All Trinitarians are Lost!!!!!!!!!!!

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Having this conversation in times past, I asked Bro. Epley if he had a problem with the person being baptized speaking their own words and he said that he did not have a problem with that at all - just for the record.

Scripture teaches that it's the person being baptized speaking the words, not some goober who calls himself a preacher or bishop or some such thing intoning proper words in some sort of modified Romanist ritual of baptismal regeneration.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Additionally, water isn't the redemptive element of the individual, the blood of the Lamb is. The blood of the Lamb is something that oneness Pentecostals seldom mention when speaking of salvation though. It's almost always the holy oneness trinity of tongues, water baptism with a man saying the proper words over the individual and a list of standards. Where is the blood, the cross, the sacrifice of the Lamb, the perfect High Priest in oneness pentecostal salvation theology. Alas, it all takes a back seat to tongues and baptism and standards most of the time.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by seekerman

It's a Romanist system. Folks like Epley believe that a person's salvation hinges on the words spoken by them as they're immersing someone, yet another attempt to place themselves between an individual and God. Pure Romanist teachings.

Arise "be baptize having his name invoked is in the MIDDLE voice." No such thing as self baptism. Now Annias is a Romanist.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Arise "be baptize having his name invoked is in the MIDDLE voice." No such thing as self baptism. Now Annias is a Romanist.

You've pointed this out before and I had hoped that you'd had realized your original error by now. You still haven't learned what the MIDDLE voice "epikalesamenos" means in this passage. It means that the person who is the subject of the action is doing the action. Paul, who is being baptized in this instance, is the one calling on the name of the Lord thus "epikalesamenos" is used.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Pliny

If you received the Holy Ghost then you are commanded to be baptized in Jesus name. To fail to do that means you have aborted the birth process and you are DOA. Until a person is born again of the water and Spirit they cannot go to heaven.

Edited to add: God breathed the breath of life upon you and until you are baptized in Jesus name you are in the birth canal of the mother. Only after the "water" is broken (baptism takes place) you are not a full fledged member of the body. Paul was speaking to those who had already passed through the waters of baptism and were in context members of the body. The place in scripture where someone had received the Holy Ghost prior to baptism were immediately commanded to be baptized to complete the birth.

None of the analogies you have used here can be substantiated with scripture. Understand, I am declaring here that the baptism in the Holy Ghost is the new birth of the Spirit and not some "second blessing". But the Bible is clear, as stated in Ephesians chapter one verses 13-14, that the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is God's sign of ownership on a life, and a validation that they have been redeemed by the blood.

Granted, only those who have truly repented and surrendered to Christ can receive it, and normally, the party has already been baptized in water. But to say that they are "in the birth canal" blah blah blah simply is not scripture. Repentance (including water baptism) is the birth canal, but Spirit baptism IS the new birth.

There is only one case in the Bible where someone received the Spirit prior to baptism, but that was a special case that God used to demonstrate that salvation was also for the Gentiles. The blood had been applied at Calvary for Cornelius as well. Based on his simple trust, God willingly filled him with the Spirit, proclaiming him to be part of the Body. Yes, God bent his own "rules" concerning baptism, and that is his prerogative. And I don't believe that Cornelius would have gone to Hell had he been killed on his way to the waters of baptism. But I find no scriptural support at all for the common practice of praying for people to receive the Spirit prior to water baptism. God does do it, but mainly because he having to work around someone's ignorance.

But back to my original point. It is ludicrous and un-Biblical to say that someone is "lost" or an "abortion" who God has marked as his own by baptizing them with his Spirit. This does mean that God will not hold accountable the one who baptized them wrongly. But if the Spirit is in them, and they are bearing fruit, they are God's. Deal with it.

Now, if you want to consign them to Hell because they "didn't obey the truth", be careful. Do you really want God to judge YOU by that same standard? What truth are YOU missing? ALL of us, through human weakness and ignorance, are missing the mark on some point in scripture. If God judges us by the same standard we lay on those who have the Spirit but were baptized incorrectly, then Heaven will be empty my friend.

As for the Trinity issue, a perfect understanding of the Godhead is not a scriptural requirement for salvation. The very fact that God baptizes converts in Trinitarian churches with the Spirit is an indication of this. There is no sinner repenting in a Oneness altar or Trintarian altar who even knows that there is a disagreement between the two groups concerning the Godhead. I've never heard a Oneness preacher require that a new convert profess a belief in the Onensss doctrine before he'll baptize them or pray for them to receive the Spirit. This why Steve Epley's argument is so silly. It's no wonder some label us a cult with that kind of nonsense being taught.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Originalist

None of the analogies you have used here can be substantiated with scripture. Understand, I am declaring here that the baptism in the Holy Ghost is the new birth of the Spirit and not some "second blessing". But the Bible is clear, as stated in Ephesians chapter one verses 13-14, that the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is God's sign of ownership on a life, and a validation that they have been redeemed by the blood.

Acts 10. And John 3. Yest that is in the Bible. The new birth is an analogy made by Jesus Himself. Born again of the water and the Spirit. Being born... You may not like it but there it is.

Granted, only those who have truly repented and surrendered to Christ can receive it, and normally, the party has already been baptized in water. But to say that they are "in the birth canal" blah blah blah simply is not scripture. Repentance (including water baptism) is the birth canal, but Spirit baptism IS the new birth.

[COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]Blah blah blah... Then you effectively say the same thing only saying the "birth canal" is repentance. How absolutely absurd to mock what I said then go and say essentially the same thing. Seriously???[/COLOR]

There is only one case in the Bible where someone received the Spirit prior to baptism, but that was a special case that God used to demonstrate that salvation was also for the Gentiles. The blood had been applied at Calvary for Cornelius as well. Based on his simple trust, God willingly filled him with the Spirit, proclaiming him to be part of the Body. Yes, God bent his own "rules" concerning baptism, and that is his prerogative. And I don't believe that Cornelius would have gone to Hell had he been killed on his way to the waters of baptism. But I find no scriptural support at all for the common practice of praying for people to receive the Spirit prior to water baptism. God does do it, but mainly because he having to work around someone's ignorance.

Okay so we erase scripture to fit your preconceived notion of scripture. Got it. So you do not see baptism as part of the new birth experience. So according to you he died in the birth canal, here is your quote:
"Repentance (including water baptism) is the birth canal, but Spirit baptism IS the new birth. "

[COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]Seriously? Baptism is not an essential part of the new birth experience? Do you not understand that it is part of the new birth and for the remission of sins?[/COLOR]

But back to my original point. It is ludicrous and un-Biblical to say that someone is "lost" or an "abortion" who God has marked as his own by baptizing them with his Spirit. This does mean that God will not hold accountable the one who baptized them wrongly. But if the Spirit is in them, and they are bearing fruit, they are God's. Deal with it.

[COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]As far as "dealing with it" goes I am deal with it. The "un-biblical" doctrine is the doctrine you are professing here. This doctrine started with the Reformation are you aware of that? Historically speaking baptism has always universally been understood to wash away sin and effect the new birth. This "new" doctrine that started with the Reformers is what will send many to a Devil's hell.[/COLOR]

Now, if you want to consign them to Hell because they "didn't obey the truth", be careful. Do you really want God to judge YOU by that same standard? What truth are YOU missing? ALL of us, through human weakness and ignorance, are missing the mark on some point in scripture. If God judges us by the same standard we lay on those who have the Spirit but were baptized incorrectly, then Heaven will be empty my friend.

As for the Trinity issue, a perfect understanding of the Godhead is not a scriptural requirement for salvation. The very fact that God baptizes converts in Trinitarian churches with the Spirit is an indication of this. There is no sinner repenting in a Oneness altar or Trintarian altar who even knows that there is a disagreement between the two groups concerning the Godhead. I've never heard a Oneness preacher require that a new convert profess a belief in the Onensss doctrine before he'll baptize them or pray for them to receive the Spirit. This why Steve Epley's argument is so silly. It's no wonder some label us a cult with that kind of nonsense being taught.

Elder Epley can speak for himself. Many Trinitarians are lost because they have another gospel.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Elder Epley can speak for himself. Many Trinitarians are lost because they have another gospel.

You don't have a clue about the redemptive power of the blood of the Lamb.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Elder Epley can speak for himself. Many Trinitarians are lost because they have another gospel.

The gospel is the death,burial, and reurrection of Christ. Trinitarians beleive that. I was an AoG minister for many years and I know what I speak of. I didn't start believing a new gospel when I joined the oneness ranks.

Furthermore, you have mis-represented my statements, though probably unintentionally.

I never said that water baptism was not part of the new birth process. I clearly said that water baptism is the "birth canal" you spoke of. Spirit baltism is the new birth. However, to have the new, we must put off the old, and that is where water baptism comes into play.

Concerning "being born of the water and of the Spirit" in John 3:5. Jesus is describing ONE event here, ONE birth. The singular word 'birth' (not "births") demonstrates. This is the same principle we use to argue that Matthew 28:19 is speaking of one singular name and not names. The term "and' as in "water AND Spirit" is the Greek word "KAI" which can be translated "even". In my opinion, Jesus is saying "be born of water, EVEN of the Spirit". This is in total agreement with jesus' despiction of the new birth of the Spirit being like "living water" found in john chapters 4 and 7. However, even if John 3:5 is not referring to water baptism, there are are still many other verses that teach the absolute necessity of water baptism.

As far as "dealing with it" goes I am deal with it. The "un-biblical" doctrine is the doctrine you are professing here. This doctrine started with the Reformation are you aware of that? Historically speaking baptism has always universally been understood to wash away sin and effect the new birth. This "new" doctrine that started with the Reformers is what will send many to a Devil's hell.

We are in agreement. I never denied that baptism is for the remission of sin. But the greatest proof that God can give that he has remitted someone's sins is to baptize them with the Holy Ghost. If you say that someone who is Spirit filled is still in under the condemnation of sin,then you have a horrible understanding of Spirit baptism.


Continuing, why did you not comment on my statements here?

Now, if you want to consign them to Hell because they "didn't obey the truth", be careful. Do you really want God to judge YOU by that same standard? What truth are YOU missing? ALL of us, through human weakness and ignorance, are missing the mark on some point in scripture. If God judges us by the same standard we lay on those who have the Spirit but were baptized incorrectly, then Heaven will be empty my friend.

As for the Trinity issue, a perfect understanding of the Godhead is not a scriptural requirement for salvation. The very fact that God baptizes converts in Trinitarian churches with the Spirit is an indication of this. There is no sinner repenting in a Oneness altar or Trintarian altar who even knows that there is a disagreement between the two groups concerning the Godhead. I've never heard a Oneness preacher require that a new convert profess a belief in the Onensss doctrine before he'll baptize them or pray for them to receive the Spirit. This why Steve Epley's argument is so silly. It's no wonder some label us a cult with that kind of nonsense being taught.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Paul said that "By one Spirit you are baptized into one body". That's Bible. Was I or was I not baptized into the Body of Christ when Jesus filled me with the Holy Ghost back in 1980?


Again, I ask, since you refuse to answer the question...when God filled me with the Holy Ghost back in 1980, was he or wasn't he marking me as one of his own and having been redeemed by the blood of Christ? You are dodging the question. Furthermore, I'm not referring to "personal experience" in the context you say. I'm referring to have "personally experienced" THE experience mentioned by Paul in Ephesians 1:13-14. Did I receive that experience or not? Please don't cop out like a Mormon or JW and tap dance around the question.

I am happy you was filled with the Spirit however until your sins were remitted in water baptism in Jesus Name if you would have died you would have been lost. Is that direct enough.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I am happy you was filled with the Spirit however until your sins were remitted in water baptism in Jesus Name if you would have died you would have been lost. Is that direct enough.

Yet another preacher who rejects the sufficiency of the blood of the Lamb of God. And this yahoo thinks he some sort of head of some sort of 'church'? Heaven help us.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Yet another preacher who rejects the sufficiency of the blood of the Lamb of God. And this yahoo thinks he some sort of head of some sort of 'church'? Heaven help us.

And Moses thought he was the leader of the church in the wilderness...
Baptism is for the remission/forgiveness of sins period.

Most who deny baptism seek refuge in the "sufficiency of the blood". Then state something similar to the blood being shed for all yet can't seem to see that just because Christ shed His blood for the whole world does not mean the whole world is saved. A person must repent and be baptized in Jesus name for the remission/forgiveness of sins. Then they receive the Holy Ghost but not necessarily in that order. A person must be born again.

The irony here is the fighting against something Christ commanded. Sooo... They seek refuge in Christ while denying the commands of Christ. The apostle John had some strong words for this mindset:
1Jn 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.