Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jason also has no answer for Acts 22:16. He doesn't know if Paul was saved before, or after those words were told to him.

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?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The doctrinal system espoused by Jason is therefore not the same doctrine taught by or believed by the early church. Now, if a doctrine concerning salvation is NOT that which was taught by the early apostolic church, then that doctrine is FALSE DOCTRINE. Can anyone be saved by false doctrine?

As an addendum to my post where I asked for several clarifications and reconciliations on the highly inconsistent 3 step doctrine, I note I am awaiting answers to those questions, while also telling you to consider thyself.

You start a thread with this great discovery. "Hey guys all this time we thought our sect started in 1913, but look I can show some people believed this as far back as 1908" then make the above statement about false doctrine above???

Originally Posted by Esaias

Rather than sticking to Scripture, and what the BIBLE says, Jason appeals to emotion, and history. This might sway the unlearned and unstable, but DISCIPLES stick to scripture alone as the source of teaching, belief, and practice. Jason's penchant for fallacious appeals to emotion, bandwagon fallacies, appeals to authority, and legalism (good works) proves his doctrinal system is NOT the system taught or practiced by the apostles. and therefore is not biblical.

I gave you plenty of scripture above, I'm not optimistic you will be able to provide answers to them. Please answer my questions, please reconcile the teachings of Jesus about belief/forgiveness/salvation with your doctrinal system in a way that doesn't redefine the plain meaning of scripture, and then please explain how the doctrine of justification by faith laid out by the Apostle Paul so plainly in Romans 3:21-5:2 (and oft repeated in His writings) doesn't contradict your 3-step doctrine. Scriptural exegesis preferred, but not expected or required.

[good samaritan]

And if yes, then please tell me how that is not sending someone to hell over a technicality.

It is God's perogative. I still say we must seek Biblical accuracy. The heart of every individual is something you will never know. I can assume how well intentioned any person is, but only God knows their heart. 2 questions.

1. Do you believe that Christians who have served God for a period of time have seen Jesus name baptism in scripture and a Holy Spirit baptism? I am not meaning do they agree with it only do you think they have seen it scripture.

2. If truth has been revealed in any way, but a person dismisses the idea for whatever reason could that not take it from being a technicality to being disobedient?

I have always felt that you believe Jesus name baptism is the correct way of baptism, and you have found this truth. Yet, you feel like others are not as capable as you in discerning this. Jason, do you have a OP heritage? If not then how come you where able to come to discerning this to be the Biblically correct way. I want to be a compassionate person, but I don't want compassion to become permission that it is ok not to follow truth.

Whereas the examples I mentioned (a person baptized in titles and a woman who trims 1/8th an inch of her hair) are repentant sinners who trust in Christ for their salvation, who live faithful, godly Christian lives, who may even have met their deaths by martyrdom, but someone baptized them by quoting the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19. We can even take it a step further and say they are trinitarian pentecostals who spoke in tongues. Yet in your view, they are still lost, because the one who baptized them didn't say "Jesus" while they were in the water

There is no precedent in scripture. God will be the judge. You make it sound like if God doesn't save these people then He is unfair when He lone knows any of their hearts.

[Jason B]

John 3:15-18 KJV
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jesus says the persons who believes is not condemned, yet several 3 steppers have condemned a host of believers. Not just random believers (which would be bad enough) but Christian missionaries and preachers and martyrs. People who spent their lives translating the scripture, giving the church her great hymns of the faith, who build Christian orphanages and hospitals. I am not saying that ANY of these things are grounds for salvation, but noting that these were believers whose faith was born out in their lives, not psuedo-disciples. But according to Esaias and others, they're condemned. Doesn't really matter what Jesus said, because He couldn't have meant that, because it doesn't fit your theology.

Romans 5:1, 9 KJV
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Paul says that a person can be justified by faith, and thereby saved from the wrath of God. But you guys have already pronounced the wrath of God on all who haven't had the name of Jesus spoken over them AND spoken in tongues.
Doesn't really matter what Paul says either, I suppose. It doesn't mean that if it doesn't fit your theology.

Romans 10:9-10 KJV
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

How 'bout this one, care to explain it away? Let me guess "Romans was written to people that were already saved, you can't teach salvation from Romans." That's one way to get around the scripture without ever addressing it. Ahh, its probably a mistake anyway. Paul probably meant "with the heart one believes, and with the mouth they speak in tongues unto salvation."

Mark 2:5 KJV
When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

Who does Jesus think He is forgiving sins on the basis of faith? The Sovereign God? Oh well its not relevant to us, because he changed the rules about forgiveness after the cross.

Luke 23:42-43 KJV
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The thief on the cross? Who cares about the thief on the cross? That was the easy believism of the Old Covenant. The covenant changed after the cross, just read the book of Hebrews. Christ doesn't just forgive sins like He did in the gospels anymore. Now we have formulas and experiences to take care of all that.

[good samaritan]

If you are playing devil's advocate to expose phariseeical attitudes in OP's then you are going to the other extreme. I agree that many Pentecostals have disregarded others walk with God because of a "I got Acts 2:38" pride, but it does not change that from being the method commanded in the word of God. I feel like a person's walk with God begins at faith before anything else, but I believe that faith will carry them the rest of the way.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

John 3:15-18 KJV
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jesus says the persons who believes is not condemned, yet several 3 steppers have condemned a host of believers. Not just random believers (which would be bad enough) but Christian missionaries and preachers and martyrs. People who spent their lives translating the scripture, giving the church her great hymns of the faith, who build Christian orphanages and hospitals. I am not saying that ANY of these things are grounds for salvation, but noting that these were believers whose faith was born out in their lives, not psuedo-disciples. But according to Esaias and others, they're condemned. Doesn't really matter what Jesus said, because He couldn't have meant that, because it doesn't fit your theology.

Romans 5:1, 9 KJV
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Paul says that a person can be justified by faith, and thereby saved from the wrath of God. But you guys have already pronounced the wrath of God on all who haven't had the name of Jesus spoken over them AND spoken in tongues.
Doesn't really matter what Paul says either, I suppose. It doesn't mean that if it doesn't fit your theology.

Romans 10:9-10 KJV
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

How 'bout this one, care to explain it away? Let me guess "Romans was written to people that were already saved, you can't teach salvation from Romans." That's one way to get around the scripture without ever addressing it. Ahh, its probably a mistake anyway. Paul probably meant "with the heart one believes, and with the mouth they speak in tongues unto salvation."

Mark 2:5 KJV
When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

Who does Jesus think He is forgiving sins on the basis of faith? The Sovereign God? Oh well its not relevant to us, because he changed the rules about forgiveness after the cross.

Luke 23:42-43 KJV
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The thief on the cross? Who cares about the thief on the cross? That was the easy believism of the Old Covenant. The covenant changed after the cross, just read the book of Hebrews. Christ doesn't just forgive sins like He did in the gospels anymore. Now we have formulas and experiences to take care of all that.

Baptism is not necessary than only faith? Why did Paul get baptized? Faith will lead you to obey. Why do people not want to obey Acts 2:38? My experience is that people are so blinded by tradition that they will refuse to see. Others who do see it will disregard it and and say it doesn't even matter. I was told before if you believe in Jesus you could be baptized in the name of bubble gum. It doesn't really matter???? That doesn't sound like a person who has a zeal for God. The book that has made Christ known to me doesn't matter about the instructions it says in follow Him.


the question

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

the answer

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

It is God's perogative. I still say we must seek Biblical accuracy. The heart of every individual is something you will never know. I can assume how well intentioned any person is, but only God knows their heart. 2 questions.

That's God's prerogative isn't really an answer. Using that logic I can agree with the Calvinists that God created the large majority of humanity to burn in hell forever so He is glorified in their damnation, even though He created them for that purpose, its His prerogative. Doesn't really answer the argument.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

1 . Do you believe that Christians who have served God for a period of time have seen Jesus name baptism in scripture and a Holy Spirit baptism? I am not meaning do they agree with it only do you think they have seen it scripture.

Certainly. Do you agree that Christians who have served God for a period of time have seen the teachings of Jesus on belief in the gospels or the teachings of Paul on justification on Romans? Not that they agree, only that they have seen it?

Originally Posted by good samaritan

2. If truth has been revealed in any way, but a person dismisses the idea for whatever reason could that not take it from being a technicality to being disobedient?

Perhaps so. But how is this not an errant view of sanctification, which says that after our salvation God is helping us to grow in holiness, in spiritual maturity, in knowledge.
Beyond that, who can claim they totally obey God 100% of the time? So is there not some level of disobedience within us all? What amount of disobedience can God overlook and still be righteous?
If our obedience saves us or condemns us, then are we not relying on our obedience/righteousness to save us instead of relying on Christ's?
If we are justified by faith in Christ, and our sin in imputed to Him, and His righteousness is imputed to us-then whatever degree of disobedience (really I think a better word in the context of your question would be misunderstanding or ignorance) we may posses is already paid for by Christ on the cross, and whatever obedience we do have is really of no consequence, because we are standing before God with Christ's perfect record of obedience, not our highly flawed record of "obedience".
This question really gets to the nature of the atonement, and who we are trusting for salvation, ourselves or Jesus Christ.

My hope is built on nothing less, than Jesus' blood and righteousness. ( A trinitarian wrote that).
Not the labor of my hands, can fulfill Thy law's demands. Could my tears forever flow, could my zeal no respite know. These for sin could not atone, Thou must save, and thou alone. (Another one wrote that too)

Both very true, and speak of trusting completely in Christ for our salvation, not our own works/righteousness/obedience/knowledge.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I have always felt that you believe Jesus name baptism is the correct way of baptism, and you have found this truth. Yet, you feel like others are not as capable as you in discerning this.

I was evangelized by a oneness pentecostal. If not for that I'm doubtful I would have ever "found" this. I'm sure I'd read it in the scriptures, but probably not have connected the dots and made the emphasis that oneness people do without the aid of someone.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Jason, do you have a OP heritage? If not then how come you where able to come to discerning this to be the Biblically correct way.

I explained the second part of the question above. The answer to the first part is No. I converted to Christianity in a oneness church in January of 200, and remained in the UPC for 8+ years and spent another 3 years in an independent oneness church.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I want to be a compassionate person, but I don't want compassion to become permission that it is ok not to follow truth.

Which may be relevant if we were telling homosexuals they can be saved without repentance, or Muslims they can be saved as Muslims, or even Christians that they can be saved without repenting of their sins.
None of those things are being said. This isn't about following "truth" (Jesus is truth embodied) its about a particular belief system, that came about in 1908.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

There is no precedent in scripture. God will be the judge. You make it sound like if God doesn't save these people then He is unfair when He lone knows any of their hearts.

I'm not sure it is a matter of God's fairness, so much as His Word. For example, can we take John 3:15-18 at face value or not? Did Jesus mean what He said?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Baptism is not necessary than only faith? Why did Paul get baptized? Faith will lead you to obey. Why do people not want to obey Acts 2:38? My experience is that people are so blinded by tradition that they will refuse to see. Others who do see it will disregard it and and say it doesn't even matter. I was told before if you believe in Jesus you could be baptized in the name of bubble gum. It doesn't really matter???? That doesn't sound like a person who has a zeal for God. The book that has made Christ known to me doesn't matter about the instructions it says in follow Him.

the question

the answer

You didn't respond to any of the scriptures I posted, you simply posted Acts 2:38. And its late, so that's ok.

I don't know of ANYONE who doesn't advocate that someone who repents and trusts in Christ not get baptized. Baptism is seen as the entrance rite into the Christian community. No one is denying the importance of baptism, that's a deflection from all the material I posted.

As for someone saying you can get baptized in the name of bubble gum, its obvious they were using hyperbole to express their point it's not the words spoken at baptism that are most important, but the faith of the repentant sinner in Jesus Christ that matters. I would think anyone who actually said "bubble gum" when they baptized would prove by that act that they don't reverence God, and have never truly repented. Just because someone is baptized using the words of Jesus doesn't mean that have no regard for Him, I would think it would signify just the opposite.

And yes Acts 2:38. How were they added to the church (Acts 2:41-baptism). How many spoke in tongues? None, that we know of.

[good samaritan]

The thief on the cross? Who cares about the thief on the cross? That was the easy believism of the Old Covenant. The covenant changed after the cross, just read the book of Hebrews. Christ doesn't just forgive sins like He did in the gospels anymore. Now we have formulas and experiences to take care of all that.

Again, that is God's perogative. If Jesus says someone's saved their saved, but that was not the message to the NT Church. I want to have that sincere heart of faith you speak of, but I want to couple it with the word of God by which He is made known to me. I don't want to try to get to heaven riding on God making some exception for me. The thief on the cross didn't even bank on such a doctrine. He simply pleaded for mercy.

40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds:but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

I get the picture that this thief is asking for mercy when he acknowledges he doesn't deserve it. This thief died under the law like everyone else before the ressurection. Just like Abraham he was rescued because of His faith. If this thief would have lived to see Pentecost I get the feeling that Jesus name baptism wouldn't be a problem.

There are two types who deny Acts 2:38 as truth.
1. those who don't acknowledge Jesus as the one God.
2.those who don't feel it really matters
3.those who are growing in the Lord and have not reached that revelation, yet.

As for Christians being martyred, what about martyrs from other religions? Does a willingness to die for your belief make your belief true. What about Buddhists who have given there lives for a God other than Christ. You are making a case for good works without having to be doctrinally true. I hope you are right, but if you're not this believe only teaching is a damning heresy. I am going to take my chances believing on Christ "and following his Word."

[good samaritan]

I would think anyone who actually said "bubble gum" when they baptized would prove by that act that they don't reverence God, and have never truly repented.

My point exactly. Anyone who has truly repented and seen the correct method of baptism will desire to walk in the truth.

Just because someone is baptized using the words of Jesus doesn't mean that have no regard for Him

true. I don't advocate a three step salvation, but salvation through faith that leads to obedience to God and His Word.