|
|
05-16-2015, 09:39 AM
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 336
|
|
Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
I'm not saying it is wrong to believe in baptism invoking the name of Jesus. I was baptized in like manner, baptize in like manner, and do believe it is the more correct way to baptize from a New Testament and early church history perspective. However just because something is mentioned and practiced, doesn't mean it is essential for salvation (examples, fellowship meals, prayer meetings, observing the Lord's Supper, selling goods and distributing to the poor, etc). There is value in all of these things, some of greater spiritual degree than others, but I these things are post salvational. Things that characterize believers and are part of any healthy church body (with the exception of selling goods/land), but not essential to salvation. Else salvation is something we are continually working toward, never sure when we have done enough to be saved, or stay saved.
Yes. Essentially every gospel call to salvation (old & new testaments) either explicitly calls one to repentance or strongly implies it. There is no salvation without repentance. That much is very plain. And this issue of repentance is what will separate the sheep from the goats (not baptismal formula, not tongues, not standards).
There are 21 conversions in Acts, 18 of them do not mention or imply tongues at all. Even just going to Acts 2, we see the call in v.38 and the response in v.41. How many people spoke in tongues? The Bible is absolutely silent about it. They repented and were baptized, just as Peter preached to them. Acts 2:38 contains two commands and a promise, not 3 commands. Beyond that, there is more to soteriology than the book of Acts. That's not to discount Acts (as I mentioned there are 18 conversions in Acts where tongues are not mentioned), but salvation is spoken about in the gospels by Jesus himself, and explained in the epistles, especially by Paul (and especially in Romans and Galatians) and by the apostle John (especially in 1 John). To look only at the book of Acts and attempt to make Acts 8,10, and 19 normative for all Christians of all time not only fails to match up to what we see in all of recorded church history (2nd-21st century) but also does not agree with the New Testament witness. The idea that repentance, baptism, and speaking in tongues is what it took to be saved isn't consistent with the whole of New Testament teaching.
And yes, in John 3 Jesus said we must be born again, there is serious question whether the water refers to baptism or natural birth in John 3. I'm not sure that it matters what one's interpretation is on that because the real point is that except someone is born of the Spirit they can't be saved. Even if we say John 3:5 is referring to baptism, I think we can all agree that the real emphasis is on the birth of the Spirit, new birth from above/regeneration.
What I find interesting is that OPs will hang on the water/spirit doctrine based on this (perhaps faulty) interpretation of John 3:5 and totally ignore that the entire theme both of the gospel of John, and the Epistles of John is BELIEVE. Right from the start we see this in John 1:12 and he closes his book with it in John 20:31. Jesus Christ himself strongly emphasized believing unto salvation many many times, most of which tends to be minimized by those who adhere to the water/spirit doctrine. John 1:12, 2:11, 3:15-18, 4:39,41,53; 5:24, John 6:28-29, 37-47, etc (you know we could keep going for a long time on this). Point being, Jesus talked an awful lot about believing unto salvation, but 3 steppers don't seem to care. Its all just swept under the rug. And let's not assume he wasn't aware of false converts who "believed" but didn't really. John clearly makes the distinction between those who "believed" with a false, shallow belief (see John 2:23-25; 6 {the entire chapter}, and 12:42-43 for example).
Thus any soteriological system that demands a man must do more than repent and trust in Christ (i.e which adds baptism, and especially tongues to salvation) has the burden of proof laid upon it to harmonize, not only the gospels and the various teachings of Jesus himself, but also everything that follows Acts (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 John, etc).
Some concentrate too much on the outward. The fact is if the Holy Spirit dwells within, the Spirit will take care of the outward. It will come together, because God is working, not because man is demanding. Sadly the scripture "man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart" is used for so-called Christians to mutilate their body, which is supposed to be the Temple of the Holy Ghost. However just because something is abused by people who really don't desire holiness in the inward parts anyway, doesn't mean we need to judge all who don't abide by our standards as infidels. If the Holy Spirit dwells in a woman, she will cover up her body. If he dwells in a man, he will try to be careful what he looks at and what he exposes himself too. To be born again is to live a Spirit led life, and if someone truly has the Spirit dwelling within, they don't need a pastor/church to give them a long list of do's and don'ts. Why can't we trust the Spirit to produce fruit in His own?
That's what legalism does. It beats you down, because NO ONE actually keeps ALL the rules/standards. We all sin (though as we grow in Christ we should certainly be seeing sin be purged out of our life and conforming more and more like Christ).
The greatest truth one can ever understand is that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us who believe. We don't have to perform "post Acts 2:38", we don't have to keep ourselves saved, nor live a righteous enough life to be accepted of God. We are accepted of God based on our belief in and submission to Christ as our Lord and Savior, and it is His blood that cleanses us from ALL iniquity (prior to conversion and also after). Salvation isn't just being forgiven at water baptism and then living a godly life to "stay saved". Salvation is the act whereby God declares us right in His sight and adopts us into the family. We are not hired as if we are working during a probationary period and may be let go if we fail to perform, we are adopted, we are His children, and can have supreme confidence in that.
Amen, and He will.
"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." ~ 2 Timothy 2:19
|
I want to thank you for taking so much time and giving so much effort in addressing my post. That means much to me, it's a demonstration of caring and it's sorely lacking these days...demonstrations of caring, that is.
I'm rock solid on the plan of salvation being obedience to Acts 2:38. I use to waffle somewhat, but not anymore.
I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt obedience is better than sacrifice and that He gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter and by a direct question given by sin convicted men, "what shall we do", came Acts 2:38.
I know it's so hard to believe that God will turn away so many who have tried and done so much for the Kingdom, yet He says He will tell many "I never knew you...depart from Me, you workers of iniquity."
It's living the life, beyond the common sense that has always stumped me and still does.
Modesty is a no brainer, kindness, long suffering, prayer, Bible study, all are also no brainers.
It's the if I trim my hair and wear pants and use a little makeup or watch TV, things like that....I don't get how those things can bring so much confusion and consternation to so many?
Will Jesus turn me away because I trimmed my hair? If He does, He has every right to do as He sees fit, even if I never understood these things.
There won't be any arguing on the day of judgment, that much I'm sure of.
In the meantime I thank Him for everyday He gives my family and I and wait on him to "take care of the rest".
Thank you again for your time and effort, I truly pray God's blessings for you and yours.
__________________
*aka Sandie*
|
05-16-2015, 10:08 AM
|
Saved by Grace
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Decatur, TX
Posts: 5,247
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
There are many many guys who preach the gospel, who emphasize repentance, true conversion, and living a holy life that glorifies God.
Art Azertia
Paul Washer
David Platt
Ray Comfort
John MacArthur
RW Glenn
Voddie Balchaum
Steve Lawson
Al Mohler
Charles Lieter
Tim Conway
etc.
To say nothing of the people who have toiled long in the Lord's field and gone onto their reward (or in you guys view to the flames of damnation) like:
Leonard Ravenhill
David Wilkerson
Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Dietrich Boenhoffer
John Wesley
Charles Wesley
Issac Watts
John Newton
Hudson Taylor
George Mueller
Jonathan Edwards
Charles Spurgeon
John Hus
John Wycliffe
and thousands more.
These are examples of people who haven't been baptized with the name of Jesus spoken over them, nor spoke in tongues, but whose lives are completely devoted to God. These aren't people teaching easy believism, antinomianism, or a man centered gospel.
So let's not play games, there's plenty of examples. Are they all lost b/c they don't meet your criteria?
You guys shut up the doors of heaven against essentially everyone.
|
So according to everyone's posts, seems y'all are in agreement all these men failed to "obey Acts 2:38" and thus are filling up hell?
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
|
05-16-2015, 10:30 AM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,903
|
|
Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
So according to everyone's posts, seems y'all are in agreement all these men failed to "obey Acts 2:38" and thus are filling up hell?
|
From Pentecost to present anyone who has not obeyed Acts 2:38 are lost. Hope that helps.
|
05-16-2015, 11:01 AM
|
|
Yeshua is God
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,158
|
|
Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley
From Pentecost to present anyone who has not obeyed Acts 2:38 are lost. Hope that helps.
|
From Pentecost to present anyone who has not obeyed Mat 28:19 are lost. Hope that helps.
|
05-16-2015, 11:15 AM
|
Saved by Grace
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Decatur, TX
Posts: 5,247
|
|
Point being, this thread is about whether a soteriological view traces back to 1913 or much earlier (like 1908--maybe even 1905). Yet while there is near zero evidence for anyone teaching this view in church history, well they're all condemned to hell anyway. Any system that so denies the likelihood of the salvation of the men I named seems to suggest a rather narrow, even cultic view of salvation.
Despite what Jesus said repeatedly (Jesus emphasized repentance and faith, not baptism or tongues) OPs say what really matters is some esoteric secret understanding of salvation, initiated by glossolalia. Without which, no fruit of faith, repentance, baptism, a Spirit led life, work on behalf of Christ's sake, nor giving your life in the cause of Christ is good enough.
Close but no cigar. Close but that only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
Tyndale gave his life so you guys could have a Bible in your own language to condemn him to hell with. Tyndale, thanks for doing what no oneness, Jesus name baptized believer did, but you're no better off than had you spent all your days in the most lascivious immorality.
Hus, Savonarola, Lombard, etc thanks for opposing Rome when no one would and giving your lives for the gospels sake, sorry we oneness Pentecostals won't be seeing you in heaven because you'll be busy burning in hell.
Wesley and Zinzendorf thanks for laying the foundation for the modern holiness movement, which would lay the foundation for the holiness Pentecostal movement and eventually conservative "apostolics", but you guys are lost too.
John Newton, Issac Watts, Augustus Toplady, Charles Wesley, Fannie Crosby, and more.... well we oneness Pentecostals love to use your hymns in our worship but unfortunately we have to condemn you all to hell also. None of you were truly born again either.
21 Coptic Christians beheaded on the beach by ISIS and the myriad of people who have killed by beheading, crucifixion, burnings, machete or acid attacks for their faith, well your suffering was in vain. You'd have been better off denying your faith in Christ because He never knew you anyway, all you did was hasten your damnation and add temporal suffering to your lot.
So Tyndale, Wycliffe, Edwards, Spurgeon, Hus, Wesley, Zinzendorf, Savonarola, Newton, Watts, Toplady, Crosby, Ravenhill, Wilkerson, MacArthur, Lloyd-Jones, H. Taylor, Mueller, Comfort, Balcaum, Washer, and many many more-those who gave their lives to the furtherance of the gospel, those who translated the scriptures you use to condemn them, those who wrote the hymns you sing, who wrote the commentaries and lexicons you use. To them ALL the Lord will say:
"Depart from me you workers if INIQUITY, I NEVER knew you."
However, to the oneness Pentecostal who has been baptized in the name if Jesus and spoken in tongues. You may have tarried long at the buffet and had sumptuous meals after each Sunday service, perhaps you never bore any real persecution for your faith minus some ridicule, you kept your hair the proper length, didn't wear a pair of shorts in public, owned no TV....."enter in thou good and faithful servant".
Makes perfect sense to me. And people wonder why oneness Pentecostalism is considered to be a cult like unto Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Armstrong's Church of God, 7th Day Adventism, Christian Science, or even Scientology.
While you have a different view from any of those groups, do you not share in common that only those who have the sane special understanding/experience you (OPs) have can be saved?
This is really a form of neo gnosticism.
Charles Taze Russell and his doctrine of the 144,000 doesn't have anything 3 steppers.
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
|
05-16-2015, 11:42 AM
|
Saved by Grace
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Decatur, TX
Posts: 5,247
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley
From Pentecost to present anyone who has not obeyed Acts 2:38 are lost. Hope that helps.
|
While I believe that oneness Pentecostals are truly saved despite bad theology. It is this attitude that Steve Epley regularly displays about rejoicing in the damnation of others (constantly posting with thumbs up, smilies, and exclamation points when discussing their damnation).
Steve your name is rightly linked to Spiritual Abuse. Rarely have I come across anyone as harsh as you (Winter and Reinhardt probably are a little harder than you).
Recently someone directed me to listen to one of your sermons, so I did. It was pretty short, about 19 minutes. It was more about a cruise ship that cap sized than anything from the scriptures. I don't remember you using a text but if you did you quickly deviated from it, and the whole "message" was an incoherent warning focused solely on fear tactics. What's it called? Post the link so other can hear.
And you come and condemn preachers like Martyn Lloyd-Jones? Leonard Ravenhill ? Paul Washer? As false prophets? Damned to hell while you give two thumbs up?
I don't mean to be rude but its probably going to be taken that way, but you're not even in their league (and neither am I) and you condemn them and the work they've done as nothing? You really think their work in Christ will be burned up as useless chaff on the day or judgment, but yours remain as gold and silver?
Considering how close we all are to meeting our God, I'd think that cause for humility, especially towards those who spent their life laboring for Christ, and especially as we get older.
I'm concerned that you, Steve Epley will be on your death bed, like some other ultra conservative preachers have been, and as they know the last hour us approaching, speak out in fear and regret "I was so hard on people" and just be terrified to die.
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
|
05-16-2015, 11:57 AM
|
|
Unvaxxed Pureblood
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,758
|
|
Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
So according to everyone's posts, seems y'all are in agreement all these men failed to "obey Acts 2:38" and thus are filling up hell?
|
I find it fascinating that people who supposedly believe in "faith alone" always turn to people's works as a criterion of salvation. "Look at this famous man. He preaches and does all these wonderful works for Jesus. How could he not be saved?"
In other words, they become legalists! Fascinating.
|
05-16-2015, 12:01 PM
|
Saved by Grace
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Decatur, TX
Posts: 5,247
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan
Acts chp 8 speaks of Samaria believeing and recieving the word of God, but the Holy Ghost did not fall on them till later when the apostles where sent and prayed for them. Simon obviously must have seen something supernatural take place when this happened to have asked for the power to lay hands on people to be filled with the Holy Ghost. It is a no brainer that everyone needs the Holy Ghost. I think people are losing their faith for the supernatural. I know of people who attend apostolic churches for some time, but yet haven't spoken in tongues. I don't think we should downplay their walk with God, but yet we should not try and pacify them and make them think they have all they need.
Can someone have the Holy Ghost and not have spoken in tongues? I personnally believe and teach they will experience tongues as the initial evidence. It is not three steps to salvation but it should be the first steps taken when we enter a relationship with Jesus Christ. The moment a person puts their faith in Christ that relationship begins, but if we are to stay in that relationship we must walk in obedience to God's word.
|
I completely understand the argument from Acts 8, but I think its inconsistent and fails. To make the Samaritan experience (which was quite obviously a work of God to bring unity in the church between Jewish and Samaritan believers) normative for all people of all time since AD 30 is error IMO. If one simply reads the rest of the chapter we have an example of one who believes and is baptized. There is no evidence he spoke in tongues or that Phillip thought it necessary to expect him to speak in tongues. To that point we have no evidence that Philip ever spoke in tongues. Unless he was amongst the 120 in Acts 2, he may not have. Nevertheless Acts 8:35-40 shows that it is inconsistent to make Acts 8:16-17 the normative salvation experience for all people all time in all places during the church age.
Acts 8:35-40 KJV
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
|
05-16-2015, 12:23 PM
|
Saved by Grace
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Decatur, TX
Posts: 5,247
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
I find it fascinating that people who supposedly believe in "faith alone" always turn to people's works as a criterion of salvation. "Look at this famous man. He preaches and does all these wonderful works for Jesus. How could he not be saved?"
In other words, they become legalists! Fascinating.
|
Well that whole line of reasoning went right over your head. (Or you are purposely deflecting).
The point isn't they are saved by their works, but to DEMONSTRATE that in fact those who believe in "faith alone" aren't simply people who say they "believe" and then live ungodly lives. But rather that their lives demonstrate the work of the Spirit and all the evidences of regeneration.
Using names simply gives us a common point of reference. Its easy to broad brush everyone into hell and claim that all who don't speak in tongues somehow affirm easy believism or preach a watered down gospel. Specifics tend to be the point when oneness people back off their "essentials".
A name I've thrown out a couple times is Martyn Lloyd Jones. He wasn't baptized in Jesus name, nor spoke in tongues, and lived during the 20th century (thus was aware of the "light" of his day). Was he lost? Don't skirt the question if you say Acts 2:38 (your interpretation of 3 steps) is the ONLY way anyone can be saved this side of Pentecost. Make it plain Esaias, MTD, GS, Steve Epley (actually to his credit Epley is plain, he seems to have no bones about condemning any of the people I named). So what is it Esaias? Any hope we will see Martyn Lloyd Jones in heaven?
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
|
05-16-2015, 02:56 PM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 14,649
|
|
Re: Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912
A name I've thrown out a couple times is Martyn Lloyd Jones.
Quote:
He wasn't baptized in Jesus name, nor spoke in tongues, and lived during the 20th century (thus was aware of the "light" of his day). Was he lost? Don't skirt the question if you say Acts 2:38 (your interpretation of 3 steps) is the ONLY way anyone can be saved this side of Pentecost. Make it plain Esaias, MTD, GS, Steve Epley (actually to his credit Epley is plain, he seems to have no bones about condemning any of the people I named). So what is it Esaias? Any hope we will see Martyn Lloyd Jones in heaven?
|
Jason, It appears you are DEMANDING of us that we put people in Hell. You DEMAND we make it plain.
Well has not Jesus made his teachings plain? Shall we demand of him what he already taught in his word? My approach as I have mentioned is that God will judge the secrets of men in that day by Jesus Christ. Thats my bottom line.
Other than that I both love and fear God to much to try to bend his word to take away the full force of it. Yet Jesus HIMSELF warned us making it plain that in THAT DAY many would say Lord didnt we do this, didnt we do that and he would reject them and tell them only they who do the Fathers will can enter his Kingdom.
So many will be lost who thought they would be saved.
And then from the same reasoning you are using what about Jehovah Witnesses and Herbert Armstong people and Seventh Day people? What about sacred namers, Catholics and Orthodox? Are they damned simply because of their unorthodox beliefs?
Trinitarians would say so. A few weeks ago a Baptist lady I work with said the only way anyone goes to Hell is if they deny Jesus is God (In Trinitarianism).
So if we go down the road you seem to be going down why not include everyone who never heard the gospel? All the Muslims who grew up having to go to Mosque and pray to All-ah 5 times a day? Did they know they were wrong?
So after we get done judging everyone on basis other than the whole counsel of God we could make a pretty good case for Ultimate Reconciliation could we not?
Why is it Oneness is treated as a cultic religon for actually believing their beliefs but Evangelicals who condemn everyone else who disagrees with them to Hell are considered mainstream?
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
| |
|