Is 'Calling Upon The Name of the Lord' salvation?

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,456]

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

I am sorry Bro. Scott, but I thought it was understood we were talking about salvation. Not just about any teaching.

Yes I am sure there are plenty of teachings without examples, but we are talking about eternity, not earthy things.

Thanks.

Brother Pittman,

I do apologize, for I did not understand that you were narrowing this only to the doctrine of salvation.  However, I must say that I still would not agree with your foundational premise that an example MUST be recorded in Scripture in order to accept as true a Biblical precept, principle, or promise even in relation to the doctrine of salvation.  Rather, I would contend that if God's Word provides a precept, principle, or promise in relation to the doctrine of salvation, that precept, principle, or promise is true simply because God's Word delivered it.
 

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Number (1) Bro. Scott.

Number (2) is not even worthy of asking.

Thanks.

  Indeed, I would be compelled to agree that there is no possible example in Scripture for the case of my question #2.

On the other hand, concerning the case of my question #1, I must ask another question before I can deliver an answer -- Do you believe that Simon the sorcerer was genuinely saved in Acts 8:13, or do you believe that he was a "false believer" in Acts 8:13?

(Note: I myself believe that Simon the sorcerer was a genuine believer who was genuinely saved in Acts 8:13; however, I am aware that many do not agree with me on this.  Even so, your answer to the above question will have a bearing upon my ability to provide an example in Scripture for the case of my question #1.)

Edited April 13, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar

[Genevanpreacher 650]

19 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Pittman,

On the other hand, concerning the case of my question #1, I must ask another question before I can deliver an answer -- Do you believe that Simon the sorcerer was genuinely saved in Acts 8:13, or do you believe that he was a "false believer" in Acts 8:13?

(Note: I myself believe that Simon the sorcerer was a genuine believer who was genuinely saved in Acts 8:13; however, I am aware that many do not agree with me on this.  Even so, your answer to the above question will have a bearing upon my ability to provide an example in Scripture for the case of my question #1.)

I have no reason to think he wasn't, contrary to popular belief.

[No Nicolaitans 3,252]

22 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I myself believe that Simon the sorcerer was a genuine believer who was genuinely saved in Acts 8:13

 

2 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

I have no reason to think he wasn't, contrary to popular belief.

 

Well then...that makes three! 

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,456]

14 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Well then...that makes three! 

So then, is that "three is the charm;" or is that "three strikes, and we are out"?

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,456]

3 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

I have no reason to think he wasn't, contrary to popular belief.

Well then, for both you and I the case of Peter's instruction to Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8:22 would NOT be a valid case to fulfill your request for an example of one who was instructed to pray unto God for salvation.  Even so, I cannot at this time think of any other Scriptural example to fulfill your request.

However, my point would have been (for the sake of the argument, if you held to the position that Simon the sorcerer was a false believer in Acts 8:13) the case of Acts 8:22.  Indeed, for those who do hold to the position that Simon the sorcerer was simply a false believer in Acts 8:13, they could point to Acts 8:22 as an example to fulfill the request.  While that example would NOT actually satisfy you, because you believe that Simon the sorcerer was a genuine believer in Acts 8:13, it could satisfy them that they had provided an example.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle
added "even so" sentence for 1st paragraph & grammar

[Genevanpreacher 650]

This might be a good subject to start a thread on also.

[Genevanpreacher 650]

On 4/13/2016 at 10:07 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

However, I must say that I still would not agree with your foundational premise that an example MUST be recorded in Scripture in order to accept as true a Biblical precept, principle, or promise even in relation to the doctrine of salvation.  Rather, I would contend that if God's Word provides a precept, principle, or promise in relation to the doctrine of salvation, that precept, principle, or promise is true simply because God's Word delivered it.

But wouldn't you think there would be ONE experience in the scriptures showing someone praying to Jesus to get saved? (after Jesus' ascension, of course.)

I mean, come on, Churches all over America experience 'salvations' from people 'calling upon the name of the Lord' every Sunday! If that's the 'way of salvation' - show proof from the experiences of the early NT Church disciples!

Edited April 24, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,456]

22 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

But wouldn't you think there would be ONE experience in the scriptures showing someone praying to Jesus to get saved? (after Jesus' ascension, of course.)

I mean, come on, Churches all over America experience 'salvations' from people 'calling upon the name of the Lord' every Sunday! If that's the 'way of salvation' - show proof from the experiences of the early NT Church disciples!

Brother Pittman,

In a previous posting, I presented the following TWO examples:

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 3:42 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Pittman,

Do you accept the example of the publican in Luke 18:13-14 who called upon the Lord God to be merciful unto him a sinner, and who was justified before the Lord God thereby?

Do you accept the example of the malefactor in Luke 23:42-43 who called upon the Lord Jesus Christ to remember him (with mercy), and who was "saved" thereby?

So then, what say you?

[John81 7,399]

5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Pittman,

In a previous posting, I presented the following TWO examples:

So then, what say you?

In both those examples there was much more going on than just a calling out to the Lord.

Unfortunately I know many people who believe they are going to heaven some day because they simply called out to the Lord. Often in a watered down prayer where they called out to Jesus to come into their heart.

[heartstrings 2,300]

13 minutes ago, John81 said:

In both those examples there was much more going on than just a calling out to the Lord.

Unfortunately I know many people who believe they are going to heaven some day because they simply called out to the Lord. Often in a watered down prayer where they called out to Jesus to come into their heart.

I called out one word; "JESUS!!" , but I guarantee it was childlike faith, straight from my heart, Jesus was there, God heard it, and the Holy Ghost witnessed.  What constitutes a "watered down prayer"/

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,456]

1 hour ago, John81 said:

In both those examples there was much more going on than just a calling out to the Lord.

Unfortunately I know many people who believe they are going to heaven some day because they simply called out to the Lord. Often in a watered down prayer where they called out to Jesus to come into their heart.

Indeed.  However, this is not the point of the challenge.  I certainly agree that a "prayer-statement" in-and-of itself, apart from repentance and faith of the heart, is NOT sufficient for salvation.  Yet the challenge in this discussion is whether anyone is required to "call upon the name of the Lord" at all, as motivated by the repentance and faith of the heart.

TWO examples have been provided.  Yet they will likely be denied because they were not "after Jesus' ascension, of course."

[Genevanpreacher 650]

50 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed.  However, this is not the point of the challenge.  I certainly agree that a "prayer-statement" in-and-of itself, apart from repentance and faith of the heart, is NOT sufficient for salvation.  Yet the challenge in this discussion is whether anyone is required to "call upon the name of the Lord" at all, as motivated by the repentance and faith of the heart.

TWO examples have been provided.  Yet they will likely be denied because they were not "after Jesus' ascension, of course."

I understand your view, but, (as you were expecting), they don't match what people are told today about calling upon the name of the Lord, Bro. Scott.

Neither of them asked to get saved. Neither called upon Jesus in prayer. Especially the publican. So yes it would have to be on the same side of the cross as us.

There is no example you can show of someone preaching the gospel and someone getting convicted, and the preacher telling that person convicted to call upon Jesus Christ to come into his heart and save him, by calling upon the name of the Lord.

Not one.

Yet modern Churches do this all the time.

Where does it come from?

Somewhere a new 'gospel' was formed?

Sounds like Galatians 'issue' all over again. Galatians 1:6-12.

[2Tim215 103]

Here is a question:

Which gospel saves? Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom:

Mat_4:23  And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom,

Mat_24:14  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Mar1:1  The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Mar_1:14  Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God

In Acts 15:7 we see salvation being of two parts 1. hearing the gospel and 2. believing it.

In Acts 8 we see the gospel of the kingdom still being preached and this after the cross and then we see the Ethiopian being save by only believing Jesus to be the son of God and being baptized - kingdom gospel.

So when did the gospel change? Acts 10 when Peter has his vision. Take note from vrs 34.

Take particular note of :

Act 10:43  To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

And then take note how they were only baptized in water AFTER having received the Holy Ghost.

That is why when peter stood up before everyone that was arguing the true methods of salvation and stated:

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

EVERYONE "kept silence"

So I ask "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Genevanpreacher 650]

43 minutes ago, 2Tim215 said:

Here is a question:

Which gospel saves? Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom:

Mat_4:23  And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom,

Mat_24:14  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Mar1:1  The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Mar_1:14  Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God

In Acts 15:7 we see salvation being of two parts 1. hearing the gospel and 2. believing it.

In Acts 8 we see the gospel of the kingdom still being preached and this after the cross and then we see the Ethiopian being save by only believing Jesus to be the son of God and being baptized - kingdom gospel.

So when did the gospel change? Acts 10 when Peter has his vision. Take note from vrs 34.

Take particular note of :

Act 10:43  To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

And then take note how they were only baptized in water AFTER having received the Holy Ghost.

That is why when peter stood up before everyone that was arguing the true methods of salvation and stated:

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

EVERYONE "kept silence"

So I ask "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

There was, is, and always shalbe, only one salvation gospel.

Only 'doctors' of the Bible will teach otherwise.

And you do know that doctors say they are practicing medicine don't you?

Well, that's what so-called Bible teachers are doing to the masses who really don't care about doctrine. 

They 'practice' on the sheeple. And boy have they created some terrible monsters of the faith. 

Edited May 14, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[2Tim215 103]

50 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

There was, is, and always shalbe, only one salvation gospel.

Only 'doctors' of the Bible will teach otherwise.

And you do know that doctors say they are practicing medicine don't you?

Well, that's what so-called Bible teachers are doing to the masses who really don't care about doctrine. 

They 'practice' on the sheeple. And boy have they created some terrible monsters of the faith. 

So you are saying we can only be saved by Jesus's "gospel of the kingdom"?

If you are we have a problem. It's very easy to throw thinly veiled insults and vague references to doctors and sheeple without actually giving evidence to your one salvation gospel. How I really hate it when people throw things out there as if it's THE truth and never giving scripture to back it up. They have the energy to type out hyperbole but never the energy to put in some scriptures to back up there claim. Give me some scriptures and then maybe we can continue this dialogue in a friendly and edifying manner. And whilst you are please point out the admittance of repentance of sin and the baptism by water for the thief on the cross. He did nothing more than accept his guilt, accept the innocence of Christ and ask to be remembered.

Luke 23:39-43

 

Edited May 14, 2016 by 2Tim215

[Genevanpreacher 650]

On 5/14/2016 at 3:21 PM, 2Tim215 said:

So you are saying we can only be saved by Jesus's "gospel of the kingdom"?

If you are we have a problem. It's very easy to throw thinly veiled insults and vague references to doctors and sheeple without actually giving evidence to your one salvation gospel. How I really hate it when people throw things out there as if it's THE truth and never giving scripture to back it up. They have the energy to type out hyperbole but never the energy to put in some scriptures to back up there claim. Give me some scriptures and then maybe we can continue this dialogue in a friendly and edifying manner. And whilst you are please point out the admittance of repentance of sin and the baptism by water for the thief on the cross. He did nothing more than accept his guilt, accept the innocence of Christ and ask to be remembered.

Luke 23:39-43

 

Wow!

Just read the NT sir, and it all falls in line. Only believing with all your heart in the One Lord - Jesus Christ - can save anyone. If you have read the scriptures, you are up on Jesus being one with the Father, right? Well, he was in the OT also, as still one with the Father. The scriptures say the same thing about believing in God/Jesus Christ. I am not being mean spirited, but I figured you might already have read all the Bible - I might have been mistaken. My apologies for being mistaken.

There is no "gospel of the kingdom" apart from salvation.

The kingdom is the eternal kingdom of eternity...life forever in God's presence. 

Thanks.

[Genevanpreacher 650]

Ok, maybe you are a 'kingdom of God' vs. 'kingdom of Heaven' kinda person? That would explain why you are upset about my comments. I believe they are both the same thing, if that helps you with my view. Been through this type of discussion and it leads no where.

Thanks.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[2Tim215 103]

2 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Ok, maybe you are a 'kingdom of God' vs. 'kingdom of Heaven' kinda person? That would explain why you are upset about my comments. I believe they are both the same thing, if that helps you with my view. Been through this type of discussion and it leads no where.

Thanks.

Not mad, don't get mad about doctrinal differences anymore. I do believe they are one and the same - different sides to the same coin if you will. I just like people to back up there statements with scripture. And yes, the entire bible does fall in line and though there were differing methods to people getting saved in the beginning chapters of the NT I understand the why and how so agree that this discussion will lead no where.