Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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.

Have I ever read a truth so succintly expressed!

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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

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.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

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.

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.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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.

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".

[Michael The Disciple]

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

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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.

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.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

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".

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.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

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.

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).

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

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

I did watch it. Very good.

[Michael The Disciple]

Jason

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).

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.