This is THE Church!

[Jason B]

I drove past a church in Gainesville,TX today, and right on the HWY there was a billboard that said;

"THIS IS THE CHURCH that started on Pentecost in 33 AD"
with an arrow pointing down and the churches name and address.

It was like the burning bush to me, I had to pull off the road and see it.

The church was a very small church, almost shack like no windows on the front. Its services were Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday night, but on the front door was this note "Thursday Night Services have been cancelled until further notice"

Of course, this was a Jesus name church.

Here's the sad thing:

I was told by a person who knows the pastor of that church that they have about 3 people who attend there. (whether thats accurate or not, they don't have many)

There is an open lot right beside the church, and then a very nice oneness church on the same side of the road, about 100 yards away. I am told these churches do not fellowship. I am told in fact that of the 4 oneness churches in Gainesville, none fellowship. (I dont know if that is a fact, I have been told that, and based on my experience in oneness, it wouldn't suprise me).

WHat is so sad is that people get such a spiritually elite mindset that they think they are right, they are the only saved church and people, and they waste away in years of obscurity while missing the joys of being in the body of Christ and fellowshipping other Christians and making a united effort to reach their city for Christ. Instead the "true" church has a service cancelled until further notice, therefore effectively closing the door to heaven to any who would come (at least in their minds).

This mindset is sad to me, that people will dedicate their whole lives to something, only to find out in the end they had it all wrong. I do believe people like that can be/are saved, but they completely miss the abundant life and the thrills of truly belonging to the church all over spiritual eliteness and either ignorance, pride, or both.

[Michael]

Sounds like a revival church.....Do they believe in uncut hair and angels? If not they're not the church....:ursofunny

[Hoovie]

Simply three deluded people. Once they believe their own lies there is no stopping.

They shot someone like that at Discovery the other day... he started as an innocent Al Gore devotee.

[Jason B]

Sounds like a revival church.....Do they believe in uncut hair and angels? If not they're not the church....:ursofunny

You better believe they believe in uncut hair. They believe in women keeping quiet in the church, and don't even believe in Sunday school. Wasn't no sunday school in the Bible!!!!!!

[coadie]

Kenneth Hagin's
I listened to him a couple of times. He would never talk about other preachers. That seems very common on this discussion board. I also found what I heard people say he said did not match what he preeched in writing.

[Mr. Smith]

I drove past a church in Gainesville,TX today, and right on the HWY there was a billboard that said;

"THIS IS THE CHURCH that started on Pentecost in 33 AD"
with an arrow pointing down and the churches name and address.

It was like the burning bush to me, I had to pull off the road and see it.

The church was a very small church, almost shack like no windows on the front. Its services were Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday night, but on the front door was this note "Thursday Night Services have been cancelled until further notice"

Of course, this was a Jesus name church.

Here's the sad thing:

I was told by a person who knows the pastor of that church that they have about 3 people who attend there. (whether thats accurate or not, they don't have many)

There is an open lot right beside the church, and then a very nice oneness church on the same side of the road, about 100 yards away. I am told these churches do not fellowship. I am told in fact that of the 4 oneness churches in Gainesville, none fellowship. (I dont know if that is a fact, I have been told that, and based on my experience in oneness, it wouldn't suprise me).

WHat is so sad is that people get such a spiritually elite mindset that they think they are right, they are the only saved church and people, and they waste away in years of obscurity while missing the joys of being in the body of Christ and fellowshipping other Christians and making a united effort to reach their city for Christ. Instead the "true" church has a service cancelled until further notice, therefore effectively closing the door to heaven to any who would come (at least in their minds).

This mindset is sad to me, that people will dedicate their whole lives to something, only to find out in the end they had it all wrong. I do believe people like that can be/are saved, but they completely miss the abundant life and the thrills of truly belonging to the church all over spiritual eliteness and either ignorance, pride, or both.


The bolded is an interesting concept coming from you, after you voiced your opinion that "Seeker" churches, which is the kind of church I pastor and the group of churches I associate with, don't preach repentance, don't teach the bible, and don't ask for commitment.

Yes, I'm still irritated about it! :lol

[coadie]

The bolded is an interesting concept coming from you, after you voiced your opinion that "Seeker" churches, which is the kind of church I pastor and the group of churches I associate with, don't preach repentance, don't teach the bible, and don't ask for commitment.

Yes, I'm still irritated about it! :lol

Did I read you claim to be a Pastor?

[Jason B]

Kenneth Hagin's
I listened to him a couple of times. He would never talk about other preachers. That seems very common on this discussion board. I also found what I heard people say he said did not match what he preeched in writing.

I'm not sure where this name came in. This is not Kenneth Hagin's church. The pastors name was on the sign, I'm not going to disclose his name.

[Mr. Smith]

Did I read you claim to be a Pastor?

:lalala

[Sam]

...
I was told by a person who knows the pastor of that church that they have about 3 people who attend there. (whether thats accurate or not, they don't have many)
...
.

It only takes two or more gathered in the name of the Lord to be a church.

I have no idea who this is and why they are a separate group.

I preached in an OP church a couple of weeks ago and there were 4 of us there --the pastor, one couple, and me. It is in a rural area near a small town and there is no other OP church for several miles that I know of. It was not UPC. The pastor is the same organization that I am, CoJCI, although he may be switching to CoJC in the near future.

It bothers me that there are so many OP churches that do not fellowship one another. And it also bothers me that OP churches do not ordinarily fellowship trinity churches but that's another story.

[coadie]

I'm not sure where this name came in. This is not Kenneth Hagin's church. The pastors name was on the sign, I'm not going to disclose his name.

Hagin died. Rhema was his groups name.

[coadie]

:lalala

Quote:
Originally Posted by coadie
Did I read you claim to be a Pastor?

The nature of how you responded tells me Shepherding is not your style.

[Jason B]

The bolded is an interesting concept coming from you, after you voiced your opinion that "Seeker" churches, which is the kind of church I pastor and the group of churches I associate with, don't preach repentance, don't teach the bible, and don't ask for commitment.

Yes, I'm still irritated about it! :lol

Actually, I'm pretty open minded.

I believe practice is more important than doctrine. By that I mean that I think how someones lives their life in service to Christ, is far more important that what was said over them when they were baptized, whetehr or not they can explain the complexities of the Godhead, or if they have spoken unintelligle "words".

To explain further, when I say that practice is more important than doctrine, I don't mean that someone can do enough good works to earn salvation, neither do I mean that doctrine doesn't matter.

Doctrine does matter, but the problem in the church is decideing which doctrines ACTUALLY matter. What is worth breaking fellowship over? The fact that we as the church universal cannot agree on what is essential and non essential is severly hampering the impact the church could have on the world, and crippling the christian witness as a whole in the world.

What are those doctrines? I think hebrews 6:1-3 are a really good starting point, IMO. Unfortunaetly these things will probably not completely work themselves out until severe persecution (tribulation) hits, or until the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[coadie]

It only takes two or more gathered in the name of the Lord to be a church.

I have no idea who this is and why they are a separate group.

I preached in an OP church a couple of weeks ago and there were 4 of us there --the pastor, one couple, and me. It is in a rural area near a small town and there is no other OP church for several miles that I know of. It was not UPC. The pastor is the same organization that I am, CoJCI, although he may be switching to CoJC in the near future.

It bothers me that there are so many OP churches that do not fellowship one another. And it also bothers me that OP churches do not ordinarily fellowship trinity churches but that's another story.

Some of this is in the house churches.

[coadie]

The bolded is an interesting concept coming from you, after you voiced your opinion that "Seeker" churches, which is the kind of church I pastor and the group of churches I associate with, don't preach repentance, don't teach the bible, and don't ask for commitment.

Yes, I'm still irritated about it! :lol

Which bible verses are the "ask for Commitment" verses?

[Jason B]

The bolded is an interesting concept coming from you, after you voiced your opinion that "Seeker" churches, which is the kind of church I pastor and the group of churches I associate with, don't preach repentance, don't teach the bible, and don't ask for commitment.

Yes, I'm still irritated about it! :lol

This is the type of theology I am against. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.........if it does then, I guess you'll remain irritated at me forever.


"A popular Christian magazine recently published an article arguing that Jesus' Lordship is an inappropriate topic to bring up in the course of witnessing to the lost. It is inappropriate to talk of the Lordship of Christ...said the magazine. This is a magazine very, very well known. It said, and I'm quoting from the magazine, "Since the decision to make Christ Lord is possible only for those who have already trusted Him as Savior, the gospel presentation should not contain anything about yielding in submission to Christ as Lord to be obeyed," end quote. "The gospel presentation should not contain anything about yielding in submission to Christ as Lord," said the magazine. You don't even want to talk about that.

I watched a film this afternoon for the second time, I watched it a day ago because the first time I watched it I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It was sent out to our church. It was sent to me because it was to be distributed all across this entire country to every church that had an AWANA program. It was a film designed to instruct people how to lead someone to Christ.

The film used some graphics, posed some questions and then asked if they were true or false. Let me tell you what some of the questions were and what the answer was.

In presenting the gospel, the narrator of the film said, should you ever ask these questions? Here are the questions.

Question number one: Should you say to someone, will you give your heart to Christ? Answer: False, you never want to say that to anyone. You never want to ask anyone to give anything to Christ. You don't want to ask them to give their life to Christ, you just ask them to believe.

Second question: Will you surrender your life to Christ? False, don't ever ask anyone to surrender anything.

Question number three: will you commit your life to Christ? False, don't ever ask anyone to do that.

Question number four: will you make Christ Lord of your life? Don't ever ask anyone to acknowledge that He has to be Lord of their life.

Question number five: will you repent of your sins? False, don't ever ask anyone to repent of their sins.

Question number six: are you willing to forsake your sins? False, don't ask anyone to do that." END QUOTE

source: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-20_The-Lordship-of-Christ-Introduction?q=Lordship+Salvation

[Mr. Smith]

This is the type of theology I am against. If the shoes doesn't fit, don't wear it.....if it does.......?


"A popular Christian magazine recently published an article arguing that Jesus' Lordship is an inappropriate topic to bring up in the course of witnessing to the lost. It is inappropriate to talk of the Lordship of Christ...said the magazine. This is a magazine very, very well known. It said, and I'm quoting from the magazine, "Since the decision to make Christ Lord is possible only for those who have already trusted Him as Savior, the gospel presentation should not contain anything about yielding in submission to Christ as Lord to be obeyed," end quote. "The gospel presentation should not contain anything about yielding in submission to Christ as Lord," said the magazine. You don't even want to talk about that.

I watched a film this afternoon for the second time, I watched it a day ago because the first time I watched it I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It was sent out to our church. It was sent to me because it was to be distributed all across this entire country to every church that had an AWANA program. It was a film designed to instruct people how to lead someone to Christ.

The film used some graphics, posed some questions and then asked if they were true or false. Let me tell you what some of the questions were and what the answer was.

In presenting the gospel, the narrator of the film said, should you ever ask these questions? Here are the questions. Question number one: Should you say to someone, will you give your heart to Christ? Answer: False, you never want to say that to anyone. You never want to ask anyone to give anything to Christ. You don't want to ask them to give their life to Christ, you just ask them to believe.

Second question: Will you surrender your life to Christ? False, don't ever ask anyone to surrender anything.

Question number three: will you commit your life to Christ? False, don't ever ask anyone to do that.

Question number four: will you make Christ Lord of your life? Don't ever ask anyone to acknowledge that He has to be Lord of their life.

Question number five: will you repent of your sins? False, don't ever ask anyone to repent of their sins.

Question number six: are you willing to forsake your sins? False, don't ask anyone to do that." END QUOTE

source: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-20_The-Lordship-of-Christ-Introduction?q=Lordship+Salvation


None of this stuff is "Seeker" Jason. I keep trying to tell you this and you're not listening. AWANA is a million miles from "Seeker". Goodness.

What magazine are you talking about?

[Mr. Smith]

Which bible verses are the "ask for Commitment" verses?


Seems like I've said this before, but nobody rattled your cage. Let Jason and I talk, please.

[Jason B]

None of this stuff is "Seeker" Jason. I keep trying to tell you this and you're not listening. AWANA is a million miles from "Seeker". Goodness.

What magazine are you talking about?

Its not my quote......

[Jason B]

None of this stuff is "Seeker" Jason. I keep trying to tell you this and you're not listening. AWANA is a million miles from "Seeker". Goodness.

What magazine are you talking about?

In doing some reaserch I was suprised to find that there is a doctrine called "Lordship Salvation" I was pretty suprised, because that is the position had arrived at from a three stepper to one who believes in salvation by grace by justification by faith. I guess that is why I like John MacArthurs stuff so much, he is a propent of said doctrine.

Anyway, when I found that doctrine actually ahd a name, I googled it, and was reading on Wiki about the criticism over that doctrine, and that there was another school of thought called "Free Grace" promoted by Hybels, Warrer, et al.

If Free Grace is what I have heard it to be, that would explain our fundamental difference.

[Mr. Smith]

Its not my quote......

I understand that but you said it in response to my complaint about your "Seeker-bashing."

[Jason B]

This is what bothers me:

Free Grace theology
Main article: Free Grace theology
The Grace Evangelical Society, founded in 1986, and the Free Grace Alliance, founded in 2004, exist to advance Free Grace soteriological views.

When Evangelicals such as Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, and Bill Bright denied that Reformed soteriology was biblically superior to the Dispensational view, and since the term Dispensationalism denoted a broad hermeneutic and philosophy of history, they called their own view Free Grace theology.

The Free Grace view posits that salvation is a gift of divine grace whereby the recipient is declared righteous before God on account of Jesus' atonement and righteous life, and that God's declaration of righteousness is unaffected by the future behavior of the saved person. Free Grace views faith or belief as trust or a conviction that something is true. Faith does not include notions of surrender or submission. The Free Grace consensus, however, is that sanctification is an "inevitable" part of every Christian's life[10][11][12] and that good works are outward evidence (especially to the unsaved world) that God is at work in a person's life and that the person is truly following Christ. But the Free Grace position rules out seeing good works as evidence of one's own salvation. For this, they would argue, one can only look to the sufficiency of him who provides eternal life to the person who believes in him. Free Grace proponents further point to the way apostasy is treated by the New Testament writers whom they understand to teach that apostasy suggests, not an unregenerate nature as Lordship proponents teach, but a failure and a "wandering from the truth".[13] Essentially, the Free Grace view is that the New Testament writers are quick to call on believers to question whether they are truly following Christ as "disciples," but these writers never encourage the person who is believing Christ for eternal life to doubt his or her born again status.[14]

Miles J. Stanford goes further in suggesting that "Lordship salvation ... rightly insists upon repentance, but wrongly includes a change of behavior ... in order to be saved. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Savior; but Lordship advocates attempt to make behavior and fruit [godly character], as well as good works essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith." [15]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation

The Gospel changes people. If theres no change, then there was no conversion.

[Mr. Smith]

This is what bothers me:

Free Grace theology
Main article: Free Grace theology
The Grace Evangelical Society, founded in 1986, and the Free Grace Alliance, founded in 2004, exist to advance Free Grace soteriological views.

When Evangelicals such as Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, and Bill Bright denied that Reformed soteriology was biblically superior to the Dispensational view, and since the term Dispensationalism denoted a broad hermeneutic and philosophy of history, they called their own view Free Grace theology.

The Free Grace view posits that salvation is a gift of divine grace whereby the recipient is declared righteous before God on account of Jesus' atonement and righteous life, and that God's declaration of righteousness is unaffected by the future behavior of the saved person. Free Grace views faith or belief as trust or a conviction that something is true. Faith does not include notions of surrender or submission. The Free Grace consensus, however, is that sanctification is an "inevitable" part of every Christian's life[10][11][12] and that good works are outward evidence (especially to the unsaved world) that God is at work in a person's life and that the person is truly following Christ. But the Free Grace position rules out seeing good works as evidence of one's own salvation. For this, they would argue, one can only look to the sufficiency of him who provides eternal life to the person who believes in him. Free Grace proponents further point to the way apostasy is treated by the New Testament writers whom they understand to teach that apostasy suggests, not an unregenerate nature as Lordship proponents teach, but a failure and a "wandering from the truth".[13] Essentially, the Free Grace view is that the New Testament writers are quick to call on believers to question whether they are truly following Christ as "disciples," but these writers never encourage the person who is believing Christ for eternal life to doubt his or her born again status.[14]

Miles J. Stanford goes further in suggesting that "Lordship salvation ... rightly insists upon repentance, but wrongly includes a change of behavior ... in order to be saved. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Savior; but Lordship advocates attempt to make behavior and fruit [godly character], as well as good works essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith." [15]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation

The Gospel changes people. If theres no change, then there was no conversion.


STOP IT!!!!!

None of these people are "Seeker"!!!! Aaaaaacccccckkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!

[Jack Shephard]

This is what bothers me:

Free Grace theology
Main article: Free Grace theology
The Grace Evangelical Society, founded in 1986, and the Free Grace Alliance, founded in 2004, exist to advance Free Grace soteriological views.

When Evangelicals such as Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, and Bill Bright denied that Reformed soteriology was biblically superior to the Dispensational view, and since the term Dispensationalism denoted a broad hermeneutic and philosophy of history, they called their own view Free Grace theology.

The Free Grace view posits that salvation is a gift of divine grace whereby the recipient is declared righteous before God on account of Jesus' atonement and righteous life, and that God's declaration of righteousness is unaffected by the future behavior of the saved person. Free Grace views faith or belief as trust or a conviction that something is true. Faith does not include notions of surrender or submission. The Free Grace consensus, however, is that sanctification is an "inevitable" part of every Christian's life[10][11][12] and that good works are outward evidence (especially to the unsaved world) that God is at work in a person's life and that the person is truly following Christ. But the Free Grace position rules out seeing good works as evidence of one's own salvation. For this, they would argue, one can only look to the sufficiency of him who provides eternal life to the person who believes in him. Free Grace proponents further point to the way apostasy is treated by the New Testament writers whom they understand to teach that apostasy suggests, not an unregenerate nature as Lordship proponents teach, but a failure and a "wandering from the truth".[13] Essentially, the Free Grace view is that the New Testament writers are quick to call on believers to question whether they are truly following Christ as "disciples," but these writers never encourage the person who is believing Christ for eternal life to doubt his or her born again status.[14]

Miles J. Stanford goes further in suggesting that "Lordship salvation ... rightly insists upon repentance, but wrongly includes a change of behavior ... in order to be saved. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Savior; but Lordship advocates attempt to make behavior and fruit [godly character], as well as good works essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith." [15]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation

The Gospel changes people. If theres no change, then there was no conversion.

Just my 2 cents, but Grace isn't dictated by good-works. Grace just is. But a true act of Grace will change people.

[Mr. Smith]

This is what bothers me:

Free Grace theology
Main article: Free Grace theology
The Grace Evangelical Society, founded in 1986, and the Free Grace Alliance, founded in 2004, exist to advance Free Grace soteriological views.

When Evangelicals such as Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, and Bill Bright denied that Reformed soteriology was biblically superior to the Dispensational view, and since the term Dispensationalism denoted a broad hermeneutic and philosophy of history, they called their own view Free Grace theology.

The Free Grace view posits that salvation is a gift of divine grace whereby the recipient is declared righteous before God on account of Jesus' atonement and righteous life, and that God's declaration of righteousness is unaffected by the future behavior of the saved person. Free Grace views faith or belief as trust or a conviction that something is true. Faith does not include notions of surrender or submission. The Free Grace consensus, however, is that sanctification is an "inevitable" part of every Christian's life[10][11][12] and that good works are outward evidence (especially to the unsaved world) that God is at work in a person's life and that the person is truly following Christ. But the Free Grace position rules out seeing good works as evidence of one's own salvation. For this, they would argue, one can only look to the sufficiency of him who provides eternal life to the person who believes in him. Free Grace proponents further point to the way apostasy is treated by the New Testament writers whom they understand to teach that apostasy suggests, not an unregenerate nature as Lordship proponents teach, but a failure and a "wandering from the truth".[13] Essentially, the Free Grace view is that the New Testament writers are quick to call on believers to question whether they are truly following Christ as "disciples," but these writers never encourage the person who is believing Christ for eternal life to doubt his or her born again status.[14]

Miles J. Stanford goes further in suggesting that "Lordship salvation ... rightly insists upon repentance, but wrongly includes a change of behavior ... in order to be saved. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Savior; but Lordship advocates attempt to make behavior and fruit [godly character], as well as good works essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith." [15]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation

The Gospel changes people. If theres no change, then there was no conversion.


How much did Peter "Change"?

After his conversion, he attempted murder, denied Christ with vulgarities while Christ was being crucified, was arrogant, was a racist, and was the first legalist in the early church.

Exactly how well would you like for everyone to perform?

[Mr. Smith]

Just my 2 cents, but Grace isn't dictated by good-works. Grace just is. But a true act of Grace will change people.

AMEN!!!!!! Great statement!! "Grace just is"!!! Yes!

[Jason B]

How much did Peter "Change"?
Peter was a changed man, its not even worth the conversation. He failed, we all fail, we all come short of the glory. Our works and righteousness can never save us, we can never maintain God's standard. PEter had weaknesses, but He also repented after denying Christ, and He was faithful unto death. I love that scripture in Acts 4 where it said the Sanhedrin took notice that Peter and John had been with Jesus. Mr. Smith, we have plenty to disagree about, so why make an issue we both believe alike a point of contention?


Exactly how well would you like for everyone to perform?
Again, I'm not saying performance equals salvation. I am simply saying if someone REPENTS and makes Jesus the LORD and Savior of their life, being justified by faith (true faith, as personified by Abraham in Paul & James' writings) then there will inevitebly be a change. I cannot accept a Christianity that doesn't change people, and I think you agree. I don't think there is a minimum performance, just a total reliance and trust on Jesus Christ, and if that trust and continuing faith is there, his grace is suffecient for all our failures.

My concern is the teaching which says "Take Christ as Savior, but not as Lord." Hogwash.

[Jason B]

STOP IT!!!!!


You STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!:bigbaby






:D

[Mr. Smith]

Peter was a changed man, its not even worth the conversation. He failed, we all fail, we all come short of the glory. Our works and righteousness can never save us, we can never maintain God's standard. PEter had weaknesses, but He also repented after denying Christ, and He was faithful unto death. I love that scripture in Acts 4 where it said the Sanhedrin took notice that Peter and John had been with Jesus. Mr. Smith, we have plenty to disagree about, so why make an issue we both believe alike a point of contention?


Again, I'm not saying performance equals salvation. I am simply saying if someone REPENTS and makes Jesus the LORD and Savior of their life, being justified by faith (true faith, as personified by Abraham in Paul & James' writings) then there will inevitebly be a change. I cannot accept a Christianity that doesn't change people, and I think you agree. I don't think there is a minimum performance, just a total reliance and trust on Jesus Christ, and if that trust and continuing faith is there, his grace is suffecient for all our failures.

My concern is the teaching which says "Take Christ as Savior, but not as Lord." Hogwash.


Ok, so what gives you the liberty to determine whether or not people have changed? Maybe, for all you know, they just have "weaknesses" as you called them. Maybe they "fail" and "come short of God's glory." Why don't you leave the "changed" determination up to God? It's His business, not yours.

[Falla39]

How much did Peter "Change"?

After his conversion, he attempted murder, denied Christ with vulgarities while Christ was being crucified, was arrogant, was a racist, and was the first legalist in the early church.

Exactly how well would you like for everyone to perform?

What do you mean, "After his conversion, he attempted murder, denied Christ with vulgarities while Christ was being crucified, was arrogant, was a racist, and was the first legalist in the early church". You are speaking of
Peter BEFORE his conversion. No power!

After his conversion, at Pentecost, he was a changed man. He was put in jail, along with John, for preaching the name of Jesus at the gate, Beautiful. A lame man was healed and it so stirred up some people, that Peter and John were put in jail. After getting released, they went back out and preached the name of Jesus again. Acts 3. YES, Peter was changed after his conversion at Pentecost.

Jesus told his disciples that they would receive power AFTER that the Holy Ghost was come upon them. That they would be witnesses unto him both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Act 1:8
We still receive power AFTER that the Holy Ghost has come upon us. If we haven't receive power, could it be that the Holy Ghost hasn't come upon us! We should have power to witness, power to overcome sin, etc. IT does NOT say power to argue. But power to witness of the saving NAME of JESUS!
We must receive the Holy Ghost as the scripture hath said!

Falla39

[coadie]

What do you mean, "After his conversion, he attempted murder, denied Christ with vulgarities while Christ was being crucified, was arrogant, was a racist, and was the first legalist in the early church". You are speaking of
Peter BEFORE his conversion. No power!

After his conversion, at Pentecost, he was a changed man. He was put in jail, along with John, for preaching the name of Jesus at the gate, Beautiful. A lame man was healed and it so stirred up some people, that Peter and John were put in jail. After getting released, they went back out and preached the name of Jesus again. Acts 3. YES, Peter was changed after his conversion at Pentecost.

Jesus told his disciples that they would receive power AFTER that the Holy Ghost was come upon them. That they would be witnesses unto him both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Act 1:8
We still receive power AFTER that the Holy Ghost has come upon us. If we haven't receive power, could it be that the Holy Ghost hasn't come upon us! We should have power to witness, power to overcome sin, etc. IT does NOT say power to argue. But power to witness of the saving NAME of JESUS!
We must receive the Holy Ghost as the scripture hath said!

Falla39

Great work. Before the Cross and the Day of pentecost, they were under the law and not Holy Ghost filled. Great example of carnal man.

[coadie]

How much did Peter "Change"?

After his conversion, he attempted murder, denied Christ with vulgarities while Christ was being crucified, was arrogant, was a racist, and was the first legalist in the early church.

Exactly how well would you like for everyone to perform?

You need a home bible study. The first chapter and verses of the gospels are NOT the end of the Law. The cross and blood atonement are the new salvation. Have you recieved the Holy Ghost since you believed?

[Falla39]

I've said before and I will say it again and again, if we have not received the Holy Ghost
as the scripture hath said, we cannot SEE/COMPREHEND the WORD properly! We cannot
understand what we do not see clearly! The Holy Ghost or Spirit of God opens our under-
standing that we might understand the scriptures.

Falla39

[Jason B]

Actually, I'm pretty open minded.

I believe practice is more important than doctrine. By that I mean that I think how someones lives their life in service to Christ, is far more important that what was said over them when they were baptized, whetehr or not they can explain the complexities of the Godhead, or if they have spoken unintelligle "words".

To explain further, when I say that practice is more important than doctrine, I don't mean that someone can do enough good works to earn salvation, neither do I mean that doctrine doesn't matter.

Doctrine does matter, but the problem in the church is decideing which doctrines ACTUALLY matter. What is worth breaking fellowship over? The fact that we as the church universal cannot agree on what is essential and non essential is severly hampering the impact the church could have on the world, and crippling the christian witness as a whole in the world.

What are those doctrines? I think hebrews 6:1-3 are a really good starting point, IMO. Unfortunaetly these things will probably not completely work themselves out until severe persecution (tribulation) hits, or until the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Good teaching here "Jesus' Teaching on Salvation"
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/80-39_Jesus-Teaching-on-Salvation?q=Lordship+Salvation

[Mr. Smith]

What do you mean, "After his conversion, he attempted murder, denied Christ with vulgarities while Christ was being crucified, was arrogant, was a racist, and was the first legalist in the early church". You are speaking of
Peter BEFORE his conversion. No power!

After his conversion, at Pentecost, he was a changed man. He was put in jail, along with John, for preaching the name of Jesus at the gate, Beautiful. A lame man was healed and it so stirred up some people, that Peter and John were put in jail. After getting released, they went back out and preached the name of Jesus again. Acts 3. YES, Peter was changed after his conversion at Pentecost.

Jesus told his disciples that they would receive power AFTER that the Holy Ghost was come upon them. That they would be witnesses unto him both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Act 1:8
We still receive power AFTER that the Holy Ghost has come upon us. If we haven't receive power, could it be that the Holy Ghost hasn't come upon us! We should have power to witness, power to overcome sin, etc. IT does NOT say power to argue. But power to witness of the saving NAME of JESUS!
We must receive the Holy Ghost as the scripture hath said!

Falla39


Sigh.....some of this is so basic, yet polluted with the traditions of "Tongues Teaching" that it hardly seems worth the time to type.

First, Peter was at times just as ugly after his Acts 2 experience. My goodness gracious, look at the pain he inflicted on the early church with his legalistic, self-righteous, and pious attitudes!! That was AFTER Acts 2!! Before Pentecost, he harmed one man with the swinging of his sword. AFTER Acts 2, he did great damage to new Christians by trying to force them to follow OT Law!! Is this not easily understood?? You cannot possibly make the case that Peter, somehow, because a spiritual superman after he spoke in tongues!

He considered anything from other cultures to be unclean!!!! He was a racist!! Where is tongues in that mix??

Secondly, he healed a lame man in the book of Acts. But he walked on water with Jesus!! I've plenty of people claim healing, but I've never heard anyone claim they walked on water....unless you have.

Third...Peter caused so much trouble in the early NT church that it took Paul, a converted murderer, to set him straight. Goodness, God had to send angels in a vision, for crying out loud, to get through to this lunkhead! Do you seriously think that Peter was "All That" after he spoke in tongues? From what scripture says, I don't.

[Mr. Smith]

You STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!:bigbaby

:D









http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JioZKUoIC28

[Falla39]

Sigh.....some of this is so basic, yet polluted with the traditions of "Tongues Teaching" that it hardly seems worth the time to type.

First, Peter was at times just as ugly after his Acts 2 experience. My goodness gracious, look at the pain he inflicted on the early church with his legalistic, self-righteous, and pious attitudes!! That was AFTER Acts 2!! Before Pentecost, he harmed one man with the swinging of his sword. AFTER Acts 2, he did great damage to new Christians by trying to force them to follow OT Law!! Is this not easily understood?? You cannot possibly make the case that Peter, somehow, because a spiritual superman after he spoke in tongues!

He considered anything from other cultures to be unclean!!!! He was a racist!! Where is tongues in that mix??

Secondly, he healed a lame man in the book of Acts. But he walked on water with Jesus!! I've plenty of people claim healing, but I've never heard anyone claim they walked on water....unless you have.

Third...Peter caused so much trouble in the early NT church that it took Paul, a converted murderer, to set him straight. Goodness, God had to send angels in a vision, for crying out loud, to get through to this lunkhead! Do you seriously think that Peter was "All That" after he spoke in tongues? From what scripture says, I don't.

Fearful Peter became fearless, after his conversion! One thing about it, these
were ignorant (they just didn't know), and unlearned fisherman who Jesus chose,
and even knowing one of them was a devil, he chose whom he saw fit to choose.
These was the first generation or century to receive the Holy Ghost and to know
what the power of God could do in their lives.

What should we be able to do with the knowledge and opportunties we have
had, after receiving the Holy Ghost and experiencing the workings of God in
our lives. My husband and I received the Holy Ghost over 50 yrs ago. What
a difference HE has made in our lives. No, we have not lives free of tragedy
and pain. Life has not always been easy, but HE has always been there for
us. To lead and guide us through the storms and tests. How thankful we are
to have known this Great and Wonderful Savior. HE has made and continues
to make all the difference in our lives and the lives of our children and their
families.

Falla39

[coadie]

I've said before and I will say it again and again, if we have not received the Holy Ghost
as the scripture hath said, we cannot SEE/COMPREHEND the WORD properly! We cannot
understand what we do not see clearly! The Holy Ghost or Spirit of God opens our under-
standing that we might understand the scriptures.

Falla39

And we both know the verses that tell us the same

[Falla39]

And we both know the verses that tell us the same

Amen!

[Jason B]

Oh, I didn't know some of the members of THE church posted on this forum. :toofunny

[Michael]

Oh, I didn't know some of the members of THE church posted on this forum. :toofunny

:ursofunny

[Michael]

Hey Smith, where do you live? I'm willing to pray you through. Or send some one to you...Just PM me.

[Mr. Smith]

Fearful Peter became fearless, after his conversion! One thing about it, these
were ignorant (they just didn't know), and unlearned fisherman who Jesus chose,
and even knowing one of them was a devil, he chose whom he saw fit to choose.
These was the first generation or century to receive the Holy Ghost and to know
what the power of God could do in their lives.

What should we be able to do with the knowledge and opportunties we have
had, after receiving the Holy Ghost and experiencing the workings of God in
our lives. My husband and I received the Holy Ghost over 50 yrs ago. What
a difference HE has made in our lives. No, we have not lives free of tragedy
and pain. Life has not always been easy, but HE has always been there for
us. To lead and guide us through the storms and tests. How thankful we are
to have known this Great and Wonderful Savior. HE has made and continues
to make all the difference in our lives and the lives of our children and their
families.

Falla39

Fearful Peter became fearless??

Where was Peter fearful, when he decided that he, too, could walk on water, or when he struck out at the soldier and attempted to kill him?

After his "conversion" (he was already converted but I'll go with your term), was he fearless when he was afraid to go to the "unclean" people?

[coadie]

Hey Smith, where do you live? I'm willing to pray you through. Or send some one to you...Just PM me.

Why tarry?
When I pray people thru, we do some heavy duty repentence first.

[Jason B]

I drove past a church in Gainesville,TX today, and right on the HWY there was a billboard that said;

"THIS IS THE CHURCH that started on Pentecost in 33 AD"
with an arrow pointing down and the churches name and address.

It was like the burning bush to me, I had to pull off the road and see it.

The church was a very small church, almost shack like no windows on the front. Its services were Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday night, but on the front door was this note "Thursday Night Services have been cancelled until further notice"

Of course, this was a Jesus name church.

Here's the sad thing:

I was told by a person who knows the pastor of that church that they have about 3 people who attend there. (whether thats accurate or not, they don't have many)

There is an open lot right beside the church, and then a very nice oneness church on the same side of the road, about 100 yards away. I am told these churches do not fellowship. I am told in fact that of the 4 oneness churches in Gainesville, none fellowship. (I dont know if that is a fact, I have been told that, and based on my experience in oneness, it wouldn't suprise me).

WHat is so sad is that people get such a spiritually elite mindset that they think they are right, they are the only saved church and people, and they waste away in years of obscurity while missing the joys of being in the body of Christ and fellowshipping other Christians and making a united effort to reach their city for Christ. Instead the "true" church has a service cancelled until further notice, therefore effectively closing the door to heaven to any who would come (at least in their minds).

This mindset is sad to me, that people will dedicate their whole lives to something, only to find out in the end they had it all wrong. I do believe people like that can be/are saved, but they completely miss the abundant life and the thrills of truly belonging to the church all over spiritual eliteness and either ignorance, pride, or both.

bump

Is this type of minset something you have experienced? The last church I was in before leaving over doctrinal isue was concerned with whether of not someone could wear "bermuda shorts" outside their house and be saved. Not suprisingly they hadn't baptized anyone in years. Therefore from that POV noone in their city has been saved in at least 3 or 4 years, because no other churches are teaching "truth". As NOW says, its "salvation by tongues".

No doubt this is NOT what God called us to do, quite the opposite. To be so stubborn as to think that everyone must fit into our extra biblical cookie cutter mold to be saved, and as a result not reach out, not bring any new converts, just hold on till Jesus comes.

[RandyWayne]

This pastor (of the small church) wouldn't be Reckart would it?

[missourimary]

I drove past a church in Gainesville,TX today, and right on the HWY there was a billboard that said;

"THIS IS THE CHURCH that started on Pentecost in 33 AD"
with an arrow pointing down and the churches name and address.


Wow. I always thought the church started in Jerusalem, not Texas. :dunno

[Jason B]

This pastor (of the small church) wouldn't be Reckart would it?

No this is in TX, I think Reckhart is in Florida. I don't plan to name the pastor. My point is the mindset that we're the only ones saved, God's true church, yet they go years and years not even breaking 20 (and sometimes not even 10).

[Jason B]

Wow. I always thought the church started in Jerusalem, not Texas. :dunno

Everything is bigger and better in Texas. :)

[houston]

what is the dif between repentance and heavy duty repentance?

[Jason B]

what is the dif between repentance and heavy duty repentance?

snot?

[Cindy]

Have you attended a service there, Jason?

[Jason B]

Have you attended a service there, Jason?

I have not. The church I attened (which also didn't fellowship any oneness churches, because all others were too liberal) didn't fellowship that church, though they used to. The church with the billboard thought that the other church was compromising because they had Sunday school (God forbid) and allowed women to speak in the service (not preach or teach, just speak).

As ususal with oneness churches everyone on the right of us is considered too strict, and everyone on the left of us too liberal/charismatic, so we only fellowship churches just like us, which normally are few and far between (just my experiences in both UPC and independents).

[Cindy]

Do they not have fellowship meetings anymore? I use to love attending them growing up.

[Jason B]

Do they not have fellowship meetings anymore? I use to love attending them growing up.

I don't know. I do know that my last 5 years combined in the oneness movement (3 years UPC, last 2 years independent) except for 1 single service with a UPC that was 2 blocks away, we never had another fellowship service, nada (not counting campmeeting) and the UPC church I attended was smack in the middle of D/FW so it wasn't a logistics thing. The independent church I attened was in a more rural area, though not too far out for good fellowship. In 2 years we visited 2 churches. One we had to cross state lines for (and was a very small church building and congregation less than 20) the other was no longer oneness, unbeknowest to my former pastor, and we never visited them again). They had gone charismatic (for real) I'm talking church members lighting cigarettes immediately after service on the front porch of the church, so this din't set well with any of us.

I don't consider myself OP anylonger. I still hold to the oneness doctrine of the Godhead, and baptize in JN, but don't believe that those who are trinitairan are lost because of doctrinal differences. I DO however believe both oneness and trinitairan people will be lost if their repentance is not a true repentance which results in a changed life, a life of holiness (not necessarily standards) and of the fruits of the Spirit.