Trinitarian

[steve p]

I am not UPC. I do not understand many things discussed here especially the distinction between oneness and trinitarianism. I even saw a post that said.. "was she saved....she was a trinitarian". This sounds so off the wall to me. Im not trying to cause any problems....Im just searching for the truth.
Blessings to all and thanks for your answers.

[Praxeas]

I am not UPC. I do not understand many things discussed here especially the distinction between oneness and trinitarianism. I even saw a post that said.. "was she saved....she was a trinitarian". This sounds so off the wall to me. Im not trying to cause any problems....Im just searching for the truth.
Blessings to all and thanks for your answers.
UPC is just an organization. There are many Oneness believers that are not UPC

[ManOfWord]

I am not UPC. I do not understand many things discussed here especially the distinction between oneness and trinitarianism. I even saw a post that said.. "was she saved....she was a trinitarian". This sounds so off the wall to me. Im not trying to cause any problems....Im just searching for the truth.
Blessings to all and thanks for your answers.


What questions do you have? We may not all be experts, but we'll give you our viewpoint and you can mull them over. :D

[DanielR]

Here awhile back it was neccassary for me to write to the membership of the trinitarian org. that I'm apart of since some were calling my salvation into question because I was of Oneness belief, here (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=379301&postcount=2) is a slightly edited version (Due to post length limitations here) of that letter explaining why I am Oneness and how I came to that understanding. I still am in discussions with some members that are desiring to learn what I as a Oneness believe. It will take several more posts to get down to all the nuts and bolts about the differences between Trinitarian and Oneness, but this is a good start toward the basic belief and differences.

[Mrs. LPW]

I am not UPC. I do not understand many things discussed here especially the distinction between oneness and trinitarianism. I even saw a post that said.. "was she saved....she was a trinitarian". This sounds so off the wall to me. Im not trying to cause any problems....Im just searching for the truth.
Blessings to all and thanks for your answers.

Prax is right... there are other organizations who are Oneness in doctrine, teaching and application.

My biggest emphasis is on the Name... the only saving Name. How I love that precious Name!

:)

[Sam]

I am not UPC. I do not understand many things discussed here especially the distinction between oneness and trinitarianism. I even saw a post that said.. "was she saved....she was a trinitarian". This sounds so off the wall to me. Im not trying to cause any problems....Im just searching for the truth.
Blessings to all and thanks for your answers.

From what I understand, both Oneness and Trinitarians believe that there is one God who has revealed Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Both Oneness and Trinitarians believe that JHVH of the Old Testament came to live upon the earth in Jesus. Both Oneness and Trinitarians believe that Jesus lives in our hearts as the Holy Spirit.

There is a verse in some of our Bibles which says:
"7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." Some (both Oneness and Trinitarian) believe that verse does not belong there while others (both Oneness and Trinitarian) have no problem with it.

Where we get into difficulty is over the words "three" and "one."
like "three" whats? persons, personalities, personas, roles, offices, manifestations, or what?
and does "one" mean a numerical one or does it mean united?

[TRFrance]

I am not UPC. I do not understand many things discussed here especially the distinction between oneness and trinitarianism. I even saw a post that said.. "was she saved....she was a trinitarian". This sounds so off the wall to me. Im not trying to cause any problems....Im just searching for the truth.
Blessings to all and thanks for your answers.

2 of the best reference works on the topic are available free online

The Oneness of God (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/one-Top.htm), by David Bernard
and If Ye Know These Things (http://inglisfpc.com/bookcopy/inglisfpc.org%20copy/indexx.htm), by Ross Drysdale.

Lots of good stuff in those two. I personally have found both these works to be highly informative.

Blessings.
TRF

[Sam]

From what I understand, both Oneness and Trinitarians believe that there is one God who has revealed Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Both Oneness and Trinitarians believe that JHVH of the Old Testament came to live upon the earth in Jesus. Both Oneness and Trinitarians believe that Jesus lives in our hearts as the Holy Spirit.

There is a verse in some of our Bibles which says:
"7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." Some (both Oneness and Trinitarian) believe that verse does not belong there while others (both Oneness and Trinitarian) have no problem with it.

Where we get into difficulty is over the words "three" and "one."
like "three" whats? persons, personalities, personas, roles, offices, manifestations, or what?
and does "one" mean a numerical one or does it mean united?

I personally don't think those differences are worth arguing about.

[HeavenlyOne]

I am not UPC. I do not understand many things discussed here especially the distinction between oneness and trinitarianism. I even saw a post that said.. "was she saved....she was a trinitarian". This sounds so off the wall to me. Im not trying to cause any problems....Im just searching for the truth.
Blessings to all and thanks for your answers.

Those statements are ignorant ones.

[Praxeas]

2 of the best reference works on the topic are available free online

The Oneness of God (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/one-Top.htm), by David Bernard
and If Ye Know These Things (http://inglisfpc.com/bookcopy/inglisfpc.org%20copy/indexx.htm), by Ross Drysdale.

Lots of good stuff in those two. I personally have found both these works to be highly informative.

Blessings.
TRF
I think the best will be found at
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/index.htm

[PastorRobbieB]

Originally Posted by 1Corinth2v4 View Post
Was she saved? Wasn't she a trinitarian?

These comments are the prime example of the spirit of a Pharisee! I was raised in UPC and was actually an evangelist for a number of years and a member for 36 years. There are some wonderful people in the UPC, but there are far too many of this kind. Self-righteous, hypocritical, Pharisee! These kind preach long sleeves, long skirts, long hair on women... That's their righteousness and their lousy description of holiness... However, what they really need is to put their long, judgmental tongues on the altar and allow the Lord to it them up and get control of it. I was raised in the oneness movement of a UPC church and preached it for many years myself, but today I too am a "Trinitarian". This guy doesn't even understand what that word means. It doesn't mean three Gods. The Word of God is clear that there is only ONE LORD! However, He is eternally existent in three essences, persons, offices or manifestations. I know that I will probably be banished from this site because of the things that I'm saying, but I'll say them regardless, because they're the truth. Salvation is not in man-made formulas, works and religion, but it's in the Cross of Christ PERIOD! It's all about His Grace and your faith! People don't need religion, but they need a real relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm so sorry to be writing all of this on a thread about the late great Miss Dottie Rambo who, I believe with all of my heart, is in the presence of the Great Savior that she wrote and sang about for so many years and she's touring her brand new heavenly home at this very moment. I just get so sick of the ignorance of so many of this kind of people who think that Heaven's reserved just for them and their legalistic group who thinks that they can work their way to Heaven. Your works will not get you one foot off of the ground when Christ returns for His church. It's only the works of Jesus Christ and nothing more. The way that you look or are baptized will not save you or cause you to be lost. Salvation will simply be based upon whether or not you were washed in the Blood of Christ by faith Period.

Well, I've wasted enough time and to all of the good people on here, please forgive my harsh comments. I just get sick and tired of hearing these sorts of ignorant goofs acting like they went to the Cross for the world and now they're the judge. God bless you all!

Pastor Robbie

[OneAccord]

Originally Posted by 1Corinth2v4 View Post
Was she saved? Wasn't she a trinitarian?

These comments are the prime example of the spirit of a Pharisee! I was raised in UPC and was actually an evangelist for a number of years and a member for 36 years. There are some wonderful people in the UPC, but there are far too many of this kind. Self-righteous, hypocritical, Pharisee! These kind preach long sleeves, long skirts, long hair on women... That's their righteousness and their lousy description of holiness... However, what they really need is to put their long, judgmental tongues on the altar and allow the Lord to it them up and get control of it. I was raised in the oneness movement of a UPC church and preached it for many years myself, but today I too am a "Trinitarian". This guy doesn't even understand what that word means. It doesn't mean three Gods. The Word of God is clear that there is only ONE LORD! However, He is eternally existent in three essences, persons, offices or manifestations. I know that I will probably be banished from this site because of the things that I'm saying, but I'll say them regardless, because they're the truth. Salvation is not in man-made formulas, works and religion, but it's in the Cross of Christ PERIOD! It's all about His Grace and your faith! People don't need religion, but they need a real relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm so sorry to be writing all of this on a thread about the late great Miss Dottie Rambo who, I believe with all of my heart, is in the presence of the Great Savior that she wrote and sang about for so many years and she's touring her brand new heavenly home at this very moment. I just get so sick of the ignorance of so many of this kind of people who think that Heaven's reserved just for them and their legalistic group who thinks that they can work their way to Heaven. Your works will not get you one foot off of the ground when Christ returns for His church. It's only the works of Jesus Christ and nothing more. The way that you look or are baptized will not save you or cause you to be lost. Salvation will simply be based upon whether or not you were washed in the Blood of Christ by faith Period.

Well, I've wasted enough time and to all of the good people on here, please forgive my harsh comments. I just get sick and tired of hearing these sorts of ignorant goofs acting like they went to the Cross for the world and now they're the judge. God bless you all!

Pastor Robbie

Banished? For what? Stating your views on what you believe to be the truth? Brother, if we were all banished who state views others disagree with, we'd all be banished for something or other. I am not UPC, have never been UPC and will probably never be UPC, so I won't single the UPC out as a organization. The hypocrisy and self-righteousness you mention can be found in every organization: Oneness, trinitarian, Pentecostal and non... . AS you stated, there are good people in the UPC, and there are good people in trinitarian groups. Hypocrisy and self righteousness are matters of cold and indifferent hearts and has nothing to do with the organizations per se. As you said, these Phariseeical (is that a word?) traits come from people who are steeped in religion.... but have failed to develop a relationship with the Lord.

I've said it before here (and haven't been banished...yet!), that if we could get past all the preconcieved notions and rhetoric, we'd find the great gulf between oneness and trinitarian folks isn't so great afterall. There is common ground among those who have been filled with the Holy Spirit upon which to build fellowship. Or, if not fellowship, at least civility. We've been busy for years building walls between each other. The walls that separate us from trinitarians are solid and high... now its evident that us oneness folks are busy building walls of separation between ourselves. As a great man once said, its time to "Tear down this wall....". But, we love our walls. We will defend our walls to the death. And...it seems we are. Trinitarians aren't our enemies. The athiest, those who deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ- those who deny the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord- if I have enemies at all...it is them.

[SOUNWORTHY]

Well spoken; OneAccord, I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Antipas]

A very important difference between Trinitarianism and Oneness is origin and terminology. Trinitarian borrows terminology and concept from pagan sources. I believe Plato used the term "trinitas" in some of his works, early Trinitarian scholars coined the term Trinity from this concept.

Oneness doctrine attempts to be strictly biblical in terminology and concept.

You'll find many Neoplatonic concepts underlying various points in Trinitarian theology. It's my opinion that while the Trinitarian doctrine is "Christian" it's a mingling of Christianity with pagan concepts.

[Baron1710]

A very important difference between Trinitarianism and Oneness is origin and terminology. Trinitarian borrows terminology and concept from pagan sources. I believe Plato used the term "trinitas" in some of his works, early Trinitarian scholars coined the term Trinity from this concept.

Oneness doctrine attempts to be strictly biblical in terminology and concept.

You'll find many Neoplatonic concepts underlying various points in Trinitarian theology. It's my opinion that while the Trinitarian doctrine is "Christian" it's a mingling of Christianity with pagan concepts.

Was James mixing pagan concepts when he quoted Plato?

[mizpeh]

Was James mixing pagan concepts when he quoted Plato?

When did James quote Plato?

[Baron1710]

When did James quote Plato?

James 4:1

[SDG]

Paul quoted Greek poets also in Acts 17:

Acts 17:28:
"'for in Him we live and move and have our being,' as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'"
Paul now quotes from two different Grecian writers. The first quote is from Epimenides (c. 600 BC). The second is by Aratus (c. 300 BC). Paul also quotes from Aratus in Titus 1:12. In their original contexts, both quotes are referring to Zeus, the main god of Grecian mythology.

[SDG]

A very important difference between Trinitarianism and Oneness is origin and terminology. Trinitarian borrows terminology and concept from pagan sources. I believe Plato used the term "trinitas" in some of his works, early Trinitarian scholars coined the term Trinity from this concept.

Oneness doctrine attempts to be strictly biblical in terminology and concept.

You'll find many Neoplatonic concepts underlying various points in Trinitarian theology. It's my opinion that while the Trinitarian doctrine is "Christian" it's a mingling of Christianity with pagan concepts.

Why stop w/ Oneness doctrine ... debunking pagan terminology and practices in trying to explain the infinite make-up of God and his distinctions?

Barna in his book Pagan Christianity shows how the Church today ... including Apostlics use relics and practices in their liturgy and service rooted in pagan practices .... sometimes holding doctrines that make these things sacrosanct.

Everything from fancy clothes, the pews, the pulpit, the altar calls, the hymn books, the praise and worship team, the ushers, the 1-2-3 or 4 man pastoral show, the hype, the buildings, the fancy architecture, the high overhead, the order of the service, the outlined sermon, the religious heirarchy, the ordination & seminary requirements, the choir, modern tithing & clergy salaries are shown to be rooted in paganism. Do we eliminate these things?

This idea that if we can trace or cleverly link something to a pagan belief or make parallel it must not be truth is outlandish.

[Antipas]

Was James mixing pagan concepts when he quoted Plato?

It's one thing to quote a philosopher as part of polemic. It's another to allow a pagan philospher to define the very essence of God.

Half of my family is Jewish. I've had the honor of talking to several rabbis regarding the "essence" of God as taught in Scripture. God is indivisibly one according to His Word. Jesus said,

John 4:21-22
{4:21} Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe
me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this
mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. {4:22}
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship:
for salvation is of the Jews.

Jesus affirms the Jewish revelation of God, not Plato's. Plato was a pagan philosopher. Paul calls paganism and idolatry demonism...

Romans 10:20-21
{10:20} But [I say,] that the things
which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not
to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with
devils. {10:21} Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the
cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table,
and of the table of devils.

Why turn to a pagan philosopher (when paganism is demonism) for definitions on God's nature?

You see as Roman citizens began converting in large numbers the church was virtually invaded by men who knew more about paganism and pagan philosophy than the Judaic understanding of Scripture. These men turned to language and concepts they knew and filtered the teachings of Scripture through those pagan concepts. I believe they meant well. Surely they hoped to make Christianity more appealing to the pagan Roman so that the church would grow and people would come to faith. But anyone who knows anything about sailing or flying...you only have to be off one degree to find yourself WAY off course later in your journey. That's exactly what happened.

After pagan definitions and polemic spread throughout Christianity, more Judaic Christians were viewed with suspecion. They sounded more like Jews, and at that time Jews were regarded as those who killed Christ. After Constantine's Christianization of the Roman government began to persecute Jews more and more. This caused an interesting social dynamic. Church leaders began to denounce anything with a hint of Judaism. Also more Jewish interpretations of the Godhead began to clash with the paganized notion of Trinity. Those who held to the more biblical notion were labeled heretics. And to this day Oneness teachings are often labeled as heretical by the "traditional" church. Many were persecuted and many were martyred. Many of these true believers continued to exist in small relatively unknown groups.

Soon more and more pagan ideas found their place in the church...endulgences, worship and adoration of saints, incense, candles, liturgy, vestments, etc. It got so bad it seemed Hell had destroyed the church from within. But God's Word will never fail. Men like Martin Luther and others began to read the Word of God and began to see the errors of the "traditional" church. Each historic reformer began to bring degrees of Revival. Revival took place in waves, soon men began seeking the Holy Ghost as taught in Scripture and there were mighty outpourings. As more men received the Holy Ghost, exactly what Jesus said would happen happened...the Holy Ghost began to lead men into all truth. Men began to see Jesus name baptism and soon God began to reveal the Oneness of God on a greater scale and men began reading their bible without the pagan filter of the Roman "church fathers". And Apostolic Christianity began to see her Revival.

Apostolic Christianity is essentially the product of the Reformation and revivals of history. The Reformation was necessary because of the early church's mistake in trusting pagan definitions and polemic and not Scripture. Had the traditional church rejected pagan definitions and notions she would have continued without need of massive Reformation or Revival.

Apostolic Christianity is the revival of biblical Christianity. Why is God reviving the Apostolic truth? It may be that the return of Christ is very close. Christ will not come back for a dead, traditional, neo-pagan, liturgical church. Jesus is coming back for a Church that is Apostolic (patterned after the teachings of the Apostles) and Spirit Filled...like the Church in the book of Acts.

Many have yet to come into the fulness of Apostolic truth. They hold to various denominational traditions and have various measures of truth and therefore they have a measure of blessing.

Where are you at in your journey? I firmly believe that God has brought you here for a reason.

[SDG]

If we want to get into the game of linking doctrines to paganism ... is the traditional PAJC Water and Spirit doctrine rooted in paganism? Just a question.

[SDG]

Surely Antipas you believe in "restoration" theology ... Mormons believe this also ...

[SDG]

Paul quoted Greek poets also in Acts 17:

Acts 17:28:
"'for in Him we live and move and have our being,' as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'"
Paul now quotes from two different Grecian writers. The first quote is from Epimenides (c. 600 BC). The second is by Aratus (c. 300 BC). Paul also quotes from Aratus in Titus 1:12. In their original contexts, both quotes are referring to Zeus, the main god of Grecian mythology.


Antipas, you said ... Why turn to a pagan philosopher (when paganism is demonism) for definitions on God's nature?


... isn't Paul doing so in Acts 17?

[SDG]

Is paganism, demonism?

Words mean things ... equating them does not make them conceptually the same.

Don't demons don't believe in One God ... as do trinitarians?

[TRFrance]

Its amazing to me how some people will never miss an opportunity to make excuses for Trinitarians and the trinity doctrine, while being quick very quick to be critical of Apostolics and OP doctrine.

I must say I find it a bit disturbing, to say the least.

[SDG]

Its amazing to me how some people will never miss an opportunity to make excuses for Trinitarians and the trinity doctrine, while being quick very quick to be critical of Apostolics and OP doctrine.

I must say I find it a bit disturbing, to say the least.

I tell you what's disturbing the inablilty to realize that some of us hold a view that condemns the Spirit-filled people of God and shuts up heaven ...

99% of Christianity is not lost, TR ...

and if we look at ourselves HONESTLY our interpretations are as flawed ...

No one is excusing Trinitarianism ... but I will not let what a few men thought as ALL TRUTH, a century ago ... to be the mark for all TIME.

There is more than holding thinking our template of salvation, God and holiness is the framework for understanding and knowing truth.

[mizpeh]

James 4:1

And where can I find the Plato quote?

All truth is God's truth, right?

Do you really think James was borrowing from Plato or was this an understanding common to all people? Similar to what Paul writes in Romans 7 and Galatians that the flesh and spirit are contrary one to the other. Are there any references in the OT before the time of Plato which teaches the same priniciple? Or was Plato the originator of this principle?

[mizpeh]

Surely Antipas you believe in "restoration" theology ... Mormons believe this also ...

Therefore Antipas must be a Mormon! :gaga

[SDG]

Therefore Antipas must be a Mormon! :gaga

No ... of course not ... just find the dichotomy interesting among those who've figured out all truth ... but cant' agree if the truth has been w/ us all along ... or if there was an apostasy and truth was restored ... the latter I believe is dangerous ground to tread on and a hallmark of fringe theology.


I know you hold a different view of truth when it comes to history and the Church .... somehow there is no evidence however that there is a group that believes as you believe in every generation ... although pseudo-historians have attempted to do so and fail miserably in trying to prove it.

But then there are conspiracy theories ....

[Baron1710]

Its amazing to me how some people will never miss an opportunity to make excuses for Trinitarians and the trinity doctrine, while being quick very quick to be critical of Apostolics and OP doctrine.

I must say I find it a bit disturbing, to say the least.

How is pointing out that the writers of the NT chose to use pagan philosophers in there teaching and preaching a defense for the Trinity? Why is that so disturbing for you?

[SDG]

How is pointing out that the writers of the NT chose to use pagan philosophers in there teaching and preaching a defense for the Trinity? Why is that so disturbing for you?

We have to accept the reasoning Baron ... because you can't possibly have a different plausible interpretation ....

Trinitarians are pagans. 'Nuff said.

Ironically it's like the conclusion Mizpeh drew from my posts that if you believe in restoration theology you must be a Mormon.

[MrsMcD]

I am not UPC. I do not understand many things discussed here especially the distinction between oneness and trinitarianism. I even saw a post that said.. "was she saved....she was a trinitarian". This sounds so off the wall to me. Im not trying to cause any problems....Im just searching for the truth.
Blessings to all and thanks for your answers.

IMO, it is too judgmental for oneness or trinitarians to judge whether or not someone is saved. Only God can make that call.

[Baron1710]

And where can I find the Plato quote?

All truth is God's truth, right?

Do you really think James was borrowing from Plato or was this an understanding common to all people? Similar to what Paul writes in Romans 7 and Galatians that the flesh and spirit are contrary one to the other. Are there any references in the OT before the time of Plato which teaches the same priniciple? Or was Plato the originator of this principle?

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedo.html

For whence come wars, and fightings, and factions? whence but from the body and the lusts of the body?

[Antipas]

Surely Antipas you believe in "restoration" theology ... Mormons believe this also ...

I suggest that you read the Oneness Pioneer Series that illustrates the beliefs of our founders. All listed were restorationists. Lee Stoneking's website has an excellent restorationist outline of history resulting in Apostolic revival. The term "restorationist" essentially means "one who believes in the revival of original Christian belief and practice".

Yes Mormons do call themselves restorationists...but they turn to an entirely spurious source of Scriptures (the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham etc.). The Apostolic revival (restoration) is based entirely in the Bible.

[Antipas]

Antipas, you said ... Why turn to a pagan philosopher (when paganism is demonism) for definitions on God's nature?


... isn't Paul doing so in Acts 17?

Paul refered to philosophers in the use of polemic to help pagan people to illustrate a concept, he then turned the polemic to Scripture to establish a truth. Paul did'nt abandon the Old Testament and embrace pagan philosopher's to define God.

One has to distinguish between the use of philosophy in Polemic from it's use in Theology.

[Raven]

Its amazing to me how some people will never miss an opportunity to make excuses for Trinitarians and the trinity doctrine, while being quick very quick to be critical of Apostolics and OP doctrine.

I must say I find it a bit disturbing, to say the least.
I find in most situations that people will be more inclined to give a more gentle reply to someone not familiar to them but will in turn be quick to reply or speak plainly to those who are closely related.
Raven

[Baron1710]

I suggest that you read the Oneness Pioneer Series that illustrates the beliefs of our founders. All listed were restorationists. Lee Stoneking's website has an excellent restorationist outline of history resulting in Apostolic revival. The term "restorationist" essentially means "one who believes in the revival of original Christian belief and practice".

Yes Mormons do call themselves restorationists...but they turn to an entirely spurious source of Scriptures (the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham etc.). The Apostolic revival (restoration) is based entirely in the Bible.

I think to be a restorationist, you have to believe that the gates of hell prevailed for 1800+ years. That seems like a frail teaching to me that it is so easily lost.

[Antipas]

Is paganism, demonism?

Words mean things ... equating them does not make them conceptually the same.

Don't demons don't believe in One God ... as do trinitarians?

Go back and read my reference from Romans.

[SDG]

I suggest that you read the Oneness Pioneer Series that illustrates the beliefs of our founders. All listed were restorationists. Lee Stoneking's website has an excellent restorationist outline of history resulting in Apostolic revival. The term "restorationist" essentially means "one who believes in the revival of original Christian belief and practice".

Yes Mormons do call themselves restorationists...but they turn to an entirely spurious source of Scriptures (the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham etc.). The Apostolic revival (restoration) is based entirely in the Bible.

I'm sure those books are along the lines of Hall's recent book that I read this past summer ...

JL Hall, noted UPCI historian, theologian and apologist has just published a book entitled "Restoring the Apostolic Faith: History of the Early Pentecostal Movement" where he theorizes of the restoration impulse that has restored things to the original church structure. He essentially debunks the theory held by some OP historians, like M. Arnold, regarding "remnant/restoration" history ... in which some claim OPs have survived throughout each generation .... both theories in my opinion have flaws.

Halls assertions about the subsequent apostasy sounds very much like the Mormons.

He also rehashes a lot of the stuff we already know about the early Pentecostal movement from the OP bias... nothing new, IMO. Nothing you won't find on the net.

I believe you must hold this view that your view is the 1st century Apostolic view to be true to yourself.... because if we look honestly, objectively and empirically at history there is no evidence of a remnant throughout history that holds the traditional Oneness Water and Spirit views as taught and formulated by men like Frank Ewart and GT Haywood.

[Antipas]

I tell you what's disturbing the inablilty to realize that some of us hold a view that condemns the Spirit-filled people of God and shuts up heaven ...

99% of Christianity is not lost, TR ...

and if we look at ourselves HONESTLY our interpretations are as flawed ...

No one is excusing Trinitarianism ... but I will not let what a few men thought as ALL TRUTH, a century ago ... to be the mark for all TIME.

There is more than holding thinking our template of salvation, God and holiness is the framework for understanding and knowing truth.

Daniel, can you show me where I have judged anyone's soul? Discussing doctrinal origins of teachings and if they are truly validated by Scripture is one thing. Judging the soul should be left to God.

[Hoovie]

Its amazing to me how some people will never miss an opportunity to make excuses for Trinitarians and the trinity doctrine, while being quick very quick to be critical of Apostolics and OP doctrine.

I must say I find it a bit disturbing, to say the least.

I don't know that I would "make excuses" for Trinitarian doctrine, but it does disturb me that some refuse to recognize Jesus where is evident and even consult with Jewish rabbis (who reject Christ) to disparage Trinitarian brethren.

[TRFrance]

Its amazing to me how some people will never miss an opportunity to make excuses for Trinitarians and the trinity doctrine, while being quick very quick to be critical of Apostolics and OP doctrine.

I must say I find it a bit disturbing, to say the least.

How is pointing out that the writers of the NT chose to use pagan philosophers in there teaching and preaching a defense for the Trinity? Why is that so disturbing for you?

Baron, with all due respect, your question so totally misses the point of what I said, that I dont even feel like bothering to get into it.

Lets just move along. I think there are some here who have been paying attention to some things here, and can see the truth in the statement I made. Some will choose not to see it, some will simply disagree. But I dont feel like getting into further detail on that. I've observed enough posts on this forum to notice certain very clear tendencies.

Peace.

[SDG]

I'm starting to look at the writings of Polycarp and Ignatius ... to see what they thought was important/essential doctrine a generation after the 1st century Apostolic church ... I'm trying to find if they stressed or emphasized the PAJC Water and Spirit doctrine and the requisite for understanding the makeup of God that prevails in our more conservative circles ...

Yet to find evidence of that .... either these men were not Apostolics as we see them today ... or what we see today is ... (you fill in the blanks)

[Antipas]

How is pointing out that the writers of the NT chose to use pagan philosophers in there teaching and preaching a defense for the Trinity? Why is that so disturbing for you?

Because the NT use of pagan philosophy was part of polemic not theologic discourse.

[SDG]

Daniel, can you show me where I have judged anyone's soul? Discussing doctrinal origins of teachings and if they are truly validated by Scripture is one thing. Judging the soul should be left to God.


I don't think I've attached such a value on you in this thread ... my remarks were generic to a view that most conservative W&S adherents espouse ...

I also believe there is an inherent contradiction in your view of leaving the judging up to God when most traditional OP's believe that one is not save w/o a properly administered and articulated water baptism.

Can't have it both ways.

[Baron1710]

Baron, with all due respect, your question so totally misses the point of what I said, that I dont even feel like bothering to get into it.

Lets just move along. I think there are some here who have been paying attention to some things here, and can see the truth in the statement I made. Some will choose not to see it, some will simply disagree. But I dont feel like getting into further detail on that. I've observed enough posts on this forum to notice certain very clear tendencies.

Peace.

What respect is it I am due? Oh, that's right none because apparently I have defended the Trinitarian doctrine. My bad.

[TRFrance]

What respect is it I am due? Oh, that's right none because apparently I have defended the Trinitarian doctrine. My bad.

That was so unnecessary.

[Baron1710]

Because the NT use of pagan philosophy was part of polemic not theologic discourse.

James quotes Plato directly, embraces the truth of it, and passes it on to us as the Word of God. Is that the only truth in pagan philosophy? Or might you find more truth there? The comparison of Trinitarianism to pagan philosophy I believe is weak. I think just like Paul and James people reading Scriptures saw a reasonable link between the two. To reject the doctrine of the Trinity as completely unbelievable and with no support from Scripture is to ignore entire portions of Scripture. For instance when I was a younger man I did Bible quizzing and we did the book of John, Oh, wait I forgot to mention we SKIPPED chapter 5-7. Why do you think that was?

[Baron1710]

That was so unnecessary.

Probably, but it made me laugh. The phrase "with all due respect" just cracks me up because it is usually followed by an insult. And since I have no position there really is no "due respect." So relax.

[Antipas]

I think to be a restorationist, you have to believe that the gates of hell prevailed for 1800+ years. That seems like a frail teaching to me that it is so easily lost.

I disagree. In ever war and on every battlefield the battle line can change. Often the enemy gains ground and friendly forces have to dig in and fight until they can turn the tide and advance. The idea that the gospel is some “magic” truth that would never face significant opposition is a flight of fancy. We see Apostasy seeping into the seven churches of Revelation. We see a prime example in ancient Israel. God’s people have a history of mountain tops where revelation and prophetic power flowed and Israel had deep valleys of apostasy and debauchery…however, she was always God’s Israel and God always sent messengers to revive her. Think of those stories about how the Law was brought out and read to the people and how they wept because they realized they had drifted from it. Israel’s entire history is one of backsliding and restoration. Even as individuals, there are times in our lives when sin and Hell may APPEAR to have dominion. But as long as we have breath the war isn’t over. One cannot say that the enemy has prevailed until the war is over. For 1800 years the enemy was on the advance. The truth of God was hidden from the masses and men often dug in and studied God’s word secretly be candle light trying to find those precious truths that the traditional church had neglected and forgotten. But we cannot say that Hell prevailed…for God sent Reformation and Revival to his Church and today the Truth is on the move in a mighty way.

Get warfare minded. Understand the battlefield. Realize there are battles won and battles lost…but we are promised the war. The gates of Hell shall not prevail!

[Antipas]

I'm sure those books are along the lines of Hall's recent book that I read this past summer ...

JL Hall, noted UPCI historian, theologian and apologist has just published a book entitled "Restoring the Apostolic Faith: History of the Early Pentecostal Movement" where he theorizes of the restoration impulse that has restored things to the original church structure. He essentially debunks the theory held by some OP historians, like M. Arnold, regarding "remnant/restoration" history ... in which some claim OPs have survived throughout each generation .... both theories in my opinion have flaws.

Halls assertions about the subsequent apostasy sounds very much like the Mormons.

He also rehashes a lot of the stuff we already know about the early Pentecostal movement from the OP bias... nothing new, IMO. Nothing you won't find on the net.

I believe you must hold this view that your view is the 1st century Apostolic view to be true to yourself.... because if we look honestly, objectively and empirically at history there is no evidence of a remnant throughout history that holds the traditional Oneness Water and Spirit views as taught and formulate by men like Frank Ewart and GT Haywood.

I believe that God has largely restored his bride to much of her Apostolic glory. I might go as far as to say that I believe God is still cleansing her in some ways. We still hold some concepts that originated from the traditional church.

[Antipas]

I'm starting to look at the writings of Polycarp and Ignatius ... to see what they thought was important/essential doctrine a generation after the 1st century Apostolic church ... I'm trying to find if they stressed or emphasized the PAJC Water and Spirit doctrine and the requisite for understanding the makeup of God that prevails in our more conservative circles ...

Yet to find evidence of that .... either these men were not Apostolics as we see them today ... or what we see today is ... (you fill in the blanks)

It only takes a generation to fall into apostasy, we see that with Israel. Hold to the teachings of the Apostles themselves as found in the Bible. We can’t stand on the views of Polycarp or Ignatius… honestly, we don’t even know for sure if the writings we have are unaltered copies of what they wrote. But one can stand on God’s Word.

[Antipas]

I don't think I've attached such a value on you in this thread ... my remarks were generic to a view that most conservative W&S adherents espouse ...

I also believe there is an inherent contradiction in your view of leaving the judging up to God when most traditional OP's believe that one is not save w/o a properly administered and articulated water baptism.

Can't have it both ways.

Here’s a few important question to consider…

Did Jesus teach water baptism?
Did the Apostles teach water baptism?

If so, failure to teach or be water baptized in Jesus name (when one could be) is essentially disobedience at best.

[Baron1710]

I disagree. In ever war and on every battlefield the battle line can change. Often the enemy gains ground and friendly forces have to dig in and fight until they can turn the tide and advance. The idea that the gospel is some “magic” truth that would never face significant opposition is a flight of fancy. We see Apostasy seeping into the seven churches of Revelation. We see a prime example in ancient Israel. God’s people have a history of mountain tops where revelation and prophetic power flowed and Israel had deep valleys of apostasy and debauchery…however, she was always God’s Israel and God always sent messengers to revive her. Think of those stories about how the Law was brought out and read to the people and how they wept because they realized they had drifted from it. Israel’s entire history is one of backsliding and restoration. Even as individuals, there are times in our lives when sin and Hell may APPEAR to have dominion. But as long as we have breath the war isn’t over. One cannot say that the enemy has prevailed until the war is over. For 1800 years the enemy was on the advance. The truth of God was hidden from the masses and men often dug in and studied God’s word secretly be candle light trying to find those precious truths that the traditional church had neglected and forgotten. But we cannot say that Hell prevailed…for God sent Reformation and Revival to his Church and today the Truth is on the move in a mighty way.

Get warfare minded. Understand the battlefield. Realize there are battles won and battles lost…but we are promised the war. The gates of Hell shall not prevail!

This battle v. war analogy seems shaky to me. God is not just slightly better equipped for this war than the opposition. This is not a fair war. I don't see God as losing, losing, losing and then a sudden reversal. I believe His kingdom has been constantly advancing.

[Antipas]

James quotes Plato directly, embraces the truth of it, and passes it on to us as the Word of God. Is that the only truth in pagan philosophy? Or might you find more truth there? The comparison of Trinitarianism to pagan philosophy I believe is weak. I think just like Paul and James people reading Scriptures saw a reasonable link between the two. To reject the doctrine of the Trinity as completely unbelievable and with no support from Scripture is to ignore entire portions of Scripture.

Baron,

Was Plato a prophet of Yahweh?
Was he a Holy Ghost filled Apostle?
Was he “saved”?

If we can draw from philosopher’s like Plato; why not Buddha? Why not Loa Tzu? Or Amida Buddha? Why not draw from the philosophical teachings of Bahaullah?

I’m sure you can find more “truth” there too. Baron, there is a degree of truth to be embraced from the story of the Three Little Pigs…but I wouldn’t define my faith according to stories of Mother Goose.

The references to pagan philosophers in the NT were part of polemic as a tool in didactic writing. They were not sources of theological conclusions. Plato also held to reincarnation (see Plato’s, Phaedo). ;)

For instance when I was a younger man I did Bible quizzing and we did the book of John, Oh, wait I forgot to mention we SKIPPED chapter 5-7. Why do you think that was?

I think because the text can be confusing to young people without proper interpretation. First, many scholars question that the verse was in the original text of the book of John you refer to. Second, the terms used are very complex theological terms. John states that there are three that bear witness in heave: the Father, Word (Logos), and the Holy Ghost…and these three are one. Notice John doesn’t use the term “Son”. He uses the term “Logos”. Why? Because the point made was that the three bearing witness in Heaven are the Father, the Logos (the Father’s thought, plan, expression as found in Christ), and the Holy Ghost are one. These are not three deities or three divine beings, gods, or persons. They are one. John’s point however isn’t about the Godhead. John’s point is found in the following verse:

“And there are three that bear witness in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree one.” I John 5:8

All was in reference to verse 6.

Notice verse 8 indicates that on earth the Spirit, the water of baptism, and the blood of Christ are all in agreement, working toward the salvation of the believer.

[Antipas]

This battle v. war analogy seems shaky to me. God is not just slightly better equipped for this war than the opposition. This is not a fair war. I don't see God as losing, losing, losing and then a sudden reversal. I believe His kingdom has been constantly advancing.

Then why did Israel ever backslide...couldn't God keep her?
Why do any backslide from the truth...could'nt God keep them?
Why do ministers ever fall into sin...couldn't God keep them?

I find your position that all is always victorious and no one ever looses a battle a far cry from reality.

The Commission is ours and the church, being left in human hands, often suffers from human error and weakness...until God moves and sends restoration and revival.

[SDG]

Here’s a few important question to consider…

Did Jesus teach water baptism?
Did the Apostles teach water baptism?

If so, failure to teach or be water baptized in Jesus name (when one could be) is essentially disobedience at best.

Yes they did but not as taught and presented by W&S adherants ... 99% of Christianity teaches this also ...


Jesus taught baptism under his authority and power (name)
and gave this authority to his disciples ... in Mathew 28

Notice this cause and effect statement ... ....

18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2028&version=31#fen-NIV-24212a)] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

The name of Jesus deals w/ his personage and the authority he has and has given us ... to baptize those who want to identify themselves w/ Him and His Gospel

The doctrine that salvation hangs on the baptizer verbalizing this authority by saying the proper name of Jesu over the baptizee ... or that washing of sins is effectuated through this properly administered baptism ... is not supported by the tenor of the Scriptures or in no way taught by the Apostles.

Actually this grammatical construction and interpretation of "in the name of" has cultic and pagan parallels. And as OPs do w/ Trinitarianims it could be effectively argued that this understanding is rooted in paganism.

[SDG]

Here is one in-depth study of the history of Sacred name cults ....

Here is an excerpt ...

"In the name of". What does it mean?

It is significant to note that the Sacred Name cults heavily rely on the same grammatical construction: "the name of". The Old Testament phrase "in the name of the LORD (Hebrew: Yahovah pronounced by them as Yahweh)" is apparently the source of their beliefs. But just what does "the name of" mean?


We must now examine how the words "name of" are used in Scripture. Samuel said, "For the sake of his great name the LORD (Hebrew: Yahovah or Yahweh) will not reject his people, because the LORD was pleased to make you his own" (1Sam. 12:22 NIV). This verse does not make much sense if the words "name of" indicate that the very words "in the name of the LORD" were used at some point in time. If you change the beginning of the verse to "For the sake of being faithful to Himself the LORD ..." we find that the meaning is unchanged.


The Psalms say, "We will shout for joy when you are victorious and will lift up our banners in the name of our God" (Ps. 20:5 NIV). Here we find "the name of" being defined by the Scripture itself through Hebrew parallelism. "Will shout for joy" equals "lift up our banners" – both mean giving praise. "When [God is] victorious" equals "in the name of our God" – both indicate that God is faithful to His own cause. This is confirmed later in the chapter: "Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God" (Ps. 20:7 NIV). The chariots and horses are contrasted with God’s faithfulness – both are means of victory (but as verse 8 shows the latter is much more effective).


By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Solomon wrote, "A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold" (Prov. 22:1). This verse allows us to focus on the meaning of the word name itself in Hebrew thinking. The first part of the verse could just as easily say "To be found trustworthy (faithful to one’s own word) is ...". Again, faithfulness, not some utterance, is being emphasised here. Yet if some Christians were consistent in their interpretation, this could mean that Bill is better than Bob because he has a better name.


In the New Testament we find John saying "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life" (1Jn. 5:13 NIV). He could have said "I write these things to you who trust that Christ is faithful ...". He certainly did not mean that at some point in time thinking or speaking the words "Son of God" saved these people.


In Romans 10, we find a real problem for anyone who rejects the proper study of semantics. Verse 9 (KJV): "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". Verse 13 (KJV): "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".


Upon looking at the context we find that Paul is quoting Joel 2:32 to support his statement in verse 9. He is telling us that we know that believing in Jesus is the way to be saved because the Old Testament prophet Joel said that anyone who calls upon the name of the LORD (Hebrew: Yahovah or Yahweh) will be saved.


The problems that this text presents wordolaters are countless. First, an ultra-literal interpretation of verse 9 means that we must say "Lord Jesus" to be saved, but an ultra-literal interpretation of Joel 2:28 indicates that we can only be saved by calling on the LORD (Yahweh). This is a little off subject, but let us begin the exposition by refuting the error that confession is a prerequisite for salvation. Verse 11 says "For the scripture saith, whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed". and other verses throughout the Bible indicate that we are saved only when we believe. Confession is an evidence of salvation. Mute people will not go to hell on the grounds that they were physically incapable of saying "Jesus is Lord".


With only the little induction given earlier in the Old Testament use of the phrase "in the name of the LORD", it should be apparent now that neither Joel nor Paul believed that using the word Yahovah or Yahweh or Kurios (the Greek word for Lord used in Romans 10:13) would get anyone saved. It "the name of" again indicates some kind of trust. God saves those who trust in Him, whether it is in the Father Yahovah (Yahweh) of Hosts or in the Son, Jesus Christ our Lord also called Yahovah. There are multiple Yahovahs in the Old Testament. Only Yahovah of Hosts or Yahovih is God Most High. Abraham spoke to three Yahovahs prior to the destruction of Sodom and two Yahovahs went to destroy Sodom, none of whom were God Most High.


Now we come to the all important verse: "Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’" (Acts 2:38 NIV). Someone once explained that this verse "proves" that the words "in the name of Jesus" must be spoken in order to have a proper baptism. It was held that Matthew 28:19, in which Jesus told the apostles to baptise "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (NIV), does not constitute a baptismal formula because the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely "titles" of Jesus. Even if that were accurate, which it is not (Jesus is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit), the point would be moot because semantics tell us that what is meant is what counts, and if Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, making a distinction is ludicrous. Moreover, as we have seen throughout the rest of the Bible, the phrase "in the name of Jesus" indicates that we must put our trust in Him.


The argument that Jesus is one as both Father and Son is a doctrine of Modalism derived from Rome through the worshippers of the god Attis (see the paper The Origins of Christmas and Easter (No. 235)).


We have been using the names and titles of Yahoshua Messiah and the Anglicised Jesus Christ, transliterated from the Greek Iesous Christos. Does a problem with identification develop from this different usage?


The name of the Messiah was Yahoshua. The Hebrew variations of this are Hosea, Hoshea, Jehoshua, Jeshua, Jeshuah, Jesus, Osea, Oshea and Joshua.


Messiah is named by divine direction. His name is given in Matthew 1:21 and Luke 1:31. The name is derived from the name Hoshea (as in Num. 13:16) with the prefix Jah or Yah. This means effectively God is our Salvation. Yahoshua is then rendered as Yeshua or Joshua in usage. Jesus is a Greek version of Joshua and is derived from non-Hebrew sources. The Greek ‘Iesous is a transliteration of the name Yahoshua. A variation of the name also appears among the Hyperborean Celts.


Esus is one of a trinity of Esus, Taranis and Teutates. Esus may well be of the trinity system of the Hyperborean Celts but a version of it, ‘Iesous, is also the Greek rendering of the Aramaic version of Yahoshua as perhaps Yashua or Yeshua.


In summary, we see that the preoccupation with Sacred Names stems from a number of fundamental theological errors.

That the name Yahweh is exclusively the name of the God Most High, which it is not. It is an extended name proceeding from Yahovih or Yahovah of Hosts to Yahovah who is Messiah and on to the Host who act in the name of Yahovah who sent them.


Yahweh is applied, as we see above, to a heathen deity through Gnosticism and, hence, it is not only linguistically incorrect, it is inherently idolatrous and was used for that purpose among mystics.


That only those who correctly pronounce the name Yahweh can be saved. By this view Christ was in heresy when he called from the cross Eli Eli lama sabacthani; calling out in Aramaic, from a Hebrew Scripture, to Eli or Eloi and not to any such Yahweh.


That baptism is invalid unless it is into the correct name of Yahoshua or Yeshua or such version. This takes away entirely the concept of God’s grace, election and willing self-revelation.


These views are inherently blasphemous and are a danger to the peace and well being of the elect. They are intensely accusative and impugn the baptism of the elect. On these premises, many Sacred Names people go though multiple baptisms under different variations on the names theme as they come to understand more about the etymology of names.


Baptism is into the body of The Messiah called Jesus Christ, in the name of the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit as an organ of the Father who is Eloah or the God Most High.

The Sacred Names issue is argued by people who seek to control the deity by their correct use of His name. God will not be so controlled by sinful, accusative, disobedient men.


Source: http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p240.html

[SDG]

This battle v. war analogy seems shaky to me. God is not just slightly better equipped for this war than the opposition. This is not a fair war. I don't see God as losing, losing, losing and then a sudden reversal. I believe His kingdom has been constantly advancing.

So much for the Truth and the Life being victorious and overcoming.

[SDG]

Question ... could someone in some OP circles be saved if both the baptizer and baptizee were deaf and mute and did not know how to sign ? Would they be obeying Acts 2:38 if the proper name was not invoked during baptism or the believer did not speak in tongues if it was all done in their head?

[mizpeh]

We have to accept the reasoning Baron ... because you can't possibly have a different plausible interpretation ....

Trinitarians are pagans. 'Nuff said.

Ironically it's like the conclusion Mizpeh drew from my posts that if you believe in restoration theology you must be a Mormon.

Dan, I was being very sarcastic.

If all truth is God's truth then perhaps the Mormons have a few things right!

[Antipas]

Dan, just teach and obey the full gospel. Allow God to judge the soul. Including any deeply conservative OP.

[SDG]

Dan, I was being very sarcastic.

If all truth is God's truth then perhaps the Mormons have a few things right!

As can pagans?

[SDG]

Dan, just teach and obey the full gospel. Allow God to judge the soul. Including any deeply conservative OP.

Antipas ... Jesus is the full gospel.

[Baron1710]

Baron,

Was Plato a prophet of Yahweh?
Was he a Holy Ghost filled Apostle?
Was he “saved”?

If we can draw from philosopher’s like Plato; why not Buddha? Why not Loa Tzu? Or Amida Buddha? Why not draw from the philosophical teachings of Bahaullah?

I’m sure you can find more “truth” there too. Baron, there is a degree of truth to be embraced from the story of the Three Little Pigs…but I wouldn’t define my faith according to stories of Mother Goose.

The references to pagan philosophers in the NT were part of polemic as a tool in didactic writing. They were not sources of theological conclusions. Plato also held to reincarnation (see Plato’s, Phaedo). ;)

I am not saying that everything they said was true and yes I believe that at times many other religions have things that are truth. If it doesn't fit the Scripture that's another issue. My point is you can't throw something out just because another religion or philosophy embraces a similar position. Do we throw out adultery because other religions forbid it?

I think because the text can be confusing to young people without proper interpretation. First, many scholars question that the verse was in the original text of the book of John you refer to. Second, the terms used are very complex theological terms. John states that there are three that bear witness in heave: the Father, Word (Logos), and the Holy Ghost…and these three are one. Notice John doesn’t use the term “Son”. He uses the term “Logos”. Why? Because the point made was that the three bearing witness in Heaven are the Father, the Logos (the Father’s thought, plan, expression as found in Christ), and the Holy Ghost are one. These are not three deities or three divine beings, gods, or persons. They are one. John’s point however isn’t about the Godhead. John’s point is found in the following verse:

“And there are three that bear witness in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree one.” I John 5:8

All was in reference to verse 6.

Notice verse 8 indicates that on earth the Spirit, the water of baptism, and the blood of Christ are all in agreement, working toward the salvation of the believer.

Your first statement scares me. We have to give someone the proper interpretation? Let the Scripture speak for itself.
Secondly SOME scholars deny part of the eighth chapter, specifically the woman caught in adultery, not chapters 5-7. And SOME question 2 verses in chapter 5.

[mizpeh]

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedo.html

For whence come wars, and fightings, and factions? whence but from the body and the lusts of the body?

Thanks, I'll check it out when I get home.

Would you like to address my other comments? Are some observations regarding the condition of mankind universal? Did this observation originate with Plato?

[mizpeh]

I suggest that you read the Oneness Pioneer Series that illustrates the beliefs of our founders. All listed were restorationists. Lee Stoneking's website has an excellent restorationist outline of history resulting in Apostolic revival. The term "restorationist" essentially means "one who believes in the revival of original Christian belief and practice".

Yes Mormons do call themselves restorationists...but they turn to an entirely spurious source of Scriptures (the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham etc.). The Apostolic revival (restoration) is based entirely in the Bible.

I have a feeling Luther could be called a restorationist as well instead of a protestant or a reformer!

[SDG]

I am not saying that everything they said was true and yes I believe that at times many other religions have things that are truth. If it doesn't fit the Scripture that's another issue. My point is you can't throw something out just because another religion or philosophy embraces a similar position. Do we throw out adultery because other religions forbid it?



Your first statement scares me. We have to give someone the proper interpretation? Let the Scripture speak for itself.
Secondly SOME scholars deny part of the eighth chapter, specifically the woman caught in adultery, not chapters 5-7. And SOME question 2 verses in chapter 5.

I have found this to be very interesting ... realized that the story of the adulterous woman may be "added" last summer.

[mizpeh]

I think to be a restorationist, you have to believe that the gates of hell prevailed for 1800+ years. That seems like a frail teaching to me that it is so easily lost.

What do you have to be to be a reformer? How many years did the gates of hell prevail before Luther?

[Baron1710]

Question ... could someone in some OP circles be saved if both the baptizer and baptizee were deaf and mute and did not know how to sign ? Would they be obeying Acts 2:38 if the proper name was not invoked during baptism or the believer did not speak in tongues if it was all done in their head?

Doesn't completely fit your question but...My Uncle who is deaf and cannot speak so that it is understandable (though some have been taught to like his wife) when he was baptized he came out of the water speaking in very clear English, praising God. This only lasted for a few moments. Is it possible this was the infilling of the HG and this was speaking in another tongue?

[SDG]

What do you have to be to be a reformer? How many years did the gates of hell prevail before Luther?
Changing viewpoints, Mizpeh ?... you have effectively argued Baron's point on this forum many times ... you have said that truth has endured throughout the centuries ...

Have you changed positions?

Or is this the enemy of my enemy is my friend? (Being facetious.)

[Baron1710]

Thanks, I'll check it out when I get home.

Would you like to address my other comments? Are some observations regarding the condition of mankind universal? Did this observation originate with Plato?

I have no idea if Plato was the first to come up with this, however as far as I know he was the first to write it down.

[mizpeh]

James quotes Plato directly, embraces the truth of it, and passes it on to us as the Word of God. Is that the only truth in pagan philosophy? Or might you find more truth there? The comparison of Trinitarianism to pagan philosophy I believe is weak. I think just like Paul and James people reading Scriptures saw a reasonable link between the two. To reject the doctrine of the Trinity as completely unbelievable and with no support from Scripture is to ignore entire portions of Scripture. For instance when I was a younger man I did Bible quizzing and we did the book of John, Oh, wait I forgot to mention we SKIPPED chapter 5-7. Why do you think that was?

The comparison of Trinitarianism to pagan philosophy is not weak. Aquinas used Aristotle.

The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from the Bible. It's a corruption of the scriptures but it can be inferred only from the post incarnation and then with the doctrine of progressive revelation put back with some difficulty into the OT.

[mizpeh]

It only takes a generation to fall into apostasy, we see that with Israel. Hold to the teachings of the Apostles themselves as found in the Bible. We can’t stand on the views of Polycarp or Ignatius… honestly, we don’t even know for sure if the writings we have are unaltered copies of what they wrote. But one can stand on God’s Word.

:scoregood

[mizpeh]

This battle v. war analogy seems shaky to me. God is not just slightly better equipped for this war than the opposition. This is not a fair war. I don't see God as losing, losing, losing and then a sudden reversal. I believe His kingdom has been constantly advancing.

How do you explain this constantly advancing kingdom during the dark ages? During the reign of Islam? During the rule of the RCC?

I think the kingdom of God has followed a parallel to the nation of Israel in many respects.

[Baron1710]

The comparison of Trinitarianism to pagan philosophy is not weak. Aquinas used Aristotle.

The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from the Bible. It's a corruption of the scriptures but it can be inferred only from the post incarnation and then with the doctrine of progressive revelation put back with some difficulty into the OT.

Aquinas? He was only about 10 centuries after the doctrine. But I wasn't saying they didn't draw from it, all I am saying is just because they did doesn't make it wrong. They took there understanding of God and read it into the Scripture. No other group has ever done that, (cough letsnotletthekidsreadjohn5-7 cough).

[mizpeh]

Changing viewpoints, Mizpeh ?... you have effectively argued Baron's point on this forum many times ... you have said that truth has endured throughout the centuries ...

Have you changed positions?

Or is this the enemy of my enemy is my friend? (Being facetious.)

Truth is truth, Dan. I'm an absolutist in that respect. If a pagan, or a Mormon, or whatever agrees with the scriptures then they have some truth. We shouldn't twist the word of God to fit philosopher's views which some Christian philosphers have tried to do by using allegorical hermeneutics.

[mizpeh]

I have no idea if Plato was the first to come up with this, however as far as I know he was the first to write it down.

Can we find the concept in the OT?

[Baron1710]

Can we find the concept in the OT?

Not that I am aware of, and it seems pretty clear he was quoting Plato.

[Cindy]

James 4:1

Was Plato alive before James?

[Baron1710]

Was Plato alive before James?

only about 400 years.

[Cindy]

Its amazing to me how some people will never miss an opportunity to make excuses for Trinitarians and the trinity doctrine, while being quick very quick to be critical of Apostolics and OP doctrine.

I must say I find it a bit disturbing, to say the least.

But it is so popular with the world so it must be ok.

[Cindy]

only about 400 years.

Okay, then I am not surprised that James quoted him. We all draw from things we know.

[Cindy]

But it is so popular with the world so it must be ok.

Totally :tic

[Antipas]

Again the issue is using philosophy in polemic as opposed to theology. No one would embrace Plato's concepts in theology....accept the Church Fathers.

[Antipas]

I am not saying that everything they said was true and yes I believe that at times many other religions have things that are truth. If it doesn't fit the Scripture that's another issue. My point is you can't throw something out just because another religion or philosophy embraces a similar position. Do we throw out adultery because other religions forbid it?

You’re not getting it. For example, one could take the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf and teach a very important truth about honesty and not exaggerating. We would also see that idea in the Bible. Sure, you could use that story in a letter or in a sermon. BUT I wouldn’t try to use a child’s story book to define God.

Polemic and Theology are very different.

Your first statement scares me. We have to give someone the proper interpretation? Let the Scripture speak for itself.
Secondly SOME scholars deny part of the eighth chapter, specifically the woman caught in adultery, not chapters 5-7. And SOME question 2 verses in chapter 5.

Baron, please pay attention to CONTEXT. We all know that some kids can misunderstand Scripture, especially with so many traditions and denominations out there. I actually heard a man once say that Jesus and his disciples smoked “weed”. Then he explained how Jesus fed the multitudes where there was “much grass”. He then went on to talk about the leaves of the tree in Revelation being used to heal the nation. He honestly thought the stuff was “weed”. It took us a moment to explain proper interpretation to him. In the example presented to me we had a young person involved in Bible quizzing. Young people should always be guided in proper interpretation of Scripture. Even if one is Trinitarian…I would expect them to guide their children in what they believe to be proper interpretation. Letting a child forge their theology without guidance is a foolish.

[Antipas]

The Trinitarian Christian should note that water baptism was always performed in conjunction with the oral invocation of the name of Jesus, not the tree part formula of tradition:

(Acts 2:38-41 KJV)
(38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

(Acts 8:14-17 KJV)
(14) Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (17) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

(Acts 10:44-48 KJV)
(44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

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

All examples given by Scripture demonstrate the primitive formula for baptism being an oral invocation and calling upon the name of Jesus by the believers present. Such is fitting in that water baptism identifies us with Jesus Christ and his burial.

Historians also indicate that the original custom was to invoke the single name of Jesus during water baptism….

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name? The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion? in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)?"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence? suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus? which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' ? or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'? Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning? Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

[SDG]

Antipas none of those verses you quoted speak of an oral invocation ... simply states they were baptized in the name of the Lord ....

The idea that invoked formula effectuates salvation or applies the blood has no basis in Scripture.

[SDG]

As for the interpretation of Acts 22:19 ... here is some context to the idea of calling on the name of the Lord as it is expressed throughout scripture ... since context is important to you, Antipas.

Thoughts on Calling on the Name of the Lord -

the Jewish tradition .... the baptizee did the confession of faith ... some have confused what being baptize into the name, or authority of Jesus Christ w/ the biblical principle of CALLING UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD .... which was more that the incantation of a name. You won't see this practice in scripture that salvation or a covenant somehow hangs on a third party officiator getting it right.

Calling upon the name of the Lord in the OT and NT have a distinct meaning to what many of my OP brethren have twisted it to mean w/ their Water and Spirit rose colored glasses on.

One of the gravest errors we make in rightly dividing the word is our failure to understand idiomatic expressions of the Hebraic language.

In the OT ... to call upon the name of the Lord, the word upon is the particle preposition b or beth. There is no Strong's number that corresponds. Only the use of this Hebrew preposition separates to call the LORD or to call to the LORD from to call upon the LORD or to call upon the name of the LORD.

Almost every use of to call on the name of the LORD involves the construction of an altar and the offering of a sacrifice (Genesis 12:8, 13:4, 21:33--implied, 26:25; 1 Kings 18:24).

All of the Old Testament sacrifices were only as effective as the believing of the one offering them.All of these sacrifices entailed acknowledging God's lamb who would be revealed in the future. To call “upon the name of the LORD” was to formally enter into a covenant by coming into His presence.

Notice that it was between the believer and God ... not the officiator of a baptismal ceremony invoking it on someone else.

CrazyHomie once stated:

If we are going to be called "Apostolic" and a "new testament church", obviously one would think we would want to be biblically based in our baptism. Baptism was a ritual cleansing incorportated into the mosaic law. If a woman was on her monthly, she would go and "cleanse" herself. If you were healed of leprosy, etc. one would obey the law and cleanse themselves. These baptism pools were all over the holy land and were called "Mikvahs". When Peter preached in Acts 2, he told them to go wash according to the "new covenant" which was Christ. They were no longer to cleanse themselves according to the "old covenant" which was the law. Also, it was a public confession as to their new found faith in this messiah called Jesus Christ. In those days to public confess ones faith away from the law to follow Jesus, was inviting persecution if not death from the religious community. Three thousand obeyed Peter and went and washed themselves. I am not saying an individual is not saved by invocation, rather biblically speaking, it is always up to the believer to call on Christ for salvation.

Entering this new covenant is through our confession of faith in the Lamb ... my friend and brother ... as it was for Abraham, Jacob, Moses (See Hebrews 11)

[SDG]

In Romans 10 Paul echos the words and thoughts about how calling upon the name of the Lord ... brings salvation ... HE NEVER THOUGHT THAT IT MEANT THE VERBALIZATION OF A PROPER NAME!!!!


These too are the words of the prophet Joel and Peter ... and others also ... there is witness in Scripture .... and calling upon the name has alway fell upon the believer as it relates to salvation ... not the utterances of third party ... i.e. baptizer.

The name is undoubtedly attached to the person and His authority and his entire nature as Savior and God.

A sinner, Jew or Gentile, who has sincerely believed and calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved ....

John says

And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another just as he commanded us

I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

As does Joel:

Quote:
32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

As does the Psalmist:

Quote:
Psalm 116:4, "Then called I upon the name of the LORD [YHWH] ; O LORD [YHWH], I beseech thee, deliver my soul."

As does Paul:

Quote:
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

As does Ananias, in Acts:

Quote:
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

As does Peter, in the book of Acts on the day of Pentecost:

Quote:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

[SDG]

Also ... Ananias instructs Paul, the believer, to call upon the Lord ... in traditional W&S theology ... the baptizer has to get it right for the partial spiritual birth to be right.

[Antipas]

Antipas none of those verses you quoted speak of an oral invocation ... simply states they were baptized in the name of the Lord ....

The idea that invoked formula effectuates salvation or applies the blood has no basis in Scripture.

It is written,

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

Calling on his name at baptism is an oral invocation. Note, the idea isn't so much a "formula" spoken over a candidate like a magic ritual, the idea is that believers invoke the name of Jesus Christ at baptism as part of their prayer for the remission of sins. Nevertheless, it's a "calling upon the name".

[Antipas]

Daniel, who is your pastor? Do you attend church? Are you Apostolic?

[SDG]

It is written,

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

Calling on his name at baptism is an oral invocation. Note, the idea isn't so much a "formula" spoken over a candidate like a magic ritual, the idea is that believers invoke the name of Jesus Christ at baptism as part of their prayer for the remission of sins. Nevertheless, it's a "calling upon the name".

No sir/m'am ... calling on the name of the Lord has scriptural precedence and context that you have not even attempted to addrss... it applies to something that is done by the believer in all contexts throughout the word of God. Even in this instance ... Paul is commanded/or to have already called on the name of the Lord

and based on the grammatical construction of this verse ... the calling on the name of the Lord is linked to washing of sins ...

One writer explains:


And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).

Baptismal regenerationists often refer to this verse as proof that baptism is necessary for "washing away" sin, that is, for regeneration, for remission of sin. There are several reasons why this cannot be the case.

First, a careful study of the Greek text shows that "wash away" is coordinated with "calling." That is, it is by "calling on the name of the Lord" that Paul was to "wash away" his sins, not by being baptized.

Even the English does not say, "be baptized washing away your sins," or "wash away your sins being baptized," but rather "be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This shows that washing away the sins and being baptized were separate acts, and that the washing away of the sins was done by calling on the name of the Lord.

Second, being baptized was not a part of the Gospel which Paul preached. We know this for two reasons. First, Paul carefully distinguished baptizing from preaching the Gospel in I Corinthians, chapter one. There he wrote:
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel... (verses 14-17a)
Baptism, then, cannot be part of the Gospel. The Gospel is the "power of God to salvation" (Romans 1:16). It tells us what is necessary to know in order to be saved. Paul left baptism out of the Gospel. Therefore Paul did not consider baptism necessary to salvation.

Secondly, Acts 22:15 says that Paul was chosen to be Christ's "witness to all men of what [he had] seen and heard." Paul, however, did not preach baptism as part of the Gospel.

Hence we must see Acts 22:16 as telling us simply of an historical fact. Ananias told Paul he should be baptized, and Paul was therefore baptized. But the grammar does not support the idea that his baptism was the washing away of his sin. It shows instead that his calling on the name of the Lord brought forgiveness (Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10). Baptism was not incorporated into what Paul considered to be the Gospel. Therefore Acts 22:16 does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation.

A.T. Robertson admitted the grammatical possibility that this verse could be interpreted as teaching baptismal regeneration, or baptismal remission. [8] But grammatical possibility is far from actuality. There is also the grammatical possibility, and a stronger one in fact, that the washing away of sin is accomplished by calling on the name of the Lord. The grammar alone, therefore, cannot settle it, and discussions such as those above are necessary to clarify the matter. Robertson wrote:
It is possible... to take these words as teaching baptismal remission or salvation by means of baptism, but to do so in my opinion is a complete subversion of Paul's vivid and picturesque language. As in Romans 6:4-6 where baptism is the picture of death, burial, and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way (verse 10). Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. [9]
It is possible, by isolating this verse from its context and from other New Testament teaching on the subject, to take this as teaching baptismal regeneration. But again, this is only one way to understand it. It has already been shown that this would not fit the context, it does not fit the most clear understanding of the grammar, and most importantly, it is contrary to Paul's entire teaching of what the Gospel is (Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10; I Corinthians 1:17; Galatians 1:11-12). Possibility must not be confused with either probability or actuality.

Acts 22:16 does not teach the necessity of a properly administered formulaic baptism for salvation.


----------------------------------------------

You sir/m'am have no bible for your view unless we disregard context and biblical language.

[SDG]

Daniel, who is your pastor? Do you attend church? Are you Apostolic?

I am Apostolic ... and most importantly a son of God. I attend Glory Land Church in Houston, Texas. I am the Spanish pastor there. My pastor is Steve Barley.

Please answer those very same questions.

Thank you.

[SDG]

Another plausible interpretation of Acts 22:19

Does Acts 22:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?"

Answer: As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation. For more information, please visit our webpage on "Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works? (http://www.gotquestions.org/salvation-faith-alone.html)"

Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." The first question that must be answered is "when was Paul saved?" 1. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." So, Paul heard and believed in Christ on the road to Damascus. Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17).

2. It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he also received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). Acts presents a transition period where God's focus turns from Israel to the Church. The events recorded in Acts are not always normative. With regard to receiving the Holy Spirit, the norm is that a person receives and is permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation.

3. The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated "having called on His name" which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events.

4. Concerning the words, "be baptized, and wash away your sins," because Paul was already cleansed spiritually at the time Christ appeared to him, these words must refer to the symbolism of baptism. Baptism is a picture of God’s inner work of washing away sin (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Peter 3:21).

5. It is also interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him.

http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-22-16.html

[steve p]

From what I understand, both Oneness and Trinitarians believe that there is one God who has revealed Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Both Oneness and Trinitarians believe that JHVH of the Old Testament came to live upon the earth in Jesus. Both Oneness and Trinitarians believe that Jesus lives in our hearts as the Holy Spirit.

There is a verse in some of our Bibles which says:
"7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." Some (both Oneness and Trinitarian) believe that verse does not belong there while others (both Oneness and Trinitarian) have no problem with it.

Where we get into difficulty is over the words "three" and "one."
like "three" whats? persons, personalities, personas, roles, offices, manifestations, or what?
and does "one" mean a numerical one or does it mean united?


To all posters....
Exactly what I didnt want to happend has happened....an argument...when all I wanted was an explantion. Thank you Sam for the explanation. All who have stated their opinions and beliefs may now stop posting.
Blessings
p.s. "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that HE is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day"

[steve p]

Note to self.....DON'T ask anymore questions.......

[Scott Hutchinson]

To me it is a difference between saying God in three persons,as opposed to saying One God who is indivisible in being but plural in attributes.
In other words the same one who say let there be in the beginning was the same one who surely I am coming quickly in the book of Revelation.
All of the fullness of divinity is in Jesus Christ COL.2:9
It is one God who has revealed Himself as Father,Son,Holy Ghost.
Steve P I don't doubt your faith or experience with God.
The only way to learn is to ask questions.

[Antipas]

Dan,

Let’s start with the basics because you’re all over the place. To begin, this thread is about Trinitarianism, not baptism. You are right in that water baptism isn’t part of the Gospel. The Gospel (good news) is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This Gospel is to be believed and applied to one’s life. We apply the death, burial, and resurrection to our lives by repentance (death), water baptism (burial), and Holy Ghost infilling (resurrection). We see the same pattern in the tabernacle and the temple when atoning for sin. The high priest had to atone by officiating at the: altar (repentance), brazen laver (washing/baptism), and the light of the seven golden candlesticks (Holy Ghost). I don’t believe that water baptism “washes” away sins magically. I do believe that a repentant believer is an obedient believer, faith without works is dead. So it is assumed by the biblical narrative that a believer will repent and be water baptized (both being an essential part of conversion) for the remission of sins. Should one refuse to be water baptized they are clearly in disobedience. At this point either their understanding is incomplete or they are resisting the holy commandment issued in the Great Commission. If one is I rebellion against the teachings of Scripture…they will not be saved. If one truly believes and has the fullness of understanding they will obey and be saved.

Do you believe that water baptism a commandment in Scripture?

Yes or No?

[steve p]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

[Cindy]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Aren't you glad you started this thread? :tic

[steve p]

Aren't you glad you started this thread? :tic

Seriously?...I wish I had kept my mouth shut. I must say Im glad Sam gave me a direct answer. Next time I have questions, I'll ask him or Sis. Alvear..
one can feel the love of Christ from them....Blessings to all!

[SDG]

Dan,

Let’s start with the basics because you’re all over the place. To begin, this thread is about Trinitarianism, not baptism. You are right in that water baptism isn’t part of the Gospel. The Gospel (good news) is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This Gospel is to be believed and applied to one’s life. We apply the death, burial, and resurrection to our lives by repentance (death), water baptism (burial), and Holy Ghost infilling (resurrection). We see the same pattern in the tabernacle and the temple when atoning for sin. The high priest had to atone by officiating at the: altar (repentance), brazen laver (washing/baptism), and the light of the seven golden candlesticks (Holy Ghost). I don’t believe that water baptism “washes” away sins magically. I do believe that a repentant believer is an obedient believer, faith without works is dead. So it is assumed by the biblical narrative that a believer will repent and be water baptized (both being an essential part of conversion) for the remission of sins. Should one refuse to be water baptized they are clearly in disobedience. At this point either their understanding is incomplete or they are resisting the holy commandment issued in the Great Commission. If one is I rebellion against the teachings of Scripture…they will not be saved. If one truly believes and has the fullness of understanding they will obey and be saved.

Do you believe that water baptism a commandment in Scripture?

Yes or No?

A. I don't think I'm all over the place ... the tangent was presented as to whether paganism is found in other doctrines ... since Oneness ninjas want to peg Trinitarianism as pagan. Also, it's evident you have followed my discourse by responding to my posts.

B. The idea that that tabernacle points to your paradigm of 3 step salvation is faulty at best ...

Noted and respected Oneness theologian, Daniel Seagraves admitted as much in a symposium during the 1980's ... He states:


The author's assertion that the laver of the'Old Testament Tabernacle was without question a type of water baptism in the church age has been popular among Oneness Pentecostals, but it is my opinion that it is an unjustified assumption.6

The author recognizes that "the Bible itself is the source of doctrinal typology" and that "it is imperative to avoid speculative and subjective interpretations concerning baptismal typology." He seems, however, not to have heeded his own advice on this matter. While the Tabernacle of old was definitely a figure (Greek parabole) (Hebrews 9:9), no New Testament verse seeks to interpret the meaning of each item associated with Tabernacle worship. By necessity, then, much of the interpretation regarding the Tabernacle is speculative at best. What the New Testament does clearly indicate is that the essential purpose of the Tabernacle worship, as a whole, was to prefigure the coming Christ and His role as the final and only efficacious sacrifice (Hebrews 9:8-14, 23-26; 10:1-21; Colossians 2:16-17; Galatians 3:24).

There are several reasons why the laver seems not to be an adequate type of water baptism:

1. Contrary to the author's assumption that the laver was "scheduled after the initial approach and sacrifice at the brazen altar and before entering the Holy Place," the laver was the first destination of the priest, even before approaching the brazen altar (Exodus 30:20; 40:12, 30-32). If the brazen altar represents repentance and the laver water baptism, this would place baptism before repentance in typology.

2. While the New Testament does assign specific typological meaning to certain Old Testament events and practices, it nowhere specifies the laver as a type of water baptism.

3. The laver was not a place of immersion, but mere washing.

4. The priests had to wash at the laver repeatedly each time they planned to minister. Water baptism is a one-time event.

If the laver is typical of any New Testament truth, it would seem more appropriate to consider it to be typical of the daily washing of believers by the Word of God, as seen in Ephesians 5:26: "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word."

The laver would seem an appropriate symbol of this for the following reasons:

1. It was covered with mirrors, reflecting the approaching priest's image. The New Testament compares the Word of God to a mirror in which men behold themselves (James 1:23).

2. The washing at the laver was a continual thing; the washing of water by the Word is a continuing process.

The author's discussion of circumcision as a type of water baptism was more satisfying and biblically based.


Also, Tabernacle metaphors/types/parallels I find in the bible ... especially in Hebrews point to Jesus Christ ... and what HE DID. ... not Acts 2:38

3. We both agree that baptism is to be obeyed but I believe it does not cause our New Birth ... effectuate salvation ... that a properly administered baptism is what applies the blood ... and other beliefs related w/ PAJC W&S doctrine. Again 99% of Christians believe and have obeyed this commandment.

[SDG]

I am Apostolic ... and most importantly a son of God. I attend Glory Land Church in Houston, Texas. I am the Spanish pastor there. My pastor is Steve Barley.

Please answer those very same questions.

Thank you.

Bump for Antipas.

[Antipas]

Then what's the issue Dan? Just be secure in your beliefs. Others may differ with you...and that's OK. Continue in the bond of love bro.

[Antipas]

Bump for Antipas.

I'm anonymous for a reason. ;)

But I assure you that I'm Apostolic. I attend a UPCI church.

[SDG]

Then what's the issue Dan? Just be secure in your beliefs. Others may differ with you...and that's OK. Continue in the bond of love bro.

No issue. Simply having a discourse .... iron sharpeneth iron.

[SDG]

I'm anonymous for a reason. ;)

But I assure you that I'm Apostolic. I attend a UPCI church.

I was raised UPCI and my father pastored a UPCI church for almost 30 years. I held a UPCI license also.

[berkeley]

DA,
does your church have a website? I want to pass judgment.

[SDG]

DA,
does your church have a website? I want to pass judgment.

Soon. Stop being judgemental.

[berkeley]

Soon. Stop being judgemental.

:toofunny

[Antipas]

The issue isn’t the one stepper vs. W&S teachers. There will always be different opinions, interpretations, and nuances of interpretation. What matters is that at the end of the day both 1 steppers and 3 steppers believe that a seeking soul should believe on the Lord, repent of sin, be water baptized in Jesus name, and filled with the Holy Ghost to experience all God has intended for the believer.

The only significant difference I see between the 1 steppers and 3 steppers is that a 1 stepper might hold out hope to a person on their death bed. Since God is the judge I see no issue with this. I’ve never known a 3 stepper refuse to pray with a person who was on their death bed. I see no issue here unless one side is seeking to condemn the other…and that my dear brother is the poison that is worse than the difference in opinion.

[steve p]

The issue isn’t the one stepper vs. W&S teachers. There will always be different opinions, interpretations, and nuances of interpretation. What matters is that at the end of the day both 1 steppers and 3 steppers believe that a seeking soul should believe on the Lord, repent of sin, be water baptized in Jesus name, and filled with the Holy Ghost to experience all God has intended for the believer.

The only significant difference I see between the 1 steppers and 3 steppers is that a 1 stepper might hold out hope to a person on their death bed. Since God is the judge I see no issue with this. I’ve never known a 3 stepper refuse to pray with a person who was on their death bed. I see no issue here unless one side is seeking to condemn the other…and that my dear brother is the poison that is worse than the difference in opinion.

Blessings!!!

[SDG]

The issue isn’t the one stepper vs. W&S teachers. There will always be different opinions, interpretations, and nuances of interpretation. What matters is that at the end of the day both 1 steppers and 3 steppers believe that a seeking soul should believe on the Lord, repent of sin, be water baptized in Jesus name, and filled with the Holy Ghost to experience all God has intended for the believer.

The only significant difference I see between the 1 steppers and 3 steppers is that a 1 stepper might hold out hope to a person on their death bed. Since God is the judge I see no issue with this. I’ve never known a 3 stepper refuse to pray with a person who was on their death bed. I see no issue here unless one side is seeking to condemn the other…and that my dear brother is the poison that is worse than the difference in opinion.

In some ways I agree w/ the thrust of your post ... however the nuances I believe are more signficant ... and enduring

I have observed that 3 step theology ...

often focuses on a works-based/produced theology that extends usually to other salvific religious activiities such as dress standard and even salvific tithing ...

The experience becomes more important than the relationship quite often ... in some of these circles ...

Repentance ... in which 3 steppers say we are forgiven but our sins not washed/remitted/blotted away is not a one time event ... and this often is lost in the "recipe" for salvation view ...

It often relegated to a trip to the altar .... Is the measure of repentance when someone goes to an altar? Where is THAT in the bible?

Repentance is a lifestyle of total surrender and turning to Christ for our salvation ...

Peter the preacher at Pentecost expounded in Acts 3:

19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord

A heart born through faith is not a simple prayer ... a teary eyed confession at an altar ... it is a genuine ... all-out turning to God ... a commitment to surrender all that we are and all we have and die so that he reigns in our hearts ... so he can dress us in His righteousness. Biblical faith/trust/ belief is clinging to Him for our salvation. Some in our movement have focused, with good reason, on the revelation we've been given as to his divinity, his command in to baptize under the authority of His name, and the wondrous gift of the baptism of the Holy Ghost as expressed by the gift of tongues ... all effects of His salvation living through us. However, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the center of it all

Also the infilling of the Holy Spirit w/ evidence of tongues becomes a number we count at rallies, campmeetings, conferences ... and a sign for finally being saved when in Scripture ... this is NOT THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT....

Lastly there is an incredible amount of faith required to solely rely on Christ for our salvation ... saved by grace through faith so that we cannot boast ...

It's liberating and a somber cornerstone to the Gospel that I believe is something we don't focus enough on ....

Sadly as generations pass in our movement many of our young people think they are saved simply because of what they've done ... and how they look ... it's a sad reality.

Lastly the radicalization of our message has caused many to view the entire Church as lost and not part of the body

Our Apostolic pioneers did not view Trinitarians as lost or not saved. Some today are trampling on this part of our heritage.

[SDG]

I would also add that the works based view of salvation whether it be standards or the tongues or hell doctrine has shut heavens door to many who either don't see the Scripture for holiness dressing or get frustrated when they do not speak in tongues right away.

Many have walked out our doors thinking they are unsaveable ... because of our focus. ... and would never dare attend another church because they've been drilled that anything else is paganistic/demonic and does not have ALL TRUTH.

How many souls who who have been regenerated and accepted by Christ ... leave frustrated

because they have not spoken in tongues after weeks ... months ... years of seeking .... but go through marathon sessions with folks yelling and coaching them in their ears ... while patting them on the back ... giving them hush puppy eyes and a wince if they don't receive it that night ... and must go home thinking they will be lost for eternity until it happens ... or worse .. the feel rejected and despondent and turn to sin once again ...

Just because some are obsessed w/ counting to see who is in the ship ... and who is out ...

Some sink deeper in sin because of our presentation of the Gospel.

[Sam]

2 of the best reference works on the topic are available free online

The Oneness of God (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/one-Top.htm), by David Bernard
and If Ye Know These Things (http://inglisfpc.com/bookcopy/inglisfpc.org%20copy/indexx.htm), by Ross Drysdale.

Lots of good stuff in those two. I personally have found both these works to be highly informative.

Blessings.
TRF

The book by Ross Drysdale is available online at the link given in Bro. France's post. The book by David Bernard is available online at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Top.htm

A short book on this same subject is called "Is Jesus In the Godhead Or Is the Godhead in Jesus?" by the late Gordon Magee. I think it is only 46 pages or so. I have it available as a pdf copy and will send it by email to anyone who wants one. Just send me a pm with your email address where I can send a pdf file as an attachment.

[TRFrance]

Here is one in-depth study of the history of Sacred name cults ....

Here is an excerpt ...

"In the name of". What does it mean?....

It is significant to note that the Sacred Name cults heavily rely on the same grammatical construction: "the name of". The Old Testament phrase "in the name of the LORD (Hebrew: Yahovah pronounced by them as Yahweh)" is apparently the source of their beliefs. But just what does "the name of" mean?...

These views are inherently blasphemous and are a danger to the peace and well being of the elect. They are intensely accusative and impugn the baptism of the elect. On these premises, many Sacred Names people go though multiple baptisms under different variations on the names theme as they come to understand more about the etymology of names....

The Sacred Names issue is argued by people who seek to control the deity by their correct use of His name. God will not be so controlled by sinful, accusative, disobedient men.

Source: http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p240.html

(sigh... Dan Alicea strikes again!)

Mr. Alicea....It is interesting and ironic that you quoted information from a group "The Christian Churches of God" when it suited you... but maybe you didnt notice that they themselves speak of the pagan influences in the development of the Trinity. http://www.ccg.org/english/S/p003.html
(....In the development of the Trinitarian model, which is behind this line of questioning, there is a theological error derived from paganism. The history and theology is examined in the papers dealing with the Early Theology of the Godhead (No. 127) (http://www.ccg.org/english/S/p127.html); Binitarianism and Trinitarianism (No. 76) (http://www.ccg.org/english/S/p076.html) and The Development of the Neo-Platonist Model (No. 17) (http://www.ccg.org/english/S/p017.html).)


Of course, you're quick to bash Oneness believers who speak of the pagan influences that helped shape the Trinity doctrine.... but when these CCG folks on this same website you're quoting from do the same thing , it's not a big deal to you I guess?

By the way, that same page refers to Trinitarianism as an "invented doctrine". Too bad they dont have a forum, so you can go over there and bash them too for saying the same thing many of us have said about the Trinity. Then again, since they're not OP's, you probably wouldnt bash them anyway.

PS.
Not only are they not Oneness Pentecostals, they're not Trinitarians either. They dont even believe Jesus is Elohim (God)! Did you even bother to read their website before you decided to quote stuff from their site to support your doctrinal view, and to bash OP's by comparing us to "sacred-name cults"?

[SDG]

(sigh... Dan Alicea strikes again!)

Mr. Alicea....It is interesting and ironic that you quoted information from a group "The Christian Churches of God" when it suited you... but maybe you didnt notice that they themselves speak of the pagan influences in the development of the Trinity. http://www.ccg.org/english/S/p003.html
(....In the development of the Trinitarian model, which is behind this line of questioning, there is a theological error derived from paganism. The history and theology is examined in the papers dealing with the Early Theology of the Godhead (No. 127) (http://www.ccg.org/english/S/p127.html); Binitarianism and Trinitarianism (No. 76) (http://www.ccg.org/english/S/p076.html) and The Development of the Neo-Platonist Model (No. 17) (http://www.ccg.org/english/S/p017.html).)


Of course, you're quick to bash Oneness believers who speak of the pagan influences that helped shape the Trinity doctrine.... but when these CCG folks on this same website you're quoting from do the same thing , it's not a big deal to you I guess?

By the way, that same page refers to Trinitarianism as an "invented doctrine". Too bad they dont have a forum, so you can go over there and bash them too for saying the same thing many of us have said about the Trinity. Then again, since they're not OP's, you probably wouldnt bash them anyway.

PS.
Not only are they not Oneness Pentecostals, they're not Trinitarians either. They dont even believe Jesus is Elohim (God)! Did you even bother to read their website before you decided to quote stuff from their site to support your doctrinal view, and to bash OP's by comparing us to "sacred-name cults"?


Once again you seek to discredit truth because of the source ... truth is truth ... this has been one of the major points of the thread ...

No one is bashing anyone ... simply putting a doctrine under the microscope ...

You have been told twice now about your propensity to be a ventroloquist in this thread ...

Sigh.

[SDG]

(sigh... Dan Alicea strikes again!)

Mr. Alicea....It is interesting and ironic that you quoted information from a group "The Christian Churches of God" when it suited you... but maybe you didnt notice that they themselves speak of the pagan influences in the development of the Trinity. http://www.ccg.org/english/S/p003.html
(....In the development of the Trinitarian model, which is behind this line of questioning, there is a theological error derived from paganism. The history and theology is examined in the papers dealing with the Early Theology of the Godhead (No. 127) (http://www.ccg.org/english/S/p127.html); Binitarianism and Trinitarianism (No. 76) (http://www.ccg.org/english/S/p076.html) and The Development of the Neo-Platonist Model (No. 17) (http://www.ccg.org/english/S/p017.html).)

Of course, you're quick to bash Oneness believers who speak of the pagan influences that helped shape the Trinity doctrine.... but when these CCG folks on this same website you're quoting from do the same thing , it's not a big deal to you I guess?

By the way, that same page refers to Trinitarianism as an "invented doctrine". Too bad they dont have a forum, so you can go over there and bash them too for saying the same thing many of us have said about the Trinity. Then again, since they're not OP's, you probably wouldnt bash them anyway.

PS.
Not only are they not Oneness Pentecostals, they're not Trinitarians either. They dont even believe Jesus is Elohim (God)! Did you even bother to read their website before you decided to quote stuff from their site to support your doctrinal view, and to bash OP's by comparing us to "sacred-name cults"?

Once again you seek to discredit truth because of the source ... truth is truth ... this has been one of the major points of the thread ...

No one is bashing anyone ... simply putting a doctrine under the microscope ...

You have been told twice now about your propensity to be a ventroloquist in this thread ...

Sigh.

The poisoning of the well technique you attempted w/ this post is in my opinion, transparent and royal waste of keystrokes and time. However, tried and true by those on your side of the aisle.

Poisoning the Well: attempt: to discredit an opponent's' source of evidence (See Ad hominem)


The post about the sacred name cults was presented to support an argument I was making about the the ease of linking various doctrines to paganism ...

which was my attempt to show the flaws in doing so ... although it does also offer some historical context to those who believe the verbalization of the name effectuates salvation ...

However ... you decide to turn around and research the source and tell us what they do and don't believe about the nature of God ...

That's like saying I can't use a concordance because it was published by trinitarians ...

C'mon TR ... you, I and the reading audience are smarter than that ...

Stop the obsfucation ....

[Praxeas]

Repentance ... in which 3 steppers say we are forgiven but our sins not washed/remitted/blotted away is not a one time event ... and this often is lost in the "recipe" for salvation view ...
NOT all three steppers believe sins are remitted at baptism..since remitted refers to forgiveness. Some believe it's a command that must be obeyed and as well there may be something Spiritual happening like circumcision of the heart, but not the forgiveness of Sins on God's part.

It often relegated to a trip to the altar .... Is the measure of repentance when someone goes to an altar? Where is THAT in the bible?I have never EVER seen any church, preacher or pastor relegate repentance to merely a trip to the altar. Just because there are altar calls does not mean they are relegating repentance to a trip to the altar. Even ONE Steppers could do that. However it can be a sign of someone's genuine sincerity to turn their life around, but not necessary.

Repentance is a lifestyle of total surrender and turning to Christ for our salvation ...Repentance is a decision to return to God from one's wrong walk and then continue to walk with God. Repentance is a rather deep topic but there is always a beginning. Repentance means one is sorry for what they have done, sorry enough to stop

Peter the preacher at Pentecost expounded in Acts 3:

19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the LordVery good
How about this one
2Co 7:8 For even if I made you grieve with my letter, I do not regret it--though I did regret it, for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while.
2Co 7:9 As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us.
2Co 7:10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.
2Co 7:11 For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves innocent in the matter.


A heart born through faith is not a simple prayer ... a teary eyed confession at an altar ... it is a genuine ... all-out turning to God ... a commitment to surrender all that we are and all we have and die so that he reigns in our hearts ... so he can dress us in His righteousness. Biblical faith/trust/ belief is clinging to Him for our salvation. Some in our movement have focused, with good reason, on the revelation we've been given as to his divinity, his command in to baptize under the authority of His name, and the wondrous gift of the baptism of the Holy Ghost as expressed by the gift of tongues ... all effects of His salvation living through us. However, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the center of it all But True Repentance can START with a simple prayer and or even a Teary eyed confession at an altar. There is nothing that says any prayer or confession with tears is NOT genuine. In fact John demanded FRUIT that showed repentance. Tears are not always tears of repentance though. I have seen people come to the alter and pray with tears but they were not repenting though they needed repentance

Also the infilling of the Holy Spirit w/ evidence of tongues becomes a number we count at rallies ... and a sign for finally being when in Scripture ... this is NOT THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT....Nobody says this is a fruit of the Spirit to begin with. Second that this happens at "rallies" can in no way be proven to be synonymous with being a three stepper. A lot of three steppers find those kinds of rallies ridiculous

Lastly there is an incredible amount of faith required to solely rely on Christ for our salvation ... saved by grace through faith so that we cannot boast ...Really? An Incredible amount? I can think of some people that might find that disheartening since they might feel they have faith but not an incredible amount. You just made salvation quite hard for some. So much for simple faith...you have to try harder with your faith to be saved. Thus one steppers become works based themselves. BTW I don't know anyone that "boasts" they saved themselves by their works in regards to baptism or tongues etc etc...now with standards this might become true in that they think they are keeping themselves saved

It's liberating and a somber cornerstone to the Gospel that I believe is something we don't focus enough on ....The problem is Daniel is you don't focus on it....not enough that is for sure. You focus on the negative of every other Apostolic that believes differently than you do. Like here you focused with a negative commentary about alter calls and rallies and being performance based, You do that a lot like when you start railing about pharisees, works, papists, regenerationalists etc etc....nobody is seeing the wonderful message you have to bring because you got your finger in their faces focusing on the negatives of everything they hold dear.

Sadly as generations pass in our movement many of our young people think they are saved simply because of what they've done ... and how they look ... it's a sad reality.That is again not necessarily synonymous with a three step view. That is synonymous with teaching a works based view...that you save yourself by your works.

Lastly the radicalization of our message has caused many to view the entire Church as lost and not part of the bodyMany? How many? Some? How does that indite a three step view? Remember guns don't kill, people kill

Our Apostolic pioneers did not view Trinitarians as lost or not saved.Some may have....though that does not mean they had an attitude about it and went around condemning everyone. Even Trinitarians by and large say we are going to hell...what does that say about them or the Trinity as a whole?

[SDG]

What's going on Prax ... of all the my posts you choose to dissect .. you choose that one ???? Lol.

[1Corinth2v4]

Remember guns don't kill, people kill


Actually, the bullet kills the person :happydance

[Praxeas]

What's going on Prax ... of all the my posts you choose to dissect .. you choose that one ???? Lol.
It was on top of the pile. I hate reading back through threads for posts I missed lol

[steve p]

All I asked for was a simple explanation of oneness and trinitairinism.....and it turned into an argument......Im sure glad I didnt ask some of these people ( and you know who you are) what it took to know Jesus. I think its time I left this forum before I forget what being saved is really about. Blessings to you all....

[mizpeh]

What's going on Prax ... of all the my posts you choose to dissect .. you choose that one ???? Lol.

Perhaps because you were ranting over and above the usual in that post. :)

[TRFrance]

The poisoning of the well technique you attempted w/ this post is in my opinion, transparent and royal waste of keystrokes and time. However, tried and true by those on your side of the aisle.

Poisoning the Well: attempt: to discredit an opponent's' source of evidence (See Ad hominem)


The post about the sacred name cults was presented to support an argument I was making about the the ease of linking various doctrines to paganism ...

which was my attempt to show the flaws in doing so ... although it does also offer some historical context to those who believe the verbalization of the name effectuates salvation ...

However ... you decide to turn around and research the source and tell us what they do and don't believe about the nature of God ...

That's like saying I can't use a concordance because it was published by trinitarians ...

C'mon TR ... you, I and the reading audience are smarter than that ...

Stop the obsfucation ....
Senor, there is no obfuscation taking place. Once again, you see what you want to see.

Lets recap here..

Yes, truth is truth.

But your assertion that the stuff you used from their site is akin to using a concordance published by Trinitarians is laughable. Spare us. Yes, we all use concordances, bible history books, etc , and other objective reference works written by Trinitarians. The piece you cut and pasted from their site was hardly an "objective reference work" by any means. That "in depth study of the history of sacred name cults" you cut-and-pasted was dripping with the doctrinal bias of the writers.... writers, as I said before, who dont even believe that Jesus is God. Therefore, their conclusion about baptismal formula (which you seem to support) is no more trustworthy than their view that Jesus is not God.

The irony I noted earlier was that you were using stuff from an anti-Trinitarian group to bash OP's who were speaking against the Trinity on this site.

But beoyond that, since you seem to think belief in the Trinity is not that big a deal, what do you say about those who deny the very deity of Christ , like the CCG church you've quoted? Is that a big deal, or not? While you're at it...why not go visit some Mormon and Jehovah's witness sites too, in your unrelenting quest for ammunition against your AFF adversaries? (...Since it seems you have no qualms about digging into whatever doctrinal garbage can you can find to bash conservative OP's)

Your online crusade to fight against traditional Acts 2:38 OP belief has a very quixotic feel to it, sir. Too bad you cant see that.

Furthermore, your continual comparison of conservative/3-stepper OPs to cultic groups is simply repulsive.

[SDG]

Senor, there is no obfuscation taking place. Once again, you see what you want to see.

Lets recap here..

Yes, truth is truth.

But your assertion that the stuff you used from their site is akin to using a concordance published by Trinitarians is laughable. Spare us. Yes, we all use concordances, bible history books, etc , and other objective reference works written by Trinitarians. The piece you cut and pasted from their site was hardly an "objective reference work" by any means. That "in depth study of the history of sacred name cults" you cut-and-pasted was dripping with the doctrinal bias of the writers.... writers, as I said before, who dont even believe that Jesus is God. Therefore, their conclusion about baptismal formula (which you seem to support) is no more trustworthy than their view that Jesus is not God.

The irony I noted earlier was that you were using stuff from an anti-Trinitarian group to bash OP's who were speaking against the Trinity on this site..

But more than that, since you seem to think belief in the Trinity is not that big a deal, what do you say about those who deny the very deity of Christ , like the CCG church you've quoted? While you're at it...why not go visit some Mormon and Jehovah's witness sites too in your unrelenting quest for ammunition against your AFF adversaries? (...Since it seems you have no qualms about digging into whatever doctrinal garbage can you can find to bash conservative OP's)

Your online crusade to fight against traditional Acts 2:38 OP belief has a very quixotic feel to it, sir. Too bad you cant see that.

Furthermore, your continual comparison of conservative/3-stepper OPs to cultic groups is simply repulsive.

Marginalization plus poisoning the well ... the tactics are old and stale, TR. Discuss on the merits of what is being said .... if you can't ... bow out.

[SDG]

Perhaps because you were ranting over and above the usual in that post. :)

Over and above? ... how so, Mizpeh? ... some of that was old posts I copy and pasted and some of it is stuff I've said countless times ...

:girlytantrum

[TRFrance]

Marginalization plus poisoning the well ... the tactics are old and stale, TR. Discuss on the merits of what is being said .... if you can't ... bow out.
Marginalization?
Who does it more than you, on this forum Dan?

Youre in a class by yourself when it comes to that.
Poisoning the well ?
Your repeated and not- so-veiled comparisons to Mormons, cult groups etc… if that’s nto poisoning then what is ?


Never mind, Dan... carry on.

[SDG]

Marginalization?
Who does it more than you, on this forum Dan?

Youre in a class by yourself when it comes to that.

:drama

[mizpeh]

Over and above? ... how so, Mizpeh? ... some of that was old posts I copy and pasted and some of it is stuff I've said countless times ...

:girlytantrum

Having it all in one post made it the Mother of all your rants! :reaction

[SDG]

In some ways I agree w/ the thrust of your post ... however the nuances I believe are more signficant ... and enduring

I have observed that 3 step theology ...

often focuses on a works-based/produced theology that extends usually to other salvific religious activiities such as dress standard and even salvific tithing ...

The experience becomes more important than the relationship quite often ... in some of these circles ...

Repentance ... in which 3 steppers say we are forgiven but our sins not washed/remitted/blotted away is not a one time event ... and this often is lost in the "recipe" for salvation view ...

It often relegated to a trip to the altar .... Is the measure of repentance when someone goes to an altar? Where is THAT in the bible?

Repentance is a lifestyle of total surrender and turning to Christ for our salvation ...

Peter the preacher at Pentecost expounded in Acts 3:

19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord

A heart born through faith is not a simple prayer ... a teary eyed confession at an altar ... it is a genuine ... all-out turning to God ... a commitment to surrender all that we are and all we have and die so that he reigns in our hearts ... so he can dress us in His righteousness. Biblical faith/trust/ belief is clinging to Him for our salvation. Some in our movement have focused, with good reason, on the revelation we've been given as to his divinity, his command in to baptize under the authority of His name, and the wondrous gift of the baptism of the Holy Ghost as expressed by the gift of tongues ... all effects of His salvation living through us. However, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the center of it all

Also the infilling of the Holy Spirit w/ evidence of tongues becomes a number we count at rallies, campmeetings, conferences ... and a sign for finally being saved when in Scripture ... this is NOT THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT....

Lastly there is an incredible amount of faith required to solely rely on Christ for our salvation ... saved by grace through faith so that we cannot boast ...

It's liberating and a somber cornerstone to the Gospel that I believe is something we don't focus enough on ....

Sadly as generations pass in our movement many of our young people think they are saved simply because of what they've done ... and how they look ... it's a sad reality.

Lastly the radicalization of our message has caused many to view the entire Church as lost and not part of the body

Our Apostolic pioneers did not view Trinitarians as lost or not saved. Some today are trampling on this part of our heritage.

I would also add that the works based view of salvation whether it be standards or the tongues or hell doctrine has shut heavens door to many who either don't see the Scripture for holiness dressing or get frustrated when they do not speak in tongues right away.

Many have walked out our doors thinking they are unsaveable ... because of our focus. ... and would never dare attend another church because they've been drilled that anything else is paganistic/demonic and does not have ALL TRUTH.

How many souls who who have been regenerated and accepted by Christ ... leave frustrated

because they have not spoken in tongues after weeks ... months ... years of seeking .... but go through marathon sessions with folks yelling and coaching them in their ears ... while patting them on the back ... giving them hush puppy eyes and a wince if they don't receive it that night ... and must go home thinking they will be lost for eternity until it happens ... or worse .. the feel rejected and despondent and turn to sin once again ...

Just because some are obsessed w/ counting to see who is in the ship ... and who is out ...

Some sink deeper in sin because of our presentation of the Gospel.

Having it all in one post made it the Mother of all your rants! :reaction

So you thought THIS WAS THE MOTHER OF ALL RANTS?

[mizpeh]

So you thought THIS WAS THE MOTHER OF ALL RANTS?

:lalala

[Praxeas]

All I asked for was a simple explanation of oneness and trinitairinism.....and it turned into an argument......Im sure glad I didnt ask some of these people ( and you know who you are) what it took to know Jesus. I think its time I left this forum before I forget what being saved is really about. Blessings to you all....
trinitarianism. There is One God in being and nature but three persons...

To give a visual que imagine one Human being that is three persons...three persons all sharing the same being (existence) and nature (all the attributes that make a human a human)

Oneness. There is One God in being, nature AND person.

Trinitarianism. One of the three persons, namely the Son, became Human at the incarnation while not ceasing to being God in nature and being, the human was prominent while here on earth due to the Divine nature being latent in Him (Kenosis)

Oneness....same as above with the exception that it was the ONE person, namely God or Yahweh who became the Son when He became human

[TRFrance]

]All I asked for was a simple explanation of oneness and trinitairinism[/color].....and it turned into an argument......Im sure glad I didnt ask some of these people ( and you know who you are) what it took to know Jesus. I think its time I left this forum before I forget what being saved is really about. Blessings to you all....

Steve,
A "simple explanation" of Oneness and Trinitarianism is practically impossible on a single thread of this or any forum. It's a multi-faceted issue. That's why some of us here provided you with links to various reference sources to study the matter more in depth.

Hopefully you found that information to be helpful.

Blessings to you.

[James Griffin]

Steve,
A "simple explanation" of Oneness and Trinitarianism is practically impossible on a single thread of this or any forum. It's a multi-faceted issue. That's why some of us here provided you with links to various reference sources to study the matter more in depth.

Hopefully you found that information to be helpful.

Blessings to you.

So true !!!

Hard to give a simple answer to something with so many variations and which theologians have argued over for nearly 2,000 years.