mark them

[missourimary]

Has anyone ever considered that this verse follows a long list of greetings that named people by name, or that the list of greetings might have been there to help people know who Paul was and wasn't talking about marking? I don't believe Paul's statement was meant to be a PS or was put in as an afterthought.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Sorry the law was not concidered works in and of it self. The law of Moses was were commandments given because of transgresions commited by the children of Isreal in the wildreness. Not actions that would save them. further more curcumsision was long before the law and delt with the covenant between God and Abraham, it was the seal of that covenant. Romans 4:11. The Law of Moses was never intended to be a plan of salvation, but rather a form of worship between God and man. God never has been and never will be about obediance to a list of "works" as he is about a relationship with his creation.

So when Paul speaks about works he may be refering in part to the works that religious leaders had made the law to become, but not the overal system of what God intended. Again Paul is speaking to trying to earn your way in to salvation by actions and not relying on the grace of God. This does not mean we are not to live a clean life that is pleasing to God.

No its quite clear Paul is not speaking about action, but works of the Law. Circumcision, which is what he mentions in the verses I quoted, dealt ONLY with the Law. Repentance is an action. Do you believe without repentance you can make it?

The Law of Moses was never intended to be a plan of salvation? It was a shadow of what is to come. Its the only plan of salvation they knew. Have you lost the significance of typology? I suggest you reread Hebrews which spells cleary WHY the priest offered up the blood on the mercy seat. If not for salvation, what for? Salvation is a rescue from sin and thats the only thing they had.

No action = dead faith.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Sorry the law was not concidered works in and of it self. .

What? Seriously? What part of the Law wasn't works?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

What? Seriously? What part of the Law wasn't works?

Stop step back, hold on.

I know what I am trying to say does not go with what you have been taught to think. And I know that I have a hard time saying things the way I see them.

That being said think back through the word of God. From the beginning it was about relationship with God. Why did God make man with the mind to choose? Is serving God about following a book of rules to be saved in the after life? Or is it haveing a relationship with God in this life that is the fulfillment of all our human emotions in this life? Which in return garentees eternal life.

I ask did the cross take out all the sins of the world or not. Did Jesus pay with his blood for every sin or not? If it did then there is not one thing you can do to be saved it has already been done. Paid for in full, over paid in fact. Salvation comes first, in all its fulness, in full effect. For nothing can separate us from the love of God. For God is love. In that while you were yet in your sins he laid down his life for you.

It is after salvation by faith, that we live a life that is pleasing to God. Obeying his commandments. These are the things that will show either your faith in true or vain. But be sure these do not and are not part of our intitial salvation.

Do I beleive in baptism? Yes for the same reason those in the bible days did. It was a cerimony that one did to show ones alinging with a different faith or teaching. (A gentile was baptized as part of his initiation into Judism) We are given two other reasons for the significance of baptism, one by Peter and one by Paul.

I could go on but the point is I put my trust in God's word not man's traditions and teachings. I care not to argue thought I do like a good discusion I don't put these thoughts out to particlary to change someones minds. but rather to get them to look deeper than what the preacher puts out every sunday from the pulpit. We are to seek out our own salvation with fear and trembling, not sit and be spoon fed by those that feel they should be above everyone else.

One last thought, I don't beleive God's plan is so confusing that we need a man or men to set things into a creed in order for the rest of us to understand.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Stop step back, hold on.

I know what I am trying to say does not go with what you have been taught to think. And I know that I have a hard time saying things the way I see them.

That being said think back through the word of God. From the beginning it was about relationship with God. Why did God make man with the mind to choose? Is serving God about following a book of rules to be saved in the after life? Or is it haveing a relationship with God in this life that is the fulfillment of all our human emotions in this life? Which in return garentees eternal life.

I ask did the cross take out all the sins of the world or not. Did Jesus pay with his blood for every sin or not? If it did then there is not one thing you can do to be saved it has already been done. Paid for in full, over paid in fact. Salvation comes first, in all its fulness, in full effect. For nothing can separate us from the love of God. For God is love. In that while you were yet in your sins he laid down his life for you.

It is after salvation by faith, that we live a life that is pleasing to God. Obeying his commandments. These are the things that will show either your faith in true or vain. But be sure these do not and are not part of our intitial salvation.

Do I beleive in baptism? Yes for the same reason those in the bible days did. It was a cerimony that one did to show ones alinging with a different faith or teaching. (A gentile was baptized as part of his initiation into Judism) We are given two other reasons for the significance of baptism, one by Peter and one by Paul.

I could go on but the point is I put my trust in God's word not man's traditions and teachings. I care not to argue thought I do like a good discusion I don't put these thoughts out to particlary to change someones minds. but rather to get them to look deeper than what the preacher puts out every sunday from the pulpit. We are to seek out our own salvation with fear and trembling, not sit and be spoon fed by those that feel they should be above everyone else.

.

If you put your trust in the Word of God you would believe that in baptism is where we are united in Christ' death. Not just where we show the work already done in us or just where we declare we are Christians to witnesses.

The evangelical definition of baptism is NOT what Paul said. It only focuses on what Peter said, the answer of a good conscience toward God. We have to focus on both if both are scripture.

I'm not trying to argue with you either bro. I'm trying to clarify. However if you believe that every apostolic teaching is tradition, I'm going to point you to scripture, as you are trying to point me.


Our atonement is paid in full but we have to accept, walk in it, and allow it to change us. That does not happen without our response. Jesus died for all the world but those who do not seek Him, believe in Him, and trust Him will not be able to apply that atonement to their life.


Now for the law, the relationship and convenant was based on their actions. IF they kept God's commandments, he would keep his part of the deal. That was the bargain that God proposed and they accepted. It was a contract. I know that sounds harse but that is what it was. When Israel didn't keep their part of the deal and would not repent, they were destroyed and taken captive.

We have the cross now, the Holy ghost now but if we do not walk after the Spirit, we will fail and if we do not get up; we will perish. Its all there for us to take.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

If you put your trust in the Word of God you would believe that in baptism is where we are united in Christ' death. Not just where we show the work already done in us or just where we declare we are Christians to witnesses.

The evangelical definition of baptism is NOT what Paul said. It only focuses on what Peter said, the answer of a good conscience toward God. We have to focus on both if both are scripture.

I'm not trying to argue with you either bro. I'm trying to clarify. However if you believe that every apostolic teaching is tradition, I'm going to point you to scripture, as you are trying to point me.


Our atonement is paid in full but we have to accept, walk in it, and allow it to change us. That does not happen without our response. Jesus died for all the world but those who do not seek Him, believe in Him, and trust Him will not be able to apply that atonement to their life.


Now for the law, the relationship and convenant was based on their actions. IF they kept God's commandments, he would keep his part of the deal. That was the bargain that God proposed and they accepted. It was a contract. I know that sounds harse but that is what it was. When Israel didn't keep their part of the deal and would not repent, they were destroyed and taken captive.

We have the cross now, the Holy ghost now but if we do not walk after the Spirit, we will fail and if we do not get up; we will perish. Its all there for us to take.

OneFaith2

Baptism is a likefigure it does not do any thing as you want to make it do. Peter said "not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but because we have a clean concious before God" You say baptism is for the remision of sins, in other words putting away the filth of the flesh. But Peter says we already have a clean concious before God there for we are baptized. This is why I see Acts 2:38 as saying "baptized because of the remision of sins"

Paul is likening baptism to a burial with Christ again a like figure, or is he talking about the baptism of the holy ghost?

Our atonement is paid in full but we have to accept, walk in it, and allow it to change us. That does not happen without our response. Jesus died for all the world but those who do not seek Him, believe in Him, and trust Him will not be able to apply that atonement to their life.

I wanted to underline parts of this but realized it would be all of it. Of course you can't walk in something unless you first accept it. But allowing God to change you is a big differance from man passing down his creed of what he thinks is the proper walk with God. We are not judges never going to be and sinning if we do. So when you look at a Christian and say they are not saved, or cant be saved because they do not line up with "such and such" you are judging!!!.

God did not pour out his spirit in deeper measure and give us understanding of his deity for us to make a religion out of it and cause separation int he kingdom of God.

Now for the law, the relationship and convenant was based on their actions. IF they kept God's commandments, he would keep his part of the deal. That was the bargain that God proposed and they accepted. It was a contract. I know that sounds harse but that is what it was. When Israel didn't keep their part of the deal and would not repent, they were destroyed and taken captive

Do you not see that you are parroting what you have been told. read the story. They were already in covanant with God under the promise to Abraham, Isaik, and Jacob. Paul tells us explicitly why God handed down the commandments. Because of transgresion.

The law was not a new dispinsation the commandments were added because Isreal did not walk with God on thier own. Under the new covenant God promises us his word will be in our hearts and we will not need one to teach us.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

OneFaith2

Baptism is a likefigure it does not do any thing as you want to make it do. Peter said "not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but because we have a clean concious before God" You say baptism is for the remision of sins, in other words putting away the filth of the flesh. But Peter says we already have a clean concious before God there for we are baptized. This is why I see Acts 2:38 as saying "baptized because of the remision of sins"

Paul is likening baptism to a burial with Christ again a like figure, or is he talking about the baptism of the holy ghost?
.

If you have the Holy Ghost, which I know you do, you would know that burial is always attributed to water baptism and resurrection is always attributed to the Holy Ghost. Paul is talking about baptism and he never uses the word figure in any of his wriitng here. He literally says we are put into Christ's death by baptism. Why do you continue to strive against what he is plainly saying? Peter on the other hand is talking about the outward filth of the flesh, I believe that when you are baptized you die to your old self, meaning its something that comes from within, not without. Its the answer of a good conscience toward God. When someone gets baptized they are saying I want Jesus to change me, I want to die to sin and live a life please to Him.

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I wanted to underline parts of this but realized it would be all of it. Of course you can't walk in something unless you first accept it. But allowing God to change you is a big differance from man passing down his creed of what he thinks is the proper walk with God. We are not judges never going to be and sinning if we do. So when you look at a Christian and say they are not saved, or cant be saved because they do not line up with "such and such" you are judging!!!.
.

This is why its difficult to discuss with you. Every discussion comes back to standards of holiness or apostolic pastors hoarding over the flock and dominating their thoughts. Please understand not everyone has experienced the same things as you in Pentecost. Lets step outside denominational quarries and discuss the Bible, instead of continually attacking systems we don't agree it, please?

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Do you not see that you are parroting what you have been told. read the story. They were already in covanant with God under the promise to Abraham, Isaik, and Jacob. Paul tells us explicitly why God handed down the commandments. Because of transgresion.

.

To think someone can't believe in apostolic doctrine by study of their own, that they always believe what someone else has told them is ludacris. I give you respect for self-study. I ask that you give me the same respect and not categorize me by saying I'm just repeating what some pastor told me. Its kind of insulting.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

If you have the Holy Ghost, which I know you do, you would know that burial is always attributed to water baptism and resurrection is always attributed to the Holy Ghost. Paul is talking about baptism and he never uses the word figure in any of his wriitng here.

[I]How many reasons for baptism can one have? For remision of sin, a litural sign of being buried wit Christ, or a like cleaning othe outward filth of the flesh?[/I]


He literally says we are put into Christ's death by baptism. Why do you continue to strive against what he is plainly saying? Peter on the other hand is talking about the outward filth of the flesh, I believe that when you are baptized you die to your old self, meaning its something that comes from within, not without. Its the answer of a good conscience toward God. When someone gets baptized they are saying I want Jesus to change me, I want to die to sin and live a life please to Him.

[I]Let me ask you at what point is your salvation, complete? After you repent? After you repent, and are baptized? After you repent and baptized and speak in tongues? [/I]

This is why its difficult to discuss with you. Every discussion comes back to standards of holiness or apostolic pastors hoarding over the flock and dominating their thoughts. Please understand not everyone has experienced the same things as you in Pentecost. Lets step outside denominational quarries and discuss the Bible, instead of continually attacking systems we don't agree it, please?


To think someone can't believe in apostolic doctrine by study of their own, that they always believe what someone else has told them is ludacris. I give you respect for self-study. I ask that you give me the same respect and not categorize me by saying I'm just repeating what some pastor told me. Its kind of insulting.

Sorry you put the words in my mouth as I did not say a thing about standards or pastoral authority!!! What I said was if some one does not line up with how you see things or has not done such and such "if you say they are not saved" you are judging. And that is a sin.

Brother I have not gotten my reasoning of getting the apostilic doctrine on your own by happenstance. I have read the history books (as I had to when I got license you either went to BC. or read the books and preached) anyway, this teaching did not come all at once, It came over several years and is a compilation of so called revelations which then became a creed of what some want to call (apostolic). So although you may not be parroting some pastor. You were directed as to where to look by man.

I have known of God reveling baptism in Jesus name, I have know God to fill with his spirit with speaking in tongues others without knowledge, I have know God to revele his deity, but it was men that brought the three together to preach it as a salvational issue.

Please understand not everyone has experienced the same things as you in Pentecost

Wow i have known and know of hundreds of confirmed pentecostals that have experianced much the same as I have, those that deny the same are those that refuse to see what the word says right before their eyes.

The trend is stronger than you want to admit.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Sorry you put the words in my mouth as I did not say a thing about standards or pastoral authority!!! What I said was if some one does not line up with how you see things or has not done such and such "if you say they are not saved" you are judging. And that is a sin.

Brother I have not gotten my reasoning of getting the apostilic doctrine on your own by happenstance. I have read the history books (as I had to when I got license you either went to BC. or read the books and preached) anyway, this teaching did not come all at once, It came over several years and is a compilation of so called revelations which then became a creed of what some want to call (apostolic). So although you may not be parroting some pastor. You were directed as to where to look by man.

I have known of God reveling baptism in Jesus name, I have know God to fill with his spirit with speaking in tongues others without knowledge, I have know God to revele his deity, but it was men that brought the three together to preach it as a salvational issue.



Wow i have known and know of hundreds of confirmed pentecostals that have experianced much the same as I have, those that deny the same are those that refuse to see what the word says right before their eyes.

The trend is stronger than you want to admit.

So what is man's rules or traditions. I have seen you refer to standards by these statement many times.

I'm the opposite of you Brother. I'm one who wanted to prove the doctrine wrong because I was tired of seeing all denominations hell bound and people going to hell for dress. What I found was the truth behind the message, the Spirit of the scriptures that isn't twisted by any lens.

I"m still an apostolic today because God led me so. I feel He taught me how I should personally view people outside of this faith and how I should personally view salvation.

The word 'saved' is so canned up by apostolics and evangelicals.

Since apostolics typically don't believe one goes to heaven, till they get there; some have taught one cannot be saved, but be in a saved state until they make it home.

Evangelicals, especially of the Calvinistic brand, interpret saved as heaven bound, with no possibility of losing it.

So while you say God has revealed to you all the false doctrine within the apostolic church, I say God has shown me the spirit of the doctrine before I was even introduced to the PCI standpoint.

I agree men's ideas have taken truths and ran them further, you must explore why this is happened and see the reasoning behind why we should baptize in Jesus name or why we should expect to see "tongues" as initial evidence.

The heart of these two, along with standards (principles not rules), have a very Biblical basis with them.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

So what is man's rules or traditions. I have seen you refer to standards by these statement many times.

I'm the opposite of you Brother. I'm one who wanted to prove the doctrine wrong because I was tired of seeing all denominations hell bound and people going to hell for dress. What I found was the truth behind the message, the Spirit of the scriptures that isn't twisted by any lens.

So is I understand you, you found that all denominations are still hell bound because of Dress? If you found the truth behind the preaching of Dress, than you have not studied what Paul was getting across in Romans 14.

I"m still an apostolic today because God led me so. I feel He taught me how I should personally view people outside of this faith and how I should personally view salvation.

And how are you to view people out side of "this faith"? I ussume this faith is those that do not see your three step plan of salvation? Jesus himself on more than one ocation said he that beleive shall be saved. Peter on the day of Pentecost preached those that call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. John said those that profess Jesus is the Christ are saved those that do not are anti-Christ. I do not say we are not to go on to fulfill all righteousness, but as James says I say I will go on and show you my faith by my works. This teaching is not new half of the brothren that formed the UPC held to this understanding. Call it Calvanistic all you want, even Calvanist held high standards of Christian living. The point is where is our salvation in full effect, when we confess in faith our beleif in Jesus as our savior, or after we jump through the steps present apostolics teach as the plan of salvation?

The word 'saved' is so canned up by apostolics and evangelicals.

Since apostolics typically don't believe one goes to heaven, till they get there; some have taught one cannot be saved, but be in a saved state until they make it home.

Evangelicals, especially of the Calvinistic brand, interpret saved as heaven bound, with no possibility of losing it.

So while you say God has revealed to you all the false doctrine within the apostolic church, I say God has shown me the spirit of the doctrine before I was even introduced to the PCI standpoint.

I agree men's ideas have taken truths and ran them further, you must explore why this is happened and see the reasoning behind why we should baptize in Jesus name or why we should expect to see "tongues" as initial evidence.

The heart of these two, along with standards (principles not rules), have a very Biblical basis with them.

I want to respond to the points in this last area but I have to get to work personaly I enjoy this talk. So I hope you don't take offense in the way I present things too much. As far as I am concerned we are both going down the same road. As for what you say about me calling things false doctrine? I think men has taken what you call principles and turned them into standards. ie to define women wearing pants as mens apearal is to turn a principle into a standard, to take a principle of dressing modestly and turning it into abstanance of any kind of jewlery or cosmetics, turns a principle into a standard. this is what the religious leaders had done with the law of moses and what Christ reprimanded them for.

God bless