Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

What do you all think of this ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsS2-HLtcXQ

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

"Oneness apostolics" such as we see within the oneness pentecostal sects today haven't existed throughout history. I doubt any one of the individuals in the video would be welcome to preach their particular salvation doctrine in the pulpit of any oneness pentecostal church.

I remember folks referring to Bernard's book "The Oneness Of God" as history of oneness pentecostalism, but of course it's not. It's just a history of various views of God throughout history, such as we saw in the video you posted.

Oneness pentecostalism with it's salvation doctrines and teachings did not exist prior to 1913. It's a relatively new Christian sect.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

If all there was to being Apostolic was the beleif in ONE GOD, then I'd probably be Apostolic today.

It doesn't stop there.

The books of Acts clearly teaches that salvation is by faith-- as in that it is in our believing that our salvation is established.


There are a couple of jumps in years in the video you have posted too.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

We were thinking the same thing and typing at the same time! :)

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

I am Apostolic today because OF the salvation witness in Acts!:thumbsup

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

Apostolic movements today are a conglomeration of different denominational influences that pre-existed centuries ago.

1. Holiness is a doctrine that was the central theme of the Charles and John Wesley movements. In the last few decades those ideas have been compacted and bloated even further, and have very few roots in true Apostolic faith and practice of the first century.

2. The focus of Acts 2:38 as being the door way in to the Kingdom of God is a relatively new focus. Notice I said it's a newer focus, but it's an antique doctrine that is very obvious from Apostolic scripture. Prior to the Apostolic renewal of the last century, there were very few sects of Christendom that focused on Acts 2:38.

3. The experience of speaking in tongues has had pockets of different believers scattered throughout the world all throughout the history of the church, but there has never been as great a concentrated movement of tongues speakers as there has been the past 100+ years.

4. Water baptism has been a staple of the church from the get go. All denominations have believed in baptism of some sort; immersion, sprinkling, etc.

5. There has grown a strong emphasis of tithing as a must over the past 50 years with the sky rocketing popularity in TV preachers soliciting money from all over the country while small local churches suffer as a result of keeping this fat cats afloat. It is true that the church has always needed money, but the actual concept of tithing is a bit obscure in the context of the New Testament. That is not to negate the teaching of the NT that beseeches believers to support the local efforts of an ecclesia.

6. Salvation by grace is a doctrine that resurfaced in the 1500's by Martin Luther. As much as we don't' want to admit this, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the German reformer for standing against the Catholic churches abuse of indulgences and the idea that money and good deals could buy or work ones way out of purgatory or hell and secure salvation in to heaven.

I could continue listing so many things, but the fact of the matter is that today's "Apostolic" church is a coat-of-many-colors patched together borrowed from many pieces of cloth throughout the churches nearly 2000 years of world history.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

You could not be more wrong. Ever heard of the Catholic Church? They have been focused on Acts 2:38 for many centuries before the Reformation. A Trinitarian version of course but nonetheless they have always taught that faith, water baptism, and Spirit baptism is the doorway into the Kingdom.

Before the Reformation of the 1500's it would be almost impossible to find groups teaching one can be saved without the baptisms of water and spirit.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

Yeah, but the RCC forgot the tongues part of the salvation mix required of an individual. You'll not find such salvation theology until after the arrival of the oneness pentecostal sect after 1913.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

This is all true. Good post.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

Check this one out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLNRW...eature=related

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

I would love to have this set of books.
http://www.ebmoneness.com/catalog/it...80/1576541.htm

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

Really?

What did the Phillipian jailer ask Paul? What were the jailer's EXACT words?

What was Paul's response? What were Paul's exact words?



In order for any BIBLICAL doctrine to work, you must start with what is most clear first.

Salvation = faith in Jesus Christ-- everyting else is done and happens to the believer once he or she believes.


Salvation does NOT equal a formula that one must get exactly right or face an eternity lost.

If we want to be so exact, fine!

Which is correct:

A) In the Name of Jesus
B) In the Name of Jesus Christ
C) In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ



As for water baptism washing away sins, was Cornelius filled with the Holy Spirit and with sin at the EXACT same time?


The Oneness of GOD and baptism in Jesus Name is something that has to be REVEALED to the SINCERE seeker, right?

So where does Paul place such mysterious REVELATIONS in the order of imporatnce in a believer's life? At the top, right? Most profitable, prominent, and important place of priority, right?

WRONG!

If you understand all mysteries but still don't have love, it doesn't matter.

So, it stands to reason that even if the Oneness Pentecostals were the last gaurdians of Biblical truth on earth, their doctrine doesn't matter as much as their love. The same is true for all Christians.

Love covers a multitude of sin, but not the sin of being baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost-- if that is even a sin?

Love covers a multitude of sin, but not facial hair-- learn not the way of the heathen!

Love covers a multitude of sin, but not going to the stadium to watch a football game.



The Book of Galatians speaks to ALL CHRISTIANS-- but SOME don't read that Book.



The Phillipian jailer was a half-baked Christian-- almost saved, but not quite, as he still had more to do and it don't matter that it's not specifically mentioned all that he had left to do because the really saved Christians KNOW that he had so much more to do before he could really consider himself saved. Of course, I am speaking in an Oneness Pentecostal sense and not in the Biblical sense.


EVEN TODAY, when a new visitor comes to your church, the visitor is not told EVERYTHING that must be done to be saved (OP style). EVEN TODAY, when the new visitor becomes a new convert, the new convert is not told EVERYTHING that must be done in order to be saved (OP style), and if the new convert rejects one or more of the extra-biblical teachings presented to them and leaves the OP church, well that visitor was NEVER a new convert in the first place. If they were of us, they would never have gone out from us, right?

The esspecially kind-hearted Oneness Pentecostals would rather blame satan and his deception as the reason for the backsliding of the new convert. These Oneness Pentecostals are too loving, too sincere in their faith to look at that potentially lost soul and callously shake the dust from their feet at that new convert who is discouraged, bewildered, and frustrated. These are the ones who pray and weep over these souls, without ever thinking that maybe their extra-biblical teaching is what made the new convert twice the child of satan than before.



I miss my time with the precious Oneness Pentecostals, but I'd rather present a Biblical plan of salvation-- one so plain that even a fool can't error in it.

BELIEVE IN JESUS!


Being completely objective, it's really easy to see where some could, "make the mistake" of baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, else why would it take a REVELATION to see baptism in any other light?

So if that "mistake" is easily made by most people who name the Name of Christ, how much easier is it for a fool to make the same mistake?


Hey Oneness Pentecostals! You're NOT SAVED because you got baptized the right way! You're SAVED by the GRACE OF GOD-- leaving you, me, and everyone else WITHOUT ANY THING to boast of.



Were there not divisions in the Bible days over baptisms?
Was the church not corrected for this CARNALITY?
How is it they were carnal in their divisions, but those who divide themselves over the SAME ISSUES today are not carnal?

Oneness Pentecostals call it REVELATION, but Paul called it CARNALITY.


I miss them dearly even right now, but they're mistaken.

Even still, love covers a multitude of sin.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

I have not seen the videos, but there was a brief point that I wished to make.

Jermyn, you asked this question,

Which is correct:

A) In the Name of Jesus
B) In the Name of Jesus Christ
C) In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ


I have an answer. All of these are fine. In fact, there are other ways to say it, without any problem.

1) In Jesus' name

2) In the name of Jesus

3) In the name of Christ Jesus

4) In the name of Jesus Christ

5) In the the name of the Lord Jesus

6) In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ

7) In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord


And I could keep listing variations. All of these and other variations on that theme would be correct. I would probably baptize someone using the a phrase similar to "In the name of the Jesus Christ".

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

I've even heard it said "In the Name that is above every name, the name of Jesus (or, the name of Jesus Christ, etc.)...

I don't believe we should get caught up in the correct way to say "In the name of..." when it comes to Jesus.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

It's funny. JD isn't Apostolic and comes here spewing baptist doctrine.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

When I was fellowshiping Aposotlic believers they always tended to treat traditional Christianity like it was another religion all together. I was never of that opinion. I'd always believed that the church fell into apostasy with a few pocks of men seeking deeper biblical truth. I saw in the Protestant Reformation a hunger for truth over tradition, yet many Protestants carrying various errors over into Protestantism. With the Great Awakening there was a growing cry for REVIVAL. I used to see the Apostolic movement as the answer to that prayer... I believed that WE ARE THE REVIVAL the church has prayed for down through the centuries. Therefore, we should not forsake our traditional brothers and sisters but rather seek to help them into greater truths, not trying to win them to our church or organization... but try to deepen their experience, relationship, and understanding with regards to God.

But for the most part... the Apostolic movement has cut itself off from the very church she was sent to revive. And that's why we've not seen as many great revivals as we used to.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

What I believe is based on what I read in the Bible, which happens to be the same thing my Dad believed. I cannot find "faith only" in the Bible; neither can I find "God in three persons." I do believe in salvation by faith, but can you really believe in Jesus then ignore what he taught? I don't think so. Was James wrong in writing that faith without works is dead?

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

I agree that water baptism has been around as long as there has been around for a long time. It was developed as a mikvah or cleansing ritual a couple of centuries before the birth of Christ. It was included in the ministry of John the Baptist, carried over into the ministry of Jesus, and carried over further in the first century church.

We have no account in the Book of Acts of what words (if any) were spoken as part of the mikvah/baptism ritual. We assume the name of Yeshua or Jesus was spoken because that name was invoked at exorcisms, in the healing of the sick, and in prayer. Some believe "baptism in Jesus' name" means "baptism by the authority of Jesus" or "baptism as authorized by Jesus" and therefore would include the words recorded in Matthew 28:19 as being said by Him .

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

some might consider what he is presenting (or "spewing" as you lovingly say) to be Apostolic doctrine.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

it's sad but there are Apostolic or Oneness Pentecostal groups that have really taken a stand on "the name" to be used at baptism. This has resulted in preaching that those who use titles like "Lord" and/or "Christ" may not be saved if they used those words or may only be saved if they used those words.

Some Apostolics or Oneness Pentecostals consider the formula "Lord Jesus Christ" to be triune or trinity and as bad as using the traditional Father, Son and Holy Ghost formula.

Some Apostolics believe God is three persons/personas/roles/offices/personalities/etc. and therefore requires three "names" (Lord plus Jesus plus Christ) to cover Him/them.

Some believe the name of the Father is Lord; the name of the Son is Jesus; and the name of the Holy Ghost is Christ so the full name for the full God is "Lord Jesus Christ."

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

Houston,
Brother, you know more about me than most on this forum. You really do.

Do you think that I have said what I have said with an attitude best described as spewing?

Have you forgotten how much I agonized over my decision to leave my former UPCI church?

Do you not remember the months that I rolled the same questions through my mind over and over-- in the middle of the other battles of life and eternity that were raging?

Do you not remember when I told you how much I loved my former Pastor and some of the members-- especially the ones who I knew were praying people and the few who really did care for me as a person, and not just "as a soul"?



My attitude is not one of spewing.

My attitude is one of anguish.


Sometimes, I don't think I belong in my AoG church, but I KNOW what the Bible says.

I KNOW I don't belong in an Apostolic church, but in my heart, I sure do miss them.

I really, really miss them-- not just the services.


I miss some of the people too.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

Go home.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

Home is where the heart is.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

Sounds like your heart is back at home.:thumbsup

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

I can feel your anguish way over here brother.

Simply because I feel the same way. The love of Christ is what drew me to the church to begin with.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

(John 13:35)

Did Christ say to exclude anybody from that love?

From time to time my husband will go and visit one of the area churches on Sunday morning. He happened to visit one church who had a well known preacher/singer preaching that morning. The visiting preacher preached a message about bringing all the lost sheep back to the church. As one of those sheep he was preaching about, my husband went to him after the services to tell him just how the OP can bring the lost sheep back into the church. But you know what? He just wasn't interested enough to stop and listen or to take his name and number to get back with him. That's sad!

I just can't help but think how a Oneness Apostolic Church system can literally change the world with faith in Yeshua through the power of the Holy Ghost if they would just shed their legalism for more moderate standards. That doesn't mean the men and women have to shed what standards they believe in, it just means that they can learn to love and accept those who do not believe it takes all of that.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

The first youtube is merely a complilation of quotes from modalists, etc. They have existed in some form since the first century. I didn't realize William Penn held those views (and were he alive today he might cringe at the way the Quaker movement has become a nearly unitarian movement).
This first video does not validate ANY 20-21st century Apostolic doctrine, imo.
Dante's post is right on. Present Apostolic doctrine is a compilation of doctrines and traditions from other Christian brands that have accrued from the early 20th century til this day, NOT a revelation.
Years ago I heard a preacher pronounce (re: the UPC) that we are "PART OF THE ROOT AND NOT ONE OF THE BRANCHES" as if the traditions held by that organization have always existed. It's just not true. The video serves to be nothing more than an eisogesic prop for the position. Many Oneness do not want to be identified with the pillars of historical Christianity for fear of being accused of being (gasp) trinitarian.
What is wrong with saying it like it is? Rather than being empirically and historically sound, most apostolics want the oneness/Jesus' name message to sound (drum roll, please) like a finally discovered revelation revealed in these last days. (TA DAH!)
It nearly sounds like the revelation of the "hidden" church doctrine in the writings of Paul, the "Apostle to the Gentiles".

Even though there is an RCC element to the second video, what I picked up if the video is to be believed was that Paul was one of several apostles to the Gentiles, but not THE apostle to the Gentiles, as we have been taught. We have Andrew going to Armenia, Thomas to India, Matthew to Ethiopia and John in the regions surrounding the middle east. Paul traveled further, perhaps, in ships to the known world, but there were several other Jewish apostles preaching to the Gentiles world.
The video let us know after the first generation of Apostles died of the disagreement of the divinity of Christ between a group wanting to claim Jesus as only man, and another, Docetans, that he was only divine.

They had as many problems understanding the simplicity that was in Christ as we do today. Apostolics desperately want their elite oneness position validated by history but by doing so they simultaneously invalidate the greatness of men like John Wesley and Martin Luther. We have DNA in our movement that those men helped to give us, whether we WANT to believe or not.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

My heart is in the Word of God.
As for the congregation that I choose to align myself with, it will be one that lines up with the Word of God when it comes to faith and salvation.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

God is dealing with you don't reject it because you are stubborn and full of pride. Go home.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

This video is goofy and does not prove anything.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

Sir,
I just wanted to let you know that your advice did make me pause.


Without spiritual pride but with prayer and care for the proper interpretation of the Holy Bible, I am confident in my decision to leave the denomination known as, "Oneness Pentecostals" or "Apostolic Pentecostal".


I love our GOD and Savior.
I love His Word.
In my doctrine, I will remain as true to the Word of GOD as I possibly can.

This means that I cannot possibly remain "Apostolic" in the context of aliginging myself with the UPCI, or other churches with doctrines that mirror them.


I miss them.
I love them.
I do not agree with them.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

This type of post is the reason why some people decide to leave AFF. It is off the wall, condescending and really carnal to the core.

The natural man is certainly not spiritual, nor easily entreated, and Mr Epley, your post stinks.

If the administrator won't stop this kind of stuff it makes me think they are either helpless or they endorse this kind of personal attack.

Unless of course, Epley is an administrator. If that's the case, sayonara.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

Did you read the other posts that Bro. Epley made to him? If not, I would recommend that you do so, as that was not said in a vacuum. JD did not take offense at that remark, which you would have also noticed if you had read the whole of the thread. It was a loving petition for a young man to return to his roots, and not yield to his pride and reject the Lord's call for him to come home. There was nothing there to attack, and your charge is both spurious and baseless.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

Initially, I began to be offended, but I chose to check myself to make sure I was not being prideful. I don't think Bro. Epley meant any offense at all.

It's better to not be easily offended-- on AFF and in life in general.


Nevertheless, Sabby's response isn't spurious and baseless.

Both Bro. Epley and Sabby posted what they did out of concern for a young guy in Orlando that they hardly know.


AFF is just like a family-- diverse and caring.

Christianity is AMAZING, when it's done right.

Re: Oneness Apostolics In History Video.
 

Jay, you didn't KNOW if JD took offense at Epley's post. I mean, read it again, for cryin' out loud.
Repent of pride and return to his roots? If there was any pride to be detected in the back and forth between the two, it was the haughtiness demonstrated by Epley, who seems to be the Keeper of the Gate on AFF.

I, for one, am sickened by attacks by conservatives on those that question their OP roots, and then with a condescending attitude act justified by antagonizing their brethren (put appropriate proof-text here).
There are some things that are a part of our "root" heritage that 20 & 21st century apostolics refuse to recognize. There are other things that have been added on (like tree decorations and not the "root") in the past century have nothing more to do with being apostolic than wearing a necktie to church.

I can see a close friend sending an email, making a phone call or paying a personal visit to help (notice the word, HELP) a brother in need. If Epley is a friend he ought to understand that his comments not helpful at all, that is if in fact he was honestly trying to help restore our brother JD. Epley uses Jesus Christ as a cloak of maliciousness and views the his ideas about Truth to be above the embodiment of Grace, Jesus Christ.

JD, I'm praying for you, bro. Live your life to please God and Keep on truckin' for Jesus.