Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[good samaritan]

I simply admitted I cannot know for certain the moment of Paul's salvation.
Let me turn the question around on you-was Paul saved before the words of Acts 22:16 were spoken or not?

Scripturally he was not. God can do what he would like, but I wouldn't use this as a reason to dismiss Jesus name baptism.

If you want my best educated guess, I would say BEFORE, and base that on the reception of the Spirit which (like the case of Cornelius) seemed to take place prior to baptism, as per Acts 9:17-18.

Do you know someone personally that has been filled with the Holy Ghost that died so quickly they did not have a chance to get baptized. I have confidence that God would not allow such a situation, but if it happened it is his decision.

And if that is the correct conclusion (and according to the order given in Acts 9 it seems to be) then the account of Cornelius' household receiving the baptism of the Spirit prior to water baptism wasn't just "an exception" as you asserted earlier in this thread.

Certainly not an exception many are filled with the Holy Ghost before baptism. If they are full of the Holy Ghost they will have a desire to be baptized.

Furthermore then, considering both Acts 9:17-18 and 10:44-48 (to say nothing of Romans 4:10) you have to explain how your view of baptismal regeneration (the idea that we do not receive forgiveness from sin until we are baptized) is consistent with people receiving the Holy Ghost while still in sin (an unclean vessel).

I don't know about Esaias, but IMO forgiveness occurs at true repentance. Baptism is the burial or the covering of those sins. Act 2:38 says we are baptized for the remission of sin. I believe that the sin is forgotten from the record at baptism. IMO

And then if you say that sins are forgiven in water baptism, as David Bernard does in his book "The New Birth" then the burden of proof is on you to explain how such a person can be lost because the don't speak in tongues.

As Bernard writes on page 115 "Repentance and water baptism together COMPLETE the full work of forgiveness. At baptism God washes away sin by removing the eternal record and PENALTY of sin."

Or refute the UPCI manual when it states under the subheading "Repentance" "Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance.

Of course I expect you to say that neither Bernard, nor the UPC manual are the authorities, and of course I agree. My point is that you (and all OPs) have a real problem on your hands with the simple question "at what point are sins forgiven?

"

I believe forivness occurs at repentance, but baptism is answer to good conscious toward God. Do you believe that when two people commit to a monogamous relationship that they are married or do they go on and have a ceremony and make it official. If we refuse Jesus name baptism after repentance we are continuing in our disobedience and that results in our becoming a sinner. I don't think that the water in baptism takes on a supernatural work, but our obedience is a supernatural work.

If they are forgiven and bear no guilt, how can they still go to hell b/c they haven't spoken in tongues?

I see your point, but it is just hypathetical and it still gives no authority for someone to consciously reject Jesus name baptism or the infilling of the Holy Ghost. For your argument to be valid a person would have to die immediately upon repenting. There is another issue, what is repentance? I think that repentance is more than an apology and a confession of faith. Just because someone on their death bed says they are and that they believe on Jesus that does give me security at all of where they are going. I hope they make it. You are in essence advocating a teaching that says they can do such things and get by. Maybe unintentionally.

If you thus say a person's sins are forgiven when they receive the Holy Ghost (and by this you mean not to separate if from speaking in tongues), then why do you stress the washing away for sins in Acts 22:16 and Acts 2:38? And what of Mark 16:16 which would contradict this view?

Again, I feel forgiveness occurs at true repentance. Baptism is a result of repentance. Repentance means to change ones mentality. I'm not going to sin, but now I am going to follow Jesus. Well what did his word say: Be baptized in Jesus name and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost. Yes you do speak in tongues when you get the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is given as a initial sign of the Spirit baptism. You probably say that you judge by the fruit of the Spirit, by which I say you are partly correct. If I see some speak I am witness to the Spirit baptism (confirmation) If they live like the devil afterwards I would doubt their experience. If there was no tongues there is no witness of the Spirit baptism. There are atheists who dimonstrate the good works that we could associate with the fruit of the Spirit.

[Esaias]

Okay, if I am not mistaken, Jason, you are saying Paul was saved before Acts 22:16 was spoken to him. You say you base this on his receiving the Spirit prior to being baptized.

Can you please show me where the Bible says that? That he received the Spirit prior to being baptized?

[Esaias]

Regarding forgiveness - the word remission means forgiveness. Acts 2:38 says baptism is for the remission of sins. There is no difference between forgiveness and remission of sins, such a distinction does not exist in the Greek.

[mizpeh]

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?

There are the foundational doctrines in Heb 6:1-2

I believe faith, repentance, the baptisms (the new birth), and progressive transformation all guided by the Spirit and grace are the elements of salvation. Having said that, I'm not sure that there won't other who will be saved without those things for lack of knowledge of the truth. And, of course, those who don't have mental capacity or are too young to truly understand and will not be held accountable.

[good samaritan]

Romans 3:22-26 NLT
We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are. For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard. Yet God freely and graciously declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

Romans 4:5, 9-11, 22-25 NLT
But people are counted as righteous, not because of their work, but because of their faith in God who forgives sinners. Now, is this blessing only for the Jews, or is it also for uncircumcised Gentiles? Well, we have been saying that Abraham was counted as righteous by God because of his faith. But how did this happen? Was he counted as righteous only after he was circumcised, or was it before he was circumcised? Clearly, God accepted Abraham before he was circumcised! Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous--even before he was circumcised. So Abraham is the spiritual father of those who have faith but have not been circumcised. They are counted as righteous because of their faith. And because of Abraham's faith, God counted him as righteous. And when God counted him as righteous, it wasn't just for Abraham's benefit. It was recorded for our benefit, too, assuring us that God will also count us as righteous if we believe in him, the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was handed over to die because of our sins, and he was raised to life to make us right with God.

Romans 5:1-2 NLT
Therefore, since we have been made right in God's sight by faith, we have peace with God because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us. Because of our faith, Christ has brought us into this place of undeserved privilege where we now stand, and we confidently and joyfully look forward to sharing God's glory.

One question who is this letter written to the church or the sinner? The church. The people he was talking to already had been baptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Ghost. You are using letters to the Church out of context.

3-- Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The people who Paul spoke already understood the necessity of baptism.

So I'm curious how if a man is justified by faith and at peace with God, how he could still be subject to the damnation of hell?

Faith without works is dead. If a man has faith he is going to have works. I think the definition of faith is the problem. Some think it is easy believe ism, but faith is much deeper than. Faith is is reliance on God and His word. I don't want to get to deep, but I believe faith doesn't come through our conscious knowledge, it is given from God. I don't think anyone realizes the levels of grace that produce salvation. We can't even believe in Him if He doesn't allow it.

And I know you despise when I mention church history, and I sympathize with you. If I started a thread that could only trace my doctrine back to 1908, I'd try to avoid references to church history also.

I don't even think the history of catholics burning people is church history. It may be history, but it wasn't the Church. The Church would never produce such atrocities. If this history makes you feel better about your doctrinal stance that is all I need to know. The problem is we have too many using the word of God without the Spirit of God. Scripture compares the word of God to two edged sword which I would never let my children play with. God's can be taken and used for the wrong, but the Holy Ghost is necessary to lead and guide us in truth.

Also in regards to the book of Acts can you explain why the 3,000 were added to the church in v.41 with no indication that they spoke in tongues, or why Peter didn't mention Jesus name baptism in his Acts 3 sermon, and again why the 5,000 of Acts 4:4 didn't speak in tongues (and apparently weren't immediately baptized, yet were counted amongst the believers? Are these "emotional" questions?

This is conjecture because it doesn't give all the details only summarizes the work that was taking place. If we had a hundred people show up in regular attendance at our church I would acknowledge them as church numbers, but that wouldn't make anyone of them saved. Even though the apostles gave these numbers it doesn't mean that all those people where going to be in heaven. I think each individual had to make his calling and election sure. This is another scripture that doesn't take away from Spirit and water baptism.

Can you answer why water baptism and speaking in tongues are not included amongst the various tests of genuine saving faith listed all throughout the book of 1 John?

It had already been established. Does baptism have to be seen in every verse and every instance to be proven? I think that faith is the core, but it will lead people to have doctrinal truth. Faith is emphasized because it is center of it all, but you must get the right concept of faith.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

One question who is this letter written to the church or the sinner? The church. The people he was talking to already had been baptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Ghost. You are using letters to the Church out of context.

Good Samaritan if you look back at my posts I've already anticipated this argument and refuted it. In short, just because scripture is written to the church doesn't mean that it can't accurately explain the interworkings of salvation. In fact, where else would we expect to find an explanation about the specifics of the hows and whys of salvation EXCEPT to believers?

In addition to that your argument fails on another level simply by common sense. Do you EVER preach/teach your people about salvation? Why, since they are already saved, why bother to explain these things to them? Of course you do, and ever preacher does.

If you are teaching someone a Bible study (let's say Search for Truth) and such a person gets saved while you're still in the Old Testament portion. Do you stop the study there, or do you continue on with the rest of the study so that that person may have a greater understanding of the meaning behind their salvation? I would guess you would press on.

Yet, you give the very well worn , recycled, predictable, and standard oneness Pentecostal answer "he was writing to the church." Yes, I have read Romans, I am aware.

But let me go a step further, lets say I grant you your argument and say "you can't teach salvation from the epistles because they were written to people who were already saved".

Would you please go ahead and give a brief exegesis on Romans 3:21-5:2 (or feel free to exegete the first 5 chapters).

See because all you've done is dismissed the argument and refused to dive into the text. So does the text mean what it says or not?
Romans 3:21-5:2

[good samaritan]

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

I think this is a summary of why Paul uses these scriptures you present. He was reminding those who had followed Acts 2:38 that faith was the foundation. You are in essence saying that doctrine doesn't matter so that you have faith. Paul was emphasizes that faith is what produces sound doctrine.There are OP's who think they have made reservations with God just because of a magic formula. I think Paul constantly reminded the already born again Church that we must continue in the faith. He was teaching doctrine, but instead giving the motivation for doctrine.

[good samaritan]

Would you please go ahead and give a brief exegesis on Romans 3:21-5:2 (or feel free to exegete the first 5 chapters

)

If I wanted to write a book maybe. lol.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Faith without works is dead. If a man has faith he is going to have works.

Yes, exactly, and every time I post many examples of people who believe in justification by faith and have the works to go with it, you guys change gears. When have I advocated cheap grace in this thread or any? The only way to conclude that is to twist my words.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I think the definition of faith is the problem. Some think it is easy believe ism, but faith is much deeper than.

I'm not even bothering to address this. Re-read my previous posts.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Faith is is reliance on God and His word. I don't want to get to deep, but I believe faith doesn't come through our conscious knowledge, it is given from God.

Go ahead and get deep.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I don't even think the history of catholics burning people is church history. It may be history, but it wasn't the Church. The Church would never produce such atrocities. If this history makes you feel better about your doctrinal stance that is all I need to know.

Really? This is so far from anything I've said, it doesn't warrant a response.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The problem is we have too many using the word of God without the Spirit of God.

And who are they? Me? Martyn Lloyd-Jones? David Wilkerson? Who are the men using the Word of God without the Spirit?
Who are the men using the Word of God with the Spirit?

It's interesting you guys reject the teaching of guys like Ravenhill, Lloyd-Jones, Wilkerson, Spugeon, etc (and I'm not saying these men are infallible, no man is) but will put up with the teaching of Steve Epley, Jeff Arnold [calling people stupid, and saying "whats wrong with you, you got a tumor on your head" and other such abusive tactics], Anthony Magnum saying "when I count to 3 every speak in tongues, 1,2,3, everyone speak in tongues, everyone in this building speak in tongues!), Stonekings "magic hair doctrine", etc.
You guys put up with things from men that 1 Timothy 3 says would disqualify them from being elders, and hold them up as "God's anointed" and then talk about these guys like I've mentioned and more (Edwards, Wesley, Moody, Newton, Hus, Wycliffe, MacArthur, Hudson Taylor, Ian Thomas, George Mueller, George Whitefield, etc) as not having the Spirit?

I can't see how you don't see how cult like that is.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

This is conjecture because it doesn't give all the details only summarizes the work that was taking place. If we had a hundred people show up in regular attendance at our church I would acknowledge them as church numbers, but that wouldn't make anyone of them saved.

So noting the 3,000 in Acts 2:41 didn't speak in tongues, that Peter preached in Acts 3 and didn't give the call of Acts 2:38 and that 5,000 believed as Acts 4:4 tells us (and again note that they didn't speak in tongues) is "conjecture".

You have 5,000 or 8,000 (if the numbers are meant to be taken together as so believe) people who didn't speak in tongues just 4 chapters into Acts. You call me pointing this out "conjecture" but you have no problem interpolating your view of the new birth, including speaking in tongues on all 8,000, without a shred of scriptural evidence?

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Even though the apostles gave these numbers it doesn't mean that all those people where going to be in heaven.

I would argue that the context of Acts 2:41 and 4:4 very strongly implies these were not false converts.

In response to the question
Can you answer why water baptism and speaking in tongues are not included amongst the various tests of genuine saving faith listed all throughout the book of 1 John?
You answered:

Originally Posted by good samaritan

It had already been established.

I refute that by noting that nothing John wrote in his book about the tests of true faith vs false faith wasn't "already established" elsewhere in scripture. If you write an epistle with purposing to make sure your readers can KNOW they have eternal life (as John plainly said was His goal to do 1 John 5:13), don't you think he'd mention things that are absolutely essential and necessary to salvation?

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Does baptism have to be seen in every verse and every instance to be proven?

No, neither repentance. But the big difference is between water baptism and speaking in tognues, that water baptism was the normative practice of the church from the beginning. Water baptism is mentioned to several times throughout the epistles. All through church history water baptism has been seen as the entrance into the covenant community. We have not only ABUNDANT scriptural witness that water baptism was NORMATIVE, UNIVERSAL, and expected of EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER in all times and place AND abundant witness for 20 centuries of church history that this has been the regular practice of essentially all expression of Christianity, orthodox, heretical or otherwise.

Perhaps you'd have a stronger case if Paul asked "do all get baptized?" But of course he does not.

Where as speaking in tongues occurs 4 times in the book of Acts, is mentioned only in the letter to the Corinthians of all the epistles (and that was the least mature of all the churches), the references to tongues are much more of a rebuke and correction than anything else, and Jesus only mentions tongues in Mark 16, and in a context which suggest that not every believer would speak in tongues (lest you will say that every believer must also heal the sick, cast out demons, take up serpents, and drink poison).

Beyond the fact that there is NO scriptural witness that tongues was anything more than a sign that God used, and a gift within the body (though not for everyone anymore than any other gift is for everyone), it has also never in all of church history been seen as normative for all believers, and not until 1901 was tongues connected with the very unique oneness Pentecostal doctrine of the initial evidence. I know you guys don't like this, but these are facts. There is a HUGE DISTINCTION between the way baptism is presented in the scriptures and then throughout church history and the way tongues are presented in the scriptures and throughout church history.
And NO, I am not making church history equal to or above scripture. I'm pointing out the fact that when your doctrine (of initial evidence) has never been taught until 1901, that's a major problem. It suggests, that maybe, just maybe, people with noble intentions arrived at an incorrect conclusion.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I think this is a summary of why Paul uses these scriptures you present. He was reminding those who had followed Acts 2:38 that faith was the foundation. You are in essence saying that doctrine doesn't matter so that you have faith.
Paul was emphasizes that faith is what produces sound doctrine.There are OP's who think they have made reservations with God just because of a magic formula. I think Paul constantly reminded the already born again Church that we must continue in the faith. He was teaching doctrine, but instead giving the motivation for doctrine.

Paul reminds the church to continue in faith many places and when he does, he says (if you will allow me to be plain) "continue in the faith" (ex Colossians 1:23). To explain away Romans 3,4, and 5 as "Paul is just encouraging them to continue in the faith" is pretty silly.

Also, on your point about sound doctrine, can you tell me where I can find sound doctrine amongst oneness Pentecostals? It seems all you people who have "the truth" and the "real Holy Spirit" are equally or more divided on doctrine than any other segment of Christianity. If you guys REALLY have the Spirit (and no one else does) why such division amongst you?