My Former A/G Pastor Disappointed w/ My Decision

[Farfel]

Originally Posted by seekerman

That may be true. Could it be that the trinitarians in 1914 were less tolerant of oneness pentecostals than the oneness pentecostals were of them?

Originally Posted by Esaias

It was the trinitarians who forced OPs out with the Statement of Faith back in 1914/15, was it not?

The OPs were content to stay in fellowship. The trinitarians were not.

BTW, many trinitarians left at the same time because of what they saw happen then.

I'm not sure, because the 1916 AG resolution that caused the OPs to walk out said this:

"RESOLVED, That since the words in Matth. 28:19 and the words in Acts 2:38 were both inspired of God, we hereby disapprove of contending for the one to the exclusion of or as against the other, because confusion and a party spirit are sure to follow such unscriptural conduct. This Council, therefore recommends that all our preachers include in their formula used in connection with the act of baptism the words used by Jesus in Matth. 28:19."

Notice that arguing about formulas was condemned, and nowhere in the resolution does it say that no one is allowed to baptize in Jesus' name, it was only recommended that it be done that way.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Farfel

I'm not sure, because the 1916 AG resolution that caused the OPs to walk out said this:

"RESOLVED, That since the words in Matth. 28:19 and the words in
Acts 2:38 were both inspired of God, we hereby disapprove of contending
for the one to the exclusion of or as against the other, because confusion and
a party spirit are sure to follow such unscriptural conduct. This Council, therefore recommends that all our preachers include in their formula used
in connection with the act of baptism the words used by Jesus in Matth. 28:19."

Notice that arguing about formulas was condemned, and nowhere in the resolution does it say that no one is allowed to baptize in Jesus' name, it was only recommended that it be done that way.

Sure doesn't sound like the divisive issue it's become today.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Sure doesn't sound like the divisive issue it's become today.

It was pretty divisive in the 3rd and 4th centuries...

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It was pretty divisive in the 3rd and 4th centuries...

How do you know?

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What is the gospel message? Does it include 'be baptised in Jesus name for the remission of sins'?

If our teaching concerning baptism and the Holy Ghost is NOT BIBLICAL, then are we not FALSE TEACHERS?

Or does it really matter what a person or church believes?

I believe everybody that comes to Christ should be baptized in Jesus name and receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I just don't think they are salvation. Baptism is a sacrament where a believer does it as an outward and visible sign of us burying our old life and rising into a new life with Christ. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is an empowerment subsequent to salvatoin.

The question is not does one HAVE to be baptized in Jesus name and receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit with speaking on tongues but why would one not want to if they have given their life to Christ?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by CC1

I believe everybody that comes to Christ should be baptized in Jesus name and receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I just don't think they are salvation. Baptism is a sacrament where a believer does it as an outward and visible sign of us burying our old life and rising into a new life with Christ. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is an empowerment subsequent to salvatoin.

The question is not does one HAVE to be baptized in Jesus name and receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit with speaking on tongues but why would one not want to if they have given their life to Christ?

Just to be clear on my position, I'm all for individuals having the baptizor intone the name of Jesus over the individual they're baptizing. In my view, the person is uttering the name of the redeemer, our savior and that's good and proper. But I don't believe it affects the baptizee's salvation at all.

Folks received the baptism of the Holy Ghost without tongues. I hesitate to say that for it'll mean the 12, 944th thread about tongues but lack of tongues does not mean that an individual isn't saved. On the other hand, there is definitely a deeper level of intimacy with Christ if one does speak in tongues. I know in my life, it's made a big difference in my prayer life. Seeking tongues, gettin' the Holy Ghost, seeking the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues are all phrases used which scripture doesn't support though.

[Whole Hearted]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Honestly if he showed up at the house I would be preaching about the onel and only church and how everyone outside of the Acts 2:38 message was lost. If that offended him it would be better if he wasn't there. A little leaven leaventh the lump Paul said. If he wanted help I would do everything in my power to help him and his family but no one is bringing false doctrine into the church I pastor without a strong warning. Go ahead a shoot but I am straight forward. He would be more than welcome if he wants help.

[jen4yeshua]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Just try being an OP in a Baptist church. You'll get to hear sermons with anecdotes about how 'one time some wonderful saved people met a guy who told them if they didn't speak in tongues they was lost', OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Or try being an OP at your own physical brother's funeral at a Campbellite church, and when the song Amazing Grace is being sung you SILENTLY stand up and raise your hands in SILENT prayer and you have the usher GRAB you by the shoulder, YANK you back and direct you towards the door while quietly telling you 'WE don't do that here'...

Yeah, trust me, oneness Pentecostals do NOT have a corner on anything you complain about.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Farfel

I'm not sure, because the 1916 AG resolution that caused the OPs to walk out said this:

"RESOLVED, That since the words in Matth. 28:19 and the words in Acts 2:38 were both inspired of God, we hereby disapprove of contending for the one to the exclusion of or as against the other, because confusion and a party spirit are sure to follow such unscriptural conduct. This Council, therefore recommends that all our preachers include in their formula used in connection with the act of baptism the words used by Jesus in Matth. 28:19."

Notice that arguing about formulas was condemned, and nowhere in the resolution does it say that no one is allowed to baptize in Jesus' name, it was only recommended that it be done that way.

Eh.....

From Wikipedia

"Old preaching credentials were recalled and new ones issued with the Fundamental Truths included"

Which means they are required to agree with that resolution. I wouldn't agree if I believed baptism was supposed to be done in Jesus name, would you?

Further that sort of reminds me of the Westburg resolution introduced years later to the UPCI that forbade "arguing Standards".

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

If I dropped the ball please forgive me!

Hey Bro,
I just want to take the time to publicly express how much I appreciate your efforts to reach out to me!

Thank you. Thank you very, very much.

"Let brotherly love continue."