PDA

View Full Version : Are United Pentecostals Saved?



Sold Out
Oct 5th 2007, 08:35 PM
This is coming from the Tongues thread that is currently being debated. I posted the question regarding how United Pentecostals speak in tongues just like born-again Christians, so how can they both speak in the same tongues?

Some people have stated that they don't believe doctrine is important in matters of salvation, and also believe that just because UPC claims the name of Christ, they are saved.

This thread's purpose is to show how they are NOT saved people, andthat doctrine is ESSENTIAL in matters of salvation.

To begin, Jesus said in John 8:24,

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

Who did Jesus claim to be? God in flesh, the second person of the Triune Godhead. One cannot be a Christian if he/she denies this doctrine. God is a trinity, co-existent in 3 persons: Father, Son & Holy Spirit. UPC believes that God is one (numerically) and only manifests Himself in three ways. In the Old Testament, He is God the Father, then He was incarnated as Jesus, and now in the Church age dwells in believers as the Holy Spirit. This is totally unscriptural.

And not only that...they believe you have to be baptized in Jesus' name only to be saved, AND live a life of holiness. They do not believe nor have biblical salvation. It's all about works, based on the wrong foundation.

So how is it possible that unsaved people can speak in the same tongues as saved people?

Whispering Grace
Oct 5th 2007, 08:48 PM
Let me be clear that I do not agree with much UPC doctrine nor am I endorsing it. I would, however, like to know how SO refutes my points.


Some people have stated that they don't believe doctrine is important in matters of salvation

I don't recall anyone saying doctrine is not important in matters of salvation.




To begin, Jesus said in John 8:24,

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."


Who did Jesus claim to be? The Son of God. Who do UPC's believe Jesus to be? The Son of God.


UPC believes that God is one (numerically)

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! Deuteronomy 6:4


AND live a life of holiness

Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord. Hebrews 12:14

Sold Out
Oct 5th 2007, 08:56 PM
Let me be clear that I do not agree with much UPC doctrine nor am I endorsing it. I would, however, like to know how SO refutes my points.
I don't recall anyone saying doctrine is not important in matters of salvation.


It was stated in the tongues thread...by Godsgirl, I think.





Who did Jesus claim to be? The Son of God. Who do UPC's believe Jesus to be? The Son of God.

But not part of the trinity. There IS a difference



[quote]“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! Deuteronomy 6:4

The hebrew word for ONE here is 'echad' which means unified. It is not a numerical term.





Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord. Hebrews 12:14


Can you define holiness biblically?

Whispering Grace
Oct 5th 2007, 08:56 PM
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38

For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 8:16

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:5


Were they in error in the Bible when they baptized and instructed people to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus only?

third hero
Oct 5th 2007, 08:58 PM
I have talked to Oneness believers, and I know for certain that what is being presented is wrong.

Oneness believers believe that

1. God the Father is God
2. Jesus is God the Son
3. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.

Like the trinity doctrine, which outlines these things, there is no difference. The difference comes in with the explanation as to how they are one.

The ones I have talked about say this, that God the Father is a Spirit Being. They believe that God the Father sent His Spirit into the womb of Mary, and the Spirit of God took on flesh. This is Lord Jesus. They also believe that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. So, according to them, it's the Spirit of God that makes all of them one. In other words, God's Spirit can take on multiple forms.

Now, I see that many take that as saying that God can not be three and one at the same time, right? Well, again, this is from the people I talked to, at the baptism of Jesus, all three forms were present at the exazct same time. Therefore, they believe, as do I, that God can be in m,ultiple forms at the same time, each doing His will while also being God. Is God three in one? Yes. Is He united by the very same Spirit? Yes. Difference? Words.

Trinitarians say that oneness folks believe that God can not be three distinct persons, while oneness folk think that trinitarians do not acknoledge that God is one. I find this silly. Am I a trinitarian? Yes. Am I a Oneness person. If their definition is the same as mine, yes. There is no difference. If there is a oneness doctrine that is being taught that I do not know of, then please enlighten me, because this is the definition that I know.

BTW, a pastor that I know that is teaching oneness is one of those who have came to that very same conclusion, so I am not the only one here. He started using trinitarian terms to define God as One. Explain this if I am not correct.

Whispering Grace
Oct 5th 2007, 09:03 PM
But not part of the trinity. There IS a difference

When did Jesus claim to be part of a Trinity?



The hebrew word for ONE here is 'echad' which means unified. It is not a numerical term.


If that's the case, why do Jews not believe in the Trinity or a God of more than one Persons?


Can you define holiness biblically?

Separation to God and from the ways and things of the world.

godsgirl
Oct 5th 2007, 09:09 PM
Here is what I said...please don't misquote me....


Is having correct doctrine a prerequisite for salvation? I think not, so although I do not agree with UPC doctrine-if they have given their lives to Jesus Christ-they are saved.

Whispering Grace
Oct 5th 2007, 09:11 PM
From the tongues thread:



AND they believe in baptism & works for salvation.


What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? James 2:14

But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20

Saved7
Oct 5th 2007, 09:21 PM
Sold Out, they do not deny the divinty of Jesus Christ, therefore, how can you say they are not saved.
I personally have met Jesus and have God speak to me on a number of occassions. I believe that God is One person in three offices, but I also don't totally reject the doctrine of the trinity. However, I do adhere more to the lines that God is 1 person, not 3 people/persons. I believe that God cannot be put into some neat little doctrinal box, as He is far beyond anything we can describe.
I worship Jesus, and feel that water baptism is something that we are to do, but none of us are really sure on how it should be done. If we were, then we wouldn't have so many different doctrines on that topic alone.
I love the Lord my God with all my heart and all my soul and all my strength, I believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and God manifested in the flesh, as the scriptures say. I believe that He suffered and died for my sins on a cross at calvary and on the third day rose again, and I believe that He now sits at the might right hand of the Father, I believe that His Spirit was poured out on the day of pentecost and now indwells every believer. I believe that I am saved.
Are you going to tell me that I am not, because I don't fully adhere to the doctrine of the trinity? Yet I adhere to the doctrine that Jesus is God and worthy of worship and honor and glory and praise.
I believe that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, Isa 9:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=9&verse=6&version=kjv#6)For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
And Jesus never said "I am the second person of the trinity". NOt once, no where did He state this. That is "man's interpretation of what the scriptures say. I prefer to just let scripture speak for itself.

Are you going to tell me that I am giong to hell because I believe this describes Jesus?

And like anybody else, I believe that my faith will be manifested in the works that I do for the glory of our Lord. Because faith without works is dead, I know that by my new nature I will naturally live in such a way that shows my faith.

Baring in mind that I have never heard of the UPC, so I have no idea what doctrin they hold aside from what you posted here.

Saved7
Oct 5th 2007, 09:26 PM
I have talked to Oneness believers, and I know for certain that what is being presented is wrong.

Oneness believers believe that

1. God the Father is God
2. Jesus is God the Son
3. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.

.

This is not true, there are a number of differing views on the oneness doctrine. I am more oneness than anything, and I believe that God is SPIRIT, not that God HAS a spirit, but that HE IS Spirit as Jesus said. And I believe that Jesus is God in the flesh and that He is as the bible states the Son of God.

Phil Fourie
Oct 5th 2007, 10:18 PM
This is coming from the Tongues thread that is currently being debated. I posted the question regarding how United Pentecostals speak in tongues just like born-again Christians, so how can they both speak in the same tongues?

Some people have stated that they don't believe doctrine is important in matters of salvation, and also believe that just because UPC claims the name of Christ, they are saved.

This thread's purpose is to show how they are NOT saved people, andthat doctrine is ESSENTIAL in matters of salvation.

To begin, Jesus said in John 8:24,

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

Who did Jesus claim to be? God in flesh, the second person of the Triune Godhead. One cannot be a Christian if he/she denies this doctrine. God is a trinity, co-existent in 3 persons: Father, Son & Holy Spirit. UPC believes that God is one (numerically) and only manifests Himself in three ways. In the Old Testament, He is God the Father, then He was incarnated as Jesus, and now in the Church age dwells in believers as the Holy Spirit. This is totally unscriptural.

And not only that...they believe you have to be baptized in Jesus' name only to be saved, AND live a life of holiness. They do not believe nor have biblical salvation. It's all about works, based on the wrong foundation.

So how is it possible that unsaved people can speak in the same tongues as saved people?

Do you have a link or something in order for me to go and read their full doctrine?

This will be much appreciated.

God bless
Phil

disiple56
Oct 5th 2007, 10:42 PM
So how is it possible that unsaved people can speak in the same tongues as saved people?

I personally don't believe that a person MUST speak in tongues to be saved, but I can answer your question with a question. Satan is a fallen angel. Would he not know the languages of angels? Is there any language he would not know?

godsgirl
Oct 5th 2007, 11:17 PM
I do not believe a person "must" speak in tongues to be saved either. However, when we are baptised in the Spirit we need not fear being used by satan-The Word says, "no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed"

"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more then, will your Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask.""

The Baptism in the Holy Spirit is for all of His children, Jesus even called it "the promise of the Father" in Acts 1-and Peter said,..."for this promise is to you, to your children, and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call"

If the UPC members are Gods children then they can speak in tongues as soon as they are baptised in the Holy Spirit.

One of the differences is that they believe they are not saved until they receive this baptism-I disagree...but no one has made a case here to show that they are not saved at all.

cwb
Oct 5th 2007, 11:43 PM
Here is what I said...please don't misquote me....


Is having correct doctrine a prerequisite for salvation? I think not, so although I do not agree with UPC doctrine-if they have given their lives to Jesus Christ-they are saved.


http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/progress.gif


I agree. Having correct doctrine is not a prerequisite for salvation. I am not sure that there is any person alive that is doctrinally correct in every single area. If doctrinal correctness were a prerequisite to salvation, probably none of us would be saved. The prerequisite to salvation is Romans 10:9.

cwb
Oct 5th 2007, 11:47 PM
I am just curious. Do all Pentecostals have the same beliefs or is "United" Pentecostals a different branch with different beliefs.

Saved7
Oct 5th 2007, 11:49 PM
I agree. Having correct doctrine is not a prerequisite for salvation. I am not sure that there is any person alive that is doctrinally correct in every single area. If doctrinal correctness were a prerequisite to salvation, probably none of us would be saved. The prerequisite to salvation is Romans 10:9.

Amen and well said. I know that when I got saved, I only knew what I had experienced and that I was forgiven. That was saving "faith", I knew NOTHING else but the fact that I had just been with Jesus and I worshipped Him. There was no doctrine taught to me by any man in order to make myself saved, it was simply faith.:)

cwb
Oct 5th 2007, 11:56 PM
Amen and well said. I know that when I got saved, I only knew what I had experienced and that I was forgiven. That was saving "faith", I knew NOTHING else but the fact that I had just been with Jesus and I worshipped Him. There was no doctrine taught to me by any man in order to make myself saved, it was simply faith.:)

About all I knew was that Jesus Christ is God's son from John 3:16. Then some one told me to do Romans 10:9. Salvation is that simple. It is people who want to make it harder than that.

Whispering Grace
Oct 5th 2007, 11:58 PM
I am just curious. Do all Pentecostals have the same beliefs or is "United" Pentecostals a different branch with different beliefs.

I am Pentecostal (more specifically Holiness Pentecostal). We believe in the Trinity.

United Pentecostals do not adhere to the Trinity doctrine, though they do believe Jesus Christ is fully God.

Whispering Grace
Oct 6th 2007, 12:03 AM
For those of you who don't think doctrine is important in matters of salvation, do you then believe Mormans and JW's are saved?

Saved7
Oct 6th 2007, 12:11 AM
For those of you who don't think doctrine is important in matters of salvation, do you then believe Mormans and JW's are saved?


I believe it is important, to a degree. But not to the extreme that some of us like to take it. We can't put God in a box and say that trinitarians are saved and oneness are not. There is much evidence to both sides. But when first coming to Christ and all you know is He is God, that's enough to save you. Morman's and JW's are on the wrong side of that degree.
Basically it boils down to this, I am not going to point a finger at somebody who is catholic and say they are condemned because their doctrine isn't like mine, but I am not going to look at someone who says that there is a God different than what the bible says and say that they are saved.

Whispering Grace
Oct 6th 2007, 12:13 AM
I believe it is important, to a degree. But not to the extreme that some of us like to take it. We can't put God in a box and say that trinitarians are saved and oneness are not. There is much evidence to both sides. But when first coming to Christ and all you know is He is God, that's enough to save you. Morman's and JW's are on the wrong side of that degree.

Okay. I can agree with this. I just don't think we should dismiss doctrine as not being important. It very much is. The deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is essential doctrine for one's salvation!

Saved7
Oct 6th 2007, 12:15 AM
Okay. I can agree with this. I just don't think we should dismiss doctrine as not being important. It very much is. The deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is essential doctrine for one's salvation!

You won't get any arguement out of me on that.
I just figured what I said didn't have to be defined to that length, however, I forget that there are people reading this stuff that do not fully understand.

godsgirl
Oct 6th 2007, 12:25 AM
I am just curious. Do all Pentecostals have the same beliefs or is "United" Pentecostals a different branch with different beliefs.

I believe doctrine is important too-but merely stated that one could have wrong doctrine and still be saved.

Yes, they are a different branch with different beliefs. In my opinion-and I am Pentecostal-they are wrong in their beliefs. Is anyone here UPC? It would be better if they defended their own beliefs instead of having us do it for them since we don't agree with what they teach

Brother Mark
Oct 6th 2007, 02:18 AM
So how much doctrine did the publican know that prayed "God be merciful to me a sinner"?

Doctrine doesn't save people. The pharisees made that mistake when Jesus told them "you search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life". The scriptures don't save. It's Jesus that saves.

We believe that Jesus is God and we are sinners. Jesus paid our way. I am not sure much more than that is needed. I know of people getting saved that didn't even know Jesus name when it happened.

MissJodi
Oct 6th 2007, 04:33 AM
Doctrine doesn't save people. The pharisees made that mistake when Jesus told them "you search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life". The scriptures don't save. It's Jesus that saves.

We believe that Jesus is God and we are sinners. Jesus paid our way. I am not sure much more than that is needed. I know of people getting saved that didn't even know Jesus name when it happened.

I agree and would like to add that understanding doctrine is more a part of the santification process than the salvation process.

God Bless,
Jodi

Amazedgrace21
Oct 6th 2007, 07:52 AM
Am sincerely not trying to be difficult here but it seems God has set the foundations of what is essential doctrine. The demand of the gospel is that you believe particular things to be true. It's not just a matter of mere belief, as if these are just some incidental details of theology that you might happen to be mistaken about.


We believe that Jesus is God and we are sinners. Jesus paid our way. I am not sure much more than that is needed. I know of people getting saved that didn't even know Jesus name when it happened

It seems to me a statement like this is arguing the case for doctrine that is essential as well, is it not? :confused

Specifically,for example...God only judges guilty people. People get judged by God not because they mess up on their theology but because they are guilty..there is only one way God offers to "get around this" and its essential to know a couple of particular things that are true before you can take advantage of the forgiveness God offers.

That's where the essential doctrines come in and where they are found.
I honestly do not know how to get around any of these "doctrines" although I observe a lot of attempts to..nor do I equate theology with "doctrine".


Jesus is the Messiah

You must believe that Jesus is the Messiah. If you repudiate such a notion, you cannot be saved. By the way, whenever the word "Christ" appears in the New Testament, that is simply the Greek translation of the Hebrew word meshiac. Christ is the Greek for Messiah. When the Bible says "Jesus the Christ" it means Jesus the Messiah. Whenever it says Jesus Christ--by the way, Christ isn't Jesus' last name, that's His title--it means Messiah. 1 John 2:22 says, "Who is the liar, but the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah?


the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, the one who confesses the Son has the Father." That's pretty clear. 1 John 4:2 says, "By this you know the Spirit of God, every spirit that confesses that Jesus Messiah has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of antichrist." 2 John 7 says, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world. Those who do not acknowledge Jesus Messiah as coming in the flesh, this is the deceiver and the antichrist."


it is clear that it is not enough to believe just in God and leave it at that because the First Commandment condemns those who have other gods before them other than the true God. So the first essential doctrine is that you must believe in God as He is in Himself. You must have an accurate picture about the fundamental nature of God. I think that entails the Trinity. You cannot deny the nature of God, the God of the Scripture, and still call yourself a Christian. In John 4:24 Jesus says, "God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

THIS IS A "MUST" that can't be circumvented..

Must . Exodus 20:2,3 says, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me."

The God of the Bible is a triune God, one God in three Persons. Jesus seems to hint at the necessity of that in John 8 when he says, "Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." Later on He uses the same language and makes a very clear reference to His deity when he says, "Before Abraham was, I Am." You must believe in God as He is in Himself and He is a Trinity.


"There is Jesus and there is another Jesus"

You have to believe in Jesus as He is in Himself. That entails believing in the deity of Christ and His full humanity. One reason that I can say this is because the Scripture makes distinctions between another Jesus and the true Jesus. It does this in 2 Corinthians, and I believe Galatians does as well. There are at least two places that warn against another Jesus. Galatians refers to another gospel.

So there is Jesus and then there is another Jesus.

The Jesus who is an incarnation of the angel Michael is not the Jesus of the Scriptures, but the Jesus of the Watchtower Society. The Jesus who is the spirit brother of Lucifer is not the Jesus of the Scriptures and of salvation, but it is the Jesus of Mormonism.
The Jesus who is a Hindu guru is not the Jesus of the Scriptures, but the Jesus of the New Age movement.

You cannot believe in these other Jesuses and be saved because you believe in someone who can't save you.

THE BODILY RESSURECTION

You must also believe the bodily resurrection. Paul makes the comment in I Corinthians 15, "If the dead are not raised and Christ is in the grave, our faith is worthless. We are still in our sins and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished." Romans 10:9 says very clearly, "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved."

It is the bodily resurrection, not a spiritual resurrection because a spiritual resurrection is not a resurrection. In a spiritual resurrection nothing is resurrected. A resurrection is when something is revivified, resuscitated, re-surrected. It is done again. The body that was once dead is now alive. It may be that the body has some qualities that are changed, but the original body is the body that is raised. That's the bodily resurrection. When you say a spiritual resurrection, the spiritual resurrection is not a resurrection. Only a bodily resurrection is a real resurrection.


"ALL HAVE SINNED"

you must believe in man's fallenness and culpability. This follows from the gospel message. Romans 6:23 says, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Frankly, the issue of salvation is that you get forgiven because you've sinned. If you say you haven't sinned and man has no sin and hasn't fallen, 1 John 1 says that you've called God a liar and you are still in your sins. Man is guilty. He may not even feel guilty of certain things, but guilt is not a feeling. Guilt is a judicial reality.

If we say that we have not sinned, then the truth is not in us and we call God a liar. Romans 11:32 says, "God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all." Because of the gospel message, if you don't acknowledge the bad news, you can't make use of the good news. The bad news is that we have sinned and are guilty before God.


Jesus is the ONLY WAY - "SUBSTITUTIONARY ATTONEMENT"

Salvation is by grace through faith. You must believe in the substitutionary atonement. Romans 11:6 says, "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works otherwise grace is no longer grace." "This is the work that we are to do, believe in Him whom He has sent," Jesus says in John 6. We are saved by grace through faith in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. There are quite a number of verses that make the point that Jesus is the only way.


Also..

I would consider the authority of Scripture is a functional necessity because without it none of the other truth could be affirmed or asserted with confidence. Once you get rid of the authority of Scripture, the other ones fall one by one like dominoes.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here and if so , please feel free to correct me.:confused

YSIC,
Grace

godsgirl
Oct 6th 2007, 10:54 AM
All those things you pointed out are essential for salvation-yes, we agree-but merely having different doctrine doesn't condemn one-even if that doctrine is incorrect, for example
OSAS vs NOSAS
Pretrib vs posttrib
ceasationist vs spiritfilled
immersion vs sprinkle
ect...
So, yes, the doctrine of the UPC church is incorrect, but then so is the Baptist church, and in all likelyhood every other church you could name.
Merely pointing out that we can be saved while holding on to wrong doctrine is just a fact-I'm certianly not negating the work of Jesus Christ or the authority of scripture.

third hero
Oct 6th 2007, 12:28 PM
For those of you who don't think doctrine is important in matters of salvation, do you then believe Mormans and JW's are saved?

I know next to nothing concerning mormons, but I do know quite a bit about the Jw's. They deny the Deity of Lord Jesus. They believe that Jesus is an incarnation of the Archangel Michael. This is a flat-out denial of Jesus as being the One and Only Son of God. They are not saved, nor do they follow the directives of Lord Jesus. (Directive is thew same as commandment for those who are lost to that.)

Doctrine is not important to salvation, except the doctrines of Lord Jesus. Man made doctrines, like Oneness and Trinity, do not make a person saved or unsaved. The Most important detail is this, Is Jesus the Son of God. You answer is your salvation. yes equals saved. No equals lost.

third hero
Oct 6th 2007, 01:04 PM
Jesus is the Messiah

You must believe that Jesus is the Messiah. If you repudiate such a notion, you cannot be saved. By the way, whenever the word "Christ" appears in the New Testament, that is simply the Greek translation of the Hebrew word meshiac. Christ is the Greek for Messiah. When the Bible says "Jesus the Christ" it means Jesus the Messiah. Whenever it says Jesus Christ--by the way, Christ isn't Jesus' last name, that's His title--it means Messiah. 1 John 2:22 says, "Who is the liar, but the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah?


the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, the one who confesses the Son has the Father." That's pretty clear. 1 John 4:2 says, "By this you know the Spirit of God, every spirit that confesses that Jesus Messiah has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of antichrist." 2 John 7 says, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world. Those who do not acknowledge Jesus Messiah as coming in the flesh, this is the deceiver and the antichrist."


it is clear that it is not enough to believe just in God and leave it at that because the First Commandment condemns those who have other gods before them other than the true God. So the first essential doctrine is that you must believe in God as He is in Himself. You must have an accurate picture about the fundamental nature of God. I think that entails the Trinity. You cannot deny the nature of God, the God of the Scripture, and still call yourself a Christian. In John 4:24 Jesus says, "God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

I agreed with everything in this part of the post except the thing highlighted in red. the only thing that the scriptures prove in this case is that Jesus is God, He and the Father are one, and that no one can come to that understanding unless the Spirit of God shows him this. What the word trinity does is label God in terms that we think we can understand.

Now what if I give this definition of Lord Jesus, tell me what you think.

Jesus is the Spirit of God wrapped in flesh. He is the union of the Spirit of God the Father and the flesh of Mary. He is fully God and fully man at the exact same time. Just as He is fully God and fully man, He is fully united and One with the Father, who is the Spirit of God.

Tell me, what part of that is heresy? None of it, because it is defined in the trinity doctrine the very same principles that I have just laid out. Do you know what the funny thing about this is? A Oneness pastor told me this, and used scripture to prove his point. He showed the point at Jesus's baptism where all three forms of God were present at the exact same time, which showed the distinctness of each form of God, while showing that God can manifest Himself in those three forms at the exact same time and each of those forms is still Him. In other words, God died on the cross, while ruling in heaven at the exact same time. How? because God can do whatever He wants at any point in time. Does this say that Jesus is not the Son of God? no. INstead, it says that Jesus really IS God. He is not the Father, becasue He is the Son, nevertheless, He is God.


THIS IS A "MUST" that can't be circumvented..

Must . Exodus 20:2,3 says, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me."

The God of the Bible is a triune God, one God in three Persons. Jesus seems to hint at the necessity of that in John 8 when he says, "Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." Later on He uses the same language and makes a very clear reference to His deity when he says, "Before Abraham was, I Am." You must believe in God as He is in Himself and He is a Trinity.

Now, I do not disagree with this concept. What I do disagree with is the notion that we know the fullnes of God. We do not. All we know is that God has show Himself to us in the ways that He has. He has taken on flesh, and is the Son of the Father, who is God. When Lord Jesus went to heaven, He sent the Holy Spirit, to be God in us. God decided to show us the way to continue to follow Lord Jesus's commandments by the leading of the Holy Spirit, who is God. Are they not God? Yes, indeed the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is God. Are they the fullness of God? Only to our knowledge. So, we can say that God is in three persons, but we must be aware that these three personages, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are the ways in which God has shown Himself to us. We do not know the fullness of God completely, since we know nothing completely, for our knowledge is only in part.


"There is Jesus and there is another Jesus"

You have to believe in Jesus as He is in Himself. That entails believing in the deity of Christ and His full humanity. One reason that I can say this is because the Scripture makes distinctions between another Jesus and the true Jesus. It does this in 2 Corinthians, and I believe Galatians does as well. There are at least two places that warn against another Jesus. Galatians refers to another gospel.

This, I completely agree with.


THE BODILY RESSURECTION

You must also believe the bodily resurrection. Paul makes the comment in I Corinthians 15, "If the dead are not raised and Christ is in the grave, our faith is worthless. We are still in our sins and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished." Romans 10:9 says very clearly, "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved."

It is the bodily resurrection, not a spiritual resurrection because a spiritual resurrection is not a resurrection. In a spiritual resurrection nothing is resurrected. A resurrection is when something is revivified, resuscitated, re-surrected. It is done again. The body that was once dead is now alive. It may be that the body has some qualities that are changed, but the original body is the body that is raised. That's the bodily resurrection. When you say a spiritual resurrection, the spiritual resurrection is not a resurrection. Only a bodily resurrection is a real resurrection.

How is this connected to the trinity or oneness? Nothing. It is absolutely true, what you have written here. And it can not be overstated. Christ literally rose from the dead. The body of the dead Jesus rose from the Dead, and is alive, breathing, in heaven today. This is vital to becoming a believer. Jesus is not a dead man, like Mohammad, or Buddha. He is alive, living, breathing, and coming back soon, literally.


It appears that everything else as far as requirement for salvation is covered in the rest of your text, so I will save space and simply say, I agree. What we need to understand is that the word trinity is what we use to explain what we really can not. So is the oneness doctrine. Jesus said that He and the Father are one. The Father spoke from heaven, while the Holy Spirit fell upon Lord Jesus at that moment God t he Father spoke. Jesus said, by virtue that He and the Father is one, is that He is God. More importantly, He affirmed before the Sanhedrin that He is the Son of God, which by virtue of having God as his dad, being God himself. When we divide by human terms, we are doing God a disservice. The same with Oneness folks. Oneness and Trinity doctrines are only there to tell a person how God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, are still One, while God is the Father in heaven, the Son on earth and in heaven, and the Holy Spirit being God both in heaven, and in us.

And now for the grand finale, which will have both camps mad at me...like that matters. Both define Jesus as God. Both fall short, because we only know in part. It is far easier to say that Lord Jesus is fully God, and fully man. It is far easier to say that Jesus proclaimed that He and the Father are one, and I believe him. It is far easier to say that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Lord, who dwells in us, and remind us of everything that Lord Jesus taught, which is the exact will of God. And when the inevitable question how is presented, we can honestly say this: I know only what Christ told us, and other than that, I do not know. Jesus and the Father are one, and God the Father is God the Father, and not Lord Jesus, although they are indeed one. The fullness of the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, as Lord Jesus proclaimed. Jesus said it, I believe it, and that's all there is to it.

Amazedgrace21
Oct 6th 2007, 02:43 PM
Well thank you for the distinctions and clarifications each person contributed..I understand better what you are trying to do with explaining certain things.

I also agree that none of us can define God..and that is a given..I simply believe that is covered when we attempt to know and understand our God..

its duly noted by Him what the motives of our heart are in respect to why we seek this and how close we have come by virtue, of the Holy Spirits contributions providing an accurate perspective.

You are aslo right, I can only know what I think entails the Trinity by virtue of what is set forth in scripture to the extent it has been been revealed to me once again by the Holy Spirit..

so I do not hold to that as my personal doctine so much as abide by the belief the fact it is an essential part of scripture, it must be approached and handled correctly. I simply could not agree to the trinity being completely discarded as "essential"..as it is applied to Christ and it is clearly challanged by Satan in respect to its standing as such in Revelation with the role it will play in regard to deception and blasphemy of Father, Son and Holy Spirit "by him".

I see it as there is much to be gained by others knowledge contributing to this if they have different illuminations from scripture about how to shed light on this..opposed to revelations coming from their feeling's about 'scripture'...that this is where non-essential doctrines come into play.

Once again thank you for making the distinctions clear of where the common position is on the essentials..I was a bit confused there myself if there was a disagreement and didn't want to see others miss those points kept foundational..

While I also agree that God reveals himself in differnt ways to others as in the form of introduction..I also believe that it must be the one, true God for all of us or it is not the true God at all...if this helps..and that one is clearly set forth in the Word of God and scripture is how we distinguish this, based upon what God says and the Holy Spirit testifies, witnesses to ..not us.:hug:..if we are in disagreement, then we are the ones "in the wrong".

Thanks again,
YSIC,
Grace

ravi4u2
Oct 6th 2007, 03:36 PM
So how is it possible that unsaved people can speak in the same tongues as saved people?Paul says that there is such a thing as 'tongue of men', but there is also 'tongue of angels'. Demons are fallen angels, so there is no amazement if someone who is demon possessed speaks in tongues as well. But those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil, would be able to discern rightly.

amazzin
Oct 6th 2007, 03:45 PM
This is coming from the Tongues thread that is currently being debated. I posted the question regarding how United Pentecostals speak in tongues just like born-again Christians, so how can they both speak in the same tongues?

Some people have stated that they don't believe doctrine is important in matters of salvation, and also believe that just because UPC claims the name of Christ, they are saved.

This thread's purpose is to show how they are NOT saved people, andthat doctrine is ESSENTIAL in matters of salvation.

To begin, Jesus said in John 8:24,

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

Who did Jesus claim to be? God in flesh, the second person of the Triune Godhead. One cannot be a Christian if he/she denies this doctrine. God is a trinity, co-existent in 3 persons: Father, Son & Holy Spirit. UPC believes that God is one (numerically) and only manifests Himself in three ways. In the Old Testament, He is God the Father, then He was incarnated as Jesus, and now in the Church age dwells in believers as the Holy Spirit. This is totally unscriptural.

And not only that...they believe you have to be baptized in Jesus' name only to be saved, AND live a life of holiness. They do not believe nor have biblical salvation. It's all about works, based on the wrong foundation.

So how is it possible that unsaved people can speak in the same tongues as saved people?

Who are we to judge them for their salvation or anyone else for that matter? You may not agree with their doctrine or methods but since when is doctrine a prerequesite for salvation?

Amazedgrace21
Oct 6th 2007, 07:30 PM
I absolutely agree it is not our place to judge anyones salvation..yet it seems imperative to confront certain realities if indeed we are presented with the situation where a 'false gospel' is being preached as the basis for salvation..

The strongest words of condemnation in all the New Testament are aimed at false teachers who corrupt the Gospel. Therefore the Gospel message itself must be acknowledged as a primary point of fundamental doctrine.There are gospels with messages of salvation that are completely contradictory. This seems to also apply to the dangers of testifying ones salvation is based on a "false Christ".

So what do "we do" when confronted with someone who is clearly basing their salvation on the wrong message of salvation and a false Christ and must confront the teacher of this whether that message is the authentic Gospel of true Christianity?

We are dealing with matters that go to the very heart of the doctrines Scripture identifies as fundamental and the authentic salvation of someone is at stake if they are in error , nor recognize that they are, correct?..So this is not simply a matter of judging them, it's recognizing that they are "at risk" of believing they are saved when they are not.

"The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul" (Psalm 19:7). That means Scripture is sufficient. Apart from the truths revealed to us in Scripture, there is no essential spiritual truth, no fundamental doctrine, nothing essential to soul-restoration.

We do not need to look beyond the written Word of God for any essential doctrines. There is nothing necessary beyond what is recorded in God's Word. Yet we do have to "judge" if someone is in error.

Certain teachings of Scripture carry threats of damnation to those who deny them. Other ideas are expressly stated to be affirmed only by unbelievers. Such doctrines, obviously, involve fundamental articles of genuine Christianity. The apostle John began his first epistle with a series of statements that establish key points of the doctrine of sin (hamartiology) as fundamental articles of faith. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth" (1:6).

The fundamentals of the faith are so closely identified with Christ that the apostle John used the expression "the teaching of Christ" as a kind of shorthand for the set of doctrines he regarded as fundamental. To him, these doctrines represented the difference between true Christianity and false religion. That is why he wrote, "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son" (2 John 9). Far from encouraging union with those who denied the fundamental truths of the faith, John forbade any form of spiritual fellowship with or encouragement of such false religion (vv. 10-11).

what are we to do with this understanding?

IMHO, we must not set ourselves up as judges of other people's eternal fate (John 5:22). Yet, as Christians we have to wrestle with the responsibilities of distinguishing the deceived from the deceivers, when it comes to the matter of salvation and our identity in Christ.


Scripturaly, we have no business receiving just anyone into communion and fellowship We should no more forge spiritual bonds with people whose religion is fundamentally in error than we would seek fellowship with those guilty of heinous sin. An example would be the Corinthians, (1 Corinthians 5:1-3).

We must also remember that serious error can be extremely subtle. False teachers don't wear a sign proclaiming who they are. They disguise themselves as apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13). "And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness" (vv. 14-15) when it comes to teaching false assurances of Salvation.

Just trying to work this out with sharing my own understandings, and offering some ways to approach this for prayerful consideration.:)

YSIC,
Grace

third hero
Oct 6th 2007, 11:57 PM
IN short, God the Father is God, Jesus is the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. All are One, and all are defined in a way in which we can understand with our limited minds. Anything that digresses from that definition is not to be accepted.

Steven3
Oct 7th 2007, 05:30 AM
Hi folks,
my 3c

1. Paul says, more than once, "the Lord knows who are his", it isn't for us to judge.

2. Much as we all want to blame angels not man for the sin in the world, in the Bible Satan is never described as a fallen angel. Angels are all ministering spirits sent to help those to inherit salvation (at least according to Heb1:14) Satan is a symbol of human opposition to God used in OT prophecy, which then gets expanded into an allegory of sin in the NT.

3. In the Bible in all recorded instances angels speak the languages of men - Hebrew, Greek, whatever. The reference to meaningless tongues (glossolalia) in Corinth is not evidence that angels really speak in meaningless languages but evidence only that the Corinthians claimed they were speaking in tongues of angels - as Paul himself makes clear later in the chapter - "no language is without meaning".

Take care :)
Steven

godsgirl
Oct 7th 2007, 12:08 PM
Hi folks,
my 3c

1. Paul says, more than once, "the Lord knows who are his", it isn't for us to judge.

2. Much as we all want to blame angels not man for the sin in the world, in the Bible Satan is never described as a fallen angel. Angels are all ministering spirits sent to help those to inherit salvation (at least according to Heb1:14) Satan is a symbol of human opposition to God used in OT prophecy, which then gets expanded into an allegory of sin in the NT.

3. In the Bible in all recorded instances angels speak the languages of men - Hebrew, Greek, whatever. The reference to meaningless tongues (glossolalia) in Corinth is not evidence that angels really speak in meaningless languages but evidence only that the Corinthians claimed they were speaking in tongues of angels - as Paul himself makes clear later in the chapter - "no language is without meaning".

Take care :)
Steven

He who speaks in a tongue, does not speak to men, but to God--INDEED NO ONE understands him, he speaks mysteries to God.

So-according to the above verse-it doesn't matter what language the angels speak.

Steven3
Oct 7th 2007, 01:13 PM
Hi Godsgirl :)
He who speaks in a tongue, does not speak to men, but to God--INDEED NO ONE understands him, he speaks mysteries to God.

So-according to the above verse-it doesn't matter what language the angels speak.

I'm afraid it does. Because if all languages have meaning, and someone is claiming to speak an unknown language that only angels speak then that person is going against what Paul says - that there is no language without meaning, then that person is disobeying Paul, and should be silent unless there is someone to translate.

God bless
Steven

godsgirl
Oct 7th 2007, 01:21 PM
Hi Godsgirl :)

I'm afraid it does. Because if all languages have meaning, and someone is claiming to speak an unknown language that only angels speak then that person is going against what Paul says - that there is no language without meaning, then that person is disobeying Paul, and should be silent unless there is someone to translate.

God bless
Steven



That verse doesn't say anything about "only angels speak"-it says, "no one"-but yes, in the church, the gift of tongues is only to be used in compainion with the 'gift of interpretation"- however, the gift of interpretation is also a supernatural manifestation of the Spirit and does not depend upon someone speaking the same langauge and humanly knowing what is said and "tanslating it"

Steven3
Oct 7th 2007, 03:28 PM
Hi God'sgirl:)
That verse doesn't say anything about "only angels speak"-it says, "no one"-but yes, in the church, the gift of tongues is only to be used in compainion with the 'gift of interpretation"- however, the gift of interpretation is also a supernatural manifestation of the Spirit and does not depend upon someone speaking the same langauge and humanly knowing what is said and "tanslating it"

Well I guess there's two separate areas to reconcile:

One area to reconcile is the apparent (and real) contradictions within 1Co14 when one moment Paul seems to suggest that the Corinthians really had a genuine gift (albeit one very different from the intelligible tongues at Pentecost), and the next moment Paul is saying that their tongues are meaningless, a clanging gong, untuned instruments, that he speaks in tongues more than all, but would rather speak 5 words in normal language than 1000 in a tongue. The very opposite of Peter at Pentecost.

The other area to reconcile is the reality of tongues today - the very real feeling of spiritual and emotional meaning in tongues, but the hard cold fact that what is coming out of the mouth is not a supernatural language but a jumble of English phonemes. And yet I suppose if a skilled spiritual interpreter can stand next to the person and make sense of it, then it would be valuable, maybe even supernatural.


My problem is I've simply never seen it happen. I've only seen a lot of people glossolating together - and the "translator" just stands there and goes "amen, hallelujah, yes Lord!" which doesn't count as interpreting by Paul's description of having meaning. Which brings us back to Paul's rules:

2 or max 3.
One at a time.
Each with a translator (not just someone going "amen, hallelujah")
Plus the other rule.

God bless
Steven

godsgirl
Oct 7th 2007, 06:57 PM
Hi God'sgirl:)

Well I guess there's two separate areas to reconcile:

One area to reconcile is the apparent (and real) contradictions within 1Co14 when one moment Paul seems to suggest that the Corinthians really had a genuine gift (albeit one very different from the intelligible tongues at Pentecost), and the next moment Paul is saying that their tongues are meaningless, a clanging gong, untuned instruments,

He was speaking about the lack of love-you cannot take only part of the verse and come to the correct meaning-take it in context.

If I speak in tongues of men and angels AND HAVE NOT LOVE, I am a clanging gong and untuned intsrument"



that he speaks in tongues more than all, but would rather speak 5 words in normal language than 1000 in a tongue. The very opposite of Peter at Pentecost.

He merely stated that most of his tongue speaking was for private prayer to God-just like the rest of us.

The other area to reconcile is the reality of tongues today - the very real feeling of spiritual and emotional meaning in tongues, but the hard cold fact that what is coming out of the mouth is not a supernatural language but a jumble of English phonemes. And yet I suppose if a skilled spiritual interpreter can stand next to the person and make sense of it, then it would be valuable, maybe even supernatural.

You haven't convinced anyone with your study-sorry.


My problem is I've simply never seen it happen. I've only seen a lot of people glossolating together - and the "translator" just stands there and goes "amen, hallelujah, yes Lord!" which doesn't count as interpreting by Paul's description of having meaning. Which brings us back to Paul's rules:

2 or max 3.
One at a time.
Each with a translator (not just someone going "amen, hallelujah")
Plus the other rule.

God bless
Steven

I can't say what you did or did not hear-was the person you heard merely praying in tongues or were they using the gift of tongues (loudly enough for the church to hear)? If they were praying in tongues and you overheard them-then, it didn't need interpreted-for they weren't speaking to you or to the church. If they were giving an utterance in other tongues-then absolutly yes, there should have been an interpretation.

Steven3
Oct 8th 2007, 03:36 AM
Hi Godsgirl :)
I can't say what you did or did not hear-was the person you heard merely praying in tongues or were they using the gift of tongues (loudly enough for the church to hear)? About 40 people among 60-70 in the congregation, all with their eyes closed making glossalalic noises interspersed with occasional recognisable words "hallelujah, amen, oh yes". About 5 middle aged women and one man louder than most. About 10 minutes, sometimes cacophonous, sometimes developing into a group rhythm.
If they were praying in tongues and you overheard them-then, it didn't need interpreted-for they weren't speaking to you or to the church.Can I ask for clarification please, because it looks to me as if Paul says it does in 1Co14:13-14,36-39.
If they were giving an utterance in other tongues-then absolutly yes, there should have been an interpretation.It was both an utterance and a form of prayer. Why would their eyes being closed or half-closed negate Paul's instructions about "at most 2 or 3", "one at a time" or "must be interpreted"?

Sorry, really don't wish to be controversial :), but so far I don't see how closing the eyes negates all Paul's instructions when he himself covers praying in tongues in Corinth.
God bless
Steven

Sold Out
Oct 8th 2007, 04:32 PM
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38

For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 8:16

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:5


Were they in error in the Bible when they baptized and instructed people to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus only?

JESUS commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19)

We should do what Jesus says.

Sold Out
Oct 8th 2007, 04:34 PM
Do you have a link or something in order for me to go and read their full doctrine?

This will be much appreciated.

God bless
Phil


www.upci.org (http://www.upci.org)
www.upci.com (http://www.upci.com)

Both links will get you to their website.

Whispering Grace
Oct 8th 2007, 05:00 PM
JESUS commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19)

We should do what Jesus says.

Then how do you explain the multiple verses in Acts where they baptized in Jesus' name only?

(Mind you, I believe in baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but I also think we should be willing to examine WHY we do what we do in light of all Scripture....and there IS a precedent for baptizing in Jesus' name only).

Sold Out
Oct 8th 2007, 05:20 PM
Then how do you explain the multiple verses in Acts where they baptized in Jesus' name only?

(Mind you, I believe in baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but I also think we should be willing to examine WHY we do what we do in light of all Scripture....and there IS a precedent for baptizing in Jesus' name only).


Well, not to simplify my response....but I'm going to do what Jesus said, regardless of what was done elsewhere. While they may have baptized in Jesus' name only (in Acts), that does not negate what Jesus told us to do.

My mentioning of this in regards to UPC is because of their Oneness view of Christ.

Whispering Grace
Oct 8th 2007, 05:23 PM
Well, not to simplify my response....but I'm going to do what Jesus said, regardless of what was done elsewhere. While they may have baptized in Jesus' name only (in Acts), that does not negate what Jesus told us to do.

My mentioning of this in regards to UPC is because of their Oneness view of Christ.

My question is....were the Apostles in error when they baptized in Jesus' name only?

Sold Out
Oct 8th 2007, 06:47 PM
My question is....were the Apostles in error when they baptized in Jesus' name only?

No, not necessarily. I believe (my personal opinion) that they emphasized Jesus' name in baptism to show that John's baptism was not the same. His baptism was just a foreshadowing of Christ.

The UPC emphatically state that one's baptism is not 'in effect' unless that person is baptized in their church in Jesus' name only. They will flat out refuse to baptize in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. That's the distinction I'm trying to draw here.

Sold Out
Oct 8th 2007, 07:31 PM
[quote=Whispering Grace;1402178]
If that's the case, why do Jews not believe in the Trinity or a God of more than one Persons?


The Hebrew word for "God" is "Elohim" which is a plural. The Biblical Hebrew word for "one" in the above passage is "echad" which is a corporate oneness, not merely a numeric count. God is a plural number of persons yet one. The word one as "echad" is continually used in referrence to the one true God throughout the Holy Scriptures.


A clear example of the meaning of the Hebrew word "echad" may be also found in the celebration of the Jewish Passover. The three-pocketed matza holder used during Passover is referred to as an "echad". Consequently, it is the middle of the three matzas that is broken during the ceremony. The Holy Trinity of God and the brokenness of the Second Person of the Trinity are clearly revealed in this ancient tradition. The "echad", the one true God, is the Holy Trinity.

godsgirl
Oct 8th 2007, 09:45 PM
[quote=Steven3;1403818]Hi Godsgirl :)About 40 people among 60-70 in the congregation, all with their eyes closed making glossalalic noises interspersed with occasional recognisable words "hallelujah, amen, oh yes". About 5 middle aged women and one man louder than most. About 10 minutes, sometimes cacophonous, sometimes developing into a group rhythm.Can I ask for clarification please, because it looks to me as if Paul says it does in 1Co14:13-14,36-39.It was both an utterance and a form of prayer. Why would their eyes being closed or half-closed negate Paul's instructions about "at most 2 or 3", "one at a time" or "must be interpreted"?

Sorry, really don't wish to be controversial :), but so far I don't see how closing the eyes negates all Paul's instructions when he himself covers praying in tongues in Corinth.
God bless


There are diferent kinds of speaking in tongues--a public utterance-and prayer. It sounds like the people you were with were praying-and you overheard it. Obviously, prayer doesn't need interpreted-I personally, do not believe that congregations should get together and pray in tongues like you have described, because so many in the Body of Christ are confused about it-and Paul said that tongues for personal edification are better off done at home. but the BIble makes it plain that there are differences between merely praying in tongues and being used in the gift of tongues., so there are different rules for each...Paul was merely pointing out those differences.

Unlike what you heard-a message in tongues usually comes during worship-where one person is given a message to share with the congregation and speaks loudly enough for everyone to hear-then, according to Paul, either that person or another in the congregation will be given the gift of interpretation and will share what the Holy Spirit is saying to the church.

ProjectPeter
Oct 8th 2007, 10:00 PM
Then how do you explain the multiple verses in Acts where they baptized in Jesus' name only?

(Mind you, I believe in baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but I also think we should be willing to examine WHY we do what we do in light of all Scripture....and there IS a precedent for baptizing in Jesus' name only).
Not to mention the fact that it isn't about rote... but baptism like everything else is about the heart. I am right sure that if I baptize someone in Jesus name or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit... and I the folks are truly repentant and following God... He's not going to pull out the "Roberts Rules of Order" and jack them up for not doing the language right.

godsgirl
Oct 8th 2007, 11:20 PM
I look at it this way, when we are stopped by a cop for speeding, we are not stopped in the cops name-but in the name of the law. The law gives the policeman the authority to stop you.
In the same way, the Name of Jesus is how we receive the authority to be baptised-so when we are baptised by the formula, "in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" we ARE baptised in Jesus Name-for it is He and what He has done on the cross that gives you the authority to be baptised.

Sold Out
Oct 9th 2007, 12:55 PM
Not to mention the fact that it isn't about rote... but baptism like everything else is about the heart. I am right sure that if I baptize someone in Jesus name or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit... and I the folks are truly repentant and following God... He's not going to pull out the "Roberts Rules of Order" and jack them up for not doing the language right.

True, but it's the reasoning behind the practice that's in question here. I'm not going to tell someone that if they were baptized in Jesus' name only that their baptism didn't count. BUT...the UPC say it has to be that way ONLY and that Trinitarian baptism is wrong.

Brother Mark
Oct 9th 2007, 04:20 PM
At the risk of stirring things up more....

What about Galatians. Were the people that added circumcision to the gospel of salvation saved?:hmm:

I think we add way too much to the gospel of salvation. We add understanding of doctrine, baptisms, tongues, etc. All that is necessary is a repentance from sin towards God. "God be merciful to me a sinner". That guy new nothing except that he was in trouble and God would forgive him. That's it. And he went away justified. No baptism. No tongues. No doctrinal understanding. But he was justified.

Paul wanted those that added circumcision to salvation to be accursed. Those are strong words. Why would he word something that strongly? :hmm:

ProjectPeter
Oct 9th 2007, 04:38 PM
True, but it's the reasoning behind the practice that's in question here. I'm not going to tell someone that if they were baptized in Jesus' name only that their baptism didn't count. BUT...the UPC say it has to be that way ONLY and that Trinitarian baptism is wrong.
Sure... but in truth... Most Trinitarians say that in Jesus Name is wrong as well. Both I figure are missing a very key fact. And it isn't just oneness UPC's that baptize in Jesus Name for those interested. That is fairly common in several different circles.

Amazedgrace21
Oct 9th 2007, 05:13 PM
One point that was brought to my attention some time back was during his personal ministry, Jesus possessed the authority to forgive men’s sins personally and directly, upon whatever terms he chose. For example, once while in the city of Capernaum, the Lord encountered a man who was paralyzed.

The unfortunate gentleman had been conveyed to where Christ was by four of his friends. When Jesus saw “their faith,” he said to the palsied man, “Son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5). Then, in order to establish his “authority” in the matter of personally forgiving sins “on earth” (2:10), Christ healed the man of his malady. It is interesting to note that there is no mention made of the fact that the man was required to repent of his sins.

So this raised a question..

If recorded examples of events occurring during the Lord’s personal ministry function as precedent for the Christian age, shall it be concluded that no repentance is obligatory today?

Another example...If the thief on the cross could be saved without being baptized, why cannot people today do the same? While hanging on the cross, Jesus pardoned the thief who was crucified with him. And that forgiveness was granted without baptism (Luke 23:43). Surely this is a clear example of salvation by faith, not by baptism?


We were simply studying what pattern of salvation today involves, We also knew we had to set some criteria first, as in an unwarranted assumption; and second, a faulty view of biblical chronology.

Consider this scenario. Is it not possible that this man could have been a disciple of John the Baptist, or of the Lord himself, or of one of Christ’s disciples as they went forth teaching (Matthew 10:5ff; Luke 10:1ff)—during the preceding years? If such were the case, the man might well have been immersed for the forgiveness of his sins on some past occasion (Mark 1:4; John 4:1-2).

THi is not suggesting that this proposition can be proved;but simply saying that no one can make the dogmatic statement: “The thief had never been baptized.” That is an unknown factor. He might well have been an “erring child of God” at this point.

This led our attention in another direction. The careful Bible student must acknowledge that there are different periods of sacred history, in the course of which, certain religious requirements may vary. Abraham was never commanded to be baptized or to observe the Lord’s supper.

In today’s era of biblical history, we are not obligated to observe the Passover, or to offer animal sacrifices. Jehovah has had different requirements in different periods of history.

If recorded examples of events occurring during the Lord’s personal ministry function as precedent for the Christian age, the fact is, while Jesus was on earth he had the authority to dispense blessings directly based upon the circumstances at hand.

At the time of his death, however, his authority was made resident in his testamentary “will” (Hebrews 9:15-17). And the terms of that will specify baptism as a condition of pardon (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21, etc.).

It raises the question "if" one has "any" right to eliminate that condition by appealing to something the Lord did while he was implementing his earthly ministry.

That could be a very dangerous and harmful position to argue as a basis to step asisde from the essential doctrines Christ's Gospel established for salvation as they have been set forth by faulty "assumptions" and using circumstances to build the case for them, IMHO..:confused

Sold Out
Oct 9th 2007, 05:30 PM
Amazedgrace21 - I don't see the purpose of your post. We are not talking about baptism for salvation, just the administering of the rite in a certain fashion.

We are examining the beliefs of the UPCI.

Amazedgrace21
Oct 9th 2007, 05:59 PM
Some people have stated that they don't believe doctrine is important in matters of salvation, and also believe that just because UPC claims the name of Christ, they are saved.

This thread's purpose is to show how they are NOT saved people, andthat doctrine is ESSENTIAL in matters of salvation.



Forgive me if I misunderstood the 'gist' of your OP Sold Out, I was responding to that and to how specific examples of Christ's ministry with different individuals and circumstances are often cited as the basis for doctrines of salvation.

That the "rites" and the fashion they are administered become the focus of salvation requirements with some such as the UPCI as well as others..and what scriptural standards are used as "proof texts" of ones salvation being authentic..it reminds me a great deal of what I personally encountered when I was raised in the RC church.

That's all..:)
Lot's of false guilt as well as false assurance is imposed by many when it is such a comfort to turn to the Word of God to find the essential's to work out one's own salvation with assurance from the Holy Spirit.

Sold Out
Oct 9th 2007, 06:17 PM
That the "rites" and the fashion they are administered become the focus of salvation requirements with some such as the UPCI as well as others..and what scriptural standards are used as "proof texts" of ones salvation being authentic..it reminds me a great deal of what I personally encountered when I was raised in the RC church.
.

Baptism is not the crux of this discussion...it's their beliefs as a whole. I agree with what you stated above.

Hellbinder
Mar 10th 2011, 03:11 AM
[QUOTE]


The Hebrew word for "God" is "Elohim" which is a plural. The Biblical Hebrew word for "one" in the above passage is "echad" which is a corporate oneness, not merely a numeric count. God is a plural number of persons yet one. The word one as "echad" is continually used in referrence to the one true God throughout the Holy Scriptures.


A clear example of the meaning of the Hebrew word "echad" may be also found in the celebration of the Jewish Passover. The three-pocketed matza holder used during Passover is referred to as an "echad". Consequently, it is the middle of the three matzas that is broken during the ceremony. The Holy Trinity of God and the brokenness of the Second Person of the Trinity are clearly revealed in this ancient tradition. The "echad", the one true God, is the Holy Trinity.

ok first of all i am not a pentecostal, however i do have to stand for sound teaching and sound doctrine and a sound representation of facts.

modern christians throw around definitions of words that they were told by some "bible teacher" and take is as the gospel truth. when in fact MANY times they are nothing more than extremely poor bully pulpit scholarship. this is the case with your definitions of the above words. both partially true and partially false but latched upon by modern Christian scholars to try to prove their doctrines.

first of all Elohim is not only and actually RARELY used as a plural form, it is a COMPOUND form and implies excellence or majesty. as in God most high. modern Christians read into the text what they want in order to prove a trinitarian view. I am a trinitarian (more or less), i am just telling the truth. secondly echad absolutely means and always has meant SINGULAR ONENESS. the whole concept of it being corporate oneness is another modern invention by those who want to prove their doctrine over dealing with the facts.

it is a sad, sad thing that because of modern scholarship and the insistence of a doctrine like the trinity that literally nothing is sacred.

now, that the new testament clearly seems to teach that there is a God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is not in question. but neither is it ANYWHERE spelled out exactly what the details are, simply that it is. we receive by faith that these things are true based on statements in the new testament. not because there is a super detailed and iron clad definition of what God is and you have to understand the details of that perfectly or you are believing a false message.

why dont you post one verse anywhere in the new testament that says yuu have to believe that Jesus is "the second person of the trinity" to be saved or have the right Jesus? you cant because it doesn't exist.

What you have to believe is that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Christ, and that his death and resurrection proved that. That you receive Him and his sacrifice for you sins and his resurrection for your life.

"if you confess Jesus is LORD and believe in your Heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved!".

read the book of acts and find one place where the salvation message was pinned on a correct understanding of Jesus deity and interpersonal relationship with the Father.

Hellbinder
Mar 10th 2011, 03:17 AM
btw, for trinitarian more or less... i obviously believe that God is one and that There is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.. but as to exactly how that all works i dont know and neither does anyone else. Only God does. So i adamantly reject the strict labeling of doctrines such as the way the "doctrine of the trinity" is used to beat everyone into submission when no one on earth has the ability to really understand it and God never one time told us to understand it or make it a requirement for salvation.

teddyv
Mar 10th 2011, 06:00 AM
Don't know how many replies you'll get to this thread - it's 3 1/2 years old. :)

cowboy_tech
Mar 10th 2011, 06:25 AM
I am surprised Sabellianism had not been mentioned

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 10th 2011, 07:55 AM
I am surprised Sabellianism had not been mentioned

Oneness IS the modern form of Sabellianism.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 10th 2011, 07:59 AM
btw, for trinitarian more or less... i obviously believe that God is one and that There is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.. but as to exactly how that all works i dont know and neither does anyone else. Only God does. So i adamantly reject the strict labeling of doctrines such as the way the "doctrine of the trinity" is used to beat everyone into submission when no one on earth has the ability to really understand it and God never one time told us to understand it or make it a requirement for salvation.

Not surprisingly... I agree with the bolded. ^

Whispering Grace
Mar 10th 2011, 02:29 PM
Whoa...another blast from the past!

It always freaks me out just a bit to open a thread and see my own posts already in there! :o

cowboy_tech
Mar 10th 2011, 03:36 PM
Oneness IS the modern form of Sabellianism.

I know. My point being that it was deemed heretical 1800 years ago and anyone practicing it was kick out of the church. Is this generation so arrogant that it thinks itself wiser than the early church fathers.

Amos_with_goats
Mar 10th 2011, 04:40 PM
You know, I am all for bumping old threads when one finds pertinent conversation they would like to participate in...

however... a thread from 2007... for a completely off topic conversation? Really?

cowboy_tech
Mar 10th 2011, 04:53 PM
Let me see, most UPCs are oneness. Question being, can one believe someone following such. Heresy be saved?

How is this off topic?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 10th 2011, 05:30 PM
I know. My point being that it was deemed heretical 1800 years ago and anyone practicing it was kick out of the church. Is this generation so arrogant that it thinks itself wiser than the early church fathers.

If the early fathers were so wise, they wouldn't have used extra-biblical "person(s)" terminology to misrepresent God as three anthropomorphized God-people.

Trinity is error. Filioque is error upon error.

(And I'm not Oneness.)

RollTide21
Mar 10th 2011, 05:38 PM
Here is what I said...please don't misquote me....


Is having correct doctrine a prerequisite for salvation? I think not, so although I do not agree with UPC doctrine-if they have given their lives to Jesus Christ-they are saved.


And you would be correct.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 10th 2011, 05:38 PM
Let me see, most UPCs are oneness. Question being, can one believe someone following such. Heresy be saved?

How is this off topic?

Yes, they are saved. The question is... Can trinitarians ever put aside creedal inference and default indoctrinated pre-supposition to find the truth? Or at least defend their doctrine apologetically without invoking the mystery-clause mid-debate.

steelcurtain76
Mar 10th 2011, 05:45 PM
My question is....were the Apostles in error when they baptized in Jesus' name only?

I know you wrote this a while ago, but since I've encountered folks recently who believe in "Jesus only" baptisms, I think an equal question begging to be asked then would be "Did Jesus error with the Father, Son, Holy Spirit baptism in Matthew 28".

While I don't think its your intention at all to split hairs either..I'm of the opinion that both are the correct method of baptism.

RollTide21
Mar 10th 2011, 05:55 PM
For those of you who don't think doctrine is important in matters of salvation, do you then believe Mormans and JW's are saved?Could the Holy Spirit, who testifies of our salvation, be present at the "salvation" of a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon?

RollTide21
Mar 10th 2011, 06:08 PM
Am sincerely not trying to be difficult here but it seems God has set the foundations of what is essential doctrine. The demand of the gospel is that you believe particular things to be true. It's not just a matter of mere belief, as if these are just some incidental details of theology that you might happen to be mistaken about.



It seems to me a statement like this is arguing the case for doctrine that is essential as well, is it not? :confused

Specifically,for example...God only judges guilty people. People get judged by God not because they mess up on their theology but because they are guilty..there is only one way God offers to "get around this" and its essential to know a couple of particular things that are true before you can take advantage of the forgiveness God offers.

That's where the essential doctrines come in and where they are found.
I honestly do not know how to get around any of these "doctrines" although I observe a lot of attempts to..nor do I equate theology with "doctrine".


Jesus is the Messiah

You must believe that Jesus is the Messiah. If you repudiate such a notion, you cannot be saved. By the way, whenever the word "Christ" appears in the New Testament, that is simply the Greek translation of the Hebrew word meshiac. Christ is the Greek for Messiah. When the Bible says "Jesus the Christ" it means Jesus the Messiah. Whenever it says Jesus Christ--by the way, Christ isn't Jesus' last name, that's His title--it means Messiah. 1 John 2:22 says, "Who is the liar, but the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah?


the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, the one who confesses the Son has the Father." That's pretty clear. 1 John 4:2 says, "By this you know the Spirit of God, every spirit that confesses that Jesus Messiah has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of antichrist." 2 John 7 says, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world. Those who do not acknowledge Jesus Messiah as coming in the flesh, this is the deceiver and the antichrist."


it is clear that it is not enough to believe just in God and leave it at that because the First Commandment condemns those who have other gods before them other than the true God. So the first essential doctrine is that you must believe in God as He is in Himself. You must have an accurate picture about the fundamental nature of God. I think that entails the Trinity. You cannot deny the nature of God, the God of the Scripture, and still call yourself a Christian. In John 4:24 Jesus says, "God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

THIS IS A "MUST" that can't be circumvented..

Must . Exodus 20:2,3 says, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me."

The God of the Bible is a triune God, one God in three Persons. Jesus seems to hint at the necessity of that in John 8 when he says, "Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." Later on He uses the same language and makes a very clear reference to His deity when he says, "Before Abraham was, I Am." You must believe in God as He is in Himself and He is a Trinity.


"There is Jesus and there is another Jesus"

You have to believe in Jesus as He is in Himself. That entails believing in the deity of Christ and His full humanity. One reason that I can say this is because the Scripture makes distinctions between another Jesus and the true Jesus. It does this in 2 Corinthians, and I believe Galatians does as well. There are at least two places that warn against another Jesus. Galatians refers to another gospel.

So there is Jesus and then there is another Jesus.

The Jesus who is an incarnation of the angel Michael is not the Jesus of the Scriptures, but the Jesus of the Watchtower Society. The Jesus who is the spirit brother of Lucifer is not the Jesus of the Scriptures and of salvation, but it is the Jesus of Mormonism.
The Jesus who is a Hindu guru is not the Jesus of the Scriptures, but the Jesus of the New Age movement.

You cannot believe in these other Jesuses and be saved because you believe in someone who can't save you.

THE BODILY RESSURECTION

You must also believe the bodily resurrection. Paul makes the comment in I Corinthians 15, "If the dead are not raised and Christ is in the grave, our faith is worthless. We are still in our sins and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished." Romans 10:9 says very clearly, "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved."

It is the bodily resurrection, not a spiritual resurrection because a spiritual resurrection is not a resurrection. In a spiritual resurrection nothing is resurrected. A resurrection is when something is revivified, resuscitated, re-surrected. It is done again. The body that was once dead is now alive. It may be that the body has some qualities that are changed, but the original body is the body that is raised. That's the bodily resurrection. When you say a spiritual resurrection, the spiritual resurrection is not a resurrection. Only a bodily resurrection is a real resurrection.


"ALL HAVE SINNED"

you must believe in man's fallenness and culpability. This follows from the gospel message. Romans 6:23 says, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Frankly, the issue of salvation is that you get forgiven because you've sinned. If you say you haven't sinned and man has no sin and hasn't fallen, 1 John 1 says that you've called God a liar and you are still in your sins. Man is guilty. He may not even feel guilty of certain things, but guilt is not a feeling. Guilt is a judicial reality.

If we say that we have not sinned, then the truth is not in us and we call God a liar. Romans 11:32 says, "God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all." Because of the gospel message, if you don't acknowledge the bad news, you can't make use of the good news. The bad news is that we have sinned and are guilty before God.


Jesus is the ONLY WAY - "SUBSTITUTIONARY ATTONEMENT"

Salvation is by grace through faith. You must believe in the substitutionary atonement. Romans 11:6 says, "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works otherwise grace is no longer grace." "This is the work that we are to do, believe in Him whom He has sent," Jesus says in John 6. We are saved by grace through faith in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. There are quite a number of verses that make the point that Jesus is the only way.


Also..

I would consider the authority of Scripture is a functional necessity because without it none of the other truth could be affirmed or asserted with confidence. Once you get rid of the authority of Scripture, the other ones fall one by one like dominoes.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here and if so , please feel free to correct me.:confused

YSIC,
GraceMostly, I would agree, aside from recognizing and understanding the "Oneness" or "Trinity" of God. In all other points, I am with you. However, do those requirements classify as doctrine? I suppose so, if we want to be technical. It's a moot point, however, because I believe that every person who is truly saved would agree with you on those points.

We are saved when we submit to the Holy Spirit by calling on the name of Jesus. The Holy Spirit then testifies to those Truths WHEN we are saved. So...it's not really a matter of, you MUST believe X, Y, and Z to be saved. Sure, we must believe those things, but it's not a matter of our choosing because we WILL believe those things WHEN we are saved because the Spirit of God reveals these things to us when it happens.

I am referring specifically to those points in your list, btw. These points, I think, are universal Christian fundamentals that God reveals to all who are saved.

keck553
Mar 11th 2011, 08:26 PM
Ecstatic Utterances are very common in most religions around the world, and sound exactly like the sounds Christians make. It is not unique to some Christians who practice it. Even Eskimo's have been recorded to speak this way to their gods, along with Japanese, Indians, Moro's, ancient Greek pagans...etc.

Just some perspective here. Salvation through Christ is unique, but vocalizing in this way is not unique.

SaveMeDaily
Apr 21st 2011, 07:55 PM
I am oneness pentecostal. So yes I can tell you I am saved. There is no denomination that will be saved. I believe I am saved b/c I have obeyed the word of God and have been baptized calling on the name of the Lord, and have been born again of the water and spirit, the same way everyone in the book of Acts had gotten it. The Holy Ghost is still here.
Let me say this. Whoever wrote this thread has NO IDEA what we believe about the trinity. We don't believe at all that God EVER STOPPED being the Father, Ever stopped being the Son, or Ever stopped being the Holy Ghost. God can not be defined by our Human intellect, great is the MYSTERY of Godliness. Stop trying to put God in a doctrinal box of the trinity. The trinity is not even in the Bible. The Bible says God is one Lord, and that He is a spirit, and that's all we know about His form.

keck553
Apr 21st 2011, 08:04 PM
If you have God, you need not fear men, nor men's opinions

david
Apr 21st 2011, 08:38 PM
Ro 10.6 says not to say who is to ascend to heaven or go to hell.