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

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Make it fit???

Make what fit?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Make what fit?

The verse to your view?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

We also need to understand that Jesus could have easily been speaking of the present and FUTURE aspects of the kingdom of God. Actually, that seems to be the obvious reference.

Why is it obvious he is speaking of both aspects? Is their a distinction between the Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven?

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Why is it obvious he is speaking of both aspects? Is their a distinction between the Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven?

In John 1 only one term is used. "Kingdom of God." It seems many commentarians also see it as having present and future aspects in this pasage.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

In John 1 only one term is used. "Kingdom of God." It seems many commentarians also see it as having present and future aspects in this pasage.

How is the term used throughout scripture? In both tenses? What is the original term? Is it used to indicate both aspects in Scripture?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

The blood is not in the name of Jesus. The blood is in heaven. It is not applied, it is appropriated. The name of Jesus is the means by which we can appropriate the blood. We appropriate the blood the moment we call on the name of the Lord in faith and repentance. We appropriate the blood when we call on the name of the Lord in baptism. We continue to appropriate the blood whenever we confess our sins and God forgives us our sins as we walk as a child of God in this journey of faith.

TB,

Are you saying remission of sins takes place when someone calls on the name of the Lord in faith and repentance? Do you have scripture to prove what you say?

What is the difference between appropriating the blood and the blood being applied?

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by rrford

Hmm, not a true son with inheritance rights until a certain age was reached? Interesting. Seems one can be "in the family" but not inherit until a specific instance occurs.

Refer to your previous post and see if you see the same question I do.

He was the father's child from the moment of birth, but sonship was what conferred upon him authority as an heir to his father's kingdom. So, yes this does point to a specific instance that was of the father's choosing. For us as Christians the analogy is clearly taught in Scripture. We are born of the Spirit (as Jesus was) thus becoming a child of God, then when we are baptized we identify with the Father and the Kingdom of God (as Jesus did), and when we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost we are empowered to exercise the authority of God (as Jesus did) We have been given authority in Christ. We enter into the sonship that Jesus has with the Father because we have been united with Christ by baptism and elevated by the Spirit to sit with Christ in the heavenly realms sharing His position of authority. (Eph. 1:18- 2:10)

This is the real significance of baptism and the Holy Ghost baptism that empowers us and anoints us for service in the kingdom of God. It's about sonship and spiritual authority.

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by rrford

And this is good or bad? And do you agree or disagree with what it has developed to?

All I know is what I was taught growing up in a Full Gospel Church. I can't really address the old timer's positions because I'm not that well acquainted with them. I do feel that I have a greater understanding of the gospel message than what I had sitting under my pastor growing up. I did not have a proper understanding of grace to go along with the teaching of salvation growing up.

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

TB,

Are you saying remission of sins takes place when someone calls on the name of the Lord in faith and repentance? Do you have scripture to prove what you say?

What is the difference between appropriating the blood and the blood being applied?

There is no Scriptural basis for saying the blood is applied to us personally when we are baptized. The blood is appropriated by faith, not applied through obedience as some teach. Faith precedes obedience and therefore the blood is appropriated prior to obedience. Otherwise we could not even approach God. The Bible is clear in setting forth the blood as a cleansing and covering for our sins so we can approach God with a holy standing. I cannot understand anyone believing that sinful man can enter into a relationship with God apart from the blood, which according to the PAJC position isn't even "applied" until baptism.

[mizpeh]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

There is no Scriptural basis for saying the blood is applied to us personally when we are baptized. The blood is appropriated by faith, not applied through obedience as some teach. Faith precedes obedience and therefore the blood is appropriated prior to obedience. Otherwise we could not even approach God. The Bible is clear in setting forth the blood as a cleansing and covering for our sins so we can approach God with a holy standing. I cannot understand anyone believing that sinful man can enter into a relationship with God apart from the blood, which according to the PAJC position isn't even "applied" until baptism.

I agree the blood is for cleansing and covering of our sins. It is just as clear when our sins are remitted/forgiven/washed away, in water baptism. So putting the two together, blood and water baptism, seems to fit. I'm still not sure what you mean by appropriated.

Which definition are you using for appropriate?

1 : to take exclusive possession of : ANNEX <no one should appropriate a common benefit>
2 : to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use <appropriate money for the research program>
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

To appropriate seems to mean it is something we do, we take possession, as opposed to something God does when He washes away our sins. I may be misunderstanding what you mean by appropriate, because, like Barb, I have never heard this teaching until now. I've heard Baptists teach they are saved by grace through faith. And to reconcile the necessity of having the Spirit of Christ to be one of His, they include receiving Christ upon faith and say the baptism of the Spirit is an added blessing. They also explain away the verses that explicitly teach water baptism is needed to be saved.Mr 16:16 Tit 3:5 1Pe 3:21 Do you agree with the Baptists teachings? and if you do, how do you explain Acts 8 and 9, the conversions of Paul and the Samaritans? ?They each believed but received the Holy Ghost at a later date?

The highlighted part in your quote, I believe, must be proved by scripture. You have asserted it and I've heard Felicity say about the same thing at the GNC, but I haven't see verses of scripture to back it up. I think you are saying for a person to receive the Spirit of God, that person must have their sins forgiven. So if forgivness happens at water baptism, then how can a HOLY Spirit dwell within a person who is yet in their sins. Am I correct? But once a man repents, is he still sinful? Once he repents hasn't he turned from sin and is now seeking God to walk in His paths. Is faith in Christ and a change of heart enough to allow God to fill a person with his Holy Spirit? Acts 10.