Oneness Pentacostalism...Jesus Only Theory

Ok no debate just answers..

1) This theology comes from the Azuza street revival that happened way back when (I can't recall the exact date). You won't find it in the Bible. This so called revival was the beginning of an unfortunate great "falling away". I won't start a big flame on it... the point is that this "revival" is where the theory (false theory) that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

2) You get baptized to follow the example of Jesus. If you've given your heart to him, admitted your sin, asked him to be Lord of your life and get him by a truck, you'll be in heaven. Consider the thief on the cross, Jesus said to him "This day you will be with me in paradise." He wasn't baptized. Don't get me wrong!! You need to get baptized!! By imersion but in your questions case.. you'd be ok.

3) This belief is wrong and can't be backed up anywhere in the Bible. (I know that's not really an answer but it would take many pages to attempt to explain the trinity.) Suffice it to say that God is ONE with three distinct persons. The Jesus only doctrine is false.

5th April 2003 at 10:04 PM HopeTheyDance said this in Post #1



Yes, I am confused. 

I love to study Theology and quite a few belief systems out there are way off the chart! However, in studying (or lack of study) of the UPC Church, I have been unable to find reasonable theologically correct answers for a few of my concerns regarding this theology. Please....no heated debate is intended....but I would, with due respect, like for some to answer my questions. Usually I just receive a question in return instead of a response. So...here are my questions:

1. Why does the UPC stress the gift of tongues as a sign of ones salvation....if you do not speak are you not saved?

2. I am aware that there is a step process to salvation in the UPC. If one has accepted the Lord Jesus as Savior, repented of His/her sin, received the Holy Spirit and spoken in tongues, but walks across the street on his/her way to be baptised and gets hit by a car......is this person going to heaven despite they were not baptised? (I ask this as I have been told one MUST be baptised in order to be saved)

3. If Jesus is God the Father (in OT), the Son (in NT) AND the Holy Spirit (today)....who is sitting on the thone right now? and who intercedes for us. 

TIA 

HTD

Click to expand...

HTD,

1) Speaking in tongues is NOT a sign that you are saved. Being INSIDE the TRUE church that Christ died for (Eph. 5:25,23; Acts 20:28) is  a SURE sign that you will be saved;

2) Baptism per se does NOT ensure salvation. The TRUE baptism is the one that ADDS one to the  TRUE church that Christ died for (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38-41, 47). Thus, even if one is baptised, if that baptism RESULTS in one's being a member of a FALSE church, that baptism will NOT lead to salvation;

3) The belief that Jesus was God the Father (OT), God the Son (NT) and Holy Spirit (today) is NOT supported by the Bible. NEITHER is the Trinity!

The TRUTH is, Jesus SAID to the FATHER (John 17:1), "And this is eternal life, that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God...." (John 17:3).

A church that teaches a doctrine CONTRARY to what Jesus TAUGHT does NOT have God (2 John 9). Baptism INTO such church does NOT lead to salvation!

Ed

*NO EXPERT HERE* But, I was raised in the pentecostal church.
They (my pentecostal preacher uncle included) tend to stick with verses that seem to support their views. It's interesting to observe the twisting of scripture to fit their prescribed view. For instance, I've heard my uncle refer to the story of Cornelius (sp) as proof that one must be baptized in order to be saved. He would quote or misquote a particular verse like this:
"Can any man forbid water". The real idea of that passage , of course, is not can any man forbid water. The real idea is that Cornelius was a gentile and the gentiles were going to be "grafted in". Peter was asking the "believing jews" who accompanied him if they "could forbid water".... if they could forbid him(peter) from baptizing them (cornelius and family) since though they were gentiles they had received the holy spirit and were believers in Christ.

Another example....A relative of mine ,who'd never really believed in anything but maybe a vague "ole boy upstairs", was on his deathbed and my uncle was discussing how to hoist him up into some sort of crane device and baptize him. He (dying relative) had , on his deathbed, made a confession of faith in Jesus and in my opinion was probably saved. But in my uncle's pentecostal mind...he still needed to be baptized...hence the idea of some kind of hoisting device to lift him from his hospital bed and dunk him in water.

Also, if you ever mention to a pentecostal that ACTS 2:38 is not adequately translated they will turn a deaf ear. Or, my uncle tends to say "well I can't read greek can you ?".

There may be some passage that says something about tounges being a sign of the holy spirit. However, that was then and this is now. There are also verses that pertain to how the assembly is to behave should someone speak in tounges. In my experience growing up in those churches, I never observed anyone behaving within those guidelines.

I must confess that I am no longer a pentecostal ( if ever I was) but have had the good fortune of listening to the late W.O. Vaught of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Little Rock, AR. Dr. Vaught has been dead for several years but the church still keeps his entire tape catalog. He has several tapes that deal with the neo-pentecostal doctrines. The tapes used to be free and I think they still are free....But a donation would be greatly appreciated.

I would highly reccomend getting some of Dr. Vaught's tapes. If you call or write the Emmanuel (sp) Baptist Church in Little Rock, AR they will send you a list of his taped messages. Most of the messages releated to pentecostalism are titled to reflect their content.

3. If Jesus is God the Father (in OT), the Son (in NT) AND the Holy Spirit (today)....who is sitting on the throne right now? and who intercedes for us.

Click to expand...

Genesis 2:26 NIV Then God said let us make man in our own image, in our likeness…

Genesis 2:26 KJV And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness:…

Genesis 2:26 NLT Then God said, “Let us make people in our own image, to be like ourselves…

Genesis 2:26 NASB Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…

I think God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have been together from the beginning and are not bound by physical dimensions.

God in the OT is pretty easy to understand.

God coming to earth in the form of a man in NT…A little harder to grasp; however, while Jesus (apart of God) was on earth God was still in heaven.

After Jesus returned to heaven he sent the Holy Spirit as a Comforter/Counselor/Helper for those that would accept Christ.

The Holy Spirit in you and I helps to discern the truth revealed in the Bible. The truth in examples and teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. Through the Holy Spirit we have the opportunity to develop a relationship with Christ, and ultimately with God. A relationship based on love.

John 14:7 NIV “If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well.”

Again, I don’t think that God, Jesus and Holy Spirit are bound physical dimension; however, it helps one to think of thinks in terms of the physical world.

God Father sitting on the throne, with His Son at His right side with the Holy Spirit on earth in our hearts connecting us to each other and to the Lord, and the Father.

Regards,
Mike

I used to go to a UPC church.  I found the theory that there was only Jesus to be quite confusing when many passages of the Bible speaks of 3 distinct personalities.  Or when trying to picture Jesus when He was in the Garden of Gethsemane praying to Himself.  As a matter of fact the very first verse of the Bible...Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God...if you look up God in that particular passage in the Strongs Concordance, it is the plural form of God.

I have not attended a UPC church in many years although I am still a Pentecostal Christian.  I am much happier now that I have a relationship with God than a bunch of standards that I have to conform to.

I must confess I have no idea what the UPC Church is but I do know where the idea that speaking in tongues was a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit comes from.

Mark 16:17
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Acts 2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 19:6
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


 

BT says:

where the theory (false theory) that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Then that means the scriptures are....?

Speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of being filled with the Spirit.

I think the big problem with the whole "tongues" debate is that just because something happened, doesn't mean it must happen.
Just because in Acts, people spoke in tongues when the Holy Spirt came upon them does not mean it must happen today.
As for the part about baptizm being necessary for salvation, I find it odd how the Bible mentions time and time again that all one must do to be saved is believe/repent/have faith. It seems if baptizm was so absolutely necessary, it would be added along with these verses.

I think the main doctrinal emphasis of the UPC is that you are to be baptized in Jesus name and not the words, father son and holy ghost.
They believe that Jesus is the fullness of the godhead dwelling bodily, as Paul says and they believe that Jesus was referring to himself when telling the disciples to go baptize in the "NAME", not word, of the father son and holy ghost.

They emphasis that acts 2:38 is the true baptism and that Jesus is the fullness of the godhead dwelling bodily and on that note, I think they have a valid point.

On another note, in my experience, I found them very legalistic and dogmatic and they cause bondage in a believer with there legalism.

They are closely related to William Branham and some of his doctrines.

nytxn said:

Speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of being filled with the Spirit.

Click to expand...

Cite?

HopeTheyDance said:

Yes, I am confused.

 

I love to study Theology and quite a few belief systems out there are way off the chart! However, in studying (or lack of study) of the UPC Church, I have been unable to find reasonable theologically correct answers for a few of my concerns regarding this theology. Please....no heated debate is intended....but I would, with due respect, like for some to answer my questions. Usually I just receive a question in return instead of a response. So...here are my questions:

1. Why does the UPC stress the gift of tongues as a sign of ones salvation....if you do not speak are you not saved?

2. I am aware that there is a step process to salvation in the UPC. If one has accepted the Lord Jesus as Savior, repented of His/her sin, received the Holy Spirit and spoken in tongues, but walks across the street on his/her way to be baptised and gets hit by a car......is this person going to heaven despite they were not baptised? (I ask this as I have been told one MUST be baptised in order to be saved)

3. If Jesus is God the Father (in OT), the Son (in NT) AND the Holy Spirit (today)....who is sitting on the thone right now? and who intercedes for us.

 

TIA

 

HTD

Click to expand...

Praise the Lord, everyone. May the Spirit of truth avail.

As a United Pentecostal, I am DIGUSTED by what I have read in this thread in what you think we preach. Let me go through the list to
clear some things up.

Part one covers comments from "HopeThey Dance."

1. HopeTheyDance, we do not teach you need the GIFT OF TONGUES in order to go to heaven. It's funny how people here at these forums (not
specifically you) want to talk about what they don't know about or never experienced -- tongues in this matter. If they really knew what they were talking about, then they would know tongues has THREE functions.

When people in scripture receivied the gift of the Holy Ghost they did NOT receive the gift of tongues. That tongue was only the initial
evidence, or sign (Mark 16:17), of receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The other two functions of tongues is the GIFT of tongues, which ALWAYS needs to be interpreted for edification of the church. The third, but not least function, is tongues for prayer. 1 Cor. talks about these two other functions. When 1 Cor. 12:30 asks "do all speak with tongues"
it refers to the GIFT of tongues, because it lists that question amongst other spiritual gifts. Verse 31 even teaches to covet the best
GIFTS, thus showing that 12:30 refers to the GIFT of tongues, NOT the sign. If you recall, no interpreter was needed or even present when
people in scripture received the Holy Ghost, again showing that was NOT the gift of tongues.

We do not teach one does needs to speak with other tongues (whichever function) to get the Holy Ghost. One needs to be filled with the Holy Ghost as part of their salvation (John 3:5). Once the Holy Ghost fills the believer, immediately then does the initial evidence of receiving the Spirit rebirth occurs: the Spirit gives the believer utterance to speak with other tongues. That is the only initial evidence the Bible gives for people who received the Holy Ghost. The 120 believers in Acts 2:4 spoke with tongues, so did Cornelius (Acts 10:46), and so did John the Baptist’s disciples (Acts 19:6). Peter knew Cornelius and company received the Holy Ghost because “for they heard them speak with tongues (Acts 10:46).” The Samaritans received the Holy Ghost in Acts 8:17. Simon the Sorcerer “saw that through on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given (Acts 8:18).” What did Simon see? He had seen some evidence apparently. As the other instances in Acts show, the visible evidence of the Holy Ghost baptism is speaking with other tongues. Jesus says His believers shall speak with new tongues (Mark 16:17), not maybe or just a few.

Remember, one does NOT receive the gift of tongues when receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. The gift of tongues is a gift from the Holy Spirit that God may or may not give you after you receive the Holy Ghost. It is NOT necessary for salvation. The Oneness church does NOT teach that.

1 Corinthians 13:8-10 tells us tongues will fail when the perfect comes, but thankfully the Lord has not returned yet, so you can rest assure
knowing the experience IS for you, regardless of nay-sayers (i.e. - majority of Baptists, Seventh Day, etc.).




2. Whether someone gets hit by a car before baptism and dies, it's in the Lord's hands. We are not to judge if the person would of really gone through with the baptismt. That's a trite hypothetical situation to lure people away from accepting baptism as part of salvation.

Regarding baptism, IT IS part of salvation because SCRIPTURE says so.

Baptism also saves us because it plainly says so in 1 Peter 3:21. It’s not only a public confession of repentance, but it is for the remission (or forgiveness) of sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16). That is quite essential, don’t you think? He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). Does this make salvation faith + tradition? NO. To be saved as it happened in the Bible, one must believe that if he will repent and ask in prayer then he will receive the Spirit, which first fills the person and THEN does the initial evidence occur as mentioned before. His faith leads to obedience and thence to receiving the Spirit and the fullness of salvation. There is not contradiction between Ephesians 2:8, which says, “For grace are ye saved through faith,” and James 2:2+4, which declares, “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” The latter statement is certainly true when “works” means acts of obedience to the terms of the gospel. Only those have “the obedience of faith” --- those who obey the doctrine, obey the gospel, obey Christ --- will be saved.

Baptism is a commandment (Acts 2:38). If you haven't noticed, Acts 2:38 contains the keys to the kingdom to heaven Jesus gave Peter the
authority to preach in Matt. 16:19. After receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, Peter preached to the Jews who crucified Jesus. The Jews
were pricked in their heart according to Acts 2:37 as a result of the sermon. Were they saved because they finally accepted Jesus as Lord?

No. They asked what they should do.

Peter told them what to do in Acts 2:38. He told them to REPENT, and to BE BAPTIZED in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:41 tells us they gladly received his word and THEN were those 3,000 souls were added
unto them that same day. They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine according to Acts 2:42 and the Lord added to the church daily
such as should be saved (or “those who were being saved” as NIV tells it). Baptism is an act of obedience in faith. Saving faith leads a person to obey the gospel, and such obedient faith brings salvation. Example, how did Noah’s faith save him from the flood? He believed, first of all, that a destructive flood was coming, though he had never seen such. He further believed that if he would avail himself of God’s way of escape, he would be delivered. His faith, then, led him to meet God’s conditions, and he was saved. He couldn't just stand there. Simply, God's grace requires our response!




3. First, Jesus is God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. "God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost" are terms made up to support trinitarian theology.

JESUS is on the throne right now. Revelation speaks clearly that there is only one throne (Rev. 1:4, 3:21). Revelation 4:2 makes it even more clear when it says, "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, A THRONE was set in heaven, and ONE sat on the throne."

If you recall, John the Revelator talked of "The Lord God Almighty and the Lamb" (Revelation 21:22). That does not mean he saw two people, rather "and the Lamb" amplifies the statement that John saw Jesus in His sacrificial role as the Son at the same acknowledging His identity as God our Father. Remember, Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). John could NOT see Jesus just as God because God is a Spirit and no one has seen God at any time. Only through the temporary manifestation of God's humanity (the Son) can Jesus be seen with our eyes, for Jesus is the express image of God's person (Hebrews 1:3).

Remember Acts 7? Stephen saw Jesus on the right of God. Scripture does NOT say Stephen saw Jesus AND God. Jesus being on the right hand of God means "acceptance as", or having the authority thereof because Jesus IS God; the only true God (1 John 5:20). In Acts 7:59, Stephen called God by His name: Jesus.

Closing on the topic of the Godhead, always remember what Jesus says.

John 12:44 - Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

John 13:20 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me



I'll get to BT's comments and perhaps others' when time allows it.


Until then, Jesus be with you all.


God bless,
Stephen


Edited by MizDoulos for Rule 2.

scuba_steve83 said:

Praise the Lord, everyone. May the Spirit of truth avail.

As a United Pentecostal, I am DIGUSTED by what I have read in this thread in what you think we preach. Let me go through the list to
clear some things up.

Part one covers comments from "HopeThey Dance."

1. HopeTheyDance, we do not teach you need the GIFT OF TONGUES in order to go to heaven. It's funny how people here at these forums (not
specifically you) want to talk about what they don't know about or never experienced -- tongues in this matter. If they really knew what they were talking about, then they would know tongues has THREE functions.

When people in scripture receivied the gift of the Holy Ghost they did NOT receive the gift of tongues. That tongue was only the initial
evidence, or sign (Mark 16:17), of receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The other two functions of tongues is the GIFT of tongues, which ALWAYS needs to be interpreted for edification of the church. The third, but not least function, is tongues for prayer. 1 Cor. talks about these two other functions. When 1 Cor. 12:30 asks "do all speak with tongues"
it refers to the GIFT of tongues, because it lists that question amongst other spiritual gifts. Verse 31 even teaches to covet the best
GIFTS, thus showing that 12:30 refers to the GIFT of tongues, NOT the sign. If you recall, no interpreter was needed or even present when
people in scripture received the Holy Ghost, again showing that was NOT the gift of tongues.

We do not teach one does needs to speak with other tongues (whichever function) to get the Holy Ghost. One needs to be filled with the Holy Ghost as part of their salvation (John 3:5). Once the Holy Ghost fills the believer, immediately then does the initial evidence of receiving the Spirit rebirth occurs: the Spirit gives the believer utterance to speak with other tongues. That is the only initial evidence the Bible gives for people who received the Holy Ghost. The 120 believers in Acts 2:4 spoke with tongues, so did Cornelius (Acts 10:46), and so did John the Baptist’s disciples (Acts 19:6). Peter knew Cornelius and company received the Holy Ghost because “for they heard them speak with tongues (Acts 10:46).” The Samaritans received the Holy Ghost in Acts 8:17. Simon the Sorcerer “saw that through on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given (Acts 8:18).” What did Simon see? He had seen some evidence apparently. As the other instances in Acts show, the visible evidence of the Holy Ghost baptism is speaking with other tongues. Jesus says His believers shall speak with new tongues (Mark 16:17), not maybe or just a few.

Remember, one does NOT receive the gift of tongues when receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. The gift of tongues is a gift from the Holy Spirit that God may or may not give you after you receive the Holy Ghost. It is NOT necessary for salvation. The Oneness church does NOT teach that.

1 Corinthians 13:8-10 tells us tongues will fail when the perfect comes, but thankfully the Lord has not returned yet, so you can rest assure
knowing the experience IS for you, regardless of nay-sayers (i.e. - majority of Baptists, Seventh Day, etc.).




2. Whether someone gets hit by a car before baptism and dies, it's in the Lord's hands. We are not to judge if the person would of really gone through with the baptismt. That's a trite hypothetical situation to lure people away from accepting baptism as part of salvation.

Regarding baptism, IT IS part of salvation because SCRIPTURE says so.

Baptism also saves us because it plainly says so in 1 Peter 3:21. It’s not only a public confession of repentance, but it is for the remission (or forgiveness) of sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16). That is quite essential, don’t you think? He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). Does this make salvation faith + tradition? NO. To be saved as it happened in the Bible, one must believe that if he will repent and ask in prayer then he will receive the Spirit, which first fills the person and THEN does the initial evidence occur as mentioned before. His faith leads to obedience and thence to receiving the Spirit and the fullness of salvation. There is not contradiction between Ephesians 2:8, which says, “For grace are ye saved through faith,” and James 2:2+4, which declares, “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” The latter statement is certainly true when “works” means acts of obedience to the terms of the gospel. Only those have “the obedience of faith” --- those who obey the doctrine, obey the gospel, obey Christ --- will be saved.

Baptism is a commandment (Acts 2:38). If you haven't noticed, Acts 2:38 contains the keys to the kingdom to heaven Jesus gave Peter the
authority to preach in Matt. 16:19. After receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, Peter preached to the Jews who crucified Jesus. The Jews
were pricked in their heart according to Acts 2:37 as a result of the sermon. Were they saved because they finally accepted Jesus as Lord?

No. They asked what they should do.

Peter told them what to do in Acts 2:38. He told them to REPENT, and to BE BAPTIZED in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:41 tells us they gladly received his word and THEN were those 3,000 souls were added
unto them that same day. They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine according to Acts 2:42 and the Lord added to the church daily
such as should be saved (or “those who were being saved” as NIV tells it). Baptism is an act of obedience in faith. Saving faith leads a person to obey the gospel, and such obedient faith brings salvation. Example, how did Noah’s faith save him from the flood? He believed, first of all, that a destructive flood was coming, though he had never seen such. He further believed that if he would avail himself of God’s way of escape, he would be delivered. His faith, then, led him to meet God’s conditions, and he was saved. He couldn't just stand there. Simply, God's grace requires our response!




3. First, Jesus is God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. "God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost" are terms made up to support trinitarian theology.

JESUS is on the throne right now. Revelation speaks clearly that there is only one throne (Rev. 1:4, 3:21). Revelation 4:2 makes it even more clear when it says, "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, A THRONE was set in heaven, and ONE sat on the throne."

If you recall, John the Revelator talked of "The Lord God Almighty and the Lamb" (Revelation 21:22). That does not mean he saw two people, rather "and the Lamb" amplifies the statement that John saw Jesus in His sacrificial role as the Son at the same acknowledging His identity as God our Father. Remember, Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). John could NOT see Jesus just as God because God is a Spirit and no one has seen God at any time. Only through the temporary manifestation of God's humanity (the Son) can Jesus be seen with our eyes, for Jesus is the express image of God's person (Hebrews 1:3).

Remember Acts 7? Stephen saw Jesus on the right of God. Scripture does NOT say Stephen saw Jesus AND God. Jesus being on the right hand of God means "acceptance as", or having the authority thereof because Jesus IS God; the only true God (1 John 5:20). In Acts 7:59, Stephen called God by His name: Jesus.

Closing on the topic of the Godhead, always remember what Jesus says.

John 12:44 - Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

John 13:20 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me



I'll get to BT's comments and perhaps others' when time allows it.


Until then, Jesus be with you all.


God bless,
Stephen

Click to expand...

I am glad to hear that the church you attend does not demand speaking in tongues. I attended a Oneness Pentecostal church for four years and it was shoved down our throats that unless you received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues that you would go to hell. You can call this a lie if you want but I know it happens because I lived through it. I believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is important for each child of God. But if a person dies and has not received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoken with tongues does not mean they will go to hell, as the church I attended taught.

As a United Pentecostal, I am DIGUSTED by the LIES I have read in this thread in what you think we preach. Let me go through the list to
clear some things up.

Click to expand...

Hears what I said Steve.

I think the main doctrinal emphasis of the UPC is that you are to be baptized in Jesus name and not the words, father son and holy ghost.
They believe that Jesus is the fullness of the godhead dwelling bodily, as Paul says and they believe that Jesus was referring to himself when telling the disciples to go baptize in the "NAME", not word, of the father son and holy ghost.

They emphasis that acts 2:38 is the true baptism and that Jesus is the fullness of the godhead dwelling bodily and on that note, I think they have a valid point.

On another note, in my experience, I found them very legalistic and dogmatic and they cause bondage in a believer with there legalism.

They are closely related to William Branham and some of his doctrines.

Click to expand...

Then you said

2. Whether someone gets hit by a car before baptism and dies, it's in the Lord's hands. We are not to judge if the person would of really gone through with the baptism. That's a trite hypothetical situation to lure people away from accepting baptism as part of salvation.

Regarding baptism, IT IS part of salvation because SCRIPTURE says so.

Baptism also saves us because it plainly says so in 1 Peter 3:21. It’s not only a public confession of repentance, but it is for the remission (or forgiveness) of sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16). That is quite essential, don’t you think? He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). Does this make salvation faith + tradition? NO. To be saved as it happened in the Bible, one must believe that if he will repent and ask in prayer then he will receive the Spirit, which first fills the person and THEN does the initial evidence occur as mentioned before. His faith leads to obedience and thence to receiving the Spirit and the fullness of salvation. There is not contradiction between Ephesians 2:8, which says, “For grace are ye saved through faith,” and James 2:2+4, which declares, “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” The latter statement is certainly true when “works” means acts of obedience to the terms of the gospel. Only those have “the obedience of faith” --- those who obey the doctrine, obey the gospel, obey Christ --- will be saved.

Baptism is a commandment (Acts 2:38). If you haven't noticed, Acts 2:38 contains the keys to the kingdom to heaven Jesus gave Peter the
authority to preach in Matt. 16:19. After receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, Peter preached to the Jews who crucified Jesus. The Jews
were pricked in their heart according to Acts 2:37 as a result of the sermon. Were they saved because they finally accepted Jesus as Lord?

No. They asked what they should do.

Peter told them what to do in Acts 2:38. He told them to REPENT, and to BE BAPTIZED in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:41 tells us they gladly received his word and THEN were those 3,000 souls were added
unto them that same day. They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine according to Acts 2:42 and the Lord added to the church daily
such as should be saved (or “those who were being saved” as NIV tells it). Baptism is an act of obedience in faith. Saving faith leads a person to obey the gospel, and such obedient faith brings salvation. Example, how did Noah’s faith save him from the flood? He believed, first of all, that a destructive flood was coming, though he had never seen such. He further believed that if he would avail himself of God’s way of escape, he would be delivered. His faith, then, led him to meet God’s conditions, and he was saved. He couldn't just stand there. Simply, God's grace requires our response!




3. First, Jesus is God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. "God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost" are terms made up to support Trinitarian theology.

Click to expand...

Hmm, seems to be no lies hear maybe you weren’t refering to me then and maybe I am also right about the second half of my comment

Hello, Crusader. How are you doing? Fine I hope.

I had not even read your first comment as of yet until I read your latest post in your thread. I have not gotten to BT's or others' as of yet either. Sorry.

For you to feel that the Oneness church is "legalistic and dogmatic" and that the Oneness church causes bondage in a believer with their legalism is judgement seemingly based on misunderstanding of the doctrine we preach.

Your comment made me remember something my pastor once said. He says, "You may find a hole in my method, but you'll be hard pressed to find one in our doctine."

The truth is scripture does back up what Apostolics teach as salvation, for the apostles themselves preached repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost throughout Acts. Paul told Timothy to rightly divide the Word, remember? You have the gospels, which teaches the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. That was BEFORE the first believers were part of the new covanant. Then there is Acts, when the first Christian church was established. THAT'S when salvation was first poured in, in Acts 2. Then there are the epistles, written to born-again persons in several different churches. The plan of salvation never changed according to scripture. Only people in generations after the apostles changed what we ought to believe what the plan is.

You see, God set the pattern on how salvation was poured out, but as time progressed, the great falling away crept in and several new denominations started sewing their own patterns with the needle of their own philosophies.

Want the original pattern? Look to Acts 2:38. It's that message that will show you we serve a LIVING God.

Praise His holy name!

God bless you,
Stephen

Philip said:

Cite?

Click to expand...

Hello, Philip. May Jesus bless you and yours.

Jesus says in Mark 16:17 that "they shall speak with new tongues." He did not say maybe, perhaps, or a few shall speak with new tongues. They SHALL.

Everytime someone received the Holy Ghost in scripture, right then did the initial evidence of receiving the Spirit rebirth show up: speaking with other tongues.

It happened to the Jews. - Acts 2:4

It happened to Cornelius and comapany. - Acts 10:46

It happened to 12 disciples of John the Baptist - Acts 19:6

It even happened to the Samaritians even though tongues was not mentioned. - Acts 8:17. Simon SAW the Holy Ghost was given as Acts 8:18 tells. What did he see? Apparently he saw some evidence. As the other accounts in Acts show, tongues as the initial evidence. Likewise, the practice of laying on of hands was used in Acts 8:17 like in Acts 19:6.



Did you know Isaiah had prophecy concerning tongues? Thousands of years ago before Pentecost 33 A.D. did the prophet speak about the topic of tongues.

Isaiah 28:9 - Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn

11 - For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.


Interesting, eh?


God bless you,
Stephen

usadingo said:

I think the big problem with the whole "tongues" debate is that just because something happened, doesn't mean it must happen.
Just because in Acts, people spoke in tongues when the Holy Spirt came upon them does not mean it must happen today.
As for the part about baptizm being necessary for salvation, I find it odd how the Bible mentions time and time again that all one must do to be saved is believe/repent/have faith. It seems if baptizm was so absolutely necessary, it would be added along with these verses.

Click to expand...

Hello, usadingo.

I understand where you are coming from. Many people like yourself refer to the days of the apostles of being "long ago". Primitive Christianity is still relative to today's believer, no matter what extrabiblical creeds, doctrines, or denominations say.

If you noticed, the pattern was set in scripture with the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit gave the believer utterance to speak with other tongues immediately following the in-filling of the Spirit. Scripture consistantly shows the same experience being given. God is not the author of confusion as Paul says. If that's the way it happened, who is anyone to object? Jesus said believers SHALL speak with new tongues (Mark 16:17). He did not say maybe or just a few: they SHALL.

As for your concerns of baptism, the Bible does say we need to believe, repent, and have faith to be saved. You are correct. More importantly here, baptism is indeed part of several verses concerning salvation. Does this merit the need for baptism to be part of EVERY verse concerning salvation? Of course not. Scripture does not have the word 'Lord' next to the name of Jesus every single time, but we still understand Jesus is the Lord.

Mark 16:16 teaches he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. 1 Peter 3:21 teaches baptism also saves us. Here's something of interest to ponder:

Those who affirm that salvation comes through mental faith alone, that the sinner need do nothing but accept Christ and what He did on Calvary, are prone to quote Paul’s words to the Philippian jailer: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31). The implication is that all the jailer did to be saved was to believe on Jesus Christ, but proponents of this theory fail to quote verse 32, which reads, “And they spake unto him to the word of the Lord.” This “word” certainly included the doctrine of water baptism, for verse 33 states that the jailer and his family were baptized! And, since repentance is to precede water baptism according to Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21, there is no doubt that they also repented. Then in verse 34, the jailer received an experience that caused him to rejoice. How then, did this jailer’s faith bring him salvation? It did so by leading him to meet the conditions of the gospel. Both believing and obeying in faith worked together, and he was saved.


Hope that helps!


May Jesus bless you,
Stephen

Hesmyall said:

I used to go to a UPC church.  I found the theory that there was only

Jesus to be quite confusing when many passages of the Bible speaks of 3 distinct personalities.  Or when trying to picture Jesus when He was in the Garden of Gethsemane praying to Himself.  As a matter of fact the very first verse of the Bible...Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God...if you look up God in that particular passage in the Strongs Concordance, it is the plural form of God. I have not attended a UPC church in many years although I am still a Pentecostal Christian.   I am much happier now that I have a relationship with God than a bunch of standards that I have to conform to.

Click to expand...

Hi, Hesmyall.

My heart was burdened when I read your reply.

Only Jesus is quite confusing to you? Let me ask you a question. How many gods are there?

One of course. God is one person by Himself.

Isaiah 44:24 - Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

There you have Jehovah, who is the Father as Isaiah 63:16 identifies Him as, saying He stretches forth the heavens alone and abroad the earth by himself. Is God being one person here confusing?

Do you know what Jesus said in John 8:24? He said, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

Jesus is the "I am he." Look:

Isaiah 41:4 - Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Like I just mentioned, Isaiah 63:16 i.d.'s the LORD as the father. The LORD, the I am he, is the Father. Jesus says if you do not believe that "I am he", you shall die in your sins. Get the picture?

The Bible does teach three distinct manifestations of God, but not as successive and seperate personalities. Rather, in scripture, the one God existed simultaneously in heaven as our Father who is Spirit (Matt. 10:20, Romans 10:15), and as the same exact spirit manifest as a man on earth (John 1:14, 3:13, 1 Tim. 3:16).

Though Jesus is the Father and the Son (Isaiah 9:6, 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 9), this does NOT make Jesus His own father. Here's why Accepting Jesus as God means you must accept Him as the Father because there is only one God and Father of all (Eph 4:6). Jesus is the only true God (1 John 5:20). "God" refers to a self-existent spirit that has no beginning (or end). However, when God became man, He had to follow His own created logic. Men are not 30 years old automatically. They start off as babies. Simply, the Creator had to become part of creation itself and had to be born of woman. God, a Spirit, became flesh (John 1:14). AS A MAN, God now not only had the ability to speak as and do mighty acts as God, but He was now a man.

What I'm saying is as the Son, Jesus had two geniune natures to speak from: deity and humanity. His human life was given between two parties like God's logic requires. Mary was His mother and His father was God. God is only the father of Jesus when Jesus is manifest as the Son! As the Son, it made perfect sense for Jesus to pray and to refer to the Father as someone seemingly as a seperate person. If Jesus, praying as the Son of God, didn't pray to the Father then what kind of example would Jesus have been? He led as an example as 1 Peter 2:21 teaches. "Son" refers to humanity with the deity dwelling within, whereas "Father" refers to deity alone. As the Son, Jesus still had his human nature to contend with. He had flesh and flesh is subject to prayer as Psalm 65:2 teaches. As a man Jesus grew physically and intellectually as the gospels teach. Yet, He was still God Almighty. By the power of the Spirit He was able to do things no ordinary human could. He was an EXTRAoridinary man: He was God in the flesh!

Was Jesus seperate from the Father? NO. "I and my Father are one" Jesus proclaimed in John 10:30. The Jews got mad at Jesus for saying that and called it blasphamy for making Himself to be God. The Jews just stated in John 8:41 that the only God they have is the Father! The Jews understood what Jesus was really saying. Jesus was asserting that He was the Father! Isaiah 9:6 made it clear already that the Son shall be called the everlasting Father. When the Son was born, they knew Him not as the Father at first, but did come to realize they were dealing with God: not God the Son, but God the Father. Remember, the Jews only have the Father as their God. To accept that there is only one Lord (Eph 4:5) and for Jesus to be that one Lord, you must accept what II Cor. 6:18 teaches that the Lord Almighty wanting to be a father unto you. Do you now accept Jesus being that one God who is our Father?

As for Gen 1:1, Strongs does teach God is plural in Hebrew, but not in numerical value! Any number greater than one is NOT truly monotheistic. Anything against one Lord God is against the first of all commandments of the Lord our God being one Lord (Deut 6:4, Mark 12:29). Three-in-one implies trithiesm, a form of polytheism. In fact, the three-in-one theology stems from a philosopher born around 500 B.C. It's NOT of the Bible. Elohim (God in English) means gods, but the plurality is defined as of great majesity and attributes, not more than one in quantity! God always spoke as one person. Any of the FEW pluaral passages could easily be explained, but I will only explain those if you ask. Truth is for those who seek it.

As for holiness standards in the UPCI, that is a sensitive issue for some. There's A LOT I could say to you about that, but I'll just say this: Hollywood and holiness are not compatible.

Hopes this helps!


God bless,
Stephen


P.S. - Read John 13:20.