

[bishoph]

I am still waiting on an answer.......not what Andrew Urshan believed but what do you believe concerning this topic. (I am sure there are things you differ with AU on)

Secondly, I personally believe that Andrew Urshan as well as many of our latter rain forefathers held an evolving theological view. We must remember that all of them came from diverse trinitarian backgrounds, and the "new issue" was just that. They could be, in some manner, described as "new converts" who viewed all areas of doctrine through the glasses of their respective theological understanding. (Methodist, Baptist, AOG, etc) As they became more "established" in the doctrine, their teachings were so strongly W/S in nature that many of their followers had no knowledge of their previous statements. (As has been witnessed on this forum by some of the elders) Other doctrinal understandings also evolved/changed over time as they studied the Word and distanced themselves from past denominal influence. Just as new converts "grow" in grace and in the "knowledge" of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. JMHO

[SDG]

Originally Posted by bishoph

I am still waiting on an answer.......not what Andrew Urshan believed but what do you believe concerning this topic. (I am sure there are things you differ with AU on)

Secondly, I personally believe that Andrew Urshan as well as many of our latter rain forefathers held an evolving theological view. We must remember that all of them came from diverse trinitarian backgrounds, and the "new issue" was just that. They could be, in some manner, described as "new converts" who viewed all areas of doctrine through the glasses of their respective theological understanding. (Methodist, Baptist, AOG, etc) As they became more "established" in the doctrine, their teachings were so strongly W/S in nature that many had no knowledge of their previous statements. (As has been witnessed on this forum by some of the elders) Other doctrinal understandings also evolved/changed over time as they studied the Word and distanced themselves from past denominal influence. Just as new converts "grow" in grace and in the "knowledge" of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. JMHO

TRANSLATION: We've outgrown our forefathers and heritage. They were clueless as to full salvation .... and thank God we've got it all figured out for perpetuity.

Imagine a seasoned A. Urshan being compared to a NEW CONVERT.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

TRANSLATION: We've outgrown our forefathers and heritage. They were clueless as to full salvation .... and thank God we've got it all figured out for perpetuity.

It is insulting that you take anything you don't like and try to redefine what the author has stated.

If you noticed at no point did I claim that "we or I" have outgrown our forefathers. In fact what I said was that they themselves had a progressive/evolving/changing view as they walked with Christ. History proves my point many times over.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by bishoph

It is insulting that you take anything you don't like and try to redefine what the author has stated.

If you noticed at no point did I claim that "we or I" have outgrown our forefathers. In fact what I said was that they themselves had a progressive/evolving/changing view as they walked with Christ. History proves my point many times over.

Do you know how insulting it is for men of God like GT Haywood, A Urshan, Howard Goss, Clyde Haney to be included w/ a neo-extremist mentality that would send every one who doesn't think, dress or act like them to hell?

These men were immersed in the Word of God DAILY ... they lived and breathed the Gospel tirelessly... it's pretentious to say that they were drinking milk well w/ in their ministries!!!!

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Imagine A. Urshan being compared to a NEW CONVERT.

The reality is that A. Urshan was at one time a new convert and like most Christians, including yourself, he developed his understanding of truth as he pursued Christ.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

TRANSLATION: We've outgrown our forefathers and heritage. They were clueless as to full salvation .... and thank God we've got it all figured out for perpetuity.

LOL... you're killin' me, Smalls

[bishoph]

Again your attempt to make it appear that I have demeaned these esteemed men of God is ridiculous, however, your standard method of operation. The analogy was simply that, nothing less nothing more.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by bishoph

Again your attempt to make it appear that I have demeaned these esteemed men of God is ridiculous, however, your standard method of operation. The analogy was simply that, nothing less nothing more.

OKAY. I still have issue w/ comparing these Holy-Ghost filled powerhouses, who were seasoned when they articulated many of these views w/ neophytes in the Lord.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by bishoph

So then.........if the "gospel" is preached in a church where baptism is not taught and in fact is discouraged as not necessary (which is the case in thousands of churches and is being taught in several seminaries in America) in your theology will those that respond to the preaching of the gospel and repent, be saved even though they have never obeyed the commandment of baptism?

Bishoph, you may have seen in my past posts that I believe baptism plays an important role in Christian conduct, but not in salvation.

Concerning your question, if the true Gospel is preached and generates a heart converted to faith in Christ, it is of my opinion that that soul is saved regardless of the mistaken way the subject of baptism is handled in his church. Since baptism has nothing to do with saving a man's soul before God it is a separate and distinct issue altogether.