Question For One Step Apostolics
 

Would you say the one step is faith alone?

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

Baptism and the infillment of the HG with evidence of tongue talking are not important to one steppers.

Not in the sense we use it.

Faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin. As a penny without both is counterfeit so is the man who claims he has faith in Christ but has not turned from sin.

To truly BELIEVE the gospel one must have their eyes opened to the fact that 1)they are a sinner and the wrath if God abides upon them and 2)Christ's substitionary sacrifice and atonement on the cross and subsequent resurrection paid their penalty for sin and makes eternal salvation possible*.

To truly understand that Christ died on the cross for MY sin and to truly believe that can (thus "have faith") the only response to that can be to repent of my sins and follow Christ OR one can understand it but continue in unbelief.

*the sinner need not understand these words, just the concept Christ died in their place and rose again

Baptism is VERY important. If someone refuses baptism there is a very good chance (line 99% IMO) that they have not truly repented and have a counterfeit faith.

Baptism is so closely linked to conversion in the NT that a very strong case can be made for the absolute necessity of water baptism (such as Church of Christ and Oneness Pentecostals believe). But I do believe that saying baptism is necessary (is the moment of salvation) is problematic and doesn't fit with the truth if justification by faith, nor the many cases where Jesus obviously forgave people based on belief (and yes I know that was before the cross, I'm more than willing to discuss), or the fact that salvation has always been by faith (As Romans 4, Gen 15:6, and Hebrews 11 demonstrate).

But scriptures such as Acts 2:38, 22:16, Mark 16:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 can be strung together to make a strong argument. I grant that...I'm just not convinced they are to be understood in the baptismal regeneration sense.

As for tongues....

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

First of all, I am so glad the Lord led me to oneness in the first place instead of being raised in some mess.
I frankly don't get how someone can read Acts 2:38 and not know it is a command.

Just read it. They ask Peter with ALL the APOSTLES present: "what MUST WE DO to be SAVED?"

He answers them:

1- REPENT
2- BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS - FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS
3- RECIEVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST

Just READ it and OBEY it.

First you didn't correctly quote Acts 2:37.

Second are there 3 commands in Acts 2:38 or 2 commands and a promise?

Third those who were baptized were added to the church (v 41) with no mention or indication they spoke in tongues.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

Ok here is my point. If one step believers think one is saved by faith alone and they don't see as we do, that faith is like a vehicle driving you through a journey to your final destination:

Do you think that CONFESSION is adding works to faith? After all Paul says if we BELIEVE in our heart and CONFESS with our mouth the Lord Jesus we shall be saved.

So isn't this the same principal as when Christ says he who believes and is BAPTIZED shall be saved?

Does not confession ADD to faith in your belief?

How about repentance? If we are saved by faith ONLY apart from doing anything why must we REPENT?

Paul told the Philippian jailer "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved".

Evangelicals use this all the time. Just believe!

And they cant see that according to their own doctrine THEY are adding to the "finished work of Christ" by adding (at least some of them) confession, calling on the name, and repenting.

Altho there is scripture for all these things they say they are preaching salvation by faith alone. Well we do the exact same thing when we teach baptism
in water and the Holy Spirit baptism as essential.

See where Im coming from? If being saved by faith rules out the essentiality of baptism why not rule out confession with the mouth? Having to repent? Having to CALL on the name?

Why are these not considered works?

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

Ever heard of the simplicity of Christ?

Instead of making it complicated like our enemy always wants to just read and obey it.

As if telling people they must speak in tongues to be saved simplifies the gospel.
And tarrying, crying, begging, stammering, etc for weeks, months, and years doesn't make it complicated.

Especially in light of Christ's words in Luke 11:13.

The simplicity of the gospel is repent of your sins and trust in Christ.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

I agree with you, I just don't see how one can get away without receiving the HG and stay saved without it. I'm glad I received the HG because living for God without this precious promise would be difficult enough.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

Amen, in our dispensation, we MUST have the EXACT SAME doctrine, and the EXACT SAME experience as the early church...anything different than the original church of the Apostles day is a counterfeit church.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

Brother, if they didn't receive the Holy Ghost they weren't saved to begin with (Romans 8:9, John 3:5). The question isn't whether or not one has to be born again of the Spirit, but whether or not tongues is an essential indispensable evidence of such a birth, which I deny.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

Not at all.

But admittedly some do. I have said before and say again, I think 3 steppers have difficulty sometimes making a distinction between easy believism and salvation by faith. Indeed there are those who endorse easy believism and claim that even repentance and confession are "works". John MacArthur wrote 3 books tearing such a doctrine to shreds (The Gospel According to Jesus, Faith Works-The Gospel According to the Apostles, and Hard to Believe). He also wrote "Ashamed of the Gospel" a hard hitting attack against the gimmick driven seeker sensative church movement. So there are some very influential voices who speak out against the insanity of those who reduce salvation to mental assent.
Repentance is tied to believing. As I said earlier there is no way to divorce faith and repentance. Consider:

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 1 Cor 15:1-4 (KJV)

The atonement (and the implication that we must turn from sin, ie repent) is the very foundation of the gospel story and message. I suppose the question is what does someone have to believe? Just simply "believing" in Jesus is insufficient to save. It is the person and work of Jesus that matter.

The person-He is the Christ, the Son of God
The work-He atoned for our sins by his death on the cross, and rose again

And its shameful. And deceiving. And it makes me as a "1 stepper" as sick as you, and is a primary reason Christianity in America is in such a pathetic state.

I don't think any of these things are work, with the possible exception of baptism. But I'm leery of saying baptism is a 'work" because it is only effective by faith, and is hardly "earning/working" for salvation. I don't think I've ever called baptism "salvation by works" and if I did, and someone refers me to the post, I will apologize and repent. Thats not my view. Though I do think it CAN be made into a work and meaningless ritual, such as in Catholicism.

As for the Spirit's baptism, we all agree that is essential, as I posted to Bro. Eastman.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

I grew up UPCI and adhered to it for my first 35 years, but the past year and a half I've switched over to Jason's point of view from my study of the word. I've followed Jason's and MTD's posts almost daily and thoroughly have enjoyed learning and understanding more about both sides than I ever did toting the UPCI line of "don't question, just live it." Thanks to both of you and even Luke the Trin for your insites and making me think.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

Beats me why someone who claims the Holy Ghost wouldn't want to speak in tongues? Why would someone deny others the experience? Peter and the 120 spoke in tongues. Paul spoke in tongues. We tongue speakers are in good Bible company.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

WOW! Thank God I never had that experience. Always had good teachers in my life that weren't afraid of questions, but really encouraged dialog.

I'm amazed. I was always "allowed to question" as long as I accepted the answer. If the answer was insufficient and I continued "questioning" I was rebellious.

I think that's pretty standard. You line up well with the UC doctrines so you're questions were probably OK since you accepted all the standard talking points.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

So the question comes down to "how does one know anyone has received the spirit of God?"

James Dunn in his essays on Pneumatology (Christ and the Spirit) demonstrates (conclusively, imo) that receiving the spirit per Acts is undeniably accompanied by an observable, external manifestation or "effect" of some kind, though he does not accept glossalalia as THE normative sign.

He also demonstrates that water baptism is presented in the NT as a part of "conversion-initiation" experience and not merely as a post-salvation or post-regeneration symbolic memorial.

:thumbs up

And FTR I'm still in the process of reevaluating doctrine. I'm not claiming to have it all figured out and not claiming I won't shift or find an area I over corrected in and make adjustments.

For me, I converted to Christ in a UPC church in Jan 2000. I wasn't raised in a church and came out if the world. I was in terrible bondage to sin.

But Jesus Christ saved me, radically changed my life and now 14 years later I'm still here and Ive been preaching the gospel of Christ for several years.

However upon conversion I knew little (nothing) about the Bible, doctrine, or anything else. I accepted the churches teachings and the doctrine presented in various UPC Bible Studies I went through.
I read through the reading lists to get licensed, and through several DKB books. I read the entire Bible through and have continued to read it regularly to this day. But it took me a decade to realize I didn't really know the Bible, I just knew oneness pentecostal doctrine. And when I read the Bible I was reading it with my OP slant.

But I didn't realize this until I was preaching on a regular basis every Sunday as asst pastor at a independent holiness church (it was OP). I wanted to preach deeper than just messages on core doctrines (oneness, baptism, the Holy Ghost, and holiness/standards), and more than the empty emotional messages so common in Pentecost. And so I began to study the book of Romans. A book I was never totally comfortable with as an OP (always had to explain why Romans 10:9-10 DIDN'T mean what it said when I taught Search for Truth in home bible studies) and I was convinced that Romans was being abused by evangelicals. I was determined to understand the book at its depths (and the entire NT, to add depth and variety to my preaching) and to strengthen my OP doctrine through this study. IOW I didn't go into Romans looking to find something else. I went into Romans fully expecting to fortify my view of salvation at the time (the traditional 3 step method). However that study turned my world upside down.


So after my conversion I was told what to believe and spent all my efforts learning it. In the last several years I've studied scripture and history for myself.

I've shifted on soteriology. But historically I think the oneness of God and baptism in JN are pretty strong. I also reject tithing. I think a plurality of elders is a more biblical way to oversee a church (instead of a pastor-monarch). I've got a lot to learn and I'm the first to admit it. But I thank God for the journey.

I agree with the latter. That is pretty much the mainstream view amongst scholars.

As for the former I'm real curious about how Dunn would demonstrate from scripture an "undeniable, observable, external manifestation" with the 3,000 of Acts 2:41, the 5,000 of Acts 4:4, the Eunuch in Acts 8:39 (its a stretch to say he spoke in tongues because he had joy, especially when cross referenced w/Acts 8:8), Acts 13:12, Acts 13:42-48, etc.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

I agree but so is water baptism.

He who believes AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved....he who believes not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

That looks pretty well tied together to me!

And this is just as strong and perhaps more useful.

26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal. 3:26

Paul did not separate baptism from faith.

The Holy Spirit works the same way.

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Its even clearer in Eph. 1:13-14

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

We can look over at Acts 19 1-6 and see how this actually looked UP CLOSE.

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

So as weak as Apostolic Churches seem to be in general I believe they have made the definitive case concerning being saved by faith.

It is because one believes in Jesus he gets baptized into his name. It is by faith one receives the Holy Spirit.

The Oneness Pentecostal teaching on this seems spot on with the word!

Again can you understand my puzzlement that confession with the mouth and calling on Jesus is somehow seen to be an outflow and part of faith where the baptism in water and spirit cannot?

And yes I realize you have not said that water baptism isn't a part of faith. So does that mean you are a two step Apostolic?

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

But I didn't realize this until I was preaching on a regular basis every Sunday as asst pastor at a independent holiness church (it was OP). I wanted to preach deeper than just messages on core doctrines (oneness, baptism, the Holy Ghost, and holiness/standards), and more than the empty emotional messages so common in Pentecost. And so I began to study the book of Romans. A book I was never totally comfortable with as an OP (always had to explain why Romans 10:9-10 DIDN'T mean what it said when I taught Search for Truth in home bible studies) and I was convinced that Romans was being abused by evangelicals. I was determined to understand the book at its depths (and the entire NT, to add depth and variety to my preaching) and to strengthen my OP doctrine through this study. IOW I didn't go into Romans looking to find something else. I went into Romans fully expecting to fortify my view of salvation at the time (the traditional 3 step method). However that study turned my world upside down. QUOTE JASON BAJEDO




Jason, when you read Rom.10:9, did you somehow see an "alternative plan of salvation" here? I think that it is whjat you are implying, right?(I dont want to misrepresent you though)...

The book of Romans was written to folks that were ALREADY saved the Acts 2:38 way. Romans 10:9 is just an encouragement to those that were already saved to continue to confess and believe to keep their faith active. It is not an alternative plan for sinners.


Just look at the directed audience of this letter..(saints, not sinners)...

Romans 1 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5 by whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 6 among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7 to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

Jason, Romans 10:1 addresses the beginning of the point Paul is wanting to make in Romans 10.

He begins by saying, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved."

How can Israel be saved unless they believe verse 4 - "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Israel has to first believe that Christ is God manifest in the flesh. They didn't believe that and turned him over to the Romans to have Him crucified. Israel needs to repent and obey Acts 2:38.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

It worked the other way around for me. I came to faith through Hal Lindseys "The Late Great Planet Earth". An Evangelical for sure. Before I ever started going to Church I had this experience with another language, an interpretation that came to pass within the hour.

Having never been in a Pentecostal Church in my life I chalked it up to just a supernatural experience with God. When I later prayed about the truth of the Spirit baptism I was on my way to a little Baptist owned Christian Bookstore.

I got out of the car and went in. In short order a woman approached me asking if I had received the Holy Spirit. Soon right there in the bookstore I was speaking in tongues. This was Gods answer to me I believe that I had received but this was his leading to help me understand doctrinally the connection between the baptism in the Spirit and tongues.

I went on through various Churches including Church Of Christ, Freewill Baptist, and Trinitarian Pentecostal and Charismatic. And all the while fellowshipping mainly in the Jesus Movement.

Early on I accepted the Church of Christs teaching in the essentiality of baptism but gave it up for a season as street ministry was rather encumbered with having to baptize so I let it slip.

One day at the Coffee House a man walked in covered with tattoos. I had just then been in the prayer room seeking God whether baptism was essential for salvation. I witnessed to this man and took him to the prayer room where he prayed to accept Christ.

After a while after praying the man looked up at me and said "Do I need to be baptized now? Well that's just what I had been asking God. Now here a sinner has just prayed through and asked if he needs to be baptized. Best I can recall in two years of intense street ministry he was the only one who asked me that question.

Immediately I called some of the brothers and we baptized this man who's entire upper body was nothing but tattoos! Anyway I became more and more sensitive how that Evangelicals would either ignore verses about baptism or explained them away as a mere "outward testimony".

When I began to read some Apostolic (Oneness Pentecostal) tracts my eyes began to open. By reading more carefully in Acts I saw that their testimonies matched the ones in the book of Acts!

I could clearly see, since I had already read the book of Romans many times that fath, repentance, grace, were all there as well as water and spirit baptism.

Paul was taking a wide ranging overview about salvation not leaving things out but touching each of them and weaving them all together in a way only the Holy Spirit can.

It was clear at that point that Evangelical, even Pentecostals were preaching another gospel. I don't see Romans and Acts as enemies but rather complimentary with each giving further detail that the other did.

When we read Pauls testimony in Acts (knowing that he wrote Romans) its amazing that its the same as many Oneness Pentecostals today have in their common experience.

He would not after being fully saved the same way as others in the early Church would not have written a book that contradicted his own testimony!

So to make a very long story short it continually grieved me hearing my Evangelical Pastors and friends distort scripture and assure sincere seekers they were born again.

When I departed from among them I had hi expectations of what an "Apostolic Church" would be like. Boy was I ever disappointed!

Yet nonetheless I feel of all the Churches on Earth (that I know of) these Apostolic groups are the only ones with the same testimonies in Acts.

Yes Sean I'm familiar with that argument, I think its weak. Perhaps another time I will explain why. I have to get ready for work now.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

:thumbsup :thumbsup

Likewise I'd like to engage on this thought.

But just to clarify my reference to Romans 10 was anecdotal. I didn't change my view based on that. It really has to do with the whole NT as well as the fact that many people who have not spoken in tongues are just as faithful Christians as Apostolics, and some times more so.

I think we need to talk about the gospel of John, Romans, and the epistle of 1 John. I don't think oneness soteriology holds up to the teachings in those books.

As for me personally if there is a passage if scripture that was most influential in changing my mind it is not Romans 10:9-10. It is Romans 3:21-5:2.

So let's start there. How is that consistent with an OP 3 step soteriology?

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved...."

Jebus

Who? Never mind. ;)

No one is arguing against baptism.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

I am going to use the Amplified for Romans 3:21-25 to begin.

The Book of Romans has Paul using 51 references from the Septuagint, not being in conflict, but taking possession of these verses to show that they bear witness to the Gospel.

For all who believe? Paul references the who – “to the Jew first and also to the Greek/Gentile”.

What are they to believe? That the Messiah has come. That is not the end of their faith. It is only the beginning.

Notice Galatians 3:14:

And notice Acts 2:33:

Romans 8:9

Romans 8:11-12


Peter testifies in Acts 2:33 that what they see and what they hear is the Holy Ghost that was promised.

Romans 3:23-25

These verses of scripture in Romans 3:21-25 are simply saying that the Law and the Prophets bear witness to the gospel, that God’s grace is upheld and that Jesus Christ is Israel’s God, the God of Abraham.

It is about foundation – belief – to the Jew first and also the Greek.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

I would like to address the issue of "believing". When someone says "I believe" something... does one simply continue on as before, with no actions to accompany that statement belief, or should there be a corresponding action to match up to that statement of belief?

This is where I see a problem with those that say "just believe". The true mark of one who has believed involves a corresponding action.

If you believe your house to be on fire, do you continue to stay in your house, doing whatever you were doing, or do you take action to leave the house, because you believe it to be on fire? If you really believe, you will leave your house. Belief + action.

So for those who say "I believe", and feel there is no action required, that is exactly where they are wrong. Truly believing in something requires action, and that action would be to follow Peter's instructions as given in Acts 2:38. While the book of Acts does not mention every step of a believing action in every account, this does not mean it did not take place.

And if it mattered enough for Jesus to be baptized by the John the Baptist before beginning his earthly ministry, along with the Spirit descending like a dove upon him, accompanied with his words in Mark "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", is that not enough action on the part of Jesus himself to show the necessity of water baptism and being filled with the Spirit?

You see, when you truly believe something... action is required, or you have not really believed.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

awesome post

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

:thumbsup

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

And of course, the most important aspect of 'Repentance + Baptism in Jesus Name + Infilling of Holy Ghost' is that it mirrors the 'Death + Burial + Resurrection' of Jesus. One could no more deny the importance of any of those three salvational steps, than to deny Jesus was buried or that He rose again. As for speaking in tongues upon infilling of the Holy Ghost:

Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 10:44-47
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Acts 19:5-6
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

I'm sure I'm probably skipping some, but that was just from a quick search of the verses in question.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

Amen in the faith hall of fame in Hebrews 11 it is demonstrated perfectly. Noah built an ark by faith. Abraham left town by faith. Moses chose to forsake Egypt by faith so on and so forth.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

Ok bro., I think we must address it. Lets do it.....
The books of Romans through Revelation were written to folks that have already passed through Acts...(notice how the translators put our N.T. in a "certain" order...
Matt- John(written to sinners to spark their belief in Jesus)....
Acts(what must we(they) do after belief in Jesus)....
Romans - Revelations(how to walk in the "new life" for those that passed through Acts)...

If we "remove" Acts from the conversion process like many do these days, you then go to Romans 10:9(skip Acts and "jump" from John to Romans) and give folks the "alternate" plan.....

Here is a list of the Epistles and who they were designated for to be reading....

Romans 1:7 (the saints of Rome)
1 Cor. (the CHURCH of God in Corinth) vs 2
2 Cor. (the Church of God at Corinth and Achaia) vs 1
Galatians (the churches of Galatia)vs 2
Ephesians ( the saints at Ephesus) vs 1
Philippians (the saints at Phillipi with the bishops and deacons) vs 1
Colossians (the saints and faithful brethren at Colosse) vs 2
1 Thessalonians (The church) vs 1
2 Thessalonians (the church) vs 1
1 Tim. (to Timothy only) vs 2
2 Tim. (to timothy only) vs 2
Titus (to Titus only) vs 4
Philemon (to Philemon, Apphia, Archippus and his house CHURCH) vs 1 and 2
Hebrews ( The whole thing addressing christians) 2:1, 3:1 (holy brethren) etc.
James ( his saved Jewish BRETHREN scattered abroad) vs 1 and 2
1 Peter (the scattered saints (elect) of God) vs 1 through 4
2 Peter (all saints) vs 1 through 4
1 John (all saints or brethren) chapter 2:7
2 John (the elect lady and her children) vs 1
3 John ( to Gaius only) vs 1
Jude (to them that are sanctified by God...and called)
Revelation (the 7 churches of Asia Minor) chapters 1-3


If we take sinners to these epistles to the saints that are "already" born again. They are reading "spiritual" passages from a "carnal" perspective.

In essence, they are reading somebody elses' mail that doesnt apply to them yet.

They must pass through Acts to be "qualified" to read the epistles.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

As I've studied and immersed myself in prayer, the Lord has emphasized over and over to me that the doctrines of redemption must be taught and embraced. They settle nearly every question.

1. Election (God's choice of a people to be saved according to His sovereign will, purpose, and foreknowledge)

2. Predestination (God's predetermined glory for His chosen Elect body)

3. Atonement (Christ's work of satisfying the law for the Elect)

4. Propitiation (Christ's satisfying God's wrath against the sins of the Elect)

5. Prevenient Grace (the drawing and illumination of the lost soul through the Holy Spirit)

6. Conversion (faith, repentance & water baptism)

7. Justification (imputed righteousness)

8. Regeneration (being born again of the Spirit)

9. Adoption (membership in God's family)

10. Sanctification (the act of taking part in the divine nature and thereby being conformed into the image and likeness of Christ)

11. Death (the intermediate state wherein the soul of the Elect saint of God is present with the Lord in Heaven awaiting resurrection & glorification)

12. Resurrection & Glorification (receiving a resurrected and transformed body in glorified form that is fashioned perfectly into the image of Christ)

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

Exactly,

People do not realize that the birth of the church began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). The birth of the church did not start at the cross (although the cross was the reason for the birth), but rather when the message of the cross was obeyed in Acts 2. The death, burial, and resurrection is demonstrated by an ACT, which includes repentance, baptism of not only the water, but by the Spirit. Not ACTING on the works of the cross is in definition not ACTING on the work of saving grace which was demonstrated at the cross!!

Jesus told Nicodemus that unless he was born again of the WATER and the SPIRIT he could not see the kingdom of God!! The BIRTH of the church is through the water and the Spirit which should be elementary not only to the Apostolic faith, but to Christianity in particular.

Being baptized by the Spirit (or the Holy Ghost) IS with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. Peter demonstrated this by actually doing this along with the other 119 in the upper room.

Re: Question For One Step Apostolics
 

So-called "one strep" apostolics lack a huge factor in their exegesis. They claim that Holy Ghost baptism and water baptism are post-soteriological. They occur AFTER salvation. But we have NO CASE in the entire New Testament where that concept is laid out. They claim the people on the day of Pentecost who received the Holy Ghost and were baptized experienced the baptism simultaneously, but yet distinctly, with their salvation. But we find no explanation to this effect and no example saying someone received the Spirit and were saved before they had Holy Ghost baptism and water baptism.

There is no New Testament plain statement anywhere saying that you have the Spirit in you before Spirit baptism. One has to simply want to believe that.

On the other hand, we have plain example of Spirit baptism and water baptism at salvation. And then there is Jesus' words saying he that believes AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved. Saying that Mark 16:16 is an interpolation is an excuse. With the Bible AS IS, baptism is part of salvation. 1 Peter 3 says it is part of salvation no matter how you slice it. It is as much part of remission of sins as is the blood of Jesus.

Jesus did not often use the phrase "for the remission of sins," but when He did it meant the same thing.

Mat 26:28 KJV For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Act 2:38 KJV 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.