The Difference Between the PCI of the Merger and the Current Counterfeits

[OneAccord]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 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. (Mark 16:15-18)

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 3:21)

This is not about interpretation, but about biblical truth. The truth is here, in these verses. Many can bring interpretations and their ideas, but it comes down to what scriptures says, what Jesus said and commanded. Without the waters of baptism, we are not saved, period.

Of course its about interpretation. Every Scripture in the Bible is about interpretation. What do those Scriptures you quoted mean? Oh, I know what God said is absolute, but everybody interpretes the Scripture in the way they see it. We've got the Greek scholars who say the word "for" in Acts 2:38 means this or that. THAT is interpretation. You last statement is, in fact, an interpretation. here let me put it to the test...In Rom 10:9 Paul wrote, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

How do you interpret this verse in the absence of any mention of water baptism or recieving the Holy Ghost? Most people, because it doesn't fit their doctrinal position, just ignore it. But its there. So, it has to ne interpreted. I believe it was Paul who said "rightly dividing the word of truth", which means to interpret the Scriptures correctly, and not just ignore the Scriptures that don't quite meet our doctrinal views.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

The reason I don't believe the PAJC position on salvation is it simply isn't true.

It's not consistent with what is presented in the Bible.

It's not consistent with the obvious operation of the Spirit in the lives of those who lived during those years prior to the so called PAJC revelation of truth.

It's not consistent with my own personal experience with God.

It's not consistent with the experience of millions of Christians who come to faith in Christ and have a genuine spiritual transformation.

On the other hand, label it whatever you want, what I believe and teach is consistent with all of the above.

Though we don't exactly agree here, it is always a joy to have you posting, Elder...you bring much to the table.

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

Of course its about interpretation. Every Scripture in the Bible is about interpretation. What do those Scriptures you quoted mean? Oh, I know what God said is absolute, but everybody interpretes the Scripture in the way they see it. We've got the Greek scholars who say the word "for" in Acts 2:38 means this or that. THAT is interpretation. You last statement is, in fact, an interpretation. here let me put it to the test...In Rom 10:9 Paul wrote, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

How do you interpret this verse in the absence of any mention of water baptism or recieving the Holy Ghost? Most people, because it doesn't fit their doctrinal position, just ignore it. But its there. So, it has to ne interpreted. I believe it was Paul who said "rightly dividing the word of truth", which means to interpret the Scriptures correctly, and not just ignore the Scriptures that don't quite meet our doctrinal views.

Is "shalt" present tense or future tense?

[Brother Price]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

Of course its about interpretation. Every Scripture in the Bible is about interpretation. What do those Scriptures you quoted mean? Oh, I know what God said is absolute, but everybody interpretes the Scripture in the way they see it. We've got the Greek scholars who say the word "for" in Acts 2:38 means this or that. THAT is interpretation. You last statement is, in fact, an interpretation. here let me put it to the test...In Rom 10:9 Paul wrote, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

How do you interpret this verse in the absence of any mention of water baptism or recieving the Holy Ghost? Most people, because it doesn't fit their doctrinal position, just ignore it. But its there. So, it has to ne interpreted. I believe it was Paul who said "rightly dividing the word of truth", which means to interpret the Scriptures correctly, and not just ignore the Scriptures that don't quite meet our doctrinal views.

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)

Yes it does agree with what I believe after all.

Originally Posted by RevDWW

Is "shalt" present tense or future tense?

The word "shalt" isn't even there in the original text.

It's simply 'confess', as in 'acknowledge'...

[SDG]

DW ... there are refutations for each verse we present to defend our doctrinal views ...

It's not going to happen here tonight ... at least not by me ... no one is going to convert over tonight .... at least I dont think so ...

I would encourage, however you examine what others... other than your group say about verses in Mark 16 or 1 Peter ... will it shake your faith???

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

The word "shalt" isn't even there in the original text.

It's simply 'confess', as in 'acknowledge'...

Show off ...

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

The word "shalt" isn't even there in the original text.

It's simply 'confess', as in 'acknowledge'...

Yanked your chain didn't I!

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

DWW ... there are refutations for each verse we present to defend our doctrinal views ...

It's not going to happen here tonight ... at least not by me ... no one is going to convert over tonight .... at least I dont think so ...

I would encourage, however you examine what others... other than your group say about verses in Mark 16 or 1 Peter ... will it shake your faith???

So, Daniel, was the birth of the pentecostal movement a mistake and we should have never left what these others have to say? I am not sure you are fully aware of how what you say comes across. then again, you may!

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Show off ...

That ain't nun uh dat der fancy Methodology stuff, bubba...

it's just e-Sword, dude...

lol

That3754 if1437thou shalt confess3670 with1722 thy4675 mouth4750 the Lord2962 Jesus,2424 and2532 shalt believe4100 in1722 thine4675 heart2588 that3754 God2316 hath raised1453 him846 from1537 the dead,3498 thou shalt be saved.4982
(Rom 10:9 KJV+)



just one number.