Pentecostal Man’s Glossolalia Echos NBA Rosters

[DHK]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:

To their great credit, Oneness Pentecostals have at least given thought to the nature of God, instead of simply regurgitating what the preacher tells them to think, which is more than one may say for the lion's share of the faith.

Their view of the trinity was officially condemned as early as the third century. So it is not to their credit to giving thought to something that has already been well thought through and already been condemned as heresy. Rather they are to be rebuked for accepting the heresy that has been around for all these centuries.

Tongues in and of itself is a wrong doctrine, but not heresy per se.
When any sect declares that tongues is essential to one's salvation (as they do) then it is heresy. They will deny this. But what the don't deny is the baptism of the Holy Spirit is essential to salvation, and speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Thus it makes speaking in tongues necessary for salvation.

Baptismal regeneration is a heresy--that they also believe. One cannot be saved without baptism. This is heresy. Baptism does not save.

Shall I continue, or is this enough for a start?
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

Continue or not, but tell me this: how many Oneness Pentecosatals have been convinced of their heresy by your attacks?

 

[DHK]

Most Oneness (like other cults) do not come here to be convinced, but rather to try and convince others and win them to their cult. If I have but shown any that are reading, the danger of this wicked doctrine then I have done my duty.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by DHK:
Most Oneness (like other cults) do not come here to be convinced, but rather to try and convince others and win them to their cult. If I have but shown any that are reading, the danger of this wicked doctrine then I have done my duty.

How does what you are writing show anyone anything? If, indeed, Oneness Pentecostals are concerned only with "convinc[ing] others and win[ning] them to their cult," as you insist on calling it, your words are but a more convincing argument that they are right, since you lack any kindness whatsoever in your delivery and thus reek of persecution. Similarly, to those not Oneness-centric, at least on this board, your words amount to either "preaching to the choir," or a lesson in how to be combative and abusive in the interest of sharing the Love of Christ - a contradictory practice if ever there was one.

You are, sir, ignoring your duty, and are unwilling to suffer criticism thereto.

 

[DHK]

Tragic:
What is your purpose on this forum?
To condemn false doctrine, and take a stand against it like Manchester did, and as the Bible commands us to do,
or,
to endorse it?
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by DHK:
Tragic:
What is your purpose on this forum?
To condemn false doctrine, and take a stand against it like Manchester did, and as the Bible commands us to do,
or,
to endorse it?
DHK

My purpose on this forum is to participate.

My purpose in life is to share the message and love of Jesus Christ.

So... is this now going to be a "DHK attacks tragic_pizza's Christianity as not as 'good' as his" party, or do you have something salient to bring to the discussion at hand?

 

[tragic_pizza]

You could, for example, address this:

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Most Oneness (like other cults) do not come here to be convinced, but rather to try and convince others and win them to their cult. If I have but shown any that are reading, the danger of this wicked doctrine then I have done my duty.

How does what you are writing show anyone anything? If, indeed, Oneness Pentecostals are concerned only with "convinc[ing] others and win[ning] them to their cult," as you insist on calling it, your words are but a more convincing argument that they are right, since you lack any kindness whatsoever in your delivery and thus reek of persecution. Similarly, to those not Oneness-centric, at least on this board, your words amount to either "preaching to the choir," or a lesson in how to be combative and abusive in the interest of sharing the Love of Christ - a contradictory practice if ever there was one.

You are, sir, ignoring your duty, and are unwilling to suffer criticism thereto. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[DHK]

I address the above post this way Tragic:
It is an attack on a moderator--which you take great pleasure in doing--as is evidenced on other threads and in other forums, and is against the BB rules.
Personal attacks of this nature must stop.
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

I am not making a personal attack. I am asking you to address myu questions in the same way in which you have addressed me.

If I am in the wrong, I guess you are, too, aren't you?

 

[DHK]

Here is how the cycle seems to work Tragic:
Someone points out error in a certain group.
Example: Manchester says it is heretical for Oneness to teach anti-trinitarian views.
Your post then condemns the messenger rather then speaking to the message. In almost every post you attack the messenger because they condemn heresy. It seems as if you endorse the same.
Then a squabble begins about who is right and who is wrong in having the right attitude to post against heresy.
So let me state once again: This is a debate forum, not a complaint forum. If you continue to post against people, against attitudes, etc. your posts will be deleted. Post to the issues at hand. Instead of posting against Manchester's attitude and reason for posting, post about the substance of what he posted. Talk about the trinity, the fact that Oneness believes that Tongues is necessary for salvation, and thus is heretical.
Stop attacking the messenger. Stick with the message. If you don't stop attacking the messenger your posts will simply be deleted.
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

In my honest opinion, DHK, the message's validity is overwhelmed by the method of the message, thus I find it more advantageous to first address heresies in the way we treat one another as a conduit to properly and effacaciously addressing heresies in modes of worship.

It's a log-and-mote thing, don'chasee? Your post above insists that I merely agree with content and not address the mode of delivery, while at the same time threatening and condemning my own mode of delivery.

There is a word for that. Jesus used it a lot.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

TP,

It is funny that you attack other people's mode of delivery while justifying your own. Jesus had a word for that. He used it a lot.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
TP,

It is funny that you attack other people's mode of delivery while justifying your own. Jesus had a word for that. He used it a lot.

Perhaps, my combative friend, the mode of delivery I use is more similar to Christ's that you imagine.

I refer you prayerfully to Matthew 23, and look forward to your comments thereto.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

In the context of this discussion, it has no other relevance but to serve as a personal attack and justify yourself.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[tragic_pizza]

I'd ask how anything I've written constitutes a "personal attack," but I realize I won't get an answer.

Your first post, sir, was a personal attack against Pentecostals. Since this is apparently a place where only those whose theologies match yours are particularly welcome, though, that's permitted.

Sad.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
I'd ask how anything I've written constitutes a "personal attack," but I realize I won't get an answer.

Your first post, sir, was a personal attack against Pentecostals. Since this is apparently a place where only those whose theologies match yours are particularly welcome, though, that's permitted.

Sad.

Yep!...kinda strange that this is called, "Christian Debate Forums (All Christians)" wouldn't ya say?

MEE

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

MEE,

For once, I agree with you. I argued a while ago that the title of this forum was incorrectly labeled:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/20/218.html?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[tamborine lady]

"Yep!...kinda strange that this is called, "Christian Debate Forums (All Christians)" wouldn't ya say?

MEE"

Exactly,MEE!!!

Peace,

Tam

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
MEE,

For once, I agree with you. I argued a while ago that the title of this forum was incorrectly labeled:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/20/218.html?

Joseph Botwinick

You were incorrect. Just because you, or even your pastor, says a given group is not Christian does not make them a cult. It is, however, easier to denigrate and dismiss than it is to seek understanding and the kind of unity Christ expected when He prayed in John 17, isn't it?

 

[DHK]

In the discussion of a cult we compare the said group with doctrine. It has been pointed out already some of the doctrine that make the Oneness a cult. Late me give it to you again:

baptismal regeneration
necesstiy of tongues for salvation
denial of justification of faith
must be a member of Oneness group to be saved, i.e. must be baptized by a Oneness pastor.
The denial of the sin nature of man
The denial of the trinity

These are enough to make any group a cult. They have gone far away from the orthodox teaching of the Bible. Their view of Christ has changed from the Bible's view. Their view of salvation is radically changed from the Bible's view. They are a cult.
DHK