Question For The Evangelical Type Apostolics

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Ooops!
Now were getting to the heart of my question. What TO YOU is the basic gospel message? Who does one have to believe Christ is to make their faith effective?

To me the very basic gospel message is "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." And "If you confess with you mouth that Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." And believe me, I know those two verses are worn out and taken out of contest, but lets divorce them from 20th & 21st century American Easy Believism for a moment (which I will do momentarily).

So the answer to the first question (green) is:
I believe the basic gospel message is the God sent His Son to die on the cross for our sins, and that He rose again. And that if you will repent of your sins and trust in Christ you will receive everlasting life.

To me that is the gospel in the most simple form. True that can be misunderstood and twisted into easy believism, or OSAS. But everything is that statement is Biblical and is Gospel Truth.

The answer to the second question (red) is:
I think in the most basic sense they have to believe He is the Son of God.
I also believe they have to believe He died for their sins and that He rose again.

To me that is the gospel and Christology at its most basic level. If someone believes these things IMO they have at least an chance of actually being saved, regardless of whatever bad doctrine they believe. Remember a lot of people the world 'round know nothing about Christianity, and so it is possible the only group that may reach them may be a group we consider heretical or even pseudo-Christian. Certainly this has been the case in times past when Arians, Catholic, or Orthodox was the only form of Christianity that some people groups were exposed to. Do you think God will still condemn those who forsaken their paganism in favor of the gospel of Christ they were presented? I personally admit, I don't know. But I'd like to think that they could be saved believing that Christ is the Son of God who suffered and died for their sins, and rose again.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Is it more wrong for example to teach Jesus pre existed as Michael the archangel than to teach he is the SECOND PERSON of THREE PERSONS OF GOD who all existed eternally?

Great question.

I don't know. On one hand I don't think its worse if in fact both are completely false. But on the other hand, I'd say what the JW's believe is worse because they demote Christ to the angelic realm, while Trinitarians very adamantly affirm that Jesus Christ is God, the I AM.

However I'm a bit confused by JW's who on one hand believe Jesus to be the arch angel Michael, but then will proclaim Jesus is God, even the Mighty God (albeit to them He is really a demi-God, or second God--when they say Jesus is the Mighty God, they don't mean the same thing we do). Once in a study with JWs I pointed out Isaiah 9:6 (my point was Jesus and Jehovah are the same, I took them from Isa 9:6, to 44:6, to Rev 1:8) their response blew my mind. They said "Well we believe there is an Almighty God and a Mighty God." What?!! Anyway that is terribly theology, but JWs would at least give lip service to the deity of Christ. Enough to save? I don't know. Like I said before, I'd advise any JW to leave that org immediately. But in my own musings, I'm hopeful that they are not all headed to hell. But is it possible they all are for their heretical views? Quote possible.

As for trinitarians, I do think a lot of it comes down to semantics. Thats not to say there aren't real differences, because there are. Trinitarians affirm one God, but differ in that they seen God as a plurality of persons, where as we see God as a plurality of manifestations (some would even say personalities), and so while that is a matter of semantics, depending on what definition of "person" a trinitarian uses that can be a real difference or a very slight difference from oneness. Secondly trinitarians differ from oneness of exactly who was incarnate. They say the second person of the Godhead, we say God himself. Again in some instances its a matter of semantics, others its a real difference, again depends on how someone believes in persons.

If someone believes that God is three distinct individual persons each with their own personality, will, ego (and some trinitarians DO believe this) then I honestly don't see how that is ANY different from the Trimurti of Hinduism. I don't see as DKB said in the James White debate on this subject "How that is One in any reasonable sense."

But many trinitarians believe very close to oneness, especially amongst NON-seminarians. But even those who are strict trinitarians affirm that 1)Jesus is the Son of God, fully human, fully divine. The Great I AM, the Almighty, the Creator, the Judge, etc. So as I've been openly proclaiming, I personally do not believe trinitarians are lost, at least not on the account of their being trinitarians.

But let me carry this further, and please give me your thoughts on my thought here:
If we are to affirm that one must have an accurate understanding of God (more specifically theology & Christology-understanding God in His essential nature and accurately understanding who Christ is) and for the sake of this forum we say that accurate view is oneness, then my question is how accurate does their ONENESS theology need to be to be saved?

We know that as it is there is a wide range of views on the godhead within the oneness camp. Everything from sequential modalism to divine flesh doctrine. People fail to make any real distinction between Father and the Son and say in Jesus prayers he was talking to himself. There is some bad Christology amongst oneness people, and some of it very heretical, some it just mildly heretical. For example, if someone really doesn't really make any distinction between the Father and the Son does that mean that they can't be saved? Oneness people do that all the time, especially the laity. Really all trinitarians do is swing hard the other way and over emphasize the distinction between the Father and the Son to the point they are separate all together.

So then I ask, how accurate does ones theology/Christology have to be in order to be saved? And lets assume the convert knows absolutely nothing about the Bible or good theology and bad theology. They know nothing. They believe the message (and according to your soteriology) they repent, are baptized in JN, and receive the HG w/ tongues, BUT they don't really understand anything about the godhead. And to carry it further lets say they went to church a handful of times and believed God was a trinity.**

IYO- is that person saved right then or not?

I know you will say "as they continue they will learn good theology." I grant that. As they continue to go to church, do Bible studies, read, etc, they will be taught a oneness theology and in time should have a good understanding.

-------
BUT-does that understanding save them? Do they become saved when they understand God is one "person' not "three persons"?

If you say YES-then doesn't that mean that an accurate understanding of theology is a REQUIREMENT for salvation? (Something the Bible never says to my knowledge). And if you say yes, then on what consistent grounds can you say they were saved when they received the Acts 2:38 experience if they were still a trinitarian?

If you say NO-then how can you say trinitarians can't be saved?

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I don't think they believe in annihilation. From what I gather it seems they don't believe the wicked will be raised from the dead period.

Maybe so. Either way they reject hell and eternal conscious torment, and so are in your camp on that doctrine.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

How many bad doctrines can one go along with and still be saved?

I don't know. I personally believe none of us is doctrinally pure. I think we are all wrong about something (don't tell Sean). If we are sincere and KNEW we were wrong we would not believe that. But when you consider for example the multitude of doctrines about the dead, or eschatology, soteriology, and so forth, we can be sure we've all got somethine wrong. I don't think salvation is an SAT test. I think the gospel is ultimately simple. God is trying to save all those who will come to Him, not look for a reason to eliminate people. He can grant us doctrinal purity in heaven.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Does any particular doctrine cancel out ones faith when he makes that initial belief in Christ?

Personally I think if someone denies that Jesus is the Son of God, or the atonement and resurrection, I don't believe they can be saved.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I mean say the JW'S knock on ones door. He has been feeling bad about his evil lifestyle. They pray with him to accept Christ. Is he still lost because of THEIR false doctrines?

I don't know, since I officially believe JWs are lost, but am only not willing to be totally adamant on that point, I guess I'd say yes. However this really goes into the Sovereignty of God. Perhaps God saves the guy as a JW then brings Him out later.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

What you refer to as forced "evangelism" seems to me like an acceptance of Christs command to go and make disciples. It seems like a "vision" which hardly any other Churches do have.

Evangelism is good. JWs are highly pressured to do it under the threat of Jehovah's judgment. That is forced.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

How about on the other hand Evangelical and Pentecostal Churches go arm in arm with Pagans and Catholics celebrating Christmas as if were something ordained of God? At least JW'S understand the compromise involved.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the current topic. Feel free to elaborate if there is a connection.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

So you consider Apostolics just OUTSIDE of Christianity? Why then should it be surprising they would (some of them) say Evangelicals are just outside of it?

No. But I do think that oneness people reacted by damning all trinitarians to hell because of the 1916 AG General Conference. As so both groups condemn each other to hell, it doesn't make it so. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have done the same. Catholics and Protestants. UPC and Independents. Tithers and non-tithers. I think we have to be able to discuss our disagreements as brothers.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

From what I recall you are NOT Trinitarian. You believe in Oneness.

That is accurate.

[Esaias]

What if... the apostles expected "the saved" to be those who receive and CONTINUE In their teachings? So that if someone at any point along the way began to reject their teachings they would be considered outside the faith that saves? Thus one would need to accept and walk in all the apostles' teachings as one learns them... and not stop short along the way...

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What if... the apostles expected "the saved" to be those who receive and CONTINUE In their teachings? So that if someone at any point along the way began to reject their teachings they would be considered outside the faith that saves? Thus one would need to accept and walk in all the apostles' teachings as one learns them... and not stop short along the way...

I think it is certain the apostles felt that way. It is when we attempt to fit the experiences of 20 centuries of those who all claim to have been Christians it gets confusing.

[Michael The Disciple]

I may have to do this in parts as its now time for bed for this third shifter.

So the answer to the first question (green) is:
I believe the basic gospel message is the God sent His Son to die on the cross for our sins, and that He rose again. And that if you will repent of your sins and trust in Christ you will receive everlasting life.

To me that is the gospel in the most simple form. True that can be misunderstood and twisted into easy believism, or OSAS. But everything is that statement is Biblical and is Gospel Truth.

The answer to the second question (red) is:
I think in the most basic sense they have to believe He is the Son of God.
I also believe they have to believe He died for their sins and that He rose again.

Well according to this I would think JW'S fit this description. From what I have heard I think they think Michael the Angel was the Son of God.

If someone believes that God is three distinct individual persons each with their own personality, will, ego (and some trinitarians DO believe this) then I honestly don't see how that is ANY different from the Trimurti of Hinduism. I don't see as DKB said in the James White debate on this subject "How that is One in any reasonable sense."

To me the true Trinitarian teaching is tritheism. If three co equal co eternal persons who are distinct from each other while each being God is not tritheism I would like to know what is?

But many trinitarians believe very close to oneness, especially amongst NON-seminarians. But even those who are strict trinitarians affirm that 1)Jesus is the Son of God, fully human, fully divine. The Great I AM, the Almighty, the Creator, the Judge, etc. So as I've been openly proclaiming, I personally do not believe trinitarians are lost, at least not on the account of their being trinitarians.

After countless discussions and debates with Trins I think I can say with a good deal of confidence they don't see Jesus being the I AM in the sense of being the I AM alone. They feel two other persons are also the I AM. Same goes with the Almighty, the Creator and all the things that make God, God.

On this basis that they believe in three persons who are equally and distinctly God in his own right I feel such a belief will end up in the Gehenna fire. It definitely is a perversion of One God.

We know that as it is there is a wide range of views on the godhead within the oneness camp. Everything from sequential modalism to divine flesh doctrine. People fail to make any real distinction between Father and the Son and say in Jesus prayers he was talking to himself. There is some bad Christology amongst oneness people, and some of it very heretical, some it just mildly heretical.

Well I cant deny that. Oneness as a general rule are not deep enough.

Maybe so. Either way they reject hell and eternal conscious torment, and so are in your camp on that doctrine.

I do not reject Hell. I am the only one I know that teaches it regularly. I do reject the eternal torment idea.

If you say YES-then doesn't that mean that an accurate understanding of theology is a REQUIREMENT for salvation? (Something the Bible never says to my knowledge). And if you say yes, then on what consistent grounds can you say they were saved when they received the Acts 2:38 experience if they were still a trinitarian?

It seems to me everywhere we look in the New Testament truth is essential to salvation.

We are saved by sanctification and belief of THE TRUTH! 2 Thess 2:13

I don't know. I personally believe none of us is doctrinally pure. I think we are all wrong about something (don't tell Sean). If we are sincere and KNEW we were wrong we would not believe that. But when you consider for example the multitude of doctrines about the dead, or eschatology, soteriology, and so forth, we can be sure we've all got somethine wrong. I don't think salvation is an SAT test. I think the gospel is ultimately simple. God is trying to save all those who will come to Him, not look for a reason to eliminate people. He can grant us doctrinal purity in heaven.

If you know you are wrong on something how can you know its not this? I believe anyone with the Holy Spirit can know the whole truth. Jesus said the Spirit would guide us into ALL TRUTH!

Hey just woke up at the PC will have to finish later today.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I think it is certain the apostles felt that way. It is when we attempt to fit the experiences of 20 centuries of those who all claim to have been Christians it gets confusing.

Not really MTD. You want confusion? Produce for me even one denomination/group/sect...even one single PERSON who taught what y'all call the "apostles doctrine" before 1913?

I agree with you guys that the Bible is the authority not church history. However when we construct a narrative of what the apostle's taught that doesn't match ANYTHING ever observed before our American sect in the 1900's I think that's problematic and a pretty strong indicator that the apostles didnt teach what some believe they did.

[seguidordejesus]

I would be thrilled if I could find some group who baptized in Jesus name before 1900, but I haven't been able to.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

If you know you are wrong on something how can you know its not this? I believe anyone with the Holy Spirit can know the whole truth. Jesus said the Spirit would guide us into ALL TRUTH!

I'm just saying I'm sure that I'm wrong somewhere. I think someone would gave to be very naïve or arrogant to say they are 100% doctrinally pure and accurate.

Do you believe you are not wrong on anything?

Can I ask your wife? :heehee

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

I would be thrilled if I could find some group who baptized in Jesus name before 1900, but I haven't been able to.

the following groups baptized in the name of Jesus.

Ebionites 80 AD 4th century, Jewish Christian sect, considered heretical.
Montanists 135 AD 8th century, widespread in the Roman Empire, crushed by force.
Valentinians 136 AD 7th century, a very large body of believers, spread in the Empire.
Marcionites 144 AD 7th century, they flourished in the east, died out.
Apelletians 2nd Century - ? branched off from the Marcionites, died out.
Marcosians 2nd Century 4th century, a branch of the Valentinians, died out.
Samosatenes 260 AD 5th century, left Jesus’s baptism, returned to Catholic Church.
Monarchians late 2nd century early 5th century, outnumbered Catholics in the 3rd century.
Patripassians late 2nd century 3rd century, maybe an earlier name for Monarchians.
Artemonites late 2nd century 16th century, died out.
Sabellians early 3rd century 5th century, an offshoot of Monarchism.
Donatists 311 AD 7th century, the largest Christian group in North Africa.
Arians 320 AD 8th century, some part, they were finally crushed by military force.
Priscillianists 350 AD 700 AD, strong in the Iberian Peninsula, persecuted to extinction.
Paulicians 657 AD 19th century, Military force and persecution destroyed them.
Bogomils 900 AD 1400 AD, an offshoot of the Euchites, persecuted to extinction.
Albigensians 11th century 13th century, mostly in France, crushed by the inquisition.
Cathari 12th century 15th century, flourished in Western Europe, crushed by the inquisition.
Anabaptists 1523 AD end of 16th century, crushed by military force and the inquisition.
In 1565 AD there was in Morovia an International Federation of Apostolic Churches.
The halcyon church 1802 - ?, Columbia, North America

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

the following groups baptized in the name of Jesus.

Ebionites 80 AD 4th century, Jewish Christian sect, considered heretical.
Montanists 135 AD 8th century, widespread in the Roman Empire, crushed by force.
Valentinians 136 AD 7th century, a very large body of believers, spread in the Empire.
Marcionites 144 AD 7th century, they flourished in the east, died out.
Apelletians 2nd Century - ? branched off from the Marcionites, died out.
Marcosians 2nd Century 4th century, a branch of the Valentinians, died out.
Samosatenes 260 AD 5th century, left Jesus’s baptism, returned to Catholic Church.
Monarchians late 2nd century early 5th century, outnumbered Catholics in the 3rd century.
Patripassians late 2nd century 3rd century, maybe an earlier name for Monarchians.
Artemonites late 2nd century 16th century, died out.
Sabellians early 3rd century 5th century, an offshoot of Monarchism.
Donatists 311 AD 7th century, the largest Christian group in North Africa.
Arians 320 AD 8th century, some part, they were finally crushed by military force.
Priscillianists 350 AD 700 AD, strong in the Iberian Peninsula, persecuted to extinction.
Paulicians 657 AD 19th century, Military force and persecution destroyed them.
Bogomils 900 AD 1400 AD, an offshoot of the Euchites, persecuted to extinction.
Albigensians 11th century 13th century, mostly in France, crushed by the inquisition.
Cathari 12th century 15th century, flourished in Western Europe, crushed by the inquisition.
Anabaptists 1523 AD end of 16th century, crushed by military force and the inquisition.
In 1565 AD there was in Morovia an International Federation of Apostolic Churches.
The halcyon church 1802 - ?, Columbia, North America

Just googled a couple of these groups:

Cathari would refuse baptism and resorted to sodomy in order to avoid procreation...in addition to a LOT of weird beliefs.

The Donatists' issues with the Roman church were not mode of baptism, but sinfulness of the priests.

I saw this in 10 minutes....maybe you should take a look at your list again.

(but thanks for answering anyway, I do appreciate the effort)

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

Just googled a couple of these groups:

Cathari would refuse baptism and resorted to sodomy in order to avoid procreation...in addition to a LOT of weird beliefs.

The Donatists' issues with the Roman church were not mode of baptism, but sinfulness of the priests.

I saw this in 10 minutes....maybe you should take a look at your list again.

(but thanks for answering anyway, I do appreciate the effort)

You need to keep in mind that there was a lot of lies and difamation propaganda directed against them, so I would consider the source before I believe everything that was told about the Cathari or any other group.

According to Pagan writers Christians killed babies and ate them before their sexual orgies. Do you really believe that?