Oneness Apostolics In History Video.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I would love to have this set of books.
http://www.ebmoneness.com/catalog/it...80/1576541.htm

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I am Apostolic today because OF the salvation witness in Acts!

Really?

What did the Phillipian jailer ask Paul? What were the jailer's EXACT words?

What was Paul's response? What were Paul's exact words?



In order for any BIBLICAL doctrine to work, you must start with what is most clear first.

Salvation = faith in Jesus Christ-- everyting else is done and happens to the believer once he or she believes.


Salvation does NOT equal a formula that one must get exactly right or face an eternity lost.

If we want to be so exact, fine!

Which is correct:

A) In the Name of Jesus
B) In the Name of Jesus Christ
C) In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ



As for water baptism washing away sins, was Cornelius filled with the Holy Spirit and with sin at the EXACT same time?


The Oneness of GOD and baptism in Jesus Name is something that has to be REVEALED to the SINCERE seeker, right?

So where does Paul place such mysterious REVELATIONS in the order of imporatnce in a believer's life? At the top, right? Most profitable, prominent, and important place of priority, right?

WRONG!

If you understand all mysteries but still don't have love, it doesn't matter.

So, it stands to reason that even if the Oneness Pentecostals were the last gaurdians of Biblical truth on earth, their doctrine doesn't matter as much as their love. The same is true for all Christians.

Love covers a multitude of sin, but not the sin of being baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost-- if that is even a sin?

Love covers a multitude of sin, but not facial hair-- learn not the way of the heathen!

Love covers a multitude of sin, but not going to the stadium to watch a football game.



The Book of Galatians speaks to ALL CHRISTIANS-- but SOME don't read that Book.



The Phillipian jailer was a half-baked Christian-- almost saved, but not quite, as he still had more to do and it don't matter that it's not specifically mentioned all that he had left to do because the really saved Christians KNOW that he had so much more to do before he could really consider himself saved. Of course, I am speaking in an Oneness Pentecostal sense and not in the Biblical sense.


EVEN TODAY, when a new visitor comes to your church, the visitor is not told EVERYTHING that must be done to be saved (OP style). EVEN TODAY, when the new visitor becomes a new convert, the new convert is not told EVERYTHING that must be done in order to be saved (OP style), and if the new convert rejects one or more of the extra-biblical teachings presented to them and leaves the OP church, well that visitor was NEVER a new convert in the first place. If they were of us, they would never have gone out from us, right?

The esspecially kind-hearted Oneness Pentecostals would rather blame satan and his deception as the reason for the backsliding of the new convert. These Oneness Pentecostals are too loving, too sincere in their faith to look at that potentially lost soul and callously shake the dust from their feet at that new convert who is discouraged, bewildered, and frustrated. These are the ones who pray and weep over these souls, without ever thinking that maybe their extra-biblical teaching is what made the new convert twice the child of satan than before.



I miss my time with the precious Oneness Pentecostals, but I'd rather present a Biblical plan of salvation-- one so plain that even a fool can't error in it.

BELIEVE IN JESUS!


Being completely objective, it's really easy to see where some could, "make the mistake" of baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, else why would it take a REVELATION to see baptism in any other light?

So if that "mistake" is easily made by most people who name the Name of Christ, how much easier is it for a fool to make the same mistake?


Hey Oneness Pentecostals! You're NOT SAVED because you got baptized the right way! You're SAVED by the GRACE OF GOD-- leaving you, me, and everyone else WITHOUT ANY THING to boast of.



Were there not divisions in the Bible days over baptisms?
Was the church not corrected for this CARNALITY?
How is it they were carnal in their divisions, but those who divide themselves over the SAME ISSUES today are not carnal?

Oneness Pentecostals call it REVELATION, but Paul called it CARNALITY.


I miss them dearly even right now, but they're mistaken.

Even still, love covers a multitude of sin.

[Jay]

I have not seen the videos, but there was a brief point that I wished to make.

Jermyn, you asked this question,

Which is correct:

A) In the Name of Jesus
B) In the Name of Jesus Christ
C) In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ


I have an answer. All of these are fine. In fact, there are other ways to say it, without any problem.

1) In Jesus' name

2) In the name of Jesus

3) In the name of Christ Jesus

4) In the name of Jesus Christ

5) In the the name of the Lord Jesus

6) In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ

7) In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord


And I could keep listing variations. All of these and other variations on that theme would be correct. I would probably baptize someone using the a phrase similar to "In the name of the Jesus Christ".

[Dagwood]

Originally Posted by Jay

I have not seen the videos, but there was a brief point that I wished to make.

Jermyn, you asked this question,

Which is correct:

A) In the Name of Jesus
B) In the Name of Jesus Christ
C) In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ


I have an answer. All of these are fine. In fact, there are other ways to say it, without any problem.

1) In Jesus' name

2) In the name of Jesus

3) In the name of Christ Jesus

4) In the name of Jesus Christ

5) In the the name of the Lord Jesus

6) In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ

7) In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord


And I could keep listing variations. All of these and other variations on that theme would be correct. I would probably baptize someone using the a phrase similar to "In the name of the Jesus Christ".

I've even heard it said "In the Name that is above every name, the name of Jesus (or, the name of Jesus Christ, etc.)...

I don't believe we should get caught up in the correct way to say "In the name of..." when it comes to Jesus.

[houston]

It's funny. JD isn't Apostolic and comes here spewing baptist doctrine.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Dante

Apostolic movements today are a conglomeration of different denominational influences that pre-existed centuries ago.

1. Holiness is a doctrine that was the central theme of the Charles and John Wesley movements. In the last few decades those ideas have been compacted and bloated even further, and have very few roots in true Apostolic faith and practice of the first century.

2. The focus of Acts 2:38 as being the door way in to the Kingdom of God is a relatively new focus. Notice I said it's a newer focus, but it's an antique doctrine that is very obvious from Apostolic scripture. Prior to the Apostolic renewal of the last century, there were very few sects of Christendom that focused on Acts 2:38.

3. The experience of speaking in tongues has had pockets of different believers scattered throughout the world all throughout the history of the church, but there has never been as great a concentrated movement of tongues speakers as there has been the past 100+ years.

4. Water baptism has been a staple of the church from the get go. All denominations have believed in baptism of some sort; immersion, sprinkling, etc.

5. There has grown a strong emphasis of tithing as a must over the past 50 years with the sky rocketing popularity in TV preachers soliciting money from all over the country while small local churches suffer as a result of keeping this fat cats afloat. It is true that the church has always needed money, but the actual concept of tithing is a bit obscure in the context of the New Testament. That is not to negate the teaching of the NT that beseeches believers to support the local efforts of an ecclesia.

6. Salvation by grace is a doctrine that resurfaced in the 1500's by Martin Luther. As much as we don't' want to admit this, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the German reformer for standing against the Catholic churches abuse of indulgences and the idea that money and good deals could buy or work ones way out of purgatory or hell and secure salvation in to heaven.

I could continue listing so many things, but the fact of the matter is that today's "Apostolic" church is a coat-of-many-colors patched together borrowed from many pieces of cloth throughout the churches nearly 2000 years of world history.

When I was fellowshiping Aposotlic believers they always tended to treat traditional Christianity like it was another religion all together. I was never of that opinion. I'd always believed that the church fell into apostasy with a few pocks of men seeking deeper biblical truth. I saw in the Protestant Reformation a hunger for truth over tradition, yet many Protestants carrying various errors over into Protestantism. With the Great Awakening there was a growing cry for REVIVAL. I used to see the Apostolic movement as the answer to that prayer... I believed that WE ARE THE REVIVAL the church has prayed for down through the centuries. Therefore, we should not forsake our traditional brothers and sisters but rather seek to help them into greater truths, not trying to win them to our church or organization... but try to deepen their experience, relationship, and understanding with regards to God.

But for the most part... the Apostolic movement has cut itself off from the very church she was sent to revive. And that's why we've not seen as many great revivals as we used to.

[Norman]

What I believe is based on what I read in the Bible, which happens to be the same thing my Dad believed. I cannot find "faith only" in the Bible; neither can I find "God in three persons." I do believe in salvation by faith, but can you really believe in Jesus then ignore what he taught? I don't think so. Was James wrong in writing that faith without works is dead?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Dante

.
...
2. The focus of Acts 2:38 as being the door way in to the Kingdom of God is a relatively new focus. Notice I said it's a newer focus, but it's an antique doctrine that is very obvious from Apostolic scripture. Prior to the Apostolic renewal of the last century, there were very few sects of Christendom that focused on Acts 2:38.

...

.

I agree that water baptism has been around as long as there has been around for a long time. It was developed as a mikvah or cleansing ritual a couple of centuries before the birth of Christ. It was included in the ministry of John the Baptist, carried over into the ministry of Jesus, and carried over further in the first century church.

We have no account in the Book of Acts of what words (if any) were spoken as part of the mikvah/baptism ritual. We assume the name of Yeshua or Jesus was spoken because that name was invoked at exorcisms, in the healing of the sick, and in prayer. Some believe "baptism in Jesus' name" means "baptism by the authority of Jesus" or "baptism as authorized by Jesus" and therefore would include the words recorded in Matthew 28:19 as being said by Him .

[Sam]

Originally Posted by houston

It's funny. JD isn't Apostolic and comes here spewing baptist doctrine.

some might consider what he is presenting (or "spewing" as you lovingly say) to be Apostolic doctrine.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

...If we want to be so exact, fine!

Which is correct:

A) In the Name of Jesus
B) In the Name of Jesus Christ
C) In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ...

it's sad but there are Apostolic or Oneness Pentecostal groups that have really taken a stand on "the name" to be used at baptism. This has resulted in preaching that those who use titles like "Lord" and/or "Christ" may not be saved if they used those words or may only be saved if they used those words.

Some Apostolics or Oneness Pentecostals consider the formula "Lord Jesus Christ" to be triune or trinity and as bad as using the traditional Father, Son and Holy Ghost formula.

Some Apostolics believe God is three persons/personas/roles/offices/personalities/etc. and therefore requires three "names" (Lord plus Jesus plus Christ) to cover Him/them.

Some believe the name of the Father is Lord; the name of the Son is Jesus; and the name of the Holy Ghost is Christ so the full name for the full God is "Lord Jesus Christ."