Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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.

Can you give us the scriptures that support the idea that, apart from correct beliefs about the person and work of Christ, " lots of false doctrine" can be believed without being damnable?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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?

Just wanted to address that last part by saying two things.

First, it's a REALLY GOOD QUESTION, that DEMANDS being addressed.

Secondly, that question applies to ALL OF CHRISTENDOM.

[good samaritan]

No one doubts Acts 2:38, just the OP interpretation.

Self explanatory

If someone simply reads the scripture will they believe that God is three persons?

I disagree, the teaching of the trinity has caused people to feel that way. If someone will with open mind read scriptures they will struggle with two, but not three. Everyone unchurched person I have ever studied with has told me they see two. Father and Son is viewed as distinct person by first glance, but none I have talked with viewed the Holy Spirit as a person. They have viewed the Holy Spirit to kinda of like flow out of the Father.

If someone simply reads the scripture will they believe the Genesis 1 means millions or billions of years?

Everyone I have known have took it too mean literal days. (If they just simply read.)

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".

Sounds like people need to simply read this part.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Jason, let us consider the historical aspect.

It's 1530-1540. Martin Luther comes along challenging the Catholic Church. He says to be saved one must believe in Jesus ALONE. Nothing else.

He is told by many that no one in Church history has taught such a thing.

The Catholic way is to believe and be baptized (Father, Son, Holy Ghost, sprinkled or poured) and receive the Holy Ghost by laying on of a priests hands at confirmation and taking communion.

It has been taught that way for a thousand years! And now YOU tell us all we have to do is "believe"?

But what about Evangelical doctrine? Where can we find widespread groups of teachers historically who were leading large numbers of people who believed in "the finished work on the cross doctrine" before Martin Luther? If they were out there what makes Martin Luther so famous?

Does the Evangelical faith ALONE doctrine find support among the famous "Church Fathers"?

Is it not a doctrine that finds practically NO SUPPORT HISTORICALLY AMONG CHRISTIANS?

But the modern day Evangelical will say "But we go to the Bible to find it"!

Mike, I'd agrue you are greatly mistaken. History shows many Christians believed in justification by faith, all through the centuries. In particular though since you are concentrating on Martin Luther and suggest he came up with a brand new unheard original doctrine, and that's why he was so famous, John Wycliff, John Hus, Savanarola, the Hugenots and many teachers and groups believed "protestant" doctrine prior to Luther. Luther is "so famous" because while others took on the Catholic church, it was Luther's 95 Theses that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Essentially from the outset of the Catholic church you have people who are opposing its doctrine very early in history, Helvidius, Vigilantius, Aerius (not to be confused with Arias), and many more. SO this idea that justification by faith has no historical support is unfounded, and more than that, I affirm that yes it is a scriptural doctrine, and that's what really matters. But the difference in my position and yours is not that we both claim Biblical support for our views, but one view is established through history, the other is new fangled in the 20th century.

Please allow me to add a comment though, I'm not sure what you are defining "evangelical" doctrine, I'm particularly talking about protestant doctrine in general (all protestants except SOME oneness pentecostals and Church of Christ believe in justification by faith). It has become accepted in the easy believism "evangelicalism" of the day (over the last 50+ years) to diminish baptism to the point that people are "saved" and put off baptism for years, or never get baptized. This goes side by side with the doctrine of the carnal Christian, both strongly refuted by "conservative evangelicals" (if you want to make a distinction).

As we see in all the church Fathers, and in all the Reformers, and those who followed after them, despite the fact they believed in justification by faith, they all strongly affirmed the necessity of baptism. To refuse baptism was to essentially deny the faith.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Were all of those ignorant Catholics for a thousand years lost in such a scenario? Many Catholics had pressed into other nations preaching Jesus had they not? Many of them were martyrs killed by savages such as the Vikings.

Were they all now counted as sinners because they "added to the finished work of Christ"?

Prayed to Jesus through Mary? Believed the Pope was the vicar of Christ on Earth while they slaughtered millions who disagreed with points of their doctrine or committed sins?

I don't believe all of those Catholics were lost, but probably a vast majority were. I suppose one could make the argument they all were. It's possible some had genuine faith in the Savior, and I'd suggest likely. In which case such a person would be saved in spite of the church, not because of it. As for adding to the work of Christ, I think oneness pentecostals do the same (especially by standards-and I think you'd agree, for example those who teach you can't grow a beard and be saved). I don't think someone's ignorance or lack of theological understanding will necessarily condemn. This is very speculatory, and assumes that someone is a "Catholic" because it is the only expression of Christianity available to them. And its possible in God's Providence that there were underground churches where people had more choice than we realize. Certainly this was the case with groups we've come to know such as the Hugenots, Lombards, Waldenses, etc (all predate the Reformation).

As for "practicing Catholics" I can see Catholicism being a big hindrance to salvation, in my view it promotes idolatry, most believe Mary is exalted above Christ, kissing the popes feet, being involved in the crusades, etc. So how many Catholics would be saved in my view? I don't know, probably a very small percentage.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

And for us right now we are told that our doctrine cant be found in a widespread way in history. Not until perhaps 1908.

This is true, particularly of the initial evidence doctrine.

I think a very strong case can be made for oneness through the centuries.
(Have been reading Servetus' On The Errors of the Trinity the last two days, he certainly is very close to oneness. That's just a side note become some people deny this).

Certainly you can make a case there were people baptizing in Jesus name.

There were instances of tongues speaking, and mentions by various church Fathers as late as Augustine in the 4th century, and then again in the 17th and 18th centuries.

But amongst all those groups who claimed speaking in tongues, NO ONE ever taught the initial evidence doctrine. It is in very point of fact a completely new doctrine.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

In the Evangelical system they make EXACTLY the same claim as to HISTORICAL RECORDS as do the Apostolics!

No, for the reasons I just mentioned. The initial evidence doctrine is very different from justification by faith.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

"It does not matter what Church history or historians think what does the Bible say"?

True, but Church History can be a helpful, even though its not authoritative.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Why is it true for THEM but it is not true for US?

It is. Remember, Christians have always condemned each other or pronounced anethemas on one another, sadly this goes all the way back to the 2nd century. Who cares what trinitarians say? They are the majority, but not the authority.

I believe oneness people should be more assertive in apologetics to show people that are not heretics. There need to be more oneness books than "The Oneness of God by Bernard" (which I actually think is a very good book). I know there are a couple more , but they have a small distribution, and are marketed basically only to oneness pentecostals.

There is not a single oneness pentecostal systematic theology (Bernard's series is the closest thing, and isn't even close to a systematic theology). There are no Histories written by oneness pentecostals (except Bernards-again it makes the movement look bad when all its works are by Bernard. I like his stuff, and think if oneness provided more even keel people like Him it would make the Christian world take notice that there is a lot of bad information out there).

But what holds oneness back is not only the slew of misinformation about it, but the doctrine of the initial evidence and the legalism of standards (a third thing would be SOME pastors are abusive and cult like-and when EX-OPs leave and tell the Christian world what they've experienced, its a huge black eye on everyone in the movment-even though I admit, there are a great many OP pastors who are not abusive. Yet there are enough who are for the criticisms to be justified-and many times they are "big names").

I honestly think that the Christian would would be accepting of oneness if they could get to know oneness pentecostals, and hear what they believe from their own mouths. Right now they tune it out because all the information they read about OPs is bad, and because OPs don't fellowship with them, they don't get to know your faith, hope, and love.

Since I began fellowshipping with trinitarains, we've discussed oneness and trinity many times, with many people (some people are influential, as I said this past week I was speaking with James White. I've had a chance to meet John MacArthur and discuss this briefly. But I'm discussing it now as "one of them" rather than a oneness pentecostal, and even though I am still oneness in Christology, I am accepted, because when it comes down to it, there's not big differences.) I do think that many sincere people would accept oneness, because the FACT is they already believe it. Last Saturday night that was one of James White's opening points. He began by saying that many analogies of the trinity are wrong (he gave the example of water, steam, and ice and of the three leaf clover). He said what these actually teach is modalism (by which he means oneness) and admitted that many trinitarians have that view of God. Calvin Beisner stated the same thing in the opening of his book God in Three Persons, Wayne Grudem stated essentially the same thing in his book "Bible Doctrine" (a condensed form of his Systematic Theology). So my point is here is that the common "trinitarian" is more likely to have a oneness view of God than a classical trinitarian view of God, but they call themselves "trinitarians" because they don't even know the term oneness, and think any denial of the trinity (such as the big two JW and Mormonism) is a denial of the deity of Jesus Christ.

Also, even as trinitarians, many are not opposed to Jesus name baptism, even Chruches of Christ in their early days baptized in Jesus name many times, and charismatic churches are very open to it, or use a hybrid formula combining Matt 28:19 w/Acts 2:38 (which I don't advocate, but you guys ought to concede to since the name of Jesus is spoken). Either way, in point of fact, I think the case for Jesus name baptism is strong enough that if oneness people did a better job of getting the message out, people would respond. In many ex-upc churches that are now "mainline" they continue to practice baptism in Jesus name, and with little complaint.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

So considering these things is not our bottom line.....yours and mine that the Bible is sufficient to show us the way of truth EVEN IF 99.9 PER CENT OF EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH WHATS WRITTEN IN FAVOR OF THEIR OWN TRADITION?

Agreed.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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?

Fair enough question.

Perhaps it is not the literal washing away of sins (baptismal regeneration) that is in mind. I think baptismal regeneration has too major problems, and maybe we can discuss that some in detail.

Perhaps the phrase wash away your sins is figurative. Speaking to the symbolism of baptism. The effect it has on our conscious. The outward identification with the church. The parting of ways with the old man, the walking in newness of life. You may not agree with this, but both Peter and Paul seem to teach this.


Peter himself seems to write such in 1 Peter 3:21:
1 Peter 3:21 KJV
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1 Peter 3:21 NLT
And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 3:21 ASV
which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

Paul in Romans 6:4 (after spending a ton of time explaining that we are made right with God by faith)
Romans 6:4 KJV
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.
Romans 6:4 NLT
For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.
Romans 6:4 ASV
We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

Now I think that view is consistent with all that the scripture says about sins being forgiven at repentance. (Note this is also the view, though inconsistently expressed in the UPC manual-sins forgiven at repentance).

Since I answered your doctrine can you tell me how your doctrine accounts for all the times that Jesus teaches (or does) forgive sins in the gospels on the basis of personal faith/repentance, all the teachings of Peter and Paul saying the same thing (examples Peter-Acts 2:21, 3:19, 10:43, 1 Peter 1:18-23, etc) and Paul (in Acts 20:21, Acts 26:18, Romans 3:21-5:2, Romans 10:9-13, Galatians 2:16, etc)?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I a Oneness Pentecostal dont teach or personally believe that anyone will suffer in Hell for billions of years much less eternity. Are you ok with the fact that people who have never heard of Jesus will spend billions of years even unto eternity in Hell?

It's kind of like when you asked me do I feel sorry for JWs and I asnwered yes. I don't rejoice in anyone's damnation. What I know is that God is good and God is just. I do believe that what he will do in the end will be fair and righteous.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Does this system of your beliefs ask where is the love and grace in THIS?

Yes. But the scriptures do declare the Law of God on the conscious in Romans 2. Regardless, my confidence is in the character of God. He will do what is right and fair.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Which takes us back to Jehovah Witneses or Catholics. When they do the good things they do why should we assume they are cults and not saved? Is not THEIR faith born in their heart? Or do you think they just do what they do as "legalism"?

I think the distinction has to be made between good works (whether religious or humanitarian) and works which are rooted in faith in Christ.

For example, I think JWs do good work by going door to door (actually its "bad" in the sense they are spreading their heresy-but on the surface its a good religious work-evangelism), but the root of that is not really faith in Jesus Christ. Its not born of a personal testimony (as I'm sure we've all talked to many witnesses at our doors), but of the need to conform to a religion, of the misconception that failure to do so could mean being destroyed at Armageddon, etc.

Catholics do wonderful work with pregnancy centers and in their stand against abortion. These are good things, but they don't save.

When we talk about the evidence of salvation, I don't think we can look primarily at external things (building orphanages, hospitals, even missionary work-we know the Pharisees evangelized, and Jesus didn't exactly give them a commendation in Mt 23:15). These are secondary things, and can be the result of faith. But I think the evidences of saving faith are what we see in the new testament, the fruits of the Spirit, the keeping of Christ's Word, living a life like His, being motivated to acts of love BECAUSE we have been recipients of God's grace. These are the evidences I've seen amongst the trinitarians I fellowship with (and also oneness people).

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Are you comfortable with saying Jehovah Witnesses and Catholics are going to Hell?

No, but I feel like that is probably the reality.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Are you comfortable saying they will go to Heaven?

No, I am not optimistic about seeing them in "heaven", but *IF* I did see one of them in heaven, I'd rejoice with them just the same.

My place here isn't to try to judge everyone, I have opinions, which I feel are informed by the Word of God, but I leave judgment up to God. My duty is to faithfully proclaim that God commands all men everywhere to repent and trust in Christ, and that except you repent you will perish. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions about the salvation of others, but I try to be guarded, and maybe crack the door just slightly for all those who affirm faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died on a cross and rose again the third day. Jehovah's Witnesses would be on the very fringe of this as a cult, albeit a Christian cult, since they have serious Christological issues and deny the bodily resurrection. My advice to a JW or Catholic would be repent and believe the gospel. I would be very wary of remaining in either of those systems.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

According to the Rom. 3:21 and 5:2 model why are Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses excluded by most Evangelicals?

Catholics-excluded because of idolatry-worship of Mary, and the Pope (I know they deny these things), prayers to saints, an entire system based on legalism, making Jesus a subordinate of Mary.

JWs-heretical view of Christ as literally a second god, as the archangel Michael, and denial of his bodily resurrection.

That's why. Justificiation by faith in Romans 3:21-5:2 is explained, but the exclusion of Catholics and Evangelicials is based probably more on other aspects of scripture they so thoroughly contradict. Catholics could be said to break the first 2 commandments (to say nothing else of there heretical doctrines, practices, history, or even the possible identity as Mystery Babylon)
Jehovah's Witnesses fail to meet the very simple criteria set out in Romans 10:9-10 by denying the bodily resurrection.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Fair enough question.

Perhaps it is not the literal washing away of sins (baptismal regeneration) that is in mind. I think baptismal regeneration has too major problems, and maybe we can discuss that some in detail.

Perhaps the phrase wash away your sins is figurative. Speaking to the symbolism of baptism. The effect it has on our conscious. The outward identification with the church. The parting of ways with the old man, the walking in newness of life. You may not agree with this, but both Peter and Paul seem to teach this.


Peter himself seems to write such in 1 Peter 3:21:
1 Peter 3:21 KJV
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1 Peter 3:21 NLT
And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 3:21 ASV
which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

Paul in Romans 6:4 (after spending a ton of time explaining that we are made right with God by faith)
Romans 6:4 KJV
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.
Romans 6:4 NLT
For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.
Romans 6:4 ASV
We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

Now I think that view is consistent with all that the scripture says about sins being forgiven at repentance. (Note this is also the view, though inconsistently expressed in the UPC manual-sins forgiven at repentance).

Since I answered your doctrine can you tell me how your doctrine accounts for all the times that Jesus teaches (or does) forgive sins in the gospels on the basis of personal faith/repentance, all the teachings of Peter and Paul saying the same thing (examples Peter-Acts 2:21, 3:19, 10:43, 1 Peter 1:18-23, etc) and Paul (in Acts 20:21, Acts 26:18, Romans 3:21-5:2, Romans 10:9-13, Galatians 2:16, etc)?

Hmm. Are you saying you are not certain what is meant by the phrase "and wash away your sins"? Or are you saying it is symbolic? I understand " wash away your sins" to be a metaphor. Sins are not literal things that adhere to a person's body, and thus cannot be literally washed off like dirt. However, the OT speaks of sins as being blots or stains, and forgiveness of sins as having those stains removed or washed off. For example:


Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. (Psalm 51:2)

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
(Psalm 51:7)

And so forth. So Paul, being a Jew and thoroughly familiar with the scriptures, would understand the phrase "and wash away your sins" as speaking directly to justification and pardon and cleansing from his sins. He would understand it was to be done as he was told: be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord (that is, Jesus Christ). The brother telling him that had a certain view of things, that one washed away their sins calling on the Lord's name in baptism. Hence the words he used to instruct Paul.

Our doctrine determines what we tell people. His doctrine caused him to tell Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins, calling on Jesus. The modern evangelical doctrine does NOT lead people to say such things. Therefore I am forced to conclude the modern evangelical doctrine of "getting saved" is in error.

In fact, the "sinner's prayer" (or any variant of it) is a modern SUBSTITUTE for baptism! The Biblical and apostolic "way" is for people to "make their decision" via baptism, not an altar call. Interestingly, Charles Finney recognized this, although he did not seem to follow his own understanding to its logical conclusion and chose to retain the altar call (known in his day as the Anxious Seat) instead of using baptism as the preferred means of establishing a decision.

This is consistent with everything else I see in scripture. I do not see a dichotomy between faith and baptism. Peter defines the issue in 1 Peter 3:21 saying baptism saves us. What evangelical would say that? Peter explains, not the washing of filth off the body, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. It can also be translated the request of a good conscience towards God. Either way the meaning is functionally the same: baptism is the response of a good conscience towards God. It is the proper, saving response to the gospel. It is the means through which a good conscience petitions God for remission of sins by the merits of the atonement.

More in a moment...

[Esaias]

You mentioned the verse speaking of how we are buried with him through baptism into death. Baptism is into Christ's death, and we join with Him in baptism. We are made to participate in his death in baptism.

If participating in His death, burial, and resurrection isn't "getting saved" then what is? Yet Paul says this takes place in baptism. Therefore we are fully justified in saying one does not participate in His death, burial, and resurrection apart from baptism. Paul's words actually do not make sense if a person is saved before and apart from baptism. Otherwise people are saved and justified who have not been identified with Christ and his death. That makes no sense.

As for "all the times Jesus forgives sins on the basis of personal faith/repentance". You ask that as if those events where forgiveness took place, where said people did not get baptised, somehow proves baptism is not necessary.

But by the same exact logic the death of Christ is not necessary, either, because in those cases he had not yet died. Faith and repentance is NOT THE BASIS FOR FORGIVENESS. They are rather CONDITIONS, " not without which". The BASIS or fundamental reason of forgiveness is the love of God. Faith is simply a condition which enables God's love to forgive the sinner without violating God's justice or righteousness. The atonement is likewise a condition. So is full, present obedience (implied in repentance). The biblical means or occasion in which this faith and repentance is actualized is in baptism. It is not enough to mentally believe. The devils believe all the facts of the atonement, the gospel, the deity if Christ, and so forth. They even say it out loud, and even pray Jesus not to send them to hell. If that's not "belief" and "sinner's prayer" nothing could be! Yet they are not saved. Faith does not truly exist unless actualised. Faith must exist "in the real world of action" not just in someone's thoughts. The nature of faith and repentance demands some kind of actualizing. Thus evangelicals have an altar call of some kind. Wesley and the Methodists had the Mourner's Bench. Finney had the Anxious Seat. The apostles had baptism...

But we cannot dispose of a BIBLICSLLY ORDAINED MEANS in fvour of something more to our liking. One cannot have faith in something not in the Word, because (saving) faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word. If a person truly believes they are saved because they confessed to a priest and got absolution, their faith is not faith, but delusion, because it is not FROM THE WORD.

Jesus forgave people. But he hadn't died yet. The answer as to "how" is obvious - he is God and has mercy in whom he will. Notice some folks had their sins forgiven as a free gift they neither expected NIR asked for.... do you also believe one can be saved and forgiven without ever expecting to be forgiven, seeking to be forgiven, or even knowing you CAN be forgiven by Jesus?

[mizpeh]

If you guys REALLY have the Spirit (and no one else does) why such division amongst you?

A lack of LOVE and HUMILITY. AGAPE love. FERVENT LOVE not just "emotionless love evidenced by works." A love with warmth and compassion for everyone. And a lack of humility. Just because we are live in the Spirit doesn't mean we are led by the Spirit