All Trinitarians are Lost!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Originalist

None of the analogies you have used here can be substantiated with scripture. Understand, I am declaring here that the baptism in the Holy Ghost is the new birth of the Spirit and not some "second blessing". But the Bible is clear, as stated in Ephesians chapter one verses 13-14, that the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is God's sign of ownership on a life, and a validation that they have been redeemed by the blood.

Acts 10. And John 3. Yest that is in the Bible. The new birth is an analogy made by Jesus Himself. Born again of the water and the Spirit. Being born... You may not like it but there it is.

Granted, only those who have truly repented and surrendered to Christ can receive it, and normally, the party has already been baptized in water. But to say that they are "in the birth canal" blah blah blah simply is not scripture. Repentance (including water baptism) is the birth canal, but Spirit baptism IS the new birth.

[COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]Blah blah blah... Then you effectively say the same thing only saying the "birth canal" is repentance. How absolutely absurd to mock what I said then go and say essentially the same thing. Seriously???[/COLOR]

There is only one case in the Bible where someone received the Spirit prior to baptism, but that was a special case that God used to demonstrate that salvation was also for the Gentiles. The blood had been applied at Calvary for Cornelius as well. Based on his simple trust, God willingly filled him with the Spirit, proclaiming him to be part of the Body. Yes, God bent his own "rules" concerning baptism, and that is his prerogative. And I don't believe that Cornelius would have gone to Hell had he been killed on his way to the waters of baptism. But I find no scriptural support at all for the common practice of praying for people to receive the Spirit prior to water baptism. God does do it, but mainly because he having to work around someone's ignorance.

Okay so we erase scripture to fit your preconceived notion of scripture. Got it. So you do not see baptism as part of the new birth experience. So according to you he died in the birth canal, here is your quote:
"Repentance (including water baptism) is the birth canal, but Spirit baptism IS the new birth. "

[COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]Seriously? Baptism is not an essential part of the new birth experience? Do you not understand that it is part of the new birth and for the remission of sins?[/COLOR]

But back to my original point. It is ludicrous and un-Biblical to say that someone is "lost" or an "abortion" who God has marked as his own by baptizing them with his Spirit. This does mean that God will not hold accountable the one who baptized them wrongly. But if the Spirit is in them, and they are bearing fruit, they are God's. Deal with it.

[COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]As far as "dealing with it" goes I am deal with it. The "un-biblical" doctrine is the doctrine you are professing here. This doctrine started with the Reformation are you aware of that? Historically speaking baptism has always universally been understood to wash away sin and effect the new birth. This "new" doctrine that started with the Reformers is what will send many to a Devil's hell.[/COLOR]

Now, if you want to consign them to Hell because they "didn't obey the truth", be careful. Do you really want God to judge YOU by that same standard? What truth are YOU missing? ALL of us, through human weakness and ignorance, are missing the mark on some point in scripture. If God judges us by the same standard we lay on those who have the Spirit but were baptized incorrectly, then Heaven will be empty my friend.

As for the Trinity issue, a perfect understanding of the Godhead is not a scriptural requirement for salvation. The very fact that God baptizes converts in Trinitarian churches with the Spirit is an indication of this. There is no sinner repenting in a Oneness altar or Trintarian altar who even knows that there is a disagreement between the two groups concerning the Godhead. I've never heard a Oneness preacher require that a new convert profess a belief in the Onensss doctrine before he'll baptize them or pray for them to receive the Spirit. This why Steve Epley's argument is so silly. It's no wonder some label us a cult with that kind of nonsense being taught.

Elder Epley can speak for himself. Many Trinitarians are lost because they have another gospel.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Elder Epley can speak for himself. Many Trinitarians are lost because they have another gospel.

You don't have a clue about the redemptive power of the blood of the Lamb.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Farfel

In my opinion, to accept the Lord Jesus is to accept that He is God. Trinitarians and Oneness both agree on this. Both factions use John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The passage says that you have to believe God raised Him from the dead. Your opinion that one must believe Jesus is God to be redeemed/saved has no scriptural support.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

I know that! I understand Baptism like Paul, who said it is to identify with Christ in His death, burial and Resurrection.

Romans 6:3–5

Allrightythen!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Scripture teaches that it's the person being baptized speaking the words, not some goober who calls himself a preacher or bishop or some such thing intoning proper words in some sort of modified Romanist ritual of baptismal regeneration.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Additionally, water isn't the redemptive element of the individual, the blood of the Lamb is. The blood of the Lamb is something that oneness Pentecostals seldom mention when speaking of salvation though. It's almost always the holy oneness trinity of tongues, water baptism with a man saying the proper words over the individual and a list of standards. Where is the blood, the cross, the sacrifice of the Lamb, the perfect High Priest in oneness pentecostal salvation theology. Alas, it all takes a back seat to tongues and baptism and standards most of the time.

That really isn't a big deal to me. To say, "Upon the confession of your faith...." is accepting that they have believed and confessed the name. That's more important than fighting over who gets to officiate.

There are bigger fish to fry than something as trivial as who says what, IMO. As far as I can tell, the Ethiopian eunuch didn't make a statement for himself upon being baptized. He simply answered Philip's question. So, you can't prove who was officially saying anything.

And BTW, the church of Rome sprinkles an infant with water. That's more of a point of contention than the wording of an Apostolic preacher.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

John 8

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.

26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he...

Taking it one passage at a time. Yep, the passage in John 8 is almost always the first go-to scripture for proving that one MUST believe that Jesus is God in order to be redeemed/saved. The passage isn't suggesting any such thing though. Read it again....'you must believe that I am He'. Who is the "He"? One only need to read the preceding passages to find out who the "He" is which is being referred to in the passage...

Joh 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
Joh 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
Joh 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
Joh 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
Joh 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
Joh 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
Joh 8:20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
Joh 8:21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
Joh 8:22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

The "He" is the one whom His Father sent, the one from above, who was not of this world. Not in any shape, form or fashion can one force the passage to say that 'unless you believe that I am God you shall die in your sins'. It's not there.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That really isn't a big deal to me. To say, "Upon the confession of your faith...." is accepting that they have believed and confessed the name. That's more important than fighting over who gets to officiate.

There are bigger fish to fry than something as trivial as who says what, IMO. As far as I can tell, the Ethiopian eunuch didn't make a statement for himself upon being baptized. He simply answered Philip's question. So, you can't prove who was officially saying anything.

And BTW, the church of Rome sprinkles an infant with water. That's more of a point of contention than the wording of an Apostolic preacher.

The Roman church teaches baptismal regeneration just as the oneness pentecostals do. Immersion or sprinkling, both result in baptismal regeneration in it's conclusion.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Taking it one passage at a time. Yep, the passage in John 8 is almost always the first go-to scripture for proving that one MUST believe that Jesus is God in order to be redeemed/saved. The passage isn't suggesting any such thing though. Read it again....'you must believe that I am He'. Who is the "He"? One only need to read the preceding passages to find out who the "He" is which is being referred to in the passage...

Joh 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
Joh 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
Joh 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
Joh 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
Joh 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
Joh 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
Joh 8:20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
Joh 8:21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
Joh 8:22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

The "He" is the one whom His Father sent, the one from above, who was not of this world. Not in any shape, form or fashion can one force the passage to say that 'unless you believe that I am God you shall die in your sins'. It's not there.

Isaiah is very explicit on who the Father is. That is why the angel came to Mary to confirm "the Lord God shall give unto him the house of David" and why the first thing the angel told Joseph in his dream, "Joseph, thou son of David." As Christ, he was the son of God, as a man, he was the son of David. No wonder the Pharisees wanted him dead. They didn't understand Him and were totally offended by Him.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seekerman

The Roman church teaches baptismal regeneration just as the oneness pentecostals do. Immersion or sprinkling, both result in baptismal regeneration in it's conclusion.

The big difference is that an infant is not at the age of accountability to confess their sins and call on the name of the Lord.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Isaiah is very explicit on who the Father is. That is why the angel came to Mary to confirm "the Lord God shall give unto him the house of David" and why the first thing the angel told Joseph in his dream, "Joseph, thou son of David." As Christ, he was the son of God, as a man, he was the son of David. No wonder the Pharisees wanted him dead. They didn't understand Him and were totally offended by Him.

Jesus is very explicit who the Father is. The Father is His Father. His Father is in Him, He is in His Father. If we were to believe oneness pentecostals, Jesus was confused as to who He was.

Joh 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
Joh 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
Joh 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
Joh 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.