David Bernard endorses Trinitarian book!!!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

That's not "Christian initiation " which about becoming a Christian, that would be "initiation as a member of a local assembly" and those evangelicals make that explicitly clear.

Not necessarily. Its really all about how you use Initiation

Entering someone into the kingdom of God or a part of the churches initiation ritual.

All groups believe baptism is necessary, just not necessary for salvation, but an necessary part of being a Christian just like going to church and prayer etc etc. You don't have to DO those before being saved.

[Michael The Disciple]

A Baptist Preacher named David Pawson has made it far easier to understand in his book The Normal Christian Birth. He lays out Acts 2:38 the same way Apostolics do. And altho a strong Trinitarian he even teaches baptism in Jesus name. He teaches Evangelicals are wrong about receiving the Spirit at belief!

He introduced it at IHOP a few years ago and some of the ministers there accepted it. I think their Pastor even tho at first promoting it fell back into Evangelical error and quenched the holy fire.

David Pawson

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

A Baptist Preacher named David Pawson has made it far easier to understand in his book The Normal Christian Birth. He lays out Acts 2:38 the same way Apostolics do. And altho a strong Trinitarian he even teaches baptism in Jesus name. He teaches Evangelicals are wrong about receiving the Spirit at belief!

He introduced it at IHOP a few years ago and some of the ministers there accepted it. I think their Pastor even tho at first promoting it fell back into Evangelical error and quenched the holy fire.

David Pawson

I remember listening to David Pawson when I was really into the IHOP Movement. Although I believe that an Apostolic or two may have infiltrated their ranks in a manner that could affect their doctrinal leanings, neither Pawson, nor anyone at IHOP ever came close to stating that a person was not saved until they spoke in tongues.

This is a key spot where Apostolics depart from scripture. Pawson never espoused this. IHOP never came close to endorsing such a twisted view of scriptural salvation.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I remember listening to David Pawson when I was really into the IHOP Movement. Although I believe that an Apostolic or two may have infiltrated their ranks in a manner that could affect their doctrinal leanings, neither Pawson, nor anyone at IHOP ever came close to stating that a person was not saved until they spoke in tongues.

This is a key spot where Apostolics depart from scripture. Pawson never espoused this. IHOP never came close to endorsing such a twisted view of scriptural salvation.

So you believe people are saved without receiving the Holy Ghost?

[doug92164]

I believe Brother Bernard's "endorsement" is actually found in a section of the Forward magazine entitled "The Theology of Salvation: Book Reviews." It is true that the book he reviews is written by a Trinitarian--but he doesn't endorse the Trinitarian aspects of the book; in fact, he points out that the author "Quotes from Frank Ewart several times and cites my work on justification." Furthermore, he points out that on page 87 of the book--the author says that the Oneness Pentecostal understanding of salvation is the "quintessential Pentecostal Soteriology."
I don't really have a problem with the Book review for three reasons.
1. The Forward magazine--where the review was printed--is written for ministers--which I trust will have some maturity and the ability to discern truth from error in what they are reading--or as we commonly say in the south "pick the bones."
2. There are many great books written by those who have not yet embraced the Oneness Message--for example "In Jesus Name" by David Reed is--in my opinion--one of the best expositions of the history and doctrine of Oneness Pentecostalism. Of course, my praise for this book doesn't mean that I embrace Trinitarianism--in fact, I think some of his conclusions are faulty; nevertheless it was a good read and overall it was a positive reflection on the Movement.
3. Most of the songs we sing in church are written by Trinitarians in church; in fact, the vast majority of the translators--at least in our English Bibles--embraced the doctrine of the Trinity.

In short, I would be the first to object...if Brother Bernard endorsed Trinitarianism but he didn't. He simply pointed out some positive aspects of a book written by a Trinitarian Pentecostal that deals with justification in a similar manner as Oneness Pentecostals and even quotes Oneness writers in a positive light.
Anyway....my take
God Bless
Brother Doug

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I remember listening to David Pawson when I was really into the IHOP Movement. Although I believe that an Apostolic or two may have infiltrated their ranks in a manner that could affect their doctrinal leanings, neither Pawson, nor anyone at IHOP ever came close to stating that a person was not saved until they spoke in tongues.

This is a key spot where Apostolics depart from scripture. Pawson never espoused this. IHOP never came close to endorsing such a twisted view of scriptural salvation.

Did you listen to this video? He makes it abundantly clear that Evangelicals teach error concerning receiving the Holy Spirit. He does allow for other initial evidence but points strongly toward the belief that all should speak in tongues.

So if you watch the video you will hear him say MANY TIMES one must repent, believe, be baptized in water and receive the Holy Spirit to be fully a Christian. He even says to be BORN AGAIN.

[Originalist]

Well this thread was sort of a test and most of you flunked it. So far nobody really has commented on the substance of the book Bernard was critiquing. Rather, and predictably most of the attention has been on whether or not Bernard should be endorsing books written by Trinitarians.

So, would someone mind actually commenting on the overall theme of the book that Bernard critiqued? Thank you.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Well this thread was sort of a test and most of you flunked it. So far nobody really has commented on the substance of the book Bernard was critiquing. Rather, and predictably most of the attention has been on whether or not Bernard should be endorsing books written by Trinitarians.

So, would someone mind actually commenting on the overall theme of the book that Bernard critiqued? Thank you.

How can we comment on the book unless we buy and read it? How do we know what he is saying?

The excerpt in the first post is written in a way it gives no clarity as to what his beliefs might be.

So in the book does he say the Holy Spirit baptism is essential for salvation? Or does he wind up merely restating tired, stale AOG type teaching?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

How can we comment on the book unless we buy and read it? How do we know what he is saying?

The excerpt in the first post is written in a way it gives no clarity as to what his beliefs might be.

So in the book does he say the Holy Spirit baptism is essential for salvation? Or does he wind up merely restating tired, stale AOG type teaching?

We can at least comment on the vain he is heading even if we don't know all that is in the book. For instance,

justification is not just forensic (legal).That is, it is not solely a transaction or declaration that occurs outside humans. “Justification in scripture has legal overtones but cannot be grasped by any legal metaphor. Righteousness is not imputed; it is accessed or participated in through faith and by the life of the Spirit” (6). Justification is both in the Spirit and by faith (53). It is both imputation and indwelling, not one without the other (67).

or.....

Christ’s sacrifice is not merely a legal payment, but it involves God himself taking on the consequences of our sin through the death of Christ. “Justice is fulfilled through mercy and redemption by God’s taking injustice, shame and death into Godself in order to bring all things into the intimate communion of the Spirit” (166).

Finally, he asserts that we cannot separate the Atonement from Pentecost or justification, as Protestants typically do. “One cannot…..separate the cross from the resurrection and Pentecost along the lines of justification and sanctification.

…………Rather than sanctification and justification representing two thoroughly distinct stages or dimensions of one’s salvation, they are to be viewed as two overlapping and mutually complementary lenses” (8). “If we are ever to recover the ancient integration of justification and the Spirit, we must heal the breach between the cross and Pentecost”(162).

This flies in the face of most Protestant views of justification.

[Dante]

I fail to see the big deal. Trinitarians are just as Christian as anyone else who names the name of Christ as their savior.