Ripped pages out of the bible! - Page 5

Old Paths · #41 12-25-2012, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekerman

You sure know how to hurt a guy.

Man, I wouldn't deliberately hurt you, but from what I read, the impression you leave with your answers are typical trinitarian dodge ball answers.

Sorry.................

seekerman · #42 12-25-2012, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Paths

Man, I wouldn't deliberately hurt you, but from what I read, the impression you leave with your answers are typical trinitarian dodge ball answers.

Sorry.................

And you're a poster child for oneness pentecostals when it comes to discussing the blood of the Lamb.

I'm not a trinitarian. Always back to the oneness holy trinity, isn't it.

Old Paths · #43 12-25-2012, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekerman

And you're a poster child for oneness pentecostals when it comes to discussing the blood of the Lamb.

I'm not a trinitarian. Always back to the oneness holy trinity, isn't it.

I've TRIED to discuss the Blood, but you won't answer any questions, but like the trinitarians that you defend, you dodge answering by acting as though no one will engage you.

Steve Epley · #44 12-25-2012, 07:35 PM

He don't have a clue about the Blood and what it does.

seekerman · #45 12-25-2012, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

He don't have a clue about the Blood and what it does.

Tell everyone how trinitarians are going to hell and stuff, but don't tell anyone how and when the blood of the Lamb of God is imputed unto a person, that would be a little much. I'm sure your view will include you somehow controlling the imputation of the blood to another individual, placing yourself between God and man for you live and breathe that kind of control over the children of God.

Go back to lording over one of the tens of thousands of churches of Jesus Christ and find a few more gullible folks who will actually believe that you're the mediator between God and man. I'm sure that'll stoke your ego for a while.

Let the 'aposotlic' choir sing in unison.....

"Nothing About The Blood Of Jesus"

Sam · #46 12-25-2012, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

He don't have a clue about the Blood and what it does.

I had a pastor who said, "Men can't forgive sin but they can remit sin by baptizing a person in the name of Jesus."

Sam · #47 12-25-2012, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Bishop Haywood died in 29 and he taught the new birth was Acts 2:38 and it was in the articles of faith in the PAW early on.

When was the PAW originally chartered/organized?

How early did Acts 2:38 become the plan of salvation in the PAW?

Can anyone let us know from the minutes of the meetings when that was adopted and by what margin it passed?

Steve Epley · #48 12-25-2012, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

When was the PAW originally chartered/organized?

How early did Acts 2:38 become the plan of salvation in the PAW?

Can anyone let us know from the minutes of the meetings when that was adopted and by what margin it passed?

It really never was controversary in the PAW. The PAW pretty muched towed the line whatever Bishop Haywood said. He wrote a book on the Birth of the Spirit and he died in 29.

trialedbyfire · #49 12-26-2012, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

It really never was controversary in the PAW. The PAW pretty muched towed the line whatever Bishop Haywood said. He wrote a book on the Birth of the Spirit and he died in 29.

There were a lot of controversies in the PAW early on, but that generally wasn't one of them, at least from my understanding amongst the blacks who generally were under Haywood's teaching. Remember the mostly white PCI split from the PAW in 1924, a lot of people don't realize it. When the PCI split I'd imagine that Haywood's teachings became far more dominant in the PAW then they were before. I'd also imagine that because of Haywoods strong stance and the black members of the PAWs strong allegiance to him the vast majority of the PAW taught water and spirit. I know that it was the primary teaching in the late 30s when Elder Ramsey Butler became the pastor of my former church in DC. There was a reorganization in 1934 I believe, I'd investigate that to see if it was there. I can tell you that 1/2 of the organization (probably more) doesn't believe water-spirit anymore, but that's a very recent development as of maybe the 90s.

MissBrattified · #50 12-27-2012, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

There is no one/single UPCI teaching on water baptism. ...

I strongly disagree with this statement. Every Oneness Apostolic I've ever met has believed the same thing about baptism: That at some point in the baptism the words "In Jesus' name" should be spoken. How people lead up to that or parse it isn't part of doctrine; it's personal preference.

Do you believe that's the important part? "In Jesus' name?" Or, if as you say, there are several different baptismal formulas (within the oneness movement), which one do you believe is correct?