Banned from AMF

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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

Don't look at it as two different ways to salvation.
Look at it as one way to salvation (Acts 2:38)
and a way for those who never knew of Acts 2:38 to escape hell and gain heaven by God's mercy.
This is really more than semantics and is not considered compromise by many ardent three-steppers.
It is believed by many pastors and teachers but not widely discussed or preached on. Their duty is to preach Acts 2:38 to all and leave these others in the hands of a merciful God.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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.

I do not teach John Wesley was saved. He may have had a lot of good things going for him, but I teach that it takes all of Acts 2:38 (including tongues) for someone to be saved. And I don't ........ anyone to hell. I can't save them or ........ them. They are damned (condemned) already until they obey Acts 2:38.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Sam

Don't look at it as two different ways to salvation.
Look at it as one way to salvation (Acts 2:38)
and a way for those who never knew of Acts 2:38 to escape hell and gain heaven by God's mercy.
This is really more than semantics and is not considered compromise by many ardent three-steppers.
It is believed by many pastors and teachers but not widely discussed or preached on. Their duty is to preach Acts 2:38 to all and leave these others in the hands of a merciful God.

Sam,

You can sugar coat it, but its 2 different ways of salvation.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by 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?

So the 1 million dollar question is.........


Since the church was "restored to Apostolic purity with the revelation of Jesus' name" in 1914, why do you believe God will now accept less than what he has established. If God has restored the church, then for one to come into the church they would now need to come in receiving "current revelation", and not yesterdays manna.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Now Bro David,

I do not think anyone was cruel to you during your time there. I did not see any if there was.

What exactly do you expect for a forum that ask that its memebers be 3 step Acts 2:38 ministers. I do not think it is asking too much to want some common ground.

Not me and not there. I'm talking about another guy and over here.

And your "common ground" is really a soggy bog. Even the most ardent "Three Steppers" cannot find "common ground" with a single human being who lived between the Third and the Twentieth centuries.

[pelathais]

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.

That would be the the Light Doctrine.

Originally Posted by stmatthew

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.

And... they believed that others who had NOT, as you put it it "obeyed Acts 2:38," were indeed saved as well.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I do not teach John Wesley was saved. He may have had a lot of good things going for him, but I teach that it takes all of Acts 2:38 (including tongues) for someone to be saved. And I don't ........ anyone to hell. I can't save them or ........ them. They are damned (condemned) already until they obey Acts 2:38.

So then, there were no "saved" believers for 1,700 years of the Church Age?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I do not teach John Wesley was saved. He may have had a lot of good things going for him, but I teach that it takes all of Acts 2:38 (including tongues) for someone to be saved. And I don't ........ anyone to hell. I can't save them or ........ them. They are damned (condemned) already until they obey Acts 2:38.

You may not teach John Wesley was saved, other apostolic ministers do and have (as Sam mentioned Bro. Norris). So my question to you becomes, "What can John Wesley, an unregerate sinner really teach us about holiness?"

I mean when I want to draw close to God, when I study doctrine, I'm not going to the works of those who are unregererate sinners. In other words, I'm not going to get a Koran, or a JW song book. I don't need or want their materials when it comes to my relationship with God. But many are completely willing to say such men as John Newton are burning in hell, while they themselves sing Amazing Grace, some having never even experiences such a conversion as John Newton, but judge Him to hell for not speaking in tonuges, and disregaurd any evidence of God's spirit working in his life to bring him to salvation.


(disclaimer, I'm not necessarily saying these men are in heaven, but using their life, at least as we know it, as a talking point.)

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Brother David

So then, there were no "saved" believers for 1,700 years of the Church Age?

Exactly the point I made on AMF. (well, one among many)

We can find some folks who believe in oneness, find some folks who believed in baptism in Jesus Name, find some folks who even spoke in tongues, and find some folks that observed some holiness standards. BUT can we document even ONE SINGLE GROUP who believed ALL of those things even as we do from 300AD-1900AD?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I do not teach John Wesley was saved. He may have had a lot of good things going for him, but I teach that it takes all of Acts 2:38 (including tongues) for someone to be saved. And I don't ........ anyone to hell. I can't save them or ........ them. They are damned (condemned) already until they obey Acts 2:38.

St. Matthew, what was the BIBLICAL RESPONSE to Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter two? And what was the result of that response?

Hint: it is containted in the same chapter.