Where are all the Acts 2:38 folks (3-steppers)??

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by nahkoe

Breathtaking. I love mountains so much. I'm not nearly as close to them as you are. I think I'm almost finding myself jealous.

I don't know if you would have liked the icy wind.The clouds above the foothills hide something of a mess that others are having to deal with. Most of this snow will be gone in a couple of days.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Would it be just as absurd to compare Oneness Pentecostals that believe salvation begins at repentance ..... w/ being a Baptist cessationist .... or a proponent of Pearson's heretical Universal salvation doctrine ... or belief in "easy believism" .... or even as J. Miller suggested today ... anathema???

As Pelathais said ... it should be taken w/ a grain of salt or the rhetoric should cease on both sides.

I call it the "STCA Doctrine" Acts 2:38 being preached in reverse.

Nathan Eckstadt

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

No way man, his is merely a poster compared to God's Country.

You cannot even begin to imagine how much you have cracked me up over the last couple of months. I love you, bro!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

And, correct me if I am wrong, but no one else is allowed to have an opposing one, right?

This is where the rose colored glasses come off...

it is your view that does not tolerate divergent views on salvation ...

so much that an Affirmation statement assured the purging of those w/ different views ...

so much that fellow Apostolics are excluded because it is a point of fellowship.

The truth is plain ... You do not tolerate an opposing view on salvation and have expressed it ...

the most common way this is done ... is with the proverbial

"Is this still an Apostolic forum?" argument ...

Let's be real. You'd be invited to my pulpit ... because it's not a point of fellowship....

but someone who doesn't have your view is not welcome

and as one poster said today .... maybe even ... ANATHEMA.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I'm sorry it came across as a "grenade" there, Ferd. I certainly didn't have you in mind. I was hoping the cartoons at the end would show that I also had a light hearted intent.

It's just that you have to agree that my TIC post does fairly represent the way many OP's would approach a group of people who worship in the fashion that the disciples of John did that you cite. How many people with the spirit and potential Apollos have we hindered from entering into our ranks?

It is a fact that many times when we approach people in this condition we are ostracized by our own brethren. I baptized a Church of Christ pastor in Jesus name several years ago and then helped him to baptize his entire congregation.
I ended up getting hammered for compromise because I didn't first demand that they all speak in tongues before I agreed to baptize them (only a few went on to get the Holy Ghost). But the man approached me. Should I have turned him out into the street?

The "collusion with the devil" accusation is exactly the charge that we have laid against people who were sincere in their hunger for the things of God, but who didn't pray through in our altars.

The above got missed in the debate. it is worth bumping.

Pelathias. I havent done that yet. That is just awesome.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This is where the rose colored glasses come off...

it is your view that does not tolerate divergent views on salvation ...

so much that an Affirmation statement assured the purging of those w/ different views ...

so much that fellow Apostolics are excluded because it is a point of fellowship.

The truth is plain ... You do not tolerate an opposing view on salvation and have expressed it ...

the most common way this is done ... is with the proverbial

"Is this still an Apostolic forum?" argument ...

Let's be real. You'd be invited to my pulpit ... because it's not a point of fellowship....

but someone who doesn't have your view is not welcome.

The truth IS plain Dan, you are equally as intolerant as anyone here. Oh it's nice to know you'd invite him to come and preach Dan...how big of you. Now maybe you can stop using pejorative terms like Mormons, papist, sacramentalists and baptismal regenerationalists when you know those terms are meant to enflame the very people's emotions that you claim to be so tolerant of that you'd invite them to your pulpit...I wonder how many of them would accept that invitation after experiencing your "toleration" of them and their view points.

Maybe you just don't see it Dan. You have fan club here that does not seem to see it either. They all slap you on the back and back you up on it, but then again they are not on the receiving end of what you dish out either. All Im saying is perhaps those that you'd invite to your pulpit would reject that invitation NOT because of what you believe but because of how you have handled discussing that belief here and your so called toleration of others that don't agree with you.

That, of course, goes for everyone else. But let's at least be real here Dan....while you lament the intoleration of others those "others" see you as being just as intolerant of them and their views.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The truth IS plain Dan, you are equally as intolerant as anyone here. Oh it's nice to know you'd invite him to come and preach Dan...how big of you. Now maybe you can stop using pejorative terms like Mormons, papist, sacramentalists and baptismal regenerationalists when you know those terms are meant to enflame the very people's emotions that you claim to be so tolerant of that you'd invite them to your pulpit...I wonder how many of them would accept that invitation after experiencing your "toleration" of them and their view points.

Maybe you just don't see it Dan. You have fan club here that does not seem to see it either. They all slap you on the back and back you up on it, but then again they are not on the receiving end of what you dish out either. All Im saying is perhaps those that you'd invite to your pulpit would reject that invitation NOT because of what you believe but because of how you have handled discussing that belief here and your so called toleration of others that don't agree with you.

That, of course, goes for everyone else. But let's at least be real here Dan....while you lament the intoleration of others those "others" see you as being just as intolerant of them and their views.

Prax,

You've said a lot w/ this post ... I'm glad you've expressed it.

Who is this imagined "fan club", Praxeas?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Prax,

You've said a lot w/ this post ... I'm glad you've expressed it.

Who is this imagined "fan club", Praxeas?

LOL....and risk more war? I think I will keep their names out of the picture. Nor is it relevant. I've said what I said.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

LOL....and risk more war? I think I will keep their names out of the picture. Nor is it relevant. I've said what I said.

And your emotions for once have gotten the best of you ....

It would be interesting for the rest of the forum to hear who you think the fan club is ....

Everyone here has a viewpoint that should be appreciated and tolerated.

And who said this is a war????

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Would it be just as absurd to compare Oneness Pentecostals that believe salvation begins at repentance ..... w/ being a Baptist cessationist .... or a proponent of Pearson's heretical Universal salvation doctrine ... or belief in "easy believism" .... or even as J. Miller suggested today ... anathema???

Just as disparaging ... just as pejorative in motive.

As Pelathais said ... it should be taken w/ a grain of salt or the rhetoric should cease on both sides.

BTW ... good attempt at obfuscating again ... each time it's defined as noun it is derogatory ... the adjective definition ... has a different connotation. Read the definitions you provided carefully.

Since dishing out seems to be on the agenda today ....

Tolerance ... seems to be a buzz word also.