Christianity without the Cross: A review...

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Seriously this well these two agreed to come togethor and one forced the other out whine.... sheeesh I am amazed how anyone could believe the two drastic beliefs could be a group in the first place. Sure fellowship "might" be possible but nothing on a technical basis when it came to doctrine.

Also I could careless what xyz believed because he was part of the original org or whatver. What does that have to do with truth. I don't base truth on someone else nor a org. The mindset I see around here by many makes me just sit back and shake my head over the 100's of threads claiming some type of justification on EITHER side. If you are basing your doctrine on mom, dad, org, history of good people and what they believed. Well your in trouble as they have become the master and the source and not the Word of God or the Spirit leading you.

The two groups came together and that is pretty amazing. But just because it is amazing doesn't mean it didn't happen. Fellowship would have been more than possible than on a technical basis also. In fact the only thing that would need to be different would be that the exact moment of salvation would not be mentioned at major conferences or by visiting preachers. In fact that sounds very doable to me. So them coming together and thinking the merger would succeed doesn't sound really that amazing after all.

I find it strange that 3-steppers who make claims about history, that there have always been people who believe like them, would say history just doesn't matter. In fact it seems that the only history that doesn't matter is the history that doesn't go along with their beliefs. So I say at least be consistent. If you are going to say the history doesn't matter then don't cite history to try and prove there was some kind of unbroken chain of Apostolic believers from 1st century to now. But you can't really drop that claim can you? Otherwise you must contend with the assertion that your belief means that not one person was saved in the last 1700+ years. So it seems history is important and no amount of saying it doesn't matter can change that because the moment you make that claim, I'm just going to ask you about the salvation of all those people who lived before the 1900s.

It's also strange to hear a 3-stepper talk about not basing doctrine on anybody or any organization. Aren't yall the ones who constantly remind the rest of us about the old paths? Aren't yall the ones telling us that we should base many of our doctrines and beliefs on our pastor?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The two groups came together and that is pretty amazing. But just because it is amazing doesn't mean it didn't happen. Fellowship would have been more than possible than on a technical basis also. In fact the only thing that would need to be different would be that the exact moment of salvation would not be mentioned at major conferences or by visiting preachers. In fact that sounds very doable to me. So them coming together and thinking the merger would succeed doesn't sound really that amazing after all.

I find it strange that 3-steppers who make claims about history, that there have always been people who believe like them, would say history just doesn't matter. In fact it seems that the only history that doesn't matter is the history that doesn't go along with their beliefs. So I say at least be consistent. If you are going to say the history doesn't matter then don't cite history to try and prove there was some kind of unbroken chain of Apostolic believers from 1st century to now. But you can't really drop that claim can you? Otherwise you must contend with the assertion that your belief means that not one person was saved in the last 1700+ years. So it seems history is important and no amount of saying it doesn't matter can change that because the moment you make that claim, I'm just going to ask you about the salvation of all those people who lived before the 1900s.

I never said history doesn't matter but that is not the ultimate judge of truth and how you walk. Sorry but making BAPTISM not the point of coming into the body of CHrist is nothing short of the highest heresy. THink about it! To make it just a symbol with NO TRUE spiritual realization, is the ultimate slap in the face if it is when you are unified with Christ.

So somehow your "what about these people" is verification of what you believe? LOL! Nice! I stick with what the Word says. History has some powerful points but in the end history that we see never gives the complete picture as it depends on the hands of man to tell us everything and that is the worst case you can have. God will be the ultimate judge and he is just. My job is to preach what is the truth and not worry about Luther, Calvin and whoever else. Anyone can get into a isolated history pointing session. Truth is truth is not bound by human doctrines and falling away from the truth. It doesn't change and if you are going to depend on well you have "million and billions in hell" over what you teach. That is a attempt to be compassionate and feel good like many do. I can yell about the Oriental nations who never heard the Word... THis type of stupidity can go on forever. Truth is truth! Either you defend it or you subject what the Word of God is to some lame subjective standard that makes it a lie. Continue on but I will have no part with lame arguments that don't prioritize the Word FIRST and subject the Word to some ratio of saved vs unsaved.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The two groups came together and that is pretty amazing. But just because it is amazing doesn't mean it didn't happen. Fellowship would have been more than possible than on a technical basis also. In fact the only thing that would need to be different would be that the exact moment of salvation would not be mentioned at major conferences or by visiting preachers. In fact that sounds very doable to me. So them coming together and thinking the merger would succeed doesn't sound really that amazing after all.

I find it strange that 3-steppers who make claims about history, that there have always been people who believe like them, would say history just doesn't matter. In fact it seems that the only history that doesn't matter is the history that doesn't go along with their beliefs. So I say at least be consistent. If you are going to say the history doesn't matter then don't cite history to try and prove there was some kind of unbroken chain of Apostolic believers from 1st century to now. But you can't really drop that claim can you? Otherwise you must contend with the assertion that your belief means that not one person was saved in the last 1700+ years. So it seems history is important and no amount of saying it doesn't matter can change that because the moment you make that claim, I'm just going to ask you about the salvation of all those people who lived before the 1900s.

It's also strange to hear a 3-stepper talk about not basing doctrine on anybody or any organization. Aren't yall the ones who constantly remind the rest of us about the old paths? Aren't yall the ones telling us that we should base many of our doctrines and beliefs on our pastor?

I have never argued anything like that. Subjective standard that is related and a application of Didactic doctrine vs a Standard from didactic teaching is two different things. There should be order in the church though. Just like the early church had council. If you go to a church it is YOUR CHOICE to subject yourself to whoever is pastor. IF you don't like him go to another church. Nobody is making you go to that church. ALso I am not affiliated with the UPCI org.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

As a Onestepper I am not overly concerned that there are those with a differing interpretation of what it means to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus. Both views are OP and preach the need for baptism and infilling of the Spirit.

It is the other side who cannot seem to recipicate the same courtesy toward the Onestep group.

This is the source of the controversy in a nutshell!!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

As a Onestepper I am not overly concerned that there are those with a differing interpretation of what it means to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus. Both views are OP and preach the need for baptism and infilling of the Spirit.

It is the other side who cannot seem to recipicate the same courtesy toward the Onestep group.

I haven't seen that here, on this forum, by either side, actually.

I believe that we hold our individual truth with a passion to also die for it, if necessary. I think there may be some disagreement and disunity involved because of that. JMHO.

[D. Wright]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

As a Onestepper I am not overly concerned that there are those with a differing interpretation of what it means to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus. Both views are OP and preach the need for baptism and infilling of the Spirit.

It is the other side who cannot seem to recipicate the same courtesy toward the Onestep group.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I haven't seen that here, on this forum, by either side, actually.I believe that we hold our individual truth with a passion to also die for it, if necessary. I think there may be some disagreement and disunity involved because of that. JMHO.

Really?

I have NOT seen a 1-stepper tell a 3-stepper they are going to hell for believing that way. Yet, 3-steppers have told 1-steppers they are hell bound.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by D. Wright

Really?

I have NOT seen a 1-stepper tell a 3-stepper they are going to hell for believing that way. Yet, 3-steppers have told 1-steppers they are hell bound.

I've never said that to anyone and I don't recall ever reading it from anyone else. But, there is so much to read, I could have missed it.

Mocking either view is just as bad and I have seen that from both sides.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

I never said history doesn't matter but that is not the ultimate judge of truth and how you walk. Sorry but making BAPTISM not the point of coming into the body of CHrist is nothing short of the highest heresy. THink about it! To make it just a symbol with NO TRUE spiritual realization, is the ultimate slap in the face if it is when you are unified with Christ.

So somehow your "what about these people" is verification of what you believe? LOL! Nice! I stick with what the Word says. History has some powerful points but in the end history that we see never gives the complete picture as it depends on the hands of man to tell us everything and that is the worst case you can have. God will be the ultimate judge and he is just. My job is to preach what is the truth and not worry about Luther, Calvin and whoever else. Anyone can get into a isolated history pointing session. Truth is truth is not bound by human doctrines and falling away from the truth. It doesn't change and if you are going to depend on well you have "million and billions in hell" over what you teach. That is a attempt to be compassionate and feel good like many do. I can yell about the Oriental nations who never heard the Word... THis type of stupidity can go on forever. Truth is truth! Either you defend it or you subject what the Word of God is to some lame subjective standard that makes it a lie. Continue on but I will have no part with lame arguments that don't prioritize the Word FIRST and subject the Word to some ratio of saved vs unsaved.

You act as if one steppers don't believe the bible and that they validate their beliefs by everything but the bible. Don't ya know, there's bible for the one stepper side too? And don't ya know that saying anything beyond Christ's blood is needed for salvation is really the ultimate slap in the face...

As far the 2nd paragraph: I'll drop the history stuff because one steppers have just as many problems saying what happened to all those native americans and asians that never heard about Jesus and never had the chance to believe on him and be saved.

EDIT: In fact from now on, thats the exact question you 3 steppers should ask the one steppers that try to say so many are damned under your beliefs. You should say, I'll tell you if they are damned if you will answer but one question, "Are those Asians and Native Americans that never heard the gospel in hell?" If the one-stepper says that God will be the judge as they are likely to do then you can say that God will be the judge for those people he is asking you about also. If the one-stepper says yes they are damned, then you can say what is it to you if a few more are damned under my beliefs then.

[U376977]

Just reading the title makes the book sound interesting. But if it is just a historical documentation of 3 vs. 1 step within the UPC I would not be interested in reading the book. However, an observation I have made is that the church I attend, though independant, is 3 step in doctrine, and the pastor and many of the memebers have attended apostolic churchs all their lives, yet until I started ministering at their church they had NEVER HEARD messages preached solely on the blood of Jesus. When I proved by the sciptures that salvation is by the blood, IT WAS NEW to them, they had been preaching the water. And sadly, many who had gone to the water never experienced true salvation by evidence of a change in their lives.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by jfrog

You act as if one steppers don't believe the bible and that they validate their beliefs by everything but the bible. Don't ya know, there's bible for the one stepper side too? And don't ya know that saying anything beyond Christ's blood is needed for salvation is really the ultimate slap in the face...

No they misread and put there own thoughts into what the Word says clearyl concerning baptism and many other things. Bible for onesteppers.... Misused Bible scripture. By this arguement everyone is just in interpretation. LOL

Your point on "anything beyond Christ's blood is needed for salvation" is about as vague as it gets. It also is not true in whole. You cannot be saved without obedience. The "source" of our salvation is the justice and authority of Christ by his sacrifice but salvation is not just about the blood of Christ. It's about your response to him as well.

As far the 2nd paragraph: I'll drop the history stuff because one steppers have just as many problems saying what happened to all those native americans and asians that never heard about Jesus and never had the chance to believe on him and be saved.

EDIT: In fact from now on, thats the exact question you 3 steppers should ask the one steppers that try to say so many are damned under your beliefs. You should say, I'll tell you if they are damned if you will answer but one question, "Are those Asians and Native Americans that never heard the gospel in hell?" If the one-stepper says that God will be the judge as they are likely to do then you can say that God will be the judge for those people he is asking you about also. If the one-stepper says yes they are damned, then you can say what is it to you if a few more are damned under my beliefs then.

Again.... I don't care about numbers. If numbers are the issue I would be a universalist. I don't want anyone to go to hell PERIOD. God is God and he is just. What he said is true. The rest I don't worry about as truth is the only thing that matters. If truth puts people in hell (which it does) then whom am I to say different. If scripture says it's difficult to get to heaven and many fight to enter but won't. Who am I. I don't base doctrine on being a sympathist.