Forgiveness and/or Remission

[Adino]

Dan, good talking to you the other day. Thanks for the chat.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Sam

The teaching of "rightly dividing the Word" by dividing the New Testament into three categories called "Gospels, Acts, and Epistles" was something Bro. Norris taught at ABI (Apostolic Bible Institute) when I was there half a century ago. There is a chart similar to his teaching at
http://home.att.net/~jrd/gospelsactsepistles.gif
In my opinion, we should not take too rigid of a stand on this. Yes, the Book of Acts shows us how the Gospel went into all the known world (starting at Jerusalem and winding up in Rome). Yes, we see people hearing and accepting the message of salvation. Actually, there are over 20 instances of people coming into the church and in almost half of them water and/or Spirit baptism are mentioned. Yes, the Epistles are written to congregations or individuals but this does not mean there is no reference to or teaching on how a person is justified/saved/born again. This would be like saying nobody listening to a sermon in a church would ever hear how to be saved.

Interesting track/chart, Sam. Thanks.

[SDG]

Last night, in Life Tabernacle, Ronnie Guidroz said Peter's point of conversion was not Pentecost but the Cross.

Jesus told his disciples, pre-Pentecost, that they should rejoice that their names were written in the book of Life.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Adino

Dan, good talking to you the other day. Thanks for the chat.

Very good talking to you too, Elder. Enjoyed it.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Adino

A second quick issue would be that you choose the historical book of Acts to draw doctrinal principle. It is the intention of the authors of the epistles to lay out doctrinal principle while it is the intention of Luke to lay out the expansion of the early Church. If doctrinal principle is the question, I would yield to the didactic before the historical.

Excellent point. If I'm going to rightly divide the Word I will use the practical application and the teaching behind it.

[Stephanas]

Originally Posted by Ms. LPW

Stephanas, please go back and read the comment I was responding to, and then tell me again who is condescending. I don't see you rating other things that are definitely snide. Only the comments of the one who thinks we had better follow the pattern set by the Apostles who walked with Christ himself.

My apologies for singling you out

It was this statement that raised my ire:

"Carry on your conversation without me. I'll save my breath for my neighbours who are walking toward instead of walking away."

I have little problem with somebody telling me that I am wrong in my theology, but questioning my relationship toward God and truth does bother me.

My understanding of truth may differ from yours, but it is a sincere quest to know God and understand Scripture that motivates my study.

[Stephanas]

A question for those who see Acts 2:38 as a mechanical plan of salvation (Actually a couple of questions):

When did the 120 in the upper room receive remission of sins, before or after they were filled with the Holy Ghost?

When did Peter receive remission of sins, before or after he preached Acts 2:38? The Apostles water baptism was before the cross, were they rebaptized with the 3000 at Pentecost?

Had Peter already had his sins remitted when he preached at Pentecost, and if so, when and how? If not, was he saved when he preached Acts 2:38?

[freeatlast]

chicken befor the egg, eh ?

[Scott Hutchinson]

My sincere question to many here would be when did the New Testament church come into being ?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

My sincere question to many here would be when did the New Testament church come into being ?

My sincere question is why do many choose to view Scripture through the theological paradigm handed down to them by men who admitted they were teaching a new revelation from heaven in 20th century America?

As I asked before:

On what grounds do we believe their final interpretation of truth was the same truth taught in the first century Church?

Many in the oneness movement begin with the premise that what they have inherited from these men is indeed truth. On what grounds can this be said?

Certainly not on historical grounds because there is absolutely no historical witness of anyone ever in history interpreting the doctrine of salvation as they ultimately did.

If on Scriptural grounds, how is it all other hermeneutically and grammatically plausible interpretations of the core passages normally used as prooftext for the water/spirit position are discarded out of hand without objective consideration? I think you'd agree that one cannot begin with the assumption that the early oneness pioneers discovered TRUTH (especially without historical precedent). One cannot discard alternative views of core passages simply because they do not support their theological conclusions concerning the new birth. Objectivity will have been thoroughly abandoned.

Is it possible for someone within the UPC and/or closely associated organizations to objectively approach the new birth issue or have they forever been tainted by an inherited theological paradigm through which they now view Scripture?

There are a variety of ways to interpret Acts 2:38 and John 3:5 leading to a very different conclusion than the water/spirit new birth doctrine.

JMHO