Banned from AMF

[DAII]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Your confidence is misplaced.

All the admins on AMF believe that tongues is a part of the Acts 2:38 experience, and all believe that it takes the full Acts 2:38 experience to be saved.

In order to be saved or as a response to salvation?

Matt, you keep thinking that.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by DAII

Methinks you have not read the original post by Jason as it applies to light doctrine and the possibility of Trinnies being saved.

Newsflash Matt: Urshan, Haywood, Witherspoon, SG Norris and others did as well

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I was banned from AMF for suggesting that it is possible that perhaps not every single trinitarian in the history of mankind is burning in hell.

Men such as John Wesley, John Huss, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Tyndale, tc.

Some have no problem saying for absolutely 100% certain that all these men, and all christian martyrs are going to be burning in a devils hell. (unless they spoke in tongues, that is)

Judge not?

Here is the original post my friend. Nothing about beliving in light doctrine. Just a question as to whether trinitarians (John Wesley, John Huss, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Tyndale, etc.) that do not speak in tongues and that did not obey acts 2:38 are saved. Urshan, Haywood, Witherspoon, SG Norris and others DID obey Acts 2:38. They were mistaken if they believed that someone that doesn't is saved. But they themselves believed and obeyed.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by DAII

In order to be saved or as a response to salvation?

Matt, you keep thinking that.

Thanks! I will.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Here is the original post my friend. Nothing about beliving in light doctrine. Just a question as to whether trinitarians (John Wesley, John Huss, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Tyndale, etc.) that do not speak in tongues and that did not obey acts 2:38 are saved. Urshan, Haywood, Witherspoon, SG Norris and others DID obey Acts 2:38. They were mistaken if they believed that someone that doesn't is saved. But they themselves believed and obeyed.

Maybe you guys are talking about 2 different things.

S.G. Norris would say that all 3 steps of Acts 2:38 are necessary for a person to be born again under the New Testament dispensation. He would say all three steps are necessary to be in the rapture (exception, a child of at least one parent who had obeyed all 3 steps would be in the rapture based on his parents faith) and to be in the New Testament Church. He did NOT believe that all who had not completed all 3 steps would go to hell. He taught that every person will be judged by how well he has walked in the light he had. This way we taught that good Baptists, Catholics, etc. would have eternal life at the second resurrection. I've sat in his classes and heard him teach this. He influenced hundreds of ministers this way.

G.T. Haywood in his book on the resurrection also taught that good church members and even heathen who did not understand Acts 2:38 would have eternal life in the second resurrection but would not be in the first resurrection with the church and Old Testament believers.

I have posted teaching by Clyde Haney who taught similarly on the second resurrection.

So, these guys were 3 steppers who believed all 3 steps were necessary to be in the church or to be born again but those who walked in all the light they had would not go to hell but obtain eternal life in the second resurrection.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Here is the original post my friend. Nothing about beliving in light doctrine. Just a question as to whether trinitarians (John Wesley, John Huss, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Tyndale, etc.) that do not speak in tongues and that did not obey acts 2:38 are saved. Urshan, Haywood, Witherspoon, SG Norris and others DID obey Acts 2:38. They were mistaken if they believed that someone that doesn't is saved. But they themselves believed and obeyed.

That's a duh! And Jason has obeyed and believed and was proposing the same thing these pioneering oneness leaders have. And once again, I am confident, the admins are in line with their forebearers like Urshan and Ewart as to their view on the Body of Christ. Which is very much light doctrine - ultimately saved based on the light they walked in!

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by DAII

That's a duh! And Jason has obeyed and believed and was proposing the same thing these pioneering oneness leaders have. And once again, I am confident, the admins are in line with their forebearers like Urshan and Ewart as to their view on the Body of Christ.

So you are saying that the admins believe that someone that does not speak in tongues can still make heaven? This is basically what Br Badejo stated in the thread that got him banned.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

So you are saying that the admins believe that someone that does not speak in tongues can still make heaven? This is basically what Br Badejo stated in the thread that got him banned.

Exactly.

Let me make a point using John Wesley.

How can you teach that you must speak in tongues to be saved, and in the next breath say John Wesley could have been saved? Furthermore, I'm not even sure light doctrine covers it, since people in Wesley's revival meetings are reported to have recieved the HG w/tongues, though (as far as I know) Wesley himself never experienced that. Also consider that a significant portion of our holiness stadards can be traced back to Wesley himself, or his methodist movement.

I post this realizing some have no problems whatsoever damning anyone who hasn't spoken in tongues to hell. However, there are MANY apsotolic ministers that are not so quick to do so.

[Sam]

attached (I hope) is a chart called 7 church ages.
It is not Bro. Norris' chart but is similar to one he used in the nineteen fifties when I was in his Bible School.

On the left he shows how the visible church declined and incorporated more and more paganism until it developed into the Roman Catholic Church. On the left he shows how different men/groups received truth from God's Word and restored these truths to the church.
Martin Luther brought in justification by faith.
The Presbyterians restored communion as a memorial, not the literal body and blood of Christ or transubstantiation.
The Congregationalists restored local church autonomy, not a papacy.
The Baptists restored baptism by immersion.
John Wesley and the Methodists restored the doctrine of holiness.
The Christian Church restored the idea that sins could be washed away by baptism
Trinity Pentecost restored the truth of the Holy Ghost Baptism.
Then in 1914 the church was restored to Apostolic purity with the revelation of Jesus' name.

Do you think Bro. Norris believed that Luther, Wesley, Calvin and others who restored truth to the church are currently in hell's torment even though they did not believe in Acts 2:38 as currently taught by much of the UPC?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Sam

On the left he shows how the visible church declined and incorporated more and more paganism until it developed into the Roman Catholic Church. On the left he shows how different men/groups received truth from God's Word and restored these truths to the church.
Martin Luther brought in justification by faith.
The Presbyterians restored communion as a memorial, not the literal body and blood of Christ or transubstantiation.
The Congregationalists restored local church autonomy, not a papacy.
The Baptists restored baptism by immersion.
John Wesley and the Methodists restored the doctrine of holiness.
The Christian Church restored the idea that sins could be washed away by baptism
Trinity Pentecost restored the truth of the Holy Ghost Baptism.
Then in 1914 the church was restored to Apostolic purity with the revelation of Jesus' name.

Do you think Bro. Norris believed that Luther, Wesley, Calvin and others who restored truth to the church are currently in hell's torment even though they did not believe in Acts 2:38 as currently taught by much of the UPC?

I don't think I can accept that there are or ever were two different ways to salvation.

[jaxfam6]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I don't have a problem at all with an all minister's forum. I believe it is needed.

The problem I have is when they get "caught" talking about something and deny it. Talk however you want to - it's their forum, but don't say you aren't talking about it....lol!

now dog gone it Renda I never said those things and you can not prove it.