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

[Originalist]

[QUOTE=Sean;1324668]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I told you I would drop the "E" bomb on you if you try to tell me the Acts 2:38 skippers are saved!

You miss the point here. God obviously does NOT consider them to be Acts 2:38 skippers. You try to bind God and insist that he require absolute perfection in order for Acts 2:38 to have been truly fulfilled. He defies you by adopting people into his family by his Spirit who stumbled around but were still making Jesus their Lord and repenting, howbeit with an imperfect baptism. Stop being the judge of another man's servant.

As I've pointed out before, guys like G.T. Haywood and Andrew Urshan would not agree with you.

[Sean]

[QUOTE=Originalist;1324670]

Originally Posted by Sean

You miss the point here. God obviously does NOT consider them to be Acts 2:38 skippers. You try to bind God and insist that he require absolute perfection in order for Acts 2:38 to have been truly fulfilled. He defies you by adopting people into his family by his Spirit who stumbled around but were still making Jesus their Lord and repenting, howbeit with an imperfect baptism. Stop being the judge of another man's servant.

As I've pointed out before, guys like G.T. Haywood and Andrew Urshan would not agree with you.

Bro, that is a cop out.....Im making an undisputable point to help someone see the truth and you say that "your judging".....I am not trying to win an argument, I am trying to win a soul. If John the Baptist got in your face and shouted..."REPENT"!!!, would you tell him..."your judging". These men, if not Bapized in the name of Jesus will go into eternity wil their sins UNREMITTED. That is a terrifying place to be as a believer in Jesus.



Matthew 7:21-24King James Version (KJV)

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


These folks were not BAPTIZED (into) CHRIST, but knew how to use His name....

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Originalist

A couple of things.

Most one stepper Pentecostals affirm the initial evidence teaching, though they say it is subsequent to the new birth.

True. I don't consider myself "pentecostal" in large part because I deny the initial evidence doctrine.

Originally Posted by Originalist

Secondly, even if the initial evidence doctrine is not true in all cases, this does not change the fact that those in Acts did not receive the Spirit automatically upon conversion, with the exception of Cornelius. There was a delay of moments to possibly days.

While I understand why you say this, I don't think thats a fact at all. Really only with the exception of the Samaritans in Acts 8 is there any gap of time whatsoever between someone converting and receiving the Holy Spirit. I assert that there was a special reason God had for using the manifestation of tongues in Acts 2,8,10, and 19, and that this was not the normative experience for all Christian converts in Acts.

For example, consider that there is no suggestion that the 3,000 in Acts 2 ever spoke in tongues, nor the 5,000 in Acts 4, nor the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8, nor the Philippian jailers household in Acts 16, nor any of the above listed 21 conversions, with the exception of 3, specifically Samaritans, Conrelius, and John's disciples in Ephesus.

Really I think the Jerusalem council is a very telling narrative that tongues WAS NOT considered the initial evidence of the Spirit, nor expected when preaching the gospel to sinners. Consider that Peter went to Cornelius' house in Acts 10, and then after some time Paul and Barnabas end up preaching to the Gentiles in Antioch and have a wider Gentile ministry. They are seeing conversions and fruit from their ministry. But then when the Judaizers come and say except these new converts be circumcised they cannot be saved, so they go up to Jerusalem to the council where after a very passionate debate about whether or not the Gentiles could be saved without circumcision Peter finally speaks up and calls everyone's attention back to the experience in Cornelius household that happened several years previous to this council. His argument is so convincing that it settles the issue. so let me ask you, *IF* every single time a Gentile converted they received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues, then why was Peter's argument so powerful? Why didn't Paul and Barnabas just say "guys when we preach the gospel to the Gentile they receive the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues." If this was common place then there would be no need for the argument about circumcision because the Gentiles would have had an outward evidence in fact that God had accepted them. But it wasn't the normative experience which is why Peter had to reference a one time event that happened several years previously. What happened at Cornelius house was directly identified with what happened in Acts 2 and Acts 8 and that is the sign God used to bring all these people groups together into one unified body. But we make an interpretational mistake when we assume this happened at all the time universally.

[Originalist]

[QUOTE=Sean;1324671]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Bro, that is a cop out.....Im making an undisputable point to help someone see the truth and you say that "your judging".....I am not trying to win an argument, I am trying to win a soul. If John the Baptist got in your face and shouted..."REPENT"!!!, would you tell him..."your judging". These men, if not Bapized in the name of Jesus will go into eternity wil their sins UNREMITTED.That is a terrifying place to be as a believer in Jesus.



Matthew 7:21-24King James Version (KJV)

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


These folks were not BAPTIZED (into) CHRIST, but knew how to use His name....

What does the passage in Matthew have to do with what we have been talking about? NOTHING. Apples and oranges, my brother.
You are choosing to ignore so much that has been presented to you out of a misplaced sense of obligation. You don't "win" someone who has already been won.

I'm not referring to people like this passage in Matthew describes. I'm talking about broken people, repenting, humbled under the shadow of a blood stained cross,crying out for mercy.

[Sean]

[QUOTE=Originalist;1324673]

Originally Posted by Sean

What does the passage in Matthew have to do with what we have been talking about? NOTHING. apples and oranges, my brother.
You are choosing to ignore so much that has been presented to you out of a misplaced sense of obligation. You don't "win" someone who has already been won.

I'm not referring to people like this passage in Matthew describes. I'm talking about broken people, repenting, humbled under the shadow of a blood stained cross,crying out for mercy.

Yeah right, humble loving folks that scratch and claw at scripture with all they got and build universities to create teachers to teach masses to NOT get baptized in the name of Jesus and so humbly teach others they do not need to be baptized in the Name of Jesus...Oh so humble...LOL



If these folks do not get it right, they will face the Lord at the great white throne and be judged according to their "works".

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

True. I don't consider myself "pentecostal" in large part because I deny the initial evidence doctrine.

While I understand why you say this, I don't think thats a fact at all. Really only with the exception of the Samaritans in Acts 8 is there any gap of time whatsoever between someone converting and receiving the Holy Spirit. I assert that there was a special reason God had for using the manifestation of tongues in Acts 2,8,10, and 19, and that this was not the normative experience for all Christian converts in Acts.

For example, consider that there is no suggestion that the 3,000 in Acts 2 ever spoke in tongues, nor the 5,000 in Acts 4, nor the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8, nor the Philippian jailers household in Acts 16, nor any of the above listed 21 conversions, with the exception of 3, specifically Samaritans, Conrelius, and John's disciples in Ephesus.

Really I think the Jerusalem council is a very telling narrative that tongues WAS NOT considered the initial evidence of the Spirit, nor expected when preaching the gospel to sinners. Consider that Peter went to Cornelius' house in Acts 10, and then after some time Paul and Barnabas end up preaching to the Gentiles in Antioch and have a wider Gentile ministry. They are seeing conversions and fruit from their ministry. But then when the Judaizers come and say except these new converts be circumcised they cannot be saved, so they go up to Jerusalem to the council where after a very passionate debate about whether or not the Gentiles could be saved without circumcision Peter finally speaks up and calls everyone's attention back to the experience in Cornelius household that happened several years previous to this council. His argument is so convincing that it settles the issue. so let me ask you, *IF* every single time a Gentile converted they received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues, then why was Peter's argument so powerful? Why didn't Paul and Barnabas just say "guys when we preach the gospel to the Gentile they receive the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues." If this was common place then there would be no need for the argument about circumcision because the Gentiles would have had an outward evidence in fact that God had accepted them. But it wasn't the normative experience which is why Peter had to reference a one time event that happened several years previously. What happened at Cornelius house was directly identified with what happened in Acts 2 and Acts 8 and that is the sign God used to bring all these people groups together into one unified body. But we make an interpretational mistake when we assume this happened at all the time universally.

In Acts 19 Paul asked the disciples of John the Baptist..."Did you receive the Holy Ghost WHEN you believed?"

It turned out they had not yet believed at all. But if the Spirit is received at the moment of belief, then why ask the question? Had they believed they would have received the Spirit according to most Evangelicals. By Evangelical theological thought this question of Paul makes no sense. Then notice that even at baptism they did not automatically receive the Spirit. It was a few moments AFTER baptism that they received the Spirit.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Sean

Jason, here is how your Bible was actually put together by the translators for your reading. It is in 3 categories....#1, the Gospels(to teach folks about Jesus)...#2, Acts(to teach us how to be saved)...#3 Epistles (to teach us(born again saints only) how to STAY saved). Reading it out of order causes false doctrine as your guys are experiencing in your "alternative" plan of salvation.

Sean did you get all of your theologically out of Search for Truth? You keep repeating the common mantra of oneness pentecostals. Yes I know this is how ya'll are taught to divide the Word, it is like a built in safe guard that keep you from understanding Biblical theology because before you really start you've already assumed 2/3rds of the new testament can't teach you anything about the plan of salvation.

But even back to you point, why simplify the gospels to simply teaching folks about Jesus, THEN DENY EXPLICIT STATEMENTS OF JESUS HIMSELF HOW TO BE SAVED? While I agree that the gospels teach folks about Jesus, I would argue that if someone was on a remote island and only had the gospel of John they could get saved. or the gospel of Mark, or any of the 4 gospels. I would counter you position by stating you can teach salvation from the gospels. I find it odd that oneness pentecostals exclude the gospels when presenting the gospel.

Again, this is seen in the way you're approaching theology, because rather than gather all the Bible says on a subject and allowing scripture to interpret and explain scripture, you are writing off a large portion of scripture which is profitable for doctrine. And even if you only use Acts, you are not consistent in your handling of that book, as I pointed out by noting the 21 conversions in Acts. You take the 3 that fit your paradigm and throw the rest out as incomplete. You ignore the fact that even in Acts 2 the 3,000 are baptized and that is sufficient to be added to the church.

Originally Posted by Sean

Jason, here are some things you kinda passed up...
Acts 2:38..."repent and be baptized for the (remission of sins)"

Pretty sure I didn't pass this up, I had a pretty long post to originalist on this.

Originally Posted by Sean

2:41....3000 souls were added(baptized) (no Spirit indicated yet)

The Bible says they were added to the church. Why would you assume they did not have the Spirit? If they didn't have the Spirit, they didn't belong to Christ (Romans 8:9).

Originally Posted by Sean

8:12....both men and women baptized in Samaria (no Spirit yet)
8:13....Simon baptized (no Spirit indicated yet)
8:16....Samaritans baptized only, (no Spirit yet)

All one account, and yet this is the ONLY place in ACTS we are told specifically they DID NOT receive the Holy Spirit, I don't think its illogical to believe this is because God was doing a special work.

Originally Posted by Sean

8:38....Ethiopian eunuch baptized (no Spirit indicated yet)

9:18....Saul(Paul) baptized

10:48....Gentiles baptized

16:15....Lydia and her household baptized (no Spirit indicated yet)

16:33....Philippian jailer and his household baptized (no Spirit indicated yet)

18:18....Crispus, all his house and many Corinthians baptized (no spirit indicated yet)

19:5....Disciples of John rebaptized

19:16....the statement is made "ARISE, BE BAPTIZED, WASHING AWAY THY SINS".

I'm not sure your point, you seem like your proving my point, that the book of Acts doesn't support the initial evidence theory.

[Originalist]

[QUOTE=Sean;1324674]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Yeah right, humble loving folks that scratch and claw at scripture with all they got and build universities to create teachers to teach masses to NOT get baptized in the name of Jesus and so humbly teach others they do not need to be baptized in the Name of Jesus...Oh so humble...LOL



If these folks do not get it right, they will face the Lord at the great white throne and be judged according to their "works".

You are guilty of the very thing you are accusing them of, painting with a broad brush. You are now resorting to creating straw man arguments. Are those Africans in the jungle who are responding to a gospel message by a AoG missionary guilty of what you describe here? Are you so vain that you actually think that the majority of those Christians outside of our ranks even know we exist, much less actually invest time plotting on how they can undermine our message? Oh you are deceived!!

You better have EVERYTHING right, lest God judge YOU by the same standard you are placing on others. If you are missing God doctrinally on even one point, then you will join all those Trinitarians in hell! You better get it right!!

If God adopted them by his Spirit, he thinks they got it right.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Sean did you get all of your theologically out of Search for Truth? You keep repeating the common mantra of oneness pentecostals. Yes I know this is how ya'll are taught to divide the Word, it is like a built in safe guard that keep you from understanding Biblical theology because before you really start you've already assumed 2/3rds of the new testament can't teach you anything about the plan of salvation.

But even back to you point, why simplify the gospels to simply teaching folks about Jesus, THEN DENY EXPLICIT STATEMENTS OF JESUS HIMSELF HOW TO BE SAVED? While I agree that the gospels teach folks about Jesus, I would argue that if someone was on a remote island and only had the gospel of John they could get saved. or the gospel of Mark, or any of the 4 gospels. I would counter you position by stating you can teach salvation from the gospels. I find it odd that oneness pentecostals exclude the gospels when presenting the gospel.

Again, this is seen in the way you're approaching theology, because rather than gather all the Bible says on a subject and allowing scripture to interpret and explain scripture, you are writing off a large portion of scripture which is profitable for doctrine. And even if you only use Acts, you are not consistent in your handling of that book, as I pointed out by noting the 21 conversions in Acts. You take the 3 that fit your paradigm and throw the rest out as incomplete. You ignore the fact that even in Acts 2 the 3,000 are baptized and that is sufficient to be added to the church.

Pretty sure I didn't pass this up, I had a pretty long post to originalist on this.

The Bible says they were added to the church. Why would you assume they did not have the Spirit? If they didn't have the Spirit, they didn't belong to Christ (Romans 8:9).

All one account, and yet this is the ONLY place in ACTS we are told specifically they DID NOT receive the Holy Spirit, I don't think its illogical to believe this is because God was doing a special work.


I'm not sure your point, you seem like your proving my point, that the book of Acts doesn't support the initial evidence theory.

Jason, do you really need my explanation(innocently) or are you just a LONG TIME Acts 2:38 fighter. If you are seriously interested I will explain your mistakes here for you to correct. I know, if you are not baptized in Jesus name you are not in the Church, Holy Ghost or not. You might think I am a jerk for saying that, but for you, being my fellow human being, I am obligated by the Lord to tell you that. I dont care if you baptize yourself in the Name of Jesus in secret just to make sure that you are baptized right...JUST DO IT!

[Sean]

[QUOTE=Originalist;1324677]

Originally Posted by Sean

You are guilty of the very thing you are accusing them of, painting with a broad brush. You are now resorting to creating straw man arguments. Are those Africans in the jungle who are responding to a gospel message by a AoG missionary guilty of what you describe here? Are you so vain that you actually think that the majority of those Christians outside of our ranks even know we exist, much less actually invest time plotting on how they can undermine our message? Oh you are deceived!!

You better have EVERYTHING right, lest God judge YOU by the same standard you are placing on others. If you are missing God doctrinally on even one point, then you will join all those Trinitarians in hell! You better get it right!!

If God adopted them by his Spirit, he thinks they got it right.

If those INNOCENT folks, filled with love,(whatever religion they are) are not baptized, they will die under the Law and should find mercy at the Great White Throne. But the deceivers(lying teachers), will not stand a chance there.....