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

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

Barton Atone and Alexander Cambell both denied the trinity and taught remission of sins through baptism in Jesus name 100 years BEFORE Azuza.

Barton Stone may have denied the trinity but seems to have denied the absolute deity of Jesus Christ also (subordinationist), he denied substitionary atonement, and certainly did not believe that only those who spoke in tongues were saved. You're desperate for anything and you grasp at Stones method of baptism but neither he, nor his movement have much in common with what you guys are espousing on this thread. Keep trying.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Acts 10 provides the ONLY evidence of knowing one has INITIALLY experienced Spirit baptism, and that is verified by having all major groups of people converted speak in tongues: Jews, Gentiles and disciples of John. It matters not what denominations agree with that. It is what the bible provided.

Then why didn't Paul and Barnabas just say they knew God accepted the Gentiles because when they got saved they received the HG with the evidence of tongues? Why? Why wasn't this common knowledge amongst all the council? Why did Peter have to reference a one time event from years past and connect to another event many years past (the day of Pentecost), if the Gentiles (and Jews for that matter) ALWAYS spoke in tongues when they received the HG?

You also just gloss over Acts 2:41-47 and the FACT there us no proof or even implication the 3,000 spoke in tongues nor the other examples in Acts I cited.

The only thing Acts 10 proves is God puts no distinction between Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles in the church. There are no preconditions to salvation, all is by grace through faith.

Notice also when Peter was preaching to Cornelius's household he didn't mention or seem to expect tongues, he preached salvation by faith (10:43) just like in Acts 3:19. God did a sovereign work by pouring out His Spirit with an external manifestation SO that Peter and the Jews would make the connection with Acts 2:4, which CH.11 shows they did.

You argument does not hold up to scripture without filling in several gaps with assumption.

[Originalist]

Epley is speculating and so am I. However, more than anything it was a fresh understanding of the baptism of the Holy Ghost that drew me into the Apostolic ranks to begin with, and it's from that understanding that I draw my hypothesis.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Then why didn't Paul and Barnabas just say they knew God accepted the Gentiles because when they got saved they received the HG with the evidence of tongues? Why? Why wasn't this common knowledge amongst all the council? Why did Peter have to reference a one time event from years past and connect to another event many years past (the day of Pentecost), if the Gentiles (and Jews for that matter) ALWAYS spoke in tongues when they received the HG?

You also just gloss over Acts 2:41-47 and the FACT there us no proof or even implication the 3,000 spoke in tongues nor the other examples in Acts I cited.

The only thing Acts 10 proves is God puts no distinction between Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles in the church. There are no preconditions to salvation, all is by grace through faith.

Notice also when Peter was preaching to Cornelius's household he didn't mention or seem to expect tongues, he preached salvation by faith (10:43) just like in Acts 3:19. God did a sovereign work by pouring out His Spirit with an external manifestation SO that Peter and the Jews would make the connection with Acts 2:4, which CH.11 shows they did.

You argument does not hold up to scripture without filling in several gaps with assumption.

Can you please tell us where Cornelius "got saved" before he received the Holy Ghost? Seriously. This is a make or break point.

Certainly Peter preached "salvation by faith", and God poured out salvation on Cornelius by way of washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Receiving the Spirit for regeneration and entrance into the Kingdom was foretold by John the Baptist and Christ and was preached by the Apostles. In short, the new birth of the Spirit and the baptism in the Spirit are one and the same. Nobody can show anywhere in Acts where anyone was first "saved" and then later received the Holy Ghost.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Barton Stone may have denied the trinity but seems to have denied the absolute deity of Jesus Christ also (subordinationist), he denied substitionary atonement, and certainly did not believe that only those who spoke in tongues were saved. You're desperate for anything and you grasp at Stones method of baptism but neither he, nor his movement have much in common with what you guys are espousing on this thread. Keep trying.

Ever read about the Cane Ridge Campmeeting?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Then why didn't Paul and Barnabas just say they knew God accepted the Gentiles because when they got saved they received the HG with the evidence of tongues? Why?

Peter did say that very thing! Not sure what you mean by Paul and Barnabas.

Act 11:15 KJV And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Act 15:8 KJV And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

He implied tongues.

Scholars agree:

GILL:

bore them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; God bore a testimony, and showed his well pleasedness in the whole of this affair, by bestowing upon them not only the regenerating and sanctifying grace of the Spirit; but his extraordinary gifts, such as speaking with divers tongues, even in like manner as these were bestowed on the apostles themselves, on the day of Pentecost, though they were uncircumcised persons;

Why wasn't this common knowledge amongst all the council? Why did Peter have to reference a one time event from years past and connect to another event many years past (the day of Pentecost), if the Gentiles (and Jews for that matter) ALWAYS spoke in tongues when they received the HG?

Peter INFORMED the council that they spoke with tongues and received the Spirit in that manner just as the Jews did in Acts 2.

You also just gloss over Acts 2:41-47 and the FACT there us no proof or even implication the 3,000 spoke in tongues nor the other examples in Acts I cited.

You argue from silence. The fact is the precedent was set, as Lafon noted. That would make it redundant to mention it every time once the precedent was set with the major groups of Jews, Gentiles and John's disciples.

The only thing Acts 10 proves is God puts no distinction between Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles in the church. There are no preconditions to salvation, all is by grace through faith.

Sure it is by grace. But Peter said God gave them the Spirit in the same way God gave it to the Jews, and that implies tongues. SINCE THAT is the only way Peter knew they had the Spirit, as noted in ch. 10, then Peter referenced that in his words.

Notice also when Peter was preaching to Cornelius's household he didn't mention or seem to expect tongues, he preached salvation by faith (10:43) just like in Acts 3:19.

He did not expect them to get the Holy Ghost, is the more correct conclusion. That was what he stressed at the council. THEY GOT THE HOLY GHOST! Go to ch 10 to see how he knew!

God did a sovereign work by pouring out His Spirit with an external manifestation SO that Peter and the Jews would make the connection with Acts 2:4, which CH.11 shows they did.

You argument does not hold up to scripture without filling in several gaps with assumption.

Not true. It stands that the only passage in the entire bible to indicate how to know people INITIALLY got the Spirit was the one pointing to tongues. And it occurred in all major works of God amongst Jews, Gentiles and John's disciples, as well as strongly implied with Samaritans.

In addition to that, the way in which Paul talked about prayer in tongues was in such a way that meant every believer was intednded to do so, in 1 Cor 14, not SOME as though God blesses some with that kind of prayer and not others.

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Then why didn't Paul and Barnabas just say they knew God accepted the Gentiles because when they got saved they received the HG with the evidence of tongues? Why? Why wasn't this common knowledge amongst all the council? Why did Peter have to reference a one time event from years past and connect to another event many years past (the day of Pentecost), if the Gentiles (and Jews for that matter) ALWAYS spoke in tongues when they received the HG?

You also just gloss over Acts 2:41-47 and the FACT there us no proof or even implication the 3,000 spoke in tongues nor the other examples in Acts I cited.

The only thing Acts 10 proves is God puts no distinction between Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles in the church. There are no preconditions to salvation, all is by grace through faith.

Notice also when Peter was preaching to Cornelius's household he didn't mention or seem to expect tongues, he preached salvation by faith (10:43) just like in Acts 3:19. God did a sovereign work by pouring out His Spirit with an external manifestation SO that Peter and the Jews would make the connection with Acts 2:4, which CH.11 shows they did.

You argument does not hold up to scripture without filling in several gaps with assumption.

See, the reason I post about Stone was NOT because he had a grip on all the doctrines of the Bible, but because there are those that think the church died in then 3rd century and never came alive until Luther (which I vehemently deny Matt. 16:18). There have always been tongue talkers since Pentecost, where they "UPC", nope, At the Cane Ridge revival that Bro. Epley mentioned folks spoke in tongues in 1891, a ffull 100 years before Azuza, Also, in the 1800s men like Stone were called Unitarian (they denied the trinity and believed God was one).

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Peter did say that very thing! Not sure what you mean by Paul and Barnabas.

Act 11:15 KJV And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Act 15:8 KJV And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

He implied tongues.

Scholars agree:

GILL:

bore them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; God bore a testimony, and showed his well pleasedness in the whole of this affair, by bestowing upon them not only the regenerating and sanctifying grace of the Spirit; but his extraordinary gifts, such as speaking with divers tongues, even in like manner as these were bestowed on the apostles themselves, on the day of Pentecost, though they were uncircumcised persons;



Peter INFORMED the council that they spoke with tongues and received the Spirit in that manner just as the Jews did in Acts 2.



You argue from silence. The fact is the precedent was set, as Lafon noted. That would make it redundant to mention it every time once the precedent was set with the major groups of Jews, Gentiles and John's disciples.



Sure it is by grace. But Peter said God gave them the Spirit in the same way God gave it to the Jews, and that implies tongues. SINCE THAT is the only way Peter knew they had the Spirit, as noted in ch. 10, then Peter referenced that in his words.



He did not expect them to get the Holy Ghost, is the more correct conclusion. That was what he stressed at the council. THEY GOT THE HOLY GHOST! Go to ch 10 to see how he knew!



Not true. It stands that the only passage in the entire bible to indicate how to know people INITIALLY got the Spirit was the one pointing to tongues. And it occurred in all major works of God amongst Jews, Gentiles and John's disciples, as well as strongly implied with Samaritans.

In addition to that, the way in which Paul talked about prayer in tongues was in such a way that meant every believer was intednded to do so, in 1 Cor 14, not SOME as though God blesses some with that kind of prayer and not others.

Thank you.

[Jabez]

Originally Posted by Jabez

Bet you all are going to be surprised at who you see in heaven!

Originally Posted by mfblume

You make a doctrine out of that assumption and I cannot.

How do you get "doctrine" out of a simple statement? It doesn't even qualify as a doctrine and I am not teaching it to others as scripture.

Oh I know....mf is 'bluming' it out of proportion.

[obriencp]

Originally Posted by Lafon

For anyone to assert, suggest, or otherwise intimate that ANY element of the doctrines, customs, or practices of the 1st Century One God Apostolic Church did NOT exist during the period following the decease of the apostles UNTIL the present day, is the same as saying "the gates of hell" have prevailed during that same period, and that our Lord's words were not fulfilled.

There has NEVER been a single moment during the past 2000+ years that the church which Jesus Christ instituted on that 1st Pentecost following His bodily ascension to the throne of God located in the invisible heavens, that "the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" has ceased to exist somwhere in the earth.

Albeit His church, during this period, may not have been as prominent, or widely renown as it is today, nevertheless it has always been, and will continue to be until He comes again! That fact is indisputable!

You state an assumption and then claim it as fact?

to my knowledge NO ONE has been able to trace what the OPs state as doctrine through the ages. NO ONE has been able to find a small sect, small movement, small church prior to the 20th century that has ascribed to all three of the following: Repentance, Water Baptism in Jesus Name to have your sins remitted, and being filled with the HG with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. There have been some "OP" elements through the ages, but not all 3 at the same time.

So either the "Gates of Hell prevailed," which we all know is impossible.

-Or... your definition of the Church is not as exclusive as you think.