Was Matt.28:19 Tampered With ?

[Scott Hutchinson]

Go ye therefore and teach all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father,and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghost. MATT.28:19
When the KJV bible was being put together was MATT.28:18 tampered with ?
Some have said that it should read baptizing them in my name ?
Was Matt.28:19 tampered with by Trinitarians ?

[CC1]

LOL!!!! I have heard this put forth by a few Oneness folks and I think it is folly to start discrediting portions of the Word of God. Where does it end?

Every major translation of the Bible was done by trinitarians so I guess in typical knee jerk fashon some folks want to just blame the passages they don't like on the translators being trinny. Much easier than reconciling scriptures that might cause difficulty for their doctrines.

[Sam]

Hasn't that been discussed here before?

First time I remember an Apostolic Pentecostal casting doubts on the Bible it was the late Gordon Magee and he questioned Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7.

I would expect stuff like that from modernists and unbelievers but it bothers me when it comes from folks of faith.

[Mrs. LPW]

Go ye therefore and teach all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father,and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghost. MATT.28:19
When the KJV bible was being put together was MATT.28:18 tampered with ?
Some have said that it should read baptizing them in my name ?
Was Matt.28:19 tampered with by Trinitarians ?

I hadn't heard that myself.

[StillStanding]

My father mentioned to me years ago that there was research to suggest that it might have happened, but to challenge it would open Pandora's box. Many scriptures could be challenged!

[Scott Hutchinson]

Consider this.http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/wordonmatt2819.htm

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa058.htm

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.lightbearer.org/archives/2004/04/the_authentic_m.html

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/shemtovweb.html

[helen_febus]

Go ye therefore and teach all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father,and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghost. MATT.28:19
When the KJV bible was being put together was MATT.28:18 tampered with ?
Some have said that it should read baptizing them in my name ?
Was Matt.28:19 tampered with by Trinitarians ?

Yes Brother, I believe it was tampered with. Click here (http://www.fulfilledprophecy.net/pdf/Collection_of_Evidence_Against_The_Traditional_Wor ding_Of_Mathew_28_v19.pdf) for a link to proof

God Bless You,

Sister Helen Febus

[Scott Hutchinson]

Hey Sister Febus I trust you and the brother are doing ok ?

[old friend]

So many variations, versions...even between the gospels themselves. Who knows really.

What did the early church do without the NT anyway?

Well, we have accounts. That's all the NT is really. Has it been divinely preserved? Yes...to an extent. Mostly tampered with by man though...yet the Truth lives on inside of us, not in pen on paper.

What is awesome is that we can take what the early church wrote and did and apply it and it functions.

Matt 28:19 reads fine to me....I'm baptized in that name.

[MissBrattified]

There is a friend of my parents' who spent years on his own laborious translation of the Bible. I wonder what that translation says in this verse? My mother has a copy somewhere; maybe we can dig it up.

[Sam]

These guys aren't doing anything new. People have been deleting stuff they don't like from God's Word for years. This account was about 600 years B.C.

Jeremiah 36:1-32 (New King James Version)

Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
[NKJV at Thomas Nelson] [Thomas Nelson, Inc.]

Jeremiah 36
1 Now it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, that this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 “Take a scroll of a book and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel, against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah even to this day. 3 It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the adversities which I purpose to bring upon them, that everyone may turn from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.”
4 Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah; and Baruch wrote on a scroll of a book, at the instruction of Jeremiah, all the words of the LORD which He had spoken to him. 5 And Jeremiah commanded Baruch, saying, “I am confined, I cannot go into the house of the LORD. 6 You go, therefore, and read from the scroll which you have written at my instruction, the words of the LORD, in the hearing of the people in the LORD’s house on the day of fasting. And you shall also read them in the hearing of all Judah who come from their cities. 7 It may be that they will present their supplication before the LORD, and everyone will turn from his evil way. For great is the anger and the fury that the LORD has pronounced against this people.” 8 And Baruch the son of Neriah did according to all that Jeremiah the prophet commanded him, reading from the book the words of the LORD in the LORD’s house.
9 Now it came to pass in the fifth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, in the ninth month, that they proclaimed a fast before the LORD to all the people in Jerusalem, and to all the people who came from the cities of Judah to Jerusalem. 10 Then Baruch read from the book the words of Jeremiah in the house of the LORD, in the chamber of Gemariah the son of Shaphan the scribe, in the upper court at the entry of the New Gate of the LORD’s house, in the hearing of all the people.
11 When Michaiah the son of Gemariah, the son of Shaphan, heard all the words of the LORD from the book, 12 he then went down to the king’s house, into the scribe’s chamber; and there all the princes were sitting—Elishama the scribe, Delaiah the son of Shemaiah, Elnathan the son of Achbor, Gemariah the son of Shaphan, Zedekiah the son of Hananiah, and all the princes. 13 Then Michaiah declared to them all the words that he had heard when Baruch read the book in the hearing of the people. 14 Therefore all the princes sent Jehudi the son of Nethaniah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Cushi, to Baruch, saying, “Take in your hand the scroll from which you have read in the hearing of the people, and come.” So Baruch the son of Neriah took the scroll in his hand and came to them. 15 And they said to him, “Sit down now, and read it in our hearing.” So Baruch read it in their hearing.
16 Now it happened, when they had heard all the words, that they looked in fear from one to another, and said to Baruch, “We will surely tell the king of all these words.” 17 And they asked Baruch, saying, “Tell us now, how did you write all these words—at his instruction?”
18 So Baruch answered them, “He proclaimed with his mouth all these words to me, and I wrote them with ink in the book.”
19 Then the princes said to Baruch, “Go and hide, you and Jeremiah; and let no one know where you are.”
20 And they went to the king, into the court; but they stored the scroll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the hearing of the king. 21 So the king sent Jehudi to bring the scroll, and he took it from Elishama the scribe’s chamber. And Jehudi read it in the hearing of the king and in the hearing of all the princes who stood beside the king. 22 Now the king was sitting in the winter house in the ninth month, with a fire burning on the hearth before him. 23 And it happened, when Jehudi had read three or four columns, that the king cut it with the scribe’s knife and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth. 24 Yet they were not afraid, nor did they tear their garments, the king nor any of his servants who heard all these words. 25 Nevertheless Elnathan, Delaiah, and Gemariah implored the king not to burn the scroll; but he would not listen to them. 26 And the king commanded Jerahmeel the king’s son, Seraiah the son of Azriel, and Shelemiah the son of Abdeel, to seize Baruch the scribe and Jeremiah the prophet, but the LORD hid them.
27 Now after the king had burned the scroll with the words which Baruch had written at the instruction of Jeremiah, the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying: 28 “Take yet another scroll, and write on it all the former words that were in the first scroll which Jehoiakim the king of Judah has burned. 29 And you shall say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, ‘Thus says the LORD: “You have burned this scroll, saying, ‘Why have you written in it that the king of Babylon will certainly come and destroy this land, and cause man and beast to cease from here?’” 30 Therefore thus says the LORD concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: “He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat of the day and the frost of the night. 31 I will punish him, his family, and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring on them, on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and on the men of Judah all the doom that I have pronounced against them; but they did not heed.”’”
32 Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah, who wrote on it at the instruction of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And besides, there were added to them many similar words.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I understand the bible is utterly trustworthy,but there were some copyist errors from the KJV translators,but the thoughts of God are infallible.
I understand MATT.28:19 as it is written and for all of the money in the world I won't use the titles in baptism,I won't baptize anyone other than in the saving name of Jesus Christ.

[old friend]

So then if the catholics had at it...what else did they find time to play with?

[old friend]

I understand the bible is utterly trustworthy,but there were some copyist errors from the KJV translators,but the thoughts of God are infallible.
I understand MATT.28:19 as it is written and for all of the money in the world I won't use the titles in baptism,I won't baptize anyone other than in the saving name of Jesus Christ.

So would you attribute the variety within the gospels as to what was actually said and done to copist errors?

[Scott Hutchinson]

Changing easter from Passover and such like that.

[Scott Hutchinson]

So would you attribute the variety within the gospels as to what was actually said and done to copist errors?

Well the message is basically there and the copyist did the best they could do.
The synoptic gospels do vary slighty proably due to different authors accounts,but the gest is there.

[Scott Hutchinson]

But hey I'm still a KJV man.

[old friend]

Well the message is basically there and the copyist did the best they could do.
The synoptic gospels do vary slighty proably due to different authors accounts,but the gest is there.

Largely it is, the gist that is, and you are correct, they are accounts, but it's not always the gist. Sometimes it is more than that.

Sometimes it matters very much, to some.

I have a relationship with Christ, not a religion, therefore the variance in man's accounts matter little in comparison to the larger picture we are purposed to walk away with.

The fact that most Christians believe that the NT is the inerrant word of God word for word is a partial cause for the splintering of the would be body itself. Another cause might be interpretations, and even yet another, one's heart at the hearing of it.

Nevertheless, when we make a religion out of what is written, and forego the relationship, we miss it. Sound familiar? History seems to be repeating itself to a great extent.

[Bro-Larry]

Bro Scott, I want to apologize for helping to hyjack your "Samuel thread".

Let the Bible interprete itself.

There is a foundational truth established in by Moses and stretches throught out the Bible: At the mouth of two or three witnesses let very word be established.

If you can find two or three witnesses in scripture, then it is established as truth. If not, then forget it.

[Praxeas]

Hasn't that been discussed here before?

First time I remember an Apostolic Pentecostal casting doubts on the Bible it was the late Gordon Magee and he questioned Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7.

I would expect stuff like that from modernists and unbelievers but it bothers me when it comes from folks of faith.
1Jn 5:7 is a reasonable question. you don't have to be an unbeliever or a modernist to see that Erasmus added this verse to his greek text

[BroGary]

Here is something VERY interesting someone posted on another forum:

(The Youtube video is only about 8 minutes long)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-XkAijKg44

Here is what the poster said about the video:

This video gives scholarly proof that the text of Matthew 28:19 was a later insertion [after 200 AD] by the Catholic church. It provides key eye-witness account of the original reading of the text through early writings of major Christian figures and one who had access to an original copy of Matthew. All sources are listed within the video and there are absolutely countless others that 10 minutes worth of video could not contain. I encourage you to research this on your own. The evidence is so absolutely overwhelming that this text has been corrupted [including admission from Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict 16th] that it is undeniable.

[notofworks]

Here is something VERY interesting someone posted on another forum:

(The Youtube video is only about 8 minutes long)

[om/watch?v=i-XkAijKg44[/url]

Here is what the poster said about the video:

This video gives scholarly proof that the text of Matthew 28:19 was a later insertion [after 200 AD] by the Catholic church. It provides key eye-witness account of the original reading of the text through early writings of major Christian figures and one who had access to an original copy of Matthew. All sources are listed within the video and there are absolutely countless others that 10 minutes worth of video could not contain. I encourage you to research this on your own. The evidence is so absolutely overwhelming that this text has been corrupted [including admission from Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict 16th] that it is undeniable.




Sounds like to me the bible is fallible.

[pelathais]

Hasn't that been discussed here before?

First time I remember an Apostolic Pentecostal casting doubts on the Bible it was the late Gordon Magee and he questioned Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7.

I would expect stuff like that from modernists and unbelievers but it bothers me when it comes from folks of faith.
1 John 5:7, is problematic. Erasmus left it out of the first several editions of the Textus Receptus because he could not find any Greek manuscripts which had the verse. Under pressure from the Church, he agreed to add it in his next edition if anyone could find the passage in just a SINGLE Greek manuscript.

(All of this was of course just after the fall of Constantinople and Western Europe was filled with Greek manuscripts of all kinds).

An English monk presented a Greek codex to Erasmus that had 1 John 5:7 obviously added to it in a 16th century hand. Erasmus, under great pressure now, did add the verse but also added copious notes expressing his reluctance to accept the codex as authentic.

That codex is today kept in the Trinity College library in Dublin. It has been consulted so many times that the book just naturally falls open to 1 John 5:7.

Robinson (of Robinson's Word Pictures of the New Testament) says this:

"For there are three who bear witness (oti trei eisin oi marturounte). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, #34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and #34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en twi ouranwi o pathr, o logo kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi trei en eisin kai trei eisin oi marturounte en th gh (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 1 John 3:8 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/8.html) . The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian's exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus."

I think he's a little rough on poor old Erasmus.

[mfblume]

Go ye therefore and teach all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father,and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghost. MATT.28:19
When the KJV bible was being put together was MATT.28:18 tampered with ?
Some have said that it should read baptizing them in my name ?
Was Matt.28:19 tampered with by Trinitarians ?

No.

[mfblume]

Bro Scott, I want to apologize for helping to hyjack your "Samuel thread".

Let the Bible interprete itself.

There is a foundational truth established in by Moses and stretches throught out the Bible: At the mouth of two or three witnesses let very word be established.

If you can find two or three witnesses in scripture, then it is established as truth. If not, then forget it.

I disagree. :D That concept was never applied to scripture, itself.

[pelathais]

...

This video gives scholarly proof that the text of Matthew 28:19 was a later insertion [after 200 AD] by the Catholic church. It provides key eye-witness account of the original reading of the text through early writings of major Christian figures and one who had access to an original copy of Matthew. All sources are listed within the video and there are absolutely countless others that 10 minutes worth of video could not contain. I encourage you to research this on your own. The evidence is so absolutely overwhelming that this text has been corrupted [including admission from Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict 16th] that it is undeniable.
In my opinion it is a good question and and interesting area of research, however we do need to seperate the hype from reality.

First of all, the "Catholic Church" (RCC) didn't even exist yet in the year 200. The RCC as we know it today didn't come into existence as an institution until shortly after 604, and that institution didn't have most of it's teachings that it is known for today until beginning in the 1200's.

The early Christian Church was a diverse and polyglot system of local assemblies and independent bishoprics, all with a myriad of schismatic and "heretical" groups and plenty of different "cults of personality."

That is, it was pretty much what we see today; only different, because none of the men wore pants.

[pelathais]

I disagree. :D That concept was never applied to scripture, itself.
Can you get a witness? http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[mfblume]

Can you get a witness? http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

lololol

[Twisp]

In my opinion it is a good question and and interesting area of research, however we do need to seperate the hype from reality.

First of all, the "Catholic Church" (RCC) didn't even exist yet in the year 200. The RCC as we know it today didn't come into existence as an institution until shortly after 604, and that institution didn't have most of it's teachings that it is known for today until beginning in the 1200's.

The early Christian Church was a diverse and polyglot system of local assemblies and independent bishoprics, all with a myriad of schismatic and "heretical" groups and plenty of different "cults of personality."

That is, it was pretty much what we see today; only different, because none of the men wore pants.

Some of us still don't, lol.

[Praxeas]

LOL!!!! I have heard this put forth by a few Oneness folks and I think it is folly to start discrediting portions of the Word of God. Where does it end?

Every major translation of the Bible was done by trinitarians so I guess in typical knee jerk fashon some folks want to just blame the passages they don't like on the translators being trinny. Much easier than reconciling scriptures that might cause difficulty for their doctrines.
Actually they got that idea from Trinitarian publications. Oneness did not invent the idea that Math 28:19 that we have today is not the original reading. However there is no proof and little evidence for it.

The issue has nothing to do with translation. It has to do with the original greek text being tampored with. It would not be the first time either, ie 1John 5:7

[Praxeas]

Hasn't that been discussed here before?

First time I remember an Apostolic Pentecostal casting doubts on the Bible it was the late Gordon Magee and he questioned Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7.

I would expect stuff like that from modernists and unbelievers but it bothers me when it comes from folks of faith.
Again it's not GM or Oneness. Trinitarians by and large are the ones that conclude 1Jn 5:7 is an interpolation, not Oneness. They are not just making this up. These conclusions came to them from Trinitarian sources

[Praxeas]

Good grief who resurrects these old threads?

[Praxeas]

In my opinion it is a good question and and interesting area of research, however we do need to seperate the hype from reality.

First of all, the "Catholic Church" (RCC) didn't even exist yet in the year 200. .
I was gonna point that out...Im sure if I had someone would have accused me of claiming to be an authority though :ursofunny

Im glad you posted it

[Justin]

Go ye therefore and teach all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father,and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghost. MATT.28:19
When the KJV bible was being put together was MATT.28:18 tampered with ?
Some have said that it should read baptizing them in my name ?
Was Matt.28:19 tampered with by Trinitarians ?

It was tampered with well before they started putting the KJV together.

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html

http://www.israelofgod.org/Constantine.htm

[Justin]

Here is something VERY interesting someone posted on another forum:

(The Youtube video is only about 8 minutes long)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-XkAijKg44

Here is what the poster said about the video:

This video gives scholarly proof that the text of Matthew 28:19 was a later insertion [after 200 AD] by the Catholic church. It provides key eye-witness account of the original reading of the text through early writings of major Christian figures and one who had access to an original copy of Matthew. All sources are listed within the video and there are absolutely countless others that 10 minutes worth of video could not contain. I encourage you to research this on your own. The evidence is so absolutely overwhelming that this text has been corrupted [including admission from Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict 16th] that it is undeniable.

I didn't watch that video, but the picture on it is the quote from Joseph Ratzinger (Now Pope) I actually bought this book and the quote is taken out of context. He was speaking specifically about the Apostles Creed, not Matthew 28:19

[TheLegalist]

Well then you can also start with Luther is his pushing of false doctrine on translation with the improper wording for "faith" and also Romans 3:22 and 26 DEaling with theological preference vs what the text says hs been a issue for years. IS the Bible fallible? Don't know. I know there are issues. I also know 1 John 5:7 has little and more likely no support. Many can talk about Matt 28:19 as it is possible it is not right either. Amazinglly we don't have scripts of Matt before the burning of the great library and only around the 3 to 4th century. IT was also most lkely written in Hebrew THUS not even close to the original.

[TheLayman]

It was tampered with well before they started putting the KJV together.

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html

http://www.israelofgod.org/Constantine.htm

There is not one single shred of evidence indicating the Matthew 28:19 us spurious:

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/showthread.php?p=279961#poststop

TheLayman

[Praxeas]

Justin, do you know where Reckart got his "doctorate" degree?

[Ev. Duane Williams]

Hasn't that been discussed here before?

First time I remember an Apostolic Pentecostal casting doubts on the Bible it was the late Gordon Magee and he questioned Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7.

I would expect stuff like that from modernists and unbelievers but it bothers me when it comes from folks of faith.

I am very leery about questioning the authenticity of any Scripture, but 1 John 5:7 is on very shaky ground in that it cannot be found in any manuscript from before the sixteenth century. Matthew 28:19 has some problems, but the evidence for its authenticity is much more sound.

[pelathais]

I was gonna point that out...Im sure if I had someone would have accused me of claiming to be an authority though :ursofunny

Im glad you posted it
Yeah, I've never been accused of that.

[pelathais]

Justin, do you know where Reckart got his "doctorate" degree?

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4502349722_ecec10c654_o.jpg

[TheLegalist]

There is not one single shred of evidence indicating the Matthew 28:19 us spurious:

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/showthread.php?p=279961#poststop

TheLayman

internal evidence is lacking as nowhere is such a phrase even repeated. Especially a phrase that has such a theological chantish nature to it sins it would be such a unique phrasing. People would clearly use it but yet it was not.

[Justin]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4502349722_ecec10c654_o.jpg

:ursofunny

I want one too... "Good evening Dr. Justin!"

[Justin]

internal evidence is lacking as nowhere is such a phrase even repeated. Especially a phrase that has such a theological chantish nature to it sins it would be such a unique phrasing. People would clearly use it but yet it was not.

Most Catholic, Protestant and secular encyclopedias question the validity of the Trinitarian method of baptism and the original manuscripts.

Also, what more internal evidence do you need other than the fact that no one was ever baptised in the NT using the Trinitarian formula. That speaks volumes in itself!

[Apocrypha]

Matthew 28:19 was most certainly altered post-Nicea. Eusebius quoted it quite differently and he was at the counsel of Nicea.

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/evr-last-gosp.htm

he following seven citations of Matthew 28:19 are shown below in the quotations from the Proof of the Gospel (the Demonstratio) by Eusebius. The intent of this excerpt is not to purport accuracy of theology or philosophy of this man, but to glean from his access to the text of Matthew 28:19 in his day and time. For these citations, Eusebius (265 A.D. -- 339 A.D.) as proclaimed Bishop of Caesarea had access to the famed Library of Caesarea and thus references Matthew 28:19 from more ancient manuscripts housed therein than are available to us today.

(1) Book III, Chapter 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157

Whereas He, who conceived nothing human or mortal, see how truly He speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor: "Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations." "But how," the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, "can we do it: How, pray, can we preach to Romans: How can we argue with the Egyptians? We are men bred up to use the Syrian tongue only, what language shall we speak to Greeks: How shall we persuade Persians, Armenians, Chaldaeans, Scythians, Indians, and other barbarous nations to give up their ancestral gods, and worship the Creator of all? What sufficiency of speech have we to trust to in attempting such work as this? And what hope of success can we have if we dare to proclaim laws directly opposed to the laws about their own gods that have been established for ages among all nations? By what power shall we ever survive our daring attempt?"

But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph "In MY NAME." And the power of His name being so great, that the apostle says: "God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth," He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in my Name." He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: "for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations."

(2) Book III, Chapter 6, 132 (a), p. 152

With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," …

(3) Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159

But when I turn my eyes away to the evidence of the power of the Word, what multitudes it has won, and what enormous churches have been founded by those unlettered and mean disciples of Jesus, not in obscure and unknown places, but in the most noble cities—I mean in Royal Rome, in Alexandria, and Antioch, through the whole of Egypt and Libya, Europe and Asia, and in villages and country places and among the nations--I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man’s and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them; "Make disciples of all the nations in my Name."

(4) Book IX, Chapter 11, 445 (c), p. 175

And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."

(5) Book I, Chapter 3, 6 (a), p. 20

Hence of course, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Son of God, said to His disciples after His Resurrection: "Go and make disciples of all the nations," and added "Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you." (1)

Note 1 in W. J. Ferrar’s edition: Matthew 28:19. The verse is quoted thus seven times in the Demonstratio with the omission of the reference to Baptism and the Trinity. Conybeare (Hibbert Journal, i. (1902-3) p. 102), who holds that the reference was interpolated for dogmatic reasons, and was not fully assured in the text till after the Council of Nicea, supports his view from the practice of Eusebius. This is the view of Kirsopp Lake, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ii. 380 and Moffatt, The Historical New Test. 1901, p. 647. The historicity of the words as ipsissima verba is denied by Harnack, Clemen, and J. A. Robinson, Encyclopedia Biblica, art. "Baptism" From the Acts taken literally it would be gathered that apostolic Baptism was simply in the Name of Jesus. – (Acts 8:12-16; Acts 9:18; Acts 22:16)

(6) Book I, Chapter 5, 9 (a), p. 24

"Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you." What could He mean but the teaching and discipline of the new covenant?

(7) Book I, Chapter 6, 24 (c), p. 42

"Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all the nations … teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you."

Bibliography: Eusebius (265-339) Bishop of Caesarea around 314 was referred to as the son of Pamphilus. He wrote many books, the best known of which is the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Other writings were the Praeparatio, the Demonstratio from which we have The Proof of the Gospel, Quaestiones ad Stephanum, and the Epitome. According to the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, "His time considered him its most learned man."

The above seven referenced quotations of Matthew 28:19 according to Eusebius reflects the verse as he read it from the text in the library in Caesarea. The problem with most translations including the King James Version, as it relates to the text of Matthew 28:19, is that they reflect an erroneous addition of wording of Catholic origin and not the correct words spoken by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As the verse and the doctrine of the Trinity were being discussed in his day, and having access to the original, Eusebius denounced the reading of Matthew 28:19 with the Trinitarian phrase as the most serious of all the falsifications.

It is time for modern-day Christianity to get back to the actual words of our Lord Jesus and quote the words as they were actually written in the "Everlasting Gospel" of Matthew as:

"Go ye into all the world and make disciples of all the nations in my name" (Matthew 28:19).

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall first be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14). Could the correct rendition of Matthew’s Gospel play a part in the distribution of the Everlasting Gospel? (Revelation 14:6 -- "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people").

[Apocrypha]

Theres your smoking gun.

[Apocrypha]

Justin, do you know where Reckart got his "doctorate" degree?

I drove by his church the other week while visiting a pastor uncle in Tampa. Its a real dive in the ghetto part of town.

[pelathais]

I drove by his church the other week while visiting a pastor uncle in Tampa. Its a real dive in the ghetto part of town.
Now, now. "Everybody needs to hear."

[Twisp]

Maybe it is just me, but if even one scripture is proven as added, or changed, or altered by human intervention, it would seem to open up the rest of it as questionable. That might say more about my faith than I would like it to, lol.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Maybe it is just me, but if even one scripture is proven as added, or changed, or altered by human intervention, it would seem to open up the rest of it as questionable.


That's how it strikes me. Especially since people who are baptized repeating the words found in Matt. 28:19 are supposedly going to hell. Just think, if that verse weren't in there, everyone probably would have used the phrase found in Acts 2:38. Just think how many more people could have been saved because they were baptized 'correctly'. So God allowed a verse to get into the Bible that will send people to hell. I can't express how much that idea bothers me.

[Sam]

There is not one single shred of evidence indicating the Matthew 28:19 us spurious:

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/showthread.php?p=279961#poststop

TheLayman

Thank you for that reference.
The post there is well-written.

[Sam]

Most Catholic, Protestant and secular encyclopedias question the validity of the Trinitarian method of baptism and the original manuscripts.

Also, what more internal evidence do you need other than the fact that no one was ever baptised in the NT using the Trinitarian formula. That speaks volumes in itself!

We don't have any instance in our KJV New Testament where it quotes the words that were spoken during the water baptism ritual.

[Timmy]

Maybe it is just me, but if even one scripture is proven as added, or changed, or altered by human intervention, it would seem to open up the rest of it as questionable. That might say more about my faith than I would like it to, lol.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of variant wordings among the oldest manuscripts. Some were undoubtedly innocent and inconsequential transcription errors, but some are more significant and appear to be deliberate (and well-intentioned, presumably). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is in dispute, even among conservative scholars, except in a number of specifics, of course.

[TheLegalist]

That's how it strikes me. Especially since people who are baptized repeating the words found in Matt. 28:19 are supposedly going to hell. Just think, if that verse weren't in there, everyone probably would have used the phrase found in Acts 2:38. Just think how many more people could have been saved because they were baptized 'correctly'. So God allowed a verse to get into the Bible that will send people to hell. I can't express how much that idea bothers me.

hmmm and why does God allow false prophets... and why do you accept simply by faith without question what people call the Bible? because to not have something solid and without question true would mess your faith up would it not? Yet unless you are a whacked KJV only person you actually can't say scripture is without error.

[Sam]

Justin, do you know where Reckart got his "doctorate" degree?

I'll proudly display my "doctorate" degree

[pelathais]

Maybe it is just me, but if even one scripture is proven as added, or changed, or altered by human intervention, it would seem to open up the rest of it as questionable. That might say more about my faith than I would like it to, lol.
This does point out the need for taking a careful and scholarly approach to the Bible. It would be silly to just jump right in and force everything into a meaning that suited our own personal views and tastes.

You have to consider the vast number of manuscript witnesses that we have as well, before throwing the whole thing out. There are "problem" passages. Most of these are more clearly understood by reviewing the large number of copies. In many cases you can see where a note that had been added to a margin later found its way into the text.

If a scribe made a mistake and left out a word or two - a few such corrections were permissible in the margins. Later copyists would then come along and correct the the mistake in future copies. However, when a small not was added it might be mistaken for a correction and brought into the body of the text.

Examples of these types of things are well known to textual scholars and haven't really cast much doubt on the inspiration of the Bible as a whole in over 2,000 years.

[Timmy]

hmmm and why does God allow false prophets... and why do you accept simply by faith without question what people call the Bible? because to not have something solid and without question true would mess your faith up would it not? Yet unless you are a whacked KJV only person you actually can't say scripture is without error.

:hmmm

[pelathais]

We don't have any instance in our KJV New Testament where it quotes the words that were spoken during the water baptism ritual.
Maybe you could add something to the margin of your Bible and we'll see if it "takes" after a few hundred years.

[Sam]

I'm not a textual criticism scholar.

I accept our Bible as it is based on the textus receptus.

I don't have a problem with Matthew 28:19 nor with Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; and 19:5.

I know some of us see their relationship differently.
1. Some believe "Jesus" with or without additional titles such as "Lord" and/or "Christ" to be the (single) name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost share a common name and that name is "Jesus."

2. Some believe that the name of the Father is Lord; the name of the Son is Jesus; the name of the Holy Ghost is Christ, and therefore the Triune God has a Triune Name which is "Lord Jesus Christ."

3. Some believe that Matthew 28:19 was the command given to baptizers who were authorized by Jesus to baptize. When these baptizers baptized they did so as authorized by (in the name/authority of) Jesus and spoke the words, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" that He had authorized.

4. Some use a combination of the words found in Matthew 28:19 and the verses in the Book of Acts in their baptismal "formula."

I don't have a problem with any of the above although I do not personally agree with all of them. I can accept someone as a brother or sister who believes in any of those 4 methods and practices baptism that way.

I would have no problem saying, "In Matthew 28:19 Jesus told us to baptize in His name" nor would I have a problem with saying, "In Acts 2:38, Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Over the years I have not baptized many people. When I did I said, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ." in so doing I believe I was complying with Matthew 28:19.

[Praxeas]

I'm not a textual criticism scholar.

I accept our Bible as it is based on the textus receptus.

I don't have a problem with Matthew 28:19 nor with Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; and 19:5.

I know some of us see their relationship differently.
1. Some believe "Jesus" with or without additional titles such as "Lord" and/or "Christ" to be the (single) name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost share a common name and that name is "Jesus."

2. Some believe that the name of the Father is Lord; the name of the Son is Jesus; the name of the Holy Ghost is Christ, and therefore the Triune God has a Triune Name which is "Lord Jesus Christ."

3. Some believe that Matthew 28:19 was the command given to baptizers who were authorized by Jesus to baptize. When these baptizers baptized they did so as authorized by (in the name/authority of) Jesus and spoke the words, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" that He had authorized.

4. Some use a combination of the words found in Matthew 28:19 and the verses in the Book of Acts in their baptismal "formula."

I don't have a problem with any of the above although I do not personally agree with all of them. I can accept someone as a brother or sister who believes in any of those 4 methods and practices baptism that way.

I would have no problem saying, "In Matthew 28:19 Jesus told us to baptize in His name" nor would I have a problem with saying, "In Acts 2:38, Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Over the years I have not baptized many people. When I did I said, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ." in so doing I believe I was complying with Matthew 28:19.
Our bible is not based on the TR....SOME bibles are based on the TR.

As for Mat 28:19 it doesn't matter what Textual Variants are used...it's the same in all from what I understand

[TheLayman]

Matthew 28:19 was most certainly altered post-Nicea. Eusebius quoted it quite differently and he was at the counsel of Nicea.

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/evr-last-gosp.htm

he following seven citations of Matthew 28:19 are shown below in the quotations from the Proof of the Gospel (the Demonstratio) by Eusebius. The intent of this excerpt is not to purport accuracy of theology or philosophy of this man, but to glean from his access to the text of Matthew 28:19 in his day and time. For these citations, Eusebius (265 A.D. -- 339 A.D.) as proclaimed Bishop of Caesarea had access to the famed Library of Caesarea and thus references Matthew 28:19 from more ancient manuscripts housed therein than are available to us today.

(1) Book III, Chapter 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157

Whereas He, who conceived nothing human or mortal, see how truly He speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor: "Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations." "But how," the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, "can we do it: How, pray, can we preach to Romans: How can we argue with the Egyptians? We are men bred up to use the Syrian tongue only, what language shall we speak to Greeks: How shall we persuade Persians, Armenians, Chaldaeans, Scythians, Indians, and other barbarous nations to give up their ancestral gods, and worship the Creator of all? What sufficiency of speech have we to trust to in attempting such work as this? And what hope of success can we have if we dare to proclaim laws directly opposed to the laws about their own gods that have been established for ages among all nations? By what power shall we ever survive our daring attempt?"

But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph "In MY NAME." And the power of His name being so great, that the apostle says: "God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth," He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in my Name." He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: "for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations."

(2) Book III, Chapter 6, 132 (a), p. 152

With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," …

(3) Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159

But when I turn my eyes away to the evidence of the power of the Word, what multitudes it has won, and what enormous churches have been founded by those unlettered and mean disciples of Jesus, not in obscure and unknown places, but in the most noble cities—I mean in Royal Rome, in Alexandria, and Antioch, through the whole of Egypt and Libya, Europe and Asia, and in villages and country places and among the nations--I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man’s and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them; "Make disciples of all the nations in my Name."

(4) Book IX, Chapter 11, 445 (c), p. 175

And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."

(5) Book I, Chapter 3, 6 (a), p. 20

Hence of course, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Son of God, said to His disciples after His Resurrection: "Go and make disciples of all the nations," and added "Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you." (1)

Note 1 in W. J. Ferrar’s edition: Matthew 28:19. The verse is quoted thus seven times in the Demonstratio with the omission of the reference to Baptism and the Trinity. Conybeare (Hibbert Journal, i. (1902-3) p. 102), who holds that the reference was interpolated for dogmatic reasons, and was not fully assured in the text till after the Council of Nicea, supports his view from the practice of Eusebius. This is the view of Kirsopp Lake, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ii. 380 and Moffatt, The Historical New Test. 1901, p. 647. The historicity of the words as ipsissima verba is denied by Harnack, Clemen, and J. A. Robinson, Encyclopedia Biblica, art. "Baptism" From the Acts taken literally it would be gathered that apostolic Baptism was simply in the Name of Jesus. – (Acts 8:12-16; Acts 9:18; Acts 22:16)

(6) Book I, Chapter 5, 9 (a), p. 24

"Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you." What could He mean but the teaching and discipline of the new covenant?

(7) Book I, Chapter 6, 24 (c), p. 42

"Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all the nations … teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you."

Bibliography: Eusebius (265-339) Bishop of Caesarea around 314 was referred to as the son of Pamphilus. He wrote many books, the best known of which is the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Other writings were the Praeparatio, the Demonstratio from which we have The Proof of the Gospel, Quaestiones ad Stephanum, and the Epitome. According to the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, "His time considered him its most learned man."

The above seven referenced quotations of Matthew 28:19 according to Eusebius reflects the verse as he read it from the text in the library in Caesarea. The problem with most translations including the King James Version, as it relates to the text of Matthew 28:19, is that they reflect an erroneous addition of wording of Catholic origin and not the correct words spoken by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As the verse and the doctrine of the Trinity were being discussed in his day, and having access to the original, Eusebius denounced the reading of Matthew 28:19 with the Trinitarian phrase as the most serious of all the falsifications.

It is time for modern-day Christianity to get back to the actual words of our Lord Jesus and quote the words as they were actually written in the "Everlasting Gospel" of Matthew as:

"Go ye into all the world and make disciples of all the nations in my name" (Matthew 28:19).

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall first be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14). Could the correct rendition of Matthew’s Gospel play a part in the distribution of the Everlasting Gospel? (Revelation 14:6 -- "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people").

Much ado about nothing (BTW, I notice you didn't mention Eusebius citing the Biblical version, how come). But it is really irrelevant. Here's a sampling of ANF's quoting Matthew 28:19 from 15 to 85 years before Eusebius was even born!

And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Irenaeus c. 180)

“Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” By this He showed that whoever omits any of these three, fails in glorifying God perfectly. (Hippolytus, c. 205)

For the law of Baptism was enjoined and its ritual prescribed. "Go," he says, "teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." (Tertullian, c. 200)

He commands them to baptize into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—not into a unipersonal God. (Tertullian, c. 213)

“Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” He suggests the Trinity, in whose sacrament the nations were to be baptized. (Cyprian, c 250)

There are more but that should certainly suffice. They weren't quoting something that didn't exist. But I do believe you should throw your Bible away, there's just no way of telling what has been tampered with, LOL.

TheLayman

[pelathais]

Our bible is not based on the TR....SOME bibles are based on the TR.
You didn't pitch your KJV did you Bro?


As for Mat 28:19 it doesn't matter what Textual Variants are used...it's the same in all from what I understand
There are no manuscripts without it; however there are several citations of Matthew 28, in the writings of the ancients that has led many to surmise that it may have been missing from those earlier times.

For me, it's just not certain; so I think it's wisest to take the full body of Scripture on the matter of baptism into account.

Besides, it's the faith of the believer in the works of Jesus Christ that brings about salvation.

[Revelationist]

I read a book by Dr. Marvin Arnold on the subject. He says that the original text for 28:19 just says "Go!"

[Praxeas]

Anyone wonder why the PPH does not sell Dr Arnold's books?

[pelathais]

I read a book by Dr. Marvin Arnold on the subject. He says that the original text for 28:19 just says "Go!"
:ursofunny

That's clever. Good one, Moonie.

[pelathais]

Anyone wonder why the PPH does not sell Dr Arnold's books?
DKB was the WAP editor for years?

[Sam]

I read a book by Dr. Marvin Arnold on the subject. He says that the original text for 28:19 just says "Go!"

Marvin Arnold cited as an authoritative source?

[Revelationist]

Anyone wonder why the PPH does not sell Dr Arnold's books?


They quit carrying his books when he wrote "Pentecost Before Azusa Street". Don't mess with their trinitarian heritage.

[Sam]

They quit carrying his books when he wrote "Pentecost Before Azusa Street". Don't mess with their trinitarian heritage.

I don't know the ins and outs of PPH politics and I have not read his book on "Pentecost Before Azusa Street." If by "Pentecost" we mean the gifts of the Holy Spirit or outpourings of the Holy Spirit, those have occurred throughout Church History. I didn't think anyone would disagree with that. If by "Pentecost" we mean:
baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ preached as salvational
plus speaking with tongues preached as salvational
plus some form of "anti-trinity" preached as salvational,
plus dress code stuff like hair length and facial hair and sleeve length and that other junk preached as salvational,
I seriously doubt there is an unbroken line from Pentecost AD 30 until the formation of the UPC in 1945 for that kind of stuff documented in history.

[Sam]

Hasn't Marvin Arnold been pretty well discredited and debunked by historians and even by the people that helped him gather his information?

[Hoovie]

That's how it strikes me. Especially since people who are baptized repeating the words found in Matt. 28:19 are supposedly going to hell. Just think, if that verse weren't in there, everyone probably would have used the phrase found in Acts 2:38. Just think how many more people could have been saved because they were baptized 'correctly'. So God allowed a verse to get into the Bible that will send people to hell. I can't express how much that idea bothers me.

Good thing God is not really looking to out someone on a technicality snafu, huh?

If he really wants to cast someone in Hades that bad then who even has a chance? No not one.

[pelathais]

They quit carrying his books when he wrote "Pentecost Before Azusa Street". Don't mess with their trinitarian heritage.
Arnold's insistence that the book be sold as a straight history and not the work of fiction that it was had nothing to do with it?

[pelathais]

I don't know the ins and outs of PPH politics and I have not read his book on "Pentecost Before Azusa Street." If by "Pentecost" we mean the gifts of the Holy Spirit or outpourings of the Holy Spirit, those have occurred throughout Church History. I didn't think anyone would disagree with that. If by "Pentecost" we mean:
baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ preached as salvational
plus speaking with tongues preached as salvational
plus some form of "anti-trinity" preached as salvational,
plus dress code stuff like hair length and facial hair and sleeve length and that other junk preached as salvational,
I seriously doubt there is an unbroken line from Pentecost AD 30 until the formation of the UPC in 1945 for that kind of stuff documented in history.
Arnold clearly intended to identify such groups as the Cathari and the Bogomils as "Acts 2:38 believers." He emphatically claimed to show that the "full package" of "3 Stepper" doctrine was being practiced continuously "from the day of Pentecost."

He fibbed. There's simply no way around it. I asked him about the matter privately and straight to his face. He dodged around and seemed surprised when I mentioned that there were actual Cathari writings extant and available for study. He stuttered until my father-in-law bailed him out and he never did answer the question.

[pelathais]

That's how it strikes me. Especially since people who are baptized repeating the words found in Matt. 28:19 are supposedly going to hell. Just think, if that verse weren't in there, everyone probably would have used the phrase found in Acts 2:38. Just think how many more people could have been saved because they were baptized 'correctly'. So God allowed a verse to get into the Bible that will send people to hell. I can't express how much that idea bothers me.
I think that a belief in salvation that allows for the fact that Jesus saves us, "and not we ourselves" (Ephesians 2:8) can help to clear up some of the doubts raised about this matter.

Baptism is said to "save us..." BUT HOW? "...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:21). I think that this clearly negates the requirement that some will insist upon that baptism is a liturgical rite that must be performed according to their own sectarian manner and by a member of their own sect in order for it to be efficacious.

Following the pattern of the RCC hierarchy and demanding such servile submission to the traditions of men is clearly NOT what the First Century church practiced.

Jesus saves us. He saves us through His sacrificial suffering and death and the fact that He overcame death itself in the process.

Jesus saves.

[Jason B]

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/evr-last-gosp.htm

I clicked on the link, went to the home page, and clicked the top link, where I noticed this:


Home of Acts 2:38 Church, Tampa Angels, Jesus House Women/Children Shelter, Apostolic Theological Bible College, Soul Patrol, and headquarters of Jesus Messieh Fellowship International (JMFI) (Light To The Nations).

http://jesushousetampa.com/

Messieh???

[crakjak]

I think that a belief in salvation that allows for the fact that Jesus saves us, "and not we ourselves" (Ephesians 2:8) can help to clear up some of the doubts raised about this matter.

Baptism is said to "save us..." BUT HOW? "...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:21). I think that this clearly negates the requirement that some will insist upon that baptism is a liturgical rite that must be performed according to their own sectarian manner and by a member of their own sect in order for it to be efficacious.

Following the pattern of the RCC hierarchy and demanding such servile submission to the traditions of men is clearly NOT what the First Century church practiced.

Jesus saves us. He saves us through His sacrificial suffering and death and the fact that He overcame death itself in the process.

Jesus saves.

Very well said, Pel, the simplicity of the gospel.

[Jason B]

I think that a belief in salvation that allows for the fact that Jesus saves us, "and not we ourselves" (Ephesians 2:8) can help to clear up some of the doubts raised about this matter.

Baptism is said to "save us..." BUT HOW? "...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:21). I think that this clearly negates the requirement that some will insist upon that baptism is a liturgical rite that must be performed according to their own sectarian manner and by a member of their own sect in order for it to be efficacious.

Following the pattern of the RCC hierarchy and demanding such servile submission to the traditions of men is clearly NOT what the First Century church practiced.

Jesus saves us. He saves us through His sacrificial suffering and death and the fact that He overcame death itself in the process.

Jesus saves.

Amen

[Jermyn Davidson]

Most Catholic, Protestant and secular encyclopedias question the validity of the Trinitarian method of baptism and the original manuscripts.

Also, what more internal evidence do you need other than the fact that no one was ever baptised in the NT using the Trinitarian formula. That speaks volumes in itself!





I sincerely believe Matthew 28:19 was tampered with.


I also believe that wherever "sin abounds, Grace does much more abound."

[notofworks]

I sincerely believe Matthew 28:19 was tampered with.


I also believe that wherever "sin abounds, Grace does much more abound."


So you believe we have a faulty, flawed bible?

[Jermyn Davidson]

So you believe we have a faulty, flawed bible?


Loaded question.

How do you define "faulty" and "flawed"?

I don't think the red letter versions of the Bible state EXACTLY what Jesus said because He did not speak English on Earth for his every day language.


I think it is very possible, highly likely, that someone thought they were making the Word of God more plain by tampering with that one scripture, similar to the verse in 1 John.

Similar to how some people add, "to be saved" when quoting Acts 2:37.



I think that we have the Word of God in the exact form that He knew we would have.




The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, 100% infallible.


The ice is very thin where I'm standing-- I know.

[notofworks]

Loaded question.

How do you define "faulty" and "flawed"?

I don't think the red letter versions of the Bible state EXACTLY what Jesus said because He did not speak English on Earth for his every day language.


I think it is very possible, highly likely, that someone thought they were making the Word of God more plain by tampering with that one scripture, similar to the verse in 1 John.

Similar to how some people add, "to be saved" when quoting Acts 2:37.



I think that we have the Word of God in the exact form that He knew we would have.




The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, 100% infallible.


The ice is very thin where I'm standing-- I know.


The definition of "Faulty" and "flawed"? Uhhhh......."Tampered with"?

You've made two statements. They are:

1) "I sincerely believe Matthew 28:19 was tampered with."
2) "The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, 100% infallible."


These two completely opposite can't be equally true. Impossible, isn't it?

[Timmy]

The definition of "Faulty" and "flawed"? Uhhhh......."Tampered with"?

You've made two statements. They are:

1) "I sincerely believe Matthew 28:19 was tampered with."
2) "The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, 100% infallible."


These two completely opposite can't be equally true. Impossible, isn't it?

You have found an apparent contradiction in Jermyn's post! :toofunny

[Praxeas]

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/evr-last-gosp.htm

I clicked on the link, went to the home page, and clicked the top link, where I noticed this:


Home of Acts 2:38 Church, Tampa Angels, Jesus House Women/Children Shelter, Apostolic Theological Bible College, Soul Patrol, and headquarters of Jesus Messieh Fellowship International (JMFI) (Light To The Nations).

http://jesushousetampa.com/

Messieh???
You haven't heard of Reckart before?

[notofworks]

You have found an apparent contradiction in Jermyn's post! :toofunny


So maybe Jermyn was tampered with?

[Revelationist]

Arnold's insistence that the book be sold as a straight history and not the work of fiction that it was had nothing to do with it?


I was either sell "Pentecost Before Azusa Street" as straight History, or sell the Bible as a lie by saying that the gates of Hell prevailed against the church and stomped it out untill Azusa Street.

[Timmy]

So maybe Jermyn was tampered with?

:lol

[Sam]

I was either sell "Pentecost Before Azusa Street" as straight History, or sell the Bible as a lie by saying that the gates of Hell prevailed against the church and stomped it out untill Azusa Street.

I personally do not believe the church was "stomped out" until Azusa Street.
I believe "The Church" has existed since those first disciples left John to follow Jesus in John 1:35-51.
I also believe "The Church" is not defined by the UPC Manual.

[Jermyn Davidson]

So maybe Jermyn was tampered with?

:)

[Jermyn Davidson]

The definition of "Faulty" and "flawed"? Uhhhh......."Tampered with"?

You've made two statements. They are:

1) "I sincerely believe Matthew 28:19 was tampered with."
2) "The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, 100% infallible."


These two completely opposite can't be equally true. Impossible, isn't it?



This is not impossible in that the we still have the gist and many of nuances still come through in our English translations.


I don't see these as opposites. The Word Of God is inerrant and is infallible.

Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7, I believe were either tampered with or added to what we have today as, "The Bible."


I don't think these two verses will ultimately affect the destination of one's soul. Neither do I think that these two verses do ANYTHING to take away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Timmy]

This is not impossible in that the we still have the gist and many of nuances still come through in our English translations.


I don't see these as opposites. The Word Of God is inerrant and is infallible.

Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7, I believe were either tampered with or added to what we have today as, "The Bible."


I don't think these two verses will ultimately affect the destination of one's soul. Neither do I think that these two verses do ANYTHING to take away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, "still have the gist" = infallible? ;)

[notofworks]

This is not impossible in that the we still have the gist and many of nuances still come through in our English translations.


I don't see these as opposites. The Word Of God is inerrant and is infallible.

Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7, I believe were either tampered with or added to what we have today as, "The Bible."


I don't think these two verses will ultimately affect the destination of one's soul. Neither do I think that these two verses do ANYTHING to take away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Tampered with...........Infallible.

Whew, trying to reconcile those two things makes my head spin. So what you're saying here, is you completely agree that Jesus commanded for us to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? That would be great because then you would approve of the way I baptize which is in response to the command....order....of Jesus Christ!

[TheLegalist]

Tampered with...........Infallible.

Whew, trying to reconcile those two things makes my head spin. So what you're saying here, is you completely agree that Jesus commanded for us to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? That would be great because then you would approve of the way I baptize which is in response to the command....order....of Jesus Christ!

I'm sorry which VERSIONS are perfect?

Which manuscript in it's total completeness is without error?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Tampered with...........Infallible.

Whew, trying to reconcile those two things makes my head spin. So what you're saying here, is you completely agree that Jesus commanded for us to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? That would be great because then you would approve of the way I baptize which is in response to the command....order....of Jesus Christ!




I sincerely believe that when Jesus gave that command in Matthew 28:19, He did not use the titles "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."


I believe that the phraseology that is used by most of Christendom today was added to help prop up the Doctrine of the Trinity.

[pelathais]

I was either sell "Pentecost Before Azusa Street" as straight History, or sell the Bible as a lie by saying that the gates of Hell prevailed against the church and stomped it out untill Azusa Street.
Why would anyone want to "sell a lie" about the Bible?

Do this for us, Moonie: Name one person who was baptized in Jesus name by immersion and received the "infilling of the Holy Ghost" as evidenced by "speaking in other tongues" at any point from the year 250 A.D. up until 1900 A.D. when Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues.

Name one person who practiced and/or even experienced your "Acts 2:38" experience.

Just one.

Go ahead.

Then, tell me about how important it is to "lie for the Bible." http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Could it be that these lies are "necessary" because people haven't bothered to understand just what the Bible is actually telling us? You've already told us how Arnold had to "fib" about Matthew 28:19.

[Jeffrey]

Why would anyone want to "sell a lie" about the Bible?

Do this for us, Moonie: Name one person who was baptized in Jesus name by immersion and received the "infilling of the Holy Ghost" as evidenced by "speaking in other tongues" at any point from the year 250 A.D. up until 1900 A.D. when Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues.

Name one person who practiced and/or even experienced your "Acts 2:38" experience.

Just one.

Go ahead.

Then, tell me about how important it is to "lie for the Bible." http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Pel, there are passing references to charismata phenomena from the 1st Century all the way to the present. Of course, in the model of today's Classical Pentecostalism, and in the form exclusively of glossolalia I will be hard-pressed.

[pelathais]

Pel, there are passing references to charismata phenomena from the 1st Century all the way to the present. Of course, in the model of today's Classical Pentecostalism, and in the form exclusively of glossolalia I will be hard-pressed.
How about an "Acts 2:38" adherent?

That's what we're looking for. If "Acts 2:38" is "the only way to be saved" then we should find lots of people throughout history who preached that...

... no one has ever been able to find a single person.

Lot's of people "spoke in tongues" or something like it. Lots of people had "religious experiences" of shaking, joy, "illumination," you name it.

A relative handful seemed to pick up on Jesus name baptism and applied it while immersing, pouring and even sprinkling.

A few "Unitarian" style "oneness" types pop up from time to time.

But no one - not a single person - ever preached "Acts 2:38" as the standard of salvation from the time of the apostles until the time of the Apostolic Faith Movement in the early 20th century.

Otherwise, there would be a long list gathering here right now.

[pelathais]

... so either the condition that Bro. Moon describes existed for over 1,700 years of the 2,000 year Church Age... "the devil stamped it (the Church) out..."

Or, "Acts 2:38" as preached by some in the Apostolic Faith Movement isn't the "standard for salvation" as they have claimed it was.

[Sam]

... so either the condition that Bro. Moon describes existed for over 1,700 years of the 2,000 year Church Age... "the devil stamped it (the Church) out..."

Or, "Acts 2:38" as preached by some in the Apostolic Faith Movement isn't the "standard for salvation" as they have claimed it was.

In my opinion, "Acts 2:38" as preached by some in the Apostolic Faith Movement isn't the "standard for salvation" as they have claimed it was.

In my opinion, Acts 2:38 presents three separate experiences:
salvation,
water baptism,
Spirit baptism

Those who believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are saved or born again.
Water baptism is important but not salvational.
The Holy Ghost Baptism is important but not salvational.

From the first century until today in 2010, anyone who puts their faith in Jesus is born again and is in "The Church" whether they ever get baptized in water or not and whether they ever get baptized in the Spirit or not. And that is how Jesus Christ has had a Church for the past 2000 years.

[Praxeas]

I was either sell "Pentecost Before Azusa Street" as straight History, or sell the Bible as a lie by saying that the gates of Hell prevailed against the church and stomped it out untill Azusa Street.
This is a circular argument, based on a misinterpretation of what Jesus means in that verse.

It goes "The church is an Acts 2:38, 3 step, Holiness standard keeping group an since Jesus said it would always be around in an unbroken chain of existence, there has to have been Acts 2:38, 3 step,Holiness standard keeping groups all this time, even if we can't find it in history"

[Praxeas]

Nobody said "the King James Translation is the infallible word" so it's not a contradiction to believe in the infallible Word of God but believe translations are in error or that a greek text is not representative of the original

[Revelationist]

Could it be that these lies are "necessary" because people haven't bothered to understand just what the Bible is actually telling us? You've already told us how Arnold had to "fib" about Matthew 28:19.

Can you please go back and show me where I said that? I sure don't recall saying that Arnold had to "fib" about Matt 28:19.

[notofworks]

I sincerely believe that when Jesus gave that command in Matthew 28:19, He did not use the titles "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

I believe that the phraseology that is used by most of Christendom today was added to help prop up the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Ok, so we're right back to you saying that the bible contains at least one mistake and therefore, not, infallible. Right?

[notofworks]

I'm sorry which VERSIONS are perfect?

Which manuscript in it's total completeness is without error?


I'm currently working on a translation that will be completely perfect. It will, of course, agree with all my personal doctrine.:lol

So Mr. Legal-man, are you saying here that you don't believe the KJV of the bible isn't without error? That's a surprise coming from a Legalist!

[Jeffrey]

In my opinion, "Acts 2:38" as preached by some in the Apostolic Faith Movement isn't the "standard for salvation" as they have claimed it was.

In my opinion, Acts 2:38 presents three separate experiences:
salvation,
water baptism,
Spirit baptism

Those who believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are saved or born again.
Water baptism is important but not salvational.
The Holy Ghost Baptism is important but not salvational.

From the first century until today in 2010, anyone who puts their faith in Jesus is born again and is in "The Church" whether they ever get baptized in water or not and whether they ever get baptized in the Spirit or not. And that is how Jesus Christ has had a Church for the past 2000 years.

Sammy! You are MIA on the Salvation in the Cross thread.

[Jeffrey]

Ok, so we're right back to you saying that the bible contains at least one mistake and therefore, not, infallible. Right?

Well, if someone questioned it on scholarly grounds of not being part of the canon, technically, it wouldn't mean the Bible is fallible, it would mean this verse may not have belonged in the original Text. This is common pondering in exegetical commentaries as scholars get knee deep in analyzing pericopes.

Either way, there is no sufficient proof, and the verse is not really a challenge to any major Christian doctrine.

[Jeffrey]

I'm currently working on a translation that will be completely perfect. It will, of course, agree with all my personal doctrine.:lol

So Mr. Legal-man, are you saying here that you don't believe the KJV of the bible isn't without error? That's a surprise coming from a Legalist!

Textual nuances not withstanding, I'm not sure this is where the debate is fought on biblical infallibility. It's not my field of expertise though. I'll lean on our canonology experts.

[Praxeas]

Actually it means a certain translation or a certain greek text has an error. It does not mean God's word is fallible

[Jeffrey]

Hasn't that been discussed here before?

First time I remember an Apostolic Pentecostal casting doubts on the Bible it was the late Gordon Magee and he questioned Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7.

I would expect stuff like that from modernists and unbelievers but it bothers me when it comes from folks of faith.

Well weren't these suspicions and questions quite common for the Church Fathers who dealt with all sorts of shennanigans when it came to canonizing the Bible? All sorts of copycats, frauds, added-on verses, some put in the wrong order (many believe this is true about several of the epistles), etc...

It doesn't bother me much. If they are valid, it will withstand the scrutiny. So far, no one can find sufficient proof or evidence to suggest that Mt 28:19 was later added. And further, I would think it's rather flattering to late Oneness Pentecostals to assume the motive for it's addition is to protect the Trinity.

[Sam]

Sammy! You are MIA on the Salvation in the Cross thread.

If you're talking about the thread on how the cross saves, that's ballooned to over 80 pages and over 800 posts. People just keep going round and round there. I give up after threads get that big.

Y'all know I'm an easy believism, greasy grace, PCI one-stepper Bapticostal so there's not much sense in my posting repetitiously on threads that get that big.

In the tradition of the first General Superintendent of the UPC, I believe that I was saved before I ever got baptized in Jesus' name (like he taught at Bro. Haney's Bible College); I believe that water baptism is because of the forgiveness of sin (like he wrote in the Pentecostal Herald); and I believe that "even Baptists will be in the Bride" as he said to Bro. Ballestero at the Indiana Camp Grounds.

[Jeffrey]

If you're talking about the thread on how the cross saves, that's ballooned to over 80 pages and over 800 posts. People just keep going round and round there. I give up after threads get that big.

Y'all know I'm an easy believism, greasy grace, PCI one-stepper Bapticostal so there's not much sense in my posting repetitiously on threads that get that big.

In the tradition of the first General Superintendent of the UPC, I believe that I was saved before I ever got baptized in Jesus' name (like he taught at Bro. Haney's Bible College); I believe that water baptism is because of the forgiveness of sin (like he wrote in the Pentecostal Herald); and I believe that "even Baptists will be in the Bride" as he said to Bro. Ballestero at the Indiana Camp Grounds.

Way to reference UPC blood in your response ha.

Yes, your bapticostalness is why I was looking forward to your treatment of particular verses that were being discussed: namely Romans, Gen 12, 15 and 22, covenants and so on.

[pelathais]

Can you please go back and show me where I said that? I sure don't recall saying that Arnold had to "fib" about Matt 28:19.
The word "fib" is in quotes not to try and say I was quoting you, but rather to indicate that I was using my own word here.

You said that Arnold claimed that the "original" version of Matthew 28:19, said simply, "Go."

I have asserted that Arnold fibbed when he said that. You have NOT made that assertion. Hope that clears things up. :thumbsup

[Sam]

Way to reference UPC blood in your response ha.

Yes, your bapticostalness is why I was looking forward to your treatment of particular verses that were being discussed: namely Romans, Gen 12, 15 and 22, covenants and so on.


A local pastor here sent me a copy of an article by Bro. Daniel Segraves on Justification by Faith. I've lost it somewhere and have asked him to resend it to me but I haven't heard back from him yet. Bro. Segraves is pretty good on tying Abraham's experience of Genesis 15:6 with Paul's teaching in Romans. In my opinion, if a person is justified --declared righteous in the sight of God- -that would mean the sins are forgiven and the person is ready for Heaven. That sounds like salvation to me.

A good site for teaching like that is In Christ Alone. Their address is:
http://inchristalone.org/

Or you can check out Bro. Bernie Gillespie on FaceBook at
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Findlay/In-Christ-Alone-Ministries/100704709437

I think God is using Bernie Gillespie and that web site to deliver many from performance based religion. There may even be some who have had their eyes opened here on AFF to see that they cannot save themselves by their religious works.

This is a quote from the Face Book page:

"God neither asks nor accepts any other
sacrifice than that which Christ offered once for all upon the cross.
Go ye next to the foolish among your own countrymen...who think by
their gifts and their gold, by their prayers and their vows, by their
church-goings and their chapel-goings...by their baptisms and their confirmations, to make themselves fit for God; and say to them, 'Stop, "it is finished"; God needs not this of you. He has received enough; why will ye pin your rags to the fine linen of Christ's righteousness?... Why will you add your counterfeit farthing to the costly ransom which Christ has paid in to the treasure-house of God? Cease from your pains, your doings, your performances, for "it is finished"; Christ has done it all.'" --C. H. Spurgeon

[pelathais]

A local pastor here sent me a copy of an article by Bro. Daniel Segraves on Justification by Faith. I've lost it somewhere and have asked him to resend it to me but I haven't heard back from him yet. Bro. Segraves is pretty good on tying Abraham's experience of Genesis 15:6 with Paul's teaching in Romans. In my opinion, if a person is justified --declared righteous in the sight of God- -that would mean the sins are forgiven and the person is ready for Heaven. That sounds like salvation to me.
...

The other aspects of God's covenant with Abraham involved blessings in this world - the land, Abraham's descendants and "I will bless those that bless thee..." etc.

As far as gaining eternal life, all Abraham did was to believe God (Genesis 15:6).

[Sam]

The other aspects of God's covenant with Abraham involved blessings in this world - the land, Abraham's descendants and "I will bless those that bless thee..." etc.

As far as gaining eternal life, all Abraham did was to believe God (Genesis 15:6).

and isn't that all we have to do to receive eternal life and to avoid eternal judgment?

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:14-18

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24

[notofworks]

Well, if someone questioned it on scholarly grounds of not being part of the canon, technically, it wouldn't mean the Bible is fallible, it would mean this verse may not have belonged in the original Text. This is common pondering in exegetical commentaries as scholars get knee deep in analyzing pericopes.

Either way, there is no sufficient proof, and the verse is not really a challenge to any major Christian doctrine.


No, it's not at all a challenge to any Christian doctrine. But for some, it's a MAJOR thing and they'll fight to the death over what's said at baptism (although no one ever said a dang thing in the bible when anyone got baptised), so it's hard for me to see how someone could say, "This says the wrong thing" while claiming the bible's infallibility.

[notofworks]

Textual nuances not withstanding, I'm not sure this is where the debate is fought on biblical infallibility. It's not my field of expertise though. I'll lean on our canonology experts.


No, in the real world that's certainly not where the battle is fought. But "The Legalist" struck me as one of those Steve Anderson-type guys who believes that Jesus Himself sat down and wrote out the King James Version with a Bic ink pen. It just surprised me when he hinted that the KJV wasn't spot-perfect.

[Sam]

...
As far as gaining eternal life, all Abraham did was to believe God (Genesis 15:6).

This is from page 19 of the 1952 Manual of the United Pentecostal Church. the subject is Repentance and Conversion (I don't know if the current manual reads this way or not)

Repentance and Conversion

Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins. We are justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5;1). John the Baptist preached repentance, Jesus proclaimed it, and the Apostles emphasized it to both Jews and Gentiles. (Acts 2:38; 11:18; 17:30)

The word “repentance” comes from several Greek word which mean, change of views and purpose, change of heart, change of mind, change of life, to transform, etc.

Jesus said, “...except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).

Luke 24:47 says, “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

[notofworks]

Actually it means a certain translation or a certain greek text has an error. It does not mean God's word is fallible


So what is "God's Word?" Who's holding it in their hand? Does one exist? If each translation is flawed, where is the divinely inspired infallible Word of God? I went to the Bible Book Store today and they were fresh out of original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

[pelathais]

This is from page 19 of the 1952 Manual of the United Pentecostal Church. the subject is Repentance and Conversion (I don't know if the current manual reads this way or not)

Repentance and Conversion

Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins. We are justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5;1). John the Baptist preached repentance, Jesus proclaimed it, and the Apostles emphasized it to both Jews and Gentiles. (Acts 2:38; 11:18; 17:30)

The word “repentance” comes from several Greek word which mean, change of views and purpose, change of heart, change of mind, change of life, to transform, etc.

Jesus said, “...except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).

Luke 24:47 says, “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
I have a 1994 Manual handy - it reads identically. - Page 21 in the "Articles of Faith" section.

Also, the next section on Water Baptism does not saying anything about "Remission of Sins."

"Remission of sins" is seen only under "Repentance."

Does anyone have a manual more recent than 1994?

[pelathais]

So what is "God's Word?" Who's holding it in their hand? Does one exist? If each translation is flawed, where is the divinely inspired infallible Word of God? I went to the Bible Book Store today and they were fresh out of original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
Pity. I'd like one.

In the mean time however, if we look at the "Word of God" as being a message of hope that has been handed down through the centuries and NOT as a legal document whose finest hairs must be split so that we may condemn and ........ one another, I think we're okay.

Hey! What just happened? Who did the "........" thing? All I said was "........."

[Jermyn Davidson]

How about an "Acts 2:38" adherent?

That's what we're looking for. If "Acts 2:38" is "the only way to be saved" then we should find lots of people throughout history who preached that...

... no one has ever been able to find a single person.

Lot's of people "spoke in tongues" or something like it. Lots of people had "religious experiences" of shaking, joy, "illumination," you name it.

A relative handful seemed to pick up on Jesus name baptism and applied it while immersing, pouring and even sprinkling.

A few "Unitarian" style "oneness" types pop up from time to time.

But no one - not a single person - ever preached "Acts 2:38" as the standard of salvation from the time of the apostles until the time of the Apostolic Faith Movement in the early 20th century.
Otherwise, there would be a long list gathering here right now.




Pel,

Your post made me ask myself a question.

Did the Apostles EVER preach Acts 2:38 as the standard of salvation?


I am leaning towards, "No."

[notofworks]

I have a 1994 Manual handy - it reads identically. - Page 21 in the "Articles of Faith" section.

Also, the next section on Water Baptism does not saying anything about "Remission of Sins."

"Remission of sins" is seen only under "Repentance."

Does anyone have a manual more recent than 1994?


I've got one!! 1992. I'll FedEx it to you. It's not doing me much good!:)

[notofworks]

Pity. I'd like one.

In the mean time however, if we look at the "Word of God" as being a message of hope that has been handed down through the centuries and NOT as a legal document whose finest hairs must be split so that we may condemn and ........ one another, I think we're okay.

Hey! What just happened? Who did the "........" thing? All I said was "........."


:ursofunnyThat's funny.

But this raises an interesting...to me anyway...question. I've always assumed that when someone says, "The bible is the infalllible Word of God, there are no errors, jot & tittle, blah, blah, blah", they meant that the couple thousand pages wrapped in leather (or fake leather if it was cheap) we hold in our hand was IT, and I mean IT!

So is it possible to hold the bible, the infallible Word of God, in one's hand and yet, that infallible Word of God/bible have errors? Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me.

It seems like I'm hearing that there's a theoretical infallible Word of God but we can't actually have it, thus the smart remark I made about the bible book store being fresh out of original manuscripts (which wouldn't do me any good because I flunked Greek in college...which wouldn't have done me any good anyway if I had gotten an A because the class was a joke).

[mizpeh]

Pel,

Your post made me ask myself a question.

Did the Apostles EVER preach Acts 2:38 as the standard of salvation?


I am leaning towards, "No."

The apostles definitely taught Acts 2:38! LOL!!

I'd suggest you review early church history a little closer first. Faith and repentance was taught, as was water baptism in order to have your sins remitted. I don't know what they taught about the infilling of the Spirit but there was some visible sign noted in the book of Acts (Acts 2, 8, 10, 19) and it was assumed that folks knew when they had received the Spirit of God. Acts 19.

[Jeffrey]

The apostles definitely taught Acts 2:38! LOL!!

I'd suggest you review early church history a little closer first. Faith and repentance was taught, as was water baptism in order to have your sins remitted. I don't know what they taught about the infilling of the Spirit but there was some visible sign noted in the book of Acts (Acts 2, 8, 10, 19) and it was assumed that folks knew when they had received the Spirit of God. Acts 19.

Actually, your reading into the Text. If it was the primary, core theology, there would be more predominant traces of this theology in church history, which there is not.

BTW, of course folks knew when they received the Spirit baptism. They still know today. And preaching water baptism and repentance does not a 3-stepper make. I think all on this forum preach repentance and water baptism :)

[notofworks]

Actually, your reading into the Text. If it was the primary, core theology, there would be more predominant traces of this theology in church history, which there is not.

BTW, of course folks knew when they received the Spirit baptism. They still know today. And preaching water baptism and repentance does not a 3-stepper make. I think all on this forum preach repentance and water baptism :)


Actually, I don't believe in water baptism. I'm with the Quakers on this one.













just kidding

[Pressing-On]

The apostles definitely taught Acts 2:38! LOL!!

I'd suggest you review early church history a little closer first. Faith and repentance was taught, as was water baptism in order to have your sins remitted. I don't know what they taught about the infilling of the Spirit but there was some visible sign noted in the book of Acts (Acts 2, 8, 10, 19) and it was assumed that folks knew when they had received the Spirit of God. Acts 19.
Isn't it amazing, the very words of Jesus Christ in Luke 24:

24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (45) Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (46)And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (48) And ye are witnesses of these things.(49)And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."

Who tarried in Jerusalem?

Acts 2:13 "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. (14) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Acts 2:14 "But Peter, standing up with the eleven..."

Peter and ALL the apostle were present, including the mother of Jesus.

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

No, they didn't preach Acts 2:38. Yes, they did! LOL!

[MissBrattified]

Isn't it amazing, the very words of Jesus Christ in Luke 24:

24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (45) Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (46)And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (48) And ye are witnesses of these things.(49)And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."

Who tarried in Jerusalem?

Acts 2:13 "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. (14) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Acts 2:14 "But Peter, standing up with the eleven..."

Peter and ALL the apostle were present, including the mother of Jesus.

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

No, they didn't preach Acts 2:38. Yes, they did! LOL!

Great post! :thumbsup

[Jeffrey]

Isn't it amazing, the very words of Jesus Christ in Luke 24:

24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (45) Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (46)And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (48) And ye are witnesses of these things.(49)And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."

Who tarried in Jerusalem?

Acts 2:13 "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. (14) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Acts 2:14 "But Peter, standing up with the eleven..."

Peter and ALL the apostle were present, including the mother of Jesus.

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

No, they didn't preach Acts 2:38. Yes, they did! LOL!

Preaching "Acts 2:38" in this thread is of course not denying that they preached repentance and water baptism. It's denying they viewed such in the way that Classical Pentecostals do.

God's gift of salvation is withheld until you've repented, have been baptized with the right things said over you by a qualified person, and have received the Spirit baptism with tongues as evidence. Ironically, there is scanty evidence for such interpretation.

[MissBrattified]

Preaching "Acts 2:38" in this thread is of course not denying that they preached repentance and water baptism. It's denying they viewed such in the way that Classical Pentecostals do.

God's gift of salvation is withheld until you've repented, have been baptized with the right things said over you by a qualified person, and have received the Spirit baptism with tongues as evidence. Ironically, there is scanty evidence for such interpretation.

Do you believe there are people who receive salvation without repentance?

Or are you just lumping repentance together with baptism and spirit baptism for the 3-step interpretation?

[Pressing-On]

Preaching "Acts 2:38" in this thread is of course not denying that they preached repentance and water baptism. It's denying they viewed such in the way that Classical Pentecostals do.

God's gift of salvation is withheld until you've repented, have been baptized with the right things said over you by a qualified person, and have received the Spirit baptism with tongues as evidence. Ironically, there is scanty evidence for such interpretation.

Galatians 1:6 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." :tissue

:D

[Jermyn Davidson]

Do you believe there are people who receive salvation without repentance?

Or are you just lumping repentance together with baptism and spirit baptism for the 3-step interpretation?



You asked someone else, but I'd like to respond too.


No one is saved without repentance.

The physical act of getting baptized in water doesn't save anyone, but it's the answer (condition) of a repentant heart that allows one to obey this Biblical mandate that reflects that salvation, that change.

Speaking in tongues is not the Holy Ghost-- it's a sign of the Holy Ghost, it's a sign of being baptized in the Spirit which I believe is separate experience from salvation.


That said, I sure would not want anyone that I love to not be filled with the Holy Ghost and FIRE.

[Sam]

...
Did the Apostles EVER preach Acts 2:38 as the standard of salvation?


I am leaning towards, "No."

You didn't ask me but I'll butt in and interject my opinion.

In my opinion, the Apostles preached salvation based on the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. Acts 2:21, 3:19 and 10:43 show what the Apostle Peter preached. Acts 13:38-39, and 16:31 show what the Apostle Paul preached and he reiterated it in Romans 10:9-13. The Apostle John gave us the words of Jesus on how to be saved in John 3:14-18, and then in verse 36 of that third chapter. He repeated pretty much the same thing in John 5:24 and summarized it in John 20:31. In his first epistle he said pretty clearly, "If you believe that Jesus is the Christ --that he is God's Son and your Savior--then you are a child of God" (1 John 5:1). We are to believe in Jesus through the words of the Apostles according to John 17:20.

The Apostles preached that people are saved by faith. However, they did practice water baptism and it was often administered soon (some times the same day) that a person was saved. And it is some times reported that they imparted the Holy Ghost Baptism after the salvation/conversion experience. So that is the "Apostolic" Gospel and that is the way Acts 2:38 was fulfilled in the lives of many in the first century.

[Pressing-On]

The physical act of getting baptized in water doesn't save anyone,

Ummm, yeah, it kinda does. lol


"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." Mark 16:16.

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission/forgiveness of sins Acts 2:38

You have to obey the whole dealeo to get saved and you can't belong to Jesus without His Spirit dwelling in you. Romans 8:9 "...Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

Basically, IMO, I'm much safer finding out how the Bible views our being "infilled" with His Spirit. The Apostles identified that whith much more support and evidence than people who come up with having received the Spirit any other way - (Acts 2, 8, 10, 19).

[TheLayman]

:ursofunnyThat's funny.

But this raises an interesting...to me anyway...question. I've always assumed that when someone says, "The bible is the infalllible Word of God, there are no errors, jot & tittle, blah, blah, blah", they meant that the couple thousand pages wrapped in leather (or fake leather if it was cheap) we hold in our hand was IT, and I mean IT!

So is it possible to hold the bible, the infallible Word of God, in one's hand and yet, that infallible Word of God/bible have errors? Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me.

It seems like I'm hearing that there's a theoretical infallible Word of God but we can't actually have it, thus the smart remark I made about the bible book store being fresh out of original manuscripts (which wouldn't do me any good because I flunked Greek in college...which wouldn't have done me any good anyway if I had gotten an A because the class was a joke).

Hello n-o-w:

Many people believe that our Bible is simply copied from "the text" which has no variations. This can actually cause some people to lose their faith when they find out otherwise. But we have over 5,500 Greek Manuscripts alone (counting fragments). We have over 18,000 copies which includes Latin (and Latin texts came from both Greek, but also from Old Latin, and people began to copy these writings into Old Latin very early on). No other ancient text has such an incredible witness. In fact, all other ancient texts combined can not come near this witness.

Are there variations? Yes. Someone like Bart Ehrman will tell you there are thousands of errors (variations). But probably in the neighborhood of 99% of those are things like spelling errors and other incosequential copyist errors. Then, there are some actual variants with regard to certain passages. But even with these, none has ever been shown to change any Biblical doctrine.

The point here is that all of these copies and even the variants actually attest to the integrity of Scripture, they do not testify against it. Personally, I find it quite remarkable to think about.

If you're interested in this sort of thing I can recommend a couple of books. A good entry level book on the formation of Canon and the texts would be "From God to Us" by Norman Geisler and William Nix

http://www.christianbook.com/from-god-to-us/norman-geisler/9780802428783/pd/2428789?item_code=WW&netp_id=128133&event=ESRCN&view=details

And if you'd like something with a little more meat I would recommend "the Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce:

http://www.christianbook.com/the-canon-of-scripture/f-f-bruce/9780830812585/pd/1258?item_code=WW&netp_id=106962&event=ESRCN&view=details

With that in mind, there is not a single variant reading of Matthew 28:19, and all of the earliest extra-Biblical quotations of the passage attest to its accuracy. All evidence is in favor of 28:19, which is why I said if someone thinks this passage is spurious they should just throw their Bible away.

TheLayman

[Jeffrey]

Galatians 1:6 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." :tissue

:D

Who are these that Paul was talking about? Context?

Can't let you guys get away with proof-texting anymore :nah

(In other words, I believe, affirm, stand by Paul's words to the Galatians)

Question: What is the Gospel to you? :)

[Jeffrey]

Do you believe there are people who receive salvation without repentance?

Or are you just lumping repentance together with baptism and spirit baptism for the 3-step interpretation?

I believe salvation is a gift we accept upon faith in Jesus. Those who trust and believe Jesus will repent (deny themselves as God, and make Him God instead), and will participate in all the beautiful Christian initiations: baptism, Lord's Supper, sanctification (both an automatic reckoning and a progressive outworking in the believer's life), etc...

[Pressing-On]

Who are these that Paul was talking about? Context?

Can't let you guys get away with proof-texting anymore :nah

(In other words, I believe, affirm, stand by Paul's words to the Galatians)

Question: What is the Gospel to you? :)
The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

"Repent (death), and be baptized (burial) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (resurrection)." Acts 2:38

All of your swelling terminology isn't going to change the simplicity of Peter's message nor the acts of the Apostles in the Book of Acts. Just sayin'...... :D

[Jeffrey]

The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

"Repent (death), and be baptized (burial) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (resurrection)." Acts 2:38

All of your swelling terminology isn't going to change the simplicity of Peter's message nor the acts of the Apostles in the Book of Acts. Just sayin'...... :D

That's the good news? He died, was buried and rose again? What does that mean for me?

You've just done a classic no-no by inserting your Acts 2:38 pet into what the Gospel is. The Gospel is not a HOW, it's a WHAT.

It's not really "swelling terminology", PO.

[Pressing-On]

That's the good news? He died, was buried and rose again? What does that mean for me?

You've just done a classic no-no by inserting your Acts 2:38 pet into what the Gospel is. The Gospel is not a HOW, it's a WHAT.

It's not really "swelling terminology", PO.
I'm baking a cake for someone and I don't have a lot of time to sit down and post in length today. This subject can't be discussed without some time put in to it. Of course, we probably won't agree at the end of the conversation anyway, right?

I believe what Peter preached and how it played out in the Book of Acts. I see it in all of the Epistles.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Ummm, yeah, it kinda does. lol


"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." Mark 16:16.

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission/forgiveness of sins Acts 2:38

You have to obey the whole dealeo to get saved and you can't belong to Jesus without His Spirit dwelling in you. Romans 8:9 "...Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

Basically, IMO, I'm much safer finding out how the Bible views our being "infilled" with His Spirit. The Apostles identified that whith much more support and evidence than people who come up with having received the Spirit any other way - (Acts 2, 8, 10, 19).



So did Paul give the jailer an incomplete gospel message?

Did God purposely let something mandatory be left out of the Bible in several instances, when it comes to soul salvation?

Did God move Phillip away from a new convert before he was fully converted, leaving the Ethiopian to be half-baked and thus wholly lost?

In Acts 3 when Peter preached, "Repent and be converted" was he haphazzardly giving a condensed version of the saving Gospel, thinking that everyone else was going to know where to pick up?


"Believe in your heart... and confess with your mouth.... and you shall be saved...." Where does the physical act of baptism come into play in the "working" of salvation?


Acts 2:39 says that, "... the PROMISE is unto you and your children and all those afar off...."

It does not say that this COMMAND is for you and your children and all....


Abraham was declared righteous, not after he attained the Promise, but when in faith he obeyed God in faith, pursuing God's PROMISE for him.

Is Abraham an example for us?


And while we are talking about doing things exactly like they did in the book of Acts, when was the last time an Apostolic preacher passionately expressed the Biblical mandate for Christians to avoid rare and medium rare steaks???



It's IMPOSSIBLE to preach that one MUST speak in tongues to confirm salvation or in order to attain salvation without ADDING TO THE BIBLE.




The guy who tampered with Matthew 28:19 no doubt had good intentions too.

[Sam]

So did Paul give the jailer an incomplete gospel message?

Did God purposely let something mandatory be left out of the Bible in several instances, when it comes to soul salvation?

Did God move Phillip away from a new convert before he was fully converted, leaving the Ethiopian to be half-baked and thus wholly lost?

In Acts 3 when Peter preached, "Repent and be converted" was he haphazzardly giving a condensed version of the saving Gospel, thinking that everyone else was going to know where to pick up?


"Believe in your heart... and confess with your mouth.... and you shall be saved...." Where does the physical act of baptism come into play in the "working" of salvation?


Acts 2:39 says that, "... the PROMISE is unto you and your children and all those afar off...."

It does not say that this COMMAND is for you and your children and all....


Abraham was declared righteous, not after he attained the Promise, but when in faith he obeyed God in faith, pursuing God's PROMISE for him.

Is Abraham an example for us?


And while we are talking about doing things exactly like they did in the book of Acts, when was the last time an Apostolic preacher passionately expressed the Biblical mandate for Christians to avoid rare and medium rare steaks???



It's IMPOSSIBLE to preach that one MUST speak in tongues to confirm salvation or in order to attain salvation without ADDING TO THE BIBLE.




The guy who tampered with Matthew 28:19 no doubt had good intentions too.

Keep thinking like that and you might wind up an "old fashioned" Apostolic like the folks preached it for years before the militant three-steppers gained control of the UPC by hostile takeover.

[notofworks]

Hello n-o-w:

Many people believe that our Bible is simply copied from "the text" which has no variations. This can actually cause some people to lose their faith when they find out otherwise. But we have over 5,500 Greek Manuscripts alone (counting fragments). We have over 18,000 copies which includes Latin (and Latin texts came from both Greek, but also from Old Latin, and people began to copy these writings into Old Latin very early on). No other ancient text has such an incredible witness. In fact, all other ancient texts combined can not come near this witness.

Are there variations? Yes. Someone like Bart Ehrman will tell you there are thousands of errors (variations). But probably in the neighborhood of 99% of those are things like spelling errors and other incosequential copyist errors. Then, there are some actual variants with regard to certain passages. But even with these, none has ever been shown to change any Biblical doctrine.

The point here is that all of these copies and even the variants actually attest to the integrity of Scripture, they do not testify against it. Personally, I find it quite remarkable to think about.

If you're interested in this sort of thing I can recommend a couple of books. A good entry level book on the formation of Canon and the texts would be "From God to Us" by Norman Geisler and William Nix

http://www.christianbook.com/from-god-to-us/norman-geisler/9780802428783/pd/2428789?item_code=WW&netp_id=128133&event=ESRCN&view=details

And if you'd like something with a little more meat I would recommend "the Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce:

http://www.christianbook.com/the-canon-of-scripture/f-f-bruce/9780830812585/pd/1258?item_code=WW&netp_id=106962&event=ESRCN&view=details

With that in mind, there is not a single variant reading of Matthew 28:19, and all of the earliest extra-Biblical quotations of the passage attest to its accuracy. All evidence is in favor of 28:19, which is why I said if someone thinks this passage is spurious they should just throw their Bible away.

TheLayman


Well, thanks for all the information I'm already aware of, but you're missing my point. I was raised, even taught in bible school, and even continue to hear today, people get out their "Authorized Text", The King James Version, the book assembled by 47 trinitarians, for a gay king, and declare that it is absolutely perfect in every way. Spotless, infallible, unquestionable, the absolute Word of God in every possible way.

Many will loudly discredit other translations and even the liberal folks that use things like the NIV will cry about my favorite, the NLT. It just surprises me to see people who believe the bible is perfect, say that it has errors. This moves beyond a translation question.....every bible I've seen say, "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" in Matthew 28:19.

What I'm trying to get at is this...if the bible is the infallible inerrant Word of God and if all our current translations have mistakes, where can I buy one that's the infallible Word of God?

[notofworks]

So did Paul give the jailer an incomplete gospel message?

Did God purposely let something mandatory be left out of the Bible in several instances, when it comes to soul salvation?

Did God move Phillip away from a new convert before he was fully converted, leaving the Ethiopian to be half-baked and thus wholly lost?

In Acts 3 when Peter preached, "Repent and be converted" was he haphazzardly giving a condensed version of the saving Gospel, thinking that everyone else was going to know where to pick up?


"Believe in your heart... and confess with your mouth.... and you shall be saved...." Where does the physical act of baptism come into play in the "working" of salvation?


Acts 2:39 says that, "... the PROMISE is unto you and your children and all those afar off...."

It does not say that this COMMAND is for you and your children and all....


Abraham was declared righteous, not after he attained the Promise, but when in faith he obeyed God in faith, pursuing God's PROMISE for him.

Is Abraham an example for us?


And while we are talking about doing things exactly like they did in the book of Acts, when was the last time an Apostolic preacher passionately expressed the Biblical mandate for Christians to avoid rare and medium rare steaks???



It's IMPOSSIBLE to preach that one MUST speak in tongues to confirm salvation or in order to attain salvation without ADDING TO THE BIBLE.




The guy who tampered with Matthew 28:19 no doubt had good intentions too.



You're asking great questions, Jermyn. You were doing good until that last sentence, but you're on the right track!

[Sam]

... What I'm trying to get at is this...if the bible is the infallible inerrant Word of God and if all our current translations have mistakes, where can I buy one that's the infallible Word of God?

My opinion, when you open up your Bible, whether NLT, TLB, NKJV, NRSV, Message, Jerusalem Bible, NEB, ESV, ISV, RSV, NASB, even gasp, choke, sputter, the NIV, you hold in your hand the infallible, inerrant Word of God.

I personally prefer KJV and NKJV (because it is so much like the KJV). Maybe because of my age, I'm a little suspect of versions which incorporate stuff from the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus in preference to the TR.

But, I do believe that even though we do not have the original manuscripts written by the apostles and prophets, we have the closest thing to them that is humanly (and maybe even with a little Divine help) possible.

[Jermyn Davidson]

You're asking great questions, Jermyn. You were doing good until that last sentence, but you're on the right track!

Buddy,

That last sentence is just as valid as my other questions.


Not only does the Bible not record any physical water baptisms using the "titles", but extra-biblical history also shows that the earliest Christians did not use the Trinitarian formula for water baptism.


Not only that, you would be hard-pressed to find a Trinitarian preacher who preaches the BIBLICAL COMMAND for the earliest Christians to abstain from rare and medium rare steaks.


Face it, we're all guilty, all right and all wrong all at the same time.

Yet, we have a God and Savior who died a criminal's death of the cruelest kind just so that we can have the chance to see through a dark glass to catch a glimpse of the love of our Creator.

[notofworks]

My opinion, when you open up your Bible, whether NLT, TLB, NKJV, NRSV, Message, Jerusalem Bible, NEB, ESV, ISV, RSV, NASB, even gasp, choke, sputter, the NIV, you hold in your hand the infallible, inerrant Word of God.

I personally prefer KJV and NKJV (because it is so much like the KJV). Maybe because of my age, I'm a little suspect of versions which incorporate stuff from the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus in preference to the TR.

But, I do believe that even though we do not have the original manuscripts written by the apostles and prophets, we have the closest thing to them that is humanly (and maybe even with a little Divine help) possible.


So...when you hold in your hand the KJV or the NKJV, are you holding in your hand, literature that has absolutely no mistakes or errors?

[notofworks]

Buddy,

That last sentence is just as valid as my other questions.


Not only does the Bible not record any physical water baptisms using the "titles", but extra-biblical history also shows that the earliest Christians did not use the Trinitarian formula for water baptism.


Not only that, you would be hard-pressed to find a Trinitarian preacher who preaches the BIBLICAL COMMAND for the earliest Christians to abstain from rare and medium rare steaks.


Face it, we're all guilty, all right and all wrong all at the same time.

Yet, we have a God and Savior who died a criminal's death of the cruelest kind just so that we can have the chance to see through a dark glass to catch a glimpse of the love of our Creator.


....nor is there any place in the NT where anyone was baptized with someone saying, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus....". My official incredibly complex theological position on the matter is, I don't think it matters what one says when one is baptized.

It would be hard to find anyone who preaches against rare or medium rare steaks. Well, maybe I'll preach against rare steaks because thought of a bloody steak is disgusting. Yebshick.....I just shivered at the thought. But do you really think that's what is intended with that command...that we can't eat rare or medium rare steaks?

[TheLayman]

Well, thanks for all the information I'm already aware of, but you're missing my point. I was raised, even taught in bible school, and even continue to hear today, people get out their "Authorized Text", The King James Version, the book assembled by 47 trinitarians, for a gay king, and declare that it is absolutely perfect in every way. Spotless, infallible, unquestionable, the absolute Word of God in every possible way.

Many will loudly discredit other translations and even the liberal folks that use things like the NIV will cry about my favorite, the NLT. It just surprises me to see people who believe the bible is perfect, say that it has errors. This moves beyond a translation question.....every bible I've seen say, "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" in Matthew 28:19.

What I'm trying to get at is this...if the bible is the infallible inerrant Word of God and if all our current translations have mistakes, where can I buy one that's the infallible Word of God?

I see...I think. You are talking about the KJV only people. Funny thing, when I was young I think most protestants were KJV only people. The Revised Standard took a terrible beating because it was the first translation to update language and correct some "errors" and this was seen as an attack of "the Word of God" rather than updating. Frankly, I still find the old Revised Standard a very good translation. Now the NASB was next, and in seemed to get a much better footing with protestants, at least for a little while. Then it came under attack. The NIV has come under attack. The NLT and so on and so forth. When people ask me, "What do you think would be the best translation for me to buy?" my answer is always the same. Go to a Christian bookstore, sit down, read the same passages from as many different translations as you can. And when you are done comparing the translations the one which you are most likely to read is the one you should buy. What's more is that I do not recommend the KJV (althought the New KJV is nice) to most people because archaic English can be easily misunderstood.

I think there are some criticisms that can be legitimate. For example, a functional equivalent can become more of an intepretation than a translation at the far end of the spectrum. On the other end, a strict formal equivalent can be so literal that the actual meaning of the text may be misunderstood. That said, they are all very good. That's why the best Bible to buy is the one you will read.

You will have to forgive me for giving you information that you are already aware of. I thought your question was sincere and I was simply offering information that I thought might be helpful. As to what the "perfect" translation might be from the "perfect text" would be is a tough question, especially since the Apostles quoted from both the Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint. There were variant readings of some passages in these two texts and the Aposltes often quoted from the Septuagint even when it was at variance with the Masoretic text.

TheLayman

[Jermyn Davidson]

....nor is there any place in the NT where anyone was baptized with someone saying, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus....". My official incredibly complex theological position on the matter is, I don't think it matters what one says when one is baptized.

It would be hard to find anyone who preaches against rare or medium rare steaks. Well, maybe I'll preach against rare steaks because thought of a bloody steak is disgusting. Yebshick.....I just shivered at the thought. But do you really think that's what is intended with that command...that we can't eat rare or medium rare steaks?





Do you have any other interpretational ideas for that scripture?


How does one explain that away so that their verison of Christianity stays valid in their own eyes?

[Pressing-On]

So did Paul give the jailer an incomplete gospel message?

Did God purposely let something mandatory be left out of the Bible in several instances, when it comes to soul salvation?

Did God move Phillip away from a new convert before he was fully converted, leaving the Ethiopian to be half-baked and thus wholly lost?

In Acts 3 when Peter preached, "Repent and be converted" was he haphazzardly giving a condensed version of the saving Gospel, thinking that everyone else was going to know where to pick up?


"Believe in your heart... and confess with your mouth.... and you shall be saved...." Where does the physical act of baptism come into play in the "working" of salvation?


Acts 2:39 says that, "... the PROMISE is unto you and your children and all those afar off...."

It does not say that this COMMAND is for you and your children and all....


Abraham was declared righteous, not after he attained the Promise, but when in faith he obeyed God in faith, pursuing God's PROMISE for him.

Is Abraham an example for us?


And while we are talking about doing things exactly like they did in the book of Acts, when was the last time an Apostolic preacher passionately expressed the Biblical mandate for Christians to avoid rare and medium rare steaks???



It's IMPOSSIBLE to preach that one MUST speak in tongues to confirm salvation or in order to attain salvation without ADDING TO THE BIBLE.




The guy who tampered with Matthew 28:19 no doubt had good intentions too.
I find it rather incredulous that some would overlook the fact that the events Jesus spoke about would take place (Luke 24) actually were fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). I also find it incredulous that we think that Peter, standing with the other eleven Apostles, Jesus' mother and his brethren, and think that it is even necessary to line out Acts 2:38 in every event in Acts. The idea has been expressed, we understand it. When we study the whole, we know what is all entailed in "Believe on HIM". That's a no brainer, IMO.

I read this by a poster. If this is where some want to take the salvation message, I'm not going there. I don't see this in the scriptures, at all.


In my opinion, Acts 2:38 presents three separate experiences:
salvation,
water baptism,
Spirit baptism

Those who believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are saved or born again.
Water baptism is important but not salvational.
The Holy Ghost Baptism is important but not salvational.

From the first century until today in 2010, anyone who puts their faith in Jesus is born again and is in "The Church" whether they ever get baptized in water or not and whether they ever get baptized in the Spirit or not. And that is how Jesus Christ has had a Church for the past 2000 years.

[notofworks]

I see...I think. You are talking about the KJV only people. Funny thing, when I was young I think most protestants were KJV only people. The Revised Standard took a terrible beating because it was the first translation to update language and correct some "errors" and this was seen as an attack of "the Word of God" rather than updating. Frankly, I still find the old Revised Standard a very good translation. Now the NASB was next, and in seemed to get a much better footing with protestants, at least for a little while. Then it came under attack. The NIV has come under attack. The NLT and so on and so forth. When people ask me, "What do you think would be the best translation for me to buy?" my answer is always the same. Go to a Christian bookstore, sit down, read the same passages from as many different translations as you can. And when you are done comparing the translations the one which you are most likely to read is the one you should buy. What's more is that I do not recommend the KJV (althought the New KJV is nice) to most people because archaic English can be easily misunderstood.

I think there are some criticisms that can be legitimate. For example, a functional equivalent can become more of an intepretation than a translation at the far end of the spectrum. On the other end, a strict formal equivalent can be so literal that the actual meaning of the text may be misunderstood. That said, they are all very good. That's why the best Bible to buy is the one you will read.

You will have to forgive me for giving you information that you are already aware of. I thought your question was sincere and I was simply offering information that I thought might be helpful. As to what the "perfect" translation might be from the "perfect text" would be is a tough question, especially since the Apostles quoted from both the Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint. There were variant readings of some passages in these two texts and the Aposltes often quoted from the Septuagint even when it was at variance with the Masoretic text.

TheLayman

First, I'm sorry for saying, "You're missing my point" that bluntly. That was rude.

Second, I'm a little different when people ask me what bible to buy. I say, "Get a New Living Translation or you're going to hell." I say it like it is.

Third, I guess what you're saying is, there are perfect manuscripts but not necessarily perfect translations? Or something in that neighborhood?

Fourth, I was kidding about the NLT....well, sorta. :)

Last, I actually DO consider the possibility that the bible contains.....uhhhh.....inaccuracies. But I'm not terribly concerned with the translators playing games. I consider the possibility that certain writers may have (and I'm gonna get shot for this), well, missed a detail or two, or added a detail or two. I probably better leave it at that or the "get off this forum" PM's will start arriving! :)

[Timmy]

Buddy,

That last sentence is just as valid as my other questions.


Not only does the Bible not record any physical water baptisms using the "titles", but extra-biblical history also shows that the earliest Christians did not use the Trinitarian formula for water baptism.


Not only that, you would be hard-pressed to find a Trinitarian preacher who preaches the BIBLICAL COMMAND for the earliest Christians to abstain from rare and medium rare steaks.


Face it, we're all guilty, all right and all wrong all at the same time.

Yet, we have a God and Savior who died a criminal's death of the cruelest kind just so that we can have the chance to see through a dark glass to catch a glimpse of the love of our Creator.

Jermyn, are you referring to Acts 15:29? If so, are you supposing that abstaining from blood actually means abstaining from the raw blood you might find in a rare steak (even though meat is drained of blood as part of the processing, there will be small amounts left)? So, would it be OK to each cooked blood, as you would find in blood sausage, e.g.? How about boiled blood? How much cooking does God require?

Is this an example of a doctrine that is both important and clear? See http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=29394. :D

[Jermyn Davidson]

I find it rather incredulous that some would overlook the fact that the events Jesus spoke about would take place (Luke 24) actually were fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). I also find it incredulous that we think that Peter, standing with the other eleven Apostles, Jesus' mother and his brethren, and think that it is even necessary to line out Acts 2:38 in every event in Acts. The idea has been expressed, we understand it. When we study the whole, we know what is all entailed in "Believe on HIM". That's a no brainer, IMO.

I read this by a poster. If this is where some want to take the salvation message, I'm not going there. I don't see this in the scriptures, at all.


It's a command to not sin. Christians should not sin, should avoid sin, should avoid the appearance of sin. "Unrepented" of sin can keep keep a soul from salvation.

But do you stop sinning so that you can come to Christ?

Or do you come to Christ so that He can empower you to stop sinning?


Water baptism can be seen the same way. YES! Water baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ is a COMMAND, but it is not explained in the Bible by Peter to be performed in a way to attain salvation.

According to Peter, water baptism is performed to show your good conscience, your converted heart.

The same Apostle who preached Acts 2:38 explained the role of water baptism. The act doesn't save us and that is what Peter said.

The Apostle Paul baptized folks in the Bible, in the Name of Jesus, as this was the proper way, ordained by Christ Himself, that we should "fulfil all righteousness."


Everywhere anyone was baptized in the Bible, they BELIEVED the Gospel first and then to demonstrate their faith in Jesus Christ, their change of heart, they were baptized with the NAME of Jesus spoken over them.



Notice the language that our God and Savior used. Paraphrased, "I must be baptized to fulfill all righteousness."

Notice He didn't say to make me righteous or to give me full righteousness.

If that was the role of baptism, would Jesus needed to be baptized?


Any "sincere" Christian believer who refuses water baptism may not have had the Gospel and the role of baptism presented to them clearly. Or maybe, just maybe, their hearts may not be truly converted in FAITH to live out their lives for Jesus Christ.





I would NEVER tell someone that baptism is optional. The Bible does not present its COMMANDS as options like a Cosmic Christian Combo Meal.

However, the way we present the commands of the Bible can change the spirit of the law if we are not careful.

The Gospel of Liberty, presented the wrong way, can quickly become a man-ordained gospel of human performance and bondage.


Read Galatians 3, again.



As for the doctrine of the infilling of the Holy Ghost, it is settled, Biblically speaking, that to present the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ in a way that leads a person to believe that they must speak in tongues to be saved is to add to the Bible.


Besides, the Holy Spirit infilling will come to those with saving faith in Jesus Christ, who seek Him.

When you go to the store to buy a shoe, do you check out the tongue of the shoe?

But when you leave with your new shoes, the tongue is there, right?
(Ok Timmy, leaving out sandals and some boots....)


You run the danger of presenting a human performance-based Gospel when you present the Gospel with the extra-biblical stipulation that you must speak in tongues before you are saved.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Jermyn, are you referring to Acts 15:29? If so, are you supposing that abstaining from blood actually means abstaining from the raw blood you might find in a rare steak (even though meat is drained of blood as part of the processing, there will be small amounts left)? So, would it be OK to each cooked blood, as you would find in blood sausage, e.g.? How about boiled blood? How much cooking does God require?

Is this an example of a doctrine that is both important and clear? See http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=29394. :D



It is a BIBLICAL NEW TESTAMENT COMMAND FOR NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS WHO WANT TO DO THINGS EXACTLY LIKE THE NEW TESTAMENT APOSTLES DID IT THAT THEY SHOULD ONLY EAT KOSHER MEATS.


So even if we got around the "blood" reference, what about the "strangled" reference?


My point is, like I said:

"Face it, we're all guilty, all right and all wrong all at the same time.

Yet, we have a God and Savior who died a criminal's death of the cruelest kind just so that we can have the chance to see through a dark glass to catch a glimpse of the love of our Creator."

[Timmy]

It is a BIBLICAL NEW TESTAMENT COMMAND FOR NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS WHO WANT TO DO THINGS EXACTLY LIKE THE NEW TESTAMENT APOSTLES DID IT THAT THEY SHOULD ONLY EAT KOSHER MEATS.


So even if we got around the "blood" reference, what about the "strangled" reference?


My point is, like I said:

"Face it, we're all guilty, all right and all wrong all at the same time.

Yet, we have a God and Savior who died a criminal's death of the cruelest kind just so that we can have the chance to see through a dark glass to catch a glimpse of the love of our Creator."

Hey, I'm not trying to get around it. I'm just trying to help you know exactly how to obey it! :ursofunny

[Jeffrey]

I find it rather incredulous that some would overlook the fact that the events Jesus spoke about would take place (Luke 24) actually were fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). I also find it incredulous that we think that Peter, standing with the other eleven Apostles, Jesus' mother and his brethren, and think that it is even necessary to line out Acts 2:38 in every event in Acts. The idea has been expressed, we understand it. When we study the whole, we know what is all entailed in "Believe on HIM". That's a no brainer, IMO.

I read this by a poster. If this is where some want to take the salvation message, I'm not going there. I don't see this in the scriptures, at all.

I held your view for a long time. Your response helps eliminate discussion of the evidence (take the broadest of all potential definitions, and apply that to all passages). There is great error here. One of those great errors is actually believing that the Apostle in 95% of the time when he spoke about justification, righteousness, salvation, etc... he forgot the HUGE pieces that dominate our 3-stepper language today is somewhat "incredulous" itself.

Paul never wrote a letter expecting them to "study all other letters" to understand what he was saying. There is benefit, of course, to context in whole, be it the entire verse, entire chapter, entire letter/book or entire Bible for that matter! But assuming a writer's words are incomplete until they've been compared with all other words is a fallacy. We don't just assign the broadest meaning on all terms, especially when it's quite possible our "broadest meaning" is potentially incorrectly understood, and better understood in light of the majority text on that subject. The dangers could be some of which you would even agree (if I had time to give specific examples).

No one disagrees with Peter. Plenty disagree with the implications of what you claim Peter is saying. Peter was not giving a systematic theology, didactic teaching or a step-by-step menu of salvation. He was telling people what to do, which is what all Christian churches do today. Turn to God (repent), be baptized and you will receive the Spirit.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Hey, I'm not trying to get around it. I'm just trying to help you know exactly how to obey it! :ursofunny

:)


Timmy, do you see the point I'm trying to make?

It's not that our salvation is made invalid because we aren't eating kosher meats.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is not a Christian doing everything EXACTLY like the Bible portrays in the Book of Acts.

This is important to me because helps me realize that I can no longer point at Trinitarians who have been baptized in the "titles" and say to myself and preach to others that they are lost because they didn't do it right.


No one does EVERYTHING EXACTLY right! ALL OF US NEED GOD'S GRACE and without it, NONE OF US WILL BE SAVED!

[Sam]

So...when you hold in your hand the KJV or the NKJV, are you holding in your hand, literature that has absolutely no mistakes or errors?

I wish I could say an unequivocal "yes" to that question.

I believe the originals were mistake free.
I believe the care that was taken over the years by copyists kept them "almost" mistake free --as mistake free as humanly possible.
I believe that God has "preserved" his Word/Revelation.
I trust that by comparing the multitudes of copies to each other the errors have been found and culled out by using a system of checks and balances.
I believe that God has watched over even the jots and tittles.
I believe that God has kept them free of any "major" error that could affect us eternally.

As I said, I believe that when I hold a copy of a Bible in my hand I can say with confidence that it is the eternal and infallible Word of God.

But, I can't say that there are no mistakes.

[Pressing-On]

I held your view for a long time. Your response helps eliminate discussion of the evidence (take the broadest of all potential definitions, and apply that to all passages). There is great error here. One of those great errors is actually believing that the Apostle in 95% of the time when he spoke about justification, righteousness, salvation, etc... he forgot the HUGE pieces that dominate our 3-stepper language today is somewhat "incredulous" itself.

Paul never wrote a letter expecting them to "study all other letters" to understand what he was saying. There is benefit, of course, to context in whole, be it the entire verse, entire chapter, entire letter/book or entire Bible for that matter! But assuming a writer's words are incomplete until they've been compared with all other words is a fallacy. We don't just assign the broadest meaning on all terms, especially when it's quite possible our "broadest meaning" is potentially incorrectly understood, and better understood in light of the majority text on that subject. The dangers could be some of which you would even agree (if I had time to give specific examples).

No one disagrees with Peter. Plenty disagree with the implications of what you claim Peter is saying. Peter was not giving a systematic theology, didactic teaching or a step-by-step menu of salvation. He was telling people what to do, which is what all Christian churches do today. Turn to God (repent), be baptized and you will receive the Spirit.
Not all churches today preach that. I just quoted someone saying that baptism does not save you. Rather, two people have said that. The Bible does not say that.

Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

First, the scripture does not say "believe and you shall be saved". It's says that if you believe and are baptized you will be saved. Obviously, if you believe you will be baptized. If you don't do both, you won't be saved. The Word says you will be damned.

1 Peter 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

Therefore, to say that Baptism does not save you, is erroneous. It is false doctrine, plain and simple.

[Sam]

....nor is there any place in the NT where anyone was baptized with someone saying, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus....". My official incredibly complex theological position on the matter is, I don't think it matters what one says when one is baptized.
...


I agree.

but still my personal preference is to say, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ."

Maybe if we all said, "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" like some (including a couple of UPC churches from what I've heard second hand) the problem would go away and we'd get along.

Maybe if we said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," then just before we dipped them we added "In Jesus' name" we'd all get along.

Nah, we've hashed that over on this forum and it still was considered unscriptural and a compromise by some.

[Timmy]

:)


Timmy, do you see the point I'm trying to make?

It's not that our salvation is made invalid because we aren't eating kosher meats.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is not a Christian doing everything EXACTLY like the Bible portrays in the Book of Acts.

This is important to me because helps me realize that I can no longer point at Trinitarians who have been baptized in the "titles" and say to myself and preach to others that they are lost because they didn't do it right.


No one does EVERYTHING EXACTLY right! ALL OF US NEED GOD'S GRACE and without it, NONE OF US WILL BE SAVED!

Yes, and it's a good point. :thumbsup

[Jermyn Davidson]

Not all churches today preach that. I just quoted someone saying that baptism does not save you. Rather, two people have said that. The Bible does not say that.

Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

First, the scripture does not say "believe and you shall be saved". It's says that if you believe and are baptized you will be saved. Obviously, if you believe you will be baptized. If you don't do both, you won't be saved. The Word says you will be damned.

1 Peter 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

Therefore, to say that Baptism does not save you, is erroneous. It is false doctrine, plain and simple.



1) Please pray for me because I could be wrong. This is meant in all sincerity too.

2) When I say that "baptism does not save", what I am speaking about is the physical act itself-- the motions of it.

Salvation is not presented as list of things that must be done.

"Alright, I've done step 1, and ok what was step 2 again?"


The same Apostle that preached Acts 2:38, also preached Acts 3:19 and 1 Peter 3:21.


In the verse you quoted, Peter explained the role of water baptism as a reflection of a conversion that has already taken place in the heart of the new Christian believer.

[Praxeas]

How about an "Acts 2:38" adherent?

That's what we're looking for. If "Acts 2:38" is "the only way to be saved" then we should find lots of people throughout history who preached that...

... no one has ever been able to find a single person.

Lot's of people "spoke in tongues" or something like it. Lots of people had "religious experiences" of shaking, joy, "illumination," you name it.

A relative handful seemed to pick up on Jesus name baptism and applied it while immersing, pouring and even sprinkling.

A few "Unitarian" style "oneness" types pop up from time to time.

But no one - not a single person - ever preached "Acts 2:38" as the standard of salvation from the time of the apostles until the time of the Apostolic Faith Movement in the early 20th century.

Otherwise, there would be a long list gathering here right now.
As THE standard of salvation? probably not, as PART of the overall picture of salvation? yes.

It's not like this verse was over looked all those years until now. There is evidence too of groups that baptized in Jesus name. Where did they get their idea?

[Praxeas]

You asked someone else, but I'd like to respond too.


No one is saved without repentance.

The physical act of getting baptized in water doesn't save anyone, but it's the answer (condition) of a repentant heart that allows one to obey this Biblical mandate that reflects that salvation, that change.

Speaking in tongues is not the Holy Ghost-- it's a sign of the Holy Ghost, it's a sign of being baptized in the Spirit which I believe is separate experience from salvation.


That said, I sure would not want anyone that I love to not be filled with the Holy Ghost and FIRE.
I wonder if this is a slippery slope....Mizpeh has encountered people that claim people are saved before repentance...that they can't repent at all until God saves them

[Praxeas]

That's the good news? He died, was buried and rose again? What does that mean for me?

You've just done a classic no-no by inserting your Acts 2:38 pet into what the Gospel is. The Gospel is not a HOW, it's a WHAT.

It's not really "swelling terminology", PO.
What does that mean for you? It means you can be redeemed and receive Eternal Life in a new Carrrr....oh wait. Sorry. I mean in a new body

[Jermyn Davidson]

I wonder if this is a slippery slope....Mizpeh has encountered people that claim people are saved before repentance...that they can't repent at all until God saves them


Prax,

I just don't want to add to the Bible.


I probably should go back to the drawing board in my studies anyway-- I know that I am quite out-of-sync with my church and leadership with these opinions anyway.



It's just that I CAN'T equate salvation with speaking in tongues!

Every Christian should be motivated to seek this experience, this Biblical PROMISE from God.

Any and every person that has not received the Holy Ghost should "go back to the altar, down on their knees and stay there till they get that Holy Ghost Power!"

But to present this Salvation in any way that would lead someone to think that, "Oh my goodness I'm not saved because I have not spoken in tongues yet," would be a grievous error that could lead someone into the wrong way of thinking about their relationship with Christ and their eternal salvation.


Again, the guy who tampered with Matthew 28:19 probably had good intentions too.

[Pressing-On]

1) Please pray for me because I could be wrong. This is meant in all sincerity too.

2) When I say that "baptism does not save", what I am speaking about is the physical act itself-- the motions of it.
As much as we hate to admit it, we got off our carcass, walked across the room and stepped into that Baptistry. It was our belief and it was our obedience that saved us. You do have to get up and get in the water. Just sayin'.....

Salvation is not presented as list of things that must be done.

"Alright, I've done step 1, and ok what was step 2 again?"
Jermyn - It is unfortunate that we are being forced to use the terms "one" and "three steppers". It takes away from the majestic beauty and power of His Word. It is our "obedience" and not "steps".

The same Apostle that preached Acts 2:38, also preached Acts 3:19 and 1 Peter 3:21.
Acts 3:19 Repent and be converted. He already preached about repentance and baptism FOR the remission/forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38. It would be a grave oversight to try and force that not to include Baptism. After all, that was John the Baptist's message - "baptism of repentance". (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; and referenced in Acts 13:24).

What does he mean by "times of refreshing"? Isaiah 28:11-12 as referenced in I Cor 14:21-22. It is important to not pass over that as nothing. It comes from the presence of the Lord - "as the Spirit of God gave the utterance."


In the verse you quoted, Peter explained the role of water baptism as a reflection of a conversion that has already taken place in the heart of the new Christian believer.
In, simple terms the Word days that if you believe and are baptized you will be saved. If not, you will be damned. No sense in trying to term that in some other fashion. It's just plain words. Like Nike says, "Just do it!" :thumbsup LOL!

[Sam]

So did Paul give the jailer an incomplete gospel message?
...
Did God move Phillip away from a new convert before he was fully converted, leaving the Ethiopian to be half-baked and thus wholly lost?

In Acts 3 when Peter preached, "Repent and be converted" was he haphazzardly giving a condensed version of the saving Gospel, thinking that everyone else was going to know where to pick up?
...

My opinion on the three abovementioned questions:

1. When Paul told the jailer to believe, it does not say that he led him in the sinner's prayer and the jailer went home saved. It does say that Paul spoke the Word of the Lord to him and all his house. It goes on to say that he and all his house (including infants?) were baptized and that they all were believers. There is no mention of the Holy Ghost Baptism. This is OK with me because I believe they were saved when they believed, that water baptism is an important first step for new believers, and that the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) is a promise available to all believers but not experienced by all believers (and not even believed in by all believers). So, in my opinion Paul gave them a complete Gospel message.

2. the Ethiopian. Notice that Philip began at that Scripture (Isaiah 53) and "preached unto him Jesus" (Acts 8:35). We don't have a record of what Philip said, but when they "came unto a certain water" (Acts 8:36), probably the Wadi el Hesi north of Gaza, the Eunuch requested baptism. Before he agreed to baptism, Philip made sure the man was saved --was a believer. After the Eunuch's confession of faith (verse 37 which is missing in some versions) they went to the water. Here is how that story is continued as it is quoted in some old manuscripts, "...they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord fell upon the eunuch and the angel of the Lord caught Philip away... " (verses 38-39). So, here, we see all three steps: conversion/salvation, plus water baptism, plus Spirit baptism.

3. Acts 3, in my opinion Peter gave the "whole plan of salvation" when he told them to repent and be converted so that their sins would be blotted out and so that the times of refreshing would come from the presence of the Lord. Some see water baptism in the reference to the blotting out of sins and also see the HGB in the reference to the times of refreshing. I personally believe sins are forgiven/remitted/blotted out/washed away at conversion prior to water baptism. Why weren't water and Spirit baptism mentioned? Well, maybe they were. Maybe Acts 3:19 gives us a condensed version of what Peter said. Both one steppers and three steppers just have to take Acts 3:19 as it is and not try to establish a doctrine on it. I believe it doesn't speak of water baptism but does speak of the HGB. Others think it speaks of both water and Spirit baptism.

Really, one-steppers and three-steppers both believe in three steps. We just believe salvation happens at different places in the progression of those 3 steps.

In my opinion, we ought to preach Jesus, baptize people in Jesus name, minister the HGB to them and leave it up to the local pastor as to just where in that journey they were saved or born again.

Acts 2:38 contains 2 commands and one promise.
The two commands are:
1. get saved
2. get baptized in water
The promise is:
1. you shall receive the promise of the Father, the HGB

[Praxeas]

So did Paul give the jailer an incomplete gospel message?
What do you mean by that? The Jailer was baptized right? Why? Paul mus have told him. Just because Luke did not record verbatim Paul saying it does not mean Paul did not

Did God purposely let something mandatory be left out of the Bible in several instances, when it comes to soul salvation?
What does that mean? The bible is complete.

Did God move Phillip away from a new convert before he was fully converted, leaving the Ethiopian to be half-baked and thus wholly lost?
Where does the bible say the Ethiopian was not fully converted. You seem to be under the false impression that if Luke did not record something, it must not happened. That is pure assumption. We can not go beyond what is recorded. We can't assume one thing or the other. It does not say the Ethiopian was filled with the Spirit or was not filled. Thus it is not a witness in this argument

In Acts 3 when Peter preached, "Repent and be converted" was he haphazzardly giving a condensed version of the saving Gospel, thinking that everyone else was going to know where to pick up?
Why would that be haphazard?
Act 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out,
Act 3:20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus,

Act 4:4 But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.

Why would they have to know where to pick up? It's very simple,they believe Peter,they join the believers and the believers baptize them. The same thing can happen in any church, upon preaching a gospel message and at the end people come forward wanting to convert are led to make a confession of faith, repent and then are told they need to be baptized as the bible commands though the gospel message never mentioned being baptized.

"Believe in your heart... and confess with your mouth.... and you shall be saved...." Where does the physical act of baptism come into play in the "working" of salvation?
Other than it's a command and it symbolizes burial and circumcision, I don't know. Where does the physical act of confessing with your mouth come into play? Or repentance? I notice Paul did not say repentance in this verse either.

BTW did you read what Paul said about believing in your heat?

Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Kinda makes it sound like one can be justified before being saved...maybe not, but we can't just take one verse like yours or the one after it I posted and go "there".

Rom 10:13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Rom 10:14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
Rom 10:15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,

Obedience has a place. The act of obedience does not save us. It's a faith response.

Acts 2:39 says that, "... the PROMISE is unto you and your children and all those afar off...."

It does not say that this COMMAND is for you and your children and all....
So? What are you saying? That Acts 2:38 was a one time thing? Only for those Jews? God has a division in His word?

Abraham was declared righteous, not after he attained the Promise, but when in faith he obeyed God in faith, pursuing God's PROMISE for him.

Is Abraham an example for us?
He was declared just by believing God. Yet upon believing God he optained the promise of God (a near promise, not the eternal one) by obeying. He left his land and went into a better land God promised him and his offspring

And while we are talking about doing things exactly like they did in the book of Acts, when was the last time an Apostolic preacher passionately expressed the Biblical mandate for Christians to avoid rare and medium rare steaks???
Where does the New Covenant teach that steaks can't be rare or medium rare? Is there a NT precedent against red food coloring?


It's IMPOSSIBLE to preach that one MUST speak in tongues to confirm salvation or in order to attain salvation without ADDING TO THE BIBLE.
I don't think so. One does not need to add to the bible, just misunderstand it.

The guy who tampered with Matthew 28:19 no doubt had good intentions to

This assumes it was tampered with and it was a guy AND that he had good intentions.

[Pressing-On]

1) Please pray for me because I could be wrong. This is meant in all sincerity too.

BTW, I need to run, but I will pray for you because I do believe you are wrong. But take heart, it looks like you are in good company on this forum. You'll either burn together or rejoice. LOL!

Seriously, I honestly do not see the Apostles being willing to lay down their lives for "two" versions of Biblical salvation. Jude calls this our "common salvation". Common means "shared by all". We say that two views should co-exist together. I say that they cannot. I am only willing to die for one. God help us.

[Jeffrey]

As much as we hate to admit it, we got off our carcass, walked across the room and stepped into that Baptistry. It was our belief and it was our obedience that saved us. You do have to get up and get in the water. Just sayin'.....




Hmmmm....

[Praxeas]

I wonder if this is a slippery slope....Mizpeh has encountered people that claim people are saved before repentance...that they can't repent at all until God saves them

Prax,

I just don't want to add to the Bible.


I probably should go back to the drawing board in my studies anyway-- I know that I am quite out-of-sync with my church and leadership with these opinions anyway.



It's just that I CAN'T equate salvation with speaking in tongues!

Every Christian should be motivated to seek this experience, this Biblical PROMISE from God.

Any and every person that has not received the Holy Ghost should "go back to the altar, down on their knees and stay there till they get that Holy Ghost Power!"

But to present this Salvation in any way that would lead someone to think that, "Oh my goodness I'm not saved because I have not spoken in tongues yet," would be a grievous error that could lead someone into the wrong way of thinking about their relationship with Christ and their eternal salvation.


Again, the guy who tampered with Matthew 28:19 probably had good intentions too.
Im not sure why you quoted me then added all this that has nothing to do with what I said...did you know you can post stuff without quoting someone? :ursofunny

[Pressing-On]

Hmmmm....

Yea, we've been over that. Obey and obeyed is used quite often in the Bible. It's, like, an action word, Dude! :D

[Jeffrey]

Not all churches today preach that. I just quoted someone saying that baptism does not save you. Rather, two people have said that. The Bible does not say that.

Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

First, the scripture does not say "believe and you shall be saved". It's says that if you believe and are baptized you will be saved. Obviously, if you believe you will be baptized. If you don't do both, you won't be saved. The Word says you will be damned.

1 Peter 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

Therefore, to say that Baptism does not save you, is erroneous. It is false doctrine, plain and simple.

That it does not literally save you, does not mean we don't do it. That's a false assumption.

I can deal with the scriptures you referenced separately.

[Jeffrey]

Yea, we've been over that. Obey and obeyed is used quite often in the Bible. It's, like, an action word, Dude! :D

Your obedience saved you?

Think that through...

[Pressing-On]

Your obedience saved you?

Think that through...

Okay, Hmmmmmmm........Hmmmmmm......Hmmmm....


"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" I Peter 4:17

Obedience means something. :thumbsup

[notofworks]

Your obedience saved you?

Think that through...


The great...well, the tall, anyway....Jim Larson preached at Landmark years ago that "We're not saved by grace, we're saved by the doctrine" (and our obedience to it).

I wasn't there, I was told about it.

I didn't believe it.

I got the tape.

It was true.

Wow.

[Sam]

What does 1 Peter 3:21 say?

1. It says that water baptism is a figure or picture of salvation --not salvation.
2. It says baptism does not actually wash away any filth.
3. It says baptism is the answer (response) of a good conscience toward God i.e. our conscience is clear, sin is washed away, so we respond by being baptized

[Jermyn Davidson]

As much as we hate to admit it, we got off our carcass, walked across the room and stepped into that Baptistry. It was our belief and it was our obedience that saved us. You do have to get up and get in the water. Just sayin'.....


Read Ephesians 2:8-9.


Jermyn - It is unfortunate that we are being forced to use the terms "one" and "three steppers". It takes away from the majestic beauty and power of His Word. It is our "obedience" and not "steps".

Putting a different spin on what is being preached by some doesn't change the error of their preaching or the damage they are doing to the soul who gives up in frustration because they just can't do enough, be enough, and etc.


Acts 3:19 Repent and be converted. He already preached about repentance and baptism FOR the remission/forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38. It would be a grave oversight to try and force that not to include Baptism. After all, that was John the Baptist's message - "baptism of repentance". (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; and referenced in Acts 13:24).


It's not like Peter was speaking to the exact same group of people, the exact crowd at the exact location at the exact time that same day or the very next day. So either he taught two different things within a matter of days and then tried to clean it all up in one of his own letters to people he knew personally, or somehow, he preached the exact same thing in both services, with his personal letter clarifying the role of water baptism. The outcome, of course, hinges on how you interpet his two sermons.



What does he mean by "times of refreshing"? Isaiah 28:11-12 as referenced in I Cor 14:21-22. It is important to not pass over that as nothing. It comes from the presence of the Lord - "as the Spirit of God gave the utterance."



Acts 3:19 completely debunks the idea of baptismal regeneration. According to this verse, exactly as it stands, repentance and conversion is what, "blots out our sins".

However, all new converts are commanded to be baptized. Interpreting Acts 3:19 without using the other scriptures in Romans, Ephesians, Galatians and Peter's own personal letter could allow someone to interpolate the concept of baptismal regeneration here.

That "times of refreshing" is either a direct reference to the infilling of the Holy Spirit or an atmosphere to where souls may be filled with the Holy Ghost. Either way, the conversion (salvation) happens BEFORE the "times of refreshing."



In, simple terms the Word days that if you believe and are baptized you will be saved. If not, you will be damned. No sense in trying to term that in some other fashion. It's just plain words. Like Nike says, "Just do it!" :thumbsup LOL!

One, I've already done it.

Two, I'll always believe, teach, and one day preach the command of water baptism, using the NAME above every name.

Three, what is MOST IMPORTANT for me in this discussion is Biblical accuracy as to HOW the Gospel is presented, and thus believed on in the world. If it is presented in a legalistic way, you could violate the principles of liberty in the Message that was originally delievered for the reason of making men free. I don't want to to do that and I am tired of seeing the affects of that performance-based theology-- especially in the lives of backsliders.

[Jeffrey]

What does 1 Peter 3:21 say?

1. It says that water baptism is a figure or picture of salvation --not salvation.
2. It says baptism does not actually wash away any filth.
3. It says baptism is the answer (response) of a good conscience toward God i.e. our conscience is clear, sin is washed away, so we respond by being baptized

pretty darn close to how I was going to respond...

[Jermyn Davidson]

Im not sure why you quoted me then added all this that has nothing to do with what I said...did you know you can post stuff without quoting someone? :ursofunny

Prax,

On my computer, it shows your quote that I quoted to be a response to one of my posts.

That is why I responded to you.


I thought you were saying that I was headed down a slippery slope.

[Pressing-On]

Read Ephesians 2:8-9.



Putting a different spin on what is being preached by some doesn't change the error of their preaching or the damage they are doing to the soul who gives up in frustration because they just can't do enough, be enough, and etc.




It's not like Peter was speaking to the exact same group of people, the exact crowd at the exact location at the exact time that same day or the very next day. So either he taught two different things within a matter of days and then tried to clean it all up in one of his own letters to people he knew personally, or somehow, he preached the exact same thing in both services, with his personal letter clarifying the role of water baptism. The outcome, of course, hinges on how you interpet his two sermons.





Acts 3:19 completely debunks the idea of baptismal regeneration. According to this verse, exactly as it stands, repentance and conversion is what, "blots out our sins".

However, all new converts are commanded to be baptized. Interpreting Acts 3:19 without using the other scriptures in Romans, Ephesians, Galatians and Peter's own personal letter could allow someone to interpolate the concept of baptismal regeneration here.

That "times of refreshing" is either a direct reference to the infilling of the Holy Spirit or an atmosphere to where souls may be filled with the Holy Ghost. Either way, the conversion (salvation) happens BEFORE the "times of refreshing."




One, I've already done it.

Two, I'll always believe, teach, and one day preach the command of water baptism, using the NAME above every name.

Three, what is MOST IMPORTANT for me in this discussion is Biblical accuracy as to HOW the Gospel is presented, and thus believed on in the world. If it is presented in a legalistic way, you could violate the principles of liberty in the Message that was originally delievered for the reason of making men free. I don't want to to do that and I am tired of seeing the affects of that performance-based theology-- especially in the lives of backsliders.

I don't have time to respond at length, but I want to say that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater just because we've been hurt or been under legalistic teaching.

I have no loyalty to the UPC. The organization is supposed to be a tool. I wasn't raised UPC, had a friend invite me that was not a member, and I found God. I'm not going to jump ship for other error just because of the standards. In other words, even if I don't agree with everything, I'm not going to leave the basic teaching of salvation because I don't agree, totally, with the standards. That's a no-brainer.

Anyway, who cares about all of that? No one really cares for me like God. So, I will be loyal to Him.

[Jermyn Davidson]

I don't have time to respond at length, but I want to say that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater just because we've been hurt or been under legalistic teaching.

I have no loyalty to the UPC. The organization is supposed to be a tool. I wasn't raised UPC, had a friend invite me that was not a member, and I found God. I'm not going to jump ship for other error just because of the standards. In other words, even if I don't agree with everything, I'm not going to leave the basic teaching of salvation because I don't agree, totally, with the standards. That's a no-brainer.

Anyway, who cares about all of that? No one really cares for me like God. So, I will be loyal to Him.


Nagging question:


Does being "loyal to God" mean that a person should keep believing the way they were initially taught when they were in a really strong place with God?



It's so crazy to be where I am-- knowing full well that when I was 19, I prayed for guidance from God and I asked my Mom to pray for me as to whether or not I should keep believing the way I was raised or if I should go in another direction.

I prayed this prayer on a Summer Sunday night in Japan.

That Thursday, I ran into Apostolic military brothers who were having a Bible study at the Base Chapel. They were all members of the UPCI church there (the Asia Military District Church).


How can God lead me there then and God lead me here now?



Sometimes, I think I'm deceived and so I stay put.


Feel free to disregard all that I've typed in this thread.

[Pressing-On]

Nagging question:


Does being "loyal to God" mean that a person should keep believing the way they were initially taught when they were in a really strong place with God?



It's so crazy to be where I am-- knowing full well that when I was 19, I prayed for guidance from God and I asked my Mom to pray for me as to whether or not I should keep believing the way I was raised or if I should go in another direction.

I prayed this prayer on a Summer Sunday night in Japan.

That Thursday, I ran into Apostolic military brothers who were having a Bible study at the Base Chapel. They were all members of the UPCI church there (the Asia Military District Church).


How can God lead me there then and God lead me here now?



Sometimes, I think I'm deceived and so I stay put.


Feel free to disregard all that I've typed in this thread.

Jermyn
My relationship is with Jesus Christ alone. I remember laying on my bed one night and I picked up my Bible. I was attending a Baptist Church, I felt empty inside. I said, "God, I have seen the rain, snow, sleet and hail. There is something in this Bible that I am not seeing. I need you to show it to me."

A succession of events occurred until I walked into a UPC Church and felt the presence of God for the first time in my life.

All of the things I believe, God showed me when I was alone with him. For example, I was a new convert and one morning as I was waking up, apparently I was still asleep, but I felt like I was awake, I heard a woman's voice say, "Who is the father? Who is the son? Who is the Holy Ghost?" A man's voice responded, "For unto us a child is born....." God showed me who He was.

That is why I can say that I have no loyalties to an organization. I established my relationship with God before I married my husband. If I had to choose between God and my husband, I choose God. That doesn't mean I don't love my husband, but God arrested my heart when I was alone and no one cared whether I lived or died.

I accept only what He has showed me. I believe what Peter preached and I believe with all of the flaws in the UPC, we have the truth on the message of salvation.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Jermyn
My relationship is with Jesus Christ alone.

Thank you.

Yes.

Matthew 28:19 was tampered with in an effort to shore up the Doctrine of the Trinity, but not in a way that would affect the salvation of believers in Jesus Christ.

[Pressing-On]

Thank you.

Yes.

Matthew 28:19 was tampered with in an effort to shore up the Doctrine of the Trinity, but not in a way that would affect the salvation of believers in Jesus Christ.
Amen!!!!!!! "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." Isaiah 9:6

:shockamoo

[Pressing-On]

What does 1 Peter 3:21 say?

1. It says that water baptism is a figure or picture of salvation --not salvation.

"Figure" - corresponding antitype (One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type), representative (One that serves as an example), counterpart (One that closely resembles another).

"Those flood waters were like baptism that now saves you." I Peter 3:21 CEV

"...and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also." Peter 3:21 (NIV)

"And baptism, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you." I Peter 3:21 (Amplified)

[*AQuietPlace*]

Thank you.

Yes.

Matthew 28:19 was tampered with in an effort to shore up the Doctrine of the Trinity, but not in a way that would affect the salvation of believers in Jesus Christ.
So God allowed what most Oneness people consider to be a heresy (the doctrine of the trinity) to get into the very pages of our Bible?

[pelathais]

Pel,

Your post made me ask myself a question.

Did the Apostles EVER preach Acts 2:38 as the standard of salvation?


I am leaning towards, "No."
Acts 2:21 seems to have been their "standard of salvation." Peter's citation here of Joel 2, really seems to be the focus of Pentecost.

[pelathais]

I've got one!! 1992. I'll FedEx it to you. It's not doing me much good!:)
LOL. Keep it, my 1994 is still newer. I was just wondering if the the changes that were made to the Fundamental Doctrine were ever carried over to the Article of Faith.

As it stands in 1994, the new Fundamental Doctrine seriously conflicts with the Articles of Faith.

Look for DKB to get that cleared up if it hasn't already been taken care of. Gotta sweep EVERYTHING under the rug, you know.

[pelathais]

The apostles definitely taught Acts 2:38! LOL!!

I'd suggest you review early church history a little closer first. Faith and repentance was taught, as was water baptism in order to have your sins remitted. I don't know what they taught about the infilling of the Spirit but there was some visible sign noted in the book of Acts (Acts 2, 8, 10, 19) and it was assumed that folks knew when they had received the Spirit of God. Acts 19.
Can you give me an example of "Acts 2:38" "being taught" anywhere outside of Acts 2:38 at any point in history prior to 1900? LOL!!

Please feel free to use the New Testament itself as well as any document in history prior to 1900. LOL!!

We're looking for the "full package" teaching of repentance, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and the infilling of the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in other tongues. LOL!!

We have "Acts 2:38." Now where was this essential salvational message ever preached prior to 1900? LOL!!

AND PLEASE... don't get made at me and stop LOL!! Just support your assertion. Your "LOL!!" really sounded like a very nervous kind of laughter to me.

[notofworks]

LOL. Keep it, my 1994 is still newer. I was just wondering if the the changes that were made to the Fundamental Doctrine were ever carried over to the Article of Faith.

As it stands in 1994, the new Fundamental Doctrine seriously conflicts with the Articles of Faith.

Look for DKB to get that cleared up if it hasn't already been taken care of. Gotta sweep EVERYTHING under the rug, you know.


Sorry, I already mailed it. You're in Siberia, right?:lol

Sorry, I thought you were looking for something older than '94.

[pelathais]

Isn't it amazing, the very words of Jesus Christ in Luke 24:

24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (45) Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (46)And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (48) And ye are witnesses of these things.(49)And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."

Who tarried in Jerusalem?

Acts 2:13 "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. (14) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Acts 2:14 "But Peter, standing up with the eleven..."

Peter and ALL the apostle were present, including the mother of Jesus.

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

No, they didn't preach Acts 2:38. Yes, they did! LOL!
LOL! LOL!

Lemme see... your "proof" that your interpretation of Acts 2:8 was taught by the apostles appears to be limited to Acts 2, itself. LOL!

Certainly, if this (your "full package" and "3 Stepper" interpretation) was absolutely vital to salvation, then we'd see it preached by all of the apostles everywhere; and we'd see examples and citations of this belief in church history.

We find nothing.

Your attempt to link up the instructions of Jesus Christ in Luke 24, with the idea of "water baptism for the remission of sins" finds absolutely no support whatsoever in Scripture.

Moreover, this was NOT even the teaching of the United Pentecostal Church as of 1994:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2315/4508990507_5553b6621d_b.jpg

I've drawn the two boxes you see under the heading "Repentance and Conversion" for emphasis. Please note: According to the Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church (1994) Luke 24:47, was clearly associated with REPENTANCE AND CONVERSION and NOT associated with Water Baptism at all.

This follows the plain and clear teaching of the Scriptures concerning justification by faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 4, Romans 5:1; Galatians 3:11; 1 Peter 3:21 ["saved...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ']; etc.

Your teaching (LOL!) wasn't taught in the New Testament, by any of the apostles including Peter, has no witnesses whatsoever before 1900, and isn't (or at least it wasn't) even the teaching of the largest Oneness Apostolic group as of 1994. LOL!

[Sam]

Sorry, I already mailed it. You're in Siberia, right?:lol

Sorry, I thought you were looking for something older than '94.


Is that how you read all the posts here?

:ursofunny:ursofunny:ursofunny

[pelathais]

Great post! :thumbsup
What are your thoughts concerning the above evidence?

[pelathais]

Galatians 1:6 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." :tissue

:D
What have you done with Acts 2? You've had to clip out Acts 2:38 from its entire context, :tissue remove it entirely from the teachings of the rest of the NT, :tissue and then ignore the witness of almost 2,000 years of Church History, :tissue and then finally, trash the UPC's Articles of Faith. :tissue


http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Sam]

attached is a pdf file of pages 2 and 3 of the Manual of the PCI (Pentecostal Church Inc). I don't know the year, but of course, it had to be before the merger in 1945 when the UPC was formed.

Note that conversion and forgiveness of sins is considered to be the same thing.

Also note the words "triune" and "trinity" in the section on the Godhead.

[pelathais]

Ummm, yeah, it kinda does. lol
lol? The nervous laughter is dying down. Good.

And no, it not only "kinda does NOT, according to the teachings of the Apostle Peter it most certainly does NOT.

1 Peter 3:21.

" The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Peter's statement about the literal washing of one's body in water is preceded by the word "NOT" (emphasis mine). Getting wet saves no one. Jermyn's statement was:

"The physical act of getting baptized in water doesn't save anyone,"

That is clearly what Peter is addressing - the "mere" physical act of being baptized. Peter's word for this again is "NOT."

How then is one saved, according to 1 Peter 3:21?

"through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Our old time founders understood this. They preached it and they left us a great legacy of just this apostolic teaching. We've treated that legacy as though it were an unclean thing and have thrown it out at our own peril.

[notofworks]

attached is a pdf file of pages 2 and 3 of the Manual of the PCI (Pentecostal Church Inc). I don't know the year, but of course, it had to be before the merger in 1945 when the UPC was formed.

Note that conversion and forgiveness of sins is considered to be the same thing.

Also note the words "triune" and "trinity" in the section on the Godhead.


Baptism is for "converted believers"???

God is "Triune, a trinity"???

Are you serious???

Dang, maybe my heritage isn't all that bad, after all! I gotta call my relatives and tell them their forefathers believed in the trinity!! How cool!!

[pelathais]

attached is a pdf file of pages 2 and 3 of the Manual of the PCI (Pentecostal Church Inc). I don't know the year, but of course, it had to be before the merger in 1945 when the UPC was formed.

Note that conversion and forgiveness of sins is considered to be the same thing.

Also note the words "triune" and "trinity" in the section on the Godhead.
This teaching (minus the use of the word "trinity") was carried forward by the United Pentecostal Church up until recent times.

Then, it seems, everyone took "schtoopid pills" and backslid.

[pelathais]

Baptism is for "converted believers"???

God is "Triune, a trinity"???

Are you serious???

Dang, maybe my heritage isn't all that bad, after all! I gotta call my relatives and tell them their forefathers believed in the trinity!! How cool!!
You can view the entire PCI Manual of 1945 here:

http://xcomplex.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54:the-pci-manual&catid=42:the-history-of-the-apostolic-faith-movement&Itemid=30

Be patient. It takes a minute for the images to load.

[MissBrattified]

What are your thoughts concerning the above evidence?

...By grace are we saved, through faith. It's the gift of God. :)

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
(and on through verse 26)

...Hearers and doers--not hearers only.

e.g.: Believing is not enough. You must put obedience with it. I guess if I have to have a label, I'm an infinite-stepper. And the baby steps are:

1. Belief (Without faith, it's impossible to please Him)
2. Repentance (Repent...be converted, that your sins may be blotted out....)
3. Baptism in Jesus' name (...every one of you.)
4. Being filled with the Holy Ghost (filled with joy, and the Holy Ghost)
5. Continuing to follow Christ (If you love me, keep my commandments.)

IMO, saying that a person CAN leave out any of the above and still be saved is senseless and irrelevant. We need to obey the Word, and not just once at initial conversion, but every day until we die.

I Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

I would personally be scared to tell someone anything is unimportant or unnecessary--it's ALL important and necessary. Everything contained in the life of Christ, in the history of the church, and in the teachings of the Apostles is important and relevant. What's the point of going around trying to figure out which parts people can get away with leaving out? We need to err on the side of caution and make sure we line ourselves up with every important commandment in the Word of God.

For one person to say: If you truly repent, you will obey and be baptized in Jesus' name, and receive the Holy Ghost (reverse implication: if you don't obey, you must have not repented), and another to say, you must repent, and you must be baptized in Jesus' name, and filled with the Holy Ghost...

Both are still ultimately requiring repentance, baptism and infilling of the Holy Ghost, so I don't see the argument.

One of the biggest disservices [committed?] by theologians everywhere is to try to narrow down what it takes to be saved. What it takes is ALL of it--the whole Christian experience, continued walking after the Spirit, daily obedience, constant changing and modeling ourselves after the image of Christ.

My answer to anyone asking questions is: Yes, you need to repent of your sins. Yes, you need to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Yes, you need to be filled with the Holy Ghost. Yes, you need to fellowship with a local body of believers. Yes, you need to pray and fast. Yes, you need to search the scriptures, and obey it. Yes, you need to be witnesses to those around you. Yes, you need to love God with all your heart, and you need to love your neighbor as well. Yes, yes, yes to all of it!

Those are my thoughts.

[pelathais]

Hello n-o-w:

Many people believe that our Bible is simply copied from "the text" which has no variations. This can actually cause some people to lose their faith when they find out otherwise. But we have over 5,500 Greek Manuscripts alone (counting fragments). We have over 18,000 copies which includes Latin (and Latin texts came from both Greek, but also from Old Latin, and people began to copy these writings into Old Latin very early on). No other ancient text has such an incredible witness. In fact, all other ancient texts combined can not come near this witness.

Are there variations? Yes. Someone like Bart Ehrman will tell you there are thousands of errors (variations). But probably in the neighborhood of 99% of those are things like spelling errors and other incosequential copyist errors. Then, there are some actual variants with regard to certain passages. But even with these, none has ever been shown to change any Biblical doctrine.

The point here is that all of these copies and even the variants actually attest to the integrity of Scripture, they do not testify against it. Personally, I find it quite remarkable to think about.

If you're interested in this sort of thing I can recommend a couple of books. A good entry level book on the formation of Canon and the texts would be "From God to Us" by Norman Geisler and William Nix

http://www.christianbook.com/from-god-to-us/norman-geisler/9780802428783/pd/2428789?item_code=WW&netp_id=128133&event=ESRCN&view=details

And if you'd like something with a little more meat I would recommend "the Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce:

http://www.christianbook.com/the-canon-of-scripture/f-f-bruce/9780830812585/pd/1258?item_code=WW&netp_id=106962&event=ESRCN&view=details

With that in mind, there is not a single variant reading of Matthew 28:19, and all of the earliest extra-Biblical quotations of the passage attest to its accuracy. All evidence is in favor of 28:19, which is why I said if someone thinks this passage is spurious they should just throw their Bible away.

TheLayman
Go with Bruce. The Geisler - Nix collaboration took place many years back and is a bit dated. In fact, it was a bit dated when it was published.

The classic is The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (http://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Transmission-Restoration/dp/0195072979) by Bruce Metzger.

I enjoy Bart Ehrman, but I don't reach the same conclusions as he does. However, your criticism of him seems a bit uneven. You say, "Ehrman will tell you there are thousands of errors (variations). But probably in the neighborhood of 99% of those are things like spelling errors and other incosequential copyist errors."

So then... you are in agreement with Ehrman? That there are "thousands" of variations?

[Sam]

Baptism is for "converted believers"???

God is "Triune, a trinity"???

Are you serious???

Dang, maybe my heritage isn't all that bad, after all! I gotta call my relatives and tell them their forefathers believed in the trinity!! How cool!!

now you know why some of us harp on "revisionist history" that is being presented today

now you know why some of us say that what began as a gentleman's agreement in 1945 with the affirmation statement became a hostile takeover by mean-spirited and intolerant militants in later years

[pelathais]

...By grace are we saved, through faith. It's the gift of God. :)

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
(and on through verse 26)

...Hearers and doers--not hearers only.

e.g.: Believing is not enough. You must put obedience with it. I guess if I have to have a label, I'm an infinite-stepper. And the baby steps are:

1. Belief (Without faith, it's impossible to please Him)
2. Repentance (Repent...be converted, that your sins may be blotted out....)
3. Baptism in Jesus' name (...every one of you.)
4. Being filled with the Holy Ghost (filled with joy, and the Holy Ghost)
5. Continuing to follow Christ (If you love me, keep my commandments.)

IMO, saying that a person CAN leave out any of the above and still be saved is senseless and irrelevant. We need to obey the Word, and not just once at initial conversion, but every day until we die.

I Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

I would personally be scared to tell someone anything is unimportant or unnecessary--it's ALL important and necessary. Everything contained in the life of Christ, in the history of the church, and in the teachings of the Apostles is important and relevant. What's the point of going around trying to figure out which parts people can get away with leaving out? We need to err on the side of caution and make sure we line ourselves up with every important commandment in the Word of God.

For one person to say: If you truly repent, you will obey and be baptized in Jesus' name, and receive the Holy Ghost (reverse implication: if you don't obey, you must have not repented), and another to say, you must repent, and you must be baptized in Jesus' name, and filled with the Holy Ghost...

Both are still ultimately requiring repentance, baptism and infilling of the Holy Ghost, so I don't see the argument.

One of the biggest disservices done by theologians everywhere is to try to narrow down what it takes to be saved. What it takes is ALL of it--the whole Christian experience, continued walking after the Spirit, daily obedience, constant changing and modeling ourselves after the image of Christ.

My answer to anyone asking questions is: Yes, you need to repent of your sins. Yes, you need to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Yes, you need to be filled with the Holy Ghost. Yes, you need to fellowship with a local body of believers. Yes, you need to pray and fast. Yes, you need to search the scriptures, and obey it. Yes, you need to be witnesses to those around you. Yes, you need to love God with all your heart, and you need to love your neighbor as well. Yes, yes, yes to all of it!

Those are my thoughts.
You really need to change your avatar. I'm not going to argue with a twelve year old.

The point of this side track to the Matthew 28:19, thread is, "Does baptism accomplish 'remission of sins'" as part of the "3 Stepper" interpretation of Acts 2:38. Some have offered the idea that however Matthew 28:19, is to be understood or if it is to be accepted at all; the "3 Stepper" "Acts 2:38" doctrine is what "saves" us, so Matthew 28:19, becomes some what irrelevant.

I have asserted that the "full package Acts 2:38" teaching does not exist within the NT. It does not exist anywhere in Church History prior to 1900, and even the UPC teaches (or taught) that the "remission of sins" occurred at repentance.

What must one do to receive the "remission of sins?" Evidently the only requirement is belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Turn from a position of unbelief ("repent") and believe that Jesus is the Christ and that He died for you.

All of the other "doers" thing that you mention are important asspects of the Christian walk. However, "remission of sins" requires no such "work," otherwise it is "not of grace" (Romans 3:24-26; Romans 4:16; Galatians 3:22; and etc.).

[pelathais]

now you know why some of us harp on "revisionist history" that is being presented today

now you know why some of us say that what began as a gentleman's agreement in 1945 with the affirmation statement became a hostile takeover by mean-spirited and intolerant militants in later years
Well said Sam.

"Sam-Wise the Brave."

[mizpeh]

To believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and to repent of your sins are not the same thing, Pel.

What must one do to receive the "remission of sins?" Evidently the only requirement is belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Turn from a position of unbelief ("repent") and believe that Jesus is the Christ and that He died for you.

To receive remission of sins one must believe, repent, and be baptized (every one) in the name of Jesus Christ....

[notofworks]

You can view the entire PCI Manual of 1945 here:

http://xcomplex.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54:the-pci-manual&catid=42:the-history-of-the-apostolic-faith-movement&Itemid=30

Be patient. It takes a minute for the images to load.


I clicked on the page and in the upper right hand corner it said, "Meet Apostolic Singles"! :ursofunny

I'll read it. I've always known about the two groups that merged and one of them believed in salvation by grace and the other didn't, and the inclusion of the line "We will not contend for the unity of the faith" that was speaking of that difference, but dang, to read it in writing is amazing!

But the "Trinity" thing!! Wow!! That blew my mind.

Pel, I'm not the scholar you are, not by a mile, but when it all comes down to the bottom line, SO much of this is a lot of hooey about nothing...on their part! It seems like "they" work SO hard at being different, that they end up stretching things endlessly. How someone can stretch the scriptures SO far that they end up claiming that one must speak in tongues to be saved is astonishing.

[Praxeas]

I clicked on the page and in the upper right hand corner it said, "Meet Apostolic Singles"! :ursofunny

I'll read it. I've always known about the two groups that merged and one of them believed in salvation by grace and the other didn't, and the inclusion of the line "We will not contend for the unity of the faith" that was speaking of that difference, but dang, to read it in writing is amazing!

But the "Trinity" thing!! Wow!! That blew my mind.

Pel, I'm not the scholar you are, not by a mile, but when it all comes down to the bottom line, SO much of this is a lot of hooey about nothing...on their part! It seems like "they" work SO hard at being different, that they end up stretching things endlessly. How someone can stretch the scriptures SO far that they end up claiming that one must speak in tongues to be saved is astonishing.
the other group did/does believe in salvation by grace. They apparently don't believe salvation comes at initial faith before repentance, baptism or the infilling of the Spirit witih tongues.

[notofworks]

now you know why some of us harp on "revisionist history" that is being presented today

now you know why some of us say that what began as a gentleman's agreement in 1945 with the affirmation statement became a hostile takeover by mean-spirited and intolerant militants in later years


Wow, yes I can. You've gotta feel like it was stolen from you.

So you think a lot of this has anything to do with a change in culture/climate? For example, take what's allowed and what's taboo on TV. In the 1950's, it was perfectly acceptable for Ralph Kramden to threaten hit his wife "in the kisser". That would never be allowed today. Today, however, we see endless sexual innuendos that would have never been allowed in the 50's.

So do you think the pentecostal culture has just gone through a phase where it focused on different things, like, maybe they needed a new battlefield?

[notofworks]

the other group did/does believe in salvation by grace. They apparently don't believe salvation comes at initial faith before repentance, baptism or the infilling of the Spirit witih tongues.



:ursofunnyI was wondering how long it would be before someone said, "But we do believe in salvation by grace"!!:lol You didn't disappoint and it was quicker than I thought.

[pelathais]

To believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and to repent of your sins are not the same thing, Pel.
Seems Paul preached a different Gospel than yours:

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

To receive remission of sins one must believe, repent, and be baptized (every one) in the name of Jesus Christ....
So then you are in disagreement with the UPC's Articles of Faith?

... and the Apostle Paul?

[pelathais]

the other group did/does believe in salvation by grace. They apparently don't believe salvation comes at initial faith before repentance, baptism or the infilling of the Spirit witih tongues.
Romans 11:5-6.

If it comes "by works" at all, then it is not "of grace." Period.

You've got to get the foundation correct otherwise the whole house will tumble down. That is what we are seeing today in the UPC. They abandoned the one attachment that they had to the "foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone."

Once they left salvation by faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9) they lost the foundation entirely (Ephesians 2:7-22).

[Sam]

Wow, yes I can. You've gotta feel like it was stolen from you.

So you think a lot of this has anything to do with a change in culture/climate? For example, take what's allowed and what's taboo on TV. In the 1950's, it was perfectly acceptable for Ralph Kramden to threaten hit his wife "in the kisser". That would never be allowed today. Today, however, we see endless sexual innuendos that would have never been allowed in the 50's.

So do you think the pentecostal culture has just gone through a phase where it focused on different things, like, maybe they needed a new battlefield?

Well, at the merger there were two prevailing opinions. Here on the forum we call them one-step and three-step. Some believed the merger was a mistake and did not join. Some went back and got the charter name PAJC and renewed it and that group still exists today. Their headquarters building is here in Ohio about an hour from my home. I'm subscribed to their magazine. It's a small organization.

There were always some who considered Bro. Goss and others as "weak on the message" and they tried to minimize them. In time the more conservative brethren got the fundamental doctrine statement revised to include the words "for the remission of sins" in 1973. Then the infamous affirmation statement was adopted in 1992 to further drive out those who were considered weak on the message.

[Praxeas]

Romans 11:5-6.

If it comes "by works" at all, then it is not "of grace." Period.

You've got to get the foundation correct otherwise the whole house will tumble down. That is what we are seeing today in the UPC. They abandoned the one attachment that they had to the "foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone."

Once they left salvation by faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9) they lost the foundation entirely (Ephesians 2:7-22).
Then the one steppers are all lost. They don't believe it comes by grace alone..period. For them salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone...and repentance.

Again they did not leave salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. There isn't a single 3 stepper out there that would say "I don't believe in grace or faith"

And for many obedience to the gospel is not a work. If works is 'anything I can do", then everyone believes they are saved by works...putting faith in Christ..something you can do. Repentance..something you can do. Confession..something you can do.

This is why I mentioned the slippery slope earlier of those that believe salvation comes before faith and repentance and actually just allows us to have faith and repent. I watched some of their progression...salvation comes before repentance at faith....but since faith or believing is something we do the next progression was salvation by Grace alone by predestiny...those that are saved will then have faith and repent.

nobody that believes in repentance or baptism as a necessity claims they are earning their salvation. Rather they claim they are obeying what God told them to don and that God promised to do something when the did.

So I don't buy the "they don't believe in grace or faith" argument. Does that mean they are right in their dogmatic 3 step approach to salvation? No

[notofworks]

Well, at the merger there were two prevailing opinions. Here on the forum we call them one-step and three-step. Some believed the merger was a mistake and did not join. Some went back and got the charter name PAJC and renewed it and that group still exists today. Their headquarters building is here in Ohio about an hour from my home. I'm subscribed to their magazine. It's a small organization.

There were always some who considered Bro. Goss and others as "weak on the message" and they tried to minimize them. In time the more conservative brethren got the fundamental doctrine statement revised to include the words "for the remission of sins" in 1973. Then the infamous affirmation statement was adopted in 1992 to further drive out those who were considered weak on the message.


I've always known of the PAJC but did not know that was their origin. Interesting. And I guess I'm one of the "weak" ones from '93.

I'll always believe, however, that the "powers that be" (or were) didn't really want to clean people out. I didn't sign my affirmation statement and sent with it and an explanation of why I could not sign it, which would, or course, send me on my way, right? Wrong. I received my renewed license within a week.

But, it burned a hole in my pocket and I mailed it back.

And to this day, one of the funniest things ever is that Richard Gazowsky still has a card in his wallet!:lol Unbelievable....first that he, evidently, signs the statement, and second, that they send him a card. Complete hypocrisy on both counts.

[pelathais]

Then the one steppers are all lost. They don't believe it comes by grace alone..period. For them salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone...and repentance.

Again they did not leave salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. There isn't a single 3 stepper out there that would say "I don't believe in grace or faith"
No, they don't say this of themselves. This is what the Apostle Paul says of them in Romans 11:5-6.

And for many obedience to the gospel is not a work. If works is 'anything I can do", then everyone believes they are saved by works...putting faith in Christ..something you can do. Repentance..something you can do. Confession..something you can do.
The idea that water baptism itself was some kind of "work" seems alien to Paul's preaching. He doesn't really touch on water baptism much at all. He states that Christ sent him to preach the Gospel, and not to baptize. Here he seems to have the idea that water baptism was something else - apart from "the Gospel."

So, water baptism is not necessarily a "work" per se, but being water baptism isn't "obedience to the Gospel either." The Gospel is something that precedes baptism.

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 - The Gospel is "the preaching of the cross."

This is why I mentioned the slippery slope earlier of those that believe salvation comes before faith and repentance and actually just allows us to have faith and repent. I watched some of their progression...salvation comes before repentance at faith....but since faith or believing is something we do the next progression was salvation by Grace alone by predestiny...those that are saved will then have faith and repent.
The predestination aspect must be important because it is presented over and over in Scripture. Therefore, we must have a way to grasp it effectively. However, if it merely clouds the "easier to understand" issues, then we haven't dealt with it effectively.

You also seem to be parsing too much in the matter of repentance and conversion. "Faith" in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (that He died for your sins and rose from the dead) is "repentance." This is what Peter was imploring the crowd at Pentecost to do - to "repent" from their unbelief that lead to the death of the Messiah and to believe that Jesus is now both Lord and Christ.

nobody that believes in repentance or baptism as a necessity claims they are earning their salvation. Rather they claim they are obeying what God told them to don and that God promised to do something when the did.

So I don't buy the "they don't believe in grace or faith" argument. Does that mean they are right in their dogmatic 3 step approach to salvation? No
I was going to point out that this was a "straw man" on your part because no one has argued that "they don't believe in grace or faith." But...

... Romans 11:5-6, does seem to touch a nerve with a lot of people. And I disagree about what is "believed" and preached by the "3 Steppers" in general. After reading your post, I will take this up - even if just "academically."

They have had to invent a completely new history of the Church to maintain their "Acts 2:38 or hell" message. They have had to revise and redact the official documents of the United Pentecostal Church, changing the Articles of Faith, the Fundamental Doctrine, throwing out the Required Reading for Ministers and culling the herd of all those who complained about the wholesale changes.

They believe that only the "correct" form of baptism can save someone. If you disagree about the form and are baptized in any other fashion, then you are lost in your sins. Would you agree with this statement?

(Not, do you believe this about baptism... but do you see this in the preaching and teachings of the "3 Steppers?")

[Sam]

I've always known of the PAJC but did not know that was their origin. Interesting. And I guess I'm one of the "weak" ones from '93.

I'll always believe, however, that the "powers that be" (or were) didn't really want to clean people out. I didn't sign my affirmation statement and sent with it and an explanation of why I could not sign it, which would, or course, send me on my way, right? Wrong. I received my renewed license within a week.

But, it burned a hole in my pocket and I mailed it back.

And to this day, one of the funniest things ever is that Richard Gazowsky still has a card in his wallet!:lol Unbelievable....first that he, evidently, signs the statement, and second, that they send him a card. Complete hypocrisy on both counts.

Brother Urshan put out a letter encouraging the ministers to just sign it and told them that how they interpreted the manual was up to them. He did not want to lose ministers.

When you returned your AS with your explanation I guess it counted as a signature.

I wonder if Richard Gazowsky actually signs it, or has someone else sign it, or if he returns it with mark ups and cross outs like some do.

Didn't someone try to oust him at one time and he went to court so the UPC backed off and let him remain in the org? I think I read that some where. Maybe someone here can clarify that for me.

[notofworks]

Brother Urshan put out a letter encouraging the ministers to just sign it and told them that how they interpreted the manual was up to them. He did not want to lose ministers.

When you returned your AS with your explanation I guess it counted as a signature.

I wonder if Richard Gazowsky actually signs it, or has someone else sign it, or if he returns it with mark ups and cross outs like some do.

Didn't someone try to oust him at one time and he went to court so the UPC backed off and let him remain in the org? I think I read that some where. Maybe someone here can clarify that for me.


You might be right, but I specifically said I wouldn't sign it and would be leaving because of certain points. Who knows, maybe they didn't even read it or look at the unsigned statement.

It's ironic, isn't it, that the affirmation baloney was created to make the right-wingers happy, and what do you know...they weren't happy and left anyway. Politics and religion don't mix well, do they?

I've always heard that Richard has threatened legal action, but...what a joke. What in the heck is he trying to prove? Maybe along with God telling him to colonize a planet, He also told him to make a mockery out of the process. You'd think that after 18 years, he's proved his point. But what is the UPC afraid of? Richard's clearly in violation of the system.

[pelathais]

Brother Urshan put out a letter encouraging the ministers to just sign it and told them that how they interpreted the manual was up to them. He did not want to lose ministers.

When you returned your AS with your explanation I guess it counted as a signature.

I wonder if Richard Gazowsky actually signs it, or has someone else sign it, or if he returns it with mark ups and cross outs like some do.

Didn't someone try to oust him at one time and he went to court so the UPC backed off and let him remain in the org? I think I read that some where. Maybe someone here can clarify that for me.
Gazowsky was the reason why the California D.S. joined as a Westberg Resolution co-sponsor. The D.S. stood up and complained at General Conference that he had been "threatened" with a lawsuit if he went after anyone who wasn't preaching "our message."

I don't know what the actual details were, but it seems to me that in order for the "threat of a lawsuit" to have even been implied, some one must have "gone after" Gazowsky in the first place.

It was this "we gotta clean house!" mentality that caused so much trouble in the UPC and still causes trouble today. The fact that so many lies have to be told so that we can "clean house" causes me to question the motives of the cleaning ladies.

[pelathais]

You might be right, but I specifically said I wouldn't sign it and would be leaving because of certain points. Who knows, maybe they didn't even read it or look at the unsigned statement.

It's ironic, isn't it, that the affirmation baloney was created to make the right-wingers happy, and what do you know...they weren't happy and left anyway. Politics and religion don't mix well, do they?

I've always heard that Richard has threatened legal action, but...what a joke. What in the heck is he trying to prove? Maybe along with God telling him to colonize a planet, He also told him to make a mockery out of the process. You'd think that after 18 years, he's proved his point. But what is the UPC afraid of? Richard's clearly in violation of the system.
A clear violation of reality is the charge that I would lay against Richard. But then again, "the system" is so corrupt itself that I am happy that RG is still "in the mothership."

[notofworks]

A clear violation of reality is the charge that I would lay against Richard. But then again, "the system" is so corrupt itself that I am happy that RG is still "in the mothership."


...and of course, there's that angle. It is kinda funny, that they've gone to all that trouble to get rid of him, and he's still there. But at some point, isn't the mission more important than the game?

[Praxeas]

No, they don't say this of themselves. This is what the Apostle Paul says of them in Romans 11:5-6.
Again, here Paul is speaking of the works of the law. So this begs the question, what does "works" mean?

The idea that water baptism itself was some kind of "work" seems alien to Paul's preaching. He doesn't really touch on water baptism much at all. He states that Christ sent him to preach the Gospel, and not to baptize. Here he seems to have the idea that water baptism was something else - apart from "the Gospel."
2 things. I said they don't really believe this is a work that saves, but an act of obedience. Again the question is, what is works? That he is sent to preach the gospel does not mean baptims is not part of the gospel message. See his message to the disciples of John. People read too much into what Paul said or did not say. The point he was making in context seems to be those that say "I am of Apollos" etc etc. Why? baptism was seen as an act of disciplship..which is why we baptise in Jesus name, because we are making them disciples to Him not to ourselves. Baptism was a common practice as part of the church. That Paul said he was not sent to baptise doesn't annul baptism as an important practice.

So, water baptism is not necessarily a "work" per se, but being water baptism isn't "obedience to the Gospel either." The Gospel is something that precedes baptism.
That remains to be seen. You didn't prove it was not obedience to the gospel

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 - The Gospel is "the preaching of the cross."
The term "gospel" seems to have many meanings or is not limited to just one. Sure the gospel is preaching the cross...but how do you obey something that is not a command to obey?

The predestination aspect must be important because it is presented over and over in Scripture. Therefore, we must have a way to grasp it effectively. However, if it merely clouds the "easier to understand" issues, then we haven't dealt with it effectively.
That is beside my point. Faith is something we do. Repentance is something we do. Confession is something we do. Yet all three are tied into being saved..so does "grace" annul our need to have faith or repent before we are saved? What is the definition of works?

You also seem to be parsing too much in the matter of repentance and conversion. "Faith" in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (that He died for your sins and rose from the dead) is "repentance." This is what Peter was imploring the crowd at Pentecost to do - to "repent" from their unbelief that lead to the death of the Messiah and to believe that Jesus is now both Lord and Christ.
No, faith in the gospel of jesus Christ and what he did is NOT repentance. Surely though you need faith to repent. Repentance is to not only be sorry for what you have done but to turn away. Infact the bible shows they are distinct.

Mar 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
The two are no doubt connected, but they are not the same thing. The point remains that this is something we do. Peter told THEM to repent. They were told to believe the gospel. So again what is the definition of works?

I was going to point out that this was a "straw man" on your part because no one has argued that "they don't believe in grace or faith."
No I was not making a strawman argument. It's been made. Not only that the other arguments go "They don't believe in the cross"..."they don't believe in the blood" etc


But...

... Romans 11:5-6, does seem to touch a nerve with a lot of people. And I disagree about what is "believed" and preached by the "3 Steppers" in general. After reading your post, I will take this up - even if just "academically."

They have had to invent a completely new history of the Church to maintain their "Acts 2:38 or hell" message.


No they don't. That's only because people have a wrong view of what Jesus meant by "the gates of hell shall not prevail" to mean there has to be a visible church teaching this doctrine in an unbroken chain from A-Z..those that make such an argument are forced to invent or twist history or ignore it

They have had to revise and redact the official documents of the United Pentecostal Church, changing the Articles of Faith, the Fundamental Doctrine, throwing out the Required Reading for Ministers and culling the herd of all those who complained about the wholesale changes.
ok...but this is all sort of beside the point. I don't see how it is relevant to my post

They believe that only the "correct" form of baptism can save someone. If you disagree about the form and are baptized in any other fashion, then you are lost in your sins.
Im still confused. What does this have to do with the issue that they do not believe in grace or that baptism is a work or not?

Would you agree with this statement?
I personally know three steppers that are not that dogmatic and admit they believe there will be others saved. But that is the view of most of the 3 steppers...yes. Are we getting off topic?

[Praxeas]

Gazowsky was the reason why the California D.S. joined as a Westberg Resolution co-sponsor. The D.S. stood up and complained at General Conference that he had been "threatened" with a lawsuit if he went after anyone who wasn't preaching "our message."

I don't know what the actual details were, but it seems to me that in order for the "threat of a lawsuit" to have even been implied, some one must have "gone after" Gazowsky in the first place.

It was this "we gotta clean house!" mentality that caused so much trouble in the UPC and still causes trouble today. The fact that so many lies have to be told so that we can "clean house" causes me to question the motives of the cleaning ladies.
Maybe so, but RG was the odd man out. Most orgs have by laws and stuff that preachers have to agree to. It's not just the UPC. However, as far as the articles of faith go, I don't see how they could have gone after anyone. But isn't there a ministers handbook or something they have to 'observe? Im not sure I'd want a pastor that thinks it's ok to appear butt nekkid in a movie in the UPC or any org I belonged to

[Praxeas]

BTW RG's church website...well actually the site for his movie production company, is now his blog spot. Looks interesting

http://wysiwyghome.com/

[pelathais]

Again, here Paul is speaking of the works of the law. So this begs the question, what does "works" mean?
Ah... that's the rub.

If we don't have an agreement as to what constitutes a "work" as described by the New Testament then we're just going to end up talking in circles.

As a solid UPCer who was very sympathetic to the idea of baptism being for the remission of sins, I was quite dogmatic in insisting that every occurrence of the word "work" or "works" in the writings of Paul and the NT in general referred specifically to the "works" that were necessary for obedience to the 613 commandments of the Law of Moses. Thus, baptism couldn't possibly be seen as a "work" (nor the holiness standards, etc.).

But this simplistic approach didn't end up serving me very well; for Paul himself will use examples of activity that have nothing to do with the Law of Moses and label them "works" (Romans 4:1-10).

In Romans 4, the "works" that "did not" justify Abraham involved the covenant of circumcision. Though this was repeated as one of the Laws of Moses, it was in use for centuries before Moses was even born. In any event, Paul's point is that NO KIND OF "WORK" at all justified Abraham. God had already accounted Abraham righteous before He gave Abe any command at all other than "Leave your father's house..."

We as Christians are given the responsibility for carrying out a large number of commands. Our response to these requirements can generally be called "work." When James (and Paul even) exhorted the believers to do "good works" - they were not advocating that they follow the Law of Moses (James 2). Therefore, it is evident that the idea of "works" in the NT goes beyond the simple notion of the Law of Moses. It encompasses much more.

And... back to my point... none of these works can save us. Moreover, it could be said that they don't even mark us in any way as being particularly "good" servants if we obey them (Luke 17:10).

Thus, if we can "earn" or prove that we have "deserved" salvation because of the fact that we figured out a "better" way to be baptized, or because we can demonstrate that we pray in a manner that we believe to be "more supernatural" than the Baptist folks, then we are falling into the trap that Romans 11:5-6, warns us about. The same thing with the holiness standards.

And isn't that the gist of the message of the UPC today and other "3 Stepper" controlled bodies? They repeatedly proclaim themselves to possess a standard of salvation that will save them, but not other Christians. They repeatedly state that it's either "Acts 2:38 or hell." They repeatedly refuse to accept other Christians as brethren in any degree.

All of this clearly indicates that they do not accept the cross as the basis of our salvation nor do they feel that "faith and grace" (as you put it) are sufficient for the believer to be saved.

They demand that we do some sort of "work" in order to be saved. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness.

[Praxeas]

Ah... that's the rub.

If we don't have an agreement as to what constitutes a "work" as described by the New Testament then we're just going to end up talking in circles.

As a solid UPCer who was very sympathetic to the idea of baptism being for the remission of sins, I was quite dogmatic in insisting that every occurrence of the word "work" or "works" in the writings of Paul and the NT in general referred specifically to the "works" that were necessary for obedience to the 613 commandments of the Law of Moses. Thus, baptism couldn't possibly be seen as a "work" (nor the holiness standards, etc.).

But this simplistic approach didn't end up serving me very well; for Paul himself will use examples of activity that have nothing to do with the Law of Moses and label them "works" (Romans 4:1-10).

In Romans 4, the "works" that "did not" justify Abraham involved the covenant of circumcision. Though this was repeated as one of the Laws of Moses, it was in use for centuries before Moses was even born. In any event, Paul's point is that NO KIND OF "WORK" at all justified Abraham. God had already accounted Abraham righteous before He gave Abe any command at all other than "Leave your father's house..."

We as Christians are given the responsibility for carrying out a large number of commands. Our response to these requirements can generally be called "work." When James (and Paul even) exhorted the believers to do "good works" - they were not advocating that they follow the Law of Moses (James 2). Therefore, it is evident that the idea of "works" in the NT goes beyond the simple notion of the Law of Moses. It encompasses much more.

And... back to my point... none of these works can save us. Moreover, it could be said that they don't even mark us in any way as being particularly "good" servants if we obey them (Luke 17:10).

Thus, if we can "earn" or prove that we have "deserved" salvation because of the fact that we figured out a "better" way to be baptized, or because we can demonstrate that we pray in a manner that we believe to be "more supernatural" than the Baptist folks, then we are falling into the trap that Romans 11:5-6, warns us about. The same thing with the holiness standards.

And isn't that the gist of the message of the UPC today and other "3 Stepper" controlled bodies? They repeatedly proclaim themselves to possess a standard of salvation that will save them, but not other Christians. They repeatedly state that it's either "Acts 2:38 or hell." They repeatedly refuse to accept other Christians as brethren in any degree.

All of this clearly indicates that they do not accept the cross as the basis of our salvation nor do they feel that "faith and grace" (as you put it) are sufficient for the believer to be saved.

They demand that we do some sort of "work" in order to be saved. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness.
So back to my slippery slope comment...if a work is whatever we can do then faith in Him and repentance are works. Do you therefore assert we are saved before we put our faith in Christ and or repent of our sins?

[pelathais]

2 things. I said they don't really believe this is a work that saves, but an act of obedience.
Mizzie and P.O. both have chided with me for my statements that a person is saved whether he has been baptized or not, and whether he has been baptized "correctly" or not.

These are just two examples. The other examples are legion. Thus, I humbly disagree. The "3 Steppers" advocate baptism as the means for receiving the "remission of sins" (emphatically).

Again the question is, what is works? That he is sent to preach the gospel does not mean baptims is not part of the gospel message.
In 1 Corinthians 1:17-18, Paul clearly tells us what he was called to preach:

Verse 17: "the gospel..." And just what is this "gospel?"
Verse 18: "the preaching of the cross..."


See his message to the disciples of John.
Here (Acts 19) Paul doesn't ask the disciples, "Have you believed and been saved?" He asks these disciples that he apparent presumed to be saved already, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?"

The whole exchange is NOT an attempt by Paul to get these disciples "saved." It's an inquiry to find out if these believers are walking in the power of the Holy Ghost.

People read too much into what Paul said or did not say.
Would assuming that Paul was trying to get the disciples of John in Acts 19, "saved" be an example of this?

The point he was making in context seems to be those that say "I am of Apollos" etc etc. Why? baptism was seen as an act of disciplship..which is why we baptise in Jesus name, because we are making them disciples to Him not to ourselves. Baptism was a common practice as part of the church. That Paul said he was not sent to baptise doesn't annul baptism as an important practice.
You see, when you advocate your own positions you do a great job and I agree with you. When you take up for the "3 Stepper" way you kind of wobble a bit.

[pelathais]

So back to my slippery slope comment...if a work is whatever we can do then faith in Him and repentance are works. Do you therefore assert we are saved before we put our faith in Christ and or repent of our sins?
Except that "faith" and "belief" are always contrasted with "works." Thus, theologically at least, they are the antithesis of "works."

We need a better definition for "works" within the context of NT theology than saying, "something that you can do." With that definition in place, a "work" is simply any verb. Even "getting out of doing any work" becomes "working."

I just opened the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology and read the two articles: "Work" and "Works." I'm rather disappointed that they didn't make a stab at any kind of pithy definition.

[Praxeas]

Mizzie and P.O. both have chided with me for my statements that a person is saved whether he has been baptized or not, and whether he has been baptized "correctly" or not.


These are just two examples. The other examples are legion. Thus, I humbly disagree. The "3 Steppers" advocate baptism as the means for receiving the "remission of sins" (emphatically).
I never said they didn't. Now Im confused. What I have been speaking of is how some argue baptism is not work because of how work is defined

In 1 Corinthians 1:17-18, Paul clearly tells us what he was called to preach:

Verse 17: "the gospel..." And just what is this "gospel?"
Verse 18: "the preaching of the cross..."
Again, since I didn't say he was called to preach anything else..im confused by your responses to my post


Here (Acts 19) Paul doesn't ask the disciples, "Have you believed and been saved?" He asks these disciples that he apparent presumed to be saved already, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?"

The whole exchange is NOT an attempt by Paul to get these disciples "saved." It's an inquiry to find out if these believers are walking in the power of the Holy Ghost.
Yes but he finds out they were not really followers of Christ but followers of John and thus he says they were to believe on Jesus and the Paul baptized them. See Paul never said "God did not call me to preach baptism"...he said "God did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel"

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

The whole issue was not Paul afraid people would wrongly think baptism was essential. It was about division and those who sought to become followers of individuals, especially the ones that baptized them

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
1Co 1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
1Co 1:12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1Co 1:15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
1Co 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Would assuming that Paul was trying to get the disciples of John in Acts 19, "saved" be an example of this?
I think you assume he wasn't. His question was a query, but upon hearing the answer he tells them

Act 19:4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Maybe Paul wasn't alone and someone else baptized them, but it seems that the only one there was Paul so it is rational to assume Paul baptized these

You see, when you advocate your own positions you do a great job and I agree with you. When you take up for the "3 Stepper" way you kind of wobble a bit.
I think the only real argument 3 steppers can make is that baptism is not a work and for the most part I can agree, even if not being a 3 stepper, that baptism is not a work.

Here is my thought. If baptism is a work because it is something we can do, then so is faith and repentance.

IF it is argued faith and repentance is not a work then it will be hard to argue baptism IS a work.

If then it is argued faith and repentance are works, then we are on that slippery slope I spoke of towards believing salvation occurs before faith or repentance simply by God's predetermined will.

And a lot of 1 steppers, even non Apostolics, believe strongly that in order to be saved one MUST put their faith in Him and repent

[Praxeas]

Except that "faith" and "belief" are always contrasted with "works." Thus, theologically at least, they are the antithesis of "works."

Right, yet faith...are we not commanded to believe on Him? Is that not something we do?

We need a better definition for "works" within the context of NT theology than saying, "something that you can do." With that definition in place, a "work" is simply any verb. Even "getting out of doing any work" becomes "working."
I agree lol.

I just opened the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology and read the two articles: "Work" and "Works." I'm rather disappointed that they didn't make a stab at any kind of pithy definition.
Maybe I'll take a look too. I have a lot of dictionary aids and commentaries. The standard argument I hear though is "works are anything we can do"

If I were a 3 stepper I'd argue "works" are anything you can do apart from what is commanded to obey as part of the New Covenant, which works with the argument that "works" refer to the works of the law. In most or many cases they actually do in the context. But other contexts I think there is no reference to the law. If that is the case then works can also refer to anything we try to do on our own that we invent on our own.

Cain's sacrifice displeased God...Abel's was accepted. Maybe God told them what sort of sacrifice was acceptable and Cain thought he could please God his own way. Maybe in the same way some can think they can be saved by doing good deeds constantly, feed the poor etc etc...which are never really connected with having sins forgiven, becoming saved or occur in the same context as a gospel message preached and upon conversion the hearers are immediately baptized.

Since I don't believe sins are forgiven at baptism, I view baptism as the immediate response to believing in Christ and repenting. At the same time I believe in baptism so strongly I have 3step relapses at times :ursofunny

[pelathais]

I never said they didn't. Now Im confused. What I have been speaking of is how some argue baptism is not work because of how work is defined

Again, since I didn't say he was called to preach anything else..im confused by your responses to my post
It was a subtle point, and I realize that I'm not really arguing with you about your own stance, but the stance of a "third party." I'll move on for now.

Yes but he finds out they were not really followers of Christ but followers of John and thus he says they were to believe on Jesus and the Paul baptized them. See Paul never said "God did not call me to preach baptism"...he said "God did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel"

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

The whole issue was not Paul afraid people would wrongly think baptism was essential. It was about division and those who sought to become followers of individuals, especially the ones that baptized them
Yes, the problem was division in Corinth. And tody, that's exactly what the "3 Steppers" seek to do: To divide the body of Christ. Their methodology isn't the same as some of the Corinthians and the there isn't a one-to-one correlation between the two groups here. However, as the Corinthians (at least some of them) were dividing up along the lines of who was baptized by whom; meanwhile, the "3 Steppers" are dividing up along the lines of who was baptized how.

The details are not the same, but the error really ends up being quite similar. Spiritual pride, exclusivity, isolation, sectarianism. The whole thing actually weakens what we could be if we were all together in Christ.

Since we don't have any Scripture that really identifies water baptism as "the Gospel" or even as a "part of the Gospel" - the "3 Stepper" lens that we all wore to some degree or another has to be unfogged.

In 1 Corinthians 1:17-18, Paul tells us what the Gospel is. To "preach the Gospel" means to "preach the cross."

See also 1 Corinthians 1:23-24, 1 Corinthians 2:2; Luke 24:46-47 (which does not say anything about baptism - see the earlier discussion); Acts 10:39-43; Galatians 3:1; Galatians 6:14 and many others.


I think you assume he wasn't. His question was a query, but upon hearing the answer he tells them

Act 19:4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Maybe Paul wasn't alone and someone else baptized them, but it seems that the only one there was Paul so it is rational to assume Paul baptized these
Who baptized them is immaterial. However, they were "believers" when Paul (and whoever else) stumbled upon them. Since Paul had to give a fuller explanation concerning just Who the Messiah is, it is reasonable to assume that they probably had missed out on the whole Gospel story as it was acted out in Jerusalem several years prior.

In any event - these disciples already had "the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77 and Luke 3:3). Thus, the point concerning their salvation and their justification was already satisfied by their earlier repentance.

I think the only real argument 3 steppers can make is that baptism is not a work and for the most part I can agree, even if not being a 3 stepper, that baptism is not a work.

Here is my thought. If baptism is a work because it is something we can do, then so is faith and repentance.

IF it is argued faith and repentance is not a work then it will be hard to argue baptism IS a work.

If then it is argued faith and repentance are works, then we are on that slippery slope I spoke of towards believing salvation occurs before faith or repentance simply by God's predetermined will.

And a lot of 1 steppers, even non Apostolics, believe strongly that in order to be saved one MUST put their faith in Him and repent
Here again what we see is a failing in our terminology. A "work" in the Pauline sense and in the context of the teachings of the NT as whole is NOT synonymous with being "a verb."

Not just any verb is a "work." "Works" in the NT sense deal with the things that people do to make themselves righteous. This is how people attempt to "justify themselves."

But, Jesus Christ is the justifier of men - and He does this without any "works" on our part. It is His free gift - the gift of salvation. If we had to do something to earn it then it would no longer be a gift. All we have to do is to believe and receive.

I know, "believe" and "receive" are verbs too. But they are not "works" in the NT sense. (Romans 11:5-6 NKJV).

[pelathais]

Right, yet faith...are we not commanded to believe on Him? Is that not something we do?


I agree lol.


Maybe I'll take a look too. I have a lot of dictionary aids and commentaries. The standard argument I hear though is "works are anything we can do"

If I were a 3 stepper I'd argue "works" are anything you can do apart from what is commanded to obey as part of the New Covenant, which works with the argument that "works" refer to the works of the law. In most or many cases they actually do in the context. But other contexts I think there is no reference to the law. If that is the case then works can also refer to anything we try to do on our own that we invent on our own.

Cain's sacrifice displeased God...Abel's was accepted. Maybe God told them what sort of sacrifice was acceptable and Cain thought he could please God his own way. Maybe in the same way some can think they can be saved by doing good deeds constantly, feed the poor etc etc...which are never really connected with having sins forgiven, becoming saved or occur in the same context as a gospel message preached and upon conversion the hearers are immediately baptized.

Since I don't believe sins are forgiven at baptism, I view baptism as the immediate response to believing in Christ and repenting. At the same time I believe in baptism so strongly I have 3step relapses at times :ursofunny
That's the approach I used to take. "Well, if baptism is a 'work' so is 'believing!'"

But, I think I was missing an important distinction that the Bible was trying to point out to me. "Works" in the NT sense is NOT the same thing as "a verb."

The "works" are verbs, but there are other verbs that are not classified as "works" in the NT - like "believe" and "receive." Perhaps a Venn Diagram is in order?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/4510608744_ca26bd7a9a.jpg

[Praxeas]

Yes, the problem was division in Corinth. And tody, that's exactly what the "3 Steppers" seek to do: To divide the body of Christ.
That's a conclusion that seeks to judge their motive and it is a sweeping generalization. Most would say they just seek the truth and to obey Him. While at the same time if it was purely to divide, they'd probably never be concerned with others not obeying what they believe is the truth and never reach out with this message to others

Their methodology isn't the same as some of the Corinthians and the there isn't a one-to-one correlation between the two groups here. However, as the Corinthians (at least some of them) were dividing up along the lines of who was baptized by whom; meanwhile, the "3 Steppers" are dividing up along the lines of who was baptized how.Again this seeks to judge motive or intent and I think it can be seen the other way. However the real point was that though Paul said he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel, the context shows his point wasn't to say "baptism is not important" and in fact he did baptize. Clearly preaching the gospel takes preeminence for Paul said

Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Rom 10:14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
Rom 10:15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

The details are not the same, but the error really ends up being quite similar. Spiritual pride, exclusivity, isolation, sectarianism. The whole thing actually weakens what we could be if we were all together in Christ. Again this is a sweeping generalization and a conclusion on their intent. I can't know their intent, every one of them, unless they told me so I am sure you can't either. Second, all groups divide. Trinitarians are the ones that labeled all non-Trinitarians as a cult and not part of the body of Christ. It's a common practice. 1 Steppers around here have been very vocal in their sectarianism vs the 3 steppers. However, again that is all beside the point. We were discussing Paul, not the Corinthians, and the issue of what 3 steppers believe about baptism, not what they believe about themselves or what you or I believe about them morally. Is Baptism a work? You brought up Paul's statement in response to that issue in order to suggest Paul did not see it as a work or an act of obedience one needed to be saved,right?

Since we don't have any Scripture that really identifies water baptism as "the Gospel" or even as a "part of the Gospel" - the "3 Stepper" lens that we all wore to some degree or another has to be unfogged. Directly? I think they would appeal to the fact that when the gospel is preached in Acts baptism is always included somehow, if not verbatim in the preaching. Also compare each time the gospel is preached in Acts. It's never just a message on the cross. Peter's message was interrupted and upon seeing the Gentiles had not only accepted the word but were filled with the Spirit, concludes his message by commanding them to be baptized.

Was repentance ever a part of the gospel? Again we are back to that slippery slope where by hyper Calvinists claim you are saved before repentance and thus our 1 stepping buddies around here are wrong too.

Paul said 1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,

But he did not say that was all he preached. Surely he preached Christ resurrected too, right?

Jesus proclaimed the gospel, but we read he did not go around constantly preaching the cross. In fact he rarely mentioned his death.

The Apostles, before Jesus told the of his impending death, were preaching the gospel

Preaching the gospel is connected with making disciples
Act 14:21 When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch,

So is baptism
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Peters gospel includes not only the cross but the resurrection and a few other things about Christ. Baptism may not be "The gospel" but in many of these accounts it can be seen to be part of preaching the gospel.

In 1 Corinthians 1:17-18, Paul tells us what the Gospel is. To "preach the Gospel" means to "preach the cross."1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

This does not say the gospel is only the cross. The cross is included
Act 17:18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, "What does this babbler wish to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities"--because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.

The gospel is not "you must be baptized". The gospel is not even "You must repent" or even "You must believe", but these are all part of preaching a gospel message. At the end of preaching each gospel, Peter commanded them to be baptized and repent. In the case of the Gentiles it was probably obvious they were repented already.

Here is an example.

Act 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.
Act 3:16 And his name--by faith in his name--has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.
Act 3:17 "And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.
Act 3:18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.
Act 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out,
Act 3:20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus,
Act 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.
Act 3:22 Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you.
Act 3:23 And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.'
Act 3:24 And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.
Act 3:25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'
Act 3:26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness."

In there is "The gospel", included in preaching "The Gospel" is the command to repent.

[Praxeas]

See also 1 Corinthians 1:23-24, 1 Corinthians 2:2; Luke 24:46-47 (which does not say anything about baptism - see the earlier discussion); Acts 10:39-43; Galatians 3:1; Galatians 6:14 and many others.See above :-)

Who baptized them is immaterial. However, they were "believers" when Paul (and whoever else) stumbled upon them. Since Paul had to give a fuller explanation concerning just Who the Messiah is, it is reasonable to assume that they probably had missed out on the whole Gospel story as it was acted out in Jerusalem several years prior.Who baptized the is material. You made it a issue to point out Paul said he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel, yet he DID baptize. This went to the point you made about 1Cor 1. He did infact baptize people, after he preached the gospel. There is no indication in this text they were believes. They were "certain disciples"...Apparently they run into these followers of John from time to time (see Apollos). So his question was a query to ascertain their discipleship.

Why even ask them that question? Why not just assume they had received the Spirit since they are saved believers?

When they responded no, his next question was about baptism. See he found disciples alright, but they were disciples of John. Whether or not they have converted to Christ is not revealed by this scripture.

So it's an assumption they were already saved. Regardless Paul preaches
Act 19:4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Question:Why were they baptized upon hearing that one sentence? I can suggest some reasons. One is Luke doesn't record everything all the time, but infact condenses what is preached. Or, perhaps, they understood back then what it meant to be someone's disciple and to believe. Upon being told they were to believe on Jesus, the immediate action was to be baptized in Jesus name "making disciples of all nations, baptizing them..."

In any event - these disciples already had "the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77 and Luke 3:3). Thus, the point concerning their salvation and their justification was already satisfied by their earlier repentance.If John's baptism truly remits sins why would anyone need Christ to die on the cross for them? Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. John prepared the way for the Lamb of God. This baptism was a baptism with a view towards Christ's resurrection. They were to come to the baptism and it was a sign they had repented

Mat 3:7 But seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said to them, O generation of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance;
Mat 3:9 and do not think to say within yourselves, We have Abraham as our father. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
Mat 3:10 And now also, the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire.
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water to repentance. But He who comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire;
Mat 3:12 whose fan is in His hand, and He will cleanse His floor and gather His wheat into the storehouse; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Even Jesus was baptized by John, did he need a remission of sins?

Here again what we see is a failing in our terminology. A "work" in the Pauline sense and in the context of the teachings of the NT as whole is NOT synonymous with being "a verb."

Not just any verb is a "work." "Works" in the NT sense deal with the things that people do to make themselves righteous. This is how people attempt to "justify themselves."Then I can see how baptism would NOT be a work. People being baptized do so because they were commanded. They "obey from the heart" Rm 6:
17, rather than seeing to justify themselves. In fact they believe God, even in baptism, is the one that justifies them because of their faith

But, Jesus Christ is the justifier of men - and He does this without any "works" on our part. It is His free gift - the gift of salvation. If we had to do something to earn it then it would no longer be a gift. All we have to do is to believe and receive. Exactly. We still have a problem then of how to define works. And infact you said a work is things that people do.....that makes works still a verb

I know, "believe" and "receive" are verbs too. But they are not "works" in the NT sense. (Romans 11:5-6 NKJV).What is the NT sense of works? If it is merely things we can do ourselves to justify ourselves then that could mean baptism is not a work.

[Praxeas]

That's the approach I used to take. "Well, if baptism is a 'work' so is 'believing!'"

But, I think I was missing an important distinction that the Bible was trying to point out to me. "Works" in the NT sense is NOT the same thing as "a verb."

The "works" are verbs, but there are other verbs that are not classified as "works" in the NT - like "believe" and "receive." Perhaps a Venn Diagram is in order?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/4510608744_ca26bd7a9a.jpg
If I am understanding this right, then what we need in scriptures is a list of what verbs constitute a work...and I don't see baptism being called a work. And surely any 3 stepper has good evidence (though arguable) that baptism is connected with salvation just as believe is...

Why? Obey is a verb too

Rom 6:17 But thanks be to our God that you were the slaves of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

Act 6:7 And the Word of God was increasing. And the number of the disciples in Jerusalem was multiplying exceedingly; even a great crowd of the priests obeyed the faith.

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you yield yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves to him whom you obey; whether it is of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness.

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified
Gal 3:2 This only I would learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, do you now perfect yourself in the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Did you suffer so many things in vain, if indeed it is even in vain?
Gal 3:5 Then He supplying the Spirit to you and working powerful works in you, is it by works of the law, or by hearing of faith?

2Th 1:8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Heb 5:9 And being perfected, He became the Author of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him,

Thus 3Steps would argue baptism is not a work, but is obedience to the command and is part of becoming a disciple of Christ.

[Praxeas]

where are all the 3 steppers? lol

[Sam]

Originally Posted by pelathais:
Yes, the problem was division in Corinth. And tody, that's exactly what the "3 Steppers" seek to do: To divide the body of Christ.


Answer by Praxeas:
That's a conclusion that seeks to judge their motive and it is a sweeping generalization. Most would say they just seek the truth and to obey Him. While at the same time if it was purely to divide, they'd probably never be concerned with others not obeying what they believe is the truth and never reach out with this message to others

It does seem that what pelathais said was “a conclusion to judge their motives” and “it is a sweeping generalization” but stop and think a minute.

In 1945, one-steppers and three-steppers agreed to merge, to promote unity, and to not contend for individual differing views to the disunity of the body. The fundamental doctrine statement was worded ambiguously enough that both three-steppers and one-steppers could sign it. There was an attempt to delete the word “full” but it was left in because there would have been no merger if it had been deleted. Then in 1973 the 5 words “for the remission of sins” were added to the fundamental doctrine statement. It is the opinion of many that this was a move by three-steppers to “tighten” up the doctrine and to “squeeze out” the one-steppers. Woudn’t this be considered divisive? Then in 1992 the affirmation statement was promoted by a group of three-steppers to promote a “good bowel movement” and get rid of some of their brethren. Couldn’t that be considered divisive?

[notofworks]

where are all the 3 steppers? lol

Aren't you one?

It's an indefensible position. They tend to run when someone who looks only to Jesus Christ for their salvation, who also knows what they're talking about, shows up. :D

[Jeffrey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey
Your obedience saved you?

Think that through...

posted by Pressing-On Okay, Hmmmmmmm........Hmmmmmm......Hmmmm....


"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" I Peter 4:17

Obedience means something.

Just had to look at this post again. Still amazed. I used to believe this. Forgive me, Jesus.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais:
Yes, the problem was division in Corinth. And tody, that's exactly what the "3 Steppers" seek to do: To divide the body of Christ.


Answer by Praxeas:
That's a conclusion that seeks to judge their motive and it is a sweeping generalization. Most would say they just seek the truth and to obey Him. While at the same time if it was purely to divide, they'd probably never be concerned with others not obeying what they believe is the truth and never reach out with this message to others

It does seem that what pelathais said was “a conclusion to judge their motives” and “it is a sweeping generalization” but stop and think a minute.

In 1945, one-steppers and three-steppers agreed to merge, to promote unity, and to not contend for individual differing views to the disunity of the body. The fundamental doctrine statement was worded ambiguously enough that both three-steppers and one-steppers could sign it. There was an attempt to delete the word “full” but it was left in because there would have been no merger if it had been deleted. Then in 1973 the 5 words “for the remission of sins” were added to the fundamental doctrine statement. It is the opinion of many that this was a move by three-steppers to “tighten” up the doctrine and to “squeeze out” the one-steppers. Woudn’t this be considered divisive? Then in 1992 the affirmation statement was promoted by a group of three-steppers to promote a “good bowel movement” and get rid of some of their brethren. Couldn’t that be considered divisive?
Until someone can prove every 3stepper past and present, has that view, it's a sweeping generalization

[Jermyn Davidson]

[I]

Just had to look at this post again. Still amazed. I used to believe this. Forgive me, Jesus.




Pressing On should have been reminded of Titus 3:4-7 before she decided to take her sabbatical.

Baptism is a command, but the physical act does not save you. Peter explained this stance very clearly.

[Praxeas]

Pressing On should have been reminded of Titus 3:4-7 before she decided to take her sabbatical.

Baptism is a command, but the physical act does not save you. Peter explained this stance very clearly.
PO didn't say that the physical act does anything

[Norman]

Then in 1973 the 5 words “for the remission of sins” were added to the fundamental doctrine statement. It is the opinion of many that this was a move by three-steppers to “tighten” up the doctrine and to “squeeze out” the one-steppers. Woudn’t this be considered divisive?

Truth is always divisive. If it says it in the Bible, then we need to line up with it.

[Sam]

Until someone can prove every 3stepper past and present, has that view, it's a sweeping generalization

Praxeas, you are correct. It is a broad brush generalization if we say all three steppers promote division.
However, I think that the ones who promoted the legislation and thereby the divisions were three-steppers.

[pelathais]

[i]

Just had to look at this post again. Still amazed. I used to believe this. Forgive me, Jesus.
Romans 5:19 - We are saved by the obedience of just a single person - the obedience of Jesus Christ.

We really do have to look at the context. Either that or just rip the writings of Paul right out of the NT.