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

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Barton Stone was one of the "founding fathers" of what is known today as the Churches of Christ. I was a member of that denonimation for the first 48 years of my life, leaving it when I received the baptism of the Holy Ghost 27+ years ago.

With that being said, I perceive there's something of significant import that has been overlooked during this discussion, namely, the words which our Lord said when He gave unto apostle Peter the "keys" to the kingdom of heaven ...

"And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).

For anyone to assert, suggest, or otherwise intimate that ANY element of the doctrines, customs, or practices of the 1st Century One God Apostolic Church did NOT exist during the period following the decease of the apostles UNTIL the present day, is the same as saying "the gates of hell" have prevailed during that same period, and that our Lord's words were not fulfilled.

There has NEVER been a single moment during the past 2000+ years that the church which Jesus Christ instituted on that 1st Pentecost following His bodily ascension to the throne of God located in the invisible heavens, that "the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" has ceased to exist somwhere in the earth.

Albeit His church, during this period, may not have been as prominent, or widely renown as it is today, nevertheless it has always been, and will continue to be until He comes again! That fact is indisputable! To say otherwise, IMHO, is to give our enemy more power than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! That I will never do!!!

Absolutely! and a BIG AMEN!

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Barton Stone was one of the "founding fathers" of what is known today as the Churches of Christ. I was a member of that denonimation for the first 48 years of my life, leaving it when I received the baptism of the Holy Ghost 27+ years ago.

With that being said, I perceive there's something of significant import that has been overlooked during this discussion, namely, the words which our Lord said when He gave unto apostle Peter the "keys" to the kingdom of heaven ...

"And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).

For anyone to assert, suggest, or otherwise intimate that ANY element of the doctrines, customs, or practices of the 1st Century One God Apostolic Church did NOT exist during the period following the decease of the apostles UNTIL the present day, is the same as saying "the gates of hell" have prevailed during that same period, and that our Lord's words were not fulfilled.

There has NEVER been a single moment during the past 2000+ years that the church which Jesus Christ instituted on that 1st Pentecost following His bodily ascension to the throne of God located in the invisible heavens, that "the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" has ceased to exist somwhere in the earth.

Albeit His church, during this period, may not have been as prominent, or widely renown as it is today, nevertheless it has always been, and will continue to be until He comes again! That fact is indisputable! To say otherwise, IMHO, is to give our enemy more power than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! That I will never do!!!

Barton Atone and Alexander Cambell both denied the trinity and taught remission of sins through baptism in Jesus name 100 years BEFORE Azuza.

[Abiding Now]

As Stone further studied, he and others came to believe that baptism “was ordained for the remission of sins, and ought to be administered in the name of Jesus to all believing penitents.”

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...=1#post1325993

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

Barton Atone and Alexander Cambell both denied the trinity and taught remission of sins through baptism in Jesus name 100 years BEFORE Azuza.

The contemporary Church of Christ tenaciously embrace water baptism for the remission of sins, albeit they baptize converts in the triune formula. I know that for a fact, for it was the manner of my baptism when joining it.

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

The initial evidence doctrine is a hypothetical. Until Topeka no one in history connected tongues as being the one and only universal sign/evidence of the baptism of the Spirit (ie regeneration/salvation). The whole Pentecostal movement is built on a very questionable interpretation of scripture and at odds with all Christianity that cones before it. Yet claims to have rediscovered the truth.

If oneness Pentecostals rediscovered truth then we can't help but wonder about Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Both groups are older (though not much) than the oneness pentecostal movement and both have had greater success in terms of both evangelism, zeal to get out their "truth" based on their unique interpretation of scripture, and we see much greater unity amongst them that the multi fragmented always fighting and dividing OP church.

I do believe that both JWs and Mormonism are cults. And I don't think that age alone really proves anything as far as truth....BUT when your movements beginnings are newer than the JWs and Mormons that should be a red flag. When your view of Bible salvation flies in the face of 20 centuries of church history, including every other non OP denomination that exists concurrently with your group, that should be a red flag.
When your soteriology excludes 99% of all CHRISTIAN people if all time, and teaches that no Christian leader, missionary, scholar, or martyr in the last 20 centuries went to heaven (who can you name in Church history who has "obeyed Acts 2:38" according to your movements private interpretation?), that should be a red flag. When your group has historically been more concerned with whether or not a woman trims her hair, wears red, has an earring, or if a man has a been or LITERALLY hundreds if not thousands more of man made standards than with preaching the gospel (ie the gospel is secondary to their tradition and private interpretation not just if soteriology but also of sanctification) that should be a red flag.

To me everything about the oneness movement screams watch out. And a lot I didn't see while I was in. I remember saying to my wife a few months after we left, it was like we lived 10 years in a bubble and never even realized it.

But I'm getting off track. The point is there is no greater assumption in all Christendom than the assumption that every single person in the first century spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Ghost. If that's not assumption tell me what is.

It begins with your watershed text, Acts 2:38. Where is there any indication whatsoever that the 3,000 of v.41 spoke in tongues? It must be ASSUMED. Where is there any indication the 5,000 in Acts 4:4 spoke in tongues? It must be ASSUMED. What about the Ethiopian Eunuch? Assumption again. The Philippian jailer? You have to ASSUME he spoke in tongues. The entire Corinthian church? You gave to ASSUME (against pretty strong evidence to the contrary in 1 Cor 12:30) that they All, every single one, spoke in tongues.

And you have to Assume that every where else in the world wherever the gospel was preached and received they all spoke in tongues. Despite no Biblical evidence if it. If Gentiles spoke in tongues every single time why didn't Paul and Barnabas just say so at the Jerusalem Council instead Peyer had to testify about Cornelius's house speaking in tongues several years back to end the debate about whether or not Gentiles were accepted by God without circumcision.

Then after making all those assumptions and explaining away multiple texts necessary to arrive at your conclusion you have to explain why no one in post biblical church history was apparently saved (and especially why we see no group or sect teach your interpretation if Acts 2:38 through the 2,3,4,5 and so on centuries until the 20th). Even groups with some relation to oneness groups were not the same. The Sabellians apparently did not believe tongues were the initial evidence. The Montanists were a oneness group (Tertullian is the most well known Montanist). There is no biblical or historical evidence that anyone ever believed salvation to be what you posit it to be.

That's a big assumption. The foundation and very bedrock of the modern oneness Pentecostal movement is ASSUMPTION.

Assume? Are you serious? Have you never read the words of Malachi 3:6, which explicitly state that God hath said, "I am the LORD, I change not"?

When God does something a PRECEDENT is established! On the day of Pentecost when the baptism of the Holy Ghost was first given to mankind, do not the words of Acts 2:4 explicitly state that "they were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance"? That established an UNCHANGEABLE PRECEDENT, my friend, which clearly tells us that in EVERY instance thereafter when God gives one the wondrously indescribably "gift" of His Spirit, they WILL "speak in tongues," without exception whatsoever!

Why, or better still, by what authority do you, or any other, question whether someone, whether it be those of times past, wherein the biblical record of their receiving of the Holy Ghost does not include the statement that they spake in tongues, "assume" that this is not the evidence which God gives of its receipt?

Who giveth thee the privilege to change, or even question that PRECEDENT which God hath established as a PRECEDENT? May I suggest you invest more of your time in REALLY doing some serious biblical research to learn the truth of this matter? Its clearly evident to me, as well as others whose comments I have read here, recognize your need to do so!

Respectfully submitted for your prayerful consideration of its merits.

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by Lafon

The contemporary Church of Christ tenaciously embrace water baptism for the remission of sins, albeit they baptize converts in the triune formula. I know that for a fact, for it was the manner of my baptism when joining it.

My family also had roots in the CoC. Shows how far they digressed from their founders.

[Abiding Now]

As Stone further studied, he and others came to believe that baptism “was ordained for the remission of sins, and ought to be administered in the name of Jesus to all believing penitents.”

Wrong link in post above and I waited too long to edit.

http://veritasvenator.com/2013/07/31...ne-and-baptism

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

My family also had roots in the CoC. Shows how far they digressed from their founders.

Yes, it does. It was no easy thing for me to forsake the teachings of my beloved parents and the ministry of the CofC, but Oh how grateful I shall always be for God bringing me out of them!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

The initial evidence doctrine is a hypothetical. Until Topeka no one in history connected tongues as being the one and only universal sign/evidence of the baptism of the Spirit (ie regeneration/salvation). The whole Pentecostal movement is built on a very questionable interpretation of scripture and at odds with all Christianity that cones before it. Yet claims to have rediscovered the truth.

If oneness Pentecostals rediscovered truth then we can't help but wonder about Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Both groups are older (though not much) than the oneness pentecostal movement and both have had greater success in terms of both evangelism, zeal to get out their "truth" based on their unique interpretation of scripture, and we see much greater unity amongst them that the multi fragmented always fighting and dividing OP church.

I do believe that both JWs and Mormonism are cults. And I don't think that age alone really proves anything as far as truth....BUT when your movements beginnings are newer than the JWs and Mormons that should be a red flag. When your view of Bible salvation flies in the face of 20 centuries of church history, including every other non OP denomination that exists concurrently with your group, that should be a red flag.
When your soteriology excludes 99% of all CHRISTIAN people if all time, and teaches that no Christian leader, missionary, scholar, or martyr in the last 20 centuries went to heaven (who can you name in Church history who has "obeyed Acts 2:38" according to your movements private interpretation?), that should be a red flag. When your group has historically been more concerned with whether or not a woman trims her hair, wears red, has an earring, or if a man has a been or LITERALLY hundreds if not thousands more of man made standards than with preaching the gospel (ie the gospel is secondary to their tradition and private interpretation not just if soteriology but also of sanctification) that should be a red flag.

To me everything about the oneness movement screams watch out. And a lot I didn't see while I was in. I remember saying to my wife a few months after we left, it was like we lived 10 years in a bubble and never even realized it.

But I'm getting off track. The point is there is no greater assumption in all Christendom than the assumption that every single person in the first century spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Ghost. If that's not assumption tell me what is.

It begins with your watershed text, Acts 2:38. Where is there any indication whatsoever that the 3,000 of v.41 spoke in tongues? It must be ASSUMED. Where is there any indication the 5,000 in Acts 4:4 spoke in tongues? It must be ASSUMED. What about the Ethiopian Eunuch? Assumption again. The Philippian jailer? You have to ASSUME he spoke in tongues. The entire Corinthian church? You gave to ASSUME (against pretty strong evidence to the contrary in 1 Cor 12:30) that they All, every single one, spoke in tongues.

And you have to Assume that every where else in the world wherever the gospel was preached and received they all spoke in tongues. Despite no Biblical evidence if it. If Gentiles spoke in tongues every single time why didn't Paul and Barnabas just say so at the Jerusalem Council instead Peyer had to testify about Cornelius's house speaking in tongues several years back to end the debate about whether or not Gentiles were accepted by God without circumcision.

Then after making all those assumptions and explaining away multiple texts necessary to arrive at your conclusion you have to explain why no one in post biblical church history was apparently saved (and especially why we see no group or sect teach your interpretation if Acts 2:38 through the 2,3,4,5 and so on centuries until the 20th). Even groups with some relation to oneness groups were not the same. The Sabellians apparently did not believe tongues were the initial evidence. The Montanists were a oneness group (Tertullian is the most well known Montanist). There is no biblical or historical evidence that anyone ever believed salvation to be what you posit it to be.

That's a big assumption. The foundation and very bedrock of the modern oneness Pentecostal movement is ASSUMPTION.

Acts 10 provides the ONLY evidence of knowing one has INITIALLY experienced Spirit baptism, and that is verified by having all major groups of people converted speak in tongues: Jews, Gentiles and disciples of John. It matters not what denominations agree with that. It is what the bible provided.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Yes, it does. It was no easy thing for me to forsake the teachings of my beloved parents and the ministry of the CofC, but Oh how grateful I shall always be for God bringing me out of them!

Brother Lafon, I understand, I shall always be indebted to God for bringing us out of where He brought us.