Trackbacks

• Trackbacks are closed for this entry.

Comments

• 6/21/2008 10:11 AM Robin wrote:
  This is a clear concise presentation of the error of some and the truth of the Word. Thank you for your continued efforts to share
  God's Word of Truth with the world.
  Reply to this
• 6/21/2008 4:44 PM Jon wrote:
  Well done Norm...well done! Awesome video. Its sad that so many people cannot accept the plain and simple teachings in God's word. - Jon 2 Cor 5:7
  Reply to this
  1. 6/22/2008 1:05 PM Norm Fields wrote:
     All I did was benefit from the good work of a viewer. Thank Phil for his courageous challenge! I pray that all the online viewers will do the same thing and take these videos I'm putting out and use them to challenge the denominationalists in your area. And be sure to let me know what kind of response you get, I'll put it right up on TV for all to see.
     Reply to this
• 6/22/2008 2:21 PM John wrote:
  Hey Norm:
  
  I'm with you about the Baptists, but the belief about "saved by faith alone" applies to more than just that movement. Of course, you have the Methodists who take the "grace" part of Eph. 2:8 and say we are saved "by grace" alone.
  
  A couple of points, though: 1) I'm not sure what "Pentecostals" say a sinner's prayer before baptism, but the Pentecostal organization I am most familiar with does not. They, as I, follow Acts 2:38 verbatim in this regard. So, maybe you're talking about another "Pentecostal" movement. 2) You offered anyone $1000 to find anywhere that someone is shown in scripture saying the "sinner's prayer". I offer your viewers, as well as you, 10 times that much if you can show me one place where someone was baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" for the remission of sins in obedience to the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 28:19. My checkbook is waiting.
  
  John
  
  PS: Yep, I wonder why the Baptists don't change their name, too. :)
  Reply to this
  1. 6/30/2008 12:54 AM Norm Fields wrote:
     John,
     
     
     Good comment. You are right, almost all denominations hold to some form of "faith only" or "grace only" system. 
     
     
     In regards to your question about Pentecostals who say the "Sinner's Prayer," I have seen Holiness Pentecostal preachers have everyone close their eyes and then ask those who want to be saved to raise their hands. He then would say a form of the "Sinner's Prayer," which typically states that they are accepting Jesus for their salvation and then he would tell them that they needed to be baptized. When I saw this video it just so happened that I was studying with a member of the Holiness Pentecostal Church, so I asked him about this practice and he verified that it was normal. As we studied together he assured me that he had been baptized for the remission of sins. However, when I pressed him to tell me at exactly what point he was saved, as I have done with many others, he said that he was saved when he said the prayer.
     
     
     In regards to being baptized according to Jesus command in Matt. 28:19, let's just get your checkbook warmed up a little with a few questions:
     
     
     1) Do you, or do you not, agree that "in the name of" means "by the authority of"? For example, does "in the name of Jesus Christ" mean that it is to be done by His authority? Does "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" mean that it is to be done by God's authority? Yes or no?
     
     
     2) Do you not believe that Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit are One?
     
     
     3) If you answered "yes" to number 2 then would that not mean that doing something in the name of Jesus (i.e. by His authority) is the same thing as doing it in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (i.e. by God's authority)?
     
     
     4) Where do you ever read of anyone saying, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ"? Isn't it the case that they are commanded to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, or referred to as having been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, but there is no record whatsoever of what was actually said when the baptism took place? If I am wrong, please provide the passage that states exactly what they said when they baptized someone. If you cannot find such a record in the inspired word than how can you make it a matter of binding doctrine to say anything when a person is baptized?
     
     
     How's your checkbook feeling? Let's see - 10 X $1,000 would be $10,000! Boy, I sure could use it - but I must decline as I only take support from faithful members of the church of Christ.
     
     
     Just out of curiosity, do you not believe Matt. 28:19 to be inspired text? Did Jesus command one thing and the apostles reject what He commanded to do something else that He did not command? Or were they doing what He commanded when they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ?
     
     Reply to this
• 6/30/2008 8:52 AM John wrote:
  1) It absolutely does mean "in the authority of". But, does that mean it can't also mean that those who were baptizing didn't call the name over the one being baptized?
  
  
  2) I believe they are "one" infinitely more than you or anyone who holds to the trinitiarian doctrine that God is 3 separate, distinct persons.
  
  
  3) If you believe that the name that identifies those 3 titles is Jesus Christ, then, yes, it is the same. So, do you believe the Father's and the Holy Spirit's names to be Jesus Christ?
  
  
  4) You are correct, there is no exact verbage of a baptism; but since you like the Greek so much, I would have thought for certain that you had studied the Greek wording that the term "call(ed)(ing) upon" comes from, a term used in reference to baptism (Acts 15:17, 22:16). It means to invoke (to call) something over someone, to speak over them. 1 Cor 1:11-17 also gives us a pretty clear indication that Paul spoke a name over those he baptized. Add to that the terminology that indicates that the action was "done" to someone (ie: "BE baptized"), and I think it's quite evident that baptism was 1) something done TO someone (I'm sure you'd agree) while 2) something (the name of Jesus Christ, in this instance) was called over them. Else, why not just let folks baptize themselves in silence? Would you be ok with that practice?
  
  5) My checkbook is certainly feeling no lighter! :)
  
  6) Yes, it is inspired text. And, I believe that because of the revelation that Peter had of WHO the Father, Son AND Holy Spirit was (is) -- Jesus Christ -- that he spoke the words of Acts 2:38 in fulfillment of Matthew 28:19.
  
  Peter knew, as I now do, that Jesus Christ was incarnation of the One Spirit (Eph. 4:4) of eternity, identified by Jesus as "the Father" (John 4:23-24), and, that He was also the Holy Spirit they had just been filled with (in fulfillment of His promise found in John 14:15-18).
  
  So, yes, Peter absolutely obeyed the words of Jesus, and he did it by revelation of God's indivisible oneness...something the lie of the trinity twisted just a few generations after God was revealed in flesh.
  
  How can invoking the name of Jesus Christ be SO IMPORTANT in other areas of Christianity, but all of the sudden become irrelevant during baptism? Your response is the common one given by men who have invoked (spoken) a trinitarian formula while performing hundreds (if not thousands) of baptisms during their ministries when they are then confronted about why they don't invoke the only name by which man is saved during baptism. I get why those you call "denominationalists" would object in such a way, but I don't get why someone who proclaims water baptism by immersion to be absolutely essential to salvation would offer this same objection.
  
  God (Jesus Christ) bless you, Norm. :)
  Reply to this
  1. 6/30/2008 4:17 PM Norm Fields wrote:
     John,
     
     
     I truly do love our discussions! It is so refreshing to have a discussion with someone that, one, knows what they believe and, two, knows how to articulate what they believe very well. I really do appreciate you for that. I am looking forward to discussing the Oneness Pentecostalism that you are advocating in light of the biblical doctrine of the Godhead (i.e. trinity). Unfortunately, it will have to wait a bit. I am currently involved in a two week tent meeting that is very demanding on my time. 
     
     
     I would like to start a new discussion chain specifically for this topic. If you would send me something, like you wrote for the Apostolic plan of salvation, for this subject that I could post as a launching point I would appreciate it very much. Also, if you want to present me with a list of questions that you do not believe I should be able to answer from the "trinitarian" viewpoint I will post those and do my best to give an answer from God's word. Of course, I'll also reply to your comments here as soon as I am able.
     
     
     
     Thanks,
     Norm
     
     Reply to this
• 7/12/2008 10:05 AM John wrote:
  Hi Norm:
  
  I just emailed you the position paper of the UPCI. It is the best I have that describes what I believe about the Oneness of God. There is no way I can improve upon the doctrine at this time. It was coauthored by a minister I believe has one of the greatest revelations of the indivisible oneness of the godhead.
  
  As far as posing some questions I don't think you can answer, I ask "why?" What good would that do? You and I will FIND an answer to whatever question the other asks. The one asking may not agree with the answer and, thus, that one will think he has succeeded in "stumping" his foe. But, the truth of the matter is that God will allow anyone the privilege of "seeing" a lie. In fact, we both know of scripture that talks of God actually sending "strong delusion" to those who would rather believe a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12). So, what good would submitting questions do unless you are actually seeking the truth and ready to discard the lie of the trinity?
  
  Please don't take that as harsh or ugly, either. It's simply that I am vehemently opposed to the doctrine of the trinity, because it was leading me to hell at one point in my life. I hate it with a godly hate!!
  
  So, post the position paper and we'll see what you or others think. I do know that those who oppose it will come up with some questions I can already script. I will answer them (or get an answer) with the revelation I have or with a word from God, should He choose to give it.
  
  Take care, friend!
  John
  
  
  [The document referred to in the post  can be downloaded here.  The reader should be aware that this material is made available solely for the purpose of discussion and not out of agreement with the teaching contained in the attached document. NSF]
  
  Reply to this
  1. 7/12/2008 10:56 AM Norm Fields wrote:
     John,
     
     
     I sent you back an email. I would like to start a new discussion on this topic so I will start it off with a little bit of an introduction and attach your document. Let us continue our discussion from there.
     
     
     Thanks,
     Norm
     
     Reply to this
  2. 7/25/2008 11:33 AM Mac wrote:
     John:
     Who was the voice out of the cloud?
     Mt 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. Also John, was Jesus praying to himself here, Joh 17:1 ¶ These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: Also John: Did Jesus see himself descending and lighting upon himself?
     Reply to this
     1. 8/16/2008 9:13 AM John wrote:
        Hi Mac:
        
        Sorry for so long in responding.
        
        You asked: "Who was the voice out of the cloud (Mt 17:5, Joh 17:1)?"
        
        The voice was the voice of God, the Father.
        
        
        You asked: "Did Jesus see himself descending and lighting upon himself?"
        
        Did He see Himself as the human manifestation of God descending and lighting upon himself? No.
        
        Did He see the same Spirit that was incarnate as the Man He became descending and lighting upon himself in the form of a dove? Yes.
        
        
        Can God the Father not exist as He has eternally -- transcending all time and space as Spirit -- and not also exist on earth at the same time as a human? Sure He can. We see 3 pictures of it in the OT with Abraham, Manoah and Jacob. Can He not also speak from eternity to Himself manifested in flesh? Friend, IF He can be "3 in 1", then He can surely do something as simple as that! :)
        
        
        Can God not speak to and/or from a manifestation of Himself and still be one, indivisible Spirit? Sure He can. He, as the LORD on earth, "rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens" (Genesis 19:24). Are there two LORDS, two Yahwehs? Nope, can't be. Deuteronomy 6:4 won't allow it.
        
        God can exist as He has eternally, as a Spirit, and manifest Himself in any infinite number of ways and even speak to and from those manifestations and still be undivided. To say that God has to be "3 persons" to accomplish these things is so limiting to the Almighty.
        
        Hope that answers your question.
        John
        Reply to this
        1. 8/20/2008 5:44 PM Vaughn Hopson wrote:
           Hello all!
           
           I have not been participating in this discussion so I hope it is ok to do so now.
           
           In regard to the Godhead, I would like to supply a few reasons I believe in the triune Godhead:
           
           1. The first usage of God in the Bible (Gen. 1:1) is the Hebrew 'elohym'. This is the plural usage of the term deity. We see this plurality work together as one in Gen. 1:26-27 referening the singularity of this plural (let US make man in OUR own image...God created in His own image...created He him...created He them). Working together as one.
           
           2. In Gen. 2:24 and in 1 Cor. 3:8, we read of two people referenced as "one". Obviously, these are not one person but one in unity, harmony and purpose. Yet, the biblical language says they (plural) are one (singular).
           
           3. Jesus, the Son, prayed to the Father that the disciples would be one exactly as they are one (John 17:22). If the Father and Son are "one person", then there must, to be consistent, be a single disciple.
           
           4. In John 8:17-18, Jesus says "the testimony of 2 men is true" then immediately references himself and His Father to validate his testimony. His point would be invalid if He and His Father were not two separate individuals.
           
           5. In John 17:5, Jesus identifies Himself as distinct from the Father in saying "glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee". If not distinct from one another, then this would make God schizophrenic in nature.
           
           6. The word "both" in 2 John 1:9 suggests more than one. Sometimes the argument is used that a man can be both a son and a father. While this is true, the same man would not talk to himself as father to son or son to father.
           
           7. Eph. 4:4-6 says "one Spirit"..."one Lord"...and "one God and Father of all". Together, these add up to three and they work together as "one God" (James 2:19). The Holy Spirit is referenced as God (Acts 5:3-4) as is Jesus (Heb. 1:8).
           
           It is not limiting God at all to believe that three constitute one deity. After all, it is God who prayed that disciples would be one exactly as they are one (John 17:22).
           
           Brotherly,
           
           Vaughn
           Reply to this
• 8/25/2008 7:27 AM Donald Fern Jr wrote:
  Great Presentation!
  Many Bible vs proving baptism is Required.
  Acts 2:38 for Remission of Sins.
  Acts 10:48 Baptism Commanded.
  Mark 16:16 Commanded and authorized by Jesus Christ.
  1Peter 3:21 Baptism Saves!
  many other scriptures as well.
  Reply to this

Leave a comment