Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Those who believe one is saved through belief in the resurrection of Jesus apart from water baptism or the Holy Spirit baptism. Your belief includes Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics and so forth as I understand it.

So if Protestants and Catholics are among the saved people what about Jehovah Witnesses? Do you count them to be saved? If not why?

Catholics are saved? Maybe a few. Most come out from among her.

JW do not believe that Jesus was one with the Father. They teach that Jesus is/was Michael the archangel, and that he is subordinate to God.

They believe that the Tetragrammaton is pronounced "Jehovah" and that they are the only group proclaiming his name (sound familiar?).


They teach that the Holy Spirit is nothing more than an active force, whatever that means.

But, you already knew all this.

MTD,

Like yourself, Catholics and Anglicans believe in baptismal regeneration.

Lutherans are confused. They teach that faith alone saves, and that baptism is a means of grace by which God grants faith and forgiveness.

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Well yes but Im addressing those on this forum who believe that all that's essential to be saved is belief that Jesus is the son of God and he rose from the dead.

Do they include groups who assent to this? They are born again?

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

That's not a very accurate desciption

They believe salvation is through faith in the one that DIED. In Him Personally. Not that they believe the resurrection happened and that makes them saved

Lutherans do or did believe baptism is essential. Maybe they changed.

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

MTD, I'll answer your question, but it is an oversimplification, so please allow me to dissect it a little bit.
Not necessarily. More accurately stated it is the belief that the church is not limited to a particular denomination or movement. We (I) do believe that some Baptists are saved, some Lutherans, some Methodists, some Presbyterians, some Anglicans, and likely some Catholics, however that doesn't mean that (IMO) the people who identify themselves with those groups are saved at the same proportion. What I mean is I think that there are probably more people who are actually saved within say the Baptist church movement than the more liberal Protestant denominations. and while I wouldn't feel comfortable saying all Catholics are lost, I do think that there is probably a very low percentage of genuinely saved people identified with the Catholic Church, especially considering all of the idolatry (in regard to statues/icons, Mary, the Pope, etc). I would certainly suggest that a Catholic leave that system, but I don't think its an impossibility to be a Catholic and be saved. But having said that, it is my opinion that most people who identify themselves as Christian in the US are false converts. My guess would be only about 20% of those who identify themselves as Christian in the US are actually saved. And I wouldn't be shocked if the percentage was lower.
(Bear in mind the Parable of the sower in Mark 4, we have many shallow ground types-(emotional response/no root), and theory ground types (too busy with everything else to really be committed to Christ)-neither of these types of people ultimately bear any fruit, despite the fact that they both have a favorable disposition to the gospel. I think the fact that they don't bear fruit is indicates not that they were saved and fell away, but that they were never saved in the first place, and only gave the appearance of salvation for a time).

I don't believe someone just identifies themselves as Christian, joins a church, or says the sinner prayer to be saved. I believe that someone has to understand the basic gospel message and repent of their sins and trust in Christ. If they truly do this I believe God justifies, regenerates, and adopts them (simultaneously from the human viewpoint). And if the Spirit of God dwells within, then just as the seed in the next Parable (Mark 4:26-29) grows automatically, although day by day its growth is imperceptible, in the same way those who are truly born again of the Spirit (i.e. regenerate) will produce fruit. They can do nothing but produce fruit, for the Spirit dwells within.

Thus I understand salvation as complete surrender by faith in Christ and to Christ repentance, and the evidence that this conversion was genuine will be the work of the Spirit in the person life (see James 2:16-24).

Ok, so I know thats a bit wordy, so now to answer your question:
I am going to say NO, but I'm going to make it a qualified no.

I don't believe them to be saved because they are part of a heretical cult with many bad doctrines (though you agree with them on annihilationism) which denies the deity of Jesus, and their works based salvation model which includes forced "evangelism" (I think JWs call it preaching ministry) and complete submission to the "Governing Body" (the Watch Tower Tract Society).

However, I do think there is a possibility that some could be saved and this is why:
Jehovah's Witness believe in and worship Jesus Christ. They believe He is the Messiah, the Son of God. They believe that His literal death on the cross atoned for their sins. And (in a sense) they believe they are made right with God by faith in Christ.

We also need to consider that JW's are modern day Arians. And if we say that no Arian ever can be saved (which could possibly be a true statement, I'm just not willing to be that dogmatic on it), then we have to consider that during the 3rd century the majority of the church was Arian for a while, and in the East Christianity was almost exclusively Arian, and many of the Germanic Tribes that took over the Roman Empire were Arian. Thus the church of the first 5 (especially 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries) included a LOT of Arians. I don't think its absolutely impossible that none of them were saved, so I tend to think the same about JW's.

However-Arians denied the deity of Christ, but JWs teach He is the arch angel Micheal. I'm not sure whether or not the early Arians denied the physical resurrection, but I know JW's do. So if we say that belief in the absolute deity of Jesus and his physical resurrection are required to be saved, then the answer is NO on JW's, and thats why I have to ultimately say no, in my opinion. I would strongly advise any JW to leave that organization immediately and find a good Bible believing church.

I think the same about Mormonism, though I don't know as much about it. I say a qualified no.

Some would say, well if you leave the door open, even just a crack (and really its more like the little bit of light that peeks out under the door) then do you believe Muslims, Hindus, and agnostics are saved?

I'd say NO. Here's the difference. I do believe that salvation is exclusively through Jesus Christ, and in particular through the person and work of Christ. Thus if someone denies that He is the Son of God, that He died on the Cross, or that He is risen, I can't see anyway that person can be saved.

Whereas JWs and Mormons are both heretical cults, they still at least claim to believe the gospel (I think we could throw in 7th Day Adventists too---and a lot of people would even throw in....ONENESS PENTECOSTALS). They are at least on the fringe of the Christian circle (probably just outside of it). So while I'd be surprised if we saw JWs in heaven, I can't say I'd feel "deceived" or "duped".

However if there were Sikhs, Muslims, Rastafarians, etc, I admit, I would be terribly confused. But even then, I would think they could only be there because the sacrifice of Christ had so much greater an application than what we understand. BUT-I don't see that in the scriptures, I see eternal life and death. Two ways. Heaven and hell. Well done and depart from me. So in every way I have to reject universalism, and thus I have to affirm to exclusivity of salvation through Christ, only for those who repent of their sins and trust in Him. And IMO to believe any thing else is to reject the clear teaching of God's Word.

That should stir up some conversation.

Come on Mike what's up? You ask a question and don't engage? I spent like an hour typing that. Show me some love bro.

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

now that's funny :heeheehee

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

:heeheehee Ooops!

My guess would be even lower.

I agree fully.

Now were getting to the heart of my question. What TO YOU is the basic gospel message? Who does one have to believe Christ is to make their faith effective?

Is it more wrong for example to teach Jesus pre existed as Michael the archangel than to teach he is the SECOND PERSON of THREE PERSONS OF GOD who all existed eternally?

I don't think they believe in annihilation. From what I gather it seems they don't believe the wicked will be raised from the dead period. How many bad doctrines can one go along with and still be saved? Does any particular doctrine cancel out ones faith when he makes that initial belief in Christ?

I mean say the JW'S knock on ones door. He has been feeling bad about his evil lifestyle. They pray with him to accept Christ. Is he still lost because of THEIR false doctrines?

What you refer to as forced "evangelism" seems to me like an acceptance of Christs command to go and make disciples. It seems like a "vision" which hardly any other Churches do have.

How about on the other hand Evangelical and Pentecostal Churches go arm in arm with Pagans and Catholics celebrating Christmas as if were something ordained of God? At least JW'S understand the compromise involved.

So you consider Apostolics just OUTSIDE of Christianity? Why then should it be surprising they would (some of them) say Evangelicals are just outside of it?

From what I recall you are NOT Trinitarian. You believe in Oneness. And yet you present a scenario where the Evangelical Trinitarians are INSIDE Christianity but the Oneness believers are OUTSIDE of it? Hmmmmmm.

Hey MTD thanks for the response. I'm not able to comment at length yet. But I'd like to clarify the last quote you responded to. I don't place OPs outside the circle of Christianity but I was pointing out that some do lump OPs in with the other 3 groups and while I don't agree I can see why.

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

To me the very basic gospel message is "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." And "If you confess with you mouth that Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." And believe me, I know those two verses are worn out and taken out of contest, but lets divorce them from 20th & 21st century American Easy Believism for a moment (which I will do momentarily).

So the answer to the first question (green) is:
I believe the basic gospel message is the God sent His Son to die on the cross for our sins, and that He rose again. And that if you will repent of your sins and trust in Christ you will receive everlasting life.

To me that is the gospel in the most simple form. True that can be misunderstood and twisted into easy believism, or OSAS. But everything is that statement is Biblical and is Gospel Truth.

The answer to the second question (red) is:
I think in the most basic sense they have to believe He is the Son of God.
I also believe they have to believe He died for their sins and that He rose again.

To me that is the gospel and Christology at its most basic level. If someone believes these things IMO they have at least an chance of actually being saved, regardless of whatever bad doctrine they believe. Remember a lot of people the world 'round know nothing about Christianity, and so it is possible the only group that may reach them may be a group we consider heretical or even pseudo-Christian. Certainly this has been the case in times past when Arians, Catholic, or Orthodox was the only form of Christianity that some people groups were exposed to. Do you think God will still condemn those who forsaken their paganism in favor of the gospel of Christ they were presented? I personally admit, I don't know. But I'd like to think that they could be saved believing that Christ is the Son of God who suffered and died for their sins, and rose again.

Great question.

I don't know. On one hand I don't think its worse if in fact both are completely false. But on the other hand, I'd say what the JW's believe is worse because they demote Christ to the angelic realm, while Trinitarians very adamantly affirm that Jesus Christ is God, the I AM.

However I'm a bit confused by JW's who on one hand believe Jesus to be the arch angel Michael, but then will proclaim Jesus is God, even the Mighty God (albeit to them He is really a demi-God, or second God--when they say Jesus is the Mighty God, they don't mean the same thing we do). Once in a study with JWs I pointed out Isaiah 9:6 (my point was Jesus and Jehovah are the same, I took them from Isa 9:6, to 44:6, to Rev 1:8) their response blew my mind. They said "Well we believe there is an Almighty God and a Mighty God." What?!! Anyway that is terribly theology, but JWs would at least give lip service to the deity of Christ. Enough to save? I don't know. Like I said before, I'd advise any JW to leave that org immediately. But in my own musings, I'm hopeful that they are not all headed to hell. But is it possible they all are for their heretical views? Quote possible.

As for trinitarians, I do think a lot of it comes down to semantics. Thats not to say there aren't real differences, because there are. Trinitarians affirm one God, but differ in that they seen God as a plurality of persons, where as we see God as a plurality of manifestations (some would even say personalities), and so while that is a matter of semantics, depending on what definition of "person" a trinitarian uses that can be a real difference or a very slight difference from oneness. Secondly trinitarians differ from oneness of exactly who was incarnate. They say the second person of the Godhead, we say God himself. Again in some instances its a matter of semantics, others its a real difference, again depends on how someone believes in persons.

If someone believes that God is three distinct individual persons each with their own personality, will, ego (and some trinitarians DO believe this) then I honestly don't see how that is ANY different from the Trimurti of Hinduism. I don't see as DKB said in the James White debate on this subject "How that is One in any reasonable sense."

But many trinitarians believe very close to oneness, especially amongst NON-seminarians. But even those who are strict trinitarians affirm that 1)Jesus is the Son of God, fully human, fully divine. The Great I AM, the Almighty, the Creator, the Judge, etc. So as I've been openly proclaiming, I personally do not believe trinitarians are lost, at least not on the account of their being trinitarians.

But let me carry this further, and please give me your thoughts on my thought here:
If we are to affirm that one must have an accurate understanding of God (more specifically theology & Christology-understanding God in His essential nature and accurately understanding who Christ is) and for the sake of this forum we say that accurate view is oneness, then my question is how accurate does their ONENESS theology need to be to be saved?

We know that as it is there is a wide range of views on the godhead within the oneness camp. Everything from sequential modalism to divine flesh doctrine. People fail to make any real distinction between Father and the Son and say in Jesus prayers he was talking to himself. There is some bad Christology amongst oneness people, and some of it very heretical, some it just mildly heretical. For example, if someone really doesn't really make any distinction between the Father and the Son does that mean that they can't be saved? Oneness people do that all the time, especially the laity. Really all trinitarians do is swing hard the other way and over emphasize the distinction between the Father and the Son to the point they are separate all together.

So then I ask, how accurate does ones theology/Christology have to be in order to be saved? And lets assume the convert knows absolutely nothing about the Bible or good theology and bad theology. They know nothing. They believe the message (and according to your soteriology) they repent, are baptized in JN, and receive the HG w/ tongues, BUT they don't really understand anything about the godhead. And to carry it further lets say they went to church a handful of times and believed God was a trinity.**

IYO- is that person saved right then or not?

I know you will say "as they continue they will learn good theology." I grant that. As they continue to go to church, do Bible studies, read, etc, they will be taught a oneness theology and in time should have a good understanding.

-------
BUT-does that understanding save them? Do they become saved when they understand God is one "person' not "three persons"?

If you say YES-then doesn't that mean that an accurate understanding of theology is a REQUIREMENT for salvation? (Something the Bible never says to my knowledge). And if you say yes, then on what consistent grounds can you say they were saved when they received the Acts 2:38 experience if they were still a trinitarian?

If you say NO-then how can you say trinitarians can't be saved?



Maybe so. Either way they reject hell and eternal conscious torment, and so are in your camp on that doctrine.
I don't know. I personally believe none of us is doctrinally pure. I think we are all wrong about something (don't tell Sean:heeheehee). If we are sincere and KNEW we were wrong we would not believe that. But when you consider for example the multitude of doctrines about the dead, or eschatology, soteriology, and so forth, we can be sure we've all got somethine wrong. I don't think salvation is an SAT test. I think the gospel is ultimately simple. God is trying to save all those who will come to Him, not look for a reason to eliminate people. He can grant us doctrinal purity in heaven.
Personally I think if someone denies that Jesus is the Son of God, or the atonement and resurrection, I don't believe they can be saved.
I don't know, since I officially believe JWs are lost, but am only not willing to be totally adamant on that point, I guess I'd say yes. However this really goes into the Sovereignty of God. Perhaps God saves the guy as a JW then brings Him out later.
Evangelism is good. JWs are highly pressured to do it under the threat of Jehovah's judgment. That is forced.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the current topic. Feel free to elaborate if there is a connection.

No. But I do think that oneness people reacted by damning all trinitarians to hell because of the 1916 AG General Conference. As so both groups condemn each other to hell, it doesn't make it so. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have done the same. Catholics and Protestants. UPC and Independents. Tithers and non-tithers. ;) I think we have to be able to discuss our disagreements as brothers.
That is accurate.

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

What if... the apostles expected "the saved" to be those who receive and CONTINUE In their teachings? So that if someone at any point along the way began to reject their teachings they would be considered outside the faith that saves? Thus one would need to accept and walk in all the apostles' teachings as one learns them... and not stop short along the way...

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

I think it is certain the apostles felt that way. It is when we attempt to fit the experiences of 20 centuries of those who all claim to have been Christians it gets confusing.

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

I may have to do this in parts as its now time for bed for this third shifter.

Well according to this I would think JW'S fit this description. From what I have heard I think they think Michael the Angel was the Son of God.

To me the true Trinitarian teaching is tritheism. If three co equal co eternal persons who are distinct from each other while each being God is not tritheism I would like to know what is?

After countless discussions and debates with Trins I think I can say with a good deal of confidence they don't see Jesus being the I AM in the sense of being the I AM alone. They feel two other persons are also the I AM. Same goes with the Almighty, the Creator and all the things that make God, God.

On this basis that they believe in three persons who are equally and distinctly God in his own right I feel such a belief will end up in the Gehenna fire. It definitely is a perversion of One God.

Well I cant deny that. Oneness as a general rule are not deep enough.

I do not reject Hell. I am the only one I know that teaches it regularly. I do reject the eternal torment idea.

It seems to me everywhere we look in the New Testament truth is essential to salvation.

We are saved by sanctification and belief of THE TRUTH! 2 Thess 2:13

If you know you are wrong on something how can you know its not this? I believe anyone with the Holy Spirit can know the whole truth. Jesus said the Spirit would guide us into ALL TRUTH!

Hey just woke up at the PC will have to finish later today.

Not really MTD. You want confusion? Produce for me even one denomination/group/sect...even one single PERSON who taught what y'all call the "apostles doctrine" before 1913?

I agree with you guys that the Bible is the authority not church history. However when we construct a narrative of what the apostle's taught that doesn't match ANYTHING ever observed before our American sect in the 1900's I think that's problematic and a pretty strong indicator that the apostles didnt teach what some believe they did.

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

I would be thrilled if I could find some group who baptized in Jesus name before 1900, but I haven't been able to.

I'm just saying I'm sure that I'm wrong somewhere. I think someone would gave to be very naïve or arrogant to say they are 100% doctrinally pure and accurate.

Do you believe you are not wrong on anything?

Can I ask your wife? :heehee

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

the following groups baptized in the name of Jesus.

Ebionites 80 AD 4th century, Jewish Christian sect, considered heretical.
Montanists 135 AD 8th century, widespread in the Roman Empire, crushed by force.
Valentinians 136 AD 7th century, a very large body of believers, spread in the Empire.
Marcionites 144 AD 7th century, they flourished in the east, died out.
Apelletians 2nd Century - ? branched off from the Marcionites, died out.
Marcosians 2nd Century 4th century, a branch of the Valentinians, died out.
Samosatenes 260 AD 5th century, left Jesus’s baptism, returned to Catholic Church.
Monarchians late 2nd century early 5th century, outnumbered Catholics in the 3rd century.
Patripassians late 2nd century 3rd century, maybe an earlier name for Monarchians.
Artemonites late 2nd century 16th century, died out.
Sabellians early 3rd century 5th century, an offshoot of Monarchism.
Donatists 311 AD 7th century, the largest Christian group in North Africa.
Arians 320 AD 8th century, some part, they were finally crushed by military force.
Priscillianists 350 AD 700 AD, strong in the Iberian Peninsula, persecuted to extinction.
Paulicians 657 AD 19th century, Military force and persecution destroyed them.
Bogomils 900 AD 1400 AD, an offshoot of the Euchites, persecuted to extinction.
Albigensians 11th century 13th century, mostly in France, crushed by the inquisition.
Cathari 12th century 15th century, flourished in Western Europe, crushed by the inquisition.
Anabaptists 1523 AD end of 16th century, crushed by military force and the inquisition.
In 1565 AD there was in Morovia an International Federation of Apostolic Churches.
The halcyon church 1802 - ?, Columbia, North America

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Just googled a couple of these groups:

Cathari would refuse baptism and resorted to sodomy in order to avoid procreation...in addition to a LOT of weird beliefs.

The Donatists' issues with the Roman church were not mode of baptism, but sinfulness of the priests.

I saw this in 10 minutes....maybe you should take a look at your list again.

(but thanks for answering anyway, I do appreciate the effort)

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

You need to keep in mind that there was a lot of lies and difamation propaganda directed against them, so I would consider the source before I believe everything that was told about the Cathari or any other group.

According to Pagan writers Christians killed babies and ate them before their sexual orgies. Do you really believe that? :heeheehee

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Have I ever read a truth so succintly expressed!

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Im just saying that Jesus said the Spirit will guide one into all truth.

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. John 16:13

I do believe I understand the foundation truths of Jesus faith. I don't claim to understand EVERYTHING Christ said but yes I think I do know the foundation. You may think that is arrogant or naïve. Most do.

To me it seems different. It seems like many altho Jesus said he WOULD guide us into all truth will not really do it. To know all truth was considered to be the norm for his children to him.

I would be a bit uneasy to bring my wife into this. She speaks so highly of me it can be embarrassing. :nod

MTD I certainly disagree with you, put you're a pleasure to dialogue with. Such a calm spirit while expressing your positions. I have much respect for that. :thumbsup

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Jason,

I started out my first 5 years with Christ among Evangelicals and Trinitarian Pentecostals. I had amazing times in the Lord. You have probably seen my testimonies about that. Far be it from me to say Spirit filled people who love the Lord are merely hell bound sinners!

This has been my frustration in life. I have associated with several groups of Trinitarian believers that were dynamic and spirit led. I enjoyed my fellowship with them.

It was through the word my understanding deepened. Like yourself I found Oneness doctrine to be true. This over time led me to start searching for a Church where I could fellowship around the magnificent revelation of Jesus!

How disappointed I was when I started attending Oneness meetings. Yes I felt they had the truth of who Jesus is. And yes I came to see how Acts 2:38 was the original plan of salvation.

But I also saw a people who had settled on their lees and very little vision or movement. So while I hold Oneness and Acts 2:38 teaching as truly Apostolic I don't have the sense that that is all it means to be "in the truth".

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Jason I would be honored if you would take a few minutes and see my testimony about baptism in Jesus name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZDRk...o8-tTOmXRQW8rg

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Consider this. You MIGHT be able to produce someone from before the 1500's who taught one need not be baptized in water to be saved. It would be very hard to find. Matter of fact if you know of any group that did let me know for personal reference.

Another thing to consider. When people disagree with you many times they distort your position. I have been teaching on Paltalk.com for 13 years and I have seen this many times over. People accuse me all the time of things I don't believe. Someone who heard them, if I were not present to make the correction would think those were really my beliefs.

So when we look back into history we look back from the lens of people who many times were opposing certain groups and writing in such a way their real position is unclear or distorted.

Last of all take Oneness doctrine for example. You yourself believe in it. And yet if one reads many "apologetics" sites you would think that no one heard of Oneness doctrine until 1913! I have even talked with some who said Oneness doctrine was invented by William Branham in the 1940's!

Without doubt hundreds or thousands of young believers in Jesus will read that and will then pass it on. See what I mean? Oftentimes what you may see in Church history will not be accurate. I have read the ECF at times just for something different to read. It truly can be confusing hearing things they taught.

That's why I contend the Apostles doctrine is safe and secure. I place Peter, John, and Paul, far above those who I started out being led by. Billy Graham, Dave Wilkerson, Hal Lindsey. I discovered on various issues they differed from the apostles.

So it does not matter to me if all the Church historians agreed with each other on lets say , the Trinity.

It appears to me that all the ECF agreed with each other that baptism was essential to salvation. Would you therefore agree with them?

So when its all said and done my walk has been like this. I have judged what men are saying in light of what Jesus said through his chosen apostles. :highfive

I actually agree with you a lot on this. I really believe that some of the best music and preaching is within the oneness movement. I really think they could have had so much more impact in the 20th century had they decided that standards was the hill the would fight on and it was the hill their movement died on.

There has been such a mass exodus from the OP movement, especially amongst the young ministers I think the UPC is really going to struggle the next 20 years and maybe dwindle to the point if being totally irrelevant. And oddly enough I really think DKB is the best man to lead the UPC, I admit to being surprised that his leadership doesn't seem to be having an impact on the org.

If the UPC continues to be stagnant or go backwards, I'm not sure there is another oneness org to fill the vacuum. But the positive is that a lot if the oneness people that left remain oneness even amongst main stream Christianity. Perhaps in a generation or two trinitarians will see oneness are not the heretics they proclaim us to be.

Most trinitarians are really confused about what oneness is. The thing I hear most is they believe we believe that God was the Father, ceased being the Father and became the Son, ceased being the Son and is now the Holy Ghost. I think we've got to do a better job articulating what we really believe. But I do think were doing better. I thought both Bernard and Perkins got the better of James White in their debates and that Bernard certainly got the better of Gene Cook. But I think a lot of debates don't really reflect well on the oneness position.

I'm kinda in between a rock and hard place. I left the OP movement but I still identify with them quite a bit, however I like the conservatism, theology, and emphasis on the Word that is found in the Reformed movement.

I'm not a cessationist but I do believe OPs have a lot of things go on in their meetings that are 1)not the Holy Ghost but are attributed to Him and 2)in direct violation of 1 Corinthians 14.

I haven't ruled out returning to the oneness movement because my view of the godhead and baptism hasn't changed but I just can't see going back into the UPC and it seems like nearly every ex-UPC type group I've heard of or people I've been in fellowship with end up going charismatic. And I know that's a derogatory term but I'm not meaning it that way, I mean they don't just drop standards they embrace either mildly or extremely Word of Faith doctrines and preachers, and such. I want nothing to do with that even if they baptize in JN.

I don't just want anything to do with TD Jakes. Sure he baptizes in JN but he runs with Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Paula White, and Oprah Winfrey. Who a man ministers with says a lot about what doctrines are important/unimportant to him.

When my old pastor (an ex UPC) started saying things like "Joel Osteens preaching the same message as me I'm just going about it a little differently" and when they took a group to TD Jakes Manpower conference (and I think also MegaFest that featured Creflo Dollar & Oprah) it was just too much for me. When the minister who took up the offering made everyone wave stand up said "get something in your hand, everyone get something in your hand, now wave it around. Say 'this is my offering... God will bless me" And this went on for 20 minutes and the pastor neither stopped it nor straightened it out afterward, that was enough for me.

So that's a big reason I find myself within the circle of conservative evangelical Christianity because I'd much rather be with people who love the Word of God even if their church services are A LOT different than what I'm used to. Because I'd rather be that than Word if Faith. Seriously I think I'd just give up on church before going to a WoF church. It makes me sick. Literally. Makes my stomach hurt.

MTD,

There are anti trinitarians in history. There are people who baptized in JN. If you make an argument from scripture and consider the first 3 centuries you can make a very strong argument that the early church didn't believe in the trinity.

You can find various anti trinitarians in history (some denied Jesus humanity or deity, others affirmed both).

BUT you can never find a group that said tongues is the only universal evidence of the Spirit's baptism. Thats the rub with me. I don't deny tongues can happen. But I argue tongues is not part if ACTS 2:38.
Acts 2:38 is 2 commands and a promise. Repent and baptize and you will receive the HG (no mention if tongues in v.38 or anywhere else following in the narrative). V.41 tells us they were baptized and that was sufficient for them to be added to the church. Thus we should conclude that the Spirits baptism is not always outwardly perceptible because we know you can't be in the body if you haven't received the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3, John 3:5).

I did watch it. Very good.

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Jason

And yet....we see Acts 8. People who had believed. They had been baptized into the name of Jesus. And somehow Phillip who was either an Apostle or an Evangelist among the Apostolic group knew that they had not received the Holy Spirit!

How did he know they had not? There must have been a way. I have went over this with myself various times. If there was ONE place where the Holy Spirit was said to be given and something happened either before tongues or independently of it I would agree with you.

We know one case in Acts 19 where they prophesied. And yet before that they spoke in tongues. Now other than that I don't see anyplace where anything else was directly connected to initially receiving the Spirit.

Nothing like "they were filled with the spirit and starting healing everyone". Nowhere where they were "filled with the spirit and began shouting hallelujah". If there was I would have found it by now.

HOWEVER I have seen enough and read enough to leave a bit of room there. If I ran into someone who WAS having real gifts of the Spirit I would ask them about their experience and beliefs. The last thing I want is to hurt someones faith or be standing in the way of God doing something.

I am willing to say this. Speaking in tongues was/is the NORMAL initial evidence of the Spirit in the New Testament. If there is something outside that being manifest and it glorfies Christ and leads into more truth Im fine with that.

I generally say this, "Tongues is not the baptism, the anointing is the baptism". "Tongues FOLLOW the baptism".

As to 1 Cor. 12:13 I learned in various Evangelical books that one gets baptized in the Spirit automatically when they believe. Yet the Book of Acts proves this wrong. Acts 8 and 19 both show it is wrong. Most importantly Pauls own testimony proves it wrong. By no means did he believe he was baptized in the Spirit when he met Christ on the road.

But an odd thing happened in my life in 1977. I met a group out of the Far East called the Ceylon Pentecostal Mission, (now known simply as The Pentecostal Mission) a Trinitarian group that I allude to in my testimony. They were far beyond any Church I had seen. One of their doctrines was/is that 1 Cor. 12:13 actually refers to the Holy Spirit baptism as in the book of Acts. They taught this and still do today as far as I know.

When they expounded on it it became clear. The Evangelicals INVENTED the doctrine they teach on 1 Cor 12:13. I would say NO GROUP before the time of Luther taught that verse in a manner like they do.

This was my first move toward true Apostolic doctrine and it was/is taught by a Trinitarian group! They have many doctrines that kind of overlap each other so one who did not know what they were looking for might not see it right away. I found it in the lit of the Church and also discussed it with several ministers including my own Pastor who was raised in it.

So this opened my eyes mightily to expose the Evangelical Church. Its true that one must have this experience to be in the body of Christ. We see it played out in the book of Acts. But nowhere in Acts do we see 1 Cor. 12:13 being portrayed as Evangelicals teach.

I believe WHOEVER receives the Holy Spirit baptism is joined to the body of Christ. Most new converts have little comprehension about who Jesus really is but if they get baptized in the Spirit that shows God has accepted them.

Yes baptism in Jesus name is very important but the Spirit baptism is the "high point" in the salvation process.

And yet if people who get accepted by God initially refuse to move on with truth they can become like the children of Israel who were cut off by their unbelief before they got to enter the promised land.

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Its true at times I identify myself as "Charismatic". That is in the same sense in which I identify with the Jesus movement. I came up through them as a young believer.

I met people and some groups of Charismatics who were quite interesting and fired my imagination in God. I see nothing like them among todays Charismatics. But I do believe those who really have the Spirit have it just as real as "Apostolics" do.

Now the Cessasionist type groups is another story. I find little in common with them and am usually not welcomed by them.

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Enjoyed your testimony MTD! Once your eyes have been opened to who Jesus is, it is really hard to associate with those who have not seen it yet for themselves. Pray for them, love them, but it is hard to have close fellowship with them.

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Jason, I guess we are both in the same place. We love the revelation of who Jesus is, the worship, praise and sold out desire to live for God that is found within the OP ranks, but the extravagant dress, hairstyles, and unbiblical mandates that are placed at the salvational level make it next to impossible to fellowship with them, which leaves you kind of out in left field. And looking around at the different organizations, and churches out there, the WoF is infiltrating almost every church now. It is just sickening to hear it. Bleh! Makes my stomach turn too.

I understand your decision to stay where you are at, it is the lesser of two evils, I guess, but there is always the hope that there is going to be more and more people that God will bring out of that mindset who will love holiness of heart more than the outward dress code, and who will embrace giving as the standard of the apostles, and not the catholic-led tithing doctrine, and who will continue to worship and praise Jesus as the Almighty God. I pray that the Lord begins to raise up men who are willing to stand against the flow and tide of the current OP churches today, and that one day such a church will open its doors near you or me, and even perhaps that the Lord would call you to begin such a work yourself.

* note*

I meant to write the UPC could have had much more impact had they NOT decided that standards was the hill to fight on
( and die on).

I think your really close to understanding where I'm coming from.

I just want to clarify something. I do think the non charismatic reformed/conservative evangelical wing of Christianity includes many saved people. There are some excellent preachers and teachers. They're are people who ate zealous for evangelism. There are many who love holiness and abhor holiness (and they know precious little of anything resembling standards, yet they believe in modesty, godliness, holiness and all such virtues). I believe they are good Christian people. I love them. I enjoy their fellowship. I believe they are saved.
But its not the same fellowship as with other oneness believers. I can elaborate on that if needed.


As far as men who are willing to stand against the flow of OP churches, I am more than willing to. And to do it in love. I remained faithful to my pastor and church until his death despite the fact he told me I'd go to hell for not tithing and abruptly ended my preaching ministry. (At the time). Still I was loyal to him, moved away but drove an hour one way to all three weekly services. Visited him at his home as he suffered through cancer, and keep his pic in my living room and one in my study. I love the man. I believe I can oppose doctrine and dialogue with love.

What I have found to be the case though is if you buck the system and challenge anything your person will be assassinated. Men far greater than me (I'm a nobody. I know it. I accept it. I'm fine with it. I'm not trying to suggest I'm anything note than an obscure preacher in a small town)...have trued. Loren Yadon, recently Steve Pixler. Guys who if the movement were ever going to listen it would've those guys. But instead they dispose of them like the plague.

Which brings me to your last comment about starting a work. Actually I am pastoring a church right now, but its a Bible Church (long story I can share if needed on PM, and some stuff publicly). See beliefs here Fellowshipbiblentx.org

One more thing to consider as far as different groups of believers being saved. Jesus didn't tell the Pharisees, Sadducees, Ebionites or other Jewish sects they were heretical or non Jewish. He did line up with the Pharisees doctrinally more than the other groups but didn't condemn them.

Likewise when he told John not to forbid the nan casting out devils just because he wasn't part of their group. I think this indicates we are much more willing to divide and condemn others if the same faith to hell than God is.

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

I definitely believe that there are many saved believers outside the OP circles, and I didn't mean to imply that there weren't in my previous post.

And you are right in that many who leave the OP circles are treated horribly by those who once loved them, and that is sad too.

Glad to hear that you are able to do your part for the kingdom of God right where you are. The Lord will bless your efforts :)

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Jesus did say that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. So... even with correct doctrine, as perhaps some of the Pharisees had, and even outward righteousness, without INWARD righteousness it will be impossible to enter the kingdom of heaven. Inward holiness was always the point Jesus was trying to teach to the Pharisees, who were stuck on the outward. Not much has changed today either.

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

Amen!:highfive

Re: Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics
 

But here's a strange thing. I find it generally just as hard to have close fellowship with the Oneness people who don't see the OTHER THINGS I see!