Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Steppers

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by crakjak

No they wouldn't, that's just something to make us feel better about small churches.

I disagree.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I have come to believe that doctrinal content has very little to do with mass appeal, except for the fact that according to the bible 'most people don't want the truth' (paraphrased, of course).

There are big Mormon churches, big Catholic churches, big Baptist churches, big Charismatic churches, and big Pentecostal churches (even some big Oneness Pentecostal churches). These days, it seems the deciding factor for large numbers is the answer to the questions "How good is the music?", "How nice is the building?", "How interesting is the preacher?", and "What does the church offer in the way of services or products for my kids?"

Hit nail on head.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Hey, Esaias, will you please answer the following questions:

1. Does the Bible teach justification is a one time act or a process?
2. On what basis is a repentant sinner justified?
3. What actions or conditions are required of a sinner before they can be justified?
4. What is the result of justification?
5. In exactly what sense does a justified person have peace with God, as per Romans 5:1?
6. Is it possible to be justified and lost? 6a. Is it possible to be at peace with God and lost?
7. Must a person be baptized before they can be justified?
8. Would you disagree that all whom God justifies, He also regenerates and adopts?
8a. If no, would you then affirm one can be justified but neither regenerate nor adopted into the family if God?
8b. If yes to 8, if God regenerates and adopts all who He justifies, would you see this as a process, or as a simultaneous event?
9. Is baptism specifically invoking the name of Jesus required by God as a condition in order to be justified?
10. Is receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues required by God in order to be justified, or as a sign of previous justification?

And a few questions in regard to your held views:
11. Why did Jesus state so many times that to believe in Him was to enter into or possess eternal life?
11a. Does not your position have to nuance and redefine belief to mean-be baptized in Jesus name, speak in tongues, and keep standards? Does not even David Bernard add a small paragraph in his commentary on Romans after discussing justification by faith, redefining it as the 3 step method? Must oneness pentecostals necessarily redefine basic terms and have their own religious lingo, in like manner as JWs, Mormons, and SDAs?
12. In a brief paragraph can you explain how the 3 step view is in harmony and not contradictory to passages such as Romans 3:21-5:1 and the entire book of Galatians?
13. If in your view baptism washes away sins, thus is actually effectual and 100% necessary to salvation, and yet the Baptism of the Spirit is necessary to salvation, evidenced ONLY/primarily with the speaking of tongues, on what basis will the repentant and baptized believer be lost who does not speak in tongues? If all their sins are washed away, thus paid for by the blood of Christ, what would they go to hell for?
14. If baptism is necessary to be cleansed from sin, why do people sometimes receive the Spirit BEFORE baptism? (As in Acts 10:45-48) Doesn't this fact alone mean that baptism cannot be the point in time in which sins are forgiven?

Waiting.

Still waiting....

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Jason, did you have a chance to look through my post?

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...7&postcount=20

Yes sir. Planning to respond. Tablet charging now.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Mark 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

Acts 22:16

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord

1 Peter 3:21

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us

Sounds like more than symbolism to me.

Granted, I affirm all those scriptures as legitimate, inspired, and authoritative. But here's issue, not only are Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 inspired and authoritative, but so are also John 1:12, John 3:16-18, John 6:40, Acts 10:43, Acts 16:31, Romans 3:21-5:2, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 2:8-9 also as inspired, and so the point is not who can proof text a few verses, but ratherhow do these verses compliment each other and present a unified message.

And therefore I see my position as true to the entire testimony of scripture. I do not have to redefine what it means to be saved by grace through faith without works, nor dance around the teaching of justification by faith, so plainly explained by Paul in Romans and Galatians.

Originally Posted by Jito463

Additionally:

Exodus 30:20

When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the Lord:

Matthew 3:11

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mark 1:4

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:3

And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Followed up with Luke 24:47

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

I particularly like the imagery in this verse:

Hebrews 9:19

For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

See note above, let me add this. If your position says "you can't be saved unless you are baptized", then your position equates the application of the blood of Christ at baptism. It also equates justification at baptism. But there are two major problems with this position
1)Cornielius' house received the Spirit BEFORE baptism. That alone destroys any argument that salvation, forgiveness of sin, or application of the blood is made AT baptism.
2)Paul goes to great lengths in Romans 4 to teach on justification by faith, and especially in Romans 4:10 emphasizes Abraham was justified BEFORE circumcision. That same argument applies to justitification before baptism.

I totally understand where you are coming from, but I simply don't think your position is completely consisitent with ALL of scripture.

Originally Posted by Jito463

No one I know says that tongues saves you, merely that when one is saved and filled with the Holy Ghost, they will speak in tongues. What's so untenable about that?

I know thats what they say, but its a matter of semantics. They also say, when you buy a pair of shoes you don't buy the tongues, but you get the tongues, so it is with the Holy Ghost. No one who believes that will affirm that people can be saved without speaking in tongues, thus the logical conclusion is anyone who hasn't spoken in tonuges is not and cannot be saved. This is untenable because not only does it lack Biblical proof, but also it doesn't hold up historically.

Oneness people who affirm this, NEVER want to deal with the logical conclusion (except Steve Epley). The logical conclusion is essentially every Christian for 2000 years was a false convert who will burn in hell for eternity, having neither been baptized in Jesus name nor spoken in tongues, and certainly not both. Thus essentially everyone who has advanced the Gospel message and the cause of Christ through the history of the church was lost-Wycliffe, John Huss, Luther, Melanchton, William Tyndale, John Knox, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, John & Charles Wesley, Savanarola, John Bunyan, etc to the recent times, David Wilkerson, Leonard Ravenhill, Hudson Taylor, and many men now living, who have never spoken in tongues, even some who desire to (see John Piper), all lost. *BUT* while condemning all them to hell, Charles Parham and all those who follow him are seen as true Christian (well except the fact many of them were trinitarians and came down against the "new issue" in the early 1900s and died outside the oneness movement. Thus what OPs are left with as the truly saved are the Urshans, GT Haywood, Howard Goss, Frank Bartleman, and a handful or organizational heros, while condemning the rest of Christianity to hell fire. YET where are the great oneness contriubtions to the church-where is the oneness blood spilt for Bible translations, hymns, commentaries, etc? Oneness is built on the backs of trinitarians who didn't speak in tongues, while condemning the same. That position is untenable. Do you sing Amazing Grace? The old rugged cross? Rock of Ages? Crown Him with many crowns? Why? Why use songs written about God and his salvation by people who didn't know God, nor his salvation? It's untenable, and inconsistent.

Originally Posted by Jito463

You never proved they didn't speak in tongues, you only showed that it wasn't recorded in Scripture. Every other recorded instance in the Bible demonstrates people speaking in tongues. Just because the Bible doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Several times its not recorded. In fact only in a few cases is it. 24 of 27 NT books never mention tongues. Acts has 21 converstion accounts/reports, only 3 mention tongues. One can assume they always spoke in tongues, but its simply not in the text.

Originally Posted by Jito463

So, you believe that one is not saved without baptism?

I believe that a repentant sinner is justified by faith as an instantaneous act of God, and baptism is subsequent.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Granted, I affirm all those scriptures as legitimate, inspired, and authoritative. But here's issue, not only are Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 inspired and authoritative, but so are also John 1:12, John 3:16-18, John 6:40, Acts 10:43, Acts 16:31, Romans 3:21-5:2, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 2:8-9 also as inspired, and so the point is not who can proof text a few verses, but ratherhow do these verses compliment each other and present a unified message.

And therefore I see my position as true to the entire testimony of scripture. I do not have to redefine what it means to be saved by grace through faith without works, nor dance around the teaching of justification by faith, so plainly explained by Paul in Romans and Galatians.

Those verses do not preclude baptism being essential to salvation. Care to explain how that proves your point? I'm not seeing it.

Originally Posted by Jason B

See note above, let me add this. If your position says "you can't be saved unless you are baptized", then your position equates the application of the blood of Christ at baptism. It also equates justification at baptism. But there are two major problems with this position
1)Cornielius' house received the Spirit BEFORE baptism. That alone destroys any argument that salvation, forgiveness of sin, or application of the blood is made AT baptism.

No, it doesn't. There is nothing in my argument that says baptism must come before the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Also, the argument can be (and has been) made, that God needed to fill them with His Spirit, in order to convince Peter and the other Jews that they were indeed part of the new birth experience, and were equally accepted by God.

Originally Posted by Jason B

2)Paul goes to great lengths in Romans 4 to teach on justification by faith, and especially in Romans 4:10 emphasizes Abraham was justified BEFORE circumcision. That same argument applies to justitification before baptism.

You fail to take into account that the book of Romans (and every book after Acts, in fact) was written to those already saved. They didn't need to go back and build up the basics of water baptism again, every one of them had already been baptized.

Originally Posted by Jason B

I totally understand where you are coming from, but I simply don't think your position is completely consisitent with ALL of scripture.

But you haven't proved it.

Originally Posted by Jason B

I know thats what they say, but its a matter of semantics. They also say, when you buy a pair of shoes you don't buy the tongues, but you get the tongues, so it is with the Holy Ghost. No one who believes that will affirm that people can be saved without speaking in tongues, thus the logical conclusion is anyone who hasn't spoken in tonuges is not and cannot be saved. This is untenable because not only does it lack Biblical proof, but also it doesn't hold up historically.

I'll come back to this at the end.

Originally Posted by Jason B

Oneness people who affirm this, NEVER want to deal with the logical conclusion (except Steve Epley). The logical conclusion is essentially every Christian for 2000 years was a false convert who will burn in hell for eternity, having neither been baptized in Jesus name nor spoken in tongues, and certainly not both. Thus essentially everyone who has advanced the Gospel message and the cause of Christ through the history of the church was lost-Wycliffe, John Huss, Luther, Melanchton, William Tyndale, John Knox, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, John & Charles Wesley, Savanarola, John Bunyan, etc to the recent times, David Wilkerson, Leonard Ravenhill, Hudson Taylor, and many men now living, who have never spoken in tongues, even some who desire to (see John Piper), all lost. *BUT* while condemning all them to hell, Charles Parham and all those who follow him are seen as true Christian (well except the fact many of them were trinitarians and came down against the "new issue" in the early 1900s and died outside the oneness movement. Thus what OPs are left with as the truly saved are the Urshans, GT Haywood, Howard Goss, Frank Bartleman, and a handful or organizational heros, while condemning the rest of Christianity to hell fire. YET where are the great oneness contriubtions to the church-where is the oneness blood spilt for Bible translations, hymns, commentaries, etc? Oneness is built on the backs of trinitarians who didn't speak in tongues, while condemning the same. That position is untenable. Do you sing Amazing Grace? The old rugged cross? Rock of Ages? Crown Him with many crowns? Why? Why use songs written about God and his salvation by people who didn't know God, nor his salvation? It's untenable, and inconsistent.

You assume several things.

1) You assume there were none who spoke in tongues during the time between the rise of Catholicism and Azusa Street.
2) You assume that just because someone did something for the kingdom of God, that they should be saved. Remember, Jesus said that the day will come when many will hear, 'depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you'. That wasn't directed at the lost, that was directed at those who claimed to be part of the body of Christ, but never actually were.
3) You assume that one must be saved to be used of God. God used a donkey to talk to Balaam, does that mean the donkey was saved?

Originally Posted by Jason B

Several times its not recorded. In fact only in a few cases is it. 24 of 27 NT books never mention tongues. Acts has 21 converstion accounts/reports, only 3 mention tongues. One can assume they always spoke in tongues, but its simply not in the text.

Again, lack of reporting doesn't mean it didn't happen. Now, if you could find a verse that proves someone received the Holy Ghost and did NOT speak in tongues, I would pay you $1,000. Heck, let's make it $1,000,000.

Originally Posted by Jason B

I believe that a repentant sinner is justified by faith as an instantaneous act of God, and baptism is subsequent.

Remember when I said I'd address your point below? This is it. Using your own argument that you made against us, the logical conclusion of your argument here is that you cannot be saved without baptism.

We say when one receives the Holy Ghost, they will speak in tongues. You say, the logical conclusion is that tongues saves.

Here, you say that when one is saved, they will be baptized. The logical conclusion then, is that baptism saves you.

[Esaias]

Jason, I will answer your questions en tachei, but for the moment I defer to Jito's excellent response as being sufficient and thorough.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jason, I will answer your questions en tachei, but for the moment I defer to Jito's excellent response as being sufficient and thorough.

What? His excellent response? Its the same ole talking points, "no one says tongues saves" " Romans was written to believers", if I'd have brought up the thief on the cross the response would be "he was saved under the old covenant". The responses are the standard OP talking points.

Now, that said, I appreciate the tone, and despite my lack of enthusiasm for the responses, I mean no disrespect for JITO. Its just a bit of exasperation of hearing the same things over and over again.

And note, Esaias, I'm still waiting on your response.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Jason B

What? His excellent response? Its the same ole talking points, "no one says tongues saves" " Romans was written to believers", if I'd have brought up the thief on the cross the response would be "he was saved under the old covenant". The responses are the standard OP talking points.

Now, that said, I appreciate the tone, and despite my lack of enthusiasm for the responses, I mean no disrespect for JITO. Its just a bit of exasperation of hearing the same things over and over again.

And note, Esaias, I'm still waiting on your response.

Yes, it is the "same old" arguments, because they've not been disproved. Why reinvent the wheel?

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jason, I will answer your questions en tachei, but for the moment I defer to Jito's excellent response as being sufficient and thorough.

Thanks! Much appreciated.

I don't consider myself a deep scholar or anything, but I have spent a lot of time studying the doctrines we hold so dear.