Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[good samaritan]

If you believe that Jesus name Baptism is the correct way do you baptize people other ways?

I can follow the logic that there are well meaning good ole baptists who love God and just don't see Jesus name baptism. After recognizing that Jesus name baptism is Mathew 28:19 revealed can you in good faith Baptize a way you know that is not the way of the apostles? I don't see how you can say it doesn't matter either. Because if it doesn't why does immersion or anything else. Where does it stop? God can show mercy to whoever he wishes, but I am only a messenger who wants to leave the message exactly as it is.

[Michael The Disciple]

Jason, let us consider the historical aspect.

It's 1530-1540. Martin Luther comes along challenging the Catholic Church. He says to be saved one must believe in Jesus ALONE. Nothing else.

He is told by many that no one in Church history has taught such a thing. The Catholic way is to believe and be baptized (Father, Son, Holy Ghost, sprinkled or poured) and receive the Holy Ghost by laying on of a priests hands at confirmation and taking communion.

It has been taught that way for a thousand years! And now YOU tell us all we have to do is "believe"?

Were all of those ignorant Catholics for a thousand years lost in such a scenario? Many Catholics had pressed into other nations preaching Jesus had they not? Many of them were martyrs killed by savages such as the Vikings.

Were they all now counted as sinners because they "added to the finished work of Christ"? Prayed to Jesus through Mary? Believed the Pope was the vicar of Christ on Earth while they slaughtered millions who disagreed with points of their doctrine or committed sins?

See where this goes?

And for us right now we are told that our doctrine cant be found in a widespread way in history. Not until perhaps 1908.

But what about Evangelical doctrine? Where can we find widespread groups of teachers historically who were leading large numbers of people who believed in "the finished work on the cross doctrine" before Martin Luther? If they were out there what makes Martin Luther so famous?

Does the Evangelical faith ALONE doctrine find support among the famous "Church Fathers"?

Is it not a doctrine that finds practically NO SUPPORT HISTORICALLY AMONG CHRISTIANS?

But the modern day Evangelical will say "But we go to the Bible to find it"!

ISNT THIS EXACTLY THE ARGUMENT WE ONENESS PENTECOSTALS ARE MAKING?

In the Evangelical system they make EXACTLY the same claim as to HISTORICAL RECORDS as do the Apostolics!

"It does not matter what Church history or historians think what does the Bible say"?

Why is it true for THEM but it is not true for US?

So considering these things is not our bottom line.....yours and mine that the Bible is sufficient to show us the way of truth EVEN IF 99.9 PER CENT OF EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH WHATS WRITTEN IN FAVOR OF THEIR OWN TRADITION?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Yes, I think he's mistaken to make such sweeping generalizations. Unless he can prove oneness people indeed embrace a damnable heresy that would disqualify them from salvation, it would be wiser to expose oneness doctrines while not consigning all 25 million to hell, IMO.

So if you said you might be comfortable under his teaching can you see why some would not be squeamish about sitting under a three step Apostolic? Yet you seem to be disgusted with them but why if such disgust toward strong Pentecostal preaching that warns one would be lost for disobedience why entertain thoughts of going to an Evangelical Church that does the same?

Could it be that its not really the attitude so much? But rather the CONTENT of what YOU personally believe? Could it be that you are more generous toward the Evangelical teachers because you agree with their teaching?

As far as being wiser to to expose doctrine rather than consigning millions to Hell...that expressly what I do! I do not go in front of multitudes of Evangelicals and tell them they are going to Gehenna fire. I try to show them the error of their doctrine contrased with scripture. But often they are ONLY interested in one thing. Do you think we will go to Hell if we dont believe you?

So while I try not to present it in such manner they will often force the issue until....then it becomes a Heaven or Hell discussion.

[Michael The Disciple]

Jason

A strange thing it would be to stand before the Lord and be sentenced eternally to hell to suffer not for a hundred, a thousand, or a million years. But billions upon billions for being baptized by someone who quoted his very words.

Tell me about the love and grace of this God again?

I a Oneness Pentecostal dont teach or personally believe that anyone will suffer in Hell for billions of years much less eternity. Are you ok with the fact that people who have never heard of Jesus will spend billions of years even unto eternity in Hell?

Does this system of your beliefs ask where is the love and grace in THIS?

What was it you were saying about "the light doctrine"?

[Michael The Disciple]

Then again I'm dealing with people who think endless ages in hell are sufficient for a woman who trims 1/8th of an inch off her hair or wears a pair of kulottes.

Well yes many do think that. It is a disgrace to the truth and one reason I cant get onboard with thinking the "Apostolic" Churches are an example of a real New Testament Church.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Michael The Disciple]

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.

Which takes us back to Jehovah Witneses or Catholics. When they do the good things they do why should we assume they are cults and not saved? Is not THEIR faith born in their heart? Or do you think they just do what they do as "legalism"?

Are you comfortable with saying Jehovah Witnesses and Catholics are going to Hell? Are you comfortable saying they will go to Heaven?

Cant you see this the the same situation we as Oneness and Acts 2:38 believers face considering Evangelicals? Would you give JW's a free pass into eternal life? A Catholic? Or would you feel a charity in your heart toward them as you tried to bring them into more of a "saving truth"?

And or is THEIR faith in Jesus sufficient?

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.

According to the Rom. 3:21 and 5:2 model why are Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses excluded by most Evangelicals?

[obriencp]

wow... i had to read like 10 pages to catch up from this apparently busy weekend! Glad to see you active again Jason.

Pastor Badejo makes very good points and I agree with most of them. One of his earlier exchanges between Michael and himself emphasizes his stance perfectly... something to the tune of "Faith alone saves, but saving faith won't be alone." Whereas OPs emphasize the fruit of Faith as the mandates for salvation, many of us emphasize the Faith as a mandate and that the fruit will accompany. Water baptism without genuine faith or repentance is meaningless. Whereas genuine faith and repentance will produce water water baptism. It all goes back to the condition of the heart and as i've stated in other threads, there are many more verses associating faith/believing to salvation than water baptism.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by obriencp

wow... i had to read like 10 pages to catch up from this apparently busy weekend! Glad to see you active again Jason.

Pastor Badejo makes very good points and I agree with most of them. One of his earlier exchanges between Michael and himself emphasizes his stance perfectly... something to the tune of "Faith alone saves, but saving faith won't be alone." Whereas OPs emphasize the fruit of Faith as the mandates for salvation, many of us emphasize the Faith as a mandate and that the fruit will accompany. Water baptism without genuine faith or repentance is meaningless. Whereas genuine faith and repentance will produce water water baptism. It all goes back to the condition of the heart and as i've stated in other threads, there are many more verses associating faith/believing to salvation than water baptism.

Please site ONE OP from any source anywhere who teaches or believes baptism apart from faith and repentance saves. This should be interesting.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by obriencp

wow... i had to read like 10 pages to catch up from this apparently busy weekend! Glad to see you active again Jason.

Pastor Badejo makes very good points and I agree with most of them. One of his earlier exchanges between Michael
and himself emphasizes his stance perfectly... something to the tune of "Faith alone saves, but saving faith won't
be alone." Whereas OPs emphasize the fruit of Faith as the mandates for salvation, many of us emphasize the
Faith as a mandate and that the fruit will accompany. Water baptism without genuine faith or repentance is meaningless.
Whereas genuine faith and repentance will produce water water baptism. It all goes back to the condition of the heart
and as i've stated in other threads, there are many more verses associating faith/believing to salvation than
water baptism.

"He that BELIEVES and is BAPTIZED shall be saved..."

Seems as if many folks want to acknowledge the ENDING of Mk. 16:16, without considering the
FIRST portion of the same scripture. I would adventure that that's the same way they read ALL the
Bible...IN BITS AND PIECES AND NOT THE WHOLE BODY!

"...but he that BELIEVES NOT shall be damned."