The following is being published in response to previous postings by Chateau d'If............
Quote:
|
The OT saints were not justified by obeying the law of Moses. They were justified by faith in Christ, just as we are.
|
I must disagree with your assertions....in fact, the words written in
James 2:17-21 KJV advises quite the opposite of that which you have published as
(if it were) an established truth:
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
It seems, to me, you're asserting that the
"Easy Believism Doctrine," which the very essence of your statements infer you embrace, was also alive and doing quite well during the days preceding the institution of the New Covenant wrought through the sacrificial death of Christ Jesus, in whom those of olden times exercised the faith by which they were justified. Yet, you fail to provide even one solitary passage from the writings of the Old Testament which would lend credibility to your assertions. Amazing! Hmmmmm.... that makes me wonder why God deemed it even necessary to institute what is commonly known as "the law of Moses."
Quote:
|
Later, Paul goes on to say that Abram was justified before circumcision, and that the act of circumcision only served to confirm that he was justified.
|
It appears that we have a conflict here between that which the KJV asserts vs the New Living Translation's claim.... did we not just read in
James 2:21 (KJV) that which James was inspired of God to write, asking the question,
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" Yet the NLT asserts quite the opposite in
Romans 4:11, to wit
"Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous - even before he was circumcised."
Indeed, the language of the KJV explicitly attests that when Abraham
"... received the sign of circumcision, [it was to serves as] a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:." Thus we find that circumcision was NOT a seal which attested to Abraham's
"justification," rather it was to serve as a symbol, if you will, which attested or gave visible evidence of the authenticity of Abraham's faith.
Clearly that which evidenced Abraham's
"justification" was his willingness to obey God's commandment
"...to offer Isaac his son upon the altar."
Quote:
|
The truth is, in every era and dispensation the only thing that has ever justified sinful man is faith in Jesus Christ. The OT saints were/are justified based upon a forward looking faith in Christ. They believed God's promises... and He "counted" it to them as righteousness. They looked for a Messiah whose name wasn't even revealed as of yet.
|
The REAL TRUTH is not as you have written, rather it is that whereas under the terms of God's former covenant with sinful mankind, the means of
"justification" was through the individual's performance of
"righteous obedience" to the commandments of God (yea, the directives contained in the so-called "Law of Moses"), however, since the institution of a
"new and better covenant" made possible through the sacrificial death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus, one can ONLY obtain
"justification" through obedience of the directives outlined by Peter, which are plainly disclosed within the context of
Acts 2:38!
Quote:
|
Faith is THE Pentecostal message. In fact Peter spent all of Acts 2 attempting to convince his audience to have faith in Christ. And only when faith arrived (they were pricked in their hearts) did he implore them to repent and be baptized.
|
While I certainly would be quick to agree that the teaching of FAITH is an essential elementary principle of the
"doctrine of Christ" (see
Hebrews 6:1-2), therefore it must be an important part of all Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal teachings, I am NOT persuaded that your statement (the bolded portion) is altogether correct.
It was not the FAITH of those Jews who heard Peter's sermon which caused their hearts to be
"pricked," rather it was the fact that Peter's words had served to
"convince" them of the devastating situation which they had wrought upon themselves for having crucified their Messiah.
The English word
"pricked" as used by Luke in this passage (
Acts 2:37) derives from the Greek word "katanusso"; implying primarily, "to strike or prick violently; to stun;" and used of strong emotion.
For you to make the statements - The OT saints were/are justified based upon a forward looking faith in Christ. They believed God's promises... and He "counted" it to them as righteousness. They looked for a Messiah whose name wasn't even revealed as of yet - is akin to "painting in broad strokes" (i.e., asserting something [as if it were truth] in a general way, without giving details), therefore causing them to be of no informative value.
Quote:
|
The trouble is that Oneness Pentecostals do not really believe justification is possible. They say they believe in justification by faith, and then proceed to convolute the meaning of faith, mixing it with standards-based lifestyles.
|
Your assertions are absurd and blatantly false! Seeing that I've already addressed the manner in which one's acts of
"obedience" brings about
"justification," I will not repeat myself, however, while admitting that there might be those Oneness Pentecostals (I am NOT one of them) that are unwittingly guilty (because of their ignorance/lack of understanding) of causing the truth concerning some things to seem complex, intricately folded or twisted by the addition of so-called "standards of holiness," which oft-times leads to much misunderstanding (as it appears to be the case with you), this is NOT what Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal doctrinal teachings are all about.
Quote:
|
For instance, OP's do not believe anyone is saved the moment they believe so, in their opinion, there is no such thing as justification by faith, apart from works.
|
You're absolutely
"Spot On!" Believing, albeit absolutely essential, cannot save anyone apart from obedience (i.e., works)!
Quote:
|
And even though they preach Acts 2:38, and say that repentance and baptism remits sins, they don't believe anyone is saved without tongues, Hence, they don't really believe sins are remitted at baptism, and that no one is justified by repentance or baptism.
|
You are wrong once again! Water baptism is FOR the remission of sins, as explicitly written in
Acts 2:38. That's the primary reason why it is so absolutely essential that all whose FAITH prompts them to "believe" ON the "works" which our Lord Jesus Christ did, willingly submits themselves to it.
With regards to
"tongues," it needs no explanation, for it accompanies the baptism of the Spirit, and serves to both the recipient and all who may occasion to witness it when it occurs, that God has bestowed the individual with a "token" of their eternal inheritance, while
"justifying" them during the process.
Quote:
most OP's believe that even those who have repented been baptized, and received tongues, yet fail to obey standards, are 100% lost and doomed for Hell. Therefore, even obeying Acts 2:38 doesn't save, or justify, anyone:
Last, justification and salvation is tied to obedience to the whims of organizations and pastors. If and when you disagree with one of their teachings, and refuse to obey it, you are doomed for Hell.
Again, there is no such thing as justification within the Oneness movement. And there is definitely no doctrine of assurance.
|
I tire of even expending the time necessary to respond to such absurdities in an appropriate manner (I don't want to come across as mean-spirited or condescending), and will close my comments by penning this final remark - if you were to have prefaced your statements with the phrase
"in my opinion, here's what I think/believe," then I could accept them as such. However, seeing that you have failed to do that, and have instead published them as if they consisted of indisputable factual truths, then I have deemed it appropriate that I should refute them, but not without explanation.
Every statement I have written represent my sincere, heartfelt beliefs, and after having tenaciously embraced them for almost a quarter century, unless you can direct me to specific scriptural passages which would serve to prove them wrong, with the Lord's loving assistance, I shall continue to embrace them until my final breath.
Warmest regards.
Linear Mode
