Originally Posted by Malvaro (Post 240251)

One step doctrine (of belief in Christ only) is false....

Originally Posted by Pianoman (Post 240255)

Those of the PCI persuasion believe in several steps.

BUT.......the salvation process begins with the first step.

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind (Post 240227)

speaking of moving beyond "the principles of the doctrine", I'm all for that seeing I get bored with some the the redundancy of the forum, but I can't get this one-step doctrine out of my mind. I have never heard of apostolics teaching this doctrine until I came to this forum. I was always of the notion that apostolics believed in 3 steps, repentance, water and sprit baptism. If one-step doctrine is true, does that mean that many people from protestant and catholic denominations are saved?? I sympatize with one-step because many of my family members are trinitarian pentecostals and I hope for their salvation, but my mind still believes that Jesus-name baptism is still needed. I don't mean to rehash salvation doctrine, but I do wish that one-step were true and that many more would be saved.

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind (Post 240227)

speaking of moving beyond "the principles of the doctrine", I'm all for that seeing I get bored with some the the redundancy of the forum, but I can't get this one-step doctrine out of my mind. I have never heard of apostolics teaching this doctrine until I came to this forum. I was always of the notion that apostolics believed in 3 steps, repentance, water and sprit baptism. If one-step doctrine is true, does that mean that many people from protestant and catholic denominations are saved?? I sympatize with one-step because many of my family members are trinitarian pentecostals and I hope for their salvation, but my mind still believes that Jesus-name baptism is still needed. I don't mean to rehash salvation doctrine, but I do wish that one-step were true and that many more would be saved.

Originally Posted by HangingOut (Post 240271)

Regardless of the one or three step beliefs, the bigger picture is where creedence to the cross lies. I came into the movement like many others on what I did or do to get saved with little emphasis on what Jesus did.
The result is various forms of confusion or unsettled issues throughout the circles evidenced in the last 15 years. Even before that, you had varied opinions on the "blood application" issue. Enough said. See the threads of choice for more on any of these.

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind (Post 240227)

speaking of moving beyond "the principles of the doctrine", I'm all for that seeing I get bored with some the the redundancy of the forum, but I can't get this one-step doctrine out of my mind. I have never heard of apostolics teaching this doctrine until I came to this forum. I was always of the notion that apostolics believed in 3 steps, repentance, water and sprit baptism. If one-step doctrine is true, does that mean that many people from protestant and catholic denominations are saved?? I sympatize with one-step because many of my family members are trinitarian pentecostals and I hope for their salvation, but my mind still believes that Jesus-name baptism is still needed. I don't mean to rehash salvation doctrine, but I do wish that one-step were true and that many more would be saved.

Originally Posted by Sam (Post 240281)

comments (not arguments)

Since the beginning of the teaching about using the name of Jesus in water baptism beginning in 1913 or so, there have always been one-steppers. These were originally folks who had been saved, then found out about and accepted an experience known as the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) and then later found out about Jesus' name water baptism. As they taught and preached over the years, folks heard the Gospel and got saved/converted/born again and susequently submitted to water baptism in Jesus' name and then went on and received the HGB. This is how they fulfilled and experienced Acts 2:38. Over the years others began to preach that they really hadn't been saved at all until they got water baptized in Jesus' name and received the HGB. Over the years the three steppers gained in numbers teaching that born of water meant water baptism and born of the Spirit meant HGB. When the UPC was formed in 1945 two organizations merged with the agreement that they would fellowship one another and allow both the one step and three step message be preached, taught in Bible Schools, and printed in the Pentecostal Herald. In time the three steppers gained enough political power, violated the principles of freedom proposed in the original agreement of 1945, modified the fundamental doctrine statement, and pushed through the Affirmation Statement under dubious circumstances. Now we have people who have been in UPC churches for years and have never even heard of the one step position.

If the one step position is true, then it means that anyone who has repented of sin and made a commitment to Jesus Christ is indeed saved/born again. The first General Superintendent of the UPC stated that "even the Baptists will be in the Bride of Christ."

Actually, both one steppers and three steppers believe in and preach Acts 2:38. We just believe that justification/regeneration/salvation occurs at different points of the two commands and one promise outlined in that verse.

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK (Post 240286)

I am more of a one-stepper than three-stepper. Though for me if you are going to baptize it should be Biblical, in Jesus name. I have no problem with someone that is baptized in titles. If you or I do our job as teacher/pastors then it is quite possible that they will be rebaptized in Jesus name. For me as far as fellowship goes I do not think the formula has a thing to do with fellowshipping. IMO. I may not see totally eye to eye with the doctrine though I will fellowship them anyhow.

Originally Posted by Sam (Post 240281)

comments (not arguments)

Since the beginning of the teaching about using the name of Jesus in water baptism beginning in 1913 or so, there have always been one-steppers. These were originally folks who had been saved, then found out about and accepted an experience known as the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) and then later found out about Jesus' name water baptism. As they taught and preached over the years, folks heard the Gospel and got saved/converted/born again and susequently submitted to water baptism in Jesus' name and then went on and received the HGB. This is how they fulfilled and experienced Acts 2:38. Over the years others began to preach that they really hadn't been saved at all until they got water baptized in Jesus' name and received the HGB. Over the years the three steppers gained in numbers teaching that born of water meant water baptism and born of the Spirit meant HGB. When the UPC was formed in 1945 two organizations merged with the agreement that they would fellowship one another and allow both the one step and three step message be preached, taught in Bible Schools, and printed in the Pentecostal Herald. In time the three steppers gained enough political power, violated the principles of freedom proposed in the original agreement of 1945, modified the fundamental doctrine statement, and pushed through the Affirmation Statement under dubious circumstances. Now we have people who have been in UPC churches for years and have never even heard of the one step position.

If the one step position is true, then it means that anyone who has repented of sin and made a commitment to Jesus Christ is indeed saved/born again. The first General Superintendent of the UPC stated that "even the Baptists will be in the Bride of Christ."

Actually, both one steppers and three steppers believe in and preach Acts 2:38. We just believe that justification/regeneration/salvation occurs at different points of the two commands and one promise outlined in that verse.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 240330)

Also PCIers reject the sacramentalist teaching of baptismal regeneration. Many 3 steppers teach that sins are forgiven at repentance but not wiped away/blotted/remitted/put away until water baptism and the invocation of the name of Jesus by the baptizer over the baptizee.

In effect, most 3 step baptismal regenerationists believe the blood of Jesus is applied in this ceremony only if it it properly administered.

Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 240570)

Regenerated means born again. I believe we are regenerated by the baptisms...the baptism of the Spirit and and baptism of water. Acts 2:38
...

Originally Posted by Sam (Post 240574)

That is the belief of many that we call "three steppers" on these forums.
A "one stepper" would believe in justification/salvation/regeneration at repentance/faith and then that conversion experience is followed up by water baptism as a public burial of the old person and as a testimony of faith in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus. Also that new Christian would be exhorted to receive the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) as an empowerment and release of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 240581)

Once again, clarity from Sam (and see especially his earlier post here). Thanks Sam.

Originally Posted by deltaguitar (Post 240282)

I agree. What ever happened to putting our faith in the finished work of Christ? I was UPC for 27 years and only during the last few years did I hear teaching on the Cross of Christ.

I am not an expert but if we can save ourselves what is the point of the Cross.

Originally Posted by stmatthew (Post 240593)

If we see Jesus as the pattern, we have no problem understanding that Death, Burial, and resurrection is the only way to gain "NEW LIFE".

Originally Posted by stmatthew (Post 240593)

If we see Jesus as the pattern, we have no problem understanding that Death, Burial, and resurrection is the only way to gain "NEW LIFE".

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK (Post 240612)

This is a common argument from 3-steppers. "Follow the model" etc. The question I have is that Jesus was the flesh of God then why did he complete the three steps? He had to because He was still flesh. But He purchased our salvation on calvary. There is as much shown in the Bible for receiving Christ as there is three steps. I was a three stepper for a long time. The truth is that the three steps should be your goal, but I do not think God will ........ anyone if they did not complete them all, but I am not God.

Originally Posted by stmatthew (Post 240623)

If you understand the old testament, which Christ fulfilled, you would realize that Jesus may have shed his blood on Calvary, but until that blood was taken into the holiest of all in the heavenlies and offered upon the mercy seat, and accepted by God, there was no pardon.
...
.

Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 240570)

Regenerated means born again. I believe we are regenerated by the baptisms...the baptism of the Spirit and and baptism of water. Acts 2:38

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Is this what you mean by sacramental regeneration, Dan?

Originally Posted by Sam (Post 240731)

not trying to hijack this thread but just wondering.
When do you think Jesus presented the blood to the Father in the heavenly tabernacle? Between the time when he told Mary to not touch Him because He was going to ascend to the Father (John 20:17) and later that day when He appeared to some disciples and showed them His wounds and breathed into them the Spirit of life for the New Covenant (John 20:19-23)? Or after that but before He told Thomas to handle his wounds a week later (John 20:26-29)? Or some other time?

Originally Posted by Sam (Post 240731)

not trying to hijack this thread but just wondering.
When do you think Jesus presented the blood to the Father in the heavenly tabernacle? Between the time when he told Mary to not touch Him because He was going to ascend to the Father (John 20:17) and later that day when He appeared to some disciples and showed them His wounds and breathed into them the Spirit of life for the New Covenant (John 20:19-23)? Or after that but before He told Thomas to handle his wounds a week later (John 20:26-29)? Or some other time?

Originally Posted by stmatthew (Post 240747)

I personally believe he ascended after seeing Mary, and prior to seeing the disciples, but I am not sure the bible is real specific when, so it is only a guess. But I do believe he offered that blood prior to any sins being forgiven under the new covenant.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley (Post 240762)

Hebrews 9:14 teaches that I think. I believe it happened at the time you have said.

Originally Posted by deltaguitar (Post 240254)

What about salvation at repentance?

Originally Posted by HangingOut (Post 240271)

Regardless of the one or three step beliefs, the bigger picture is where creedence to the cross lies. I came into the movement like many others on what I did or do to get saved with little emphasis on what Jesus did.
The result is various forms of confusion or unsettled issues throughout the circles evidenced in the last 15 years. Even before that, you had varied opinions on the "blood application" issue. Enough said. See the threads of choice for more on any of these.