Biblical Argument or Private Interpretation?

[Jason B]

Sis. Renee

You responded to my quote of Mark 16:!6 with Mark 16:17 "and these signs shall follow them that BELIEVE, they shall speak with new tongues....."

My comment would be that we cannot take all of the signs of Mark 16:17-18 as normative for every believer. Of course as oneness Pentecostals we see tongues there right after baptism, and want to jump on it. But Jesus didn't only say those who believe will speak with new tongues, He also said they would cast out devils, take up serpents, (possibly) drink deadly poison, and they shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So contextually speaking IF we make tongues a requirement for salvation for every believer, then should not all of these other signs be evidenced in each and every believers life? Does this mean that if someone speaks in tongues, and heals the sick, but has not cast out a demon, they are not saved? They lack evidence of salvation?
And if the answer is NO that does not mean they are not saved, my response is:

Then why is one sign of Mark 16:17-18 more important than the others. For example, how can you say someone hasn't believed to salvation if they cast out demons and heal the sick? Are not those equally valid signs?

I believe that Mark 16:17-18 speaks in reference to the whole body of believers, the church, for the sake of furthering the gospel, and not to the works that each individual believer will do. I believe this is true to the context as 16:20 says "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following."

Furthermore I do think it is of extreme interest that this is the one and only place in any of the 4 gospels that Jesus refers to tongues by name, and that in the very highly disputed ending of Mark. *IF* speaking in tongues was the one and only universal initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, without which no one can be saved, and failure to speak in tongues will result in eternal damnation, it would seem that Jesus would have made that clear throughout the gospels, or in the very least inspired a very clear explicit statement in the epistles. (The epistles of which only 1 out of 21 even mentions tongues by name....hmmm....)

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by renee819

That is why the “thief on the cross” would meet Jesus in Paradise. He repented, under the Law.

The thief on the cross was saved because he was justified by faith, the same way Abraham had been saved (Genesis 15:6) and the same way we are saved (Romans 4:22-5:2, Galatians 2:16). Repentance under the law didn't save, he would have still been required to have been circumcised and make a sin offering if he was saved under the law (but even that would be missing the fact that nothing someone did under the law saved them-not circumcision, not sacrifice, not tithing, nada--only faith could save, everything else was to be the result of that saving faith). The standard oneness response to the thief on the cross, straight out of David Bernard's book the New Birth page 143 "even the repentant thief on the cross was saved under the old covenant" seems to make a good point but simply doesn't stand up to consistent logic. Salvation has always been by grace through faith. This does not and has never meant that that saving faith is alone or refuses to obey. As Martin Luther said, "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." The thief on the cross would be an exception in that he did not get a chance to demonstrate his faith by his works, but He is an example of how God can sovereignly justify the sinner based on his faith and apart from any righteous works or obedience whatsoever.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by renee819

Why did Peter tell the crowd, devout Jews, that they must repent. Be baptized in Jesus name and receive the Holy Ghost.

I see in your post another commonality to oneness people. The oft-repeated assumption that people are commanded/told to receive the Holy Ghost. This is simply not Biblically true as far as a command goes. It would be like commanding someone to jump to the moon or they can't be saved. They have no power to jump to the moon no matter how bad they want to be saved. If they were willing to risk their life by climbing to the top of the Empire State Building to jump to the moon, it would still be completely hopeless. They absolutely do not have the ability within themselves no matter how sincere or how much they desire, to jump to the moon.

The same is true of telling people/commanding people to receive the Holy Ghost. They can't, at least not on their own power. There is nothing they can do to receive the Holy Ghost. All the preacher can do is coax some psychological/emotional response from a person based on peer pressure to be accepted, or religious zeal or even faith, but that person cannot receive the Holy Ghost no matter how much they are commanded or told to.

However, the good news is that we are actually NOT commanded to receive the Holy Ghost (at least not as something we do) we are commanded to REPENT and to BE BAPTIZED (Acts 2:38) and then God has promised to give us the Holy Ghost as a gift. The same words are used interchangeably to describe the gift of the Holy Ghost, the gift of God's grace, and the sacrifice of Christ, all of which are freely given to us if we believe. We do not have to seek/tarry/beg for the Holy Ghost anymore than we have to seek/tarry/beg God for grace. They are both gifts from God, given to believers. In fact Luke 11:13 pretty much collapses the whole house of cards that is the Pentecostal altar call. We most certainly need the Spirit of God in our lives, how do we receive the Spirit of God? By believing (Eph 1:12-14) not by any effort, works, tarrying, or obedience (i.e obedience to standards or commands of a preacher-I am not suggesting a person does not need to repent). God promised the Holy Spirit to believers, its a gift He wants to give us, not something He holds back until He thinks we're ready for it or until we are good enough for him to accept us (as was mentioned earlier in this thread).

Finally, Acts 2:38 does NOT give us 3 commands. It give TWO commands and a promise. Command: repent Command: be baptized Promise: ye shall receive the Holy Ghost.

The gospel is simple, and salvation is the work of God, if tongues was the one and only universal initial evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because it would be so common it would not be disputed.

[renee819]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

We all know that Jesus was weak on the message.

What in the world are you talking about?????

[KWSS1976]

Dang Jason that was deeeeeep.....LOL

[renee819]

Originally Posted by renee819
I see this is going to be a long discussion, but that is great

.

Jason wrote,
Sis. Renee, I'm going to start to answer some of your posts, and in doing so I mean no disrespect to you. You are a sincere lady, and your gentle spirit, love for God, and zeal for His Word comes across in your posts. I mean no personal offense to you in any way, but I do not believe that all of your assumptions are correct here, nor about the initial evidence doctrine. I am going to begin my response now, and in my future posts on this thread, please read them with the backdrop of my respect towards you as an older godly woman in the church, I seek to intreat you as a mother, as commanded in 1 Timothy 5:1-2, not come across as some young disrespectful know it all

.

Jason, Thank you very much, I appreciate that you Post in such a loving manner. And I will also treat you as a son.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I think a strong argument can be made that Acts 8 is not the normative experience for all believers for all time.

Originally Posted by renee819

It was at the foundation of the Church for about 100 years. And then what happened? Did Wolves come in like Paul told the Church, that they would? Absolutely!
Philosophers, joined the church, bringing in the Trinity doctrine, which led to the Catholic Church. Little by little God led His people out of the RCC, until 1900's, He then started pouring out the Holy Ghost, again. And then He opened their eye's to the truth of Oneness.

The Church was then back on the original foundation

.

I should add, the outpouring in the 1900's was the “latter rain” promised in Joel
And if Acts 8, was the only place where we were told that they received the Holy Ghost, there might be room for argument. However, Joel and Isaiah promised it. John and Jesus told them that it would come. Jesus told us several places that He would send it down. And if He didn't go away, it could not come.
An He sent it down at Pentecost. ad then we have the other accounts of people receiving the Holy Ghost, speaking in other tongues.

Jason wrote,

So your position is that the gospel that Jesus left and that the apostles were given barely endured beyond their lifetime, as was essentially lost for 1800 years?

No! If you read Historians, like David Bernard Calfant and others you can see that the Gospel didn't die out. There were small groups, that clung to true Salvation, especially receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence.

What died out, after the Council of Niecia, was the baptism in Jesus name. It seems from history, that no one cared if people spoke in other tongues, and had the gifts of the Spirit, as long as they were baptized in the Trinity. That is, to this day, the Catholic Churches stance.

To be continued

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by renee819

No! If you read Historians, like David Bernard Calfant and others you can see that the Gospel didn't die out. There were small groups, that clung to true Salvation, especially receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence.[/B]

There is absolutely no evidence for a oneness type, three step to salvation, movement in the centuries preceding 1913. None.

I've asked oneness pentecostals for many years now, asked over and over and over and over. Find the Church of the Living God in the 1800s, a relatively recent decade. I may get responses but I've never once gotten a reference to the Church in the 1800s.

Oneness pentecostalsim with it's unique salvation doctrines didn't exist in the centuries immediately preceding 1913. It's simply another of thousands of Christians sects who believe themselves to follow the bible. The only difference is, most other Christian sects were birthed before them in 1913.

[renee819]

Jason wrote

The true gospel and full Bible salvation wasn't even a part of 90% of the church age?

And it still isn't for I'd say, 95% of the world today. It has never been popular. What is popular today, is “just believe.”

Jason wrote

All the great men, all the people who made serious contributions to the church, the men who bled and gave their lives to translate scripture, who were tortured in horrific ways simply for their faith in Christ, the men who wrote the hymns we sing today (Crown Him with many crowns, Amazing Grace, Rock of Ages, etc), all the men who translated the King James Bible, all the Trinitarian commentators that we oneness people have read to help us with our foundation for what we believe (remember that in the early 1900's essentially ALL oneness people were former Trinitarians)? All those preachers who preached in such a way that men were convicted to give their lives to God to the fullest extent, to preach the gospel all over the world, only to be eaten by cannibals, have their families killed, contact deadly diseases, and pay the ultimate price for the sake of furthering the gospel of Jesus Christ.......and that NONE of these men had the Holy Ghost? None of these men were saved?

I never said that. They are not born again. I have said, on here many times, these people will come up at the Grt Wht Throne, to be judged. And I am so very glad that God is their Judge. He is a fair Judge.

Jason wrote,

That all of these advances against the gates of hell were by the power of flesh and philosophy? That those great hymns were written by unregenerate people "in the flesh"? That the Word of God itself was translated by infidels who subscribed to paganism--and yet many oneness people to this day swear by that translation to the point they believe all others are perversions. And God's Spirit wasn't working redemption in any of these people (or very few)? Did God reveal justification by faith to Martin Luther, but refuse to fill him with His Spirit so as to leave Luther to burn in hell? Did God so stir John Wesley to seek after holiness, only to leave Him to try to achieve that holiness in the hopelessness of the flesh? Did God so stir up men like Jonathan Edwards and Billy Sunday and the like to preach against sin in such a powerful way, only to leave those who were so moved by their messages they felt as if the wrath of God could break forth on them at any moment, to die in their sins?

Martin Luther as well as Calvin were murderers. God is their Judge. If people judge them to be great men of God, while knowing that Calvin caused the martyrdom of Servetus. Are we judging righteous judgment? Suppose some Pentecostal preacher, thought, “Well he was a great man of God and we see what he did, maybe I can get by with the same. Ridiculous, I know, but that is where judging people of the past, gets us.

2 Corinthians 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise

.

If we compare what they did for Christ, their works, we would come up as lazy bums. But that is not what God looks at. They as well as we, will be judged by our works. But our works must be works of obedience and works of love. It matters not what great things people do for God, if they did not obey Acts 2:38, they are not born again. No doubt God will reward them, for we are told----”If we give a drink of water------

Because they are not born again, they will not come up in the First Resurrection, but will stand before God at the GWT.

No doubt some of them were wonderful men of God, serving God with all of the Light that they had. God is their judge, but I wouldn't want to pattern my life after theirs.
Here is group of men, that traveled the world to make proselytes to the Jewish Religion

Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves

.

You would think that Jesus would praise them. They would have taught the Law, except they no doubt did not teach the spirit of the Law. And He called them hypocrites.

Jason wrote
Did God "little by little" lead people out of the RCC but not save them? What good is being led from a burning house to fall off a cliff? Did God basically save no one from 100 AD-1900AD?

I believe I answered that.

TO BE CONTINUED

[renee819]

Jason wrote

Furthermore, considering all the great contributions that many of these men made, whom most oneness Pentecostals (especially UC's) say aren't saved and never were saved--what significant contribution has oneness Pentecostalism added or made for the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

I would say, millions have been born again.

Jason wrote

We have very few hymns, even fewer commentaries or scholarly works. We have made very little humanitarian difference (in the way of hospitals, orphanages, large amounts of aid to the poor and hungry of other nations, or even disaster victims around the world). That is not to say OPs do nothing, but just that their influence is so minute compared to that of all these other people who are not even supposed to be Christians, that we should be embarrassed if in fact we are the true church. If in fact we are the salt and light of this world. If in fact we have THE TRUTH in contradistinction to all other Christian denominations

.

I believe we did have a lot of great hymns. Right now I'm thinking of the colored preacher in Indianapolis, (I know his name, but right now I've got a bad sinus infection, and can't think straight, but I want to finish this) I believe his name was Hays

Jason wrote,

What has oneness Pentecostalism accomplished in 100 years? Seems to me like the fruit of the movement is more division and infighting than anything else. Perhaps oneness Pentecostalism is growing in overall adherents, but as various organizations/fellowships it seems like splitting, dividing, and breaking fellowship is all the rage

.

What did Jesus accomplish, in mens eyes? He started no church. He wrote no book. He wrote no great hymns, nor started any hospitals. Nor did the Apostles. I believe you may be judging wrongly.

“ it seems like splitting, dividing, and breaking fellowship is all the rage.” That's because it was wrong to start a Denomination in the first place. And churches, many of them are a business. And many ministers think, being a minster is a good thing to do, but not a calling.

Martha KNEW, it was a good thing to do, to clean the house up and cook the meals for Jesus, but Jesus rebuked her.
The Pharisee's thought it was a good thing to do, to travel the world and make proselytes, but Jesus called them hypocrites.

His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts, that is why we must stay tuned in to the Holy Spirit, and search the Word.

I believe what we come up with, as a good thing to do, without the Holy Spirit guiding us, will turn out to be "dead works."

[renee819]

Jason wrote

The true gospel and full Bible salvation wasn't even a part of 90% of the church age?

And it still isn't for I'd say, 95% of the world today. It has never been popular. What is popular today, is “just believe.”

Jason wrote

All the great men, all the people who made serious contributions to the church, the men who bled and gave their lives to translate scripture, who were tortured in horrific ways simply for their faith in Christ, the men who wrote the hymns we sing today (Crown Him with many crowns, Amazing Grace, Rock of Ages, etc), all the men who translated the King James Bible, all the Trinitarian commentators that we oneness people have read to help us with our foundation for what we believe (remember that in the early 1900's essentially ALL oneness people were former Trinitarians)? All those preachers who preached in such a way that men were convicted to give their lives to God to the fullest extent, to preach the gospel all over the world, only to be eaten by cannibals, have their families killed, contact deadly diseases, and pay the ultimate price for the sake of furthering the gospel of Jesus Christ.......and that NONE of these men had the Holy Ghost? None of these men were saved?

I never said that they were not saved. They are not born again. I have said, on here many times, these people will come up at the Grt Wht Throne, to be judged. And I am so very glad that God is their Judge. He is a fair Judge.

Jason wrote,

That all of these advances against the gates of hell were by the power of flesh and philosophy? That those great hymns were written by unregenerate people "in the flesh"? That the Word of God itself was translated by infidels who subscribed to paganism--and yet many oneness people to this day swear by that translation to the point they believe all others are perversions. And God's Spirit wasn't working redemption in any of these people (or very few)? Did God reveal justification by faith to Martin Luther, but refuse to fill him with His Spirit so as to leave Luther to burn in hell? Did God so stir John Wesley to seek after holiness, only to leave Him to try to achieve that holiness in the hopelessness of the flesh? Did God so stir up men like Jonathan Edwards and Billy Sunday and the like to preach against sin in such a powerful way, only to leave those who were so moved by their messages they felt as if the wrath of God could break forth on them at any moment, to die in their sins?

Martin Luther as well as Calvin were murderers. God is their Judge. If people judge them to be great men of God, while knowing that Calvin caused the martyrdom of Servetus. Are we judging righteous judgment? Suppose some Pentecostal preacher, thought, “Well he was a great man of God and we see what he did, maybe I can get by with the same. Ridiculous, I know, but that is where judging people of the past, gets us.

2 Corinthians 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise

.

If we compare what they did for Christ, their works, we would come up as lazy bums. But that is not what God looks at. They as well as we, will be judged by our works. But our works must be works of obedience and works of love. It matters not what great things people do for God, if they did not obey Acts 2:38, they are not born again. No doubt God will reward them, for we are told----”If we give a drink of water------

Because they are not born again, they will not come up in the First Resurrection, but will stand before God at the GWT.

No doubt some of them were wonderful men of God, serving God with all of the Light that they had. God is their judge, but I wouldn't want to pattern my life after theirs.
Here is group of men, that traveled the world to make proselytes to the Jewish Religion

Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves

.

You would think that Jesus would praise them. They would have taught the Law, except they no doubt did not teach the spirit of the Law. And He called them hypocrites.

Jason wrote

Did God "little by little" lead people out of the RCC but not save them? What good is being led from a burning house to fall off a cliff? Did God basically save no one from 100 AD-1900AD?

I believe I answered that.

TO BE CONTINUED