Biblical Argument or Private Interpretation?

[renee819]

Originally Posted by renee819
[QUOTE]And back to your statement, “I think a strong argument can be made that Acts 8 is not the normative experience for all believers for all time.”[/QUOTE]

Renee wrote,

Right! Because the Church went into 'darkness' and now more “Light” has been shown, but many still want to cling to, JUST BELIEVE. However, as I have shown, a BELIEVER, that does not go any farther, is just that, A BELIEVER. But they are not 'born again' until the obey “as the scriptures has shown.”

Jason wrote

I answered this in my previous post. But to my point in Acts 8, simply put, that is the only place in scripture where we see that someone is baptized and we are told they did not receive the Holy Ghost. I am putting forth the assertion that this is because it was a special circumstance in that God wanted to pour out the Holy Ghost in an external way on the Samaritans in the presence of the Jews, and particularly in the presence of Peter and John, so that there would be unity within the church (and the same for the Gentiles in chapter 10). I do find it interesting that later in the chapter Phillip preaches Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch and baptizes Him, and when the eunuch comes out of the water Phillip is gone. Was this man left without the Holy Spirit? Did he have to go back to Ethiopia and "seek/tarry" for the Holy Ghost? I don't believe so. Nor do I believe that the statement that he went on his way rejoicing implies He received the Holy Ghost as David Bernard has said. I would ask you, if that is your view, on what textual/hermeneutical grounds can we say the eunuch received the Holy Ghost because he experienced joy, when earlier in the chapter we are told the Samaritans experienced joy and DID not have the Holy Spirit? Again I say, it seems to be that God was doing something special and unique, for His purposes, in the city of Samaria, and Acts 8:12-17 does not represent the normative conversion pattern in church history, or even in the first century church.

Jason, why doesn't it, “ represent the normative conversion pattern in church history, or even in the first century church”

They repented----although it doesn't tell us that they did.
They were baptized in Jesus name
And received the Holy Ghost---although it does not tell us the details of them speaking in other tongues. However, by the context and other scriptures, we know that they did.

You can't go by, what is not written, as if it didn't happen.

Speaking of patterns, in Acts 10, we are not told that Cornelius household repented. But no one receives the Holy Ghost before they repent.
They received the Holy Ghost and then was baptized.

Why is this? Because it is all one package to be born again of the water and the Spirit.
So we see at some point these repented, it only takes a few minutes.
They received the Holy Ghost
And were baptized in Jesus name.

In Acts 19, these had been taught about Jesus several years before, and were baptized under John.

Paul called them disciples, so evidently they had already repented. They were Believers.
Paul baptizes them in Jesus name,
And they received the Holy Ghost speaking in other tongues.

Jason wrote,

Nor do I believe that the statement that he went on his way rejoicing implies He received the Holy Ghost as David Bernard has said. I would ask you, if that is your view, on what textual/hermeneutical grounds can we say the eunuch received the Holy Ghost because he experienced joy, when earlier in the chapter we are told the Samaritans experienced joy and DID not have the Holy Spirit?

The reason that I believe that the eunuch received the Holy Ghost, as well as the Phillipian jailer, is this.

There was only one gospel, and from Peter to Paul they all taught the same gospel.

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed

.

At Philippi, Paul taught the jailer, “the word of the Lord.”
At Samaria, Phillip “preached Christ to them”

I don't believe they taught different messages to them. And to the eunuch Phillip started in the OT, but preached Christ to him.
Now it would have been a strange salvation message, if Peter taught one thing, Paul another and Phillip 2 different messages. One to the Samaritans, and another to the eunuch.

They all taught the one true gospel. And we should be teaching the very same thing.

[renee819]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Sis. Renee

You responded to my quote of Mark 16:!6 with Mark 16:17 "and these signs shall follow them that BELIEVE, they shall speak with new tongues....."

My comment would be that we cannot take all of the signs of Mark 16:17-18 as normative for every believer. Of course as oneness Pentecostals we see tongues there right after baptism, and want to jump on it. But Jesus didn't only say those who believe will speak with new tongues, He also said they would cast out devils, take up serpents, (possibly) drink deadly poison, and they shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So contextually speaking IF we make tongues a requirement for salvation for every believer, then should not all of these other signs be evidenced in each and every believers life? Does this mean that if someone speaks in tongues, and heals the sick, but has not cast out a demon, they are not saved? They lack evidence of salvation?
And if the answer is NO that does not mean they are not saved, my response is:

Then why is one sign of Mark 16:17-18 more important than the others. For example, how can you say someone hasn't believed to salvation if they cast out demons and heal the sick? Are not those equally valid signs?

I believe that Mark 16:17-18 speaks in reference to the whole body of believers, the church, for the sake of furthering the gospel, and not to the works that each individual believer will do. I believe this is true to the context as 16:20 says "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following."

Furthermore I do think it is of extreme interest that this is the one and only place in any of the 4 gospels that Jesus refers to tongues by name, and that in the very highly disputed ending of Mark. *IF* speaking in tongues was the one and only universal initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, without which no one can be saved, and failure to speak in tongues will result in eternal damnation, it would seem that Jesus would have made that clear throughout the gospels, or in the very least inspired a very clear explicit statement in the epistles. (The epistles of which only 1 out of 21 even mentions tongues by name....hmmm....)

Yes, I believe that everyone of those things are available to each one born again.

I say, available, and am saddened that there is very little teaching about the 'gifts of the spirit”
People speak in unknown tongues and interpretation, but there is very little said about the other gifts. Even in Pentecost.

I believe that when a person receives the Holy Ghost, the Bible way, that God gives them at least one of the gifts.

1 Corinthians 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will

.

But we are not to stop there, we are to desire Spiritual gifts and to pray for them.

1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

I also believe that if the need arises any born again person can be used in any of the gifts. For instance, I've not got the gift of healing. But a few years ago, we were at my nephew in laws church.
It was before the service started and every one was talking and visiting, all of a sudden I felt the Spirit of God, stronger than I had ever felt it, nor have I felt it that strong since.

I first looked around to see if any others felt it. Seemingly they didn't, but some may have felt it and like me, and never said anything. I think if it happened now, I would stand and tell them the power of God was there, and I felt it was there to heal.

I started praying to myself, in a few minutes a sister about 3 rows ahead of us slumped over in her seat. I never saw anyone so white. Of course they all gathered around, I stayed in my seat and prayed. In a few minutes she sat up and stayed for the rest of the service.

Am I saying that my prayer healed her? Not at all. The power of God was there to heal. I believe that any born again person that felt the power of God as strong as I did, could have prayed for her and she would have been healed. All of us prayed for her.

Jason wrote,

You responded to my quote of Mark 16:!6 with Mark 16:17 "and these signs shall follow them that BELIEVE, they shall speak with new tongues....."

My comment would be that we cannot take all of the signs of Mark 16:17-18 as normative for every believer. Of course as oneness Pentecostals we see tongues there right after baptism, and want to jump on it. But Jesus didn't only say those who believe will speak with new tongues, He also said they would cast out devils, take up serpents, (possibly) drink deadly poison, and they shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So contextually speaking IF we make tongues a requirement for salvation for every believer, then should not all of these other signs be evidenced in each and every believers life? Does this mean that if someone speaks in tongues, and heals the sick, but has not cast out a demon, they are not saved? They lack evidence of salvation?
And if the answer is NO that does not mean they are not saved, my response is:

Then why is one sign of Mark 16:17-18 more important than the others. For example, how can you say someone hasn't believed to salvation if they cast out demons and heal the sick? Are not those equally valid signs?

Because baptism is not a sign. Let's look at the scriptures again.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned

.

And NOW, Jesus gives the signs, that follow those that believe.. And since this is the only place where Jesus mentions tongues (I didn't realize that) and it is in with the other signs, I believe that Jesus is talking about Unknown Tongues. The gifts of the Spirit would cover both 17 and 18 and more.

:

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

[renee819]

Originally Posted by renee819

That is why the “thief on the cross” would meet Jesus in Paradise. He repented, under the Law.

Jason wrote

The thief on the cross was saved because he was justified by faith, the same way Abraham had been saved (Genesis 15:6) and the same way we are saved (Romans 4:22-5:2, Galatians 2:16). Repentance under the law didn't save, he would have still been required to have been circumcised and make a sin offering if he was saved under the law (but even that would be missing the fact that nothing someone did under the law saved them-not circumcision, not sacrifice, not tithing, nada--only faith could save, everything else was to be the result of that saving faith). The standard oneness response to the thief on the cross, straight out of David Bernard's book the New Birth page 143 "even the repentant thief on the cross was saved under the old covenant" seems to make a good point but simply doesn't stand up to consistent logic. Salvation has always been by grace through faith. This does not and has never meant that that saving faith is alone or refuses to obey. As Martin Luther said, "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." The thief on the cross would be an exception in that he did not get a chance to demonstrate his faith by his works, but He is an example of how God can sovereignly justify the sinner based on his faith and apart from any righteous works or obedience whatsoever

.

I agree that the thief was saved by faith. But not in the same way that we are. Not even in the same way that Abraham and the OT saints were saved. They had to have faith, but they had to demonstrate that faith by obedience.

And yes, the thief was saved under the Law, Jesus came to fulfill the Law. And He fulfilled/finished it on the cross when He cried, “It is finished.” and at that time the Temple Vial was torn from top to bottom. I didn't get that from Bernard, but from my studies.

Jason, Jesus came to bring us a New Covenant, and you completely discredit that Covenant, when you say 'that the OT saints were saved the same way as we are. Are you one of them that believes that there is nothing for us to do, that Jesus did it all on the cross?

I see you discredit 'speaking in other tongues'

Let me put it another way. If we are saved in the same way that Abraham was, then why did God, robe Himself in flesh, come to earth to die on a cruel cross? Was it to tell us that we are saved by faith alone? So why was Jesus born?

[renee819]

I'd like to add, If the thief wasn't saved under the Law, what was he saved under? it certainly wasn't the New Covenant.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by renee819

Jason, Jesus came to bring us a New Covenant, and you completely discredit that Covenant, when you say 'that the OT saints were saved the same way as we are. Are you one of them that believes that there is nothing for us to do, that Jesus did it all on the cross?

I see you discredit 'speaking in other tongues'

Let me put it another way. If we are saved in the same way that Abraham was, then why did God, robe Himself in flesh, come to earth to die on a cruel cross? Was it to tell us that we are saved by faith alone? So why was Jesus born?

Renee, this is no offense to you, but when oneness Pentecostals have asked me the same question you did "If we're saved in the same way as Abraham then why did Jesus have to die on the cross" makes me feel as if they don't truly understand the gospel if they have to even ask that question in the first place. That's not how I feel about you, but I am somewhat surprised you arrived at that conclusion.

So if we could be saved by faith (this is what I mean when I say we are saved in the same way as Abraham) then why did God robe himself in flesh and die on the cross?

1)Salvation by faith doesn't negate the sacrifice of Christ, it makes it necessary.
2)It reveals the ultimate grace, love, and mercy of God. Titus 2:11 says the "grace of God that brings salvation hath appeared to all men". In Jesus Christ God revealed himself as the God of infinite love, mercy, grace, and compassion. As Rich Mullins said "we didn't know what love was till he came, and He gave love a face and He gave love a name." Or as a more contemporary song goes "how many Kings stepped down from their thrones? How many Lords abandoned their homes? how many greats have become the least for me? How many gods have poured out their hearts to romance a world that was all torn apart? How many Father's gave up their sons for me? Only one did that for me."
Philippians 2:5-10 reflects this thought beautifully.
3)The sacrifice of Christ is necessary so that the demands of God's justice are fulfilled. God righteously laid all of our sin upon Christ (from the sin of Adam, including the sins of Abraham, and yours and my sins) so that He could righteously judge and punish sin. Christ was made the propitiation for sin, substitionary sacrifice, and kinsman redeemer, and now because of that God can rightly justify the ungodly and sanctify them by imputing the righteousness of Christ to them.
4)In coming Titus 2:14 says "He gave his life to free us from every kind of sin, to cleanse us, and to make us his very own people, totally committed to doing what is right."(NLT) Christ is able to free us from the bondage of sin when we place our faith in Him. We do not only gain eternal life, but there is deliverance from the slavery of sin.
5)Beyond that the coming of Christ has obvious eschatological meanings for the nation of Israel and the establishing of the Kingdom of God in the earth and throughout eternity.

Salvation by grace through faith doesn't negate any of these things, in fact it is ONLY POSSIBLE because Christ came and died. I'd say based on the Biblical teaching one can both affirm justification by faith and the necessity of the coming of Christ. I'll admit to being baffled with oneness people throw that argument at me. It's as if they think Jesus Christ came so that people will speak in tongues.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by renee819

I agree that the thief was saved by faith. But not in the same way that we are. Not even in the same way that Abraham and the OT saints were saved. They had to have faith, but they had to demonstrate that faith by obedience.

Perhaps this is just a misstatement. I don't see how this doesn't cross the line into salvation by works, or at least the Roman sounding doctrine of salvation by faith AND works.

There is a big difference is saying that obedience is the outgrowth of saving faith (thus works are merely the result of what God has already accomplished in the life of the sinner, who has since been justified, counted as righteous in God's sight).
And
saying that they HAD TO demonstrate their faith by obedience. If THEY HAD then by definition they could NOT be saved by their faith, at the very least they would be saved by faith AND obedience/works. I don't think you can make a good biblical argument for this, and I don't see how that doesn't directly contradict Romans 4:4-5.

Originally Posted by renee819

And yes, the thief was saved under the Law, Jesus came to fulfill the Law. And He fulfilled/finished it on the cross when He cried, “It is finished.” and at that time the Temple Vial was torn from top to bottom. I didn't get that from Bernard, but from my studies.

I'll grant you the thief was saved under the Law/Old Covenant. My argument had to do with methods not timing.

But since you mentioned it. When Jesus said "it is finished" is it finished or do we need to add a little righteousness of our own to His work so that we can be saved?

[Jason B]

[QUOTE=renee819;1286172]Originally Posted by renee819

And back to your statement, “I think a strong argument can be made that Acts 8 is not the normative experience for all believers for all time.”[/QUOTE]

Jason, why doesn't it, “ represent the normative conversion pattern in church history, or even in the first century church”

They repented----although it doesn't tell us that they did.
They were baptized in Jesus name
And received the Holy Ghost---although it does not tell us the details of them speaking in other tongues. However, by the context and other scriptures, we know that they did.

You can't go by, what is not written, as if it didn't happen.

Sister Renee, to be fair, you can't assume what is not written happened.
There are 21accounts of conversion in Acts, people spoke in tongues only in 2 of those (Acts 10 & 19), and three if we count Acts 8 (and I'm willing to do that because I think there are good textual grounds, although in fairness it is only implicit evidence of tongues in Acts 8, not explicit.)
That means in only 3 of 21 accounts of conversion in Acts mention tongues. So should we then assume that tongues happened in all other 18 accounts?

And if tongues DID happen in all other 18 accounts, and did happen everytime someone was truly born again, then why all the fuss about the necessity of circumcision for salvation in Acts 15? Since the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost in Acts 10 with the evidence of speaking in other tongues and in Acts 11:17 Peter mentioned this fact to quell Jewish opposition, and it was accepted by those at Jerusalem, then why did Peter have to again reference this fact in Acts 15:7-11 IF indeed everyone who was born again received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues?

In other words-If Paul and Barnabas are preaching in Antioch and other areas to the Gentiles, and Gentiles are being saved left and right, AND (assuming) they are receiving the Holy Ghost by speaking in other tongues as the normative salvation experience-then why didn't Paul and Barnabas just say that? They would have had a slam dunk case, obviously the Gentiles don't have to be circumcised because they all speak in tongues just like us. But no they didn't say that and that's probably because it wasn't the normative conversion experience. Beyond that if it was happening all the time, even to the Gentiles that lived in Israel, or surrounding areas (Caesarea Philippi, Decapolis, Galilee) then why did Peter have to reference one particular and outstanding event that happened years earlier? Why not just say that all the Gentile whom they have come into contact with in their ministries had received the Holy Ghost? There must have been some reason that whenever the question of Gentile coming into the church, the point of reference is always the amazing experience at Cornelius' house. And my guess is because that was an extraordinary event, not an everyday occurrence. Please feel free to answer the questions I posed in this paragraph.

Originally Posted by renee819

Speaking of patterns, in Acts 10, we are not told that Cornelius household repented. But no one receives the Holy Ghost before they repent.
They received the Holy Ghost and then was baptized.

Why is this? Because it is all one package to be born again of the water and the Spirit.
So we see at some point these repented, it only takes a few minutes.
They received the Holy Ghost
And were baptized in Jesus name.

Well since Peter speaks of judgment in Acts 10:42 and remission of sins in Acts 10:43 and all that we have is the super condensed version of his message, it seems safe to assume they repented, even though we are not explicitly told that.

But, really the difference is that you are trying to make the argument (as OPs do) that there was a pattern and that pattern always included tongues, and so even though not all passages mention tongues we can assume tongues, because not all passages mention repentance or water baptism.

To me this isn't a very strong argument, because repentance and baptism is intertwined throughout the New Testament. Repentance and baptism are mentioned in nearly every book (Philemon and probably 2&3 John may be exceptions), where as tongues are only mentioned in 3 books, and scantly outside of Acts (Mark 16;17 & 1 Corinthians 12 & 14). I think a very strong argument can be made that the normative Christian conversion experience included both repentance and water baptism, not because it happened a couple of times in Acts (ahem, including Acts 2:38,41) but because it is consistently recorded, taught, and referenced, not only in Acts, but in the gospel and the epistles. In the words of F.F. Bruce (commenting on Acts chapter 2)
"It is against the whole genius of Biblical religion to suppose that the outward rite had any value except so far as it was accompanied by true repentance within. In a similar passage in the following chapter, the blotting out of people's sins is a direct consequence of their repenting and turning to God (3:19); nothing is said there about baptism, although it is no doubt implied (the idea of an unbaptized Christian is simply not entertained in the NT). ~F.F. Bruce, The New International Commentary, Book of Acts, page 77

We consistently and regularly see repentance and water baptism throughout the New Testament, even though (granted) they are not mentioned in each conversion experience (although regularly one or the other is explicitly referenced).

[renee819]

Sorry to be so long in answering, but I've been really sick with sinus infection. And then last week my right hand started hurting, then my thumb and finger tips are now numb. Trying to use my left hand to type as much as I can.

Jason wrote,

Renee, this is no offense to you, but when oneness Pentecostals have asked me the same question you did "If we're saved in the same way as Abraham then why did Jesus have to die on the cross" makes me feel as if they don't truly understand the gospel if they have to even ask that question in the first place. That's not how I feel about you, but I am somewhat surprised you arrived at that conclusion.

Jason, I know what you mean. I feel the same way about people that say we are saved the same way as Abraham. Or saved by faith alone or grace alone. But that is a valid question, no matter who as it.

Jason wrote,

So if we could be saved by faith (this is what I mean when I say we are saved in the same way as Abraham) then why did God robe himself in flesh and die on the cross?

.

I agree, “Salvation by grace through faith doesn't negate any of these things, in fact it is ONLY POSSIBLE because Christ came and died.” But look at who Paul is talking to,

Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee

:

These are not salvation messages. Paul is writing to tell Titus, how the Christians that had already been 'born again' should live. And reminding them of God's love. Salvation is ONLY POSSIBLE because Jesus came and died, and salvation is ONLY POSSIBLE by faith, but faith alone will not save any one.
All of the Letters were written to ''born again' people. Therefore Paul nor the others need not to go into the Salvation message. That is why that The Book of Acts is the only book in the Bible that tells us exactly how to be 'born again.'

No disrespect to what you wrote, these things are true, but you need to dig a little deeper.

Jason wrote,

1)Salvation by faith doesn't negate the sacrifice of Christ, it makes it necessary

.

I ask again, How does it make it necessary, if we are saved the same way that Abraham was? Of course people have to have faith to be saved. But Jesus nor John did not teach that s the end of it. Jesus did not spend 40 days after His resurrection, teaching he Apostles, "all you have to do is believe." He gave them commandments of how to set up the Church, and about baptism in His name and the coming of the Holy Ghost.

Jason wrote

2)It reveals the ultimate grace, love, and mercy of God.

Of course it does. But did Jesus come and die, Just to show the world how much He loves them, and not leave a Plan of Salvation? Did He tell the Apostles, Just teach them, they are saved by faith alone?

On the Day of Pentecost did Peter tell those DEVOUT JEWS, when they asked how to be saved?
“OK, you Jews, I see your devotion, evidently you have faith, so you are already saved by faith, you don't have to do another thing, except get baptized in Jesus name.

Jason wrote,

3)The sacrifice of Christ is necessary so that the demands of God's justice are fulfilled. God righteously laid all of our sin upon Christ (from the sin of Adam, including the sins of Abraham, and yours and my sins) so that He could righteously judge and punish sin. Christ was made the propitiation for sin, substitionary sacrifice, and kinsman redeemer, and now because of that God can rightly justify the ungodly and sanctify them by imputing the righteousness of Christ to them

I know you don't believe it, but we are justified only after we have followed God's PLAN of Salvation. And then the sins of the PAST are forgiven.

The sacrifice of Christ was necessary, so that He could send the Holy Ghost down. And it is the Holy Ghost that regenerates man, places God's divine nature in Him and helps him to walk in “newness of life,” To become a “new Creation.” Abraham nor any of the OT saints could be 'BORN AGAIN.” Even David, a man after God's own heart could not be 'born again.'

Jason wrote

4)In coming Titus 2:14 says "He gave his life to free us from every kind of sin, to cleanse us, and to make us his very own people, totally committed to doing what is right."

Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Notice it says, redeem us. Now to these Christians that had already been redeemed he didn't have to go into detail. But are you saying, that all our sins are forgiven, past, present and future?

Jason wrote,

Salvation by grace through faith doesn't negate any of these things, in fact it is ONLY POSSIBLE because Christ came and died. I'd say based on the Biblical teaching one can both affirm justification by faith and the necessity of the coming of Christ. I'll admit to being baffled with oneness people throw that argument at me. It's as if they think Jesus Christ came so that people will speak in tongues

You know Jason, You could have said, " It's as if they think Jesus Christ came so that people will receive the Holy Ghost." And you would have had it right. Of course when people receive the Holy Ghost, THE BIBLE WAY, they do speak in other tongues. But to say it the way that you said it was to condemn those that speak in other tongues.

I'm going to start another Thread on the Holy Ghost.