KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The issue is that if forgiveness (GK. aphesis, translated "remission") of sins only takes place at baptism how can God fill someone with the Holy Ghost if they are unbaptized (i.e. unforgiven)?

Someone said that they recieve it on credit.

[Aquila]

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

The bible declares that remission occurs at water baptism, not me. The putting off of the old man is accomplished when we are buried with Him in water baptism. So you are trying to convince the wrong person. Convince God that his word is in error, and that your "experience" is right.

I speak what I believe to be true according to the Word of God. There is no salvation outside of complete obedience to Acts 2:38.

Would you say that no one was saved from the time of the first century apostles until some time after the Arroyo Seco camp meeting in 1913?

If you believe that someone was saved during those 1,813 years of church history, could you name them for me, please. And remember, none of the "well Quakers spoke in tongues..." and "some people did baptize in Jesus name in the Middle Ages..." No bits and pieces; no invoking the "Light Doctrine" to get a Trinitarian Anabaptist into the kingdom.

Full salvation: repentence, baptism in Jesus name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in other tongues. Acts 2:38.

You have stated that there is no salvation outside of your view of Acts 2:38. Give of a list of the faithful who were saved according to the full salvation of Acts 2:38 from the years 100 A.D. through the year 1913. Or name as many as you can. List groups if you have to. But fill in the blanks below.

1. (the first person you can think of goes here)
2. (the second person goes here)
3. ( ... and so on ...)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

...

We're covering 1,813 years of chruch history... where's the church?

1,110.
1,111.
1,112.
1,113.
1,114.
1,115.

...

How many do you have so far?

896,789.
896,790.
896,791.
896,792.

...

Any?

10,456,111.
10,456,112.
10,456,113.
10,456,114.

...

Not even one name? Nobody fulfilled Acts 2:38 salvation for a period of 1,813 years? Nobody?

1,505,120,842.
1,505,120,843.
1,505,120,844.
1,505,120,845.
1,505,120,845.

...

How do you reconcile this with the idea that the church should at least exist throughout the time period covered by "Church History?" For you "Church History" appears to be only two periods of about 100 years seperated by almost 2,000 years in between.

Or are you comfortable with this phenomena? No church for around 1,813 years?

[Barb]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Would you say that no one was saved from the time of the first century apostles until some time after the Arroyo Seco camp meeting in 1913?

If you believe that someone was saved during those 1,813 years of church history, could you name them for me, please. And remember, none of the "well Quakers spoke in tongues..." and "some people did baptize in Jesus name in the Middle Ages..." No bits and pieces; no invoking the "Light Doctrine" to get a Trinitarian Anabaptist into the kingdom.

Full salvation: repentence, baptism in Jesus name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in other tongues. Acts 2:38.

You have stated that there is no salvation outside of your view of Acts 2:38. Give of a list of the faithful who were saved according to the full salvation of Acts 2:38 from the years 100 A.D. through the year 1913. Or name as many as you can. List groups if you have to. But fill in the blanks below.

1. (the first person you can think of goes here)
2. (the second person goes here)
3. ( ... and so on ...)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

...

We're covering 1,813 years of chruch history... where's the church?

1,110.
1,111.
1,112.
1,113.
1,114.
1,115.

...

How many do you have so far?

896,789.
896,790.
896,791.
896,792.

...

Any?

10,456,111.
10,456,112.
10,456,113.
10,456,114.

...

Not even one name? Nobody fulfilled Acts 2:38 salvation for a period of 1,813 years? Nobody?

1,505,120,842.
1,505,120,843.
1,505,120,844.
1,505,120,845.
1,505,120,845.

...

How do you reconcile this with the idea that the church should at least exist throughout the time period covered by "Church History?" For you "Church History" appears to be only two periods of about 100 years seperated by almost 2,000 years in between.

Or are you comfortable with this phenomena? No church for around 1,813 years?

Pela, I thought I had the answers until folks shot my 'evidence' to pieces, An Apostolic History Outline by Bro. Marvin Arnold, citing it's inaccuracies.

However, my lack of hard, in your face evidence does not cause me to doubt.

I cannot believe that the Church began with repentance, baptism in the Name, and Spirit infilling, ceased to exist through the so-called Dark Ages of history, only to return in the 20th century.

Call me delusional, but I just believe it continued through the ages of time...

[Apprehended]

If there was anything that got A.D. Urshan RILED up was someone trying to tell him that he was not saved before he got the Holy Ghost or was baptized in Jesus' name.

Once Nathan was trying to convince his father that he was not saved until then, A. D. Urshan shot back... I got SOMETHING!

The truth is, none of those early Oneness pioneers after 1913 ever thought that their Trinitarian friends were not saved. They only saw themselves as walking in a greater light as it was revealed to them, never questioning the salvation of those of whom they were formerly associated with who did not see the presently revealed light.

Are we now saying that those early pioneers were mistaken? I think that if they were alive today they would be appalled at some of our attitudes. What do you think?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Would you say that no one was saved from the time of the first century apostles until some time after the Arroyo Seco camp meeting in 1913?

How do you reconcile this with the idea that the church should at least exist throughout the time period covered by "Church History?" For you "Church History" appears to be only two periods of about 100 years seperated by almost 2,000 years in between.

Or are you comfortable with this phenomena? No church for around 1,813 years?

I reconcile it with the nation of Israel in the times of the kings as being a type of the church in the OT. It was full blown blessed and living to its potential in the years of King David. It became fat under Solomon and started to drift toward the end of his reign. It went through a huge split under rehoboam and suffered apostasy and mini revivals throughout the years to the point of going into captivity. But there was always a remnant that God had who served Him in truth without bowing the knee to Baal (false doctrine).

We would have been considered heretics during those 1,813 years of Church history by those in power who were considered orthodox. We would have been in hiding and if found out our writings would have been burned and we would have been martyred. But I believe just as God did in the days of Elijah, He has done all throughout history. I can't prove it but you cannot disprove it either. And we both know there has always been heretics. I'm comfortable saying this because God's truth endures to all generations. (and I'm not talking about the word of God in and of itself but the word of God active in the hearts of men)

Are you saying the RCC is the church? Are you comfortable saying that?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

If there was anything that got A.D. Urshan RILED up was someone trying to tell him that he was not saved before he got the Holy Ghost or was baptized in Jesus' name.

Once Nathan was trying to convince his father that he was not saved until then, A. D. Urshan shot back... I got SOMETHING!

The truth is, none of those early Oneness pioneers after 1913 ever thought that their Trinitarian friends were not saved. They only saw themselves as walking in a greater light as it was revealed to them, never questioning the salvation of those of whom they were formerly associated with who did not see the presently revealed light.

Are we now saying that those early pioneers were mistaken? I think that if they were alive today they would be appalled at some of our attitudes. What do you think?

We must be born again of the water and the Spirit to enter into the kingdom of God and if the new birth is the Acts 2:38 experience then it is a MUST.

BTW, faith and repentance are nothing to be snickered at, they made a HUGE change in my life.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Until this week, I cannot recall in the last many many many months having any discussion on Fundamental beliefs Sam.

Do chime in even if you feel from the FCF/NFCF days it was beat to death. Some are new and never saw the discussions.

BOOM, maybe you're right.
Maybe it just seems to me that we've talked about it more than we have.
It just seems to me that there has been a lot of discussion on "forgiveness/remission" and on "one-step" and "three-step" differences lately. Maybe I'm over sensitive on these issues.
Maybe I'm spending too much time on these forums.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

We must be born again of the water and the Spirit to enter into the kingdom of God and if the new birth is the Acts 2:38 experience then it is a MUST.

BTW, faith and repentance are nothing to be snickered at, they made a HUGE change in my life.

With your present three step position, how can you now say mere faith and repentance made a difference in your life? Are you now saying that at FAITH and REPENTANCE that you considered yourself walking in the LIGHT?

The question is...Were you walking in the light at FAITH and REPENTANCE?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Um, Sam...you know someone was gonna ask this. Why are you attending a trinity Pentecostal church seeing that God has revealed the Oneness truth to you?

For several years I have felt like I cannot in good conscience be part of a local assembly which teaches that folks who have not been baptized in Jesus' name and who have not spoken with tongues are not justified/saved/regenerated.

We stopped going to an ALJC church in the late nineteen seventies when the pastor declared in his Sunday night sermon, "The Bible says that a man is supposed to be clean shaven." I thought to myself, "What am I doing here? How can I sit here and listen to stuff like this? How can I be a part of this? Something is wrong with what we have become." The emphasis on facial hair and on hair length for men and women just turned me off. Also, at that time our pastor was leaning toward the UPC and I was afraid he might join them. At one time he asked me what I thought about the UPC and I guess I shocked him when I compared the organization to the Mafia and to the Teamsters Union. At that time there were two UPC churches in this area plus some from other organizations but I just felt like I could not be part of them either.

So, here I am, a Jesus' Name Pentecostal going to a Trinity Pentecostal church. How do I do that? Well, for one thing I am what we call a "one-stepper" here on the forum so, in my opinion, anyone who has taken that "one step" of faith in Jesus Christ is saved and is my brother or sister. As far as baptism, well, I believe that baptism should be only for a repentant believer, should be by immersion, and the name of Jesus should be mentioned, but I realize not all Christians believe that. I can accept some of my brothers and sisters who have been sprinkled, or who have had water poured on their heads three times, or who have been immersed in the FS&HG formula, or who have been baptized in Jesus' name with or without the titles of Lord and/or Christ added. I attend a local church and a couple prayer meetings in other churches where folks have been baptized in the Spirit (and I believe they have been baptized in the REAL Holy Ghost) so I am around folks who speak with tongues. My personal belief is that hair length, sleeve length, clothing styles, radio, tv, internet and a host of other stuff like that are of secondary importance and are a matter of personal opinion and conviction so I stay out of discussions like that. I doubt if many trinitarians really believe in "three gods." We all commonly believe in one God who has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and we leave it at that.

So, that's how I can go to a "trinity" church and accept the folks there.