Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

From Pentecost to present anyone who has not obeyed Acts 2:38 are lost. Hope that helps.

It only helps those who are sincere, sadly the rest will go hold hands with Rick Warren and Elton John.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Gloorayyyy!

Does that make your day to pronounce the damnation of others who profess faith in Christ?

Thats what I wonder when I hear John Macarthur telling his people Oneness Pentecostals dont know God and they are lost!

Hmmm I think you said you wouldnt have a problem sitting under him....but would have to know more.

Its especially difficult knowing that Macarthur sets himself up as the leader when it comes to exposing false cults. Then knowing that he is totally wrong on every point of foundation doctrine!

Not trying to antagonize just trying to make sure you realize this sword cuts both ways.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Jito463

So let me get this straight, you do not believe we must be baptized the same way EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS BAPTIZED? We can address the other issues another time and/or in another thread. You need to address this. Every single person was baptized (and commanded to BE baptized) in the exact same way in the NT church. Immersion in water in the name of Jesus. Who are you to come along and claim the NT church was wrong, and anyone can be saved, no matter how they're baptized?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Thats what I wonder when I hear John Macarthur telling his people Oneness Pentecostals dont know God and they are lost!

.

Yes, I think he's mistaken to make such sweeping generalizations. Unless he can prove oneness people indeed embrace a damnable heresy that would disqualify them from salvation, it would be wiser to expose oneness doctrines while not consigning all 25 million to hell, IMO.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jito463

So let me get this straight, you do not believe we must be baptized the same way EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS BAPTIZED? We can address the other issues another time and/or in another thread. You need to address this. Every single person was baptized (and commanded to BE baptized) in the exact same way in the NT church. Immersion in water in the name of Jesus. Who are you to come along and claim the NT church was wrong, and anyone can be saved, no matter how they're baptized?

First, I believe in baptism in Jesus name.
Second, while I don't believe they were baptized in the name of the F,S, HG in the NT, those are the words of Jesus, so who are you to despise people who are obeying His Word? (Regardless of if we think they are interpreting those words incorrectly or not).
Third, if you INSIST on one specific holy baptismal formula that takes away sin, which one is it? No two baptismal "formulas" given in Acts match? Fourthly, under your criteria, why should we not use the Greek or Hebrew when pronouncing the name to ensure we are baptizing correctly?
Fifth, I didn't say anyone can be saved "no matter how they are baptized" but if the argument is between Acts 2:38 and Matt 28:19, I'm not convinced that either wording disqualifies one from salvation.
A strange thing it would be to stand before the Lord and be sentenced eternally to hell to suffer not for a hundred, a thousand, or a million years. But billions upon billions for being baptized by someone who quoted his very words.

Tell me about the love and grace of this God again?

Then again I'm dealing with people who think endless ages in hell are sufficient for a woman who trims 1/8th of an inch off her hair or wears a pair of kulottes.

Originally Posted by Jito463

Acts 19:1-5

These people were believers, who had been baptized by the great John the baptist. Yet, they then had to be rebaptized in the name of Jesus. Why? Because their baptism was to no effect, without the application of Jesus name.

That's probably not a correct view of the passage. For example we know from John 1 that at least some of Jesus' disciples were John the Baptists disciples (thus highly likely they were baptized by John). Jesus name baptism didn't come about until Acts 2.
Where is the record of the apostles being baptized in Jesus name? Appears the issue isn't what was said at baptism, else the disciples would have needed to have baptized each on the Day of Pentecost.

Beyond that according to Mark 2 the disciples of John were a district group from the disciples of Jesus. These disciples of John very likely didn't know the gospel when they came across Paul. Paul brought them into the fullness of truth.
Another thing that is overlooked is the translative nature of acts. Not sure you can take the various narratives in Acts and make them normative for all believers of all time.

So what is the "effect" of baptism?

[good samaritan]

Repentance, Jesus name baptism, and the Holy Ghost baptism is rightly dividing the word of truth. I would not tell anyone flat they are going to hell, but I would warn them of it. If Jesus makes exceptions for those who are not in truth that is his perogative and not mine. It is dangerous to tell someone who is doctrinally wrong that it is o.k. That is a slippery slope that takes away any foundation for us to stand and underminds the Bible. We should use wisdom when communicating to people who are caught up in tradition. The objective should be to convert them not offend them. If a person is sincere they will be open to the truth.

[Esaias]

Jason likes to use strawmen arguments. He also makes fallacious appeals to emotion. "How loving is God to ........ people on a technicality?" The same argument is used by atheists and pagans against any form of Christianity.

Jason also has no answer for Acts 22:16. He doesn't know if Paul was saved before, or after those words were told to him. Jason's doctrine cannot account for that verse. Regardless of WHEN Paul got saved, that verse is incomprehensible in Jason's doctrinal system, as pointed out already.

The doctrinal system espoused by Jason is therefore not the same doctrine taught by or believed by the early church. Now, if a doctrine concerning salvation is NOT that which was taught by the early apostolic church, then that doctrine is FALSE DOCTRINE. Can anyone be saved by false doctrine?

Rather than sticking to Scripture, and what the BIBLE says, Jason appeals to emotion, and history. This might sway the unlearned and unstable, but DISCIPLES stick to scripture alone as the source of teaching, belief, and practice. Jason's penchant for fallacious appeals to emotion, bandwagon fallacies, appeals to authority, and legalism (good works) proves his doctrinal system is NOT the system taught or practiced by the apostles. and therefore is not biblical.

[Esaias]

Having dealt with that, we do need to address the question of "all those previous believers" who were involved in false doctrine. This is important because it is sincerely asked by people, including sincere believers.

But we need a framework within which to work, otherwise we will base our answer on our feelings instead of scripture. And that framework must begin with a question, "How much false doctrine and error does God allow? How much error in faith and practice can a person hold to before it renders them lost?"

And the answer should be a clear, BIBLE answer.

Any takers?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Having dealt with that, we do need to address the question of "all those previous believers" who were involved in false doctrine. This is important because it is sincerely asked by people, including sincere believers.

But we need a framework within which to work, otherwise we will base our answer on our feelings instead of scripture. And that framework must begin with a question, "How much false doctrine and error does God allow? How much error in faith and practice can a person hold to before it renders them lost?"

And the answer should be a clear, BIBLE answer.

Any takers?

If its baptism in JN and speaking in tongues, for salvation (conveniently ignoring all the extra baggage y'all tack on), then isn't it cut andcdried as Steve Epley says? Every single one who doesn't meet the 3 step criteria goes to hell?

Are you going to reintroduce the "light doctrine"?

Doesn't the very fact that your soteriology cannot account for "previous believers" prior to the doctrines invention in 1908 (if your thread is correct in moving it back 5 years) and thus cause the need for the question strongly suggest it is faulty at the foundations?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jason likes to use strawmen arguments. He also makes fallacious appeals to emotion. "How loving is God to ........ people on a technicality?" The same argument is used by atheists and pagans against any form of Christianity.

There is a grain of truth in what you say, but that hardly defeats the argument. The appeal to God's love by athiests & pagans is easily rebutted for the simple fact that God is just and holy, and as Creator has authority over man. Athiests & pagans refuse to even attempt to submit to God, and ACTIVELY rebel against him.

Whereas the examples I mentioned (a person baptized in titles and a woman who trims 1/8th an inch of her hair) are repentant sinners who trust in Christ for their salvation, who live faithful, godly Christian lives, who may even have met their deaths by martyrdom, but someone baptized them by quoting the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19. We can even take it a step further and say they are trinitarian pentecostals who spoke in tongues. Yet in your view, they are still lost, because the one who baptized them didn't say "Jesus" while they were in the water (because it is likely that Jesus was referenced at their baptism, you know trinitarians talk about Jesus too, right?)

So yes that's a technicality, and yes the argument did include emotion. However, let the reader note that you refused to provide any sort of answer to it, but simply ignored it and moved on. Can you answer it?

Let me develop it a bit more, from what we KNOW about Jesus Christ. We KNOW that Christ loved us (unregerate wicked sinners) so much, that while we were still in rebellion He died for us (Rom 5:6-8), we know the horrors of the flogging (John 19:1) and cricufixion, again all suffered on our behalf. We also know that if Christ so desired He could have come down off the cross (Matt 27:40), but it was His love for us which kept Him there (John 15:13). In light of the love of God revealed to us through the atoning sacrificial death of Christ on the cross, do you believe that He will send the repentant faithful believer to hell because they were baptized in Christ's own words given in Matthew 28:19?

And if yes, then please tell me how that is not sending someone to hell over a technicality. Instead of ridiculing the argument, how about answering it, and show God will do that and it not contradict everything we know of Him revealed both in the life/ministry of Jesus Christ, and in His suffering death on the cross.

And again I say, after you tell me that God send that person to hell, who trusts in Jesus Christ and lives according to His Word, explain to me your doctrine of the love of God.