KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

And because it is of such serious nature, we are also at great risk should we judge them falsely, or wrongfully.

So is it better to preach a feel good Joel Osteen gospel so we make sure we do not judge??


I am fully persuaded in what I believe regarding salvation. IF I was not, I would quit saying it. Which brings me back to the initial purpose of this thread.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

So is it better to preach a feel good Joel Osteen gospel so we make sure we do not judge??


I am fully persuaded in what I believe regarding salvation. IF I was not, I would quit saying it. Which brings me back to the initial purpose of this thread.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

While this sounds all nice, the issue is that God has already spoken what his judgment is. Those that do not receive the Gospel and obey Acts 2:38 will not be saved. This is the Word of God, and not my judgment.

Let's not play God,

Romans 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

This would mean that the very men who were martyred to provide us the Bible in English are in Hell. Yes, even your Bible translation was provided to you by non-Apostolics. We sing Amazing Grace in our churches...but the writer, according to you, never even experienced said grace. We have altar calls, these were not found in the Bible. These were started in the early 1800s by non-Apostolics. Even Sunday School was something that began in the mid 1800s by non-Apostolics. Please note...even the idea of worshipping in church buildings came from non-Apostolics. Originally Apostolics only met in homes.

God isn't limited in mercy. God judges the soul and the heart. We should leave the judgment to him. Instead of saying that those without this experience didn't make it...why don't we pray that they were granted mercy and did?

Let me end by addressing your last statement,

Those that do not receive the Gospel and obey Acts 2:38 will not be saved. This is the Word of God, and not my judgment.

No...it is your interpretation of the Word of God. Many Greek scholars have indicated that the emphasis is on repentance, the baptism clause is quite possibly a parenthetical clause. Therefore it would most accurately read,

"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.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Grammar and Structure of Acts 2:38

Copyrighted quote removed by Admin
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/acts_2_38.htm

Also see: http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html

What I'm trying to say is that there are different ways to interpret Acts 2:38. This is why there is room for allowing God alone to be the judge. But we should always teach that one should receive the full experience as taught by the Apostles. At the very least, when one is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ they are publically identifying themselves as completely and totally with Christ in obedience to the gospel as originally preached by the Apostles.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's not play God,

Romans 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

This would mean that the very men who were martyred to provide us the Bible in English are in Hell. Yes, even your Bible translation was provided to you by non-Apostolics. We sing Amazing Grace in our churches...but the writer, according to you, never even experienced said grace. We have altar calls, these were not found in the Bible. These were started in the early 1800s by non-Apostolics. Even Sunday School was something that began in the mid 1800s by non-Apostolics. Please note...even the idea of worshipping in church buildings came from non-Apostolics. Originally Apostolics only met in homes.

God isn't limited in mercy. God judges the soul and the heart. We should leave the judgment to him. Instead of saying that those without this experience didn't make it...why don't we pray that they were granted mercy and did?

Let me end by addressing your last statement,



No...it is your interpretation of the Word of God. Many Greek scholars have indicated that the emphasis is on repentance, the baptism clause is quite possibly a parenthetical clause. Therefore it would most accurately read,

"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.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:



There are many different ways to interpret Acts 2:38. This is why there is room for allowing God alone to be the judge. But we should always teach that one should receive the full experience as taught by the Apostles.

No one is playing God. We cannot but speak those things that we have both seen and heard. I think I will stick with what I know to be true, and let the naysayers do as they wish.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

...
On an organizational level....

Anyone belonging to an Apostolic organization should teach, preach, and uphold the full NT experience and Apostolic teaching. That is indeed what makes us...Apostolic.

That was the reason the fundamental doctrine was worded the way it was. It allowed "one-steppers" and "three-steppers" to join together in one organization without contending for their own views.

The ministers all believed that baptism should be done in Jesus' Name.
The ministers all believed that there was an experience they designated as the Holy Ghost baptism. Some ministers believed that water baptism and/or Spirit baptism were essential to being born again. Others did not. They agreed to disagree.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

No one is playing God. We cannot but speak those things that we have both seen and heard. I think I will stick with what I know to be true, and let the naysayers do as they wish.

I've seen and heard people be filled with the Holy Ghost minutes, days, weeks, and even months before they were water baptized in Jesus name. If the remission of sins only takes place at baptism we have a problem. This is because the Holy Ghost will not dwell in an unclean temple or in an unforgiven person. The fact that many receive the Holy Ghost before baptism illustrates that the remission of sins may have taken place at repentance (the aorist direct imperative of Acts 2:38) prior to water baptism or they would not have been capable of receiving the Holy Ghost.

The fact that so many receive the Holy Ghost before water baptism testifies to the possibility that God had accepted repentance and had forgiven their sins prior to water baptism. Why speak something other than what you've seen and heard God do in our midst with your own eyes?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

On a personal level....

I think we need to allow the final judgment of a soul to rest in God's hands alone. I believe we all can agree that the full Apostolic salvation as taught in the NT includes repentance, water baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Our goal should be to teach and preach the full message as taught by the Apostles. Those who have not shared that full experience have had an experience with God...however it isn't complete. Allow God alone to be that soul's judge. We can continue to admonish that all believers press forward to experience the full NT experience.

On an organizational level....

Anyone belonging to an Apostolic organization should teach, preach, and uphold the full NT experience and Apostolic teaching. That is indeed what makes us...Apostolic.

Originally Posted by Sam

That was the reason the fundamental doctrine was worded the way it was. It allowed "one-steppers" and "three-steppers" to join together in one organization without contending for their own views.

The ministers all believed that baptism should be done in Jesus' Name.
The ministers all believed that there was an experience they designated as the Holy Ghost baptism. Some ministers believed that water baptism and/or Spirit baptism were essential to being born again. Others did not. They agreed to disagree.

According to the definitions that some 3 step "purists" want to apply, A.D. Urshan was not an Apostolic. Neither was G.T. Haywood, John Dearing, Clyde Haney and now Kenneth Hanney.

The very people who coined the phrase "Apostolic Faith" in the early 20th century, Charles Parham, William J. Seymour and many others are certainly not Apostolics by this new definition.

How did the Tulsa coordinators put it, "Charting a new direction toward an Apostolic future" ?

It's all new. A novelty.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've seen and heard people be filled with the Holy Ghost minutes, days, weeks, and even months before they were water baptized in Jesus name. If the remission of sins only takes place at baptism we have a problem. This is because the Holy Ghost will not dwell in an unclean temple or in an unforgiven person. The fact that many receive the Holy Ghost before baptism illustrates that the remission of sins may have taken place at repentance (the aorist direct imperative of Acts 2:38) prior to water baptism or they would not have been capable of receiving the Holy Ghost.

The fact that so many receive the Holy Ghost before water baptism testifies to the possibility that God had accepted their repentance and had forgiven their sins prior to water baptism. Why speak something other than what you've heard and seen God do in our midst with your own eyes?

The bible declares that remission occurs at water baptism, not me. The putting off of the old man is accomplished when we are buried with Him in water baptism. So you are trying to convince the wrong person. Convince God that his word is in error, and that your "experience" is right.

I speak what I believe to be true according to the Word of God. There is no salvation outside of complete obedience to Acts 2:38.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

The bible declares that remission occurs at water baptism, not me. The putting off of the old man is accomplished when we are buried with Him in water baptism. So you are trying to convince the wrong person. Convince God that his word is in error, and that your "experience" is right.

I speak what I believe to be true according to the Word of God. There is no salvation outside of complete obedience to Acts 2:38.

We've pretty well beat that one to death here also.

"For" the forgiveness of sins can mean "in order to obtain" the forgiveness of sins or it can mean "because of the forgiveness of sins." The Greek word "eis" can be interpreted either way. We've seen all kinds of Greek scholars quoted and some give it one meaning and some the other.

The fundamental doctrine statement of the UPC was amended at the 1973 conference to add the words "for the remission of sin." The motion to add the words was made by S.G. Norris who believed it meant "in order to obtain remission of sin" and it was seconded by W.M. Greer who believed it meant "because of the remission of sin."

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

The bible declares that remission occurs at water baptism, not me. The putting off of the old man is accomplished when we are buried with Him in water baptism. So you are trying to convince the wrong person. Convince God that his word is in error, and that your "experience" is right.

I speak what I believe to be true according to the Word of God. There is no salvation outside of complete obedience to Acts 2:38.

Then how can one receive the Holy Ghost days, weeks, or even months before water baptism in Jesus name? Can someone who is still unclean and unforgiven receive the "Holy" Ghost?

It's only your interpretation of Acts 2:38 that declares that remission of sins must only occur at water baptism. Many Greek scholars would translated it as saying:

"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."

The very fact that God fills repentant individuals with the Holy Ghost is reason to make one reconsider the 3-Stepper requirements to salvation. I was filled with the Holy Ghost after repenting when God forgave my sins...I was baptized later. If God hadn't forgiven (remitted) my sins at repentance how could I have received the Holy Ghost? How can anyone be filled with the Holy Ghost before water baptism?

I think those are important questions.