It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by colbe
Still, this says nothing about it being the sole authority or foundation of truth, only that it is inspired, and is therefore true.
Originally posted by truejew
Originally posted by colbe
Still, this says nothing about it being the sole authority or foundation of truth, only that it is inspired, and is therefore true.
The foundation of the Church is the apostles and prophets, not pope and pedophile priests.
Jordan Young, 25, is facing a number of child molestation charges in four separate cases involving four separate victims stemming from an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct at Faith Tabernacle Apostolic Church in Junction City where he had been serving as the music minister. His charges include Indecent Solicitation of a Child, Aggravated Intimidation of a Victim, Criminal Sodomy, Aggravated Indecent Liberties With a Child and Attempted Criminal Sodomy.
Since only apostles have authority to write Church doctrine and there are not any currently living apostles. The only source we have for doctrine, is Scripture written by the apostles
Originally posted by adjensen
Which Apostle wrote The Gospel of Mark? Which one wrote The Gospel of Luke?
Originally posted by truejew
Regarding Mr. Young... he is not Apostolic. Just because someone claims to be one of us, doesn't make him one of us. To be one of us, a person must walk in the Spirit and have the fruit of the Spirit.
Which Apostle wrote The Gospel of Mark? Which one wrote The Gospel of Luke?
I did not say that either one of those books were written by apostles. This is just another case of you adding/twisting my words.
Since only apostles have authority to write Church doctrine and there are not any currently living apostles. The only source we have for doctrine, is Scripture written by the apostles
Originally posted by adjensen
So, "Pedophile Priests" are true Catholics, but "Pedophile Oneness Pastors" are not true Apostolics, eh?
Originally posted by adjensen
... which means that Mark, Luke, your beloved Acts, Hebrews, James and Jude are not valid Scripture.
Originally posted by truejew
A person cannot be a pedophile and remain Apostolic.
You are twisting my words again. I never said that only apostles wrote Scripture or that Scripture not written by apostles is not Scripture.
I did say only apostles have authority to create Church doctrine and that Scripture is the only source for what the apostles taught.
Originally posted by adjensen
Does everyone that this particular Apostolic Oneness pedophile baptized need to be rebaptized, since it seems reasonable to think that abusing children was probably a lifelong habit?
Originally posted by adjensen
I don't understand your criteria, then -- if an Apostle is required to "write doctrine" (your original phrase) and you agree that most of scripture was not written by Apostles, then how is one to discern correct doctrine? Your bit in Acts about baptism you consider solid doctrine, because it was said by an Apostle, but in reality, it's reported to have been said by an Apostle by someone that you say isn't an Apostle.
It seems like, if an absolute Apostolic connection is required, all you're left with is Paul's "genuine" letters -- everything else is second hand information, and you say that the source can't be trusted.
Originally posted by truejew
Originally posted by adjensen
Does everyone that this particular Apostolic Oneness pedophile baptized need to be rebaptized, since it seems reasonable to think that abusing children was probably a lifelong habit?
He was not in the five-fold ministry and therefore did not have authority to baptize even if he was not a pedophile.
So yes, if he was allowed to baptize, they would need to be rebaptized.
Acts is the written record of the early Church led by the apostles. It is the teachings of the apostles.
You also must remember that Paul, an apostle, put his stamp of approval on the rest of Scripture. Therefore confirming that they are in agreement with what the apostles taught.
2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Originally posted by adjensen
You knew him personally? Enough to know that he wasn't "in the five-fold ministry"?
Originally posted by adjensen
So, if anyone that he baptized had the experience of speaking in tongues, a required sign of a "real" baptism, they were just faking it?
Originally posted by adjensen
You realize, I hope, that Paul (assuming it was Paul, it is fairly well universally taken that Paul didn't write the Pastoral Letters,) is referring to the Hebrew Bible, as none of the other books of the New Testament were written at the time he was alive.
Originally posted by truejew
The article says he was a "music minister" which is not a real ministry position.
Speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of Spirit baptism, not water baptism. If they spoke in tongues, I was not there to know if it was fake or not.
You realize, I hope, that Paul (assuming it was Paul, it is fairly well universally taken that Paul didn't write the Pastoral Letters,) is referring to the Hebrew Bible, as none of the other books of the New Testament were written at the time he was alive.
John was however.
Originally posted by adjensen
So both are not related and/or required?
Originally posted by adjensen
You can have the spirit in you without a valid water baptism?
Originally posted by adjensen
John was what?
Originally posted by truejew
You can have the spirit in you without a valid water baptism?
Yes, for a time. The Gentiles in the book of Acts received the Holy Spirit before water baptism.
Originally posted by adjensen
John was what?
John was alive when the other books were written.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
Originally posted by adjensen
So if someone has a "Spirit Baptism" and immediately drops dead of a heart attack before they can be dunked in water, are they saved or condemned?
Originally posted by adjensen
What does that have to do with John being alive? Are you claiming that he is the author of Timothy?
Originally posted by truejew
Originally posted by adjensen
So if someone has a "Spirit Baptism" and immediately drops dead of a heart attack before they can be dunked in water, are they saved or condemned?
Doesn't God have the power to prevent a heart attack at least until the person has had opportunity to be baptized?
What does that have to do with John being alive? Are you claiming that he is the author of Timothy?
John and Paul were one in doctrine.
Originally posted by adjensen
That isn't an answer. Want to try again?
Originally posted by truejew
Originally posted by adjensen
That isn't an answer. Want to try again?
Yes, it was. Jesus says that we must be born of the water and the Spirit. Unless Jesus lied
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by truejew
Originally posted by adjensen
That isn't an answer. Want to try again?
Yes, it was. Jesus says that we must be born of the water and the Spirit. Unless Jesus lied
I don't think one needs to assume Jesus is a liar -- when Jesus speaks of water, he's not necessarily talking about the stuff in your tub. Seen in the light of his words to the Samaritan woman, it's likely that he isn't talking about baptism here, either. Christ is the Living Water, who brings life to those born in him.
One would think that, if baptism was so important, Jesus would have been a little less obscure. And would have baptized people himself, for that matter.
edit on 6-3-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by truejew
Jesus did not have the opportunity to baptize for the remission of sins since He obviously lived before the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost 29 AD.
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
“Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:16-21 NIV)
Originally posted by truejew
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by truejew
Originally posted by adjensen
That isn't an answer. Want to try again?
Yes, it was. Jesus says that we must be born of the water and the Spirit. Unless Jesus lied
I don't think one needs to assume Jesus is a liar -- when Jesus speaks of water, he's not necessarily talking about the stuff in your tub. Seen in the light of his words to the Samaritan woman, it's likely that he isn't talking about baptism here, either. Christ is the Living Water, who brings life to those born in him.
One would think that, if baptism was so important, Jesus would have been a little less obscure. And would have baptized people himself, for that matter.
edit on 6-3-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)
Although, Jesus did not have the opportunity to baptize for the remission of sins since He obviously lived before the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost 29 AD.