The emperor has new clothes ! WOWII?!? [Archive]

Jason B

10-06-2016, 08:42 PM

What's your point, besides trying to subtly bash SP?

Enough already. You cons made your point. Everyone who doesn't believe like you are hell bound.

It will never be enough. Too many of them are overjoyed at the thought of the compromisers burning in hell. Really they are jaded that someone leaves them and can't do anything but wish for the worst.

Where is ever the tender post, the heart broken concern, or personal appeal to those who leave? When someone leaves the sect, it is scorn, curses, damnation, and (many times) slander that is thrown their way. Rare is it that judgment is even with held or living disagreement voiced ( Sis Alvear is a rare conservative exception).

That said, I left the conservative oneness pentecostal movement in June 2010. I was told by a pastor that I'd either be back in 3 years or completely backslidden. I was preached about for 6 months and held up to that church as the example of apostasy and warning. Of course the usual predictions were made of how awful things would be. Divorce, backslidden children, total shipwreck, charismania, etc.
3 years later I visited said church (actually 2 years and 11 months). After service I reminded the pastor of the "prophecy", he denied ever putting a time frame on me. Then, spoke even more authoritatively and told me that I must either repent or God was going to kill me (because at that time I was pastoring a Bible church, and of course did not & do not teach the initial evidence doctrine). I'm well aware of the tact, and when someone points their finger in your face and says "I'm telling you in the Holy Ghost, God is going to kill you if you keep teaching that!" There is no limit to what they will say to you or about you.

But here's my point. Its been 6 years 3 months, and I'm still here. Still a Christian, still as Biblically conservative as ever (but without the bondage of man made standards). All your horror stories, your fear, dread, and false prophecies lie dead at my feet. My family is still in church (a strong biblical church at that, not some Joel Osteen watered down seeker sensitive or emergent type church). My children are still believers, and have interest in prayer and Bible reading, and love expository preaching and learning the Word. They have a desire to grow and mature in Christ. God has blessed me on the job, blessed us with 2 boys through adoption, blessed me in so many ways, I am so thankful.

Leaving isn't the worst thing that can happen....in fact, in some cases it can be the best.

Cracker Barrel

10-06-2016, 10:28 PM

It will never be enough. Too many of them are overjoyed at the thought of the compromisers burning in hell. Really they are jaded that someone leaves them and can't do anything but wish for the worst.

Where is ever the tender post, the heart broken concern, or personal appeal to those who leave? When someone leaves the sect, it is scorn, curses, damnation, and (many times) slander that is thrown their way. Rare is it that judgment is even with held or living disagreement voiced ( Sis Alvear is a rare conservative exception).

That said, I left the conservative oneness pentecostal movement in June 2010. I was told by a pastor that I'd either be back in 3 years or completely backslidden. I was preached about for 6 months and held up to that church as the example of apostasy and warning. Of course the usual predictions were made of how awful things would be. Divorce, backslidden children, total shipwreck, charismania, etc.
3 years later I visited said church (actually 2 years and 11 months). After service I reminded the pastor of the "prophecy", he denied ever putting a time frame on me. Then, spoke even more authoritatively and told me that I must either repent or God was going to kill me (because at that time I was pastoring a Bible church, and of course did not & do not teach the initial evidence doctrine). I'm well aware of the tact, and when someone points their finger in your face and says "I'm telling you in the Holy Ghost, God is going to kill you if you keep teaching that!" There is no limit to what they will say to you or about you.

But here's my point. Its been 6 years 3 months, and I'm still here. Still a Christian, still as Biblically conservative as ever (but without the bondage of man made standards). All your horror stories, your fear, dread, and false prophecies lie dead at my feet. My family is still in church (a strong biblical church at that, not some Joel Osteen watered down seeker sensitive or emergent type church). My children are still believers, and have interest in prayer and Bible reading, and love expository preaching and learning the Word. They have a desire to grow and mature in Christ. God has blessed me on the job, blessed us with 2 boys through adoption, blessed me in so many ways, I am so thankful.

Leaving isn't the worst thing that can happen....in fact, in some cases it can be the best.

Go ahead, that's it .... let it all out, it's good for you. Your thumbs are dripping with bitterness as you type.

Inhale...
Hold hold......
Exhale,,,, ppppwwwwoooooooooooooo

https://m.popkey.co/ac3d23/5mRmd.gif

Jason B

10-06-2016, 11:04 PM

Go ahead, that's it .... let it all out, it's good for you. Your thumbs are dripping with bitterness as you type.

I get it. The whole "bitter" thing. It's really kind of worn out. Perhaps ya'll ought to brainstorm a new term or two to throw around.

But really in all seriousness, I wonder what makes you say I'm bitter. My life was basically threatened (though God was going to do the killing, not man), I was told all manner of horrible things would happen to me and my family. And now, I see things are way better than I could even conceive of. I'm relieved, I'm overjoyed, I'm thankful, I'm at peace, and I'm looking forward to living for God until He calls me home, and then I'm looking forward to worshipping Him forever in a Kingdom wherein dwelleth righteousness. I don't have anything to be bitter about, really.

Now, I admit, its a scary thing to leave, and thats probably why many don't. When I first began to see the problems with the doctrine, I kept it to myself. Not only had I raised my family in pentecost, but I had evangelized, did home Bible studies, and preached the message. I lived it too. Not some lukewarm moderate pentecostalism. When I converted, my whole world turned upside down. Its like Paul said "I was a Pharisee of pharisees." Or as Luther said "if ever a man could be saved by his monkery, I was he". I lived the standards, hated worldliness and compromise. I was Steve Epley, Dominic Benincasa, and the like. I passed judgment on Christians and Churches alike "telling it like it is". I confronted my own family with their ungodliness, my sister and mom fir cutting their hair, makeup, pants, etc. My dad for not being baptized in Jesus name and thinking the false baptist church could save him. I not only hurt my relationship with my family (and friends) through my zeal, but even years removed, those relationships and witness haven't been rebuilt.

Thus, to admit I was wrong, was indeed a difficult hurdle. To admit that my theology (3 step soteriology) was wrong, and that my church (UPC and oneness movement as a whole) wasn't the restoration of the apostolic church and doctrine, was heart breaking. I didn't leave with joy. I left because I couldn't fight the scripture when God opened my eyes. I felt like I had wasted so many years, so many Bible studies, so much time knocking doors, doing out reach, so many co workers I had witnessed to and many brought to church....for naught. Leaving was hard on me personally.

But then my wife. A lot if women put pressure on their husbands to leave. Not mine. She was sold on the UPC doctrine and standards. When it became known that I was shifting on doctrine and standards, it was nearly too much for her to take. It caused chaos and confusion in my home. Made worse then by all the doom and gloom heaped upon me by my pastor at the time. For a short time it felt like everyone was against me. I thought of giving up just because it didnt seem worth the trouble to rock the boat. It seemed like divorce, broken home, family, backslidden children could all become reality, and that sooner than later.

So to be 6 years removed from it all, and to see how God has worked all things for good, is a great relief and encouragement. I'm not sure how anyone really can say I'm bitter, but of course that sounds better to keep up the narrative. If ya'll didn't tell only the horror stories it may cause people to understand that if they leave the "apostolic" movement they are not necessarily leaving Christ, nor will He leave them, and that they are not stepping off the cliff into the great black abyss. But really ya'll can't have that.

To say it is a fear motivated and peer motivated system is quite accurate. And its definitely harder for those to leave who have family in it, or long tenured ministry preaching "the truth". To speak to a specific mindset, to verbalize fears and questions that many internalize and keep to themselves can be seen as intimidating to some. Its things they dont want to deal with and want to keep suppressed in the back of their mind. They dont want their world, routine, and life thrown into an upheaval....and so they cry out, sometimes enraged, sometimes simply out of fear for the unknown "bitter! Bitter!".

I understand brother. I've been there.

Jason B

10-06-2016, 11:46 PM

Go ahead, that's it .... let it all out, it's good for you. Your thumbs are dripping with bitterness as you type.

I've got my doubts youre anything more than a pot stirrer here, and I doubt you actually believe what you are posting about here, on the holiness thread, or anywhere else on this forum. But for the sake of the reader, I respond anyhow.

n david

10-07-2016, 03:27 AM

Go ahead, that's it .... let it all out, it's good for you. Your thumbs are dripping with bitterness as you type.
You're the bitter one, not Jason. You post what you think are clever kids stories in attempts to subtlely bash people who don't believe as you, then claim it wasn't really aimed at them. Gimme a break. You cons are some of the most bitter, resentful and angry people I know.

I've got my doubts youre anything more than a pot stirrer here,
I agree.

allstate1

10-07-2016, 06:28 AM

You're the bitter one, not Jason. You post what you think are clever kids stories in attempts to subtlely bash people who don't believe as you, then claim it wasn't really aimed at them. Gimme a break. You cons are some of the most bitter, resentful and angry people I know.

I agree.

I don't know if they are bitter or angry or what but my 12 year old daughter has already been hurt by comments to her for ''uniform'' violations from UC.

Cracker Barrel

10-07-2016, 06:42 AM

I get it. The whole "bitter" thing. It's really kind of worn out. Perhaps ya'll ought to brainstorm a new term or two to throw around.

But really in all seriousness, I wonder what makes you say I'm bitter. My life was basically threatened (though God was going to do the killing, not man), I was told all manner of horrible things would happen to me and my family. And now, I see things are way better than I could even conceive of. I'm relieved, I'm overjoyed, I'm thankful, I'm at peace, and I'm looking forward to living for God until He calls me home, and then I'm looking forward to worshipping Him forever in a Kingdom wherein dwelleth righteousness. I don't have anything to be bitter about, really.

Now, I admit, its a scary thing to leave, and thats probably why many don't. When I first began to see the problems with the doctrine, I kept it to myself. Not only had I raised my family in pentecost, but I had evangelized, did home Bible studies, and preached the message. I lived it too. Not some lukewarm moderate pentecostalism. When I converted, my whole world turned upside down. Its like Paul said "I was a Pharisee of pharisees." Or as Luther said "if ever a man could be saved by his monkery, I was he". I lived the standards, hated worldliness and compromise. I was Steve Epley, Dominic Benincasa, and the like. I passed judgment on Christians and Churches alike "telling it like it is". I confronted my own family with their ungodliness, my sister and mom fir cutting their hair, makeup, pants, etc. My dad for not being baptized in Jesus name and thinking the false baptist church could save him. I not only hurt my relationship with my family (and friends) through my zeal, but even years removed, those relationships and witness haven't been rebuilt.

Thus, to admit I was wrong, was indeed a difficult hurdle. To admit that my theology (3 step soteriology) was wrong, and that my church (UPC and oneness movement as a whole) wasn't the restoration of the apostolic church and doctrine, was heart breaking. I didn't leave with joy. I left because I couldn't fight the scripture when God opened my eyes. I felt like I had wasted so many years, so many Bible studies, so much time knocking doors, doing out reach, so many co workers I had witnessed to and many brought to church....for naught. Leaving was hard on me personally.

But then my wife. A lot if women put pressure on their husbands to leave. Not mine. She was sold on the UPC doctrine and standards. When it became known that I was shifting on doctrine and standards, it was nearly too much for her to take. It caused chaos and confusion in my home. Made worse then by all the doom and gloom heaped upon me by my pastor at the time. For a short time it felt like everyone was against me. I thought of giving up just because it didnt seem worth the trouble to rock the boat. It seemed like divorce, broken home, family, backslidden children could all become reality, and that sooner than later.

So to be 6 years removed from it all, and to see how God has worked all things for good, is a great relief and encouragement. I'm not sure how anyone really can say I'm bitter, but of course that sounds better to keep up the narrative. If ya'll didn't tell only the horror stories it may cause people to understand that if they leave the "apostolic" movement they are not necessarily leaving Christ, nor will He leave them, and that they are not stepping off the cliff into the great black abyss. But really ya'll can't have that.

To say it is a fear motivated and peer motivated system is quite accurate. And its definitely harder for those to leave who have family in it, or long tenured ministry preaching "the truth". To speak to a specific mindset, to verbalize fears and questions that many internalize and keep to themselves can be seen as intimidating to some. Its things they dont want to deal with and want to keep suppressed in the back of their mind. They dont want their world, routine, and life thrown into an upheaval....and so they cry out, sometimes enraged, sometimes simply out of fear for the unknown "bitter! Bitter!".

I understand brother. I've been there.

I am just an Ol' man having fun, you are right. However I feel responsible, I know too much and have been given too much not to speak up, whether on the conference floor the home mission church, or right here, because I know not very many people post here but there are many that read from this forum.

But I am also not a little bit bothered by the double standard, you guys condemn us to hell for believing what we believe. You call all of our rules man-made you tell us how much of a dictator we are. And that is fine with everybody, everyone loves to hear that, everyone at least that has left.

Your words are even more condemning than us pointing out things like trends in the church that are be-setting people from the goal.

Let me ask you, if we are da dictators are we going to heaven? If all of our rules are man-made and not from God, are we going to heaven? If we are imposing the doctrines of Men are we going to heaven?

This is the double standard I speak of. Are you going to get banned,? CC1 made a remark against one of my friends in Colorado, that was very condemning very demeaning and very attacking against a man's character. Is he going to get band ??

No of course not, let's pat him on the back, because he is awesome.

Hey bro I believe dat you guys are in bliss, I believe you guys are totally convinced of what you believe is truth. I have no doubt in my mind that you feel that God has led you this way.

Isaiah 66:4
I also will choose their delusions,
and will bring their fears upon them;
because when I called, none did answer;
when I spake, they did not hear:
but they did evil before mine eyes,
and chose that in which I delighted not.

n david

10-07-2016, 07:52 AM

But I am also not a little bit bothered by the double standard, you guys condemn us to hell for believing what we believe.
Please post one quote which shows what you claim. I haven't seen anyone condemn a con to hell for what a con believes. It's a big forum with a ton of posts, so I may have missed it.

Sherri

10-07-2016, 08:12 AM

aegsm76

10-07-2016, 08:16 AM

In all my years on these forums, I have NEVER seen anyone who has left the ultra con way condemning those ultra cons to hell. This is just ridiculous. You guys love to tell us we are going to hell, but I don't think any of us who have left would believe or say that about you. I believe you are saved, sanctified, and full of the Holy Ghost. But I believe I am too.

Sherri, I have seen several. One who used to post here and single-handedly almost destroyed this forum .
DA.

Sherri

10-07-2016, 08:20 AM

Sherri, I have seen several. One who used to post here and single-handedly almost destroyed this forum .
DA.
Ok, well I never heard him say that, but he was a loose cannon. He does not represent what the majority of us believe.

allstate1

10-07-2016, 08:21 AM

I am just an Ol' man having fun, you are right. However I feel responsible, I know too much and have been given too much not to speak up, whether on the conference floor the home mission church, or right here, because I know not very many people post here but there are many that read from this forum.

But I am also not a little bit bothered by the double standard, you guys condemn us to hell for believing what we believe. You call all of our rules man-made you tell us how much of a dictator we are. And that is fine with everybody, everyone loves to hear that, everyone at least that has left.

Your words are even more condemning than us pointing out things like trends in the church that are be-setting people from the goal.

Let me ask you, if we are da dictators are we going to heaven? If all of our rules are man-made and not from God, are we going to heaven? If we are imposing the doctrines of Men are we going to heaven?

This is the double standard I speak of. Are you going to get banned,? CC1 made a remark against one of my friends in Colorado, that was very condemning very demeaning and very attacking against a man's character. Is he going to get band ??

No of course not, let's pat him on the back, because he is awesome.

Hey bro I believe dat you guys are in bliss, I believe you guys are totally convinced of what you believe is truth. I have no doubt in my mind that you feel that God has led you this way.

Isaiah 66:4
I also will choose their delusions,
and will bring their fears upon them;
because when I called, none did answer;
when I spake, they did not hear:
but they did evil before mine eyes,
and chose that in which I delighted not.

I hope you don't mind me responding to this. What do you mean when you say you know too much? As for as the condemnation goes, from what I have witnessed, the so called UC's have been far more condemning of those that have left over varying degrees of ''legalism'' . I have spent most of my 45 years in a UPC church, I have questioned things since I was an early teen. My grand father was super conservative '' like a woman can't wear red type conservative'' . He was a pastor for many years. Long before AFF I had issues with UC standards. I studied and prayed and when I ask questions I was dismissed for being rebellious. I could give example after example and my story is similar to many here on AFF. To answer your question if your goin to Heaven, I hope so!! The issue to me is when folks like you push man made standards on some one so much that they leave period and never return to any form of Christianity. I think these people we would both consider lost. Is there blood on your hands? Would you be in sin if it was your word that run someone completely away from Jesus Christ and salvation. I realize that you sincerely believe in standards. I do not know how UC you are. However, there has never been any scripture reference to validate most traditional standards. I also know that your mind will never change. I'm ok with that and I'll never condemn anyone to hell.

Cracker Barrel

10-07-2016, 09:32 AM

Please post one quote which shows what you claim. I haven't seen anyone condemn a con to hell for what a con believes. It's a big forum with a ton of posts, so I may have missed it.

So, all da times they have called us Pharisee means that we are saved? I get it. I guess Jesus was only kidding when he called the Pharisees lost.

You must not read very many posts here, you should be an admin.:dogpat

Lolo I say!!

n david

10-07-2016, 10:09 AM

So, all da times they have called us Pharisee means that we are saved? I get it. I guess Jesus was only kidding when he called the Pharisees lost.

You must not read very many posts here, you should be an admin.:dogpat

Lolo I say!!
Okay, thank you. I have read posts calling cons Pharisees, and to be honest, have even called some I know Pharisees myself. I don't know about the others; however, in my calling them a Pharisee, I didn't mean they were going to hell. I used it as them being self righteous and proud of their outward appearance, but inside they're rotted with bitterness, malice, envy and anger. God is the Judge, not me or you.

I would imagine most of the references to "Pharisees" are likely the same. I'm glad you clarified that cons have been called "Pharisee," not that they've been told, as you claimed in the previous post, they're going to hell.

houston

10-07-2016, 11:49 AM

Go ahead, that's it .... let it all out, it's good for you. Your thumbs are dripping with bitterness as you type.

Inhale...
Hold hold......
Exhale,,,, ppppwwwwoooooooooooooo

https://m.popkey.co/ac3d23/5mRmd.gif

LOL! He's not bitter. Some of you just looove to throw that out there. IMO, I have seen more bitterness towards those that leave your movement.

Esaias

10-07-2016, 05:11 PM

Okay, thank you. I have read posts calling cons Pharisees, and to be honest, have even called some I know Pharisees myself. I don't know about the others; however, in my calling them a Pharisee, I didn't mean they were going to hell. I used it as them being self righteous and proud of their outward appearance, but inside they're rotted with bitterness, malice, envy and anger. God is the Judge, not me or you.

I would imagine most of the references to "Pharisees" are likely the same. I'm glad you clarified that cons have been called "Pharisee," not that they've been told, as you claimed in the previous post, they're going to hell.

1. So one can be self righteous and proud of their outward appearance but inside rotted with bitterness, malice, envy, and anger... and not go to hell?

2. Why in the world would anyone with two brain cells get upset if somebody on the intardnets said they were 'going to hell'? Good grief. We need a Special Snowflake Award...

n david

10-07-2016, 05:16 PM

1. So one can be self righteous and proud of their outward appearance but inside rotted with bitterness, malice, envy, and anger... and not go to hell?
I never said that. I said I didn't think of it in that context. God's the Judge, not me. I don't tell people they're going to hell.

2. Why in the world would anyone with two brain cells get upset if somebody on the intardnets said they were 'going to hell'? Good grief. We need a Special Snowflake Award...
Okay.

Esaias

10-07-2016, 05:28 PM

I never said that. I said I didn't think of it in that context. God's the Judge, not me. I don't tell people they're going to hell.

You just think it? OR, you don't think people who are self righteous and full of rotted bitterness and envy are lost? OR you don't know?

Okay.

http://rs173.pbsrc.com/albums/w42/snobahr/Humour/SpecialSnowflake.png~c200

Cracker Barrel

10-07-2016, 05:29 PM

" I used it as them being self righteous and proud of their outward appearance, but inside they're rotted with bitterness, malice, envy and anger. "

This is how you meant it when you called ultra cons Pharisee.

These are your words, do you believe people with this kind of attitude and demeanor or spirit are going to heaven?

n david

10-07-2016, 05:37 PM

You just think it? OR, you don't think people who are self righteous and full of rotted bitterness and envy are lost? OR you don't know?
I told you already, must I spell it out for you?

When I have used the word "Pharisee" in the past, I was thinking of a person pretending to be all holy on the outside, but filled with bitterness and anger on the inside. Period. Since you're demanding an answer and trying to paint me into a corner, I will state that if such a person does not repent, absolutely, they will be lost and go to hell.

But again, I wasn't sending them to hell. God's the Judge, not me or you or whoever Cracker Barrel is pretending to be.

n david

10-07-2016, 05:38 PM

This is how you meant it when you called ultra cons Pharisee.

These are your words, do you believe people with this kind of attitude and demeanor or spirit are going to heaven?
If such a person does not repent, no, DEY will not.

For DA umpteenth time, I don't put DEM DER, nor will I claim DER going DER. (Trying to put it in your language so you might understand what I'm posting)

Cracker Barrel

10-07-2016, 05:45 PM

If such a person does not repent, no, DEY will not.

For DA umpteenth time, I don't put DEM DER, nor will I claim DER going DER. (Trying to put it in your language so you might understand what I'm posting)

:yourock:highfive

It drives my gray-headed wife crazy when I talk like dat!!

Jason B

10-07-2016, 08:20 PM

I am also not a little bit bothered by the double standard, you guys condemn us to hell for believing what we believe. You call all of our rules man-made you tell us how much of a dictator we are. And that is fine with everybody, everyone loves to hear that, everyone at least that has left.
Your words are even more condemning than us pointing out things like trends in the church that are be-setting people from the goal.
First, I'm not sure who condemns conservative oneness pentecostals to hell. I know I do not. I know many, and I believe many of them are indeed saved. But that is simply my opinion, I am not their judge. I do believe there is legitimate fruit and evidence of salvation amongst at least some oneness pentecostals.

Second, if anyone is condemning others to hell, it is overwhelmingly cons/ultra cons who condemn either all trinitarians to hell, all who leave their sect to hell (cons turned liberal, but still oneness in some way), those who left the movement in general, or those who remain within the oneness pentecostal movement, even the UPC or ALJC, yet are considered too liberal by their UC brethren, and hence, damned to hell. If you're going to talk about a double standard and condemning people, start with how UCs treat the 4 groups of people I have just noted. And we're not just talking about forum banter. We are the illustrations, banter, and examples of their sermons. We are constantly misrepresented as the big bad wolf that the sheep must all fear. We are smeared, slandered, gossiped about, and shunned. It really is amazing that many of us aren't bitter. Like I said, I was told specifically that God was going to kill me. You know what I did? Prayed about it, found peace in God, kept living for Him, and when the same man who said that opened a hamburger stand in the next town over, I posted on Facebook how expensive and nasty the food was and how I saw cockroaches in the building. Oh wait, actually I went over bought a hamburger and told him how good it was. Talked theology with him for a bit, and treated him as a friend, never holding the threat/false prophecy against him, nor digging up any of the hard feelings from when I left. I probably treated him kindly because I'm bitter.

As I also noted in the SP thread, over the summer I adopted two boys, I named the oldest one after my first pastor (a UPC brother), despite the fact I've been gone for 6 years. Again, probably because I'm bitter. I don't know.

Tell me a little more about that double standard.

Third "you call our rules man made". Guilty as charged. Yes, there's no scripture prohibiting a beard, a tv, visiting an amusement park or sporting event. No scripture supporting the notion that a woman can never in her life even trim a split end, wear a pair of pajama pants, or put something on her face to cover a blemish or spot. No scripture against a woman painting her nails, a man wearing a pair of shorts, or any scripture prohibiting all jewelry of any kind (on the fingers and ears) yet allowing it on the wrist, clothes, and hair. No scripture saying someone can't wear the color red, that a married woman MUST wear her hair in a bun on top of her head, or that someone cannot even read the comics in the local newspaper. (All of which has been preached as damnable sins in apostolic churches, and SOME of which of the above are believed universally by all conservative oneness pentecostals). Yes those are man made rules. The majority of the holiness standards are. Some of the standards actually have basis in scriptures as principles (hair lengths on men and women for example) but even then scriptural principles are taken to the extreme and then made salvational issues. Yes that is totally wrong. Every bit of it. Is it hateful or arrogant to point out doctrinal error?

Fourth, "how much of a dictator we are". Not quite sure about where this comes from. Some, perhaps many UC OP pastors do act like dictators. This is due to a fundamental hermenutical flaw that the pastor exercises some disproportionate amount of divine authority and anointing over the congregation. Based on misapplication of "obey them that have rule over you in the Lord" and "touch not mine anointed". Because these passages are taken out of context, the result is the pastor can set standards that apply to everyone under his authority and become matters of salvation. You may attend a church that allows DVDS then move and have a pastor that does not. If in the latter scenario you keep your DVD player, you are in rebellion, which is as the sin of witchcraft, and are endangering your soul, since your pastor has to give an account for you. Thus the DVD player becomes a matter of salvation (or wearing certain colors, or long sleeves vs short sleeves, or any host of whims and preferences that can be dreamed up). Salvation is a moving target based on where you live and who your pastor is when you keep the standards. It's a broken system....but no one can question it because the pastor is above reproach. To question is to "touch the Lord's anointed" and to invite God's judgment. Blah, blah, blah. The result is people have to approve their vacations with their pastor, approve their dress with the pastors wives, and essentially live for their pastors approval, rather than Christ's. On a practical level, this simply isn't Biblical.

Jason B

10-07-2016, 09:10 PM

Let me ask you, if we are da dictators are we going to heaven? If all of our rules are man-made and not from God, are we going to heaven? If we are imposing the doctrines of Men are we going to heaven?
I touched on this in my previous post, but I'll be as clear as I can. First, I can only offer my opinion, which is of course in the grand scheme of things and especially God's judgment, worthless. There is an admitted tension in my view, and let me share that.

I do believe that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone. I do believe that the oneness pentecostal system of standards tends to be legalistic, and takes the focus off of the atonement of Christ and His imputed righteousness to us, and causes us to establish our own righteousness through our ability to toe the line. Our salvation is never a fixed thing but always fluid and based on our obedience and ability to keep the standards. To me this is a system of works-righteousness that is strongly condemned in the ministry of Jesus, and especially in the letters of Romans, Galatians, and Colossians. I do believe legalism and self righteousness can cause someone to be lost, I do not believe that all people who are involved in a legalistic system are lost, and here's why: Quite frankly there are many sincere people (I know I know, sincerity saves no one...don't get hung up on that word and hear me out), there are many sincere people who simply obey what they are taught. Not everyone is a preacher, not everyone has time to dig deep into the Word. On the surface the teachings of the movement can be quite convincing to the scriptural novice. I can speak from experience, having no Biblical knowledge, repenting of my sins, and being amazingly saved by God at age 18. I didn't know nothing except I was hell bound and Jesus was my only hope. I completely surrendered to Him, and my life has never been the same. I don't doubt He saved me. But at the same time, He didn't make me a master of theology and divinity. In fact, I was so ignorant of the scripture, my knowledge was , there are 2 testaments in the Bible, the new testament is about Jesus. I knew about Adam, and Noah and the flood, and that was about it. I didn't even know what Israel was, much less that there was an actual Jerusalem. I literally knew nothing Biblical, and as a high school drop out, obviously didn't know much secular. All I cared to know was sin. Yet God saved me. But wonder of wonders in a church that I came to find out had bad theology....but I digress. My point being some people believe that because it is their first exposure to Christianity, either through conversion or through birth. They may be legalistic, yet not realize they are. This doesn't excuse the error, but here's why I don't believe all in the movement are lost:

Because God's grace and mercy are amazing. It is obvious from the scripture and experience that a theological exam is not required for God to save you from your sins. If He saves us in a state of complete ignorance, but sincere repentance and faith, why should we think He won't be merciful towards us as we learn and work things out on our journey? That is precisely what many oneness pentecostals are doing. So I don't want to make the blanket statement they are all going to hell. I don't want to sell God's mercy, love, or grace short.

That said, I don't believe grace can ever be used as a cloak for sin (which it is often times used for) and thats why grace becomes a bad word. Titus 2:11-12 teaches us what true grace does in both the negative and positive effects. Now then, my greatest concern is for those who not only keep the standards, but ridicule all those who do not. They are the legalists, the neo pharisees of the movement. They are aggressive, hateful, and judgmental against those who do not meet their own standards. They condemn those who disagree, or who even hold to standards, albeit more liberal standards they they set for themselves. They believe themselves to be the only true believers, and they believe God is pleased with them BECAUSE they keep the standards (and thus they are holy). Regularly these same people think nothing of the sins of slander, gossip, jealousy, hatred, etc. All can be covered up with clothing, hidden in demonstrative worship, or cloaked in "righteous indignation". And many times that is the case.
My concern with these type folks is not their legalism, but specifically their pride, self righteousness, and hatred they seem to harbor in their hearts for everyone not belonging to their group (excepting prospective members). Yes I fear for them. I fear they may be surprised to be the ones crying out "Lord Lord didn't we do all these things in your name?" Yet I don't condemn them. I do not know their hearts. And they are not my servants, so I don't judge them. We have the right to speak about doctrine. I do not believe we have the right to judge other professing believers. Who are we to judge another mans servant, to their own master will they stand or fall, and Christ is their master, and it is at His judgment seat they shall appear. So do I judge the ultra con? No. Do I express my concern for their soul? Yes. Do I openly repudiate their doctrine? Yes I do. Do I desire their damnation? No I do not. Do I want them to be saved even if they condemn me? Yes. I don't want them condemned on my account. I pray, Lord, charge not this sin to their account.

Thus, I don't think all UCs are lost because of God's grace. But I fear for those who are arrogant, hateful, and overtly self righteous who are quick to condemn and seem to rejoice in the damnation of others. I would not want to be them on judgment day, yet I do hope they find grace in the sight of the Lord. I do not root for their destruction.

Cracker Barrel

10-07-2016, 10:40 PM

My concern with ( Folks like SP) is not their liberalism, but specifically their pride, self righteousness, and hatred they seem to harbor in their hearts for everyone not belonging to their group (excepting prospective members). Yes I fear for (SP). I fear (SP) may be surprised to be the ones crying out "Lord Lord didn't we do all these things in your name?" Yet I don't condemn (SP). I do not know (SP) hearts. And (SP) is not my servant, so I don't judge (SP). We have the right to speak about doctrine. I do not believe we have the right to judge other professing believers. Who are we to judge another mans servant, to their own master will they stand or fall, and Christ is their master, and it is at His judgment seat they shall appear. So do I judge the ultraLIB? No. Do I express my concern for their soul? Yes. Do I openly repudiate their doctrine? Yes I do. Do I desire their damnation? No I do not. Do I want (SP) to be saved even if they condemn me? Yes. I don't want (SP) condemned on my account. I pray, Lord, charge not this sin to (SP's) account.

Please read the quote above.

Ok, I took your quote, and added SP.
What if I added J Badejo.
Would that be non judgemental or not condemning?
Would that be considered loving and full of grace?

After all it is your words!

Dis is the double standard!!!!

Lolo I Say!?!??!

Esaias

10-07-2016, 10:50 PM

I told you already, must I spell it out for you?

When I have used the word "Pharisee" in the past, I was thinking of a person pretending to be all holy on the outside, but filled with bitterness and anger on the inside. Period. Since you're demanding an answer and trying to paint me into a corner, I will state that if such a person does not repent, absolutely, they will be lost and go to hell.

But again, I wasn't sending them to hell. God's the Judge, not me or you or whoever Cracker Barrel is pretending to be.

So if a conservative tells a liberal 'you are currently lost if you don't repent' how are they doing anything different than what you are doing? According to you, a Pharisee is currently lost, as they will go to hell unless they repent (ie stop being a Pharisee). So you call some people Pharisees, meaning you are in effect saying they are lost and going to hell (unless they repent). So again, how is that any different than what anyone else is doing or has done?

You said 'but again, I wasn't sending them to hell.' Guess what? Neither is the most sore-throated, red faced hardline fundie preacher who screams 'all liberals are lost and are gonna split hell wide open'. They aren't sending anyone to hell, either. They, like you, are just 'telling it like it is'.

So I have to conclude that if Team A says Team B is 'lost' it's horribly offensive and uncouth and judgmental and probably sinful and at least deserving of a forum ban, but if Team B says Team A is lost it's just all well and good and hunky dory.

Besides the fact that Christians shouldn't be divided into Team A and Team B in the first place, I think it is the height of hypocrisy (Pharisaism?) to condemn in others that which one allows in themself.

Jason B

10-07-2016, 11:12 PM

Please read the quote above.
First the quote makes the most sense taken in context, which was the grace and mercy of God extended towards those who do not have a full theological understanding. Only then did I shift to the people who absolutely blast people to hell, while touting their own "steadfastness" (ie self righteousness).

Secondly, you miss the difference in spirit. Very big distinction in vehement doctrinal disagreement, yet personal concern.

Third, whereas I express concern for those seemingly exhibiting very dangerous sins (pride, hatred, self righteousness, jealousy) yet don't condemn as these are sins of the heart, of which only God can judge.

The same treatment is not extended by many UCs. Example on the SP thread someone (cons89?) questioned SPs motives, called him a creep (what does that have to do with doctrine), apostate, false teacher and more. I just dont think yall get it.

Esaias

10-07-2016, 11:19 PM

Salvation is a moving target based on where you live and who your pastor is when you keep the standards. It's a broken system....but no one can question it because the pastor is above reproach. To question is to "touch the Lord's anointed" and to invite God's judgment. Blah, blah, blah. The result is people have to approve their vacations with their pastor, approve their dress with the pastors wives, and essentially live for their pastors approval, rather than Christ's. On a practical level, this simply isn't Biblical.

I have only been a member of 'conservative apostolic' churches, whether UPC or independent (not counting one house church in Houston we used to be with). Not once have I ever been given the impression you have presented. I have had pastors who genuinely believed that 'when a man gets the Holy Ghost he'll get the revelation that he needs to shave off that facial hair'. I have had a pastor straight up tell me 'being clean shaven isn't Biblical, but it's just more holy'. I've been a member of a church where the pastor's son got up and testified how one day at work he was tempted to take off his button-up long sleeved outer shirt and just wear his t-shirt like everyone else on the work crew, but he decided he'd 'rather sweat a bit than burn in hell'.

BUT NOT ONCE was I EVER given the impression that 'The result is people have to approve their vacations with their pastor, approve their dress with the pastors wives, and essentially live for their pastors approval, rather than Christ's.' I'm not saying such environments don't exist, I am just saying I have never ran into them among apostolics. I HAVE run into them among JWs and certain Baptists (although among the Baptists it wasn't so much 'standards' as it was just more of a clique thing...) however I just have never seen such horrible nightmare Stepford Wives-esque apostolic churches like you are describing.

And I've been in churches from Washington state to Oklahoma to Texas to Tennessee. Beginning in 1992.

I have also butted heads with fellow 'conservative' apostolics even preachers about various 'standards' issues yet NEVER ONCE was I given the impression that they thought I was 'lost' or hell bound for having a differing view. Come to think of it, I suspect that might be because my attitude towards them and 'standards' was and is not the typical 'liberal' attitude... Hmmm, I am starting to wonder if THAT might be part of the puzzle... hmmm...

Sherri

10-08-2016, 08:38 PM

I have only been a member of 'conservative apostolic' churches, whether UPC or independent (not counting one house church in Houston we used to be with). Not once have I ever been given the impression you have presented. I have had pastors who genuinely believed that 'when a man gets the Holy Ghost he'll get the revelation that he needs to shave off that facial hair'. I have had a pastor straight up tell me 'being clean shaven isn't Biblical, but it's just more holy'. I've been a member of a church where the pastor's son got up and testified how one day at work he was tempted to take off his button-up long sleeved outer shirt and just wear his t-shirt like everyone else on the work crew, but he decided he'd 'rather sweat a bit than burn in hell'.

BUT NOT ONCE was I EVER given the impression that 'The result is people have to approve their vacations with their pastor, approve their dress with the pastors wives, and essentially live for their pastors approval, rather than Christ's.' I'm not saying such environments don't exist, I am just saying I have never ran into them among apostolics. I HAVE run into them among JWs and certain Baptists (although among the Baptists it wasn't so much 'standards' as it was just more of a clique thing...) however I just have never seen such horrible nightmare Stepford Wives-esque apostolic churches like you are describing.

And I've been in churches from Washington state to Oklahoma to Texas to Tennessee. Beginning in 1992.

I have also butted heads with fellow 'conservative' apostolics even preachers about various 'standards' issues yet NEVER ONCE was I given the impression that they thought I was 'lost' or hell bound for having a differing view. Come to think of it, I suspect that might be because my attitude towards them and 'standards' was and is not the typical 'liberal' attitude... Hmmm, I am starting to wonder if THAT might be part of the puzzle... hmmm...

I have oh so many questions I want to ask from this post, but I will only ask one. How in the world does having a clean shaven face mean you are more holy??? I'm asking sincerely. Where in the Bible does this thinking come from?

Evang.Benincasa

10-08-2016, 08:43 PM

I have oh so many questions I want to ask from this post, but I will only ask one. How in the world does having a clean shaven face mean you are more holy??? I'm asking sincerely. Where in the Bible does this thinking come from?

I don't know...but you can give this chap a call.

http://www.onegodmusic.com/images/SteveWFenderGuitar2.jpg

Esaias

10-08-2016, 08:50 PM

I don't know...but you can give this chap a call.

http://www.onegodmusic.com/images/SteveWFenderGuitar2.jpg

Close this thread down, it's over with, that right there is THE thread winner.

Might as well just move on to the next topic, lock this thread, make it a sticky for all posterity to read and see how to really 'close out a conversation'.

:yourock

Evang.Benincasa

10-08-2016, 08:53 PM

Close this thread down, it's over with, that right there is THE thread winner.

Might as well just move on to the next topic, lock this thread, make it a sticky for all posterity to read and see how to really 'close out a conversation'.

:yourock

What did I do now!?!?!?!

Esaias

10-08-2016, 08:54 PM

I have oh so many questions I want to ask from this post, but I will only ask one. How in the world does having a clean shaven face mean you are more holy??? I'm asking sincerely. Where in the Bible does this thinking come from?

Ok, maybe one more post.

I don't have a clue. You'd have to ask the pastor who said that. BTW, as I stated, he said 'I know it isn't in the Bible, but it's just more holy...' All I could do is take it for what it was worth - his personal opinion. Which he would admit without blinking that it was just his opinion.

One more thing - the guy is a great guy, wonderful pastor, and he focuses 'more on teaching than preaching', and there isn't a soul on earth, lost or saved, who wouldn't feel welcome to have church with him. He's incredibly down to earth, and he and his wife are some of the finest examples of genuine Christians I have ever met.

Esaias

10-08-2016, 08:56 PM

What did I do now!?!?!?!

You blew them out of the water. I am saying your posting of brother Winter's photo, in the immediate context, simply blows any other possible response to smithereens and would make any other response just look lame in comparison.

It's a compliment.

I have no exclamation point on my keyboard so everything gets posted deadpan.

:heeheehee

Evang.Benincasa

10-08-2016, 08:57 PM

You blew them out of the water. I am saying your posting of brother Winter's photo, in the immediate context, simply blows any other possible response to smithereens and would make any other response just look lame in comparison.

It's a compliment.

I have no exclamation point on my keyboard so everything gets posted deadpan.

:heeheehee

Do you need a new keyboard?

Esaias

10-08-2016, 09:09 PM

Do you need a new keyboard?

It's a laptop and it's wearing out. That's what happens when a Giant Schnauzer pup walks across the keyboard. I also have no number four and the 'p' requires using about 150percent more pressure than the other keys in order to get it to register.

I have some extra keyboards boxed up I will probably dig out at some point and plug in, but I'm just too lazy at the moment to worry about it. I'll probably wait until I lose my enter key. :heeheehee

Evang.Benincasa

10-08-2016, 09:13 PM

It's a laptop and it's wearing out. That's what happens when a Giant Schnauzer pup walks across the keyboard. I also have no number four and the 'p' requires using about 150percent more pressure than the other keys in order to get it to register.

I have some extra keyboards boxed up I will probably dig out at some point and plug in, but I'm just too lazy at the moment to worry about it. I'll probably wait until I lose my enter key. :heeheehee

Ok, looks like you have it solved.

I have cats and chickens, when they walk across my keyboard they just type bik=elkve23@%$^&)((!hcxaw230

Esaias

10-08-2016, 09:21 PM

Ok, looks like you have it solved.

I have cats and chickens, when they walk across my keyboard they just type bik=elkve23@%$^&)((!hcxaw230

Yeah, gotta keep the chickens off the keyboard.

lol

FlamingZword

10-08-2016, 09:26 PM

But I am also not a little bit bothered by the double standard, you guys condemn us to hell for believing what we believe. You call all of our rules man-made you tell us how much of a dictator we are. And that is fine with everybody, everyone loves to hear that, everyone at least that has left.

Well since I am not UPCI, I guess I can respond to this post without being accused of having left the true faith and speaking from bitterness.

First of all we and I speak for some of us who are not UPCI really do believe the Bible and live a holy life and no we do not agree with some UPCI pastors man made rules, which are not found in the Bible.

However we believe that UPCI folks are truly saved although misguided in some of their ideas. Does the fact that we disagree with some of their denominational ideas means that we condemn them to hell? Not at all.

We love our UPCI Brethren and expect to see them in heaven and we also love other Brethren who are not UPCI and we too expect to see them in heaven.

It is ridiculous to be sending each other to hell because of some minor disagreements over some minor points, yet we agree in all major doctrines, so I consider all these arguments to be nothing but distractions from our mission to reach the lost.

Evang.Benincasa

10-08-2016, 09:27 PM

Yeah, gotta keep the chickens off the keyboard.

lol

Wait, let me fix that one before I get dragged behind a post till the meat fall off my bones.

DISCLAIMER: Sister Benincasa doesn't allow chickens to walk across her home at any time. Brother Benincasa's daughters brought them in because of the hurricane but they were confined to a back bathroom.

Evang.Benincasa

10-08-2016, 09:44 PM

It is ridiculous to be sending each other to hell because of some minor disagreements over some minor points, yet we agree in all major doctrines, so I consider all these arguments to be nothing but distractions from our mission to reach the lost.

Hey, when my daughter Konstantina was born, a brother who I have had fellowship with forever called me up, and told me that he felt in the Holy Ghost that something bad was going to happen to her. Something bad because of what I believed as far as eschatology. You see, when she was born she had a small lump above her eyebrow, and it concerned me. So, in her first week of birth this brother felt strongly to call me up to tell me this gut sickening news. While he spoke to me in this "thus saith the Lord" mode, I waited for him to get done. When he was finished, and the spiritual mist settled, I told him one thing...let's pray.

He is still my brother, I still talk with him, I still love him.

I mean really, what do you do with that kind of information?

You pray, you seek God, Jesus takes care of it and them.

Man, Stephen was being stoned and said lay this NOT to their charge.

CC1

10-09-2016, 03:41 PM

Hey, when my daughter Konstantina was born, a brother who I have had fellowship with forever called me up, and told me that he felt in the Holy Ghost that something bad was going to happen to her. Something bad because of what I believed as far as eschatology. You see, when she was born she had a small lump above her eyebrow, and it concerned me. So, in her first week of birth this brother felt strongly to call me up to tell me this gut sickening news. While he spoke to me in this "thus saith the Lord" mode, I waited for him to get done. When he was finished, and the spiritual mist settled, I told him one thing...let's pray.

He is still my brother, I still talk with him, I still love him.

I mean really, what do you do with that kind of information?

You pray, you seek God, Jesus takes care of it and them.

Man, Stephen was being stoned and said lay this NOT to their charge.

I am curious, do you believe that God punishes people based on their eschatology views?

Godsdrummer

10-09-2016, 05:02 PM

I am curious, do you believe that God punishes people based on their eschatology views?

Some people do.

Evang.Benincasa

10-09-2016, 05:39 PM

I am curious, do you believe that God punishes people based on their eschatology views?

https://m.popkey.co/086937/GeYzD.gif

Jason B

10-10-2016, 12:14 PM

I have only been a member of 'conservative apostolic' churches, whether UPC or independent (not counting one house church in Houston we used to be with). Not once have I ever been given the impression you have presented. I have had pastors who genuinely believed that 'when a man gets the Holy Ghost he'll get the revelation that he needs to shave off that facial hair'. I have had a pastor straight up tell me 'being clean shaven isn't Biblical, but it's just more holy'. I've been a member of a church where the pastor's son got up and testified how one day at work he was tempted to take off his button-up long sleeved outer shirt and just wear his t-shirt like everyone else on the work crew, but he decided he'd 'rather sweat a bit than burn in hell'.

BUT NOT ONCE was I EVER given the impression that 'The result is people have to approve their vacations with their pastor, approve their dress with the pastors wives, and essentially live for their pastors approval, rather than Christ's.' I'm not saying such environments don't exist, I am just saying I have never ran into them among apostolics. I HAVE run into them among JWs and certain Baptists (although among the Baptists it wasn't so much 'standards' as it was just more of a clique thing...) however I just have never seen such horrible nightmare Stepford Wives-esque apostolic churches like you are describing.

And I've been in churches from Washington state to Oklahoma to Texas to Tennessee. Beginning in 1992.

I have also butted heads with fellow 'conservative' apostolics even preachers about various 'standards' issues yet NEVER ONCE was I given the impression that they thought I was 'lost' or hell bound for having a differing view. Come to think of it, I suspect that might be because my attitude towards them and 'standards' was and is not the typical 'liberal' attitude... Hmmm, I am starting to wonder if THAT might be part of the puzzle... hmmm...

I'm amazed. Except for the last paragraph. Of course you can have some disagreements within the good ole boys club, as long as its not 3 step doctrine, and basic foundational standards. Tge fact that there are variants church to church was part of my point. Just dont cross the line or they'll turn on you, SP is case in point.

Esaias

10-10-2016, 12:32 PM

I'm amazed. Except for the last paragraph. Of course you can have some disagreements within the good ole boys club, as long as its not 3 step doctrine, and basic foundational standards. Tge fact that there are variants church to church was part of my point. Just dont cross the line or they'll turn on you, SP is case in point.

Everything after "I'm amazed" seems to contradict the "I'm amazed" part. Good ole boys club? Is your side of the aisle the good ole girls' club or something?

Go to any baptist church. Tell them you believe sins are washed away in baptism. See how far the right hand of fellowship extends to you. More like the left foot of fellowship.

If regeneration includes repentance, water baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost, then those who reject that have rejected a core, essential, fundamental doctrine of the faith. The issue is not "why can't we all get along?" but rather "who is on the Lord's side?"

shazeep

10-10-2016, 02:39 PM

The issue is not "why can't we all get along?" but rather "who is on the Lord's side?"well, it can only be to satan's advantage to conflate the two imo.

Evang.Benincasa

10-10-2016, 04:02 PM

Evang.Benincasa

10-10-2016, 04:12 PM

Everything after "I'm amazed" seems to contradict the "I'm amazed" part. Good ole boys club? Is your side of the aisle the good ole girls' club or something?

I guess the good ole girls' club has some sour grapes?

Nothing like keep picking at an open sore to make sure it makes a long lasting scar.

Jason B

10-10-2016, 09:09 PM

Go to any baptist church. Tell them you believe sins are washed away in baptism. See how far the right hand of fellowship extends to you. More like the left foot of fellowship.
Granted.
Therefore its ok to condemn all Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Church of Christ, Trinitarian pentecostals, and liberal and many moderate oneness pentecostals to hell.

If regeneration includes repentance, water baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost, then those who reject that have rejected a core, essential, fundamental doctrine of the faith. The issue is not "why can't we all get along?" but rather "who is on the Lord's side?"

*IF*
The one and only way anyone can be saved is indeed the 3 step understanding of Acts 2:38, including mandatory specific invocation of Jesus name not only in the baptism ceremony, but specifically immediately before or during the dunking
-AND-
That speaking in tongues is the one and only indispensable infallible universal evidence of the Holy Spirit (thus regeneration/new birth) for all believers in all nations in all times from pentecost on, without which they can not be saved (since they have not the Spirit, they are none of His, Romans 8:9).....

-THEN-
You are correct about the magnitude of the question, and indeed you (and those of your persuasion) should hold all others as lost.

But then again that complicates all kind of things, for example:
1)Most people who believe the 3 step doctrine also make denial of the trinity a requirement of salvation, thus condemning even those early pentecostal pioneers, many Azuza participants and leaders, the numerous men who jumped back and forth between the new issue and the established AoG doctrine, including RE McCallister, plus all trinitarian pentecostals of all time (which to be technical is only the last 116 years), because even though many did indeed repent, were baptized in Jesus name, and received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of tongues, they affirmed belief in the trinity....they are still lost.

2)In addition not only to 3 steps, and oneness, many of you demand also adherence to holiness standards, which many oneness pentecostals do no adhere to, and pretty much no one else except fundamental baptists and fundamentalist mormons...oh and the Amish

3)the fundamental doctrine of the movement is absent from all church history, and has not a single proponent, convert, or witness in all of church history prior to 1913. Come on, even Jrhovah's Witness link to Arius. Every OP link to the past breaks down, because while you will find on trinitarians (Sabellius, Praxeas, Servetus, Newton) you rarely find one who baptized in Jesus name....and in the few cases that the first two boxes are checked (which are very few indeed), these people never equivocate speaking in tongues with the proof a person was born again. There are some aspects of OP doctrine in history, but always scattered amongst different groups, typically fringe types or loners like the Montanists or Servetus. But no one with the full package until 1913 in America.......so are you really sure your movement and understanding are either apostolic or restorationist? It seems to be neither.

*No one has ever taught the "big 3" as yall do. When you make it the "big 5", Acts 238, plus oneness, plus standards, its even more impossible to find any historical support (metaphorically speaking, since actually it is impossible to find less than zero)

So if the question is "who is on the Lord's side" and that means who is teaching His truth.....well I don't see any Biblical or historical reason to cast my lot with the conservative 3 step OPs.

CC1

10-10-2016, 09:11 PM

https://m.popkey.co/086937/GeYzD.gif

Thank you for such a clear answer! LOL

Jason B

10-10-2016, 09:20 PM

Granted.
Therefore its ok to condemn all Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Church of Christ, Trinitarian pentecostals, and liberal and many moderate oneness pentecostals to hell.

*IF*
The one and only way anyone can be saved is indeed the 3 step understanding of Acts 2:38, including mandatory specific invocation of Jesus name not only in the baptism ceremony, but specifically immediately before or during the dunking
-AND-
That speaking in tongues is the one and only indispensable infallible universal evidence of the Holy Spirit (thus regeneration/new birth) for all believers in all nations in all times from pentecost on, without which they can not be saved (since they have not the Spirit, they are none of His, Romans 8:9).....

-THEN-
You are correct about the magnitude of the question, and indeed you (and those of your persuasion) should hold all others as lost.

But then again that complicates all kind of things, for example:
1)Most people who believe the 3 step doctrine also make denial of the trinity a requirement of salvation, thus condemning even those early pentecostal pioneers, many Azuza participants and leaders, the numerous men who jumped back and forth between the new issue and the established AoG doctrine, including RE McCallister, plus all trinitarian pentecostals of all time (which to be technical is only the last 116 years), because even though many did indeed repent, were baptized in Jesus name, and received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of tongues, they affirmed belief in the trinity....they are still lost.

2)In addition not only to 3 steps, and oneness, many of you demand also adherence to holiness standards, which many oneness pentecostals do no adhere to, and pretty much no one else except fundamental baptists and fundamentalist mormons...oh and the Amish

3)the fundamental doctrine of the movement is absent from all church history, and has not a single proponent, convert, or witness in all of church history prior to 1913. Come on, even Jrhovah's Witness link to Arius. Every OP link to the past breaks down, because while you will find on trinitarians (Sabellius, Praxeas, Servetus, Newton) you rarely find one who baptized in Jesus name....and in the few cases that the first two boxes are checked (which are very few indeed), these people never equivocate speaking in tongues with the proof a person was born again. There are some aspects of OP doctrine in history, but always scattered amongst different groups, typically fringe types or loners like the Montanists or Servetus. But no one with the full package until 1913 in America.......so are you really sure your movement and understanding are either apostolic or restorationist? It seems to be neither.

*No one has ever taught the "big 3" as yall do. When you make it the "big 5", Acts 238, plus oneness, plus standards, its even more impossible to find any historical support (metaphorically speaking, since actually it is impossible to find less than zero)

So if the question is "who is on the Lord's side" and that means who is teaching His truth.....well I don't see any Biblical or historical reason to cast my lot with the conservative 3 step OPs.

Of course this never gets answered. Maybe a profound "nuh-uh, there are too"

Why should I or anyone else believe ya'll have recovered the hidden oringinal doctrine of the apostles?

Or will you guys just post pics of whiny babies?

Jason B

10-10-2016, 09:24 PM

*No one has ever taught the "big 3" as yall do. When you make it the "big 5", Acts 238, plus oneness, plus standards, its even more impossible to find any historical support (metaphorically speaking, since actually it is impossible to find less than zero)

I guess make it the big 6, add foot washing to the list.

Or maybe the big 7, because we know those who dont pay tithes are surely lost, even if they are oneness, Jesus name tongue talkin', holiness livin', foot washin' apostolics.

We'll that ought to do it, salvation in 7 easy steps....maintained throughout your life by threat of damnation at the failure to comply or believe in the essentiality of any. But do them all, and you shall surely be saved. But that seems a bit contradictory to this.....

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
Ephesians 2:8?-?9

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law , to perform them ." Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, " The righteous man shall live by faith ."
Galatians 3:10?-?11

Evang.Benincasa

10-10-2016, 09:39 PM

Jason have you recovered the hidden original doctrine of the apostles?

Evang.Benincasa

10-10-2016, 09:41 PM

Jason another thing? Your token One God Pastor who you still claim as your favorite One Godder, have you taught him all the above?

Jason B

10-10-2016, 09:43 PM

Jason another thing? Your token One God Pastor who you still claim as your favorite One Godder, have you taught him all the above?

He passed away brother.

He would not have agreed with me. I still love him anyway.

Evang.Benincasa

10-10-2016, 09:52 PM

He passed away brother.

He would not have agreed with me. I still love him anyway.

Really? Jason, when you first brought him up to me you would of thought you were still in fellowship with him. Now after further inquiry you don't have any One God Apostolic fellowship?

Evang.Benincasa

10-10-2016, 09:53 PM

Well, none other than this forum?

But all you do here is bash Apostolic Doctrine?

Whatever.

The pouty baby pic fits you. :heeheehee

Jason B

10-10-2016, 09:56 PM

Really? Jason, when you first brought him up to me you would of thought you were still in fellowship with him. Now after further inquiry you don't have any One God Apostolic fellowship?

I'm not sure who you're talking about. The guy who was my first pastor died in 2006.
The guy I was with in Decatur, who o sent you CDs on tithing, is the one who told me God was going to kill me.

I still have friends in the movement, but no I don't attend a OP church. I haven't since 2011. Were you unaware?

Note: i have visited OP churches, including a UPC 5 times this summer, but I have not been a member of an OP church since 2010/11

Jason B

10-10-2016, 09:58 PM

Well, none other than this forum?

But all you do here is bash Apostolic Doctrine?

Whatever.

The pouty baby pic fits you. :heeheehee

But all of this is simply a deflection from the issues I brought up

Evang.Benincasa

10-10-2016, 10:07 PM

I'm not sure who you're talking about. The guy who was my first pastor died in 2006.
The guy I was with in Decatur, who o sent you CDs on tithing, is the one who told me God was going to kill me.

Well, wouldn't it be the one who passed? The one who would of supposedly lifted you upon his shoulders proclaiming how he agrees with you? The one you named your adopted child after? If I had a dollar for everyone who ever told me that God was going to kill me, my children, my wife, individually or all together, I would be able to buy Donald Trump's house in West Palm.

I still have friends in the movement, but no I don't attend a OP church. I haven't since 2011. Were you unaware?

Fully aware, so my question goes for these other token Oneness. Have you shared your revelatory insights with them? Do they agree with you?

Note: i have visited OP churches, including a UPC 5 times this summer,

Why?

I was raised Catholic but I don't visit Catholic churches for any reason. :lol

but I have not been a member of an OP church since 2010/11

Sad.

Evang.Benincasa

10-10-2016, 10:11 PM

But all of this is simply a deflection from the issues I brought up

Oh no way, Jason, not at all.

You believe we are a new issue no older than 1913.

You're the one eyed man and we are the blind.

So you are here to help anyone who may be wanting to be made free.

Jason B

10-10-2016, 11:06 PM

Well, wouldn't it be the one who passed? The one who would of supposedly lifted you upon his shoulders proclaiming how he agrees with you? The one you named your adopted child after?
Yes. Except the agreeing with me part. He was ultra uc, as was I. Towards the end I was beginning to study some things out, but at that time our biggest disagreement was tithing, to which he humbly told me, "if you don't pay your tithes bro. Jason, you will go to hell." I didn't embrace justification by faith for another 5 years.

If I had a dollar for everyone who ever told me that God was going to kill me, my children, my wife, individually or all together, I would be able to buy Donald Trump's house in West Palm.
That apostolic brotherly love is everywhere.....and leaving a trail of false prophecies. Surely "this is that".....or maybe not.

Fully aware, so my question goes for these other token Oneness. Have you shared your revelatory insights with them? For the most part, no. I didn't seek to do that when I left, nor do I seek it now. If someone asks me a question, i discuss. Do I try to evangelize all the OPs, no.

Why?

I was raised Catholic but I don't visit Catholic churches for any reason. :lol
.
In April I resigned pastoring a local Bible Church in my town. I was bi vocational, and with a full time job,a family, that had expanded to include 2 foster children (1 & 4 at time of placement), jail ministry, and church responsibilities, I felt like the most important thing I could do was focus on my family, balance some things out, and get the adoption done and build a strong relationship with the boys (now 2 & 5). So this required finding a church, and since my views are what they are, a mixture of oneness views with reformed theology, finding a church was going to be tough.

I visited several churches, including at the invitation of a friend, a UPC. I considered visting because, despite a different view of soteriology, I still cannot embrace Trinitarian theology. (Some of it honestly does not bother me, nor do I think someone is lost due to their trinitarian views, nor do I believe trinitarians worship 3 gods. But me personally, I still believe a oneness view is more Biblical, and probably historical, at least in the pre-Nicean age. (Though this is a constant area of my personal study)

I also agree that water baptism in the name of Jesus is the more Biblical and historical method.

I also enjoy enthusiastic and emotional praise and worship, though I not particularly outgoing. I enjoy the fellowship (the church I visited is my first pastors widows home church and she invited us), and I also have an admiration for the pentecostal focus on prayer and holiness living. (You guys think I hate pentecostals, you do err.)

Thus I visited. I liked the pastor. I liked the people. I liked the familiarity. But I realized also, I simply do not believe the doctrine. I can exist there, and go along to get along, but at this point it'd be an act. There are too many doctrinal differences and cultural issues for me to be a part there. I simply do not agree with the fundamental doctrine, nor standards, or tithing, foot washing, or the doctrine of "anointing" (ie, the pastor, evangelist, man of God, us God's anointed authoritative mouthpiece, to whom obedience is due, and to disagree or disobey, or even ask why is to touch God's anointed).

I agreed with the emphasis on repentance from sin, and oneness and baptism in Jesus name (as a practice, not all the specifics of the doctrine). And most statements/opinions on social issues made from the pulpit. Beside that it just wasn't the place for me. It was the same old UPC i was used to, except more people had TVs and did things that used to be considered worldly (a moderate UPC). The same repeated themes of dress/identity/convictions were interwoven in every sermon, sunday school, and mid week we attended. One session was a mens session on holiness. The brother speaking correctly noted in his early comments that holiness isnt on the outside....then proceeded to speak for most of the remainder of his time about the need to dress/look holy then transitioned to worship and equated it with running laps around the building. Then a story was told about how an older man ran around the whole building at camp meeting and what an inspiration he was, and it was resolved that if we want a revival in the church we cant wait on the women to lead it, the men need to be demonstrative in worship. Sunday came and one the men took off running the building. Call me skeptical, but I don't believe revival comes by demonstrative worship, and when 2 or 3 or more mentions a certain highly respected elder running around are made, I think theres a subtle hint to the impressionable brothers that its time to bring the NIKEs to church. Call me what you will, i can't do it.

Jason B

10-10-2016, 11:09 PM

Of course this never gets answered. Maybe a profound "nuh-uh, there are too"

Why should I or anyone else believe ya'll have recovered the hidden oringinal doctrine of the apostles?

Or will you guys just post pics of whiny babies?

Still waiting. I'm always candid and honest in my answers. And I continue to answer personal questions about myself.

So.....want to tell me why I should believe ya'll uncovered the apostles doctrine, despite all biblical and historical evidence otherwise?

Esaias

10-10-2016, 11:35 PM

Granted.
Therefore its ok to condemn all Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Church of Christ, Trinitarian pentecostals, and liberal and many moderate oneness pentecostals to hell.

Straw man. First of all, nobody here can condemn anyone to hell. All anyone on this earth can do is point out if someone is lost, based on their confessed lack of agreement with the doctrine of Christ.

Secondly, Lutherans believe baptism is for the remission of sins, and anyone not baptised is lost. Church of Christ believe the same with the additional idea that one must believe their baptism is for the purpose of washing away their sins and that they are being baptised into God's one and only church, and must believe this PRIOR to being baptised, otherwise the individual is lost. And furthermore that only the 'Church of Christ' is the church of God, and that every one else is a heretic. Conservative Presbyterians believe anyone not adhering to Calvinism and the Westminster Confession or the London Confession are heretics and lost. Liberal Presbyterians believe lesbians can be ordained into the ministry. Baptists are divided, almost all Primitive Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, and Regular Baptists, and a whole bunch of independent Baptists and a whole bunch of Missionary Baptists believe that unless you are a Baptist like them, you are lost. Many trinitarian Pentecostals believe that being a non-trinitarian of any flavour is a one-way ticket to hell. Most Baptists believe that being Pentecostal or Charismatic, of any flavour, means you are a heretic and quite possibly demon-possessed and on your way to hell. Many Protestants and Evangelicals believe anyone who believes 'Lordship Salvation' is lost and going to hell as a heretic, while many others believe anyone who DOESN'T believe Lordship Salvation is a lost hell bound heretic. And on and on it goes.

You profess you are in the same boat with Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Church of Christ, and Trinitarian Pentecostals, and we are the cult because we have such a narrow view of 'who is saved'. Yet, that great big boat of fellowship only exists in your mind, and in the mind of those others who do not know their own sect's doctrine and theology and soteriology. It's like a JW complaining about how the Papacy is a satanic cult because the Vatican presumes to dictate infallible doctrine and 'correct interpretation of scripture that must be followed because the Vatican is God's Chosen Vessel', all the while ignoring the role of the Governing Body in their own religion's doctrine.

*IF*
The one and only way anyone can be saved is indeed the 3 step understanding of Acts 2:38, including mandatory specific invocation of Jesus name not only in the baptism ceremony, but specifically immediately before or during the dunking
-AND-
That speaking in tongues is the one and only indispensable infallible universal evidence of the Holy Spirit (thus regeneration/new birth) for all believers in all nations in all times from pentecost on, without which they can not be saved (since they have not the Spirit, they are none of His, Romans 8:9).....

-THEN-
You are correct about the magnitude of the question, and indeed you (and those of your persuasion) should hold all others as lost.

Straw man, sort of. You said "That speaking in tongues is the one and only indispensable infallible universal evidence of the Holy Spirit ..." Nobody claims that speaking in tongues is an 'infallible' evidence. All Pentecostals have maintained that speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance is the 'normative, universal, initial evidence of receiving the baptism with the Holy Ghost.' I have not met a Pentecostal yet who would not admit that speaking in tongues can be faked, nor have I met one who would claim that speaking in tongues is any guarantee of salvation.

But as you correctly pointed out, the question is 'what does the Bible teach?' And therefore, the question of how many people believe or have believed a certain thing, or when or where, is irrelevent to the discussion.

But then again that complicates all kind of things, for example:
1)Most people who believe the 3 step doctrine also make denial of the trinity a requirement of salvation, thus condemning even those early pentecostal pioneers, many Azuza participants and leaders, the numerous men who jumped back and forth between the new issue and the established AoG doctrine, including RE McCallister, plus all trinitarian pentecostals of all time (which to be technical is only the last 116 years), because even though many did indeed repent, were baptized in Jesus name, and received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of tongues, they affirmed belief in the trinity....they are still lost.

As noted above, irrelevent. Doctrine is not determined by how many illustrious people believe a certain thing, and truth is not determined by a show of hands, all in favour say 'Aye'. Do you realise the argument you are making is the foundation for the Catholic faith? And it is the BASIS for the claims made by the catholics and Eastern Orthodox that THEIR church is THE only church, and that EVERYONE OUTSIDE their doctrine and practice is heretical and lost? The 'historical argument' you make if you were consistent would rule out every single Protestant and consign them straight to hell.

We have to ask ourselves, "Do I want to know what the BIBLE says and teaches? OR do I want to follow what men have believed so as not to part company with them?" Never mind those illustrious men of the past would likely have concluded YOU yourself were a hellbound heretic anyway...

2)In addition not only to 3 steps, and oneness, many of you demand also adherence to holiness standards, which many oneness pentecostals do no adhere to, and pretty much no one else except fundamental baptists and fundamentalist mormons...oh and the Amish

Your knowledge of history is lacking. What OPs call 'standards' are normative for the entire Conservative Holiness Movement (trinitarian Wesleyans), and was normative prior to the 1960s for practically every group outside of the liberal mainline 'modernist' groups who were spearheading such things as liberation theology, process theology, Jesus as divine myth, etc. What you seem to think is unique to Oneness Pentecostal groups and a few outlying cults is not, but was considered normative Christianity up until about the mid-late 20th century. Do you want me to prove it?

3)the fundamental doctrine of the movement is absent from all church history, and has not a single proponent, convert, or witness in all of church history prior to 1913. Come on, even Jrhovah's Witness link to Arius. Every OP link to the past breaks down, because while you will find on trinitarians (Sabellius, Praxeas, Servetus, Newton) you rarely find one who baptized in Jesus name....and in the few cases that the first two boxes are checked (which are very few indeed), these people never equivocate speaking in tongues with the proof a person was born again. There are some aspects of OP doctrine in history, but always scattered amongst different groups, typically fringe types or loners like the Montanists or Servetus. But no one with the full package until 1913 in America.......so are you really sure your movement and understanding are either apostolic or restorationist? It seems to be neither.

First, as before shown, the historical argument is irrelevent. Show me any Baptists or trinitarian Pentecostals or charismatics for that matter prior to 1550. Why aren't you following the Byzantine Rite? Better get busy...

Secondly, trinitarianism was developed by the Montanists. It was the Montanist Tertullian who coined the word 'trinitas'. By the way, Tertullian complained in his day that the vast majority of believers were Patripassians who believed that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the Father and that trinitarianism was three god-ism. He also affirmed that the charismata were fully operational throughout the Christian world, both among the Montanists and the rest of the majority of orthodox believers who were objecting to the new doctrine of 'trinitas'.

Servetus a fringe type or loner? You do realise his writings are still used in medical schools today, right? Your grasp of history needs to level up.

*No one has ever taught the "big 3" as yall do. When you make it the "big 5", Acts 238, plus oneness, plus standards, its even more impossible to find any historical support (metaphorically speaking, since actually it is impossible to find less than zero)

Who prior to the 1900s believed or taught what YOU teach? Do you believe in the baptism with the Holy Ghost? Do you believe in speaking in tongues? Prophesying? Healings? Miracles? Do you believe in Calvinism? If not, do you believe in Arminianism? Who taught either of those things prior to the 1600s? Are you Lutheran? Campbellite? Methodist? Catholic?

So if the question is "who is on the Lord's side" and that means who is teaching His truth.....well I don't see any Biblical or historical reason to cast my lot with the conservative 3 step OPs.

Who do you cast your lot in with? Presbyterians? Reformed? Charismatics? Lutherans? Baptists? Congregationalists? Who down through all centuries has believed and taught what you believe and teach?

Jason B

10-11-2016, 06:46 AM

Straw man. First of all, nobody here can condemn anyone to hell. All anyone on this earth can do is point out if someone is lost, based on their confessed lack of agreement with the doctrine of Christ.

Secondly, Lutherans believe baptism is for the remission of sins, and anyone not baptised is lost. Church of Christ believe the same with the additional idea that one must believe their baptism is for the purpose of washing away their sins and that they are being baptised into God's one and only church, and must believe this PRIOR to being baptised, otherwise the individual is lost. And furthermore that only the 'Church of Christ' is the church of God, and that every one else is a heretic. Conservative Presbyterians believe anyone not adhering to Calvinism and the Westminster Confession or the London Confession are heretics and lost. Liberal Presbyterians believe lesbians can be ordained into the ministry. Baptists are divided, almost all Primitive Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, and Regular Baptists, and a whole bunch of independent Baptists and a whole bunch of Missionary Baptists believe that unless you are a Baptist like them, you are lost. Many trinitarian Pentecostals believe that being a non-trinitarian of any flavour is a one-way ticket to hell. Most Baptists believe that being Pentecostal or Charismatic, of any flavour, means you are a heretic and quite possibly demon-possessed and on your way to hell. Many Protestants and Evangelicals believe anyone who believes 'Lordship Salvation' is lost and going to hell as a heretic, while many others believe anyone who DOESN'T believe Lordship Salvation is a lost hell bound heretic. And on and on it goes.

You profess you are in the same boat with Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Church of Christ, and Trinitarian Pentecostals, and we are the cult because we have such a narrow view of 'who is saved'. Yet, that great big boat of fellowship only exists in your mind, and in the mind of those others who do not know their own sect's doctrine and theology and soteriology. It's like a JW complaining about how the Papacy is a satanic cult because the Vatican presumes to dictate infallible doctrine and 'correct interpretation of scripture that must be followed because the Vatican is God's Chosen Vessel', all the while ignoring the role of the Governing Body in their own religion's doctrine.

Straw man, sort of. You said "That speaking in tongues is the one and only indispensable infallible universal evidence of the Holy Spirit ..." Nobody claims that speaking in tongues is an 'infallible' evidence. All Pentecostals have maintained that speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance is the 'normative, universal, initial evidence of receiving the baptism with the Holy Ghost.' I have not met a Pentecostal yet who would not admit that speaking in tongues can be faked, nor have I met one who would claim that speaking in tongues is any guarantee of salvation.

But as you correctly pointed out, the question is 'what does the Bible teach?' And therefore, the question of how many people believe or have believed a certain thing, or when or where, is irrelevent to the discussion.

As noted above, irrelevent. Doctrine is not determined by how many illustrious people believe a certain thing, and truth is not determined by a show of hands, all in favour say 'Aye'. Do you realise the argument you are making is the foundation for the Catholic faith? And it is the BASIS for the claims made by the catholics and Eastern Orthodox that THEIR church is THE only church, and that EVERYONE OUTSIDE their doctrine and practice is heretical and lost? The 'historical argument' you make if you were consistent would rule out every single Protestant and consign them straight to hell.

We have to ask ourselves, "Do I want to know what the BIBLE says and teaches? OR do I want to follow what men have believed so as not to part company with them?" Never mind those illustrious men of the past would likely have concluded YOU yourself were a hellbound heretic anyway...

Your knowledge of history is lacking. What OPs call 'standards' are normative for the entire Conservative Holiness Movement (trinitarian Wesleyans), and was normative prior to the 1960s for practically every group outside of the liberal mainline 'modernist' groups who were spearheading such things as liberation theology, process theology, Jesus as divine myth, etc. What you seem to think is unique to Oneness Pentecostal groups and a few outlying cults is not, but was considered normative Christianity up until about the mid-late 20th century. Do you want me to prove it?

First, as before shown, the historical argument is irrelevent. Show me any Baptists or trinitarian Pentecostals or charismatics for that matter prior to 1550. Why aren't you following the Byzantine Rite? Better get busy...

Secondly, trinitarianism was developed by the Montanists. It was the Montanist Tertullian who coined the word 'trinitas'. By the way, Tertullian complained in his day that the vast majority of believers were Patripassians who believed that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the Father and that trinitarianism was three god-ism. He also affirmed that the charismata were fully operational throughout the Christian world, both among the Montanists and the rest of the majority of orthodox believers who were objecting to the new doctrine of 'trinitas'.

Servetus a fringe type or loner? You do realise his writings are still used in medical schools today, right? Your grasp of history needs to level up.

Who prior to the 1900s believed or taught what YOU teach? Do you believe in the baptism with the Holy Ghost? Do you believe in speaking in tongues? Prophesying? Healings? Miracles? Do you believe in Calvinism? If not, do you believe in Arminianism? Who taught either of those things prior to the 1600s? Are you Lutheran? Campbellite? Methodist? Catholic?

Who do you cast your lot in with? Presbyterians? Reformed? Charismatics? Lutherans? Baptists? Congregationalists? Who down through all centuries has believed and taught what you believe and teach?

Alright I like it. A nice rebuttal with some substance and counter questioning. EB, this is why I continue to come to AFF, not because I hate pentecostals.
I'll respond, as you have taken time to respond. But i have a long day at work, then hockey practice afterwards. So it may be a day or two.

Evang.Benincasa

10-11-2016, 03:55 PM

Yes. Except the agreeing with me part. He was ultra uc, as was I. Towards the end I was beginning to study some things out, but at that time our biggest disagreement was tithing, to which he humbly told me, "if you don't pay your tithes bro. Jason, you will go to hell." I didn't embrace justification by faith for another 5 years.

So, but after reading your posts it seems that you would of had issues with each other on more than tithing. Reformed theology has emphasis on predestination, of sinner and saint. You are saved by faith and faith alone. Nothing you can do can merit salvation. But you posted that you believe in some sort of hodgepodge of Oneness and Presbyterian theology. How long were yo with the UC pastor?

That apostolic brotherly love is everywhere.....

It is, but the most curses didn't come from UC. It came from Branhamites, and huge number from Charismatics, and Hebrew Roots adherents. Charismatics practice more Voodoo then they do Christianity. Hebrew Roots and their cousin Yahwists are totally flipped out and never hesitate to lash out with calling lighting down. Again, Apostolics I love, even the ones who don't believe what I believe. I love the Apostolic movement and everything good and bad that has happened to me since I've been in it.

and leaving a trail of false prophecies.

I have had brothers and sisters drop the watermelon, but it's forgivable.
Yet, I have had Apostolic men and women tag issues which the accuracy of a heat seeking missile. I don't mean a service where they call people out and do a homa mo shonda and then cold read, warm read, and hot read. But just a lickity split word when they walk up to you after they been in prayer. Or someone you know has been sent the mail by a brother who walked up to them after a meeting. I'm not talking about parking lot prophets, but good old home cooked cornbread and butter beans telling you what is going on in your life. What's going on, what's coming the down the road, with accuracy which would make Nostradamus sweat.

Surely "this is that".....or maybe not.
For the most part, no. I didn't seek to do that when I left, nor do I seek it now. If someone asks me a question, i discuss. Do I try to evangelize all the OPs, no.

Sadly I don't believe that, because you are on a mission whether you like it or not. You hate what we believe and how we believe it. Therefore you have your questions and answer time to discourage anyone who are in a season of indecision.

In April I resigned pastoring a local Bible Church in my town.

Imagine resigning as a brother, a father, a mother, a daughter, a son?
I'm with a church family, there my family, everyone who attends means something to me as much as my own flesh and blood. You look at us as odd, but you even admit that you don't have it together. Jason your beam?

I was bi vocational, and with a full time job,a family, that had expanded to include 2 foster children (1 & 4 at time of placement), jail ministry, and church responsibilities, I felt like the most important thing I could do was focus on my family, balance some things out, and get the adoption done and build a strong relationship with the boys (now 2 & 5). So this required finding a church, and since my views are what they are, a mixture of oneness views with reformed theology, finding a church was going to be tough.

Hey bro, some men are just too busy to be part of the ministry I understand.

I visited several churches, including at the invitation of a friend, a UPC.

UPCI? Why would you even set a foot in any Apostolic church? Dude If I had your views I would find those of LIKE PRECIOUS FAITH? This is why I don't believe you. Because you are either confused beyond belief, or you are a change agent provocateur. Sometimes ministers have too much drive to see a new family fill a pew. They convince themselves that a shapeshifter will get some sort of epiphany and get infilled with a touch of Hazelwood. Better off finding out the reason why someone who had such of a road to Damascus moment would want to park his family on an Apostolic view? Just not believing in the Trinity? Soteriology of predestination to hell and heaven? If that's what you believe? You cannot be comfortable sitting in a freewill salvation church.

I considered visting because, despite a different view of soteriology, I still cannot embrace Trinitarian theology.

http://31.media.tumblr.com/0af994ca73c13bdfb3bbd853c33ac53f/tumblr_naodmigxjS1sqa8ooo1_400.gif

(Some of it honestly does not bother me, nor do I think someone is lost due to their trinitarian views, nor do I believe trinitarians worship 3 gods.

Get off it! Man, you don't believe in anything dude.

Sorry, so very very sorry.

Narrow way, tight hard to navigate entrance, and my atheist father would laugh himself to the floor. Everytime he would hear this sort of "Buy the World a Coke and keep it Company Christianity". He would say how do those people think they can change a world when they can't figure what end is up.

But me personally, I still believe a oneness view is more Biblical, and probably historical, at least in the pre-Nicean age. (Though this is a constant area of my personal study)

What? Dude you can't make up your mind even in the same paragraph?

I also agree that water baptism in the name of Jesus is the more Biblical and historical method.

So? What does that mean in your grand scheme?? When it isn't EVEN important enough for EVERYONE who claims the title Christian? They can by pass it, and still gain entrance to glory?

Good God from Zion!

I also enjoy enthusiastic and emotional praise and worship, though I not particularly outgoing. I enjoy the fellowship (the church I visited is my first pastors widows home church and she invited us), and I also have an admiration for the pentecostal focus on prayer and holiness living. (You guys think I hate pentecostals, you do err.)

Jason, hate? You are just a confused shapeshifter, and I need to do my Neil Degrasse Tyson impression

https://media4.giphy.com/media/urZvVFIs7faso/200.gif#2

Evang.Benincasa

10-11-2016, 04:03 PM

Alright I like it. A nice rebuttal with some substance and counter questioning.

How many forums are you a member where you debate?

EB, this is why I continue to come to AFF, not because I hate pentecostals.

I see, so you are trying to win us through debate therefore we will believe in Presbyterian Reformed Theology. I guess we were predestined not to believe you? :heeheehee

I'll respond, as you have taken time to respond.

Maybe your not predestined to respond?

But i have a long day at work, then hockey practice afterwards. So it may be a day or two.

Maybe your predestined to be gone even longer?

If you post today, then I guess your predestined to post today?

Sorry, real sorry.

I hope you don't believe in that sorry mumbo jumbo

good samaritan

10-11-2016, 04:09 PM

:popcorn2

Evang.Benincasa

10-11-2016, 04:10 PM

:popcorn2

If you are eating popcorn use floss. :)

good samaritan

10-11-2016, 04:11 PM

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

CC1

10-11-2016, 06:03 PM

then transitioned to worship and equated it with running laps around the building. Then a story was told about how an older man ran around the whole building at camp meeting and what an inspiration he was, and it was resolved that if we want a revival in the church we cant wait on the women to lead it, the men need to be demonstrative in worship. Sunday came and one the men took off running the building. Call me skeptical, but I don't believe revival comes by demonstrative worship, and when 2 or 3 or more mentions a certain highly respected elder running around are made, I think theres a subtle hint to the impressionable brothers that its time to bring the NIKEs to church. Call me what you will, i can't do it.

This experience mirrors my last visit to a UPC function. It was a music conference in the Nashville area with preaching at night. The night I went the preacher was a Louisiana UPC pastor who proceeded to preach a sermon mostly based on an incident at his church involving extreme worship ( some man found the Christian flag in a storage room and started running the aisles with it so all the men joined in and ended up, if I remember correctly, outside running around the parking lot. There was a non Pentecostal visitor there who came up and asked the pastor if this church believed in miracles and he said it did and then she demanded he pray for her healing. He did and she came back weeks or months later and handed him a doctors report saying she was healed. From that he put forth the thesis that extreme "worship" is what brings miracles and healing. Not a lick of biblical basis for this but the crowd ate it up.

Cracker Barrel

10-11-2016, 06:41 PM

This experience mirrors my last visit to a UPC function. It was a music conference in the Nashville area with preaching at night. The night I went the preacher was a Louisiana UPC pastor who proceeded to preach a sermon mostly based on an incident at his church involving extreme worship ( some man found the Christian flag in a storage room and started running the aisles with it so all the men joined in and ended up, if I remember correctly, outside running around the parking lot. There was a non Pentecostal visitor there who came up and asked the pastor if this church believed in miracles and he said it did and then she demanded he pray for her healing. He did and she came back weeks or months later and handed him a doctors report saying she was healed. From that he put forth the thesis that extreme "worship" is what brings miracles and healing. Not a lick of biblical basis for this but the crowd ate it up.

That's funny!
That story sounds like when I turned on da 'almost Holy Ghost radio' a Little while back. And some guy got up and preached a message entitled universal dominion. And the crowd went crazy, 'they ate it up!'

Lolo I say?!?!?

CC1

10-11-2016, 06:57 PM

That's funny!
That story sounds like when I turned on da 'almost Holy Ghost radio' a Little while back. And some guy got up and preached a message entitled universal dominion. And the crowd went crazy, 'they ate it up!'

Lolo I say?!?!?

That is one subject I have never heard a sermon on in old time Oneness Pentecost. It was all the rage in charismatic circles a few decades ago though. Interesting that you heard that sermon. Was it a recent sermon? I know sometimes HGR plays some older ones.

Cracker Barrel

10-11-2016, 07:10 PM

That is one subject I have never heard a sermon on in old time Oneness Pentecost. It was all the rage in charismatic circles a few decades ago though. Interesting that you heard that sermon. Was it a recent sermon? I know sometimes HGR plays some older ones.

It was a live broadcast from ARCM camp meeting, 2016.

Can you remember who preached the one you heard in times past?

Quick take some vitamin D3! :heeheehee

Jason B

10-11-2016, 07:50 PM

Bro Benincasa

Do you believe in the power of God to save sinners?

Evang.Benincasa

10-11-2016, 08:38 PM

Bro Benincasa

Do you believe in the power of God to save sinners?

I believe in the power of God to save willing sinners who have made a choice.

Joshua 24:15 has one man asking people to choose.

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

So are you a Calvinist?

Evang.Benincasa

10-11-2016, 08:48 PM

Not a lick of biblical basis for this but the crowd ate it up.

Like your celebration of Xmas?!?

https://media.tenor.co/images/0c2860109b96a75874aa086af008b13a/tenor.gif

Jason B

10-11-2016, 09:37 PM

I don't know if you're on a witch hunt, and seeking to discredit me since you haven't and can't answer my posts about your sect and fundamental doctrine or if you simply are curious. I believe the former, but I'll answer for the sake of the latter.

So, but after reading your posts it seems that you would of had issues with each other on more than tithing. Reformed theology has emphasis on predestination, of sinner and saint. You are saved by faith and faith alone. Nothing you can do can merit salvation. But you posted that you believe in some sort of hodgepodge of Oneness and Presbyterian theology. How long were yo with the UC pastor?
My first pastor passed away in 2006. I sat under him for 7 years. I remained in that church until 2008. I moved to Decatur (about 35 miles outside D/FW, about 50 miles to church) in 2005 yet continued to attend there through 2008. At which time I finally left because the 100 mile round trip was old,especially doing it twice on Sundays. 3 times a week counting midweek, and sometimes 4 or 5 if there was a church event, or if I went to mow the grass. (As for the church we had 2 men overseeing the church while in his illness, then one of those 2 pastored for a while, then in 2007 another man came and still pastors to this day, although he left the UPC in 2011).
From 2008 through June 2010 I attended a local independent holiness church (there was only 1 UPC church in Wise County,TX). Here I was an associate pastor, and for the first time in my life began to preach on a regular basis. Not being of any religious affiliated before God saved me in January 2000, I was well versed in oneness theology, but not much else. I'd read all the required reading for UPC licensing, and essentially every Word Aflame book I could get. But preaching all the time I wanted to do more than just focus on the fundamental doctrine, holiness standards, tongues, deliverance, and red meat sermons. I began to study with the full intention of expanding my preaching and strentghening my oneness beliefs. I had ZERO intention, nor did I study looking for anything else. It was so inconceivable that I could ever leave OP or that it wasn't THE truth, it wasn't even on my radar.
I began to study, read commentaries, get into the greek, etc,etc. Knock me if you want, and I understand that there are oneness people who study and don't come to my conclusions. (Bro. blume for example a man I have great respect for), but for me, I just felt like the deeper I went, it became obvious that there were hemenutical problems. When I encountered problems, I dug deeper-trying to answer from my oneness view. I talked to my pastor and other respected and older ministers. I went to the resources available to me-on the internet, books, prayer, everything. I'll skip to the end...so while I preached her 2 and a half years, it was probably during the last 2 months, maybe 1 month that my views really began to change. But really it wasn't until about the last week or 2 I realized that I just couldn't continue to hold to the initial evidence doctrine. I did discuss these things with my pastor, as we spoke often at length, typically after every evening service and sometimes met for lunch during the week. There was no hiding anything. He allowed me to continue to preach until the end. My last Sunday morning there (it was odd, I wasn't pastor, but I preached every Sunday morning, and he preaced midweek) I preached on Abraham's obedient faith from Hebrews 11:6 and concluded by reading Romans 4, and simply concluded "what does this mean? it means exactly what it says. That afternoon he called me and we discussed the sermon, I told him I was really struggling to find the needed support for tongues being required for salvation (I know the proper lingo, I'm shorthanding here). We spoke for 2 hours. It was mostly cordial, but I was upfront with the issues I was wrestling with.
Midweek service came, we sing our songs, and then unexpectedly he calls me up to preach. No prep, no warning, nothing. (I had just got off work, was in my work clothes) He says, you started something Sunday (Romans 4), why don't you come up and pick up where you left off. The man loves to debate, and having spoken to me in private, he knew basically what I'd preach. I felt pidgeonholed and like it was my moment in the sand. SO I opened up Romans 4 and preached how Abraham was justified by faith, that it was written for our sakes, and of the peace that we have being justified on Christ's merits rather than our own.
To his credit he let me preach it.
Then after I had preached an hour and sat down, he came to close service and publically interrogated me. He came at me aggressively, and very blunt-
He began by talking to the church-"Do yall understand what he just said?" He asked this because while I preached on justification by faith, I didn't touch baptism, tongues, standards. True I implied those things were secondary, but I was as respectful as could be given the situation, believing my only responsibility was to preach the text true to the intent, not to attack people or their beliefs, and allow them to come to their own conclusions. And again, this was happening at real time, it's not like I calculated it or know what would come next.
Then he pretty much turned the church in to AFF Raw, he started demanding answers from me like the Inquisition (do you believe a person has to speak in tongues to be saved? What about this scripture, how do explain that?) But everytime I'd answer he'd cut me off and talk over me (I was back in a pew by this time, he on pulpit with mike) It was like trying to discuss something with Donald Trump. SO this went on for an hour. The whole time my wife is wondering what is going on, because as I had studied these things, the only person I had discussed them with was my pastor and some posts here on AFF, just in our usual back and forth. So anyway, we leave (after I stay there nearly 3 hours total, take the grilling, and respond kindly but with scripture). I didn't walk out, didn't accuse, didn't demean. But that was the end of my OP days as far as church goes.

A week later the new pastor in Arlington (my original church, but new pastor) and tells me he heard what happened, that he too had a shift in theology, had turned in his card, and wanted to see if I would come help him with the transition. He came over, we discussed doctrine and church vision, and I was thrilled to go and help him.

I went, and it was great at first, but rapidly the church began going in the familiar path of ex conservative UPCs, charismatic TBN doctrine, TD Jakes, Joel Osteen, and the like began to influence church policy and doctrine, and it became to much for me. It seemed that no matter what text was preached on the basic message was "God wants to bless you in your relationship, your job, finances." Breaktrough was always coming, each service was the best service ever. Great emotion, little substance. It was TBN lite, but in substance it was prosperity gospel-not the old fashioned Kenneth Copeland brand, but the more discreet TD Jakes/Robert Morris type. Thus I left. Throughout this year I had continued my studies, and considered for the first time visiting non charismatic churches.

I visited several churches. But I loved the emphasis at Fellowship Bible Church on personal discipleship and life in Christ. When I came they were preaching through Phillipians, and it was phenomenal. I know some OP preachers do expository preaching, but in 10 years, I never heard it, with the exception of one man, Steve Pixler. Beside that everything I heard was emotional driven sermons on the distinctives of the movement, on defeating the devil, on apostolic revival, or tearing down the compromisers (remember I was UC). SoI really enjoyed this preaching, though to me the worship and environment was shockingly calm. It was in fact quite uncomfortable at first. But I while I had long come to realize that you need not run, jump, or spin to praise God, I still was pretty critical of this type of worship. But I was drawn to the Word, so I stuck it out.

This was August 2011. I knew that this was a new church that was a merger of two bodies, one calvinist, one non. So under the surface the elders were working out the specifics of the merger, doctrine, leadership standards, etc. In Feb 2012 the two groups called off the merger, and the calvinist group left, the non (which were the minority) stayed. I had considered leaving, but when this happened, I stayed. To this point I had not preached, just attended, hadn't even told anyone I was a preacher, it was my first period of break from ministry. For a while I was just trying to continue my studies. Shortly thereafter, the pastor/elder of the smaller congregation asked me to speak in his place, as he went to India to visit the orphanges he had founded. On occasion he travelled to China and other times to Washington DC for the prayer breakfast he helped to coordinate. Each time he travelled, I handled the preaching duties This was only occasionally, and without official capacity.

After preaching occasionally and teaching adult Bible class, the motion was made that I should become an elder (Bible churches are often elder led). The 2 elders were split (there were 4 but after the split, only 2 were left), and the 3 of us had a discussion. The one elder in favor said, well we will bring it before the church, the other elder agreed. I was going on vacation the following weekend to Florida, and I told them, please don't. I can see this is contentous and I don't want to be a problem here. We can revisit this in 6 months or so. That seemed to be the agreed position.

I came back from Florida and found out that the elder not in favor had brought up the issue to the church in the morning Bible class (all adults had Bible class before the worship service). It caught everyone off gaurd. The elder told the church the reason I should not be an elder (too young basically-I was 32 at the time). And asked for feedback. There was some discussion, and then the church voted. Everyone in the church with the exception of the one elder and his wife voted i should become and elder. I knew nothing. I was chillin at Disney world.
The elder not in agreement said, ok, next week Jason will begin preaching, and Gary (the other elder) will teach Bible class. Myself and (wife) will simply attend and help when needed.................

Evang.Benincasa

10-11-2016, 09:57 PM

Dude, you are the product of a very dramatic Pentecostal sleigh ride.

How long were you supposedly Apostolic? You said you were UC?

You accuse me of discrediting you?

My man, I believe you need to take full credit for that.

So are you a Calvinist?

Jason B

10-11-2016, 10:43 PM

....(continued)
So upon returning from Florida (April 2013) I was told what happened and that I would be preaching this Sunday and probably next. I preached. I could see how the situation had changed, and the following Sunday preached on Galatians 2 (Peter and Paul's dispute) and how that believers, even true believers have disagreements, but that shouldn't keep us from working through them because of our common love for Christ and mutual goal to glorify Him and expand His kingdom. It did not achieve the intended the result. In private conference it had been suggested that The elder who didn't agree with me becomeing an elder resigned before the next Sunday. He was filling the role of pastor. It was strange because in September 2012 he was the one who first brought up the idea of making me and elder while we ate lunch at a mexican resturant after church. He was 70, I was 32, yet we got along well. Celebrated New years together, our families enjoyed dinner together at each others houses, even when he resigned, he came to my house and spoke kindly to me, and it was to me he tendered his resignation. We got along great, I gave to his orphanages, I really am baffled why it worked out the way it did, unless he was just hurt that some people in the church wanted me to preach regularly. Anyway.....

From April 2013 I began to pastor the church, kind of thrown into it. Recall I had come to visit the church and was taking a break from preaching, and certainly from regualr preaching. This whole thing just happened by the course of events. But because the church was small and I had a good paying job that supported myself and family, I preached for free. At the time I just had my wife and my 2 girls, then 10 and 12. I worked a salary job of 6 days 55 hours a week. By this time I had begun doing jail ministry, which was bi-weekly on Thursday evenings. Then I took on the responsibility of pastoring. It was never easy, but still a great blessing. It drove me to prayer as never before. It drove me deeper in scripture. My whole focus was the church and the Word (because pretty much every evening is given to preperation or sturdy of some kind, when you work 6 days a week, and Sunday is your day off). But also, I didn't believe I was fully ready. It wasn't my desire to pastor. I would have loved helping and ministering occasionally, or rotating at most. When I began to do it full time, preperation and church things took all of my personal study time. So when you come at me about my beliefs, remember I was still in the mode of re-evaluating everything when this happened. I had arrived at firm positions on salvation and tithing. Still held to oneness and Jesus name baptism. But really hadn't gotten into the specifics of the theology debate to the degree I wanted to.

But, when I became pastor (actually some time before-for when the two groups split, I was asked to be involved in the statement of faith-and they ended up using my suggestions nearly verbatim, still available on the church website-fellowshipbiblentx.org). Because Bible churches operate similar to churches of Christ (independent autonomous congregations) there wasn't any issue with my oneness or baptism in Jesus name. So I wasn't forced by a fellowship to be one or the other. i had the freedom to work through these things and all other doctrinal issues, but the problem was the time. Which never seemed to come as I wanted.

But the thing is, when you pastor, you don't have to worry about not agreeing with the preacher. It's an ideal situation for someone who has a hybrid theology (which I admittedly did and do). I'm not a calvinist, but I find reformed theology profitible, while not subscribing to all the particulars. I'mnot a trinitarian, but don't automatically condemn them all to hell. The same can be said of eschatology, ecclesiology, etc.)

So after 1 1/2 years of pastoring, I get a letter one day asking me to care for a 7 month old infant in foster care, who is my second cousin by birth, whose existence I knew nothing of. I agree, but the process of CPS placement takes about 4 months. Come to find out he has a half brother who is 4 years old and has lukemia. Drugs are involved, both parents incarcerated, the 4 year old on chemo. They ask us to take both boys, then before placement split them up. We foster the then 13 month old. Incredibly difficult situation, he doesn't sleep through the night, he's been in 3 homes already in his life, later we find out he has a heart condition (but God is good and all is now well), and it was just a struggle, to work full time, pastor, do jail ministry, balance family life, and have an infant in the home who needed constant attention and woke up either 1am-4am or 2am-5am nightly. And when we woke up he didn't play. He screamed, 2-3 hours. My wife would take him to the living room, but no one slept. Then 7am-8am came, time to work. work to 6-7pm. Eat, study, repeat. Very challenging. I understand you said your church is like family, most of us feel that way too. But brother, I'm just telling you, this was hard. Nevertheless, we did this for about 7 months.

July 2015. I'm working, my wife calls. The 4 year old who was placed in a seperapte foster home has been taken into CPS custody. His foster parents got evicted. Because we were previously approved, he can come o our care, or goes into the foster care system again, likely never reunited with his brother. We had to make a decision right then, how could we say no? 1 hour later the boy is at my house. He is 4. He has been in 6 homes by this age. He has lukemia and is on chemo. My wife is given a briefing and the worker leaves. No tylenol, no medicines of anykind except his perscriptions. He has a port surgically installed in his chest and if he runs a fever of 100 or more we must take him to Cooks hospital in Fort Worth where the cancer doctors are. Can't take him to local doctors or even Wise Regional hospital.

Ok, we understand. I come home and he's just laying on the couch. The CPS worker said he had a strange rash. His hands and feet are all crippled up like. He's whiny, he won't eat, etc. I thought, well its a new place, he doesn't know any of us (except his infant brother a very little) and he's got lukemia, this is probably how a kid with special needs acts. I had no experience dealing with that. Here's here 4 days and begins running a fever, it worsens the next day to 100 we take him to cooks. It turns out he has hand foot mouth disease and because of his condition not only is he hospitilized, he has to stay there until he is fever free for 24-48hours. Thus begins a hospital stay of 2 weeks. But because he is a minor, only myself or my wife can stay with him, and one is required to be with him at all times in the hospital. So we take turns driving to Fort Worth (about 100 miles round trip) each day and sleeping at the hospital. On my days home, I work. Still pastoring the church, and taking care of the other 3 kids. After taking on the second child, then all the medical issues, I began to realize, I can't continue to do this. I can't work, pastor, do jail ministry, and balance 4 kids from ages 1 to 14, all with different needs of attention. The 4 year old was released from the hospital, but still had bi weekly appointments and chemo treatments through January this year (2016). It was alot.

In time the oppertnity for adoption came up. I had to give consideration how I could best serve God. I am pro-life. what a difference it would make to raise the children in a godly home. How could I say no, turn them back to the system? Yet obviously I can't continue at the current pace. I've got to cut something out. But still I kept on. Week after week July 2015 through April 2016.

Finally after much prayer I had peace on the direction to go. Though I would have preferred to pastor, I pastored for free, and the church wasn't in position to pay me enough to quit my job, and part time wasn't an option. Thus I resigned. It was for 2 primary reasons:
1)my family and to spend time with all the children. There were big adjustments. The 2 older children began to feel left out, because the young boys demanded so much attention, and at times they felt like baby sitters. The youngest had for 12 years been the baby, and all of a sudden, becomes a middle child. Adjustments. We worked through them, but it wasn't always easy. I believed I needed to take something off my plate. I choose a hiatus from ministry.
2)Doctrine. As mentioned, from June 2010 to Aug 2011, and even then until April 2013, I had focused much on study, and re-evaluating and reforming my views as I studied theology. What I thought would be tweaking, I came to see really that I needed to re-evaluate everything, doctrine by doctrine, to see whether these things were so.

I once heard Denver Stanford talk about how he won a man, and the man said, "Pastor you've won me, now tell me what I believe." That was pretty much what happened to me. I knew NOTHING of Christianity, was deep in sin, came across Irvin Baxter (I know, I know....but for whatever reason this was what God used to introduce me to Himself). When I read his tract "what do you mean born again" I fully realized my need, went to a baptist church, got baptized, attended, began reading through all of scripture.

Two months in I read his tract "why so many churches and which is right" and become convinced of the need to be repabtized in Jesus name. Not knowing anything about church or denominations (or what Baxter was) I get out the phone book and start calling church to ask how they baptize. I find a UPC, go there the next Sunday, baptized in Jesus name January 23,2000, belonged to that church 8 years.....

But when that happened, I had 2 months of anything Christian in my life. I went through Search for Truth, into his marvelous light, the david bernard pentecostal theology series, etc, etc. I learned evrything only from a oneness perspective, and believed it 110%.

THUS when I began to re-evaluate things and my positions changed 10-11 years later, as I moved, I realized the need to restudy everything. This process was interrupted by (at least according to mans point of view) pastoring a church for 3 years before I had arrived firm on many positions that I continue to study out. And while the experience was great, and really helped me in the discipline of prayer and spitirual maturity, and actually went relatively well on the whole (though the church didn't grow as I would have desired), I have to admit, that I was at least (in my opinion) somewhat not ready to take on the pastorate with all that comes with it. Yet to have worked through 3 years after the church split, and all the personal challenges, I feel good about it. I believe God was honored and yet I was edified in the experience. I believe God has worked it for my good, and I have no regrets in doing it, nor do I regret the messages I preached.

Yet still I have desired time to take a break from ministry and to firm some things up through continued study.

So since April of this year, thats where I am. I went through the process of finding a church, and am now attending a church that while I don't agree with it 100% (as I'm not likely to find a church like that), I agree with probably 80% and it's been very profitible for myself, my wife and my children. I'm not sure I'll be there the next 10 years. But its a good place to be for now.

So then, thats my journey, criticize me as much as you want.

Evang.Benincasa

10-11-2016, 11:04 PM

But the thing is, when you pastor, you don't have to worry about not agreeing with the preacher. It's an ideal situation for someone who has a hybrid theology (which I admittedly did and do). I'm not a calvinist, but I find reformed theology profitible, while not subscribing to all the particulars. I'mnot a trinitarian, but don't automatically condemn them all to hell. The same can be said of eschatology, ecclesiology, etc.)

Jason, may God help you, but you are a wee bit mixed up. Sort of like a fruit salad, some cherries, a few bananas, some mango pieces, maybe even some raisins, but where did the sardines come from? You aren't a Calvinist, but you find reformed theology profitable? What portion of Calvinism is Biblical? You're not a Trinitarian but cant seem to bring yourself to accept that it's a narrow way, and the entrance is hard to navigate and few will even be able to find it? These few will also be screaming at Jesus how they did many wonderful works in His name, but He will reply to them that He NEVER knew them?

Dude, in a ideology which demands nothing to be added to it and nothing taken away, or else you lose your place in a book of life. You can't go around and hope that all the smiling glowing faces around you are falling into heaven. Paul said there were those who had another Gospel and he called them anathema? Dude, that is utterly removed from God, irrevocable. American Christianity basically helped ruin this country by teaching that Jesus was cool with everything they ran up the flag pole.

So, could you explain without writing an entire tome what you believe is profitable about reformed theology soteriology?

Jason B

10-11-2016, 11:18 PM

Dude, you are the product of a very dramatic Pentecostal sleigh ride.

Maybe so. And believe me, thats not the half of my pentecostal experience. Yet God still worked through it all. Really it wasn't even "bad" until the very end with the one pastor. I found far more vitriol on internet forums, especially AMF.

How long were you supposedly Apostolic? You said you were UC?
8 years upc, 2 years in indy holiness Jan 2000-June 2010
1 year in ex-upc, charismatic church July 2010-July 2011

Began attending a Bible church Aug 2011-remained there through April 2016 (pastored 3 years April 2013-April 2016)
Currently attending a Bible church.

You accuse me of discrediting you?

My man, I believe you need to take full credit for that.
Attempting to discredit. Probably only successful in the eyes of the UCs. But even if others draw unfavorable opinions of me, it is what it is. If i were standing before ya'll judgment day, maybe I'd be concerned. I have a great peace about where I am, while also understanding I need to use this season of my life to prepare for what's next. I do intend to return to ministry later on, but for now, I'd like to take time off to study. I'm 35, I hope to get at least 5 years of study before what happens next. If I can get back into ministry full time around 40, I figure I can spend a good 30-35 years doing that, which is my desire. But God knows. We'll see. Thats just my thoughts from a mans point of view.

So are you a Calvinist?
No. Hence the tension in my beliefs. I do believe Reformed theology is very profitible, the emphasis on theology, the focus on the various aspects of salvation, the atonement, proper worship, etc. But at the same time, I just can't get sold on predestination/election as they interpret it. I really can't see how they can say God wills everything, including every evil act, yea even the fall, and yet not make God the author of sin. I can't see how they say God choose some from before time to be saved, and yet did not choose others leaving them to perdition (some calvinists deny or soften double predestination, others just come out and say it--either way its the only locigal result of their view of election). Thus God has created people, even the majority, to burn in hell forever, for His pleasure and glory, who not only did not desire to be saved, but could not be saved if they wanted to. Its contrary to the character and nature of God. To me it seems an insult to His goodness, His love, even His truthfulness. For how can He truly will none to perish, and yet all to come to repentance, when the majority are not even capable of doing so. How can Christ's death truly be for the sins of the whole world, when in fact, He did not die for the majority of sinners? And so on.

Call it confusion if you want. I examine each doctrine and teaching with the scriptures, and I am working through all these things.

No I am not comfortable with The "U" in tulip. The rst I find a lot of agreement with, but not 100%.
Brief examples:
Total depravity-I agree man is totally depraved in every aspect of his being. I believe that all men are sinners. I believe that without the help of the Holy Spirit no man can come to God, nor do they desire to. (But I also believe the Spirit enables all men to come to Him. That the Spirit is drawing men when He convicts them of sin, and yet, unlike the calvinist, I believe the grace of God can be rejected). Still I believe in previent grace. John 6:44
limited atonement-I agree the atonement is limited, but only in the sense that it is effective only to those who believe. I disagree that Christ only died for certain people, and did not die for others.
Irrestible grace-noted above
preservation of the saints-While I still haven't fully embraced this, because I think there are problematic scriptures (Hebrews 6, 10, 1 Cor 9:27, etc), I see alot of merit in it, that if a person is truly saved, truly has the spirit of God, they will persevere to the end. BUT like I said, still some scripture that doesn't seem to justify that view, so I can't fully embrace it.
But, from what I was as a pentecostal, hyper arminian-cut your hair endanger salvation, quit coming to church endanger your salvation, join another denomination lose your salvation, come pray through be saved again, backslide be lost again, pray through again several months later saved again, etc. That was a mess.
To me, David's sin in the OT is a good example of God's mercy toward His own. David had committed adultery, premeditated murder, and lived with it all for 9 months, plus however old the child was that God took. Yet we are never given any indication God had cast David off.
Its my opinion, that had David told Nathan (I do what I want I'm the king!) that perhaps that would have been the moment God turned away from Him and David "lost his salvation" to use a crude phrase. Yet David repented, and through this ordeal was made right with God, yet we are never given any indication He wasn't. TO me, that gives us an idea about the grace of God. The person who backslides, who cuts their hair, goes charismatic, or even is overtaken by some sin, even a grievious one, isn't necessarily lost. God will discipline His own, and draw them back into rightful fellowship.

Yet if they persist in unbelief, disobedience,sin and rebellion, and die in such as state we have no reason to believe they were saved. This is where the rub comes-they would say "they were never saved in the first place" and may be right. Pentecostals would say "they were saved and turned away". My view would be closer to the latter.

Esaias

10-11-2016, 11:23 PM

Alright I like it. A nice rebuttal with some substance and counter questioning. EB, this is why I continue to come to AFF, not because I hate pentecostals.
I'll respond, as you have taken time to respond. But i have a long day at work, then hockey practice afterwards. So it may be a day or two.

bump....

Jason B

10-12-2016, 12:28 AM

bump....

Brother, believe this.
I spent probably 45 minutes or so responding to your post (had good stuff too) I was nearly done and my tablet died. A huge bummer. I had plugged it into the wall so i thought in was safe. Even thought of posting it then editing it about 30 seconds before, but i was like "nah I'm almost done" then.....black screen. I'd like to respond tomorrow, while hopefully, those thoughts are on my mind. As it is though I've spent more time online/forums tonight than I have in a very long time, and its 1:26am here, so about 2 hours past my bedtime, and work in the am. So if the opportunity presents itself tomorrow afternoon or evening, I'll reply.

Unless of course it is predestined not to be. :)

Esaias

10-12-2016, 04:29 PM

Brother, believe this.
I spent probably 45 minutes or so responding to your post (had good stuff too) I was nearly done and my tablet died. A huge bummer. I had plugged it into the wall so i thought in was safe. Even thought of posting it then editing it about 30 seconds before, but i was like "nah I'm almost done" then.....black screen. I'd like to respond tomorrow, while hopefully, those thoughts are on my mind. As it is though I've spent more time online/forums tonight than I have in a very long time, and its 1:26am here, so about 2 hours past my bedtime, and work in the am. So if the opportunity presents itself tomorrow afternoon or evening, I'll reply.

Unless of course it is predestined not to be. :)

Take your time. It is your destiny.

:heeheehee

Evang.Benincasa

10-13-2016, 06:30 PM

Maybe so. And believe me, thats not the half of my pentecostal experience. Yet God still worked through it all. Really it wasn't even "bad" until the very end with the one pastor. I found far more vitriol on internet forums, especially AMF.

So, all this hubbub is because you were offended by a minister? Whatever! Lois has a whole website dedicated to the offended. I wonder when a preacher is going to start a website on congregation spiritual abuse towards ministers? You always hear the hard stories about the preacher who didn't buy cookies for all the saints equally. Or the mean pastor's wife who lived in the gingerbread house and would coax unsuspecting saints into her oven. Or the pastor's children who would lure saints into the cornfield to be never seen again. Preachers give up a lot to do what they do, and for the majority the tithing isn't making them Daddy Warbucks. No, most are sucking on their wallets, and trying to get everything moving forward. Even your pastor who said you were going to hell wasn't lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills. I mean your folded (in 15 different ways) dollar bill dropped into the basket wasn't making him Warren Buffet.

Right?

Evang.Benincasa

10-13-2016, 07:33 PM

8 years upc, 2 years in indy holiness Jan 2000-June 2010
1 year in ex-upc, charismatic church July 2010-July 2011

This is supposed to mean....????

Began attending a Bible church Aug 2011-remained there through April 2016 (pastored 3 years April 2013-April 2016)
Currently attending a Bible church.

Non Denominational Trinitarian Vanilla?

There was a band named WAR who had a tune which comes to mind right about now. I believe it was called Slippin into ........ :(

Attempting to discredit. Probably only successful in the eyes of the UCs.

Jason? Allow me to be the first one to tell you that your entire life will be surrounded by those who love you, who like you, who don't like you, who don't care about you, and who will lie about you. But guess what? Your enemies will only believe the bad information about you and those who love you will ignore it.

But even if others draw unfavorable opinions of me, it is what it is.

But isn't that fantastic!?!

In the grand scheme of things who cares about anyone's opinions?

If i were standing before ya'll judgment day, maybe I'd be concerned. I have a great peace about where I am,

There are Muslims, NOI, Chabad Lubavitchers, Jehovah Witnesses, Baptists, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox, Scientologists, Roman Catholics, Sedevacantists, and Hindu elephant boys who can say the same thing. Yes, and people in mental institutions on psychotropic drugs. All in peace about where they currently stand. No worries, all is well, sleep, sleep, go to sleep.

Good grief.

while also understanding I need to use this season of my life to prepare for what's next.

https://furillendotorg.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/angry_face.gif?w=640

I do intend to return to ministry later on, but for now, I'd like to take time off to study. I'm 35,

https://media.giphy.com/media/AgjkYiTOZjFDO/giphy.gif

I hope to get at least 5 years of study before what happens next.

https://media.giphy.com/media/Z3tXqmqSWYeu4/giphy.gif

If I can get back into ministry full time around 40, I figure I can spend a good 30-35 years doing that, which is my desire. But God knows. We'll see. Thats just my thoughts from a mans point of view.

This pretty much sums up all your posts. If you count the years backwards and really get an objective view of your journey in rewind. You may see that it has been more a journey motivated by your own human will, then God's.
Hey, I'm just somebody on a forum with you, that's just my opinion. But hey, you been running your own show for awhile, and you obviously have the resume. If Jesus preached and David played his harp, you would still do as your very well please. Yet, there are people who aren't hunting down those they left behind. They just move on, and get on with what they are doing. They don't need to self justify themselves to anyone. Like I have posted to you before, you are the one eyed man, and we are the blind. What should anyone do with that?

Evang.Benincasa

10-13-2016, 07:57 PM

No. Hence the tension in my beliefs.

You've said a mouthful there Hoss. :nod

I do believe Reformed theology is very profitible, the emphasis on theology, the focus on the various aspects of salvation, the atonement, proper worship, etc.

Which is....?

But at the same time, I just can't get sold on predestination/election as they interpret it. I really can't see how they can say God wills everything, including every evil act, yea even the fall, and yet not make God the author of sin.

But, sorry, that's the lynch pins of Reformed Theology.

I can't see how they say God choose some from before time to be saved, and yet did not choose others leaving them to perdition (some calvinists deny or soften double predestination, others just come out and say it--either way its the only locigal result of their view of election). Thus God has created people, even the majority, to burn in hell forever, for His pleasure and glory, who not only did not desire to be saved, but could not be saved if they wanted to.

Sorry, but that is what Reformed Theology is all about.

It's like working with roofing tar, you may work your hardest not to get it on you, but sooner or later you find it on you....somewhere.

Its contrary to the character and nature of God. To me it seems an insult to His goodness, His love, even His truthfulness. For how can He truly will none to perish, and yet all to come to repentance, when the majority are not even capable of doing so. How can Christ's death truly be for the sins of the whole world, when in fact, He did not die for the majority of sinners? And so on.

Call it confusion if you want. I examine each doctrine and teaching with the scriptures, and I am working through all these things.

Jason, for someone who is working through "things" you sure have a great need to straighten all of us midgets out?

No I am not comfortable with The "U" in tulip. The rst I find a lot of agreement with, but not 100%.
Brief examples:
Total depravity-I agree man is totally depraved in every aspect of his being. I believe that all men are sinners. I believe that without the help of the Holy Spirit no man can come to God, nor do they desire to. (But I also believe the Spirit enables all men to come to Him. That the Spirit is drawing men when He convicts them of sin, and yet, unlike the calvinist, I believe the grace of God can be rejected).

But that's where they would get you. Because you accept some of what they teach, yet believe God's Spirit can be resisted. I live almost down the block from Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, and they will sit for hours discussing the TULIP. How you can't reject any portion of it. I believe Reformed Theology is flawed, being a pendulum swing from the theology of the Catholic church they were breaking away from.

Still I believe in previent grace. John 6:44
limited atonement-I agree the atonement is limited, but only in the sense that it is effective only to those who believe. I disagree that Christ only died for certain people, and did not die for others.
Irrestible grace-noted above
preservation of the saints-While I still haven't fully embraced this, because I think there are problematic scriptures (Hebrews 6, 10, 1 Cor 9:27, etc), I see alot of merit in it, that if a person is truly saved, truly has the spirit of God, they will persevere to the end. BUT like I said, still some scripture that doesn't seem to justify that view, so I can't fully embrace it.
But, from what I was as a pentecostal, hyper arminian-cut your hair endanger salvation, quit coming to church endanger your salvation, join another denomination lose your salvation, come pray through be saved again, backslide be lost again, pray through again several months later saved again, etc. That was a mess.
To me, David's sin in the OT is a good example of God's mercy toward His own. David had committed adultery, premeditated murder, and lived with it all for 9 months, plus however old the child was that God took. Yet we are never given any indication God had cast David off.
Its my opinion, that had David told Nathan (I do what I want I'm the king!) that perhaps that would have been the moment God turned away from Him and David "lost his salvation" to use a crude phrase. Yet David repented, and through this ordeal was made right with God, yet we are never given any indication He wasn't. TO me, that gives us an idea about the grace of God. The person who backslides, who cuts their hair, goes charismatic, or even is overtaken by some sin, even a grievious one, isn't necessarily lost. God will discipline His own, and draw them back into rightful fellowship.

Yet if they persist in unbelief, disobedience,sin and rebellion, and die in such as state we have no reason to believe they were saved. This is where the rub comes-they would say "they were never saved in the first place" and may be right. Pentecostals would say "they were saved and turned away". My view would be closer to the latter.

Hence this is why some Once Saved Always Saved Baptists and Calvinists use the they were NEVER SAVED clause.

It is all about Freewill, which Reformed Theology cringes at.

Freewill is what we all have.

Hence we need to put on Christ instead of putting on Adam.

Jason B

10-13-2016, 08:19 PM

So, all this hubbub is because you were offended by a minister? Whatever! Lois has a whole website dedicated to the offended. I wonder when a preacher is going to start a website on congregation spiritual abuse towards ministers? You always hear the hard stories about the preacher who didn't buy cookies for all the saints equally. Or the mean pastor's wife who lived in the gingerbread house and would coax unsuspecting saints into her oven. Or the pastor's children who would lure saints into the cornfield to be never seen again. Preachers give up a lot to do what they do, and for the majority the tithing isn't making them Daddy Warbucks. No, most are sucking on their wallets, and trying to get everything moving forward. Even your pastor who said you were going to hell wasn't lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills. I mean your folded (in 15 different ways) dollar bill dropped into the basket wasn't making him Warren Buffet.

Right?

Dead wrong. Every word.

Carry on.

Evang.Benincasa

10-13-2016, 08:23 PM

Dead wrong. Every word.

Carry on.

Of course you would say "dead wrong."

Do you think for a minute I would have you post, "eureka!"

"You are right Brother B! Oh, wow, that's it, I can see now?"

Jason, Jason....Jason Bad D Joe.

No, I never expected you to accept a word.

I just hope you never end up with a saffron robe and a clay rice bowl down by the airport.

Jason B

10-13-2016, 08:28 PM

This is supposed to mean....????

You asked, I filled you in. That's all.

Jason B

10-13-2016, 08:31 PM

Of course you would say "dead wrong."

Do you think for a minute I would have you post, "eureka!"

"You are right Brother B! Oh, wow, that's it, I can see now?"

Jason, Jason....Jason Bad D Joe.

No, I never expected you to accept a word.

I just hope you never end up with a saffron robe and a clay rice bowl down by the airport.

I just hope you preach with a little more discernment than you seem to exercise here. Or maybe thats your MO like the Jeff Arnold tough guy schtick, you're kinda the apostolic Steven Furtick. I'm catching on bro.

Evang.Benincasa

10-13-2016, 08:38 PM

I just hope you preach with a little more discernment than you seem to exercise here. Or maybe thats your MO like the Jeff Arnold tough guy schtick, you're kinda the apostolic Steven Furtick. I'm catching on bro.

Steven who? :lol

Jason, Jason, I read your posts, I've been reading them for years.

You are the one eyed man and we are the blind.

You think that you are moving in a forward direction and leaving all the legalist midgets behind.

That's my opinion, but it seems to be an opinion you don't agree with it.

That's fine.

I'm just not applauding while you are on your journey.

OK?

Evang.Benincasa

10-13-2016, 08:40 PM

You asked, I filled you in. That's all.

So you were in something for ten years didn't like it, and now you are happy with where you are at?

I'm happy where I am.

Hooray! :stars

Cracker Barrel

10-13-2016, 10:07 PM

:gparocks

Jason B

10-14-2016, 10:11 AM

So you were in something for ten years didn't like it,
Not at all, for essentially that whole time, I loved it, embraced it, fully believed I had discovered "the" truth and was part of "the" church, which had recovered "the" apostles doctrine and practice and was going to set the world aflame in a great endtime "apostolic revival", while all the false trinitarian churches capitulated, apostacized, and wilted, casting their lot with the world until Christ came back and personally destroyed the RCC and her daughters (all other churches, excepting the oneness pentecostals).

I loved it, loved camp meeting and conference. I remember my first camp meeting, i was absolutely 8n awe, like the queen of sheba. I'd been a convert for about 6 months, and my church had 17 people in it.

I had zeal probably unmatched during my early years. I happened to work as a cashier in a grocery store, and believe me I let all my coworkers know they were lost. And not stopping there I wrote Acts 238 on my name tag and when customers would ask "what is that verse", I'd give them the good ole 3 step call to salvation letting them know to repent and be baptized in Jesus name, over their groceries. (Yes I did get reprimanded and nearly lost my job because....it doesn't god over well when your store manager is a womanizer).

I taught I don't know how many Bible studies, I'd do it at work, go to peoples homes, invite them to my home. I moved to an apartment complex, and my wife would cook big dinners and we'd invite everyone we knew at the apartment complex and beyond to the Bible studies. We had a decent group going for a while, half or more were unchurched, all being taught search for truth #2.

I believed it enough to preach it. I spent hours listening to preaching tapes of conferences and church services. I used my vacation time to go to family camp meeting. Brother it was my life, and I had ZERO intentions of ever leaving. My intentions/goals/dream was to establish a mammoth UPC preaching the "truth" in Decatur.

To cast me as some malcontent, as someone who just begrudgingly was pulled along against my will, would be totally false. It'd be different perhaps if I was raised in it, and always looking for a way out, but having to wait until I came of age, or perhaps if my wife was raised in it, and she wanted to stay, or if we had family pressure to stay.

There was none of that. I can't say I ever stayed in it even a month against my will, maybe not even a week. Those are facts.

and now you are happy with where you are at?

I'm happy where I am.

Hooray! :stars
I'm happy where I'm at FOR NOW. As I said, I wanting to take some time to reevaluate some things. But if I die today, tomorrow, anytime in the next few years, or anytime ever, not feeling like O have every theological/doctrinal point down to a science, I still have peace with God, being justified by faith. (Romans 5:1-2). That's why I can say I'm happy with where I am. I'm talking about my walk with Christ, not necessarily my place within His church and especially a local fellowship. The latter is fluid right now. But I'd rather be in a church, even if I don't agree with 100% of the doctrine, than do what several on AFF do and simply not attend anywhere.

Jason B

10-14-2016, 10:19 AM

Jason, Jason, I read your posts, I've been reading them for years.

You are the one eyed man and we are the blind.
I'm thinking you were born in undue time. You would have been great in 16th century Spain. You're perfect for the Spanish Inquisition, even aptly named and the right personality. Dominicans=the dogs of God. Kinda fits.

You think that you are moving in a forward direction and leaving all the legalism
Fixed. And yes. A forward direction, not a slippery slope. Arrived, no, I'll let you know when I think that. In the meantime I will continue to study.

That's my opinion, but it seems to be an opinion you don't agree with it.

That's fine.
One of the most civil things you've said. On this we agree that we disagree.

I'm just not applauding while you are on your journey.

OK?
Yes, and I understand that completely.

shazeep

10-14-2016, 03:36 PM

i thought yours was a great story, just told openly, not hiding the warts. I mostly got a reflection of what i would call amazing commitment and service.

Jason B

10-14-2016, 06:14 PM

i thought yours was a great story, just told openly, not hiding the warts. I mostly got a reflection of what i would call amazing commitment and service.

Thank you

Esaias

10-14-2016, 11:25 PM

Jason B

10-15-2016, 06:48 AM

.

So.....want to tell me why I should believe ya'll uncovered the apostles doctrine, despite all biblical and historical evidence otherwise?

Bump.

Ez I haven't forgot

Jason B

10-15-2016, 01:31 PM

Straw man. First of all, nobody here can condemn anyone to hell. All anyone on this earth can do is point out if someone is lost, based on their confessed lack of agreement with the doctrine of Christ.
That's a given. No one here is actually claiming to occupy the white throne, they simply behave themselves like it. When the most famous AFF thread ever is "ALL TRINITARIANS ARE LOST!!!!!" without any distinction, that seems like a pretty broad brush condemnation, and the type that is really pretty common amongst the UCs.

Secondly, Lutherans believe baptism is for the remission of sins, and anyone not baptised is lost. Church of Christ believe the same with the additional idea that one must believe their baptism is for the purpose of washing away their sins and that they are being baptised into God's one and only church, and must believe this PRIOR to being baptised, otherwise the individual is lost. And furthermore that only the 'Church of Christ' is the church of God, and that every one else is a heretic. Conservative Presbyterians believe anyone not adhering to Calvinism and the Westminster Confession or the London Confession are heretics and lost. Liberal Presbyterians believe lesbians can be ordained into the ministry. Baptists are divided, almost all Primitive Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, and Regular Baptists, and a whole bunch of independent Baptists and a whole bunch of Missionary Baptists believe that unless you are a Baptist like them, you are lost. Many trinitarian Pentecostals believe that being a non-trinitarian of any flavour is a one-way ticket to hell. Most Baptists believe that being Pentecostal or Charismatic, of any flavour, means you are a heretic and quite possibly demon-possessed and on your way to hell. Many Protestants and Evangelicals believe anyone who believes 'Lordship Salvation' is lost and going to hell as a heretic, while many others believe anyone who DOESN'T believe Lordship Salvation is a lost hell bound heretic. And on and on it goes.
First, if the UCs were building their soteriological case on repentance and water baptism, they would indeed have historical witness. In my opinion I believe modern evangelicalism does indeed downplay baptism too much. In the New Testament repentance and water baptism are essentially inseperable. The idea of an unbaptized believer does not seem to have existed until very late in church history. I would say anyone who repents and confesses faith in Christ, must indeed be obedient in submitting to baptism, though I don't think that baptism is the actual point in time of salvation (I believe its justification). Baptism is the outward expression of that faith, like circumcision was the outward expression of Abraham's faith, or the ark for Noah. But I don't want to go too far down that road because its a rabbit trail to the subject at hand. Suffice it to say that the discussion over whether salvation takes place at repentance or baptism is largely an argument over semantics and philosphies, much like the debate over whether it is faith then repentance or repentance then faith. It doesn't matter, both are necessary. So it is with repentance and water baptism, both are necessary (in normative cases). To the other issues you brought up, I'll pass to make the distinctions, and focus on the 3 step soteriology.

The issue remains the OP interpretation of tongues, which is of course universally and historically absent from any and all groups/sect, or even individual teachers prior to the 20th century.

As for some Christians condemning others, what does that have to do with the attitude of the UCs? It's wrong for believers to condemn other believers, in the absence of unrepentantant sin or actual (rather than imagined) heresy. The wrongs of others do not make it right when UCs do it. Furthermore, yall present yourselves as having "the " truth, and "the" true holy ghost (which some/many say trinitarians do not have), yet ya'lls behavior is every bit as unloving, sectarian, and arrogant as all the other Christian groups ya'll condemn. To say "they do it too" may be a valid point, but it does nothing to establish your sect as having a greater truth.

You profess you are in the same boat with Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Church of Christ, and Trinitarian Pentecostals, and we are the cult because we have such a narrow view of 'who is saved'. Yet, that great big boat of fellowship only exists in your mind, and in the mind of those others who do not know their own sect's doctrine and theology and soteriology.
I simply profess to be in the Christian boat. I am in the great company of those redeemed by the blood of Christ, having no merit or worthiness of my own. I do believe there will be Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Bapists, Chruch of Christ, Trinitarian pentecostals AND ONENESS PENTECOSTALS in heaven. I believe there will be people from essentially all of the various "christian" groups who are saved, part of the true church, the "invisible" church if you will. While I am the same time I believe that a great number of Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, trinitarian pentecostals, oneness pentecostals, and others belonging to these visible churches will indeed be lost. The Lord knows who belongs to Him. I do not believe ANY group has a monopoly on the truth of the gospel, is 100% doctrinally pure, and the only true church, and all others false.

Thus, while I have never said oneness pentecostalism is a cult, and especially not because it has a narrow view of who is saved (I'd argue many churches have a narrow view-anyone proclaiming Acts 4:12 and John 10 are quite narrow). What I do say is that there are eerily similar characteristics between the ultra cons & moderate con oneness pentecostals and the JWs, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, Armostrong Church of God, and like groups. Basically, they alone have had the truth revealed to them, they alone are God's organization, one must belong to their group alone to merit salvation, all have a works-righteous type of soterioglogy, all use some manner of fear tactics to frighten those who leave "the ark", all treat ex members essentially the same (as dangerous heretics to be shunned, or at least avoided). JWs, Mormons, Christian scientitists, SDAs all have their own Bible version or inspired literatur to supplement the scriptures. Oneness people have wisely avoided this, but not all (Flaming Zword for example, if his holy apostolic bible caught on Matthew 28:19 would receive the same kind of criticism that the New World Translation does in John 1:1). I haven't said ya'll are a cult, but come on now, there's enough similarities that when looked at objectively, ought to at least cause one to pause.

Straw man, sort of. You said "That speaking in tongues is the one and only indispensable infallible universal evidence of the Holy Spirit ..." Nobody claims that speaking in tongues is an 'infallible' evidence. All Pentecostals have maintained that speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance is the 'normative, universal, initial evidence of receiving the baptism with the Holy Ghost.' I have not met a Pentecostal yet who would not admit that speaking in tongues can be faked, nor have I met one who would claim that speaking in tongues is any guarantee of salvation.
Granted. I thought of that when I typed the word infallible. Honestly, I didn't thinkanyone would catch it. Kudos to you. I agree that toungues can be faked. Sadly most of the time ya'll don't even know the real from the fake. (see, BORAT)

But despite my careless use of words, the point remains, tongues is necessary and required for salvation. Ya'll can not and do not accept anyone as saved who has not spoken in tongues, and certainly condemn any and all who are cessationists. And as I noted in the comment you replied to here, it is ONLY if these things are accurate, that this is a matter salvation:

*IF*
The one and only way anyone can be saved is indeed the 3 step understanding of Acts 2:38, including mandatory specific invocation of Jesus name not only in the baptism ceremony, but specifically immediately before or during the dunking
-AND-
That speaking in tongues is the one and only indispensable infallible universal evidence of the Holy Spirit (thus regeneration/new birth) for all believers in all nations in all times from pentecost on, without which they can not be saved (since they have not the Spirit, they are none of His, Romans 8:9).....

-THEN-
You are correct about the magnitude of the question, and indeed you (and those of your persuasion) should hold all others as lost.
But these things AREN'T so. That is the problem.
[QUOTE=Esaias;1449983]
But as you correctly pointed out, the question is 'what does the Bible teach?' And therefore, the question of how many people believe or have believed a certain thing, or when or where, is irrelevent to the discussion.
Sure. My appeal to history isn't an appeal to supercede the authority of scripture, it is to note that NO ONE has ever had this interpretation of the Bible. Of course all doctrine comes from the scripture, but th fact that no one has ever believed what ya'll now propose is a massive red flag. Does that FACT alone mean ya'll are wrong. No it does not, but it does seem like a huge burden of prrof is on ya'll to prove from scripture that ya'll ARE Correctly interpreting the Bible right. And even without the historical argument, I don't think ya'll can do this simply from the scripture.

Beyond that, you have to deal with the fact that Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. You have to deal with the fact that the apostles labored and spread the true apostolic faith all over the empire by the end of the 1st century, AND you have to deal with the fact that early "fathers" lives either lived during the time of the apostles or the following generation, AND YET NO WHERE do we find you guys 3 step interpretation. There is essentially no eveidence anywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong. Is there a group who taught:
oneness
baptism in Jesus name by immersion as necessary to salvation
the necessity of receiving the Holy Ghost WITH THE EVIDENCE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES (that the biggie right there)
uncut hair
(some would add tithing, foot washing, and who knows maybe even shaving)

Jason B

10-15-2016, 01:32 PM

As noted above, irrelevent. Doctrine is not determined by how many illustrious people believe a certain thing, and truth is not determined by a show of hands, all in favour say 'Aye'. Do you realise the argument you are making is the foundation for the Catholic faith?
No they see history as authoratative, I simply see it as a reference. They undermine all of the scripture, and only use history to fit their system (e.g. Peter, the "first pope" had a wife, where's celebacy come from, Jesus "brothers" were really "cousins", etc). No I'm not at all making an argument similar to Catholicism. My arguement is first and foremost scripture doesn't teach what you guys propose, THEN secondarily, neither does history provide any witness to your interpretation.

We have to ask ourselves, "Do I want to know what the BIBLE says and teaches? OR do I want to follow what men have believed so as not to part company with them?" Never mind those illustrious men of the past would likely have concluded YOU yourself were a hellbound heretic anyway...
Doesn't matter. Zwingli and Luther split over views on the sacrament. Anabaptist were persecuted and killed by Catholics and Protestants. Servetus died for the 2 charges that you, I , and every oneness pentecostal believe (believers baptism, and denial of the trinity). And in like manner, every baptist in the world would be condemned under such conditions. You are using the blemishes of church history to deflect from the fact that what yall believe is totally absent. True they are alot of blemishes. The Crusades have nothing do to with whether or not the 3 step system was ever believed.

Your knowledge of history is lacking. What OPs call 'standards' are normative for the entire Conservative Holiness Movement (trinitarian Wesleyans), and was normative prior to the 1960s for practically every group outside of the liberal mainline 'modernist' groups who were spearheading such things as liberation theology, process theology, Jesus as divine myth, etc. What you seem to think is unique to Oneness Pentecostal groups and a few outlying cults is not, but was considered normative Christianity up until about the mid-late 20th century. Do you want me to prove it?

Sure, I'm always willing to learn.
But I was speaking of current trends here, not historical.
But if you can prove that Christian groups through the centuries beleived that if a woman cut or even trimmed her hair it was a mortal sin worthy of damnation, I'd be interested to see some sources and documentation.

First, as before shown, the historical argument is irrelevent. Show me any Baptists or trinitarian Pentecostals or charismatics for that matter prior to 1550.
Plenty of "baptists" prior to institutional church. Primitive Christians would all be "baptists" in the sense of believers baptism. Pentecostals are a whole nother story, eseentially there is no pentecostalsim proper prior to 1901. I'm not talking about can ridge or the happenings at Wesleyan revivals, both of which were precursors to the movement, but the actually identification of tongues speaking with the evidence of the holy ghost. NOTHING prior to 1901.

Secondly, trinitarianism was developed by the Montanists. It was the Montanist Tertullian who coined the word 'trinitas'. By the way, Tertullian complained in his day that the vast majority of believers were Patripassians who believed that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the Father and that trinitarianism was three god-ism. He also affirmed that the charismata were fully operational throughout the Christian world, both among the Montanists and the rest of the majority of orthodox believers who were objecting to the new doctrine of 'trinitas'.
I'm aware, though there is a difference between the operation of the gifts and the doctrine of tongues as the initial evidence. The Montanists are the closest thing you find in early church history to any pentecostal sect, yet certainly the further from oneness, seeing how Tertullians writing influenced the trinitarian formulation.

Servetus a fringe type or loner? You do realise his writings are still used in medical schools today, right? Your grasp of history needs to level up.
What fellowship did Servetus belong to? What church or movement did he found and lead during life? Yes he was a loner. I'm not talking about pulmanary circulation, I'm talking about religion.

Who prior to the 1900s believed or taught what YOU teach? Do you believe in the baptism with the Holy Ghost? Do you believe in speaking in tongues? Prophesying? Healings? Miracles? Do you believe in Calvinism? If not, do you believe in Arminianism? Who taught either of those things prior to the 1600s? Are you Lutheran? Campbellite? Methodist? Catholic?
plenty of witness in church history.
I am simply a Christian.

Esaias

10-15-2016, 03:11 PM

That's a given. No one here is actually claiming to occupy the white throne, they simply behave themselves like it. When the most famous AFF thread ever is "ALL TRINITARIANS ARE LOST!!!!!" without any distinction, that seems like a pretty broad brush condemnation, and the type that is really pretty common amongst the UCs.

Most Christians believe that those who do not hold to their doctrine of God or doctrine of salvation are lost, regardless of which sect they belong to. This is not at all unique to OPs.

First, if the UCs were building their soteriological case on repentance and water baptism, they would indeed have historical witness. In my opinion I believe modern evangelicalism does indeed downplay baptism too much. In the New Testament repentance and water baptism are essentially inseperable. The idea of an unbaptized believer does not seem to have existed until very late in church history. I would say anyone who repents and confesses faith in Christ, must indeed be obedient in submitting to baptism, though I don't think that baptism is the actual point in time of salvation (I believe its justification). Baptism is the outward expression of that faith, like circumcision was the outward expression of Abraham's faith, or the ark for Noah. But I don't want to go too far down that road because its a rabbit trail to the subject at hand. Suffice it to say that the discussion over whether salvation takes place at repentance or baptism is largely an argument over semantics and philosphies, much like the debate over whether it is faith then repentance or repentance then faith. It doesn't matter, both are necessary. So it is with repentance and water baptism, both are necessary (in normative cases). To the other issues you brought up, I'll pass to make the distinctions, and focus on the 3 step soteriology.

The folks I know, and the ones with whom I 'grew up in the faith' with, made repentance and water baptism the basis of their soteriological case, although (like everyone else on the planet) they did not make those two things the end-all be-all of salvation.

The issue remains the OP interpretation of tongues, which is of course universally and historically absent from any and all groups/sect, or even individual teachers prior to the 20th century.

If what you are saying is true, yet you believe in the Pentecostal experience with tongues, then you have admitted you yourself are believing something is true that is 'universally and historically absent from any and all groups/sects, or even individual teachers prior to the 20th century.'

As for some Christians condemning others, what does that have to do with the attitude of the UCs? It's wrong for believers to condemn other believers, in the absence of unrepentantant sin or actual (rather than imagined) heresy. The wrongs of others do not make it right when UCs do it. Furthermore, yall present yourselves as having "the " truth, and "the" true holy ghost (which some/many say trinitarians do not have), yet ya'lls behavior is every bit as unloving, sectarian, and arrogant as all the other Christian groups ya'll condemn. To say "they do it too" may be a valid point, but it does nothing to establish your sect as having a greater truth.

I wasn't saying 'they do it too therefore it's okay for us to as well.' I was saying that you were making a distinction between yourself and your beliefs, and the OP beliefs, that OPs are outside the pale of historic orthodoxy, and yourself being inside the pale of historic orthodoxy, and one of the primary evidences of that was that OPs have a narrow sectarian view of 'who is saved' and 'who is a heretic'. Yet, as I was trying to show, the narrow sectarian view is held by the people you claim to be associated with, thus your distinction was invalid. Can you see what I am saying here? 'You people condemns all us sectarians to hell, therefore you guys are in error' yet all the people listed do not accept each other as anything but heretical sectarians. Kind of ironic, I think...

I simply profess to be in the Christian boat. I am in the great company of those redeemed by the blood of Christ, having no merit or worthiness of my own. I do believe there will be Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Bapists, Chruch of Christ, Trinitarian pentecostals AND ONENESS PENTECOSTALS in heaven. I believe there will be people from essentially all of the various "christian" groups who are saved, part of the true church, the "invisible" church if you will. While I am the same time I believe that a great number of Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, trinitarian pentecostals, oneness pentecostals, and others belonging to these visible churches will indeed be lost. The Lord knows who belongs to Him. I do not believe ANY group has a monopoly on the truth of the gospel, is 100% doctrinally pure, and the only true church, and all others false.

The problem is, you have attacked OP soteriology for being unhistorical, yet your own view of soteriology and 'who is saved' is likewise unhistorical. Granted, NOWADAYS, many in those groups think similarly, and basically can't tell you who is saved and who isn't. because they don't even know what their own soteriology is, but that's a function of theological illiteracy and a sign o' the times more than anything else.

Thus, while I have never said oneness pentecostalism is a cult, and especially not because it has a narrow view of who is saved (I'd argue many churches have a narrow view-anyone proclaiming Acts 4:12 and John 10 are quite narrow). What I do say is that there are eerily similar characteristics between the ultra cons & moderate con oneness pentecostals and the JWs, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, Armostrong Church of God, and like groups. Basically, they alone have had the truth revealed to them, they alone are God's organization, one must belong to their group alone to merit salvation, all have a works-righteous type of soterioglogy, all use some manner of fear tactics to frighten those who leave "the ark", all treat ex members essentially the same (as dangerous heretics to be shunned, or at least avoided). JWs, Mormons, Christian scientitists, SDAs all have their own Bible version or inspired literatur to supplement the scriptures. Oneness people have wisely avoided this, but not all (Flaming Zword for example, if his holy apostolic bible caught on Matthew 28:19 would receive the same kind of criticism that the New World Translation does in John 1:1). I haven't said ya'll are a cult, but come on now, there's enough similarities that when looked at objectively, ought to at least cause one to pause.

The Reformers thought they were 'restoring the gospel truth that had been hidden under centuries of Roman Catholic papistical superstition and man made tradition.' The Campbellites (Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Christian Church, etc) felt the same way. The Methodists likewise, the Holiness movement likewise, in short every single group other than the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox have believed and maintained that they had recovered apostolic doctrine. So if OPs are 'cultish' for believeing that, so is every other non-catholic group in Christendom.

Granted. I thought of that when I typed the word infallible. Honestly, I didn't thinkanyone would catch it. Kudos to you. I agree that toungues can be faked. Sadly most of the time ya'll don't even know the real from the fake. (see, BORAT)

Do you? Or is not being able to immediately identify 'fake tongues' only a problem for us oneness people?

But despite my careless use of words, the point remains, tongues is necessary and required for salvation. Ya'll can not and do not accept anyone as saved who has not spoken in tongues, and certainly condemn any and all who are cessationists. And as I noted in the comment you replied to here, it is ONLY if these things are accurate, that this is a matter salvation:

But these things AREN'T so. That is the problem.

Does a person need to receive the Spirit of God to be saved?
Does the Bible show a distinction between receiving the Spirit and being baptised with the Spirit?

But as you correctly pointed out, the question is 'what does the Bible teach?' And therefore, the question of how many people believe or have believed a certain thing, or when or where, is irrelevent to the discussion.

Sure. My appeal to history isn't an appeal to supercede the authority of scripture, it is to note that NO ONE has ever had this interpretation of the Bible. Of course all doctrine comes from the scripture, but th fact that no one has ever believed what ya'll now propose is a massive red flag. Does that FACT alone mean ya'll are wrong. No it does not, but it does seem like a huge burden of prrof is on ya'll to prove from scripture that ya'll ARE Correctly interpreting the Bible right. And even without the historical argument, I don't think ya'll can do this simply from the scripture.

Why is it a 'massive red flag'? I ask seriously, upon what basis is it a 'massive red flag'? That would imply there is some rule to be followed, that 'correct doctrine is that which has been taught continuously throughout history'. Which is the basis of the catholic argument against every non-catholic doctrine whatsoever....

Beyond that, you have to deal with the fact that Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. You have to deal with the fact that the apostles labored and spread the true apostolic faith all over the empire by the end of the 1st century, AND you have to deal with the fact that early "fathers" lives either lived during the time of the apostles or the following generation, AND YET NO WHERE do we find you guys 3 step interpretation. There is essentially no eveidence anywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong. Is there a group who taught:
oneness
baptism in Jesus name by immersion as necessary to salvation
the necessity of receiving the Holy Ghost WITH THE EVIDENCE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES (that the biggie right there)
uncut hair
(some would add tithing, foot washing, and who knows maybe even shaving)

So, you believe that the gates of Hades not prevailing against the church means the correct and true doctrine would be continuously taught from the NT to today with no visible gaps? If that is correct, then either the Eastern Orthodox churches are the only ones who have the truth, or nobody whatsoever has it.

Think about that one for a minute. I am simply saying that the arguments you use against us, apply just as well to yourself and anything else you consider 'true', and actually only support catholicism. Are you drifting toward Mother Rome?

Esaias

10-15-2016, 03:14 PM

plenty of witness in church history.
I am simply a Christian.

The problem is, YOUR idea of what 'simply a Christian' is does not exist in church history prior to the 1800s. So, you've got maybe a 50-100 year jump start on us (allegedly), but you're still Johnny-come-lately on the theological scene.

Evang.Benincasa

10-15-2016, 04:38 PM

The problem is, YOUR idea of what 'simply a Christian' is does not exist in church history prior to the 1800s. So, you've got maybe a 50-100 year jump start on us (allegedly), but you're still Johnny-come-lately on the theological scene.

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Bruce_e84b6f_606465.gif

Esaias

10-15-2016, 04:42 PM

Jason, do you have the Pentecostal baptism? Did you ever receive the Holy Ghost?

shazeep

10-16-2016, 08:03 AM

"Ghost" :lol

KeptByTheWord

10-16-2016, 10:22 AM

Jito463

10-16-2016, 11:03 AM

Yet, I have some questions.
1. Have YOU received the gift of the HG exactly like they received on the DOP?
2. Have you had cloven tongues of fire sit on your head?
3. Have you had people from other languages understand in THEIR LANGUAGE the tongue you spoke?

If you cannot say yes to these questions... then are you saved?

There is no evidence in the Bible of that ever happening again, after the day of Pentecost. Ergo, we can reasonably conclude that it was a special miracle from God. That's not to say it can't happen again (I've heard some similar stories through the years), but there's no Biblical reason to have an expectation of it.

Jason B

10-16-2016, 01:48 PM

There is no evidence in the Bible of that ever happening again, after the day of Pentecost. Ergo, we can reasonably conclude that it was a special miracle from God. That's not to say it can't happen again (I've heard some similar stories through the years), but there's no Biblical reason to have an expectation of it.

There's not much evidence in the Bible that every believer spoke in tongues when they received the Spirit, ergo......

Why teach that?

Jason B

10-16-2016, 01:51 PM

Jason, do you have the Pentecostal baptism? Did you ever receive the Holy Ghost?

Yes in February 2000.

Esaias

10-16-2016, 02:04 PM

OK, I was just wondering as I didn't see it in your testimony.

Jason B

10-16-2016, 02:10 PM

OK, I was just wondering as I didn't see it in your testimony.

I've got a testimony somewhere here on AFF. I'll find it and copy it here. What I was sharing in this thread was since I left the OP movement.

Jito463

10-16-2016, 02:37 PM

There's much evidence in the Bible that every believer spoke in tongues when they received the Spirit, ergo......

Why teach that?

Huh? I don't get your question. Just in case you misunderstood mine, though, let me clarify. What I was specifically referring to, was the cloven tongues like as of fire.

Jason B

10-16-2016, 02:41 PM

Huh? I don't get your question. Just in case you misunderstood mine, though, let me clarify. What I was specifically referring to, was the cloven tongues like as of fire.

Note: my post is now corrected.

Jason B

10-16-2016, 04:08 PM

I've got a testimony somewhere here on AFF. I'll find it and copy it here. What I was sharing in this thread was since I left the OP movement.

I'm not sure where else I written on AFF, but this is my early testimony if conversion from the old Islam vs Christianity part 1 threadI'm glad to hear that. However as Prax said, atheiest, buddishts, christians, or anyone can fit into that category.

Please let me share with you what Jesus has done for me:
I came to Him at the age of 18. My parents divorced when I was five. My mother had custody of us, and has been married I think 8 times now. So obviously, we had some major problems, different kinds of abuse, child protective services, gangs, drugs, strip clubs, police arresing people at my house, on and on. I had left home while I was still in high school, and tried to make it on my own. Now I was even more miserable, and providing for myself. Though I had friends who sold drugs, and i was offered the easy money, I did manage to work a real job-which only added to my misery. here I am strugling, hating life, depresssed and lonely (though I had shacked up with a girl-but when sinful things weren't going on, all we did was fight), and contemplating suicide. Look what my life had been, and here I am at 17 looking at another 50 years of this misery, I may as well give up now.

I had gone to church a few times, but it was boring, I hated it, and everything I did was sin-literally.

Anyway, God began to convict me of my lifestyle. I was so miserable that only He could help me. Long story short, I repented of my sins at age 18, I was baptized, and filled with the Holy Ghost. When I was filled with the Holy Ghost, I spoke in tongues. It wasn't something anyone told me to do, or anything I was very familiar with. However, that doesn't matter,except that it was from God. What matters is, from that time there was a very radical change in mine (and my wife life-she recieved the Holy Ghost 3 weeks after me).

From that time immediately we both quit cussing (haven't since-that was 9years ago), quit smoking (no patches needed, God did it), quit drinking, our attitudes were chagned, our hearts were changed. Quit (fist) fighting with others, as well as among ourselves. God fixed our marriage, which was all but over, (still together 10 years later).

Not only that, but at the time we came to Jesus, I had lost our apartment, my job, and our car. We had nothing. The night my wife recieved the holy Ghost, she was still speaking in tongues when we got home. Since we lost our apartment, we were staying with other people. They asked what's wrong with her (since she was speaking something other than english), and when I explained, we were told to find a new place to live. We lived in a motel for the next several months.

Anyway, God helped us out of that situation. I began to get raises at work, and soon we were able to move into an apartment. Jesus began to work out everything is such a miraculous way. Here I was a failure, drop out, troubled youth written off to end up dead or in prison, having experienced the kind of life transforming religious experience that so many wish they had, or claim to have had. God was good, but the best was yet to come. About 4 years later.

My first child was crippled with Juvenille Rhumatoid Arthritus. We were referred to several specialist, as well as had visits at Cook's Children's in Fort Worth, and Children Miracle Network in Dallas, and also Scottish Rite Children's Hospital. We were told that our little girl would never be able to be a normal child, and public school would be a bad idea. She would never be able to play or participate with the other kids, and that she would need hip replacement surgery, amongst other things. In December 2004, Bro. Donnie Napier preached at our church, and afterward we had prayer for Hannah (my daughter). God miraculously healed her. Her leg didn't straighten out immediately when we laid hands on her. But that night she didn't compalin about any pain, and within a few days her leg was completely healed, and has been every since. Not only does she go to public school, and enjoy a normal life, she is an honor roll student. She is very active, doing all of the things the doctors said she never would, and all of that with out any persciption medicines, or any of the surgeries that were planned for her.

To keep it short, I will say, not only these things, but I have prayed for people who were dying, and they lived, cast out a demon (only once-and it was freaky, like "surely this isn't happening"), seen the work of God, and had many prayers answered in Jesus name. Broken bones healed by prayer. As the song goes, "He's been so good to me, I cannot tell it all."

I don't know what your allah can do for you. I know that Jesus is a God who I can call on in the most dire and desperate of situations, and He answers prayer.

From what you post, you seem like you are/were genuinely searching for truth. I'm not going to tear you down. I completely understand where your coming from. Christianity in general has become carnal, worldly, and the complete opposite of what Jesus commanded us to do and be like. We have celebrity preachers in it for the money, and "saints" who live like the devil. I believe that Christianity as a whole is apostate. However, there is still a true church, filled with true believers. There is still a God, who came manifest in flesh to save us. There is truth, there is a God, and if you search for Him with your whole heart you will find Him. You will find that He loves you when you don't deserve it. You will find when you fail Him, He doesn't fail you. You will find that when your unfaithful, He's still faithful. I am so sorry that Christianity as a whole has turned genuine people such as yourself, and thousands others away, because many churches long ago made took Christ out of Christianity, and made it about themselves, their social clubs, and their economic status. These things should never be so, and I do believe that they will be judged for it.

WII, I want to remind you, even if you deny Him, cuss Him, or simply think of Him to be nothing more than a mere man, Jesus loves you, and died for your sin. The only atonement that can be made, was made by Him.

I'm figuring in posting this, I'll probably open up myself to some criticism, but this is my testimony in a nutshell, and experience through about 2007. As I said earlier in this thread, I was fully sold on oneness pentecostalism, abd despite some theological changes, I am still do thankful for God's saving wirk, and as the song goes "I wouldn't hive nithing for my journey now."

I'm just curious about the next chapter.

Cracker Barrel

10-16-2016, 07:12 PM

Following this thread with interest. I daresay that all of us who are reading this thread, up to this point, agree on this "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."

1. Repentance
2. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ
3. Gift of the Holy Ghost

Yet, I have some questions.
1. Have YOU received the gift of the HG exactly like they received on the DOP?
2. Have you had cloven tongues of fire sit on your head?
3. Have you had people from other languages understand in THEIR LANGUAGE the tongue you spoke?

If you cannot say yes to these questions... then are you saved?

1.
According to the verse below, those of the circumcision dat were there, knew that they received the Holy Ghost (because they heard them speak with tongues). There was no one there saying that they understood what was being said.

2. Peter said, those there received it the same way that they did on the day of Pentecost. No Fire, no mighty rushing wind, no interpretation, and they got it during his preaching, yet Peter said, as well as we.

Acts 10:44-46
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 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. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Therefore young lady: I can say if the apostle Peter was there when I or you got it he would answer your question saying, they received it "as well as we".

If anyone has not obeyed Acts 2:38 completely.

Repented with a true broken will of sorrow for all da sin committed and a true desire and made up mind to change with Gods help.

Baptized by complete emersion in water, having a man of God envoke the name of Jesus over you as you go under.

Receive the Holy Ghost and you will speak wit tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance, whether in the tongues of men or angels.

If a person dies without experiencing at least these three wonderful things. They have not been born again. Unless you are born again of the water and Spirit you cannot enter or see the Kingdom of God.

Esaias

10-16-2016, 07:56 PM

I'm not sure where else I written on AFF, but this is my early testimony if conversion from the old Islam vs Christianity part 1 thread

I'm figuring in posting this, I'll probably open up myself to some criticism, but this is my testimony in a nutshell, and experience through about 2007. As I said earlier in this thread, I was fully sold on oneness pentecostalism, abd despite some theological changes, I am still do thankful for God's saving wirk, and as the song goes "I wouldn't hive nithing for my journey now."

I'm just curious about the next chapter.

Thanks! That's a pretty good testimony.

Jason B

10-16-2016, 09:02 PM

Thanks! That's a pretty good testimony.

Thank you that was kind.
I just read all the typos.

I understand that guys such as yourself and EB don't agree with my current position.

The real problem for me is a theological one, second to that historical, thirdly psychological.

I can't embrace cessationism based on my experience....but my experience admittedly does not fit neatly into the position I currently hold. However, I can not make my experience the authority through which I interpret the scripture. There's no bitterness with me toward OPs in general, or the UPC as an org. There are some OPs meaner than a hornets nest....but thats people.

Take a guy like Steve Epley. Reminds me A LOT of my first pastor. On here, he comes across as crass, arrogant, blunt to the point of apparent hatefulness, and terribly unloving and divisive towards any not belonging to his group. But I bet if I met him in person, he'd be kind and gracious.

Thus my "issue" with OPism is a theological/biblical issue.

I've been pretty upfront about several things on this thread. EB hit me pretty hard for even visiting a UPC this summer. Why did I do it? In addition to the reason listed earlier (oneness theology proper, baptism in Jesus name, worship, sincerity, enthusiasm, prayer, a desire for holiness, and great fellowship)....it was also because in some ways I wish I hadn't left.

I didn't leave mad. I didn't have an axe to grind. I didn't feel anyone did me wrong. And when I did leave I understood the reaction of those who expressed shock, disdain, or fear to have any fellowship with me. I understood the mindset, took it in stride, and didn't hold any grudges. Again, neither I nor my wife were raised in it, and we had no family members in it (save my younger sister who I had successfully evangelized), so not only did we not leave angry or bitter, we didn't have the pressure so many "exes" do. We endured the pain of leaving your home church under bad circumstances, but time healed those hurts and despite being "marked" and shunned at first after a couple of years, when they saw us at Wal mart or where ever, and we still had "the look" and that we hadnt gone off the deep end and that I was still involved in church (my town is only 5000 people, so not too many secrets), we started to talk again and over time have at least a cordial relationship with them all. Thus no bitterness there.

Side note: even now, though we dont keep standards, I believe in modesty, I believe in long hair, and I prefer skirts over pants for my girls, so while we dont keep standards, or even pretend to abide by those things as pics on facebook show, my girls still get asked often if they are pentecostal. Of course when an OP asks and they are told not anymore, they get invited to church, or even the occasionally sigh of pity "aww" or "so sorry to hear that." As if we are dead. We understand, no need to get angry, it is a little funny, because we want to be like "its ok, life goes on, God is still good to us". But as I've said, I/we dont make it our mission to convert oneness people or change their convictions. To me its like telling the weak brother to eat meat. I've seen people trim their hair and think they've committed some great sin, God is angry or doesn't love them, and just go careening downhill. So I have no interest in shaking a person up who may need that structure in their life. God can move them in His own time.

So then back to why I visited, because in some ways, I wish I hadn't left. I still have friends and people I love in the movement. I like the familiarity. I love the fellowship.

But when we visited I just felt it wasnt the same for me. I'm not the kid I was 16 years ago, or even the person I was 7 years ago (before I left). In visiting, and trying to give it an honest chance, knowing ahead of time I didn't agree, but thinking (well I'd rather be place I agree 80-90% than somewhere else, or not attending at all), I went. But it just didnt take long to realize that while I still agreed with more than I disagreed with. The places of disagreement were just too big to be a part there.

We weren't going to start keeping standards again (but when we visited we were respectful not to offend and the girls took off necklaces and rings), I didn't believe in the initial evidence doctrine, thus I couldn't feel good about trying to win anyone or invite them to church. I dont believe all other Christians are lost, I don't believe in tithing. And this particular church is into the Endtime ministries stuff and is constantly doing an endtime class on Tuesday. Which even though God used Irvin Baxter to bring me in (and as far as I am aware, he's a terrific guy and genuine Christian), the whole endtime ministries thing is a little unhealthy in my opinion.

So with all that said, I just couldn't do it. I've moved theologically and didn't feel authentic being there. I loved the people, who were very nice. My kids were enjoying the youth and Sunday school. But it just didnt feels like home anymore. It didn't feel like the place God wants me.

I say all this because when I argue against tongues, or the various things within the movement or its history that I find are contradictory to sound doctrine, people attack me. Thats to be expected, and of course bitter is the go to smear.

So maybe in saying that we can stick to the issue of is what yall call the apostolic doctrine truly the apostolic doctrine truly the apostles doctrine, is that what the bible teaches, and why is it fully absent from churcg history?

Evang.Benincasa

10-16-2016, 09:13 PM

Esaias

10-16-2016, 09:33 PM

Thank you that was kind.
I just read all the typos.

I understand that guys such as yourself and EB don't agree with my current position.

The real problem for me is a theological one, second to that historical, thirdly psychological.

I can't embrace cessationism based on my experience....but my experience admittedly does not fit neatly into the position I currently hold. However, I can not make my experience the authority through which I interpret the scripture. There's no bitterness with me toward OPs in general, or the UPC as an org. There are some OPs meaner than a hornets nest....but thats people.

Take a guy like Steve Epley. Reminds me A LOT of my first pastor. On here, he comes across as crass, arrogant, blunt to the point of apparent hatefulness, and terribly unloving and divisive towards any not belonging to his group. But I bet if I met him in person, he'd be kind and gracious.

Thus my "issue" with OPism is a theological/biblical issue.

I've been pretty upfront about several things on this thread. EB hit me pretty hard for even visiting a UPC this summer. Why did I do it? In addition to the reason listed earlier (oneness theology proper, baptism in Jesus name, worship, sincerity, enthusiasm, prayer, a desire for holiness, and great fellowship)....it was also because in some ways I wish I hadn't left.

I didn't leave mad. I didn't have an axe to grind. I didn't feel anyone did me wrong. And when I did leave I understood the reaction of those who expressed shock, disdain, or fear to have any fellowship with me. I understood the mindset, took it in stride, and didn't hold any grudges. Again, neither I nor my wife were raised in it, and we had no family members in it (save my younger sister who I had successfully evangelized), so not only did we not leave angry or bitter, we didn't have the pressure so many "exes" do. We endured the pain of leaving your home church under bad circumstances, but time healed those hurts and despite being "marked" and shunned at first after a couple of years, when they saw us at Wal mart or where ever, and we still had "the look" and that we hadnt gone off the deep end and that I was still involved in church (my town is only 5000 people, so not too many secrets), we started to talk again and over time have at least a cordial relationship with them all. Thus no bitterness there.

Side note: even now, though we dont keep standards, I believe in modesty, I believe in long hair, and I prefer skirts over pants for my girls, so while we dont keep standards, or even pretend to abide by those things as pics on facebook show, my girls still get asked often if they are pentecostal. Of course when an OP asks and they are told not anymore, they get invited to church, or even the occasionally sigh of pity "aww" or "so sorry to hear that." As if we are dead. We understand, no need to get angry, it is a little funny, because we want to be like "its ok, life goes on, God is still good to us". But as I've said, I/we dont make it our mission to convert oneness people or change their convictions. To me its like telling the weak brother to eat meat. I've seen people trim their hair and think they've committed some great sin, God is angry or doesn't love them, and just go careening downhill. So I have no interest in shaking a person up who may need that structure in their life. God can move them in His own time.

So then back to why I visited, because in some ways, I wish I hadn't left. I still have friends and people I love in the movement. I like the familiarity. I love the fellowship.

But when we visited I just felt it wasnt the same for me. I'm not the kid I was 16 years ago, or even the person I was 7 years ago (before I left). In visiting, and trying to give it an honest chance, knowing ahead of time I didn't agree, but thinking (well I'd rather be place I agree 80-90% than somewhere else, or not attending at all), I went. But it just didnt take long to realize that while I still agreed with more than I disagreed with. The places of disagreement were just too big to be a part there.

We weren't going to start keeping standards again (but when we visited we were respectful not to offend and the girls took off necklaces and rings), I didn't believe in the initial evidence doctrine, thus I couldn't feel good about trying to win anyone or invite them to church. I dont believe all other Christians are lost, I don't believe in tithing. And this particular church is into the Endtime ministries stuff and is constantly doing an endtime class on Tuesday. Which even though God used Irvin Baxter to bring me in (and as far as I am aware, he's a terrific guy and genuine Christian), the whole endtime ministries thing is a little unhealthy in my opinion.

So with all that said, I just couldn't do it. I've moved theologically and didn't feel authentic being there. I loved the people, who were very nice. My kids were enjoying the youth and Sunday school. But it just didnt feels like home anymore. It didn't feel like the place God wants me.

I say all this because when I argue against tongues, or the various things within the movement or its history that I find are contradictory to sound doctrine, people attack me. Thats to be expected, and of course bitter is the go to smear.

So maybe in saying that we can stick to the issue of is what yall call the apostolic doctrine truly the apostolic doctrine truly the apostles doctrine, is that what the bible teaches, and why is it fully absent from churcg history?

I'm bringing a post I made on another thread, I'd like you to read it and consider, and tell me your thoughts. Hang on a moment...

Esaias

10-16-2016, 09:41 PM

Jason, here it is:

[

Let's begin with the prophecies of Joel:

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. 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.
(Joel 2:28-32 KJV)

As quoted from the Greek LXX used by Peter:
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Acts 2:17-21 KJV)

What was going to happen? The key part is "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy."

There are 7 categories of recipients of the Spirit that are mentioned: all flesh, your sons, your daughters, your old men, your young men, the (my) servants, and the (my) handmaids. The Spirit would be poured out upon 'all flesh', meaning 'everyone'. The following six categories are subdvisions of the 'all flesh'. That means sons, daughters, old men, young men, servants, and handmaidens. Now, all the 'sons' would be all the males, of any age. And all the 'daughters' would be all the females, of any age. Old men and young men are two particular categories of the males, but pretty much covers all the males. Servants are all the males who serve God, and handmaidens are all the females who serve God. Notice, the "young me"n and the "old men" are included in the categories of "sons" and "servants". The "sons" comprise all the males, as does the "servants". They are both the same group - the males. The "daughters" and the "handmaids" likewise are the same group, since both groups are synomyous with 'all the females'.

Each of these categories were to experience something as a result of receiving the Spirit: the sons and daughters were to 'prophesy', the young men were to 'see visions', the old men were to 'dream dreams', and the servants and the handmaids were to 'prophesy'. So we see that all the males ("sons" and "servants") were to "prophesy", and all the females ("daughters" and "handmaids") likewise were to "prophesy". (The old men and the young men are included in the groups of servants and sons.) So there was to be a universal outpouring of the Spirit, and every possible category of person who would receive the Spirit would experience the same thing: they would 'prophesy'. Thus, according to Joel, there was to be a universal 'evidence' or 'sign' of the Spirit being received: each person who received the Spirit was to 'prophesy'.

What does 'prophesy' mean? Why, it means to 'speak the words that God gives you to speak.' It generally means 'ecstatic utterance', it most definitely means speaking forth whatever the Spirit of God leads you to speak. So, the initial evidence, if you will, according to Joel was that people - ALL people - who receive the Spirit would 'prophesy', or speak whatever God gave them to speak.

Now, what actually happened when this came to pass?

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(Acts 2:1-4 KJV)

There was a sound like a strong wind, and there were visions of cloven tongues of fire coming down and sitting upon the disciples, but these things happened BEFORE anyone received the Spirit. When they were 'all filled with the Holy Ghost', they 'began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance'. Each person received the Spirit, and each person began to speak in tongues.

But wait. Joel said they would 'prophesy', yet we see them 'speaking with tongues'. How do we resolve this dilemma, this discrepancy? Notice what Peter said: 'This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.' This is that.

What is what? This means the disciples being filled with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues. That means the outpouring of God's Spirit upon all his male and female servants and them prophesying. The outpouring of the Spirit is fulfilled in the disciples being filled with the Holy Ghost. And the 'prophesying' is fulfilled in the 'speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance'.

This means that the universal sign clearly stated by Joel is fulfilled by 'speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance'. This means that there is a prophesied, old testament expectation of a universal sign or evidence of receiving the Spirit, and the new testament clearly and unambiguously identifies that evidence as 'speaking with tongues.' In other words, the 'initial evidence doctrine' is found in both the old testament and the new testament.

Now, what exactly was going on in that upper room?

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
(Acts 2:5-6 KJV)

The multitude that gathered showed up after the tongue speaking had commenced. So we can rule out that specious and silly notion that the disciples were speaking in tongues in order to preach to foreignors. But notice carefully what is said: "...because that every man heard them speak in his own language."

Read that again: EVERY man heard THEM speak in HIS OWN language. I'll repeat that for emphasis: EVERY man heard THEM speak in HIS OWN language

The common idea is that some disciples were speaking one language, some another, and so forth. But that is not what the text says. It says that each person in the crowd who gathered to see what was going on, heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking in HIS OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE. Let me repeat that for emphasis: EACH PERSON in the crowd who gathered to see what was going on, heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking in HIS OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE.

So the guy from Libya heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking in Libyan. But the guy from Rome heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking Latin. And the guy from Greece heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking Greek. And so forth.

Think on that for a moment. Picture it in your mind. Try to imagine Peter speaking Latin, Greek, Libyan, Phrygian, and however many other languages were represented there - ALL AT THE SAME TIME. And imagine each of the other disciples there doing the exact same thing.

IMPOSSIBLE you say? Yes, it is biologically impossible for a person to simultaneously speak multiple languages AT THE SAME TIME. When a word comes out of your mouth, it will be in one or another language, but not both, or three, or ten.

The disciples were speaking in tongues before anyone showed up to ooh and ahh. So there they are, speaking in tongues. The whole lot of them, all at the same time. A crowd showed up to see what was going on, and lo and behold EACH PERSON in the crowd hears ALL THE DISCIPLES speaking in his own native language. And the crowd is 'confounded'. Indeed, so would you be 'confounded' in such a situation.

IF one disciple was speaking one language, and another disciple speaking another language, and so forth, would you be confounded? No, you might be amused but not confounded. Confounded means 'utterly clueless as to how something can be happening'. Stunned. Blown away. Astonished. Astonied (as the KJV puts it).

BUT WAIT, there's more. Some folks showed up and were NOT confounded at all. They knew exactly what was going on. 'These guys are DRUNK.' They are mad, they are on crack.

And isn't that what Paul said would happen if the UNBELIEVING came in to the midst of a meeting where everyone is 'speaking with tongues'?

If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
(1 Corinthians 14:23 KJV)

So how did all those 'devout men' hear every single disciple speaking HIS OWN language, when these disciples were simply 'speaking in tongues'? Apparently God caused them to hear in their own language. Is this too much? Well, was it too much for a sound like a rushing mighty wind, or cloven tongues of fire? Was it too much for the three lepers whose footsteps God amplified into the sound of an approaching army that none but the Syrians could hear in 2 Kings chapter 7?

So then, not only is speaking with tongues the Biblically documented universal, initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost, it is also not about speaking in languages known to the hearers.

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
(1 Corinthians 14:2 KJV)

No man understandeth him... unless God gives a supernatural understanding of what is being said... unless God causes you to hear it in a way that makes sense to you...

Jason B

10-16-2016, 10:15 PM

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See.

Jason, sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you love the sound of your own voice.

That's the truth.

As you are typing out these posts you must actually believe you are creating golden tablets.

Dude not for anything, but you really sound like a confused young man who doesn't even know where he is headed.

Elder Epley gets scrutinized by you? Dude, you would think by your statements 11 years made you an expert? How many UCs did you ever visit around the country? How many Apostolic Pentecostals have you visited around the United States? Did you ever personally meet Elder Epley? Or have you gleaned all your knowledge from the Internet, and from posters here?

Man, dig yourself.

Got it. You've made your opinion known. Confused. Love the sound of my own voice. Still nothing from you of substance except attempts to discredit my person. I will take that as you have no answers. At least Esaias, who probably thinks the same about me, is engaging in some manner of substantive dialogue. Perhaps you could do the same.

-OR-

Maybe you can call me confused or bitter AND expound some scripture to show why not only am I wrong in my opinions.
And also prove that indeed every single person since the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 who has claimed to believe on Jesus, yet not spoken in tongues are hell bound, or of course already there.

Can you do either or both of those things?
If you can, the do so.
If you can't, then respectfully, quit wasting your time running me down and figure out how to counter those arguments.

Jason B

10-16-2016, 10:22 PM

I'm bringing a post I made on another thread, I'd like you to read it and consider, and tell me your thoughts. Hang on a moment...

Thanks. I read it, but its late and I'm tired. I'd like to re-read it again tomorrow after work if i get a chance, and then respond.

Esaias

10-16-2016, 10:24 PM

OK. Too bad you aren't a Feast-keeper like me, you'd have tomorrow off! (First day of Tabernacles)

:)

Evang.Benincasa

10-16-2016, 10:32 PM

Got it. You've made your opinion known. Confused. Love the sound of my own voice. Still nothing from you of substance except attempts to discredit my person. I will take that as you have no answers. At least Esaias, who probably thinks the same about me, is engaging in some manner of substantive dialogue. Perhaps you could do the same.

-OR-

Maybe you can call me confused or bitter AND expound some scripture to show why not only am I wrong in my opinions.
And also prove that indeed every single person since the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 who has claimed to believe on Jesus, yet not spoken in tongues are hell bound, or of course already there.

Can you do either or both of those things?
If you can, the do so.
If you can't, then respectfully, quit wasting your time running me down and figure out how to counter those arguments.

Expound scriptures to you?

Easias has taken the time to provide you with what you seek.

You speak about having your person discredited like you are some sort of political figure. Jason, the only one here who has discredited you is YOU.

My lands, dude you need to have other people then yourself read your posts.
People who would look at them objectively. You actually say that you are on some journey, awaiting the next level? You were a pastor?

Hey, you believe your own PR.

So, without writing me a 50 page soliloquy, what does it mean in Mark 16:17 they shall speak with new tongues?

Jito463

10-16-2016, 10:40 PM

There's not much evidence in the Bible that every believer spoke in tongues when they received the Spirit, ergo......

Why teach that?

Actually, your pre-edited post was more accurate. We have three distinct events recorded in the Bible, showing that people received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues. And in the mouth of two or three witnesses, let all things be established. Yet there is not one recorded instance where people received the Holy Ghost and did not speak in tongues. It's neither explicitly, nor implicitly shown that anyone ever received the Holy Ghost without that evidence.

The best you could counter argue, is that not every instance records people speaking in tongues, but it does not automatically infer that they did not. One would have to add to the Word, to come to the conclusion that some received without that initial evidence, because the Bible sure doesn't give that impression.

Those of you who do not believe in speaking in tongues as the initial evidence, often like to quote from Corinthians, however those letters to the churches were to those already saved and filled (e.g. those who had already received the Holy Ghost). The book of Acts records the beginnings of the church, and the unsaved receiving for the first time. I don't believe you must speak in tongues every time God touches you with His Spirit, but I do believe - as the Bible recorded - that every believer who receives for the first time, will have that initial sign.

Jason B

10-17-2016, 01:22 PM

Expound scriptures to you?
Expound and exegete. Sure

Easias has taken the time to provide you with what you seek.
He has and JITO also posted some material than needs a response. I guess you can jump in after I reply to those guys.

You speak about having your person discredited like you are some sort of political figure. Jason, the only one here who has discredited you is YOU.
Really now? A political figure. Lol. I'm just pointing out that you can label someone confused, bitter, etc as an excuse not to deal with their arguments. Thats what you've tried to do to me throughout this thread. All I've done is point it out. But you continue with your best Trump impression and just keep repeating a label.

My lands, dude you need to have other people then yourself read your posts.
People who would look at them objectively. You actually say that you are on some journey, awaiting the next level? You were a pastor?
Allow me to dumb it down for you.
Journey=walk through life with the Lord, we're all on one
I said chapter, not level=I'm just saying I'll see what comes next. I'm taking a hiatus from ministry while we adjust to our new family situation, as I posted in detail earlier in this thread.

Does THAT really merit your criticism?
Perhaps a better question is, Is there anything you don't criticize? Good grief.

So, without writing me a 50 page soliloquy, what does it mean in Mark 16:17 they shall speak with new tongues?
Finally a scripture.

Really pretty simple. Believers will speak in tongues, as we see happening in Acts. Take the great commission of Mark, along with Luke and Matthew, and we see it unfold in Acts.

*HOWEVER* If one is using Mark 16:17 as a proof text that ALLL believers everywhere in all times without exception WILL speak in tongues, then it would logically follow that ALL believers without exception will also cast out demons, heal the sick, take up serpents, and drink poison.

Rather than seeing these as normative things that every believer WILL or MUST do it is more consistent to see these as signs which will accompany the body of believers (the same thought as is expressed in the sign/spiritual gift passages, Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 13,etc, that not all believers exercise the same gifts/abilities or even experiences).

Matthew 16:17 doesn't teach that all believers everywhere must speak in tongues as evidence they have received the Spirit.

What's interesting about this passage is that this is the only time Jesus ever mentions speaking in tongues. You could argue, though indefinitively, that Jesus alluded to tongues in other places. But the fact remains He mentioned it one single time. If this signifies not only the availability of the Holy Ghost in the church age, but indeed is THE EVIDENCE/SIGN by which we can KNOW that we (and others) are true believers, one would assume Jesus would have mentioned it more.

Instead He focuses on repentance, faith, believing, and links those things with eternal life. Frankly its probably a ratio of about 300 to 1, not that that bothers yall, who are willing to condemn people who repent of their sins and believe in Christ. He says they have eternal life, ya'll say no.

Second to that of course, is the question of whether Jesus ever even said it to begin with. I accept it, but in fairness, with the exception of 1 John 5:7, which is an obvious interpolation, Mark 16:9-20 probably along with John 8:1-11 are the two most questionable sections of scripture as far as manuscript support goes.

So as for using it in our discussion, I accept it as scripture. But when that is one of your major proof texts, its awfully weak.

It'd be like a trinitarian claiming "the Bible says God is three" and using 1 John 5:7 as their proof. That is one of the main reasons why some trinitarians are so outspoken for KJV onlyism.

Conclusion: Mark 16:17 doesn't prove or mean that every single believer WILL speak in tongues.

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 02:52 PM

Expound and exegete. Sure

Isn't that casting pearl? If I understand all you have written in the past and present, you believe what we believe to be erroneous. Yet, we all have run over these topics over and over again in this forum. So, much in fact that some posters have reposted old material to you. If Jesus, and the 12 apostles were to sit you down you still wouldn't accept it. But unlike forum members they would knock the dust off their feet and move on. Something we don't do on forums. We just beat dead horses for a hater's pleasure. ;)

He has and JITO also posted some material than needs a response. I guess you can jump in after I reply to those guys.

Why don't I just cut and paste their material? :heeheehee

Really now? A political figure. Lol. I'm just pointing out that you can label someone confused, bitter, etc as an excuse not to deal with their arguments.

No excuses, but just pointing out the truth as I see it played out. You can't help yourself. It is part of the beast, like an old hen who automatically pecks the younger hen. You want to make your bones. It's all you ever done. I didn't even take the time to filet your other posts concerning your religious maze of exploration. Jason, I ONLY mock the mockable. There are liberals who post who aren't mockable. Due to their sane renderings, instead of religious pouting. :)

Thats what you've tried to do to me throughout this thread.

Jason, you are one who believes if you repeat yourself over and over again it automatically becomes truth to the hearer. Yet, you believe what you are saying, I don't. Discredit you? Who are you? You have typed out your resume, and I gave my opinion. I can only comment on what you supply me with. You. I didn't make it up. You are the one who posted that you are studying for the next level? You posted that, those are your words, not mine.
The Bible does say, a double minded man is unstable in all his ways, not just some of his ways.

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 03:12 PM

All I've done is point it out. But you continue with your best Trump impression and just keep repeating a label.

So, does that make you Hillary?

Allow me to dumb it down for you.
Journey=walk through life with the Lord, we're all on one
I said chapter, not level=I'm just saying I'll see what comes next. I'm taking a hiatus from ministry while we adjust to our new family situation, as I posted in detail earlier in this thread.

Getting at least 5 years of study before what what comes next?

That even sounds more bizarre.

Does THAT really merit your criticism?
Perhaps a better question is, Is there anything you don't criticize? Good grief.

You went after Brother Epley's personality in a post! Dude, I would have more respect for you if you were at least more consistent, and less sniveling. Seriously, Getting at least 5 years of study before what what comes next? Your understanding needs to use this season of your life to prepare for what comes next? You do intend to return to ministry later on, but for now, you'd like to take time off to study because your 35? This isn't car mechanics, this isn't even being a carpenter's assistant. This is a calling, a calling from Jesus Christ. Yet, reading your posts it is like you are on a learn as you go, and if you cut boards too short you just grab more boards. Or stay home and learn how to read the tape measure. That's fine, but when you want to point out something you perceive about Brother Epley's personality, just be man enough to take what you dish out. Brother Epley has been in this longer than you? Stayed consistent longer than you? Whether you believe he is right or wrong, you still wanted to point out what you precieved as his attitude. Physician heal thy self.

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 03:51 PM

Finally a scripture.

Really pretty simple. Believers will speak in tongues, as we see happening in Acts. Take the great commission of Mark, along with Luke and Matthew, and we see it unfold in Acts.

*HOWEVER* If one is using Mark 16:17 as a proof text that ALLL believers everywhere in all times without exception WILL speak in tongues, then it would logically follow that ALL believers without exception will also cast out demons, heal the sick, take up serpents, and drink poison.

Rather than seeing these as normative things that every believer WILL or MUST do it is more consistent to see these as signs which will accompany the body of believers (the same thought as is expressed in the sign/spiritual gift passages, Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 13,etc, that not all believers exercise the same gifts/abilities or even experiences).

Matthew 16:17 doesn't teach that all believers everywhere must speak in tongues as evidence they have received the Spirit.

Mark 16:17 states those who believe will speak with new tongues. This follows those who believe will be baptized. So, the same as baptism accompanying a believer, so would new languages. These aren't gifts but these are signs. It doesn't say these gifts will accompany them that trust, but signs.

What's interesting about this passage is that this is the only time Jesus ever mentions speaking in tongues. You could argue, though indefinitively, that Jesus alluded to tongues in other places.

Doctrines created from guess work?

Ezekiel's wheels are UFOs?

But the fact remains He mentioned it one single time.

Your logic means what? Because He said this once in a statement concerning His followers it is questionable? Bart Ehrman was slouching the same way once, it didn't work out for him too well. Sometimes, just sometimes, people tend to study their ways right into Atheism. You know Jesus picked His students? But now a days, we pick our teachers?

If this signifies not only the availability of the Holy Ghost in the church age, but indeed is THE EVIDENCE/SIGN by which we can KNOW that we (and others) are true believers, one would assume Jesus would have mentioned it more.

Doctrines built from assumptions.

Sad bro. :(

Instead He focuses on repentance, faith, believing, and links those things with eternal life. Frankly its probably a ratio of about 300 to 1, not that that bothers yall, who are willing to condemn people who repent of their sins and believe in Christ. He says they have eternal life, ya'll say no.

You say, no we say???

You want to talk about this, you won't like what you see in the mirror.

May I strongly suggest you reread the above post. Because you have the plank, and your gouging out my eye clean from its socket.

Second to that of course, is the question of whether Jesus ever even said it to begin with.

Thomas Jefferson would be proud. He also taught from a Bible with actual scriptures removed. So many in fact it would make the translators of the New World Translation shudder. When we are involved with textual criticism we need to keep in mind that whole Epistles, chapters, verses, and even the book of Revelation is placed on the chopping block. When you start to shred your own religion's sacred book, you are following a burning meteor straight into an iron wall. I'm not against textual criticism by any means, but you sound like the Karate Kid learning Jujitsu from a Karate magazine. Sadly with no Mr Miyagi in sight.

I accept it, but in fairness, with the exception of 1 John 5:7, which is an obvious interpolation, Mark 16:9-20 probably along with John 8:1-11 are the two most questionable sections of scripture as far as manuscript support goes.

But those are the ones which hold controversy. Man, you have even begun to enter the dark wood, I just pray you make it out on the other side in one piece.

So as for using it in our discussion, I accept it as scripture. But when that is one of your major proof texts, its awfully weak.

Awfully weak? The scripture verse is awfully weak? So, you don't accept it as inspired. OK. You should just say that, instead of saying that you accept it as weak scripture??? One proof text? Jason, reread your post, did you notice that your argument is mostly targeted on disproving the verse's validity? You posted that Jesus might not of even said it? That's what is messed up about people who defend their new revelation. They end up trying to disprove the Bible.

It'd be like a trinitarian claiming "the Bible says God is three" and using 1 John 5:7 as their proof. That is one of the main reasons why some trinitarians are so outspoken for KJV onlyism.

But there are just as many One God people who are KJV only and have no problem with the verse.

Conclusion: Mark 16:17 doesn't prove or mean that every single believer WILL speak in tongues.

Mark 16:17 does prove and means that every single believer WILL speak in tongues.

Jason B

10-17-2016, 05:27 PM

Mark 16:17 does prove and means that every single believer WILL speak in tongues.
Back to square 1. So every single person who never spoke in tongues is lost and burning in hell? Yes or no?

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 05:30 PM

Back to square 1. So every single person who never spoke in tongues is lost and burning in hell? Yes or no?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D0lSwZdHm5o/Tw4MB0jZeuI/AAAAAAAAAl8/TN2OsO_WQ3s/s1600/baxter-cain-baseketball-gif-disgust.gif

Hence the reason why it is an utter waste of time dealing with haters.

Jason B

10-17-2016, 05:43 PM

Hence the reason why it is an utter waste of time dealing with haters.
Deflect, deflect, deflect.

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. Ya'll talk all tough, but when it comes time to make it plain weasel out. Steve Epley is one of the few exceptions.

When it comes to making it plain ya'll are like Joel Osteen on Larry King.

False Teacher Joel Osteen: The Gospel: https://youtu.be/pKF_QgNezBY

Jason B

10-17-2016, 05:57 PM

Isn't that casting pearl?
Swine? Classy.

If I understand all you have written in the past and present, you believe what we believe to be erroneous. Yet, we all have run over these topics over and over again in this forum. So, much in fact that some posters have reposted old material to you. If Jesus, and the 12 apostles were to sit you down you still wouldn't accept it. But unlike forum members they would knock the dust off their feet and move on. Something we don't do on forums. We just beat dead horses for a hater's pleasure. ;)
I'm a hater? When bitter is worn out, just use a synonym. That must be my problem, tons of oneness pentecostal hate. So much so, I consider them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Even while a few call me bitter, swine, hater, and condemned. Got it. Keep up the narrative.

No excuses, but just pointing out the truth as I see it played out. You can't help yourself. It is part of the beast, like an old hen who automatically pecks the younger hen. You want to make your bones. It's all you ever done.
Right, again, in your own little world. I've been a member here for 9 years. I average 1.5 posts per day. I go weeks without coming here, and half the time I come here to check out the political pages. You act as though I am pining away to come and refute your nonsensical beliefs. Yet, as usual facts are not on your side. I get in on a good thread like this on occasion and post frequently for a few days. I'll probably be around daily out of curiousity through the election, and because I have the AFF app on my phone, so its something I do when I eat a sandwich at lunch. Hardly because I simply come to tear down your doctrine.

Besides when we had real theological discussions nearly every singly conservative checked out. If you can defend your doctrine, you don't run away. This is why questioning and dialouge within the movement is frowned upon and discouraged. It's easy to act like you have all the answers, when you control the questions.

Jason, you are one who believes if you repeat yourself over and over again it automatically becomes truth to the hearer. Yet, you believe what you are saying, I don't. Discredit you? Who are you? You have typed out your resume, and I gave my opinion. I can only comment on what you supply me with. You. I didn't make it up. You are the one who posted that you are studying for the next level?
The next level? I've already corrected you on this, but of course, you continue on.

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 06:02 PM

Deflect, deflect, deflect.

No deflection at all. Just calling it like I see it. You supply the information, and I comment on what YOU provide me.

I knew you wouldn't answer the question.

I knew you would, I knew you wouldn't? Jason, take the five years. Hope you survive the trip. ;)

Ya'll talk all tough, but when it comes time to make it plain weasel out.

Isn't the above considered "tough talk?" Oh, Physician? Heal thy self. :)

Steve Epley is one of the few exceptions.

Wonderful, look we are making headway. in just a few posts Brother Epley graduated from being crass, arrogant, blunt to the point of apparent hatefulness, terribly unloving, divisive towards any not belonging to his group. To now winning your approval. You are ever changing, you are in a state of constant flux.

When it comes to making it plain ya'll are like Joel Osteen on Larry King.

Jason, I just did all that typing with two fingers, and you didn't understand where I stand on the issue?

As far as Joel Teeth Olsteen, what irony. Man, you are as stable as Mercury filled Jell-O. :lol

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 06:03 PM

Swine? Classy.

Wow, I guess you would of called Jesus rude when He use it. :heeheehee

Jason B

10-17-2016, 06:06 PM

Getting at least 5 years of study before what what comes next?

That even sounds more bizarre. Seriously, Getting at least 5 years of study before what what comes next? Your understanding needs to use this season of your life to prepare for what comes next? You do intend to return to ministry later on, but for now, you'd like to take time off to study because your 35?

Taking time away to study sound bizarre? Have you read Galaians 2? Are you anti Bible college & Seminary? Have you never known brothers to take a break from pastoral ministry? The 5 years is just a number I put on it. Of course everything is in God's hand, and we'll see. If I am asked to help again, I'll prayfully consider it, but my preference is to take a break. Really, it's what I intended before when I left the OP/charismatic movement in 2011, I wasn't planning on becoming a pastor and being involved in a regular ministry schedule. I can honestly understand your criticism on doctrinal points, but you baffle me with this.

You went after Brother Epley's personality in a post! Dude, I would have more respect for you if you were at least more consistent, and less sniveling.
I made observations based on the multitude of posts here, plus a sermon I listed to of his (maybe a few). I also said he's probably kind in person. And compared him to my first pastor, who I love, yet whom would not agree with my theological positions. I'm not sure how that was "going after him". But you want an example of "going after him" read Steve Epley's posts about Steve Pixler.

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 06:07 PM

I'm a hater? When bitter is worn out, just use a synonym. That must be my problem, tons of oneness pentecostal hate. So much so, I consider them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Even while a few call me bitter, swine, hater, and condemned. Got it. Keep up the narrative.

I will always be amazed of cognitive dissonance.

Jason is the One God Apostolic Movement wrong?

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 06:08 PM

Right, again, in your own little world.

Isn't the above considered "tough talk?"

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 06:09 PM

I've been a member here for 9 years. I average 1.5 posts per day. I go weeks without coming here, and half the time I come here to check out the political pages.

Unless you get something in your craw, and then you are on here like clockwork. You are a bit predictable. :heeheehee

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 06:11 PM

You act as though I am pining away to come and refute your nonsensical beliefs.

Dude, YOU are here aren't you?

You are arguing with me can't you see that?

Pining away? Dude you couldn't stay away. :lol

I guess your hockey game was called of?

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 06:13 PM

Yet, as usual facts are not on your side.

Jason, reread the thread? Start from where we get our conversation going until at least this post.

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 06:14 PM

I get in on a good thread like this on occasion and post frequently for a few days. I'll probably be around daily out of curiousity through the election, and because I have the AFF app on my phone, so its something I do when I eat a sandwich at lunch. Hardly because I simply come to tear down your doctrine.

Wow. Bro, read, read what you are saying! Please.

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 06:18 PM

Besides when we had real theological discussions nearly every singly conservative checked out. If you can defend your doctrine, you don't run away. This is why questioning and dialouge within the movement is frowned upon and discouraged. It's easy to act like you have all the answers, when you control the questions.

Jason, now you are pouting. Questions are answered, but you didn't even deal with what I presented back to you concerning Mark 16:17. Jesus never saying it, it might be an addition. You didn't comment on that, but what to pout?

Evang.Benincasa

10-17-2016, 06:19 PM

The next level? I've already corrected you on this, but of course, you continue on.

I know, and I commented on it by using the clarification you offered me.

Read the post.

Go play hockey.

:heeheehee

Jason B

10-17-2016, 08:01 PM

Jason, now you are pouting. Questions are answered, but you didn't even deal with what I presented back to you concerning Mark 16:17. Jesus never saying it, it might be an addition. You didn't comment on that, but what to pout?

You asked me what it meant, I said it meant what it said, and we see Mark 16:17 fulfilled in Acts.

I didn't say Jesus never said it, I did point out that it is one of the most questional textual passages in all of scripture. That wasn't a primary point. And while I understand your Bart Erhman reference, I am firm on the doctrines of the inspiration, innerrancy, and authority of scriputre. I HAVE seen the slide you talk about of former believers, esp. former apostolics, who have gone uber liberal emergent, don't believe the scriputre, and really don't believe anything. I appreciate your concern.

That said, the people you've described are the slippery slope. The sermon illustrations, the trophies of hell. People who not only leave the apostolic movement, but also all Christianity or become so uber liberal they are Rob Bell, Brian McClaren, Dan Kimball disciples. That's not me. For whatever you want to say, I've been gone 6 years, still living for God. Not in any gross sin, not in divorce, not having children on drugs or pregnant, or even in the world.

And while you continue to disparge my beliefs, while you continue to paint me as unstable, and who knows what else, most of my beliefs haven't changed over the years with the exception of soteriology/standards and tithing. Just because I am refining some things (for example the whole issue of predestination/election, various modes of ecclesiology, eschatology, and really a host of secondary issues) doesn't at all paint me as the double minded man you attempt to portray. But since you keep going back on this, here is a brief summary of where I stand.

I believe God is One, and fully manifest in the flesh in person of Jesus Christ. I am not against saying God is triune as this is used different ways. Personally I believe God is triune in the sense that He has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three ways in which the one and only God has worked out redeption and applies it to His own. I do not for a second believe God is 3 different persons, 3 thrones in heaven, or that there were councils of the godhead at anytime.

I believe baptism invoking Jesus name is the most primitive "formula" in church history and has the most biblical support. I have never baptized anyone in any way except in Jesus name, and this includes the people we baptized at Fellowship Bible Church the last few years.

I believe in justification by faith. Specifically the sinner is declared righteous by God himself on the basis his faith in the person work of Jesus Christ. At that point we are no longer enemeies of GOd, we are no longer children of disobdence and children of wrath, but are now at peace with God. I believe a person receives the Spirit at belief/repentance/faith. (Actually I'm saying tht in a general sense, if I went so far as to suggest an order of salvation, it would seem the sinner is convicted of sin by the Spirit of God, drawn to Jesus Christ by faith, heart broken over sin leading to repentance, forgiven by God, thus justified, and then regenerated by the Spirit of God, which also acts as the formal act of adoption,as per Romans 5:1-5, Romans 8:14-17, Epehsians 1:13-14, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:14, Galatians 4:5-6, John 1:12, etc).

I believe in holiness of life, that saving grace always teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldliness. While I believe holiness standards are sometimes based on good principles, I believe as a whole they go beyond the Bible and turn into a works-righteousness legalism for many who hold them. That said, there is nothing sinful adhering to holiness standards, so long as one realizes it is only by the merit of Jesus Christ and His imputed righteousness that we are counted as righteous before God. IF someone believes themselves to be making themselves holy and acceptable by their holiness standards, if they believe they must do those things in order to stay saved, or out of fear that not doing them will cause them to burn in hell (the better safe than sorry mindset), those are all errors. In saying that I do believe we can "live holy"even in the absence of standards, especially since true believers are led by the indwelling Holy Spirit, through whom God is working out sanctification in every one who has been justified by faith.

I believe salvation is exclusively available in Jesus Christ. That someone must not only believe in Jesus, but in his divinity, in His perfect life, His atoning death, and His bodily resurrection. There is no salvation in any other.

Jason B

10-17-2016, 08:26 PM

Jason, here it is:

[

Let's begin with the prophecies of Joel:

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. 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.
(Joel 2:28-32 KJV)

As quoted from the Greek LXX used by Peter:
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Acts 2:17-21 KJV)

What was going to happen? The key part is "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy."

There are 7 categories of recipients of the Spirit that are mentioned: all flesh, your sons, your daughters, your old men, your young men, the (my) servants, and the (my) handmaids. The Spirit would be poured out upon 'all flesh', meaning 'everyone'. The following six categories are subdvisions of the 'all flesh'. That means sons, daughters, old men, young men, servants, and handmaidens. Now, all the 'sons' would be all the males, of any age. And all the 'daughters' would be all the females, of any age. Old men and young men are two particular categories of the males, but pretty much covers all the males. Servants are all the males who serve God, and handmaidens are all the females who serve God. Notice, the "young me"n and the "old men" are included in the categories of "sons" and "servants". The "sons" comprise all the males, as does the "servants". They are both the same group - the males. The "daughters" and the "handmaids" likewise are the same group, since both groups are synomyous with 'all the females'.

Each of these categories were to experience something as a result of receiving the Spirit: the sons and daughters were to 'prophesy', the young men were to 'see visions', the old men were to 'dream dreams', and the servants and the handmaids were to 'prophesy'. So we see that all the males ("sons" and "servants") were to "prophesy", and all the females ("daughters" and "handmaids") likewise were to "prophesy". (The old men and the young men are included in the groups of servants and sons.) So there was to be a universal outpouring of the Spirit, and every possible category of person who would receive the Spirit would experience the same thing: they would 'prophesy'. Thus, according to Joel, there was to be a universal 'evidence' or 'sign' of the Spirit being received: each person who received the Spirit was to 'prophesy'.

What does 'prophesy' mean? Why, it means to 'speak the words that God gives you to speak.' It generally means 'ecstatic utterance', it most definitely means speaking forth whatever the Spirit of God leads you to speak. So, the initial evidence, if you will, according to Joel was that people - ALL people - who receive the Spirit would 'prophesy', or speak whatever God gave them to speak.

Now, what actually happened when this came to pass?

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(Acts 2:1-4 KJV)

There was a sound like a strong wind, and there were visions of cloven tongues of fire coming down and sitting upon the disciples, but these things happened BEFORE anyone received the Spirit. When they were 'all filled with the Holy Ghost', they 'began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance'. Each person received the Spirit, and each person began to speak in tongues.

But wait. Joel said they would 'prophesy', yet we see them 'speaking with tongues'. How do we resolve this dilemma, this discrepancy? Notice what Peter said: 'This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.' This is that.

What is what? This means the disciples being filled with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues. That means the outpouring of God's Spirit upon all his male and female servants and them prophesying. The outpouring of the Spirit is fulfilled in the disciples being filled with the Holy Ghost. And the 'prophesying' is fulfilled in the 'speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance'.

This means that the universal sign clearly stated by Joel is fulfilled by 'speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance'. This means that there is a prophesied, old testament expectation of a universal sign or evidence of receiving the Spirit, and the new testament clearly and unambiguously identifies that evidence as 'speaking with tongues.' In other words, the 'initial evidence doctrine' is found in both the old testament and the new testament.

Now, what exactly was going on in that upper room?

And there w them speak in his own language.
(Acts 2:5-6 KJV)

The multitude that gathered showed up after the tongue speaking had commenced. So we can rule out that specious and silly notion that the disciples were speaking in tongues in order to preach to foreignors. But notice carefully what is said: "...because that every man heard them speak in his own language."

Read that again: EVERY man heard THEM speak in HIS OWN language. I'll repeat that for emphasis: EVERY man heard THEM speak in HIS OWN language

The common idea is that some disciples were speaking one language, some another, and so forth. But that is not what the text says. It says that each person in the crowd who gathered to see what was going on, heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking in HIS OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE. Let me repeat that for emphasis: EACH PERSON in the crowd who gathered to see what was going on, heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking in HIS OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE.

So the guy from Libya heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking in Libyan. But the guy from Rome heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking Latin. And the guy from Greece heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking Greek. And so forth.

Think on that for a moment. Picture it in your mind. Try to imagine Peter speaking Latin, Greek, Libyan, Phrygian, and however many other languages were represented there - ALL AT THE SAME TIME. And imagine each of the other disciples there doing the exact same thing.

IMPOSSIBLE you say? Yes, it is biologically impossible for a person to simultaneously speak multiple languages AT THE SAME TIME. When a word comes out of your mouth, it will be in one or another language, but not both, or three, or ten.

The disciples were speaking in tongues before anyone showed up to ooh and ahh. So there they are, speaking in tongues. The whole lot of them, all at the same time. A crowd showed up to see what was going on, and lo and behold EACH PERSON in the crowd hears ALL THE DISCIPLES speaking in his own native language. And the crowd is 'confounded'. Indeed, so would you be 'confounded' in such a situation.

IF one disciple was speaking one language, and another disciple speaking another language, and so forth, would you be confounded? No, you might be amused but not confounded. Confounded means 'utterly clueless as to how something can be happening'. Stunned. Blown away. Astonished. Astonied (as the KJV puts it).

BUT WAIT, there's more. Some folks showed up and were NOT confounded at all. They knew exactly what was going on. 'These guys are DRUNK.' They are mad, they are on crack.

And isn't that what Paul said would happen if the UNBELIEVING came in to the midst of a meeting where everyone is 'speaking with tongues'?

So then, not only is speaking with tongues the Biblically documented universal, initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost, it is also not about speaking in languages known to the hearers.

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
(1 Corinthians 14:2 KJV)

No man understandeth him... unless God gives a supernatural understanding of what is being said... unless God causes you to hear it in a way that makes sense to you...

First, a compliment. This was a reasonable argument and logical. I understand where you are going, and find agreement with several statement and observations. In my view, I think that the itnerpretative problem is to equate prophecy with speaking in tongues and to then arrive at the conclusion that to prophecy is always to speak in tongues. Or that all speaking in tongues is prophecy. (Correct me if I'm not accurately understanding this point). Both Paul and Luke make distinction between speaking in tongues and prophecy. Though speaking in tongues can sometimes be equated with prophecy, prophecy can be present in the absence of tongues. And of course in 2 Corinthians 14, a place Paul makes such a distinction, prophecy is valued above speaking in tongues.

Furthermore, I think it's quite an assumption to leap all the way to the point that "speaking in tongues is the Biblically documented, universal, initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.

I can see how you build that argument from Joel 2 with Acts 2. But the whole of scripture doesn't bear this out. For example even in Acts 2, there is no indication whatsoever that the 3,000 who accepted the apostles message spoke in tongues. We are only told they believed and were baptized. There is no mention of the converts in Acts 4:4 speaking in tongues, no the Ethopian Eunuch in Acts 8, and so on.

We have record of the Apostles, Samritans, Gentiles, some disciples of John the Baptist and the Corinthians speaking in tongues. Beside that there is no statement, and scant evidence of other believers speaking in tongues. History (as a secondary source) does confirm that the gift of tongues was active within the early church, probably at least until the 4th or 5th century. I do not dispute the historicity of tongues, even in the extra/post biblical record, nor do I affirm that all tongue speaking today is goobly good mumbo jumbo.

But all this argument proves is that the gift of the Spirit is for all people, sexes, economic and ethnic classes. That in and of itself was revolutionary in the first century. The rest of the conclusions are conjecture.

KeptByTheWord

10-17-2016, 09:32 PM

Good point Jason, on the difference between tongues and prophecy. It is a stretch to say that prophecy is tongues. While prophecy *can* include tongues... there is still a distinct difference between prophecy and tongues, as per 1 Cor. 14.

The way I see it... tongues *can* be a sign of initial receiving of the HG, but just like in the book of Acts, some accounts mention the tongues, and some don't, and I see it that way now. Some receive the gift of tongues initially, some later, and some not at all... but the true measure of the spirit of Jesus Christ being manifest in the life of a believer is through the fruit of the spirit, charity, and love one for another.

And charity, quite frankly is often sadly lacking, especially between brethren who differ in some doctrinal point, but still agree on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

Cracker Barrel

10-17-2016, 09:44 PM

Jason B

10-17-2016, 09:54 PM

Actually, your pre-edited post was more accurate. We have three distinct events recorded in the Bible, showing that people received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues. And in the mouth of two or three witnesses, let all things be established. Yet there is not one recorded instance where people received the Holy Ghost and did not speak in tongues. It's neither explicitly, nor implicitly shown that anyone ever received the Holy Ghost without that evidence.

The best you could counter argue, is that not every instance records people speaking in tongues, but it does not automatically infer that they did not. One would have to add to the Word, to come to the conclusion that some received without that initial evidence, because the Bible sure doesn't give that impression.
Simply stated, no there is not much evidence for this. As you note there are three distinct events. I'll give you Acts 8 in Samaria and say 4. Beside that, not much evidence. In Acts alone there are 21 accounts of conversions, and thousands of people who become believers. Yet very few instances of speaking in tongues.

Do a study, read through Acts, write down every sermon, and write down every conversion. Some are given in summary. Nevertheless you will find 3 out of 21 conversions mention tongues. You say, "oh but they're not mentioned every tongues, that doesn't infer they didn't speak in tongues. To come to that conclusion would be to add to the Word." Let's put that to the test.

First Acts 2. 3,000 people respond to Peter's sermon. They believe, they are baptized. No mention of tongues, no implication of tongues. At best one must ASSUME they spoke in tongues, but the scripture is silent. Now you say to say they didn't speak in tongues is to add to the Word. I ask you, is not saying that 3,000 out of 3,000 people ALL speak in tongues, when the scripture says absolutely nothing of the sort, not ADDING to the Word? Is not that a HUGE assumption?

Beyond that, we are told that these people were baptized and ADDED to the church. Can anyone who is not a true believer be added to the church? We're not talking about first baptist here, these were genuinely saved believers, this was the first church. Do you realize that your doctrine crubmles on the very first day of church history *IF* ALL three thousand people who were added to the church that day did not speak in tongues?

Continuing on, in Acts 4 you have 5,000, please tell me how you arrive at the conclusion they spoke in tongues? And do you not have to add to the Word? What about the Ethopian Eunuch in Acts 8? Did He speak in tongues? What causes you to arrive at that conclusion? What about Lydia? The Bereans? All the people in Thessalonica, Ephesus, Galatia, Athens, etc? Just Biblically speaking, you have a huge problem, even if we only look at Acts.

Then what about the Jerusalem council in Acts 15? If speaking in tongues was the normative universal intitial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, why all the to-do? The Bible tells us there was much passionate debate about whether or not the Gentiles could be saved w/o circumcision. Paul and Barnabus spoke. The council was still undecided. Finally Peter recounts the episode at Cornelius' house, and the matter gets settled. Now ask yourself this....If Peter's arguement was so convicining (Gentiles received the Holy Ghost like the Jews at the beginning, evidenced by tongues) that it settled the Jerusalem Council, why didn't Paul just tell the council tht everywhere he preached the gentiles were converted and manifested the sign of speaking in tongues? If a normative occourance, it would be happening everywhere and to everyone who believed. Beyond that, ask why Peter had to go several years back into the past for an example of Gentiles speaking in tongues, if everytime someone was saved the Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues? The Gentile mission was full throttle, yet, nothing. So why believe this happened to everyone? If indeed it did, that alone destroyed the Judaizers argument that circumcision was a requirement for salvation.

Those of you who do not believe in speaking in tongues as the initial evidence, often like to quote from Corinthians, however those letters to the churches were to those already saved and filled (e.g. those who had already received the Holy Ghost). The book of Acts records the beginnings of the church, and the unsaved receiving for the first time. I don't believe you must speak in tongues every time God touches you with His Spirit, but I do believe - as the Bible recorded - that every believer who receives for the first time, will have that initial sign.

1 Corinthians 12:28 is a very problematic scripture. Let's assume for a moment the IED is in fact true. Why would Paul even make that statement "do all speak in tongues"? It would seem nonsensical. It's like saying? Do all repent? Are all baptized? Do all believe Jesus is Lord? Of course. The only context that statement makes any sense is if in fact tongues was not a common universal expereince.
Now the oneness response is "1 Corinthians 12 isn't talking about initial evidence, its talking about the gift of tongues". But one has to question the interpretation that makes a distinction between intitial evidence tongues every believer will speak in and the gift of tongues. Paul never makes that distinction. Its a herenutical disaster.
Beyond that Paul not only affirms that not all speak in tongues, but that some have the gift of tongues, other of interpretation. And that within the church only when both are rpesent should tongues go forth. Otherwise, keep quiet. As a side not 1 Corinthians 14 is about the most neglected chapter in all of pentecost. It is completely ignored.

Moving on. You have 21 epistles in the NT, only 1 mentions tongues, and only in 2 chapters, and the great majority of those chapters is a rebuke and instructions for properly using the gift. The very misunderstandings present in the pentecostal movement (that speaking in tongues made one spitiual, and that it dominated the meetings, and that multiple people did so at the same time) are all vorrected by Paul. In fact far from believing tongues is the universal normative expereience for every believer, we are taught that even immature, carnal, arrogant, and divisive believers can exercise tongues. It is no sign of spiritualality. It is a gift of God's grace given for the edification of the church (when used properly, especially important in the early days of the church).

But continuing on, the epsitles present a bigger problem. OPs love to downplay the epistles by saying "they were written to already saved people." And? So? They are still filled with theology, doctrinal statements, and teachings about salvation. Romans alone stands as Paul's account of his belief and the gospel he preached, so that the Romans would know what he believed and support him on his way to Spain. Galatians, Colossians, and corinthians all have foundational gospel teachings.

The epistles were written to believer, yet tongues is never mentioned (excepting 1 Corinthians), never equated as a sign of having the Holy spirit, never suggested as anything universal or normative. Yet, though the epistles were written to believers, we find tons of teaching about repetnance, belief, several mentions of water baptism, in depth instruction on holiness, prayer , the person of Jesus Christ, etc. Basically every subject with a focus on the true gospel and holy living, even though these people already knew the gospel and were already baptized, Paul still metions these things and teaches about them. Tongues? Next to nothing.
It goes further than that. John write that his epistle is written "so that you may know you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13) and so people would not be self decieved. Yet in all his moral, social, and theological tests, John never mentions or implies tongues. Now if speaking in tongues were a real requirement of salvation, you think the New Testament would say that, you think it'd be somewhere, you think there'd be some emphasis on it. Consider the space and emphasis given to grace, faith, repentance, belief, baptism. How about tongues? They are mentioned in as many epistles as womens hair.

But wait theres more. In all the gospels Jesus clearly teaches on the importance of faith, belief, and repentance, and always ties these things to eternal life (or condemnation). He said my words will never pass away.

Yet His words are on the back burner. Ya'll can't use His words to preach salvation. Ya'll can't proclaim John 3:16 or 6:47, nor Romans 10:9 (words of Paul), or Acts 3:19 (words of Peter). Ya'll can't present the gospel in any of those ways EXCEPT to add your own interpretation to it. You can't simply tell a person to repent and believe, because you don't believe that saves them...yet Jesus himself did that hundreds of times.

Jason B

10-17-2016, 10:00 PM

The way I see it... tongues *can* be a sign of initial receiving of the HG, but just like in the book of Acts, some accounts mention the tongues, and some don't, and I see it that way now. Some receive the gift of tongues initially, some later, and some not at all... but the true measure of the spirit of Jesus Christ being manifest in the life of a believer is through the fruit of the spirit, charity, and love one for another.

And charity, quite frankly is often sadly lacking, especially between brethren who differ in some doctrinal point, but still agree on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
Agree 100%

I hope I'm being charitable. But probably not as much as I should toward EB. He's a good guy. We've spoken before I think over the phone, and I know I've sent him some CDs in the mail. Personally he's likeable, and I wish him and his family nothing but the best. But I think he's wrong on soteriology and eschatology. And his mannerisms do draw me in to come back at him in these doctrinal discussions, perhaps more direct than I should. I hope I can post doctrinal difference without getting personal.

Of course, though, despite theological differences, I would consider him my brother. He considers me an apostate.

Esaias

10-17-2016, 10:06 PM

In my view, I think that the itnerpretative problem is to equate prophecy with speaking in tongues and to then arrive at the conclusion that to prophecy is always to speak in tongues. Or that all speaking in tongues is prophecy. (Correct me if I'm not accurately understanding this point). Both Paul and Luke make distinction between speaking in tongues and prophecy. Though speaking in tongues can sometimes be equated with prophecy, prophecy can be present in the absence of tongues. And of course in 2 Corinthians 14, a place Paul makes such a distinction, prophecy is valued above speaking in tongues.

Yes, in the new testament a distinction is made between prophesying and speaking with tongues, where also speaking with tongues joined with interpretation of tongues equals prophesying. Which shows us that both are ecstatic utterances by the Spirit, prophesying being an ecstatic utterance in a language the speaker and the hearers understand, and tongues being an ecstatic utterance where the speaker and the hearers do not understand (thus requiring the interpretative gift).

However, 'prophesy' in the old testament appears to be somewhat broader in meaning. 1 Chronicles 25:1 indicates prophesying can be equivalent to 'making music in praise of God on instruments'. Jeremiah 14:14 indicates that prophesying can take the form of vision and 'divination' (casting a lot). The important thing to note is that Joel said all those who received the promised outpouring of the Spirit would prophesy. And, the interpretative problem you mention is created by the apostle Peter himself: under divine inspiration he identified the speaking in tongues that was occurring as the thing that Joel had said would occur. Or in other words, the apostle himself understood 'they shall prophesy' as being fulfilled by 'and they all began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.'

The old testament indicates there was to be a universally occurring, immediate effect of receiving the Spirit: 'they shall prophesy'. When this came to pass, the recipients 'spake with other tongues'. And furthermore, Peter said 'this is that': 'they began to speak with other tongues' is 'they shall prophesy' as meant by Joel.

We all agree that 'the new testament interprets and explains the old testament'. In this case, in regard to receiving the promised outpouring of the Spirit, the new testament interprets 'shall prophesy' as 'speak with other tongues'. And therefore the conclusion is established: the old testament teaches a universal initial evidence of receiving the Spirit, it identifies this evidence as 'they shall prophesy', and the new testament explains this as being fulfilled by speaking in other tongues when a person receives the Spirit.

I can see how you build that argument from Joel 2 with Acts 2. But the whole of scripture doesn't bear this out. For example even in Acts 2, there is no indication whatsoever that the 3,000 who accepted the apostles message spoke in tongues. We are only told they believed and were baptized. There is no mention of the converts in Acts 4:4 speaking in tongues, no the Ethopian Eunuch in Acts 8, and so on.

We have record of the Apostles, Samritans, Gentiles, some disciples of John the Baptist and the Corinthians speaking in tongues. Beside that there is no statement, and scant evidence of other believers speaking in tongues.

The problem with this line of argumentation, though, it that it does not actually prove anyhing so much about tongues, but receiving the Spirit. The 3000 in Acts 2*, and the Ethiopian eunuch, 'and so on', not only do not mention them speaking in tongues, but it also does not mention them receiving the Spirit at all, either. It likewise does not mention they 'were saved', nor does it mention they were ever 'justified', yet you certainly aren't suggesting those things did not happen, either. So then, if them not being described by Luke as speaking in tongues means they certainly did not speak in tongues, then it just as certainly means they did not receive the Spirit at all, either, for it does not mention them receiving the Spirit.

Every time receiving the Spirit is mentioned, with one exception, we see the recipients speaking in tongues. There is a reason for that from a theological pov (Luke's intention in recording these events). And in the one exception (Paul's) it likewise doesn't actually say he DID receive the Spirit (though we assume he did and for good reasons) and furthermore we know he spoke in tongues a lot according to his own admissions found elsewhere. So then, the fact the book of Acts does not mention tongues in some particular instances cannot be taken to mean that tongues did not occur, unless we are going to be consistent and say receiving the Spirit did not occur, either.

*The 3000 were among those who heard the disciples speaking in tongues, and who were wondering what was going on. And the apostle identified for them the fact that what was going on (all these people speaking in tongues) was the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy regarding the outpouring of the Spirit. He then proclaimed the resurrected Jesus as Lord and Christ, and they asked what they should do about that. They were told to repent and be baptised in the name of this resurrected and exalted Jesus Christ, and were told if they did that they too, would receive of the poured-out Spirit. They had already been told that the exalted Jesus 'hath poured out this which you both see and hear'. The fact they accepted the apostle's message and were baptised indicates they were anticipating and expecting to experience the same thing they had seen and heard happening with the disciples in the upper room. Why? Because they saw and heard them all speaking with tongues, were told this is the promised Spirit outpouring, that Jesus was causing it to happen, and they too could have this if they would repent and be baptised in the name of this same Jesus.

Now, where else in all of modern Christendom will you find anything even remotely similar to that?

Esaias

10-17-2016, 10:41 PM

And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle. And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease. But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp. And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!
(Numbers 11:24-29 KJV)

Esaias

10-17-2016, 10:44 PM

After that thou shalt come to the hill of God, where is the garrison of the Philistines: and it shall come to pass, when thou art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp, before them; and they shall prophesy: And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.
(1 Samuel 10:5-6 KJV)

And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he prophesied among the prophets, then the people said one to another, What is this that is come unto the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?
(1 Samuel 10:10-11 KJV)

Jason B

10-18-2016, 07:38 AM

The problem with this line of argumentation, though, it that it does not actually prove anyhing so much about tongues, but receiving the Spirit. The 3000 in Acts 2*, and the Ethiopian eunuch, 'and so on', not only do not mention them speaking in tongues, but it also does not mention them receiving the Spirit at all, either. It likewise does not mention they 'were saved', nor does it mention they were ever 'justified', yet you certainly aren't suggesting those things did not happen, either. So then, if them not being described by Luke as speaking in tongues means they certainly did not speak in tongues, then it just as certainly means they did not receive the Spirit at all, either, for it does not mention them receiving the Spirit.
This is Bernardian argumentation and its not a good one.
1)I did not say that they certainly did not speak in tongues, but did note that not only is there no explicit mention of tongues, nor are they implied, suggested, or anything else.
2)The burden of proof is on yall to prove tongues is the normative universal sign that a person has received the Spirit. Ya'll essentially say the Kingdom of God DOES come with observation. This is contrary to the whole of scripture which teaches that salvation is an inward work of the Spirit upon a persons heart.
3)while the scripture doesn't say "and they were saved" or "and they were justified", it simply doesn't speak like this. But unlike tongues, salvation/justification is strongly implied by the phrase "they believed" or by the act of baptism.

The reason I can "suggest" these things happened (justification/salvation) even though they are not explicitly mentioned is because they are inseparably linked in the scripture, and are used interchangeably.

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 12:09 PM

1.
According to the verse below, those of the circumcision dat were there, knew that they received the Holy Ghost (because they heard them speak with tongues). There was no one there saying that they understood what was being said.

2. Peter said, those there received it the same way that they did on the day of Pentecost. No Fire, no mighty rushing wind, no interpretation, and they got it during his preaching, yet Peter said, as well as we.

Acts 10:44-46
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 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. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Therefore young lady: I can say if the apostle Peter was there when I or you got it he would answer your question saying, they received it "as well as we".

If anyone has not obeyed Acts 2:38 completely.

Repented with a true broken will of sorrow for all da sin committed and a true desire and made up mind to change with Gods help.

Baptized by complete emersion in water, having a man of God envoke the name of Jesus over you as you go under.

Receive the Holy Ghost and you will speak wit tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance, whether in the tongues of men or angels.

If a person dies without experiencing at least these three wonderful things. They have not been born again. Unless you are born again of the water and Spirit you cannot enter or see the Kingdom of God.

Peter did not say "speak with tongues" though, in that scripture... and while the spirit of God most certainly can gift one with the gift of tongues... there is not ONE clear scripture that specifically says, unless you speak with tongues, you have NOT received the spirit of the Lord. Hence the discussion.

Even in Mark 16:15-17... it says that the signs shall FOLLOW them that believe. It does NOT say that the signs would come with salvation but that they would FOLLOW salvation. Note that it says he that believeth, and is baptized SHALL BE SAVED. And then it says... these signs shall FOLLOW them that believe.

Mark 16:16-7
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The tongues are a gift of God, a sign that follows them that believe, and the tongues are NOT ever equated in scripture specifically as a sign of salvation, rather tongues are part of the signs that will FOLLOW them that believe.

Esaias

10-18-2016, 12:17 PM

This is Bernardian argumentation and its not a good one.
1)I did not say that they certainly did not speak in tongues, but did note that not only is there no explicit mention of tongues, nor are they implied, suggested, or anything else.
2)The burden of proof is on yall to prove tongues is the normative universal sign that a person has received the Spirit. Ya'll essentially say the Kingdom of God DOES come with observation. This is contrary to the whole of scripture which teaches that salvation is an inward work of the Spirit upon a persons heart.
3)while the scripture doesn't say "and they were saved" or "and they were justified", it simply doesn't speak like this. But unlike tongues, salvation/justification is strongly implied by the phrase "they believed" or by the act of baptism.

The reason I can "suggest" these things happened (justification/salvation) even though they are not explicitly mentioned is because they are inseparably linked in the scripture, and are used interchangeably.

Either they did, or they didn't. If it can't be used to suggest they did, it also can't be used to suggest they didn't or may not have. Therefore, we're back to looking at the verses that specifically mention people receiving the Spirit.

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 12:25 PM

Agree 100%

I hope I'm being charitable. But probably not as much as I should toward EB. He's a good guy. We've spoken before I think over the phone, and I know I've sent him some CDs in the mail. Personally he's likeable, and I wish him and his family nothing but the best. But I think he's wrong on soteriology and eschatology. And his mannerisms do draw me in to come back at him in these doctrinal discussions, perhaps more direct than I should. I hope I can post doctrinal difference without getting personal.

Of course, though, despite theological differences, I would consider him my brother. He considers me an apostate.

I think he just likes controversy, lol...

May I insert a word of advice... its probably better not to share your whole life story in an online place such as this, it can always be construed and used against you in some form or fashion. Best to keep things as simple, and objective as possible, imo.

And I want you to know that you most certainly have been through a terribly rough time of it, taking in your cousins as foster children, and the incredibly tough strain it has put on your family. Praying for you and your family that the Lord gives you all the help and strength you need to get through this!

Cracker Barrel

10-18-2016, 07:06 PM

Peter did not say "speak with tongues" though, in that scripture... and while the spirit of God most certainly can gift one with the gift of tongues... there is not ONE clear scripture that specifically says, unless you speak with tongues, you have NOT received the spirit of the Lord. Hence the discussion.

Even in Mark 16:15-17... it says that the signs shall FOLLOW them that believe. It does NOT say that the signs would come with salvation but that they would FOLLOW salvation. Note that it says he that believeth, and is baptized SHALL BE SAVED. And then it says... these signs shall FOLLOW them that believe.

Mark 16:16-7
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The tongues are a gift of God, a sign that follows them that believe, and the tongues are NOT ever equated in scripture specifically as a sign of salvation, rather tongues are part of the signs that will FOLLOW them that believe.

Kindly ma'am,
Please reconsider you position.

John 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the SOUND thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: SO IS EVERYONE THAT IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT.

The word (sound) in the Greek is PHONE- which means language.

Just like, when the wind blows across the top of your shed and makes a howling sound. The same way, when Everyone that is born of the Holy Ghost you will hear the Language of the Spirit.

EVERYONE = MEANS EVERYONE.

Just like in Acts 2:6
Now when this was NOISED abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

The same word was used in the Greek 'PHONE
-Language

JOHN 3:8 is the 1st place Jesus ever talked about tongues (the language of the Spirit). When u receive the Holy Ghost.

Make no mistake about it.

Lolo?!

Cracker Barrel

10-18-2016, 08:01 PM

Kindly ma'am,
Please reconsider you position.

John 3:8
The WIND bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the SOUND thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: SO IS EVERYONE THAT IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT.

The word (sound) in the Greek is PHONE- which means language.

Just like, when the wind blows across the top of your shed and makes a howling sound. The same way, when Everyone that is born of the Holy Ghost you will hear the Language of the Spirit.

EVERYONE = MEANS EVERYONE.

Just like in Acts 2:6
Now when this was NOISED abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

The same word was used in the Greek 'PHONE
-Language

JOHN 3:8 is the 1st place Jesus ever talked about tongues (the language of the Spirit). When u receive the Holy Ghost.

Make no mistake about it.

Lolo?!

Acts 2:1-4
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a SOUND from heaven as of a rushing mighty WIND, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven TONGUES like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other TONGUES, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

We don't know what language the Spirit will,, whether tongues of men or Angels. God knows.

1 Corinthians 13:1
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels........

Jason B

10-18-2016, 08:07 PM

Cracker Barrel....

Do you like onions cooked into your hamburgers?

;)

Jason B

10-18-2016, 08:14 PM

I think he just likes controversy, lol...

May I insert a word of advice... its probably better not to share your whole life story in an online place such as this, it can always be construed and used against you in some form or fashion. Best to keep things as simple, and objective as possible, imo.

Yes & thank you.
I did post several details, but wanted to lay out some things about how I got from there to where I am now. I thought about that before I posted, but as far as beliefs and experiences go, I don't have any secrets. I'm not too worried about it within the people who post or read here.

But because of the adoption process I did ask admin to change my screen name since I was using my real name, and I think I'm the only one that exists.

That said, I appreciate your advice and concern. You are kind.

Cracker Barrel

10-18-2016, 08:20 PM

Cracker Barrel....

Do you like onions cooked into your hamburgers?

;)

Yes with a spoon full of poi on top !

Mmmmm mmm:thumbsup

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 08:33 PM

Kindly ma'am,
Please reconsider you position.

John 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the SOUND thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: SO IS EVERYONE THAT IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT.

The word (sound) in the Greek is PHONE- which means language.

Just like, when the wind blows across the top of your shed and makes a howling sound. The same way, when Everyone that is born of the Holy Ghost you will hear the Language of the Spirit.

EVERYONE = MEANS EVERYONE.

Just like in Acts 2:6
Now when this was NOISED abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

The same word was used in the Greek 'PHONE
-Language

JOHN 3:8 is the 1st place Jesus ever talked about tongues (the language of the Spirit). When u receive the Holy Ghost.

Make no mistake about it.

Lolo?!

I'm not arguing that the gift of tongues comes without a sound... of course it does. It can be heard, and it is an amazing experience!

I don't argue with you a bit about the fact that there is a sound, and a noise that comes when you begin to speak in the language of tongues that is gifted by Jesus. It is glorious to experience, and every one that believes should seek after, and desire it.

There is a measure of the spirit of Christ that has to be in the heart of the believer for them to come to repentance and baptism. The full measure of the power of Jesus comes to us through the gifts and signs of the spirit, which the gift of tongues is the one gift that was most prominent as a sign that followed them that believe.

Mark 16:16-18
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 08:33 PM

Yes with a spoon full of poi on top !

Mmmmm mmm:thumbsup

Poi? That sounds interesting! Do tell :)

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 08:35 PM

Yes & thank you.
I did post several details, but wanted to lay out some things about how I got from there to where I am now. I thought about that before I posted, but as far as beliefs and experiences go, I don't have any secrets. I'm not too worried about it within the people who post or read here.

But because of the adoption process I did ask admin to change my screen name since I was using my real name, and I think I'm the only one that exists.

That said, I appreciate your advice and concern. You are kind.

:) :highfive

Jason B

10-18-2016, 08:41 PM

Yes with a spoon full of poi on top !

Mmmmm mmm:thumbsup

Poi, thats a new one on me.

I thought it was just caramelized onions and a good ole scoop of blue bell ice cream. I thought you were expanding anyhow. Quit procrastinating.

Cracker Barrel

10-18-2016, 08:59 PM

I'm not arguing that the gift of tongues comes without a sound... of course it does. It can be heard, and it is an amazing experience!

I don't argue with you a bit about the fact that there is a sound, and a noise that comes when you begin to speak in the language of tongues that is gifted by Jesus. It is glorious to experience, and every one that believes should seek after, and desire it.

There is a measure of the spirit of Christ that has to be in the heart of the believer for them to come to repentance and baptism. The full measure of the power of Jesus comes to us through the gifts and signs of the spirit, which the gift of tongues is the one gift that was most prominent as a sign that followed them that believe.

Mark 16:16-18
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I get you mom, your trying to avoid the clear point made by Jesus himself.

Everyone that is born of the SPIRIT is born the same way.

When the wind of the Holy Ghost blows, the language of the Spirit will be heard.

John 3:8
...So is EVERYONE that is born of the Spirit.

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 09:00 PM

Poi, thats a new one on me.

I thought it was just caramelized onions and a good ole scoop of blue bell ice cream. I thought you were expanding anyhow. Quit procrastinating.

Mmmm.. carmelized onions, now you're talking, lol! Just wondering what in the world poi is... may have to google it, lol!

I'll tell you this, some of the best hamburger's I've ever had have been at mom and pop shop type places. I make pretty good hamburgers, but there is a place down the road that makes the best around, so juicy and moist. I don't think they put onions in them though.

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 09:19 PM

I get you mom, your trying to avoid the clear point made by Jesus himself.

Everyone that is born of the spirit is born the same way.

John 3:8
...So is EVERYONE that is born of the Spirit.

Then explain the "contradiction" in these two verses: BOTH are Jesus words:

Mark 15:15-18
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

John 3:5-8
3 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

In the words of JESUS... he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that is not born of water and of the spirit shall not enter into the kingdom of God.

Reconcile the two.

Easy enough... one cannot come to repentance, and baptism without a measure of the spirit of the Lord within them to bring them to that place. And upon believing (confessing the Lord Jesus with your mouth), and being baptized = salvation.

Acts 16:31
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 10:9 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.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

And then.... signs shall follow them that believe! The gift of tongues is to follow the initial act of believing, (confessing, calling upon the name of the Lord) repenting and baptism.

Cracker Barrel

10-18-2016, 09:25 PM

Then explain the "contradiction" in these two verses: BOTH are Jesus words:

Mark 15:15-18
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

John 3:5-8
3 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

In the words of JESUS... he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that is not born of water and of the spirit shall not enter into the kingdom of God.

Reconcile the two.

Easy enough... one cannot come to repentance, and baptism without a measure of the spirit of the Lord within them to bring them to that place. And upon believing (confessing the Lord Jesus with your mouth), and being baptized = salvation.

Acts 16:31
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 10:9 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.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

And then.... signs shall follow them that believe! The gift of tongues is to follow the initial act of believing, (confessing, calling upon the name of the Lord) repenting and baptism.

I don't need to reconcile those scriptures. You do. I'm not confused.

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 09:31 PM

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 09:33 PM

I don't need to reconcile those scriptures. You do. I'm not confused.

No, I'm not confused. Do please, reconcile those two scriptures. Please explain how salvation happens at repentance and baptism, in the words of Jesus. :thumbsup

Cracker Barrel

10-18-2016, 09:42 PM

Cracker B...

If a sinner were to come into your church, repent, confess the Lord Jesus with his mouth, get baptized and then begin to seek for the gift of tongues, if after some time, not being able to receive, what would you tell him?

I have and will continue, to say You can get it, It is a promise God has made to you.

Acts 2:39
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.

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 09:44 PM

Cracker B...

If a sinner were to come into your church, repent, confess the Lord Jesus with his mouth, get baptized and then begin to seek for the gift of tongues, if after some time, not being able to receive, what would you tell him?
Well, I'll just answer my own question... Some of the answers to the above question I have seen and heard:

Secret sin in your life? C'mon, repent of it!
Man, just roll the words in your mouth...its a coming!
Here, let me shake you up a bit, and see if we can get something to come out.
Just let go... just let go...

And much more of the same along those lines....

But we see NONE of that kind of nonsense happening in the Acts records, none. They believed, had hands laid on them, and they received.

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 09:45 PM

I have and will continue, to say You can get it, It is a promise God has made to you.

Acts 2:39
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.

Amen, that's awesome! It is a promise, and a gift... that follows them that believe and are saved :thumbsup

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 09:46 PM

Cracker Barrel

10-18-2016, 10:00 PM

No, I'm not confused. Do please, reconcile those two scriptures. Please explain how salvation happens at repentance and baptism, in the words of Jesus. :thumbsup

This is what I would say to those scripture.

Salvation is conditional.

Conditional based on our complete sincere reverence and obedience to God's Holy word.

1John 1:7
But ( IF ) we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

After initial faith is conceived, through preaching. It is the new believers responsibility to pursue all that God has.

Repent
Be Baptized in Jesus Name
Seek for the Holy Ghost
Get in to a bible study (with a pastor recommended Saint.)
Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yuorself,
Live a Holy and separated life unto God
Witnesses
Pray
Study
Faithfully attend church
Pay Tithe and give in the offering with a cheerful heart.
Submit to a pastor
Seek God's will for your life in the ministry, whether in the local church or out.

If you have done these things with a true heart Ye shall be saved.

Until then we are being saved.

Cracker Barrel

10-18-2016, 10:06 PM

Amen, that's awesome! It is a promise, and a gift... that follows them that believe and are saved :thumbsup

Please read the verse in context.

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. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, ( Save yourselves from this untoward generation.)

These people were not saved.yet

Until

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as ( should be saved ).

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 10:10 PM

This is what I would say to those scripture.

Salvation is conditional.

Conditional based on our complete sincere reverence and obedience to God's Holy word.

1John 1:7
But ( IF ) we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

After initial faith is conceived, through preaching. It is the new believers responsibility to pursue all that God has.

Repent
Be Baptized in Jesus Name
Seek for the Holy Ghost
Get in to a bible study (with a pastor recommended Saint.)
Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yuorself,
Live a Holy and separated life unto God
Witnesses
Pray
Study
Faithfully attend church
Pay Tithe and give in the offering with a cheerful heart.
Submit to a pastor
Seek God's will for your life in the ministry, whether in the local church or out.

If you have done these things with a true heart Ye shall be saved.

Until then we are being saved.

Hmm okay. Obviously you just don't want to admit that in Jesus' words repentance+baptism = salvation, and that signs of tongues shall follow.

:)

And a side note... yes there is MUCH more to salvation than just the initial acts of faith, although I could take you to task on some of your statements, but I do agree with your statement that salvation is conditional and we will be judged according to our works.

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 10:11 PM

Please read the verse in context.

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. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, ( Save yourselves from this untoward generation.)

These people were not saved.yet

Until

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as ( should be saved ).

And they spoke in tongues "where"? in that scripture?

Cracker Barrel

10-18-2016, 10:13 PM

Are you a pastor?

Please forgive me I do not seek to reveal my anonymity.
My friends would crucify me for being on this forum. LOLO?!

Not supposed to talk to saints.:happydance
Hang ten.

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 10:16 PM

Please forgive me I do not seek to reveal my anonymity.
My friends would crucify me for being on this forum. LOLO?!

Not supposed to talk to saints.:happydance
Hang ten.

Oh dear Lord. :foottap Can't talk to saints?

So... what is poi?

Jason B

10-18-2016, 10:33 PM

Well, I'll just answer my own question... Some of the answers to the above question I have seen and heard:

Secret sin in your life? C'mon, repent of it!
Man, just roll the words in your mouth...its a coming!
Here, let me shake you up a bit, and see if we can get something to come out.
Just let go... just let go...
And much more of the same along those lines....

Wow this is funny stuff. I've get shaken like nobodys business. Lol. Gotta love those apostolic methods.

How bout when they are laying hands on someone and still no sound, and so they just press harder and harder until the back of the head is about to snap like an old barbie doll? "If i can just push a little harder....urghhh"

And the cheer leading if someone may break through "come on, come on, thats it," but it gets awkward when someone gets a bit impatient and grabs the seekers tongue. Lol

Jason B

10-18-2016, 10:36 PM

Salvation is conditional.

Conditional based on our complete sincere reverence and obedience to God's Holy word.
.
Then no one can be saved. End of story.

KeptByTheWord

10-18-2016, 10:50 PM

Wow this is funny stuff. I've get shaken like nobodys business. Lol. Gotta love those apostolic methods.

How bout when they are laying hands on someone and still no sound, and so they just press harder and harder until the back of the head is about to snap like an old barbie doll? "If i can just push a little harder....urghhh"

And the cheer leading if someone may break through "come on, come on, thats it," but it gets awkward when someone gets a bit impatient and grabs the seekers tongue. Lol

LOL... Oh, the stories that could be told, with honest answers to the question asked!

Jason B

10-18-2016, 10:53 PM

Kindly ma'am,
Please reconsider you position.

John 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the SOUND thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: SO IS EVERYONE THAT IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT.

The word (sound) in the Greek is PHONE- which means language.

Just like, when the wind blows across the top of your shed and makes a howling sound. The same way, when Everyone that is born of the Holy Ghost you will hear the Language of the Spirit.

EVERYONE = MEANS EVERYONE.

Just like in Acts 2:6
Now when this was NOISED abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

The same word was used in the Greek 'PHONE
-Language

JOHN 3:8 is the 1st place Jesus ever talked about tongues (the language of the Spirit). When u receive the Holy Ghost.

Make no mistake about it.

Lolo?!

This argument is weak. Really the PHONE of John 3:8 has nothing to do with tongues. Zero. "Noised" in Acts 2:6 isn't used of speaking in tongues, but of word of mouth amongst the people. Beyond that phone is the basic word for noise/sound/speech.

This is the first place Jesus ever talked about tongues? Seriously? This is good. Can you list all the other places Jesus talked about tongues? Surely theres many. And by many, I mean....one (Mark 16:17).

Now as for this particular scripture, it teaches the exact opposite of the initial evidence doctrine. What it is actually saying is the supernatural work of the Spirit of God in regeneration is a mystery. Its NOT observable (in a physical sense), but the effects of such will be evident. John 3:8 absolutely does not teach tongues is the universal evidence.

And while reading in John 3 take the whole passage in context. Jesus expounds on what He means as He goes on, till he makes it plain in v16,17.

Esaias

10-19-2016, 01:36 AM

Well, so much for that.

lol

Cracker Barrel

10-19-2016, 05:45 AM

This argument is weak. Really the PHONE of John 3:8 has nothing to do with tongues. Zero. "Noised" in Acts 2:6 isn't used of speaking in tongues, but of word of mouth amongst the people. Beyond that phone is the basic word for noise/sound/speech.

This is the first place Jesus ever talked about tongues? Seriously? This is good. Can you list all the other places Jesus talked about tongues? Surely theres many. And by many, I mean....one (Mark 16:17).

Now as for this particular scripture, it teaches the exact opposite of the initial evidence doctrine. What it is actually saying is the supernatural work of the Spirit of God in regeneration is a mystery. Its NOT observable (in a physical sense), but the effects of such will be evident. John 3:8 absolutely does not teach tongues is the universal evidence.

And while reading in John 3 take the whole passage in context. Jesus expounds on what He means as He goes on, till he makes it plain in v16,17.

Jason lad, you are blind is you don't see a direct parallel between John 3:8 and Acts2:1-6

Tongues = languages

Jesus is describing what happens to everyone that is born of the spirit in John 3:8. When the wind blows there will be a sound from heaven!

Cracker Barrel

10-19-2016, 05:46 AM

Well, so much for that.

lol

Did I miss something? Was there some small explosion?

KeptByTheWord

10-19-2016, 09:30 AM

Well, so much for that.

lol

:highfive

KeptByTheWord

10-19-2016, 09:30 AM

Did I miss something? Was there some small explosion?

:dogpat

Esaias

10-19-2016, 09:33 AM

Did I miss something? Was there some small explosion?

Yeah, FCF exploded years ago, and folks are still picking through the remains like vultures at a garage sale on Sunday afternoon.

Cracker Barrel

10-19-2016, 10:18 AM

And they spoke in tongues "where"? in that scripture?

Just like Jesus will appear to those that look for his coming. So will those that want the Holy Ghost receive it. If you believe that tongues are not the evidence of a person being born of the Spirit then you are mistaken that is the same doctrine as the Assemblies of God.

It is Falls is a lie of the devil's .!?!?lolo?!?

KeptByTheWord

10-19-2016, 10:24 AM

Just like Jesus will appear to those that look for his coming. So will those that want the Holy Ghost receive it. If you believe that tongues are not the evidence of a person being born of the Spirit then you are mistaken that is the same doctrine as the Assemblies of God.

It is Falls is a lie of the devil's .!?!?lolo?!?

You tell me then how you interpret Mark 16:16-17, these are Jesus' words of course!

Mark 16:16-18
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

KeptByTheWord

10-19-2016, 10:40 AM

Jason B

10-19-2016, 11:41 AM

And while you are busy trying to fit Mark 16:16 into your doctrine... go ahead and fit the rest of these scriptures in as well. :)

Mark 16:16-18
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

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

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Romans 10:9 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.

Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Herein lies the problem.

Not "can you provide a verse showing people speaking in tongues when they received the Spirit"?
Nor "can you build a doctrine based off of a few selected scriptures"?

BUT is your doctrine consistent with the whole of scripture?

In my experience OPs never quote such scriptures as these as part of their gospel presentation or preaching. The only times I'd ever hear Romans 10:9-10, John 3:16, et al quoted was when they would basically get trashed and then reinterpreted. "It doesn't really mean that...."

See, I was sold by John 3:3-5, Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:45-48, 19:5-6 pattern to support the 3 step doctrine. And having this firmly established read my view into the gospels and epistles for years. But the problem in the end is, that the whole of scripture doesn't support it. The overwhelming emphasis both of Jesus and the apostles is on repentance and faith/belief.

Cracker Barrel

10-19-2016, 05:09 PM

And while you are busy trying to fit Mark 16:16 into your doctrine... go ahead and fit the rest of these scriptures in as well. :)

Mark 16:16-18
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

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

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Romans 10:9 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.

Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Wow, 12 contradictions?!? Maybe you should just give up, just start going to the local Catholic Church?

Or wait maybe all these scriptures are telling us there is a measure of the Spirit given to you when you believe?
Yeeeahh that it:heeheehee

Lolo!?!? I say!

Jason B

10-19-2016, 08:04 PM

Wow, 12 contradictions?!?

Great answer. Pfft

KeptByTheWord

10-19-2016, 08:23 PM

Wow, 12 contradictions?!? Maybe you should just give up, just start going to the local Catholic Church?

Or wait maybe all these scriptures are telling us there is a measure of the Spirit given to you when you believe?
Yeeeahh that it:heeheehee

Lolo!?!? I say!

Is that the only response you can come up with?

Typical answer when you don't have one. :dogpat

Cracker Barrel

10-19-2016, 09:10 PM

Hmm okay. Obviously you just don't want to admit that in Jesus' words repentance+baptism = salvation, and that signs of tongues shall follow.

Sorry, do you know how hard it is to sit on a surf board and talk to your iwatch?
Havent sat in front of my puter in a while.

ok..

Interesting.
I do believe that Repentance and Baptism in Jesus name= The beginning step of conversion. The Holy Ghost is a promise that will follow, although you and I know of some dat have received it after repentance. ( that person must be baptized soon there afta words in order to complete the Born again experience of course.)

NKJV
Acts 3:19
Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

John 3:5-7
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Born of water and of da Spirit a second time must take place in the life of every believer in order to be saved.

Born Again= beginning of the Salvation process.

Repentence and baptism = 1st step in conversion

Cracker Barrel

10-19-2016, 09:14 PM

Wow this is funny stuff. I've get shaken like nobodys business. Lol. Gotta love those apostolic methods.

How bout when they are laying hands on someone and still no sound, and so they just press harder and harder until the back of the head is about to snap like an old barbie doll? "If i can just push a little harder....urghhh"

And the cheer leading if someone may break through "come on, come on, thats it," but it gets awkward when someone gets a bit impatient and grabs the seekers tongue. Lol

Jason ,

Just go, don't leave bitter just leave.:laffatu

Jason B

10-19-2016, 09:18 PM

Cracker Barrel

10-19-2016, 09:42 PM

This argument is weak. Mr. B, Why because you said so? You are the experienced Minister of the Gospel that has pastored over 30 years and evangelized for over 17? OH OK!

Really the PHONE of John 3:8 has nothing to do with tongues. Zero. "Noised" in Acts 2:6 isn't used of speaking in tongues, but of word of mouth amongst the people. Beyond that phone is the basic word for noise/sound/speech. Mr. B, The "noised" was the sound that came from the upper room. You are either ignorant or willfully a dunce. The verse says they came together because of the sound that was noised abroad.

Acts2:6
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Now as for this particular scripture, it teaches the exact opposite of the initial evidence doctrine. Huh

What it is actually saying is the supernatural work of the Spirit of God in regeneration is a mystery. Agreed

Its NOT observable (in a physical sense), but the effects of such will be evident. Mr B, you are going MAD,This sentence is a contradiction?!?! LOLO I SAY.

John 3:8 absolutely does not teach tongues is the universal evidence. Agreed. It states that everyone that is born of the Spirit will happen the same way. When the wind blows there will be a sound heard. The word Sound in that verse is translated PHONE=Languages.

And while reading in John 3 take the whole passage in context. Jesus expounds on what He means as He goes on, till he makes it plain in v16,17.
Ok so vs16,17 completely erase what he said until then Verses 1-8 really mean verse 16 & 17? Gotcha .?!?!

OLD eyes I cant bare to stay awake talking to this machine and your buffoonery?!?? LOLO 1THOUSAND TIMES!!!!!!!
Swells coming in early, and you know the old saying? The early bird gets the Barrel.:thumbsup

Besides cant sleep in anymore dono why?

KeptByTheWord

10-19-2016, 09:44 PM

Sorry, do you know how hard it is to sit on a surf board and talk to your iwatch?
Havent sat in front of my puter in a while.

ok..

Interesting.
I do believe that Repentance and Baptism in Jesus name= The beginning step of conversion. The Holy Ghost is a promise that will follow, although you and I know of some dat have received it after repentance. ( that person must be baptized soon there afta words in order to complete the Born again experience of course.)

NKJV
Acts 3:19
Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

John 3:5-7
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Born of water and of da Spirit a second time must take place in the life of every believer in order to be saved.

Born Again= beginning of the Salvation process.

Repentence and baptism = 1st step in conversion

Finally, you have come around to the concept. Dogmatically telling someone they are not saved because they haven't spoken in tongues is the wrong way to approach someone seeking Jesus.

A measure of the spirit of Christ has to be in the heart of those seeking repentance. John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The fullness of the spirit of Christ in the life of a believer who has repented and been baptized is further evidenced by the signs and miracles that follow those that believe. Mark 16:16

Quite simply.... a change of perspective, and you will see souls being born into the kingdom in a greater way. Encourage their faith to receive, instead of building fear that if they don't receive, they are lost.

Jason B

10-19-2016, 09:56 PM

Just go, don't leave bitter just leave.:laffatu
Oh please, who are you trying to kid anyway? You guys absolutely hate when someone leaves ya'll. Ya'll take it personal. Ya'll are more concerned to build up your sect than the Kingdom of God, so much so that the thought that someone can have a relationship with Jesus Christ outside of your group makes people angry.

And so we see it again and again when someone leaves, that the fangs come out, and all manner of insults, and even innuendo is used against those people.

It's the same mindset Paul condemned in Galatians 6

Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised want to look good to others. They don't want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save. And even those who advocate circumcision don't keep the whole law themselves. They only want you to be circumcised so they can boast about it and claim you as their disciples.
Galatians 6:12-13 NLT

I guess I done went to meddlin'

Jason B

10-19-2016, 09:58 PM

OLD eyes I cant bare to stay awake talking to this machine and your buffoonery?!?? LOLO 1THOUSAND TIMES!!!!!!!
Swells coming in early, and you know the old saying? The early bird gets the Barrel.:thumbsup

Besides cant sleep in anymore dono why?

Something is off, your post attributed Cheech and Chong references to me. Along with some other stuff you added.

Cracker Barrel

10-19-2016, 10:02 PM

Something is off, your post attributed Cheech and Chong references to me. Along with some other stuff you added.

Just didn't want you to think I was being disrespectful.

Hang Ten!

Jason B

10-19-2016, 10:07 PM

Just didn't want you to think I was being disrespectful.

Hang Ten!

Regarding your comment for Acts 2:6. I was indeed wrong. Consider my comments on that retracted.

However, regarding your view that Jesus was talking about tongues in John 3:8 and that He was teaching EVERYONE who would be born again would certainly speak in tongues, I find the highest degree of nonsense.

Jason B

10-19-2016, 10:11 PM

Sorry, do you know how hard it is to sit on a surf board and talk to your iwatch?
Havent sat in front of my puter in a while.

ok..

Interesting.
I do believe that Repentance and Baptism in Jesus name= The beginning step of conversion. The Holy Ghost is a promise that will follow, although you and I know of some dat have received it after repentance. ( that person must be baptized soon there afta words in order to complete the Born again experience of course.)

NKJV
Acts 3:19
Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

John 3:5-7
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Born of water and of da Spirit a second time must take place in the life of every believer in order to be saved.

Born Again= beginning of the Salvation process.

Repentence and baptism = 1st step in conversion

Is this the infamous "half born" type doctrine?

Either a person is saved or not. Either they have had their sins forgiven or not. There's no neutrality.

Let me ask you plainly, considering both Acts 2:38 & Acts 22:16, on what basis would you believe that a person who repented and was baptized was NOT saved, especially considering that they are no longer guilty of sin before God?

Jason B

10-19-2016, 10:59 PM

If anyone has not obeyed Acts 2:38 completely.

Repented with a true broken will of sorrow for all da sin committed and a true desire and made up mind to change with Gods help.

Baptized by complete emersion in water, having a man of God envoke the name of Jesus over you as you go under.

Receive the Holy Ghost and you will speak wit tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance, whether in the tongues of men or angels.

If a person dies without experiencing at least these three wonderful things. They have not been born again. Unless you are born again of the water and Spirit you cannot enter or see the Kingdom of God.
It always eventually comes out. All the Christian brethren who went before, the great company of witnesses, those who have sealed their testimony in blood and stood for Christ in ways we likely never will be tested.....aren't worthy. In fact, they died in vain. Damned and condemned, to the lake of fire, to burn in hell forever, because the wrong words were spoken at their baptism, and they didn't speak in tongues like us chosen folk.

When we've been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, we'll have no less days to sing God's praise than when we first begun....and John Newton, that false convert, trinitarian will have no less days to burn in hell. You oneness pentecostals ought to rip Amazing Grace, Rock of Ages, Tis So Sweet To Trust in Jesus, Crown Him With Many Crowns, All Hail the Power, When I Survey The Wondrous Cross, etc, etc out of your hymn books! What can the unconverted, unredeemed, heathen, and pagan teach you about God's grace, live, salvation, atonement, or Kingdom? Ya'll sing their songs during worship, and consign them to eternal damnation during the preaching.

The men whose hearts and minds were so devoted to Christ, so filled with love for Him, so burdened to get the Word translated into the vernacular that they denied themselves the comforts of this life to spend their time on its study and translation, at the risk and many times cost of their own lives, so that you oneness pentecostals, with barely a scholar found amongst you, condemn all those men to hell, who paid the price if their blood to give you a Bible you can read. Who among them was baptized in Jesus name and spoke in tongues?

Ya'll preach them straight to hell, and oh the irony, that most conservative oneness pentecostal churches are KJV only and believe it be THE God ordained English Bible, 100% the work of trinitarians.

You piggy back on the work of the Wesley's, the holiness movement, Parham and Seymour at Azuza, and of all those, who was saved? Who was baptized in Jesus name AND believed in the initial evidence doctrine?

Ya'll say that one must speak in tongues as evidence of the Spirit baptism, then cast into hell millions upon millions of trinitarian, tongue speaking, (and many) holiness pentecostals, because of the words spoken over them at Baptism.

When ya'll do a Bible college, or your ministers study even for a sermon whose commentaries do they use? Adam Clarke? William Barclay? Matthew Henry? Jamison, Faucett, and Brown? Why not oneness commentaries? (Because there's only about 20 in print). Most of your basic knowledge has to come from trinitarians.

Where are the oneness Bible Dictionaries? Lexicons? Concordances? In fact what significant literature do oneness people have? The Pentecostal Theology series by David Bernard? Into His Marvelous Light Bible Study? Oneness pentecostalism is essentially 99% dependant on trinitarian scholarship, hymnody, theology, etc. The reality is, without trinitarians, you never have the oneness pentecostal movement break out in church history, although it took it 20 centuries.

And all the work they did, spreading the gospel, preserving the Word, preaching to and converting the heathen (we don't even have anAmerican Judeo-Christian culture that we enjoy and benefit from if not for monks and others converting the barbarians, vikings, and other pagans to Christianity), and all of them, ya'll say, are damned.

John Wycliffe, John Hus, John & Charles Wesley, George Whitfueld, John Owen, JA James, JC Ryle, John Newton, Augustus Toplady, Hudson Taylor, Johnathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, John Knox, Martin Luther, Phillip Melancthon, Ulrich Zwingli, Issac Watts, Savanarola, Thomas Lattimer, William Tyndale, Martyn Lloyd Jones, FF Bruce, Harry Ironsides, Leonard Ravenhill, David Wilkerson, Paul Washer, John MacArthur, et al........ALL lost. Never were saved, never had the truth, never knew the truth. Worshippers if 3 gods, false Christians, surely they shall be in hell forever.

Whereas the likes Jeff Arnold who calls people stupid, and makes derogatory comments about brain cancer patients, and is the closest thing to Donald Trump in the apostolic movement....
Lee Stoneking and his heretical doctrine on hair, and outright lies about the whole nation of Fiji not cutting their hair, and his fake degrees (as exposed here on AFF)....And Anthony Mangun with his utterly unbiblical anti 1 Corinthians 14 schtick "on the count of 3 everyone in this building speak in tongues...1,2, 3 yes, yes!"

These guys are the real heroes. The real apostles, the true Christians. Why? They speak in tongues. They check all the boxes.

What a joke.

Esaias

10-20-2016, 12:45 AM

It always eventually comes out. All the Christian brethren who went before, the great company of witnesses, those who have sealed their testimony in blood and stood for Christ in ways we likely never will be tested.....aren't worthy. In fact, they died in vain. Damned and condemned, to the lake of fire, to burn in hell forever, because the wrong words were spoken at their baptism, and they didn't speak in tongues like us chosen folk.

When we've been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, we'll have no less days to sing God's praise than when we first begun....and John Newton, that false convert, trinitarian will have no less days to burn in hell. You oneness pentecostals ought to rip Amazing Grace, Rock of Ages, Tis So Sweet To Trust in Jesus, Crown Him With Many Crowns, All Hail the Power, When I Survey The Wondrous Cross, etc, etc out of your hymn books! What can the unconverted, unredeemed, heathen, and pagan teach you about God's grace, live, salvation, atonement, or Kingdom? Ya'll sing their songs during worship, and consign them to eternal damnation during the preaching.

The men whose hearts and minds were so devoted to Christ, so filled with love for Him, so burdened to get the Word translated into the vernacular that they denied themselves the comforts of this life to spend their time on its study and translation, at the risk and many times cost of their own lives, so that you oneness pentecostals, with barely a scholar found amongst you, condemn all those men to hell, who paid the price if their blood to give you a Bible you can read. Who among them was baptized in Jesus name and spoke in tongues?

Ya'll preach them straight to hell, and oh the irony, that most conservative oneness pentecostal churches are KJV only and believe it be THE God ordained English Bible, 100% the work of trinitarians.

You piggy back on the work of the Wesley's, the holiness movement, Parham and Seymour at Azuza, and of all those, who was saved? Who was baptized in Jesus name AND believed in the initial evidence doctrine?

Ya'll say that one must speak in tongues as evidence of the Spirit baptism, then cast into hell millions upon millions of trinitarian, tongue speaking, (and many) holiness pentecostals, because of the words spoken over them at Baptism.

When ya'll do a Bible college, or your ministers study even for a sermon whose commentaries do they use? Adam Clarke? William Barclay? Matthew Henry? Jamison, Faucett, and Brown? Why not oneness commentaries? (Because there's only about 20 in print). Most of your basic knowledge has to come from trinitarians.

Where are the oneness Bible Dictionaries? Lexicons? Concordances? In fact what significant literature do oneness people have? The Pentecostal Theology series by David Bernard? Into His Marvelous Light Bible Study? Oneness pentecostalism is essentially 99% dependant on trinitarian scholarship, hymnody, theology, etc. The reality is, without trinitarians, you never have the oneness pentecostal movement break out in church history, although it took it 20 centuries.

And all the work they did, spreading the gospel, preserving the Word, preaching to and converting the heathen (we don't even have anAmerican Judeo-Christian culture that we enjoy and benefit from if not for monks and others converting the barbarians, vikings, and other pagans to Christianity), and all of them, ya'll say, are damned.

John Wycliffe, John Hus, John & Charles Wesley, George Whitfueld, John Owen, JA James, JC Ryle, John Newton, Augustus Toplady, Hudson Taylor, Johnathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, John Knox, Martin Luther, Phillip Melancthon, Ulrich Zwingli, Issac Watts, Savanarola, Thomas Lattimer, William Tyndale, Martyn Lloyd Jones, FF Bruce, Harry Ironsides, Leonard Ravenhill, David Wilkerson, Paul Washer, John MacArthur, et al........ALL lost. Never were saved, never had the truth, never knew the truth. Worshippers if 3 gods, false Christians, surely they shall be in hell forever.

Whereas the likes Jeff Arnold who calls people stupid, and makes derogatory comments about brain cancer patients, and is the closest thing to Donald Trump in the apostolic movement....
Lee Stoneking and his heretical doctrine on hair, and outright lies about the whole nation of Fiji not cutting their hair, and his fake degrees (as exposed here on AFF)....And Anthony Mangun with his utterly unbiblical anti 1 Corinthians 14 schtick "on the count of 3 everyone in this building speak in tongues...1,2, 3 yes, yes!"

These guys are the real heroes. The real apostles, the true Christians. Why? They speak in tongues. They check all the boxes.

What a joke.

I was going to try and continue dialogue with you but it seems it would be pointless.

So... nevermind.

Jason B

10-20-2016, 09:12 AM

I was going to try and continue dialogue with you but it seems it would be pointless.

So... nevermind.

Ok well whatever you feel like. This post was in response to Cracker Barrel.....but you can refute it if you wish. Does his post not accurately reflect your views, that everyone not speaking in tongues, nor baptized in Jesus name, and all those who have held a trinitarian theology are indeed lost?

shazeep

10-20-2016, 09:38 AM

:popcorn2

KeptByTheWord

10-20-2016, 11:24 AM

Amanah

10-20-2016, 11:29 AM

I don't want to beat up my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, if they differ from me doctrinally in some points. I will leave the fine points of interpretations up to the judgment of the Lord. It is not my job to police and judge, although I am to be an inspector of fruit. We can see if fruit is being produced, or not, but it is not our job to carry out the judgment against a fellow brother or sister. God is fully capable of that.

:highfive

Charnock

10-20-2016, 12:58 PM

Cracker Barrel

10-20-2016, 07:43 PM

It always eventually comes out. All the Christian brethren who went before, the great company of witnesses, those who have sealed their testimony in blood and stood for Christ in ways we likely never will be tested.....aren't worthy. In fact, they died in vain. Damned and condemned, to the lake of fire, to burn in hell forever, because the wrong words were spoken at their baptism, and they didn't speak in tongues like us chosen folk.

When we've been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, we'll have no less days to sing God's praise than when we first begun....and John Newton, that false convert, trinitarian will have no less days to burn in hell. You oneness pentecostals ought to rip Amazing Grace, Rock of Ages, Tis So Sweet To Trust in Jesus, Crown Him With Many Crowns, All Hail the Power, When I Survey The Wondrous Cross, etc, etc out of your hymn books! What can the unconverted, unredeemed, heathen, and pagan teach you about God's grace, live, salvation, atonement, or Kingdom? Ya'll sing their songs during worship, and consign them to eternal damnation during the preaching.

The men whose hearts and minds were so devoted to Christ, so filled with love for Him, so burdened to get the Word translated into the vernacular that they denied themselves the comforts of this life to spend their time on its study and translation, at the risk and many times cost of their own lives, so that you oneness pentecostals, with barely a scholar found amongst you, condemn all those men to hell, who paid the price if their blood to give you a Bible you can read. Who among them was baptized in Jesus name and spoke in tongues?

Ya'll preach them straight to hell, and oh the irony, that most conservative oneness pentecostal churches are KJV only and believe it be THE God ordained English Bible, 100% the work of trinitarians.

You piggy back on the work of the Wesley's, the holiness movement, Parham and Seymour at Azuza, and of all those, who was saved? Who was baptized in Jesus name AND believed in the initial evidence doctrine?

Ya'll say that one must speak in tongues as evidence of the Spirit baptism, then cast into hell millions upon millions of trinitarian, tongue speaking, (and many) holiness pentecostals, because of the words spoken over them at Baptism.

When ya'll do a Bible college, or your ministers study even for a sermon whose commentaries do they use? Adam Clarke? William Barclay? Matthew Henry? Jamison, Faucett, and Brown? Why not oneness commentaries? (Because there's only about 20 in print). Most of your basic knowledge has to come from trinitarians.

Where are the oneness Bible Dictionaries? Lexicons? Concordances? In fact what significant literature do oneness people have? The Pentecostal Theology series by David Bernard? Into His Marvelous Light Bible Study? Oneness pentecostalism is essentially 99% dependant on trinitarian scholarship, hymnody, theology, etc. The reality is, without trinitarians, you never have the oneness pentecostal movement break out in church history, although it took it 20 centuries.

And all the work they did, spreading the gospel, preserving the Word, preaching to and converting the heathen (we don't even have anAmerican Judeo-Christian culture that we enjoy and benefit from if not for monks and others converting the barbarians, vikings, and other pagans to Christianity), and all of them, ya'll say, are damned.

John Wycliffe, John Hus, John & Charles Wesley, George Whitfueld, John Owen, JA James, JC Ryle, John Newton, Augustus Toplady, Hudson Taylor, Johnathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, John Knox, Martin Luther, Phillip Melancthon, Ulrich Zwingli, Issac Watts, Savanarola, Thomas Lattimer, William Tyndale, Martyn Lloyd Jones, FF Bruce, Harry Ironsides, Leonard Ravenhill, David Wilkerson, Paul Washer, John MacArthur, et al........ALL lost. Never were saved, never had the truth, never knew the truth. Worshippers if 3 gods, false Christians, surely they shall be in hell forever.

Whereas the likes Jeff Arnold who calls people stupid, and makes derogatory comments about brain cancer patients, and is the closest thing to Donald Trump in the apostolic movement....
Lee Stoneking and his heretical doctrine on hair, and outright lies about the whole nation of Fiji not cutting their hair, and his fake degrees (as exposed here on AFF)....And Anthony Mangun with his utterly unbiblical anti 1 Corinthians 14 schtick "on the count of 3 everyone in this building speak in tongues...1,2, 3 yes, yes!"

These guys are the real heroes. The real apostles, the true Christians. Why? They speak in tongues. They check all the boxes.

I am a joke.

Mr. B,
Would it be possible that God would be bound by the covenant he made with the Gentiles>Acts2:38, that he would have to send good, kind, gentle, loving, sincerely wrong people to hell?

Would dat make us wrong and unjust or would that make God unjust?

Or would that be just like God?

Jason B

10-20-2016, 07:47 PM

Yes Straight from the Bitter lips of a rebel. Just like U:laffatu

I know you posted this to Charnock, but my comment applies. All laughter, feigned pity, and the whole "we're so glad you guys left" rhetoric is simply an act.

Oh please, who are you trying to kid anyway? You guys absolutely hate when someone leaves ya'll. Ya'll take it personal. Ya'll are more concerned to build up your sect than the Kingdom of God, so much so that the thought that someone can have a relationship with Jesus Christ outside of your group makes people angry.

And so we see it again and again when someone leaves, that the fangs come out, and all manner of insults, and even innuendo is used against those people.

It's the same mindset Paul condemned in Galatians 6

Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised want to look good to others. They don't want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save. And even those who advocate circumcision don't keep the whole law themselves. They only want you to be circumcised so they can boast about it and claim you as their disciples.
Galatians 6:12-13 NLT

I guess I done went to meddlin'

KeptByTheWord

10-20-2016, 07:56 PM

Cracker Barrel

10-20-2016, 07:57 PM

It always eventually comes out. All the Christian brethren who went before, the great company of witnesses, those who have sealed their testimony in blood and stood for Christ in ways we likely never will be tested.....aren't worthy. In fact, they died in vain. Damned and condemned, to the lake of fire, to burn in hell forever, because the wrong words were spoken at their baptism, and they didn't speak in tongues like us chosen folk.

When we've been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, we'll have no less days to sing God's praise than when we first begun....and John Newton, that false convert, trinitarian will have no less days to burn in hell. You oneness pentecostals ought to rip Amazing Grace, Rock of Ages, Tis So Sweet To Trust in Jesus, Crown Him With Many Crowns, All Hail the Power, When I Survey The Wondrous Cross, etc, etc out of your hymn books! What can the unconverted, unredeemed, heathen, and pagan teach you about God's grace, live, salvation, atonement, or Kingdom? Ya'll sing their songs during worship, and consign them to eternal damnation during the preaching.

The men whose hearts and minds were so devoted to Christ, so filled with love for Him, so burdened to get the Word translated into the vernacular that they denied themselves the comforts of this life to spend their time on its study and translation, at the risk and many times cost of their own lives, so that you oneness pentecostals, with barely a scholar found amongst you, condemn all those men to hell, who paid the price if their blood to give you a Bible you can read. Who among them was baptized in Jesus name and spoke in tongues?

Ya'll preach them straight to hell, and oh the irony, that most conservative oneness pentecostal churches are KJV only and believe it be THE God ordained English Bible, 100% the work of trinitarians.

You piggy back on the work of the Wesley's, the holiness movement, Parham and Seymour at Azuza, and of all those, who was saved? Who was baptized in Jesus name AND believed in the initial evidence doctrine?

Ya'll say that one must speak in tongues as evidence of the Spirit baptism, then cast into hell millions upon millions of trinitarian, tongue speaking, (and many) holiness pentecostals, because of the words spoken over them at Baptism.

When ya'll do a Bible college, or your ministers study even for a sermon whose commentaries do they use? Adam Clarke? William Barclay? Matthew Henry? Jamison, Faucett, and Brown? Why not oneness commentaries? (Because there's only about 20 in print). Most of your basic knowledge has to come from trinitarians.

Where are the oneness Bible Dictionaries? Lexicons? Concordances? In fact what significant literature do oneness people have? The Pentecostal Theology series by David Bernard? Into His Marvelous Light Bible Study? Oneness pentecostalism is essentially 99% dependant on trinitarian scholarship, hymnody, theology, etc. The reality is, without trinitarians, you never have the oneness pentecostal movement break out in church history, although it took it 20 centuries.

And all the work they did, spreading the gospel, preserving the Word, preaching to and converting the heathen (we don't even have anAmerican Judeo-Christian culture that we enjoy and benefit from if not for monks and others converting the barbarians, vikings, and other pagans to Christianity), and all of them, ya'll say, are damned.

John Wycliffe, John Hus, John & Charles Wesley, George Whitfueld, John Owen, JA James, JC Ryle, John Newton, Augustus Toplady, Hudson Taylor, Johnathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, John Knox, Martin Luther, Phillip Melancthon, Ulrich Zwingli, Issac Watts, Savanarola, Thomas Lattimer, William Tyndale, Martyn Lloyd Jones, FF Bruce, Harry Ironsides, Leonard Ravenhill, David Wilkerson, Paul Washer, John MacArthur, et al........ALL lost. Never were saved, never had the truth, never knew the truth. Worshippers if 3 gods, false Christians, surely they shall be in hell forever.

Whereas the likes Jeff Arnold who calls people stupid, and makes derogatory comments about brain cancer patients, and is the closest thing to Donald Trump in the apostolic movement....
Lee Stoneking and his heretical doctrine on hair, and outright lies about the whole nation of Fiji not cutting their hair, and his fake degrees (as exposed here on AFF)....And Anthony Mangun with his utterly unbiblical anti 1 Corinthians 14 schtick "on the count of 3 everyone in this building speak in tongues...1,2, 3 yes, yes!"

These guys are the real heroes. The real apostles, the true Christians. Why? They speak in tongues. They check all the boxes.

I am a joke.

You are a complete hypocrite, Is this not your sarcastic way of mocking and insulting us?

https://m.popkey.co/ac3d23/5mRmd.gif

You are dumb.
Fo real.

LOLO?!?!?!

Cracker Barrel

10-20-2016, 07:59 PM

So the next time you sing Amazing Grace, just think, that poor guy that wrote the song will burn in hell. Nice doctrine you got there...

NOT.

I've never thought of it that way, and never heard anyone say that till now.

But if the shoe fits?

KeptByTheWord

10-20-2016, 08:05 PM

I've never thought of it that way, and never heard anyone say that till now.

But if the shoe fits?

The shoe fits?

Think on that for a bit. You might want to quit singing Amazing Grace then. Rather hypocritical of you.

KeptByTheWord

10-20-2016, 08:11 PM

The shoe fits?

Think on that for a bit. You might want to quit singing Amazing Grace then. Rather hypocritical of you.

And that King James bible you're using to condemn, why its condemning you. You better throw it in the fire to burn with John Newton too... that shoe has got to fit somehow...

Jason B

10-20-2016, 08:31 PM

Mr. B,
Would it be possible that God would be bound by the covenant he made with the Gentiles>Acts2:38, that he would have to send good, kind, gentle, loving, sincerely wrong people to hell?

Would dat make us wrong and unjust or would that make God unjust?

Or would that be just like God?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with God being bound. I don't believe God is bound by anything, save His essential nature. I think its pretty accurate to say God is free to do as He wills, even to have mercy on whom He will and compassion on whom He will. So I'm missing the point of your first sentence.

But in seems on a whole you are trying to make 2 points
1)moralism and sincerity doesn't save anyone
2)God sends all these people to hell, so why blame us?

To the first I say "amen". In fact this is the crux of Paul's argument in Romans 2 & 3. Moralism cannot save anyone, same for sincerity. But what you seem to be impying is that everyone I explicitly named, and the many I alluded to are all lost and damned because because God sends good, kind, gentle, loving, sincere people to hell. (Actually I'd argue no one is actually good, loving, gentle, or kind unless the Spirit dwells within them, but thats a technicality for another time). Now if perhaps I'd mentioned Ghandi, the Dalhi Lama, Oprah Winfrey, and others maybe I could accept your point.

But the people and acts I mentioned are not just generic moralists, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, or other. They were people whose hearts burned for Christ, who loved Him, surrendered to Him, trusted in Him, came to Him for forgiveness, looked to Him for salvation. They had the mindset "nothing in my hands I bring, simply to thy cross I cling."
"Could my zeal no respite know, could my tears forever flow, these for sin could not atone, thou must save, and thou alone".
"My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness".

We're not talking about some general moralists, some good Buddhists, we're talking about people whose hope and trust was in the living God. And many of their conversions testify to God's work in their hearts, their lives testify to His grace, the results of their labor to His working in them through His Spirit. It seems a bit dismissive to imply they all went to hell, even while calling them good, kind, loving, etc.

Beyond that is the irony, that as while you point out that moralist can be good and be lost, you seem to overlook the fact that the legalist is in the same boat as the moralist. The moralist says, "living a good life will earn me favor with God". The legalist says "doing righteous deeds/holy living will earn me favor with God". Legslism and moralism are two sides of the same coin, and while you point out the pitfalls of moralism, you are blind to the legalistic system to which you belong.

In regards to sincerity not saving people, I agree. A person certain can be sincerely wrong. But let me ask you, who is more sincere than a legalist? Someone who will deny themselves common comforts, heap religious regulations upon themselves, sometimes dietary laws, many times dress or grooming standards, and many forms of asceticism. Whose more sincere for example, than a Mormom missionary or a Jehovah Witness? Whose more sincere than many a oneness pentecostal who thinks their uncut hair earns them favor with God? Or who keep all manner of standards and are spectacles to the world? The large majority of the people in OPism are sincere as sincere gets. We agree, sincerity does not equal salvation.

Secondly you seem to be saying that really theres nothing wrong with condemning them to hell, because God does it too.
I'll move beyond your assumption, and go right to what I find most shocking.....
You are assuming on the character of God. You have assumed that God agrees with you. You assume God judges all the men I listed the same way you do. You say God is just to send good, kind, gentle people to hell. Yet really to complete the thought you must say God is just when He sends good, kind, gentle, loving people to hell who repented of their sins, trusted in Christ, and (many times) were brutally martyred in His service. Yet still you poo-poo their faith, because they don't see it as you do. They didn't speak in tongues, therefore is their damnation just. And God agrees. This is an absurdity.

Cracker Barrel

10-20-2016, 08:33 PM

[QUOTE=KeptByTheWord;1451836][QUOTE]

In my experience, when a person (Unsaved) has a heart that is in deep Need, sorrow, tragedy, or triumph and they cry out to God, weather in praise or desperation HE receives it and will move heaven and earth to reach that person.

Some head HIS call, some don't. But that doesn't take away their experience with God. Does that make them saved? No. Does that mean they are Lost? only unless they stay where they are.

One thing we have to ask ourselves in these kinds of things is, ultimately Is.. Did this testimony of their encounter draw them closer to God by bringing them into more truth? Or did they go deeper into false doctrine?

I have heard of Trinitarians receiving miracles. Did they come out of false doctrine? No, in-fact (Sometimes not all) it drove them deeper nto it, Do you then Take away the miracle and say, it was of the devil? NO .. God did his part but Man fails miserably.

The same goes with these guys that were inspired to pen great gospel hymns. Or that studied to Give us Books that we can learn from. Were they all saved because they worked hard and prayed for Gods help doing what they did? No, But neither does that take away the great songs and resources God gave us.

Hang Ten?!

Jason B

10-20-2016, 08:37 PM

You are a complete hypocrite, Is this not your sarcastic way of mocking and insulting us?

You are dumb.
Fo real.

LOLO?!?!?!

Do tell.

Why am I a complete hypocrite?

I'm curious.

Is it because I expose the inconsistencies of your movement? Look at the Jehovah's Witnesses. They believe everyone else is lost, they believe the trinity is from the devil. Do they use trinitarian hymns? A trinitarian Bible? Trinitarian resources? No. They produce their own stuff. Wrong as it may be, at least they are consistent on that point.

Whereas oneness people, as has been pointed out, sing Amazing Grace, then preach "them 3 god worshippers are goung split hell wide open!!!"

I'm a hypocrite? I'm dumb? I'm mocking ya'll? How?

KeptByTheWord

10-20-2016, 08:41 PM

So the next time you sing Amazing Grace, just think, that poor guy that wrote the song will burn in hell. Nice doctrine you got there...

NOT.

And that King James bible you're using to condemn, why its condemning you. You better throw it in the fire to burn with John Newton too... that shoe has got to fit somehow...

In my experience, when a person (Unsaved) has a heart that is in deep Need, sorrow, tragedy, or triumph and they cry out to God, weather in praise or desperation HE receives it and will move heaven and earth to reach that person.

Some head HIS call, some don't. But that doesn't take away their experience with God. Does that make them saved? No. Does that mean they are Lost? only unless they stay where they are.

One thing we have to ask ourselves in these kinds of things is, ultimately Is.. Did this testimony of their encounter draw them closer to God by bringing them into more truth? Or did they go deeper into false doctrine?

I have heard of Trinitarians receiving miracles. Did they come out of false doctrine? No, in-fact (Sometimes not all) it drove them deeper nto it, Do you then Take away the miracle and say, it was of the devil? NO .. God did his part but Man fails miserably.

The same goes with these guys that were inspired to pen great gospel hymns. Or that studied to Give us Books that we can learn from. Were they all saved because they worked hard and prayed for Gods help doing what they did? No, But neither does that take away the great songs and resources God gave us.

Hang Ten?!

So... when you gonna throw away that KJV bible you're using to condemn with? Hypocrite... seems like you're fitting that definition perfectly.

Jason B

10-20-2016, 08:43 PM

You are a complete hypocrite
You are dumb.

I'm not going to take time to go through this thread, but.....

I know I've been called dumb, a hypocrite, bitter, confused, a rebel (possibly, that comment could have been for Charnock alone, but probably applies to both of us), and I'm sure some other things.

None of which actually refutes the theological things I've written. Which I've tried to keep my arguments, even if blunt at times, to the point. To my knowledge I have not personally insulted anyone on this thread. (Except for them taking offense at my disagreements with their theological system).

Cracker Barrel

10-20-2016, 08:50 PM

I'm not sure what you're getting at with God being bound. I don't believe God is bound by anything, save His essential nature. I think its pretty accurate to say God is free to do as He wills, even to have mercy on whom He will and compassion on whom He will. So I'm missing the point of your first sentence.

God is Bound By His Word.

Ezekiel 12:25
For I am the LORD: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; it shall no more be delayed: for in your days, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it, says the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 24:14
I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I relent; according to your ways, and according to your doings, shall they judge you, says the Lord GOD.

Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Romans 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

KeptByTheWord

10-20-2016, 08:53 PM

I'm not going to take time to go through this thread, but.....

I know I've been called dumb, a hypocrite, bitter, confused, a rebel (possibly, that comment could have been for Charnock alone, but probably applies to both of us), and I'm sure some other things.

None of which actually refutes the theological things I've written. Which I've tried to keep my arguments, even if blunt at times, to the point. To my knowledge I have not personally insulted anyone on this thread. (Except for them taking offense at my disagreements with their theological system).

Mud slinging is a great tool to resort to when you have nothing else to say.

Cracker Barrel

10-20-2016, 08:56 PM

So... when you gonna throw away that KJV bible you're using to condemn with? Hypocrite... seems like you're fitting that definition perfectly.

Yes here's some mud of yours:happydance

KeptByTheWord

10-20-2016, 08:57 PM

Cracker Barrel

10-20-2016, 09:00 PM

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

God is not always bound. He can change and "repent" of what He said He would do.

Out of context!

God said he would do that unless they repented. THATS WHY HE SENT JONAH

NEXT.:heeheehee

LOLO I say

KeptByTheWord

10-20-2016, 09:03 PM

Yes here's some mud of yours:happydance

I'm happy to accept it, if I fit the definition. But I'm not the one who has a problem with the writers of the KJV. You do.

So accept the mud, or the shoe, and be honest that you are in a swamp, sinking fast.... lol... you've got a shoe full of mud.

Jason B

10-20-2016, 09:05 PM

God is Bound By His Word.

Ezekiel 12:25
For I am the LORD: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; it shall no more be delayed: for in your days, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it, says the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 24:14
I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I relent; according to your ways, and according to your doings, shall they judge you, says the Lord GOD.

Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Romans 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Ok thanks for the clarification. Yes God has choosen to "bind" Himself by His Word. (Actually that falls under His character/attributes, truthfulness. It is impossible for God to lie.)

So then if it is impossible for God to lie, and let's take it a step further since we all believe Almighty God was manifest in the person of Jesus Christ, who said this:

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:37-40

So....will he indeed reject those who come to Him? Will He grant eternal life to those who believe?

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:16, 18

I think we've got to ask, if God is bound by His Word, how is He violating it by saving repentant sinners if they don't speak in tongues? Seems He is doing exactly what He said.