Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed.

So if a baptized person (in Jesus name at that) is forgiven, and they never speak in tongues (and you know there are thousands of them), do they die lost?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by 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?

I posted last night that I made this statement based on Acts 9:17-18.

I'm really failing to see your point in this, maybe you can lay out your logic and make it a bit more plain.

Paul relates his testimony in Acts twice, plus what Luke gives the readers in chapter 9. I think we have an idea of what happened when Paul was converted. We do know Paul also had the gift of tongues, but we are not told He spoke in tongues when He converted (though I do not exclude the possibility that that happened in Acts 9:17).

However what we do know is what Paul taught about salvation is very detailed throughout the first 11 chapters of Romans, and at many points His writings contradict what you guys say is necessary to salvation (baptism with the proper words spoke, the infilling of the Spirit, initially evidenced only by speaking in tongues). Paul's writing's don't teach this soteriology. Paul is very emphatic about faith, the only Biblical character who stresses faith more than Paul is Jesus.

So the point of this post is, regardless of if you want to quibble over the details of Paul's conversion, when Paul himself, under the inspiration of the Spirit, detailed the work of God in salvation, it contradicts everything you guys assert.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

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

I believe forivness occurs at repentance, but baptism is answer to good conscious toward God.

Again, I feel forgiveness occurs at true repentance. Baptism is a result of repentance.

If sins are forgiven at repentance, is there still a record of them?
When God forgives our sins doesn't his cast them behind His back, into the sea of forgetfulness?
What kind of forgiveness are you advocating?

This is really a black and white issue, but very fundamental. When are sins forgiven. If at repentance, then you can't say baptism too. If at baptism, then not repentance. And the odd thing is no one seems to be advocating that forgiveness of sins doesn't occur either at repentance or at Baptist (or both), but you all are agreed that a person who repents and is baptized, (thus forgiven of sins, and in Bernards words from the penalty of sin-Paul's words would be the wrath of God), is still going to eternal damnation because they didn't speak in tongues. This is NOT biblical.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

See how you refused to address the question I asked?

Instead of answering the question "how much false doctrine can a person believe and not be lost?" you go off into these tangents. Why? Because you cannot answer.

I answered this is post#159 of this thread.

The Bible is pretty specific about what we must believe to be saved, and what doctrines will disqualify us:
Here is a post of mine from a while back:

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

It is common for oneness Pentecostals to argue in favor of the initial evidence doctrine, which simply states that anyone who truly receives the Holy Ghost will speak in tongues at the time of the baptism. It is common to link Romans 8:9 to this doctrine "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." Thus the conclusion is that if someone does not speak in tongues they have not received the Holy Spirit, they don't belong to Christ, and as such they are lost and facing an eternity in hell if they don't repent, get baptized in the name of Jesus, and receive the Holy Ghost with this initial evidence of speaking in tongues. We're pretty much all familiar with this doctrine, I'm just restating the obvious for point of reference for this thread.

But the problem of course is that there just isn't any solid scriptural foundation for this doctrine because the Bible never says that someone has to speak in tongues to be saved, nor does it ever say that speaking in tongues is the one universal initial evidence that someone has received the Holy Ghost.

See if there were just one scripture that said "except you speak in tongues you cannot be saved" or "we know the people who are saved because they have spoken in tongues" then the argument would be considerably stronger if not altogether settled. But of course there is NO scripture that teaches such, at best the doctrine is built on stringing some scriptures together, making assumptions, and arriving at a soteriological theory at best.

None of this so far is particularly new here on AFF, but what has me pondering tonight is why do oneness Pentecostals go into full denial mode when the shoe is on the other foot? For example, if there were scriptures that plainly said that if someone does X, Y, and/or Z they are saved or can know they are saved, why are those scriptures ignored? Why is the plain language of the inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative, living, Word of God not good enough for some oneness Pentecostals? How can someone really defend a teaching which insists that unless someone has spoken in tongues they cannot be saved, in the face of plain and basic scriptures?

Here's where I'm going: This weekend I've been studying through 1 John again, and charted some things out I'd like to share with regard to this topic. I admit freely this is not all that scholarly, and I'm not trying to impress, so if you want to knock my study feel free to do so, but my question to oneness Pentecostals who affirm speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation is: "How can the initial evidence doctrine stand in light of these scriptures?"

First, the book of 1 John was written for 5 reasons"
1)For Christian fellowship (1:3)
2)that the believers joy may be full (1:4)
3)they the believers sin not (2:1)
4)that they might believe on the name of the Son of God (5:13)
5)that they might know they have eternal life (5:13)


In first John there are a variety of "tests' given so that we can know who the true believers are and who the false teachers/false believers are. These tests are along 3 lines
Social=have to do with our relationships with others
Theological=have to do with what we believe
Moral=have to do with how we live.

In the order they appear in the book, here are scriptures which tell us HOW WE CAN KNOW WE ARE SAVED:

Assurance of Salvation:
1 John 1:7,9
1 John 2:3,5-6
1 John 2:10
1 John 2:17
1 John 2:23b
1 John 2:29
1 John 3:6,7
1 John 3:9
1 John 3:14
1 John 3:17-23
1 John 3:24
1 John 4:2
1 John 4:4,6-7
1 John 4:11-16,21
1 John 5:1-5
1 John 5:10
1 John 5:11-13
1 John 5:18-19

Evidence we are not saved:
1 John 1:6
1 John 1:8,10
1 John 2:4
1 John 2:9,11
1 John 2:15-17a
1 John 2:22-23a
1 John 3:6,8
1 John 3:10
1 John 3:14b-15
1 John 4:3
1 John 4:5,6,8
1 John 4:20
1 John 5:10
1 John 5:12b

1)We can know that we are saved if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah/Christ, that He came in the flesh, made atonement for our sins, and is God. These are the theological tests.
2)We can know that we are saved if we have love for fellow Christians (in the modern sense this would mean not only those of our own organization, that is in fact the opposite, a party spirit), love for all people, and genuine concern and compassion for those who are in need. In a word-if our lives are defined by love for others, it is a strong evidence that we belong to God. These are the social tests.
3)We can know that we are saved if we are trying to live Christ like lives, defined by holiness, godliness, righteousness, and a keeping of God's commandments. If our lives reflect Christ we can know that we are saved. These are the moral tests.

No where in 1 John does he specify (or even mention) speaking in tongues. It is not even a factor. But we are told very specifically:

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Instead of answering the question "how much false doctrine can a person believe and not be lost?" you go off into these tangents. Why? Because you cannot answer.

I would suggest there is a lot of false doctrine that someone can believe and be saved, so long as it is not false doctrine in regard tot he nature, person, and work of Jesus Christ. Those areas are dangerous ground.

For example the Bible tells us we MUST believe Jesus was human (strongly indicates we must believe He was divine), we must believe He is the Son of God, the Messiah, and the Savior. We must believe He died for our sins and we must believe that he rose from the grave the third day. Those things are spelled out. Also there are abundant warning about "in" that will keep us from entering the Kingdom of God in 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, Revelation 21, Romans 1, et al.

However "false doctrine " such as whether one is pre-trib, post-trib, mid trib (and someone is wrong, thus in "false doctrine), whether one is amillenial, premillenian, or post millenial (and someone is wrong), various views on the practice of baptism (and someone is wrong) tongues, standards, tithing, orignal sin, creation theories, etc.

I doubt any of us are as doctrinally pure as we think.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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.

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?

Other than recognizing a few name I know none of these men are their teaching.

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.

r


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".

It seems the three thousand where baptized as far as who did or didn't receive the Holy Ghost is conjecture because it doesn't say anyone did or didn't here.

.

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:

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?

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.

When you said the word noble here at the end maybe I am being sensitive, but nobility came to my mind. The Pentecostal movement has been under persecution from the moment it began in this country even by other professing Christians who can't dispute these things happening in the word, but only found 1000 ways to explain it away. You build your entire foundation on scriptures concerning faith yet the people you are defending have no faith that God will fill someone with the Holy Ghost with any evidence. Seems to me there is faith lacking. They serve a God who in essence has little to no role in their life aside from the straight and narrow walk which they have found to be a blessing to their life and not a hardship. Pharisee's where straight and narrow but there faith wasn't really in God it was just a religion. He doesn't work miracles, the Holy Ghost is not a miraculous gift with supernatural signs, but is something that happens unconsciously by simply believing. I have for years noticed that there is large cultural difference between Pentecostals and trinitarians. The pentecostals were the people from the other side of the tracks that are poor and crazy. Many of the wealthy people who attend at the first baptist found us repulsive, poor crazy people. I remeber as a child in school coming to school and because of sincere demonstrative worship another child making fun of me to the whole class. There is enough facts to prove Acts 2:38 and the reason people refuse it goes far deeper than they are well intentioned and just can't with good exegesis come to that conclusion. Just simply reading the NT should make in sincere hearted believer desire for deeper things.

I am not typing this with some religious pride, but with tears in my eyes. I would crawl on my knees and beg for any one to truly get a hold of that saving faith that you talk about, but I know it will take most deeper than they will want to go. I have seen to much shunning because of Spiritual gifts. I lived half of my child hood ashamed of being pentecostal, but I am understanding more and more that walking with God is going to cause hardships in life. I know there are fakes out there, but that does change what I have experienced and found in God's word. When our experiences line up with the word of God I think it is safe to trust them.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

If sins are forgiven at repentance, is there still a record of them?
When God forgives our sins doesn't his cast them behind His back, into the sea of forgetfulness?
What kind of forgiveness are you advocating?

This is really a black and white issue, but very fundamental. When are sins forgiven. If at repentance, then you can't say baptism too. If at baptism, then not repentance. And the odd thing is no one seems to be advocating that forgiveness of sins doesn't occur either at repentance or at Baptist (or both), but you all are agreed that a person who repents and is baptized, (thus forgiven of sins, and in Bernards words from the penalty of sin-Paul's words would be the wrath of God), is still going to eternal damnation because they didn't speak in tongues. This is NOT biblical.

Repentance will continue on to baptism. I have already stated this. I don't know if my posts are being too lengthy. Repentance is a change of mentality it isn't and isolated one time apology. When you repent you are inwardly commiting to leave off the works of darkness and to follow after God's righteousness. If some one died immediately after repentance I think it would be like the thief on the cross and only God knows if there is true repentance. It you truly repent and turn to God you are going to hunger and thirst after righteousness. baptism is fulfilling that righteousness take Jesus word for it.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

When you said the word noble here at the end maybe I am being sensitive, but nobility came to my mind. The Pentecostal movement has been under persecution from the moment it began in this country even by other professing Christians who can't dispute these things happening in the word, but only found 1000 ways to explain it away.

Actually by "noble intentions" I meant "good" or "sincere". It wasn't an insult at all.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

You build your entire foundation on scriptures concerning faith yet the people you are defending have no faith that God will fill someone with the Holy Ghost with any evidence. Seems to me their faith is lacking.

That's really not true at all. Because there are millions of trinitarians who are pentecostals/charismatics who believe in sign gifts of all kinds including tongues, and in the miraculous. Then there are plenty of people who are continuists (believe the spiritual gifts are still active, but don't identify as charismatic-John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Matt Chandler, etc), and then the cesstionists I know don't rule out God working amongst His people, or healings, because of their strong belief in God's Sovereignty (and thus God's right to do as He pleases).

To say these people don't have faith God will fill someone with the Holy Ghost with any real evidence is simply wrong, and just shows a complete misunderstanding of what anyone outside of oneness pentecostalism really believes.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

They serve a God who in essence has little to no role in their life aside from the straight and narrow walk which they have found to be a blessing to their life and not a hardship.

I don't know about that at all. I would say of the people I fellowship with that God has a CENTRAL role in their life. Literally everything revolves around God. Just last night I attended a men's Bible study, we began by singing a couple of hymns in a brothers living room, then proceeded to have 2 hours of Bible study. Thursday night I preached the gospel at the county jail. Wednesday night, we met at another household for a prayer meeting (we sang hymns, had a short Bible study of about 15 minutes, then had prayer for a considerable time. It was actually a prayer meeting, not a gathering where 10 minutes of actual prayer happened. Some of these very brothers have been involved in going to Iraq, Napal, etc. I'd argue anyone who is willing to go into Iraq right now to preach the gospel has faith in God.
(Here's an org closely tied to the group I am closely associated with:
http://thirstyground.com/
https://www.facebook.com/thirstygroundintl?fref=ts)

Here's a short youtube video of their work:
https://youtu.be/OzqzPLKFRmw

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Pharisee's where straight and narrow but there faith wasn't really in God it was just a religion. He doesn't work miracles, the Holy Ghost is not a miraculous gift with supernatural signs, but is something that happens unconsciously by simply believing. I have for years noticed that there is large cultural difference between Pentecostals and trinitarians. The pentecostals were the people from the other side of the tracks that are poor and crazy. Many of the wealthy people who attend at the first baptist found us repulsive, poor crazy people. I remeber as a child in school coming to school and because of sincere demonstrative worship another child making fun of me to the whole class.

The Jehovah's Witness kid had the same experience. They are just as convinced as you are that their persecution is because they have "the truth".

Originally Posted by good samaritan

There is enough facts to prove Acts 2:38 and the reason people refuse it goes far deeper than they are well intentioned and just can't with good exegesis come to that conclusion. Just simply reading the NT should make in sincere hearted believer desire for deeper things.

No one doubts Acts 2:38, just the OP interpretation.
Exegesis is simply interpreting/explaining the message of scripture, typically in a line by line fashion.
Just SIMPLY reading the New Testament points to something much different than everyone must speak in tongues.

If someone simply reads the scripture will they believe that God is three persons?
If someone simply reads the scripture will they believe the Genesis 1 means millions or billions of years?
If someone simply reads the scripture will they interpret "believe" to mean "you must be baptized only with the name of Jesus pronounced over you and you must speak in tongues or you can't be saved".

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I am not typing this with some religious pride, but with tears in my eyes. I would crawl on my knees and beg for any one to truly get a hold of that saving faith that you talk about, but I know it will take most deeper than they will want to go. I have seen to much shunning because of Spiritual gifts. I lived half of my child hood ashamed of being pentecostal, but I am understanding more and more that walking with God is going to cause hardships in life. I know there are fakes out there, but that does change what I have experienced and found in God's word. When our experiences line up with the word of God I think it is safe to trust them.

And no one is looking down on you for that. I don't hold a negative opinion of you. It doesn't mean I'm convinced by your soteriology.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I posted last night that I made this statement based on Acts 9:17-18.

I'm really failing to see your point in this, maybe you can lay out your logic and make it a bit more plain.

Paul relates his testimony in Acts twice, plus what Luke gives the readers in chapter 9. I think we have an idea of what happened when Paul was converted. We do know Paul also had the gift of tongues, but we are not told He spoke in tongues when He converted (though I do not exclude the possibility that that happened in Acts 9:17).

However what we do know is what Paul taught about salvation is very detailed throughout the first 11 chapters of Romans, and at many points His writings contradict what you guys say is necessary to salvation (baptism with the proper words spoke, the infilling of the Spirit, initially evidenced only by speaking in tongues). Paul's writing's don't teach this soteriology. Paul is very emphatic about faith, the only Biblical character who stresses faith more than Paul is Jesus.

So the point of this post is, regardless of if you want to quibble over the details of Paul's conversion, when Paul himself, under the inspiration of the Spirit, detailed the work of God in salvation, it contradicts everything you guys assert.

The passages you referenced do not say that he did, in fact, receive the Spirit.

Now, you stated you believe he was saved prior to being told to wash away his sins. How can a person who is saved, justified, forgiven, however you define "salvation", how could such a person still need their sins " washed away"? THAT is my point with Acts 22:16. Your doctrine doesn't seem to account for that. Paul needed to wash away his sins, AFTER he was saved according to your doctrine.

Can you explain that?