Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

If its baptism in JN and speaking in tongues, for salvation (conveniently ignoring all the extra baggage y'all tack on), then isn't it cut andcdried as Steve Epley says? Every single one who doesn't meet the 3 step criteria goes to hell?

Are you going to reintroduce the "light doctrine"?

Doesn't the very fact that your soteriology cannot account for "previous believers" prior to the doctrines invention in 1908 (if your thread is correct in moving it back 5 years) and thus cause the need for the question strongly suggest it is faulty at the foundations?

See how you refused to address the question I asked? See how instead you introduce a straw man argument, claiming I said the new birth doctrine was created in 1908? See how you introduce the red herring of "extra baggage y'all tack on"?

Instead of answering the question "how much false doctrine can a person believe and not be lost?" you go off into these tangents. Why? Because you cannot answer.

Either we go by the Bible, or we go by your feelings of how people in the past must be saved because of all the great things they did for Jesus.

[Michael The Disciple]

When was Paul born again? On the road to Damascus where he personally talked with Jesus and believed on him as Lord?

a. Is a man born again if he is still in his sins?

16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16

b. Before he is filled with the Spirit?

17And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Acts 9:17

According to Pauls testimony he was still in his sins neither had been filled with the Holy Spirit until he met Anannias 3 days later!

Its obvious he was not saved by just believing in Jesus. Except in the same sense that Apostolics teach. He was saved by believing in the things Jesus SAID not just accepting him apart from his words.

So Paul was saved the same way they were saved at Pentecost. First he believed on Jesus on the road. Next 3 days he neither ate or drank anything but prayed. Sounds like repentance. And until Anannias met him he was still in his sins neither received the Holy Ghost.

THEN he was born of water and Spirit!

So Paul learned and experienced salvation/ new birth the same as the first converts at Pentecost.

Then a perfect example that he taught others the same is found in this historical piece.

Acts 19:1-6

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7And all the men were about twelve.

He taught them the same as he had been taught.

[Esaias]

I also noticed that Jason once again avoids Acts 22:16. As I pointed out, in Jason's doctrinal system, Acts 22:16 MAKES NO SENSE. We have no problem with ANY verse posted, because they all fit and make sense to us. But this verse cannot make sense in his evangelical Protestant scheme. Again, if Paul was saved before, then how could he wash away his sins? And if he was saved after, why was he told to be baptized and wash away his sins and not the other way around?

Also, notice what he is claiming as "historic Christianity". A doctrine which is NOT FOUND IN HISTORY more than a couple hundred years ago.

Luther taught that baptism remits sins and was 100 percent NECESSARY for salvation. Ask any Lutheran pastor. I attended a funeral service last year at a Lutheran church and the pastor assured everyone the deceased was in heaven because they had been baptized.

Most if not all Anabaptists believed (many still do) that baptism remits sin and is REQUIRED for salvation.

Many baptists believe that baptism is how you join the church and without proper baptism you AIN'T IN THE LORD'S CHURCH. In fact many MANY baptists believe if you weren't baptized in a BAPTIST church you aren't saved (ask just about any Primitive Baptist or Landmark Baptist).

Many Calvinists believe if you aren't a Calvinist you aren't regenerated at all, and if you are or ever do get born again you will invariably become a five point Calvinist. Failure to be a Calvinist is definitive proof for them you aren't a child of God.

Many evangelicals believe if you haven't specifically asked Jesus to come into your heart you've not been born again and will die lost.

Many other evangelicals believe if you think repentance means a change of lifestyle you are a heretic and are lost.

Jason's idea that he espouses an historic Christianity is simply not true, historically. He argues we have a recently invented salvation doctrine. So does he.

[Esaias]

Jason also fails to explain faith. He says "the bible says believe in Jesus and you are saved, no baptism required, no Holy Spirit required."

In that case then neither is repentance required. "Oh but that's part of believing." Is it now? Then why is baptism not part of believing?

He makes much ado about scripture not STATING the three thousand in Acts 2 spake in tongues. Well it also doesn't actually say they repented, either. Jason allows himself to ASSUME they did, because his theology demands it. But what is good for the goose is not good for the gander, I suppose.

Jason says receiving the Spirit isn't necessary to be saved. Amazing how professing Christians believe one can be saved without having God's Spirit, isn't it? To avoid that clear dilemma, they then say people just don't speak in tongues anymore when they receive the Spirit.

Oh, but Jason is Pentecostal, you say? Then Jason has a Johnny come lately religion. Who believed in a post-conversion second reception of the Spirit with tongues as evidence prior to 1905? Or 1900?

[GISG]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

And THATS what is meant by we are saved by faith. Or that the just shall LIVE by faith. Far from it being a one time event that seals men for eternity.

Because I was a Jew I never believed I could become a Christian. It was a mind set built into me by experience. But, I was having what I believed to be a "secret" relationship with Jesus Himself! I would often think of Him and speak with Him and as far back as 14 years of age I know I had experiences with His presence every bit as real as the day I received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. And to tell you the truth, they may have been richer experiences because they were not tainted, if you will, with what man would later tell me about how I should interact with the Savior.
Maybe not until I just read what you wrote do I now understand better my life with Jesus. Thank you.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jason also fails to explain faith. He says "the bible says believe in Jesus and you are saved, no baptism required, no Holy Spirit required."

Interesting posts today, I'm certainly enjoying the conversation. Its a bit challenging working through all the strawmen, but despite that I think its been a beneficial thread.

I am working today an will respond at length if I get some free time this evening.

Sufficient to say Esaias that you are completely distorting my views. But I understand, because your arguments lack substance.

Michael, I greatly appreciate your arguments and counter questions. I think many are valid and I plan to respond.

I'll respond to your posts too Esaias, it just takes a lot more work to dig past the rhetoric.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I simply admitted I cannot know for certain the moment of Paul's salvation.
Let me turn the question around on you-was Paul saved before the words of Acts 22:16 were spoken or not?

If you want my best educated guess, I would say BEFORE, and base that on the reception of the Spirit which (like the case of Cornelius) seemed to take place prior to baptism, as per Acts 9:17-18.

And if that is the correct conclusion (and according to the order given in Acts 9 it seems to be) then the account of Cornelius' household receiving the baptism of the Spirit prior to water baptism wasn't just "an exception" as you asserted earlier in this thread.

Furthermore then, considering both Acts 9:17-18 and 10:44-48 (to say nothing of Romans 4:10) you have to explain how your view of baptismal regeneration (the idea that we do not receive forgiveness from sin until we are baptized) is consistent with people receiving the Holy Ghost while still in sin (an unclean vessel).

And then if you say that sins are forgiven in water baptism, as David Bernard does in his book "The New Birth" then the burden of proof is on you to explain how such a person can be lost because the don't speak in tongues.

As Bernard writes on page 115 "Repentance and water baptism together COMPLETE the full work of forgiveness. At baptism God washes away sin by removing the eternal record and PENALTY of sin."

Or refute the UPCI manual when it states under the subheading "Repentance" "Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance.

Of course I expect you to say that neither Bernard, nor the UPC manual are the authorities, and of course I agree. My point is that you (and all OPs) have a real problem on your hands with the simple question "at what point are sins forgiven?"

We know through this discussion that you absolutely don't believe they are forgiven at repentance (which causes one to wonder why the angels of heaven rejoice when someone repents (Luke 15:7,10), when such a person is still lost as two boys kissing.
If you say water baptism (as Bernard does), then how can someone's sin be forgiven and they still go to hell? Isn't hell the punishment for unrepentant sinners who have rejected Christ's atonement for their sin?
If they are forgiven and bear no guilt, how can they still go to hell b/c they haven't spoken in tongues?
If you thus say a person's sins are forgiven when they receive the Holy Ghost (and by this you mean not to separate if from speaking in tongues), then why do you stress the washing away for sins in Acts 22:16 and Acts 2:38? And what of Mark 16:16 which would contradict this view?

And in regard to these things, since Paul himself wrote Romans and strongly and plainly advocated for justification on the basis of faith, how do you explain his writings which seems to strongly contradict what you are saying about salvation by including water baptism, with the correct words, and spirit baptism, that doesn't count without the sign of speaking in tongues (and also redefining Paul's words about tongues in 1 Corinthians 12:28)?

Romans 3:22-26 NLT
We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are. For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard. Yet God freely and graciously declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

Romans 4:5, 9-11, 22-25 NLT
But people are counted as righteous, not because of their work, but because of their faith in God who forgives sinners. Now, is this blessing only for the Jews, or is it also for uncircumcised Gentiles? Well, we have been saying that Abraham was counted as righteous by God because of his faith. But how did this happen? Was he counted as righteous only after he was circumcised, or was it before he was circumcised? Clearly, God accepted Abraham before he was circumcised! Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous--even before he was circumcised. So Abraham is the spiritual father of those who have faith but have not been circumcised. They are counted as righteous because of their faith. And because of Abraham's faith, God counted him as righteous. And when God counted him as righteous, it wasn't just for Abraham's benefit. It was recorded for our benefit, too, assuring us that God will also count us as righteous if we believe in him, the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was handed over to die because of our sins, and he was raised to life to make us right with God.

Romans 5:1-2 NLT
Therefore, since we have been made right in God's sight by faith, we have peace with God because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us. Because of our faith, Christ has brought us into this place of undeserved privilege where we now stand, and we confidently and joyfully look forward to sharing God's glory.

So I'm curious how if a man is justified by faith and at peace with God, how he could still be subject to the damnation of hell? Which is exactly what you are doing by condemning the whole list of people I mentioned earlier, and all trinitarians, and every person in church history who has not been baptized with the name of Jesus spoken over them, and spoken in tongues. And I know you despise when I mention church history, and I sympathize with you. If I started a thread that could only trace my doctrine back to 1908, I'd try to avoid references to church history also.

Beyond all these things, while you try to pin me down on Acts 22:16, also be reminded that I have posted several scriptures, from the mouth of Jesus himself, about belief that not one of you 3 steppers bothered to respond to. Ya'll jump all over John 3:5 and completely ignore the 100 or so other quotes from Jesus all equating belief with salvation.

Also in regards to the book of Acts can you explain why the 3,000 were added to the church in v.41 with no indication that they spoke in tongues, or why Peter didn't mention Jesus name baptism in his Acts 3 sermon, and again why the 5,000 of Acts 4:4 didn't speak in tongues (and apparently weren't immediately baptized, yet were counted amongst the believers? Are these "emotional" questions?

Can you explain to me why, if people all over the world were getting saved and speaking in tongues, why Paul didn't mention this at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, when He had ministered amongst the Gentiles for years? Why did Peter have to use the events of Acts 10, (which happened YEARS before the Jerusalem Council), to end the dispute, if it was common place for Gentile believers (or Jewish believer) to speak in tongues?

Can you answer why water baptism and speaking in tongues are not included amongst the various tests of genuine saving faith listed all throughout the book of 1 John?

So I'll be awaiting you answers, Esaias (and any other 3 stepper who wants to chime in).

Are these too "emotional arguments"? Can your theology stand up to such questions, or must they be ignored?

While I'm working, Esaias maybe you can answer these questions, instead of glossing over them, deflecting, and then asking more of your own questions.

It would be especially if you would follow Mike's pattern of quoting a portion of a post and then responding.

I asked several questions here and essentially your reply was "Jason has no answer for Acts 22:16" and "assumes" the 3,000 repented (as if that's to be taken as a serious counter argument for the absence of tongues). So show me how your view of Acts 22:16 and soteriology answers the questions above.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Interesting posts today, I'm certainly enjoying the conversation. Its a bit challenging working through all the strawmen, but despite that I think its been a beneficial thread.

I am working today an will respond at length if I get some free time this evening.

Sufficient to say Esaias that you are completely distorting my views. But I understand, because your arguments lack substance.

Michael, I greatly appreciate your arguments and counter questions. I think many are valid and I plan to respond.

I'll respond to your posts too Esaias, it just takes a lot more work to dig past the rhetoric.

YOU have been creating strawmen arguments since your first post.

If you are ready to get beyond them, then please, just explain Acts 22:16. Don't bring in what you think we believe, or anything, just explain the verse. If you cannot, then fair enough. But please, quit trying to use fallacies and appeals to emotions and distortions of what has been STATED IN THIS THREAD. Just BIBLE, and BIBLE ONLY.

Otherwise, we're not going anywhere but in circles.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

While I'm working, Esaias maybe you can answer these questions, instead of glossing over them, deflecting, and then asking more of your own questions.

It would be especially if you would follow Mike's pattern of quoting a portion of a post and then responding.

I asked several questions here and essentially your reply was "Jason has no answer for Acts 22:16" and "assumes" the 3,000 repented (as if that's to be taken as a serious counter argument for the absence of tongues). So show me how your view of Acts 22:16 and soteriology answers the questions above.

Glossing over questions? YOU came to this and started making all sorts of wild claims. You haven't answered any questions I asked you except to say you don't know when Paul was saved. I tried to show how your doctrine cannot account for Acts 22:16. Your response? More of the same old same old. Snide remarks about people who teach salvation depends on sleeve length, appeals to people's good works as the reason they can't possibly be lost, etc.

I repeat my question, the ONLY question I have for you, at this point: How much false doctrine can a person have and not be lost?

I think it's a fair question.

[Jito463]

This isn't about some magic formula that we created. This is about the Biblical method of salvation. It starts with Acts 2:38, but goes far beyond that.

You keep referencing Matthew 28:19. Ignoring for the moment that it's considered by many scholars (even trinitarian ones) to be a spurious translation - and taking it at face value - He still says to baptize in "THE NAME". What is that name? Jesus.

You also asked if we should use the original Hebrew/Greek; but if you were being honest, you would know we already are, essentially. Jesus is not a 'translation', but is rather a 'transliteration' of His name. Ergo, we have the original name. Perhaps with a slightly different pronunciation or spelling, but it is still His name. And we know it's right, because we can call on the name of Jesus, and see the lame walk, the deaf hear, the sick healed, the blind see, etc.

Why is it that we must use the name? Because the POWER and the AUTHORITY are in the NAME. When Peter and John were asked for alms by a lame man on their way to worship, he didn't just say 'In the name of the mighty one that I serve, rise up and walk'. No, he invoked the NAME.

In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Why? Because the POWER and the AUTHORITY are in the NAME.

It's also not enough just to think about Jesus during baptism (as you previously posted), it must be spoken aloud. As Esaias has posted time and again, Saul/Paul was commanded to 'arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, CALLING ON THE NAME of the Lord'. Why? Because there's power in the tongue. Whether the baptizer or the baptizee invokes the name is the subject of another debate, frankly I'm fine with both calling on Him.

Proverbs 18:21

Death and life are in the power of the tongue:

The tongue is our most unruly member of the body. Calling out the name of Jesus shows our surrender of the most unmanageable part of us. That surrender then allows God to speak through us in other tongues, when we are filled with the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

All those other things you mentioned, great works and such, those should follow when we surrender all to him. I don't disagree, and neither would any Apostolic here. Those works alone, however, do NOT mean the person is saved.

You keep referencing them as if it means something about their salvation, but when pushed on the matter, you claim "it's just to show it's not about easy believism, I'm not saying their actually saved by it". Yet, time and time again, you keep bringing up that point, as if it has any bearing whatsoever on whether they're saved.

Yes, we are saved by faith. But not faith alone, or else repentance would not be necessary. Faith requires action or it's of no effect. Faith without works is dead.