The Manchild Ministry 45 Minutes

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Thank you. What is the title of the book about apostolic biblical interpretation?

https://pentecostalpublishing.com/pr...ding-gods-word

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I don't think you truly understand what Oneness Pentecostalism believes if what you are describing is what you think they believe.

Oneness Pentecostalism in general, including most minister in the UPCI, don't believe in dispensationalism, but don't believe in the total replacement theology
either.

The vast majority of American oneness Pentecostals believe God had a plan and a people in the old testament, and then instituted a new plan with a new people in the new testament. I have visited UPC and independent OP and ALJC churches from Texas to Washington to Tennessee and places in between, and that is what they believe and teach.

Moreover, as revealed here on this very forum, in PRACTICE most oneness Pentecostals live AS IF the God and religion of the New Testament and today is for all practical purposes a DIFFERENT God and religion than what is revealed in the old testament.

This is a DIRECT PRODUCT of dispensationalist teaching propagated among the Wesleyan Holiness revivalists of the late 19th century and Baptists of the early 20th century, which DOMINATED early 20th century oneness pentecostal ecclesiology, eschatology, and soteriology.

There were exceptions (there always are exceptions) but reading early OP writings from the time of the Arroyo Seco Campmeeting on through the 30s and 40s will show the fundamentally DISPENSATIONALIST ideology undergirding most oneness Pentecostal thought.

OPs always modify the dispensationalist paradigm, as do most dispensationalists other than the tiny handful of folks who try to stick close to the teachings of John Darby or Cyrus Scofield (like the leftover "Bible Students" who follow Charles Taze Russel but reject the Watchtower Society). But underlying most OP faith and practice, for the majority, is a basically dispensationalist view of things.

Replacement Theology is a catholic belief shared by many Protestants as well. It is common among OPs in two basic forms: 1. The classic version which states God is simply done with the descendants of Jacob and is only focused on a universal ("catholic") religious movement called "the church", held mostly by OP preterists, partial preterists, and Idealists (with some exceptions, of course); and 2. The dispensationalist version which holds that God's program for Israel and His program for the church are two distinct programs for two distinct entities, one of which (the church) has temporarily replaced the other (Israel), and which will be reversed during the Tribulation or somewhere around that time.

Again, there are exceptions and varying shades of all this, but that's it in a nutshell.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

1 Corinthians 15:44 KJVS
[44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Brother there not the same. There is a difference.

Did you notice the word "physical" is not in that verse? I earlier pointed out that the proper Biblical contrary to "spiritual" is not "physical", but "natural" or "carnal". The verse is not talking about spiritual vs physical, but spiritual vs natural.

1 Corinthians 15:50 KJVS
[50] Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

The natural physical man CANNOT inherit the Kingdom of God. However, the SPIRITUAL man can inherit the Kingdom, why? Because its a spiritual kingdom.

It doesn't say "the natural physical", it says "flesh and blood" cannot be immortal and enjoy eternal life. Therefore a transformation (change) is required. That is the purpose of the resurrection. It is not merely coming back to life, but is also a change or transformation:

1 Corinthians 15:47-49 KJV
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. [48] As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. [49] And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

The change is a change from our being like Adam to our being like Christ. Christ was raised as a lifegiving spirit:

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

We will be like Him when we are resurrected, with a spiritual body. BUT NOTICE:

Luke 24:36-39 KJV
And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. [37] But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. [38] And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? [39] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Jesus was resurrected, as a life giving spirit, with a spiritual body, yet having flesh and bones. That is, He was very much PHYSICAL in His resurrected state. Since we are going to be changed to be like Him, we too will be resurrected with a spiritual body but we will be just as "physical" (material) as Him.

There would be no argument if this was under old covenant, yet, the new Covenant brought the fulfillment God minded from the beginning.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. God's original purpose was for man to live forever with God on the earth. That was the intention in Genesis, and it is the climax in Revelation.

2 Corinthians 5:6 KJVS
[6] Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

If I’m wrong in my commentary, please correct. Yet, Paul is saying while I’m in the natural, physical man, NOT CARNAL. I am absent from the Lord, how is that? What is causing this absence? It’s the physical, natural man. Remember, flesh and blood cannot inherit, what the spiritual man can.

Paul is saying (in the next verse you quoted, verse 8) that we desire to be present with the Lord, which as you pointed out occurs at the resurrection when the change takes place. Which is when? At His coming:

1 Corinthians 15:22-23 KJV
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

It is not "the man" which you keep inserting and adding to the text, it is the BODY which is transformed at resurrection. We are said to be changed because our body is changed. Just like Jesus. Yet He was still a material "physical" person after resurrecting. And so will we be, too.

In order to be present with the Lord, we need to be absent from the natural, physical man. Now, one can say that these scriptures are referring to, body of sin, and thats a fair argument. Yet, in my opinion it is 2 fold, its like an onion, we’re peeling back the layers.

Did you notice you keep adding the word "man"? You keep dropping the word "body", and inserting "man". You also keep adding the word "physical". You are basically rewriting what the apostle actually said. That changes the meaning. How is this any different than what trinitarians do with "God the Son" or "three PERSONS" etc?

And all I’ve stated could be summed up in one question.

When God saved you through the experience of Acts 2:38, WHO is saved, the Natural man, or the Spiritual man?

When God saved me I ceased to be a natural man and became a spiritual man. The MAN is saved, spirit, soul, and body. A natural man cannot be saved except by ceasing to be a natural man and becoming a spiritual man. What is a natural man?

1 Corinthians 2:14-15 KJV
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [15] But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

What is a carnal or fleshly man, compared to a spiritual man? What is it to be "in the flesh"?

Romans 8:3-9 KJV
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. [8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. [9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Pastor Rooks who use to pastor in Cooper City Florida was staunch PRE TRIBULATION RAPTURE. Irvin Baxter Jr was Dispensationalist Post Tribulation Rapture of the Church. The vast majority of Apostolics are Dispensationalists whether they call themselves that or not. Whether they fully understand what dispensationalism is or not. Elder James LeDeay who I went back and forth with for years over eschatology. Is Pre Tribulation Rapture of the Church Dispensationalism. I bring him up, because while not a Classical Dispensationalist believer he heavily modified Dispensationalism to fit his views. Seriously, for any objective outsider who reads our rants throughout this forum can see that no matter if anyone claims to be of the same eschatology, Post or Pre tribulation, pan or idealist. They all disagree at some point. Pentecostalism has no creed other than Jesus left and Jesus will return someday. Period. Anything in between those two events are totally an ecclesiastical smorgasbord. What is totally ignored in Christendom at large is that the book of the Revelation has a dire warning for those who add or take away from its contents.

I sat through a one-night presentation by a former pastor of Baxter's "Understanding The End Times" (color flip charts and all). He taught the Beast was a "Revived Holy Roman Empire", which I've heard from a few other futurists as well not connected to Baxter. I always thought that was peculiar, because Baxter's version struck me as an odd and rather ill-jointed mashup of futurism and historicism. Which I've noticed a lot of futurists tend to do (borrow some elements of historicist interpretation and try to make them fit into a futurist eschatology). Which amuses me.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Did you notice the word "physical" is not in that verse? I earlier pointed out that the proper Biblical contrary to "spiritual" is not "physical", but "natural" or "carnal". The verse is not talking about spiritual vs physical, but spiritual vs natural.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44 KJVS
[42] So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
[43] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
[44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Using your word, contrary means opposite. Paul is using one state and going into the opposite of the first state. Paul is also very clear, that there is a natural body, and a spiritual body. Meaning they are complete opposites one from another! The mature tomato is nothing compared to what it was when it went into the ground.

[QUOTE= It doesn't say "the natural physical", it says "flesh and blood" cannot be immortal and enjoy eternal life. Therefore a transformation (change) is required. That is the purpose of the resurrection. It is not merely coming back to life, but is also a change or transformation:[/QUOTE]

The natural man is flesh and blood. And you’re correct, there is a transformation, from the natural to the spiritual. The natural will have no place when that occurs.

Originally Posted by [Esaias

1 Corinthians 15:47-49 KJV
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. [48] As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. [49] And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.[/indent]
The change is a change from our being like Adam to our being like Christ. Christ was raised as a lifegiving spirit:

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

We will be like Him when we are resurrected, with a spiritual body. BUT NOTICE:

Luke 24:36-39 KJV
And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. [37] But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. [38] And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? [39] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Jesus was resurrected, as a life giving spirit, with a spiritual body, yet having flesh and bones. That is, He was very much PHYSICAL in His resurrected state. Since we are going to be changed to be like Him, we too will be resurrected with a spiritual body but we will be just as "physical" (material) as Him.

Brother, he said it plainly, “a spirit hath not flesh and bones”, meaning the same natural man that was crucified was standing in their midst. A spirit is NOT physical, a spirit is IMMORTAL, not having the MATTER THAT CAN MAKE IT MORTAL.

John 4:24 KJVS
[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Meaning in the spiritual realm, he doesn’t have flesh and bones. Yet, as he was a natural man while on this earth he did indeed have flesh, bones, and blood. He resurrected that same natural body as a testimony of the words he had spoken.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The vast majority of American oneness Pentecostals believe God had a plan and a people in the old testament, and then instituted a new plan with a new people in the new testament. I have visited UPC and independent OP and ALJC churches from Texas to Washington to Tennessee and places in between, and that is what they believe and teach.

Moreover, as revealed here on this very forum, in PRACTICE most oneness Pentecostals live AS IF the God and religion of the New Testament and today is for all practical purposes a DIFFERENT God and religion than what is revealed in the old testament.

This is a DIRECT PRODUCT of dispensationalist teaching propagated among the Wesleyan Holiness revivalists of the late 19th century and Baptists of the early 20th century, which DOMINATED early 20th century oneness pentecostal ecclesiology, eschatology, and soteriology.

There were exceptions (there always are exceptions) but reading early OP writings from the time of the Arroyo Seco Campmeeting on through the 30s and 40s will show the fundamentally DISPENSATIONALIST ideology undergirding most oneness Pentecostal thought.

OPs always modify the dispensationalist paradigm, as do most dispensationalists other than the tiny handful of folks who try to stick close to the teachings of John Darby or Cyrus Scofield (like the leftover "Bible Students" who follow Charles Taze Russel but reject the Watchtower Society). But underlying most OP faith and practice, for the majority, is a basically dispensationalist view of things.

Replacement Theology is a catholic belief shared by many Protestants as well. It is common among OPs in two basic forms: 1. The classic version which states God is simply done with the descendants of Jacob and is only focused on a universal ("catholic") religious movement called "the church", held mostly by OP preterists, partial preterists, and Idealists (with some exceptions, of course); and 2. The dispensationalist version which holds that God's program for Israel and His program for the church are two distinct programs for two distinct entities, one of which (the church) has temporarily replaced the other (Israel), and which will be reversed during the Tribulation or somewhere around that time.

Again, there are exceptions and varying shades of all this, but that's it in a nutshell.

I think it is about your personal experience and perception. I don't think most Pentecostals teachers believe in strict dispensationalism. Maybe a modified one, or they dropped it all together.

Regarding Wesleyan, I thought they believed in Covenant Theology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley...enant_theology

Methodism maintains the superstructure of classical covenant theology, but being Arminian in soteriology, it discards the "predestinarian template of Reformed theology that was part and parcel of its historical development."

There is also a confusion of terminology and misunderstanding as well. Some think Calvin was a dispensationalist with two dispensations, even though he died way before Darby started the whole thing. So, now everything can be a "dispensation", anything that smells like it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I think it is about your personal experience and perception. I don't think most Pentecostals teachers believe in strict dispensationalism. Maybe a modified one, or they dropped it all together.

Regarding Wesleyan, I thought they believed in Covenant Theology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley...enant_theology



There is also a confusion of terminology and misunderstanding as well. Some think Calvin was a dispensationalist with two dispensations, even though he died way before Darby started the whole thing. So, now everything can be a "dispensation", anything that smells like it.

How old are you and how long have you been in Oneness Pentecostalism?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

How old are you and how long have you been in Oneness Pentecostalism?

Old enough, long enough

[Amanah]

DKB's view:

There are possibly 5 dispensations of progressive revelation.
OT still relevant because only ceremonial law is superseded
We are saved via obedient faith, not by grace alone
Church is recipient of some of the promises to Abraham
Jews and gentiles make up the church and both will be saved by the Apostolic doctrine during the tribulation.
The restoration of national Israel in 1948 is a fulfillment of prophecy.
Current advances in technology make the mark of the beast, one world Gov't possible

Now I understand why Bro Baxter was a speaker at GC.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

DKB's view:

There are possibly 5 dispensations of progressive revelation.
OT still relevant because only ceremonial law is superseded
We are saved via obedient faith, not by grace alone
Church is recipient of some of the promises to Abraham
Jews and gentiles make up the church and both will be saved by the Apostolic doctrine during the tribulation.
The restoration of national Israel in 1948 is a fulfillment of prophecy.
Current advances in technology make the mark of the beast, one world Gov't possible

Now I understand why Bro Baxter was a speaker at GC.

DKB critics to Bro Baxter's interpretations:

“In Daniel 7, we find a vision of four ruling nations represented by a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a terrible, indescribable beast. What are the identities of these nations? In recent centuries, Great Britain has been commonly represented by a lion and Russia by a bear, so some commentators use those associations to interpret Daniel 7. Since Germany manufactures Leopard tanks, some conclude that the leopard nation is Germany.
This interpretation does not correspond to the historical context of Daniel. What could the ancient writer and readers have understood? Why is a modern Western perspective the most accurate way to interpret these symbols? The national symbol of India features three lions, the flag of Sri Lanka features a lion, and the snow leopard is the national symbol of Kyrgyzstan (a former Soviet republic). Why not consider these symbols? Why should a line of tanks characterize a nation? Germany was well known for its Tiger tanks, so should we consider it to be a tiger nation instead? Since the United States produces the Cobra attack helicopter, should we consider it to be a cobra nation? If so, this would contradict an attempt by the same commentators to symbolize the U.S. by the eagle’s wings of Daniel 7:4

Excerpt From: David K. Bernard. “Understanding God’s Word.”

So no, DKB doesn't agree with Baxter. He even openly criticized him in a Book read by all UPCI ministers.