Survey About Doctrinal Beliefs

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

OP2 - the lib split that I was referring to on the forum was the establishment of the Apostolic Identity Forum.
Now let me weigh in with my two cents.
I have too much personal experience with friends and family giving up certain portions of the old landmarks/standards/identity, whatever you want to call it.
In my experience, the first generation is usually ok and they are able to hang on to the basic doctrine, be it either 1-step or 3-step.
However, when you get to the 2nd or 3rd generation, they become like every other religious group out there.
By this I mean that they go to the "sinner's prayer" religion.
To be bluntly honest, I do not totally understand why this happens, but it does.
That is why I have raised my family the way that I have.
Not because I believe that everything I do is a Biblical mandate, but because I want to do the best I can to raise my family to have the same, or better, experience with God than I do.
If others have differing opinions, that's fine.

Probably one of the main reasons I persist in attending the UPCI church I attend-- when God blesses me with a family, I want them to really know, be known by and be in love with the Lord.

I call many Trinitarians my brothers and sisters in Christ and mean it, but I wouldn't want to raise my family the churches they attend, generally speaking.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Probably one of the main reasons I persist in attending the UPCI church I attend-- when God blesses me with a family, I want them to really know, be known by and be in love with the Lord.

I call many Trinitarians my brothers and sisters in Christ and mean it, but I wouldn't want to raise my family the churches they attend, generally speaking.

My reasons were the exact opposite. Because of my children, I left. Or at least, that was a big motivator for taking action.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Initial evidence of "receiving"; yes. Evidence of "having?" No. To put it bluntly, if someone speaks in tongues, but they lack the fruit of the Spirit, I don't believe they *have* the Spirit. If someone doesn't speak in tongues, but they have the fruit of the Spirit, I would have a harder time refuting their experience even without tongues, and despite my personal beliefs. We've had this conversation before....

Good people still need salvation. Not everyone is outwardly evil. We are all called to repent.

Case in point, the rich young ruler. By all accounts he kept everything required of him. Outwardly, he was a perfect example. The only problem is that Jesus knew his heart and brought that flaw up to meet him face to face.

This is my response, too. I don't like to be put into the position of judging whether or not someone has the Holy Ghost. I've never felt like that was my place. If someone asks how I feel about it (like on this thread), I'll answer.

Partially, my hesitation comes from being a cynic...from seeing lots of tongue-talking "Holy-Ghost filled" Christians act like devils. I think too much stock is put into whether or not a person has spoken in tongues. That's all.

Maybe so. But my Priest was having an affair with my Aunt and my sister's Baptist preacher's wife ran off with another man. So, I must stand on the Word of God and not what people show me about themselves.

God has been very precise about everything He has done. His timing has been impeccable. Wherever the winds blow, His truth remains the same.

If Peter identified the Gentiles receiving the Holy Ghost because he heard them speak in tongues, that is good enough for me.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

What do you mean? If it is the initial/relating to the beginning evidence, then how can there be another evidence?

Some use Acts 19:6 to prove that you can prophesy as one sign. This verse is simply showing that the "gifts of the spirit" taught in I Cor 12-14 were instantly in operation.

You don't have to have maturity to operate in the gifts, although, the gifts will mature you.

As far as I can see in the Word (Acts 10:45-46) and until God shows me differently, I don't see there being any other evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost but tongues.



I wouldn't contradict nor belittle someone's experience with God either. It doesn't mean that I have to agree that they have the correct understanding. My BIL once asked me why "feeling joy" when you repent wasn't a sign to mean you had received God's Spirit. I showed him what I saw in the Word because he asked. Otherwise, I would have smiled and said nothing.

BUMP

How did you arrive to this conclusion?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

I believe it's God will for all to repent,and be baptized in Jesus name and to receive The Baptism of The Holy Ghost with the physical sign of speaking in tongues. I have been baptized in The Name Of Jesus Christ,and that is the only way I baptize anyone.
I believe Christians should be in modest in their dress both men and women.
The principle of Holiness is a lifestyle of Christians.
God is a just judge and He judges justly.
Spirit Filled Christians should manifest the fruit of The Spirit.
Old paths 2 I respect you and your convictions.

I try to treat everybody with kindness and respect and dignity even I feel there are wrong,and alot of stuff here on AFF I strongly disagree with.
I might add I firmly believe in The Oneness of God,I can never except the Trinity doctrine as biblical.For my bible says One Lord,One Faith,One Baptism.

I type this in kindness with a smile on my face.

Would you tell someone they are going to hell if they disagreed with that?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Adino most certainly believes in repentance

Ferd doesn't see that on the thread, "Remitted on the cross or not". You'll have to view the thread and see what your opinion is.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Socialite

BUMP

How did you arrive to this conclusion?

I already answered this question.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Ferd doesn't see that on the thread, "Remitted on the cross or not". You'll have to view the thread and see what your opinion is.

Ferd is not asking, he's making an false statement... and doing so with mucho gusto.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Ferd is not asking, he's making an false statement... and doing so with mucho gusto.

He was giving his opinion on what he was reading, of which, I was in agreement even though I didn't participate in the thread.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

No theologian will deny that the Book of Acts relates to the events showing the birth of the church. We read Peter identifying that the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost just like they did because he heard them speak in tongues. (Acts 10:45-46)

We then have instructions written "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth" (I Cor 1) on how to operate the spiritual gifts.

"divers" is not in the original manuscript, therefore, I would have to read that as "kinds of tongues". It is just a language that isn't naturally acquired. The "kinds" of tongues are followed by interpretation. That shows that they are tied together - "interpretation of tongues". (Acts I Cor 12:10)

That doesn't answer how you extract tongues-only, exclusive evidence doctrine from scripture where it is never stated as such. Not once. Nowhere. A central new doctrine by Pentecostals in the 21st Century has no scriptural, didactic validation. We just know when one is Spirit baptized that something spiritual happens. We are witnesses and observers only. Taking the next step, creating doctrine and dogma by which we deny or welcome people to the Body of Christ makes it even more absurd.

Nor does it explain why you don't believe prophecy in the verse in Acts you cited is NOT giving us a sign of Spirit Baptism.