Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[Michael The Disciple]

I consider the Evangelical Faith perhaps the best example of a "broad way" cult. I deal with them regularly. A few weeks back I presented Luke 14:26 to them.

25And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, 26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:25-27

In a group of at least 70 people do you know how many were ok with Jesus words? No one was willing to go there with him!

Everyone who spoke CONDEMNED ME for being a hater! I tried to make them see it was not MY WORDS but the words of Christ! It didnt matter to them.

Tho they could read it as well as I could they could not accept the Jesus of the gospels!

You may not believe this but I have tried to minister discipleship and holiness among Evangelicals for many years. Its ALMOST always the same response. I am accused of legalism, teaching works salvation, being a cultist and various other accusations.

Its like many of them apparently dont want anyone to actually overcome sin and live in obedience. Believe me its very, very rare to meet one who believes in anything EXCEPT that when you sin (which is everyday) you should repent.

Almost never anything about through faith and the Holy Spirit power actually living without sin.

The problem with some of the names you have thrown out, demanding we say they will be lost is even tho it seems they are preaching truth they practically always catch themselves and finish their "sermon" with its not about salvation! Its just about rewards in Heaven!

So in summation they reject the Lord of the Bible. If we were taught the truth of forsaking all to be HIS disciple we would not have to argue about whether one must do his will to enter Heaven when he said unless we forsake all take up the cross and deny self we cant even be his disciple period.

The Evanglical faith assures Heaven for people who refuse to believe Jesus teaching about most things. I have little regard for it except in this.

We all start somewhere. I began believing as a hippie who read a book by Hal Lindsey and prayed the sinners prayer. That began my walk but it will not be finished until the end.

So many of the great Preachers among Evangelicals get lots of years to come to more truth. Sadly the Evangelical faith traps them from the start making them believe THEY are in the true Church.

Most never have the faith afterwards to take a peek out of their religous box. Im not glad about that. Thats why I have ministered to them for years trying to teach truth.

[Esaias]

Jason, you are holding up men whom you believe a "great men of God", and you can't imagine they would be lost. That is EXACTLY what the Lord talked about when he said " not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter in" etc.

Now, Jason, do yo believe that repentance includes a return to present, full, obedience? Can a person say they have faith and yet reject the "proper way taught by the apostles"? Does not REAL faith produce real obedience?

Or do you believe getting saved by " repenting and claiming Jesus" is the ONLY IMPORTANT THING, all else is just additional and optional?

Do you believe the truly saved will walk in ALL THE TRUTH AVAILABLE TO THEM?

Can I be saved while keeping my unbiblical, heretical delusions and false doctrines?

How much deception are the elect allowed to wallow in? How many damnable heresies can a person believe and still not be lost?

Does "believe in Jesus" include Acts 2:38? Or not? If not, then why did Peter say what he said? And if it does, then how can a believer - a genuine believer - not experience it?

And what exactly is "belief"? Belief in what? Which gospel? The one invented in the late 1800s-early 1900s call " evangelicalism"? The one invented in the 1500s called Protestantism? The one invented in the 3-4th centuries, called Catholicism?

Which one?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

A name I've thrown out a couple times is Martyn Lloyd Jones.

Jason, It appears you are DEMANDING of us that we put people in Hell. You DEMAND we make it plain.

I'm not at all demanding that ya'll put people in hell, I am very bluntly challenging those of your persuasion to be consistent. If ya'll really believe that water baptism in Jesus Name and speaking in tongues are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to salvation, then why not affirm those things when given an example.

Let me show you how easy it is to be consistent:
Jason: I believe that salvation is available only through Jesus Christ, no one comes to the Father except through Him, only through faith in Him do we have atonement.
Mike: What about Shabir Ally, a great Islamaic teacher and scholar?
Jason: The Bible plainly states that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ, that you must believe that Jesus died and rose again, and that anyone who denies that Jesus is the Son of God is antichrist. Therefore unless Shabir Ally (who is still living) repents of His sin and trusts in Christ, I do believe he is lost. No matter how many good works he does, no matter how peaceful a Muslim he may be, how many times he may pray. There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ.

So you guys say unless someone is baptized in Jesus name and speaks in tongues they can't be saved, but never ever want to actually stand by it. You can soften your stance a bit, after all it goes without saying that we are not in the position to judge any man's eternal destination, that alone belongs to God. However, as you understand the Bible, do you believe Shabir Ally to be saved or lost? And again, Martin Lloyd-Jones. How about someone like Ellen DeGeneres? If speaking in tongues is necessary to salvation, the Lloyd-Jones is as lost as Ally or DeGeneres. That's why I said make it plain, because you guys DO NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH THE LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR SOTERIOLOGY. (Not 'yelling' just emphasizing the main point).

You guys' soteriology condemns not only unbelievers and the ungodly, not only the false converts who make up the tares amongst the wheat, who are in the church for the loaves and fish, who are the shallow, stony, thorny ground, but also the faithful who have trusted in Jesus Christ. That's a big problem.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Well has not Jesus made his teachings plain? Shall we demand of him what he already taught in his word?

You tell me, why do you guys deny the basic message of Jesus, and tack on a spiritual gift as a requirement of salvation?

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.


John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

And you know we could go with about 50 direct statements from our Lord very plainly equating belief in Him to being saved. And the language is pretty plain. The very best argument for the 3 step model from the gospels is John 3:5 which if we were wanting plain language, Jesus could have said baptism (but He did not) or tongues (but He did not). Jesus mentioned baptism several places, tongues only once, but you can hardly read a chapter in any of the 4 gospels where belief in Jesus is not the main thrust. I argue it is the 3 steppers who muddy the water, not those who preach justification by faith. The confusion comes in on the "faith only" (which is about as accurate as calling pentecostals "Jesus only") side when you have these false teachers who don't preach that men should repent. The Joel Osteen types, or squishy evangelicals who may ask people to believe, but never to repent. Except one is convicted of their sin and determined to repent of them, they have not believed the gospel, only some Jesus facts.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

My approach as I have mentioned is that God will judge the secrets of men in that day by Jesus Christ. Thats my bottom line.

That's fine, that's the company line, I don't really expect anything more than that. But in practice ya'll don't see the guys I listed as saved, ya'll aren't interested in working with them towards building up the Kingdom of God on earth, and so ya'll imply, insinuate, indicate, allude, strongly suggest, and purport that these people are not saved, you just won't say it in so many words. Nevertheless, they are to ya'll (3 steppers) as tax collectors and heathens, rather than brethren, who love the Savior and are working for the furtherance of His Kingdom (and in some cases dying for the furtherance of His kingdom). But hey, go ahead and sit back not attending any assembly, because there is no assembly ya'll (many posters on AFF who don't attend anywhere) can find that is accurate enough for ya'll. Ya'll are unable to fellowship anyone with any difference because ya'll are so sectarian in nature that few, if any oneness churches pass the test, certainly no trinitarian churches pass the test, and when it comes down to it, God is more pleased for you guys and gals to sit home rather to to pollute yourselves with other believers, who probably aren't believers anyway. Isn't that the issue?

We don't have to agree with everyone to recognize they can be saved, and God can work in their churches and ministries. I'm not sure I'd agree theologically with any of the people I listed, many are Calvinists, I'm not, all are trinitarians, I don't consider myself to be (some trinitarians are more accepting of my beliefs than others-but in the end, I'm not comfortable using the term trinity, especially not persons, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, second person of the trinity, third person of the trinity, etc. Yet if someone uses that language, I don't necessarily believe they are going to hell, nor would it keep me from ministering with them to preach to people to repent of their sins and trust Christ). I think any of us who study the word intently are going to have some strong opinions about things, but I seriously doubt God ever wanted our study to cause us not to be able to fellowship with others who love Him. So I know that may be slight deviation off the topic, but why not touch on the attitude of sectarianism that many self studied people develop that results in not attending any church at all. Is that a good thing? Is it not the result of believing that you (the one who won't attend a church because you can't find one good enough) is really sitting in judgment of all other believers? And if they ARE saved, then why not worship with them?

[Jason B]

Note:
I wanted to add this after my post, because I would like Micheal, or Esaias (who I believe also does not attend church) to speak to it.
I am wanting to hear an answer about sectarianism, but the use of "you" in that paragraph was a general "you" whoever you are who don't attend church, in large part because of being self studied. Not necessarily all pointed to Michael, but I do hope for an answer.

I do believe that (as far as a mans opinion goes) that Michael is a genuine believer who is a brother in Christ. So in prodding you a little bit, I'm not trying to belittle your faith, but I am trying to point out that is SEEMS like the real reason for separating from the church is that you believe basically everyone who attends church in your area is lost. No one is really preaching the saving gospel, there is not any 1 congregation of true believers. Right or wrong?

[Esaias]

Acts 22:16

And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name if the Lord.

When was Paul saved? Before he was told to do this? Or was he still unsaved when those words were spoken to him?

[Esaias]

"who I also believe does not attend church"...

See? You are literally in a made-up world. You neither hear anything being said nor do you pay any attention to what you are dealing with or to whom you are talking.

Communication is IMPOSSIBLE under such conditions.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Why is it Oneness is treated as a cultic religon for actually believing their beliefs but Evangelicals who condemn everyone else who disagrees with them to Hell are considered mainstream?

Because oneness pentecostals teach something the church has never taught according to all documentation, namely that except you are baptized with the name of Jesus spoken over you, and unless you speak in tongues, you can not be saved. That right there separates oneness pentecostalism from Christianity through all the centuries. That errant soteriology opens the door to the charge of cultism.

Beyond that (and this is really where the cult-like ammunition comes) you have a myriad of standards, that with the exception of uncut hair have wide variation congregation to congregation, and nearly all are seen as heaven/hell issues (you can't wear red, but some think it doesn't matter, you can't wear a watch, some can, you can't have a beard, others say it doesn't matter, you can't have a TV, other's do, and you know we could probably list 1,000 standards we've heard taught as heaven/hell issues), beyond that and all the legalism that is attached to that system, you also have the bizarre teaching which makes the pastor the god-like "father figure" authority in your life, who must give an account for your soul, and thus you must stay in his good graces and obey all of his personal convictions. I've even heard a prominent pastor (who everyone on AFF knows) say that when you tithe you enter into a "covenant" with him (your pastor). These are all unbiblical teachings.

In addition to these things you have the doctrines that except you wash feet you can't be saved, the fact that essentially all questioning/divergent views are discouraged, if not outright squashed. The fact that one man's work (the writings of David Bernard) loom large over the entire movement (and for the record, I actually like Bernard and think this charge is unfair, though accurate--Bernard is the victim of a lack of scholasticism with in the oneness ranks).

When you think of it oneness pentecostalsim has a lot in common with Jehovah's Witnessism and Mormonism, and all the Christian cults.

*BUT* I do not consider oneness pentecostalism a cult, however I can see why others who have never been associated with the movement (and some who have, and have been in these abusive churches) do identify it as a cult.

That said you assertion that it is ok for evangelicals to condemn everyone is just hogwash. Read discussions between Calvinists and Arminians, Anabaptists and padeobaptists, etc. Sometimes "evangelicals" (to use the term, one which we should probably get away from since it means something different to so many different people) condemn other believers. In which case their condemnations are every bit as wrong as the OPs condemnation of trinitarians. Its nothing new for Christians to condemn others who don't see things their way, that doesn't make it right. Some "evangelicals" accept me, others are more hesitant, because I'm open about my beliefs on oneness, I'm open about my belief that God saved me while in the UPC (not when I came out of it), and I don't believe that OPs are lost (I just preached at an OP church this past Sunday). So someone's always condemning someone, that doesn't make it accurate.

HOWEVER, what we need to do is understand the scripture, and then warn those who ARE under the condemnation and wrath of God. It is not other believers we need to be condemning to hell (whether oneness to trinitarians, trinitarians to oneness, calvinists to arminians, etc), but the unbelievers, and more than we need to be condemning them, we need to be warning them that the wrath of God abides on them, and they need to flee from it, repent of their sins and turn to Jesus. If we condemn who the Bible actually teaches is condemned, then we are not in error. And it is unbelievers who are condemned, NOT other believers who see things differently, but are not heretics/apostates.

John 3:16 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.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 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.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Mark 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

I like the modern translation a bit better:
38 John said to Jesus, “Teacher, we saw someone using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he wasn’t in our group.”
39 “Don’t stop him!” Jesus said. “No one who performs a miracle in my name will soon be able to speak evil of me.
40 Anyone who is not against us is for us.

Mark 9:38-40 (NLT)

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"who I also believe does not attend church"...

See? You are literally in a made-up world. You neither hear anything being said nor do you pay any attention to what you are dealing with or to whom you are talking.

Communication is IMPOSSIBLE under such conditions.

So do you attend church or not? I thought I read you say before that you did not. I may be mistaken. I know there are several on AFF that do not. If I misspoke, please correct me. Where do you attend regularly?

[Esaias]

Looks like the evangelical crowd can't even agree on what faith or repentance is:

http://expreacherman.com/2012/09/21/...age-and-worse/

[Esaias]

Over half of Christendom, for the last 1700 years, has maintained that unless you are baptized with trinitarian formula spoken over you, you are not saved.

It's always AMAZING how people, part of some minority-view johnny-come-lately theology, speak AS IF their recently formulated doctrine is "what all Christians have always believed all the time." It's really funny.

For example, people who believe you MUST "pray Jesus into your heart" are completely oblivious to the fact such an idea NEVER EXISTED more than about 100 years ago.

Others like to claim "So-and-so believed what we believe" yet So-and-so would have likely burnt those others at the stake for heresy.

People really do live in a bubble.