Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You don't know?

Well, let us look at it. He was either saved before... Or after...right? Those are the only options (unless he got saved while being spoken to? Doesn't look like it from the context...)

If it was BEFORE, then why was he still needing to wash away his sins? Can a person be saved... and yet still polluted by the stain of sins?

If it was AFTER, why was he told to be baptised? Isn't baptism for people who are already saved? I mean why tell an unsaved person to get baptised? Isn't that getting the cart begore the horse?

And either way, why is baptism linked to washing away sins the way it is? Shouldn't it be more natural to say "arise and wash away your sins, calling on the Lord, and then be baptised"?

Why does the Bible put it so differently? Does YOUR religion lead you to say things the way the apostles did? The way the early church did? Would YOU ever tell someone to get up and be baptised and wash away their sins, calling on the name of the Lord?

Would such a statement be a natural, logical result of your views on conversion, baptism, forgiveness, salvation?

The only retort I have gotten to questions like these since they will not answer these type of questions directly is to go to Acts 10, Ephesian 1:13 (in the ESV or another modern translation) and point to those who were filled with the Spirit before baptism and query how can the Holy Spirit indwell a person who is still in their sin. How do you respond to that?

[Michael The Disciple]

In that same thought I would think the "evangelical" will enter heaven while the JW doesn't because the evangelical affirms the absolute deity of Christ (believes He is the Great I AM) believes in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ). I thinks thats a significant difference (believing Jesus is the one true God vs believing He is a created being/angel and that he actually rose from the grave vs just a spiritual resurrection).

Well then it should not seem unreasonable that Oneness would be suspect of Evangelicals. To us confirming the deity of Jesus is NOT accepting he is a co equal co eternal God person along with 2 others. That is polytheism for sure.

Accepting the full deity of Jesus is believing he alone is God along with no one else. He is YHWH and no one else is.

JW teaches Jesus is the arch angel Michael so they may be lost? So Trins teach Jesus was a second person of three who were God distinct from each other. Why is that not just as dangerous to believe in light of the shema?

JW teach Jesus rose as a spirit person from the dead. Evangelicals teach that Jesus never really died! Only his body...not he himself. Isnt that a dangerous heresy also?

So my point is simply that you yourself have criteria as to what one must believe to escape Hell so why be so harsh against Oneness?:

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Paltalk.com is a voice active forum. You actually talk to each other not just type. Download and go to the Christian section there are plenty of "rooms".

You can start a room yourself and talk about anything you want. People browse just like we do here on the Forum difference being you can click on a room and the people are actually there talking in real time. Some rooms can have as many as 80-90 people. Others may be 2 or 3. It all depends on what one is looking for.

It is by far Evangelical with a few JW rooms a bit of everything. You can run your room anyway you please. Some Evangelical rooms dont allow any discussion contrary to their doctrine others do. I have addressed large numbers of them many times. There are only maybe 20 Oneness Pentecostals that I know of there they rarely make their own rooms.

I think you would enjoy it. You need speakers and a mic to participate. It has been "Church" to me more than anything else for many years.

Interesting. I don't have a mic though. I may check it out. Bit most of what I do on forums is on my cell. I hardly get on a PC.

[Esaias]

Also, let's be clear about something. None of us deny that a person who under conviction of sin cries out to God, that such a person has "no relationship with God". In the video I posted I point out that Paul said BECAUSE you are sons he has sent the Spirit of his son into your hearts. And Paul also said "as many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God." Being led by the Spirit begins when a person first begins to "feel after God". It continues through realizing the gospel is true, to repentance and faith, to baptism, to receiving the Spirit, to a life of holiness unto the end.

I would never tell a person nor would I think that a person who had repented but not yet been baptised or received the Spirit that they are in the same category as a hardened unrepentant sinning atheist or idolator.

I rejoice when ANYONE repents. But that is not the stopping point. Salvation is a continuum, not a one time event.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The only retort I have gotten to questions like these since they will not answer these type of questions directly is to go to Acts 10, Ephesian 1:13 (in the ESV or another modern translation) and point to those who were filled with the Spirit before baptism and query how can the Holy Spirit indwell a person who is still in their sin. How do you respond to that?

Acts 10 was an exception. The pattern in Acts is repent, be baptised, receive the Spirit. But the christians would never even present the gospel to uncircumcised gentiles, so God had to do extraordinary things to get them accepted by the church.

It should also be pointed out that if the new birth is water and spirit, then as long as both occur then the new birth has occurred. I don't read anywhere that baptism MUST come before Spirit baptism.

Some folks get the Spirit first. Some folks are baptised in water first. Either way it's in the Bible. As long as it fits the Bible we can be assured we are on the right path.

As for God giving his Spirit to people still needing remission of sins, I am not seeing a problem and never did. It's like this: remission of sins involves a positional relationship regarding our covenanted status. I hesitate to use the term legal, because of possible misconceptions, but baptism is what "legally" places us in covenant relation to Christ. In baptism we are buried with Christ and raised in newness of life. We are positionally identified with him.

In Spirit baptism we are EXPERIENTIALLY united to Christ. Both are needed. If both aren't needed, then both are superfluous and unnecessary.

[good samaritan]

John MacArthur is an intellectual teacher, but his interpretation of the Holy Ghost is damning. I have heard him say in essence that the tongues people speak in are not real and are the anti Christ. It amazes me how learned people become in scripture, but are so far from the simple truth. Repentance, Jesus name baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost is the plan to salvation (not plan of salvation). Salvation has not occurred until we hear well done. Anyone who teaches that the method of baptism doesn't matter and that there doesn't have to be supernatural evidence is teaching another gospel other than the apostles. I don't want my desire to please people, to be part of the reason for them dying lost.

[Esaias]

The evangelical doctrine, in my opinion, simply doesn't fit ALL the criteria of the Bible. It leaves too many loose ends and fails to account for too much.

But I also believe the reality of regeneration goes beyond our attempts to explain. I have personally witnessed my children being born.

There is a solid reason why the bible speaks of a "new birth.

[good samaritan]

Southern Baptists Change Policy on Speaking in Tongues

http://www.charismanews.com/us/49661...ing-in-tongues

interesting article.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The only retort I have gotten to questions like these since they will not answer these type of questions directly is to go to Acts 10, Ephesian 1:13 (in the ESV or another modern translation) and point to those who were filled with the Spirit before baptism and query how can the Holy Spirit indwell a person who is still in their sin. How do you respond to that?

Here's my personal analogy of the new birth experience, using the construction of a house as the backdrop.

Faith = Foundation. It's the concrete you pour that everything else is built upon, or the solid rock that you're building on top of. Without faith, everything you do is going to come crashing down around your ears.

Repentance = Frame. It's the starting point of your conversion. It lays the framework for your walk in Christ. Without repentance (the frame), there's nothing to build on.

Baptism = Walls. It's shutting out the evils of this world, and blotting them from your life. Without baptism (walls), you cannot be clean, as there's nothing to prevent more dirt (sin) from blowing right in (not the best part of my analogy, still working on refining that).

Holy Ghost = Furnishings. It's not truly a home until it's furnished. Otherwise, all you have are four walls. When you receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, it makes your heart His home; and He even brings His own furniture.

Walking in Holiness = Maintenance. Every home requires upkeep and maintenance, or it will fall into disrepair. Living a life of holiness that's pleasing to God, is how we maintain our salvation. If we fail to walk in newness of life, eventually the whole thing will crumble and fall apart.

Using that analogy, one could lay the foundation (faith), build the frame (repentance) and then furnish the place (receive the Holy Ghost) without walls (baptism); but eventually everything inside would get ruined if those walls never get put up.

So Jason, you wanted one of us to flat out say that if one is not saved the way it's laid out in the Bible (Acts 2:38), then they're not saved? I'll say it. I don't say it to condemn anybody, in fact it should drive us to spread the message that much harder and farther.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jito463

So Jason, you wanted one of us to flat out say that if one is not saved the way it's laid out in the Bible (Acts 2:38), then they're not saved? I'll say it. I don't say it to condemn anybody, in fact it should drive us to spread the message that much harder and farther.

Bravo.

Good thing those hell bound sinners were willing to spill their blood so you'd have a Bible translation you can read. And to bear the wrath of apostate Christianity to recover the truths if justification, believers baptism, and holiness.

While they were reaching preserving and propitiating the Word and the Gospel for 19 centuries, oneness Pentecostals were MIA.

But at least OPs could come around in the 20th&21st centuries (more Johnny cone lately than the Mormons and JWs, but its not like that matters) with essentially no oneness Pentecostal contributions to historical Christianity, (save a few missionaries and hymns and a
few hundred Word Aflame books) to condemn them all to hell.