So, when I asked what church you attended, you gave me a non-answer/ If I remember correctly, you capalized the word Apostolic. No matter. I was mistaken in thinking that you could have given me a specific answer to a very specific question. I too belong to the church, universal.
Your second point requires that I do research (bringing up my previous post) which I just do not want to do. It would be thoughtful if you would simply keep the questionable post in your reply. I do not know what to tell you without the context. but, I will try. "Effectual participation" as it relates to salvation expresses more than my participation to "get myself saved;" it implies effectiveness of such an effort. If we could confirm our effectual participation in the Plan to Save Man, we would prove the the continued need for the Law. Paul is the one who makes this point, of course.
Is this baptism of the Spirit a necessity?
Is it the "gift" spoken of in Acts 2:38 (please do not spend any time on a discussion of water baptism since I believe that water baptism saves for the same reasons visiting the fatherless in their affliction save) the same as the baptism of the Spirit?
Is Spirit filling the same as Spirit baptism?
Is Spirit baptism a repeatable for the disciple?
Is the "evidence of tongues" a dogma in script or is it set by example only?
And, finally, regarding the new birth. Since it is an event as opposed to a process, when does it happen and what characterizes this new birth as distinct from Spirit baptism?
Thanks in advance
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:41:29 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Contrasting theologices
John wrote: > 1. The Apostolic churches here in my area > believe that new birth and the baptism of the > Spirit are the same thing, that's why. I am not part of a denomination, John. It seems like if I speak of my church being a church of Christ, then you would think I believe like the Church of Christ of the Stone-Campbell heritage, or if I say that I part of the church of Jesus Christ that you think I am Mormon. When I speak of an apostolic congregation, I mean one that abides in the apostles' doctrine, that believes we should gather together in the same manner as the first century believers. I am not talking about a denomination that believes one must be baptized in the name of Jesus to be saved or that one must speak in tongues to be saved. John wrote: > 2. The sin issue was settled on the cross and > apart from our activity. If the law could have > taken away sin, our effectual participation would > have been confirmed. I don't know what confirmation of effectual participation is, or why you even wrote this point. John wrote: > 3. Is baptism in the Spirit always and only > evidenced by the speaking in tongues? Always, yes, only, no. John wrote: > 4. Is the new birth an event or a process? > You seem to be saying that it is a process. The new birth is an event, just like physical birth is. Then we grow and have experiences, so life in Christ is a process. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
