Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Steppers
 

Everyone,

I am wondering if anyone of you know of:
-An Apostolic Minister
-An Apostolic Oneness Organization
-Any UPCI or Independent Apostolic Church

where the minister has the guts to believe and preach that conversion/salvation/becoming a Christian is the 1-steppers. The 1-steppers doctrine believes that conversion happens when you believe and confess/repent . They do not believe that all (3) of water baptism and speaking in tongues is required. They do water baptize in Jesus' name and Speak in Tongues. But, they believe that conversion can happen when you believe and confess/repent.

Anyone know of an Apostolic minister, church (UPCI, independent), or any organization that has theology open like this?

Thank You

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

I have heard of folks with that view point and know that there are some forum members that believe that way. I do not know anyone personally that believes that way....thank God!

I'm sure there are several charismatics that believe that way but no Apostolics.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

:raises hand:

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

He specified oneness I think?

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Oh... and minister.

:lowers hand:

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Sherri who posts here a few times a year fits the description... I believe she copastors with her husband.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

They believe all 3 are not required for salvation, but if you are saved you will be baptized and receive glossolalia. Right?

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Actually there are more than you think that believe this way. Before the affirmation document UPCI forced upon ministers about half of the ministers believed that way. Most if not all left UPCI in the mid 90's though. I know several and am one.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

How many actually left?

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Those are called charismatics, not APOSTOLICS.

:D

I believe in justification by faith, that God is one, and that baptism should be done in Jesus name.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

You'd have to have some guts to preach a message that isn't correct. Just sayin'...

By some yes, but since Catholics and Mormons, amongst others also claim to be apostolic, I'd suggest that any real authority to identify oneself as apostolic or to label others as not being so is simply imagined.

Oh its going to eat me up to have to disagree with you PO, but......

Frankly it does take guts to rock the boat, to note that neither Bible nor history, nor experience favors 3 step soteriology. To believe this and remain quiet is acceptable. To believe this and to speak it is to be ostracized, slandered, labeled, and misjudged. It is always easier to go with the flow, than to buck a system.

The same treatment is due those who point out that standards as taught in OPism are unbiblical. Or tithing. And some eschatoligical views are subject to the same.

One does not simply speak out against the system, thus Lee Stoneking's hairesy and outright lies go without being challenged, Anthony Mangum's unbiblical commands for everyone to speak in tongues at the count of 3 go uncorrected, Jeff Arnold's outrageous and disqualifying shtick goes without ever being addressed.

And sometimes bucking the established system is exactly what is needed, see the Reformation, and every significant Christian movement since.

Why assume the current "apostolic" doctrine is 100% true, with no error and no need for correction?

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Hey, Jason, will you demonstrate from scripture the following:

1. Baptism does not save us.
2. Baptism is not for the remission of sins.
3. One does not wash away your sins in baptism.
4. He that believes and is not baptized shall be saved.
5. People receive the Holy Spirit WITHOUT speaking with tongues.
6. The gift of the Holy Spirit is NOT the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
7. Receiving the Holy Spirit is something OTHER than the baptism with the Spirit.
8. Baptism with the Spirit WITHOUT tongues, where there clearly was NO speaking in tongues.
9. Anyone said to be a Christian or saved without either water baptism or the Spirit?
10. Anyone told to "pray" to be "saved".
11. Anyone told to "pray" as an instruction for sinners becoming Christians.
12. A way to get "into Christ" that excludes baptism.

Thanks!

The first 4 demonstrate a misunderstanding of justification by faith and the command that the repentant sinner has to submit to water baptism as obedience to the Lord, identification with Him, and the symbolism baptism represents as a burying of the old man and a rising to new life.

5 is simply an untenable position, not supported by scripture, save of course proof texting, in the same manner JWs, Mormons, and SDAs all use small sound byte portions of scripture to arrive at their special "truths" to the neglect of the whole of scripture. Such is the OP conclusion of Acts 10:45 & 19:6, to the neglect of a mountain of scripture, and the very words of Christ himself, declaring belief in Him as the criteria for salvation above all else.

I hold no such positions as you imply in 6&7, I would agree all such language is interchangeable/equivalent.

8, the problems with this interpretation only start in Acts 2, when in 2:41 the 3,000 that responded to Peter's message simply believed and were baptized and added to the church. Then 5,000 in Acts 4:4 with no mention or implication of tongues, then essentially all Gentiles converted through the missionary efforts of the ministry of Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Mark, & Luke. Beyond that theres no witness in early church history that anyone ever believed that, and it has huge problems in that it damns everyone who has never spoken in tongues to hell, as I've discussed here before. This is really the house of cards that the 3 step doctrine collapses on.

9. Nada. As FF Bruce said in his commentary on Acts, the NT knows nothing of an unbaptized believer. I agree, and again any assumption that I believe that someone can refuse baptism and be saved is mistaken. I'd argue the person who refuses baptism probably has never genuinely repented, and thus neither justified.

9,10,11 is simply a confusion and failure to distinguish between the doctrine of justification by faith and easy believism. People who affirm justification by faith don't believe easy believism, consider:
https://youtu.be/dc5lY9YP_bE

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...D=517121529420

Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles https://g.co/kgs/SLwlW2

12, see first paragraph.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

:happydance

I think it takes more guts to preach all acts 2:38 in a world like this, when it's much easier to preach one step.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

I'll take that to mean you decided to pass on the questions.

In other words, you have no examples or statements or commands or necessary inferences from scripture that "People receive the Holy Spirit WITHOUT speaking with tongues." Thank you.

Then can you demonstrate from scripture people are saved or Christians without receiving the Spirit? Otherwise, see #5.

You failed to prove those people in scripture did NOT speak in tongues.

Then you are at least a three stepper - belief, repentance, baptism. One more to go, and we'll have you shouting the victory yet!



Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles https://g.co/kgs/SLwlW2 [/quote]

See above, we've got you three-quarters of the way home, but 99 and a half won't do!

So you accept there is no way to get into Christ that excludes water baptism.

Okay, all you need now is some time at the altar to pray through, brother! You believe that one must believe, must repent, and must be baptised. You also agree there is no difference between receiving the Spirit and being baptized with the Spirit. All you need is to clear up your doubts about tongues. I bet if we tarry in prayer just a little while longer till those doubts are removed you'll come through shoutin'!

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Mark 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

Acts 22:16

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord

1 Peter 3:21

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us

Sounds like more than symbolism to me. Additionally:

Exodus 30:20

When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the Lord:

Matthew 3:11

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mark 1:4

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:3

And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Followed up with Luke 24:47

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

I particularly like the imagery in this verse:

Hebrews 9:19

For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

No one I know says that tongues saves you, merely that when one is saved and filled with the Holy Ghost, they will speak in tongues. What's so untenable about that?

You never proved they didn't speak in tongues, you only showed that it wasn't recorded in Scripture. Every other recorded instance in the Bible demonstrates people speaking in tongues. Just because the Bible doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So, you believe that one is not saved without baptism?

See my reply to your first paragraph.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

amen

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Christ Church Nashville pastored by L.H. Hardwick for over 50 years until he retired a few years ago was UPC until 1989 and was a one stepper the entire time. With all of the fuss way back in the late 70's to get rid of Kenneth Phillips and Mark Hanby over the tv issue I was shocked when I found out CC Nashville had remained UPC for more than a decade longer. However back then the TN district of the UPC was quite a bit different than it is now.

Hey, Esaias, will you please answer the following questions:

1. Does the Bible teach justification is a one time act or a process?
2. On what basis is a repentant sinner justified?
3. What actions or conditions are required of a sinner before they can be justified?
4. What is the result of justification?
5. In exactly what sense does a justified person have peace with God, as per Romans 5:1?
6. Is it possible to be justified and lost? 6a. Is it possible to be at peace with God and lost?
7. Must a person be baptized before they can be justified?
8. Would you disagree that all whom God justifies, He also regenerates and adopts?
8a. If no, would you then affirm one can be justified but neither regenerate nor adopted into the family if God?
8b. If yes to 8, if God regenerates and adopts all who He justifies, would you see this as a process, or as a simultaneous event?
9. Is baptism specifically invoking the name of Jesus required by God as a condition in order to be justified?
10. Is receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues required by God in order to be justified, or as a sign of previous justification?

And a few questions in regard to your held views:
11. Why did Jesus state so many times that to believe in Him was to enter into or possess eternal life?
11a. Does not your position have to nuance and redefine belief to mean-be baptized in Jesus name, speak in tongues, and keep standards? Does not even David Bernard add a small paragraph in his commentary on Romans after discussing justification by faith, redefining it as the 3 step method? Must oneness pentecostals necessarily redefine basic terms and have their own religious lingo, in like manner as JWs, Mormons, and SDAs?
12. In a brief paragraph can you explain how the 3 step view is in harmony and not contradictory to passages such as Romans 3:21-5:1 and the entire book of Galatians?
13. If in your view baptism washes away sins, thus is actually effectual and 100% necessary to salvation, and yet the Baptism of the Spirit is necessary to salvation, evidenced ONLY/primarily with the speaking of tongues, on what basis will the repentant and baptized believer be lost who does not speak in tongues? If all their sins are washed away, thus paid for by the blood of Christ, what would they go to hell for?
14. If baptism is necessary to be cleansed from sin, why do people sometimes receive the Spirit BEFORE baptism? (As in Acts 10:45-48) Doesn't this fact alone mean that baptism cannot be the point in time in which sins are forgiven?

Waiting.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Hey Jay, did you answer his questions?

If yes, where did you?

Here. Not sure what post # b/c I'm using the forum runner app, which looks like the internet circa 1996.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Jason, did you have a chance to look through my post?

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...7&postcount=20

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Amen, our churches would be over flowing if we preached the easy believe-ism doctrine. Not many are willing to walk the old paths.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

No they wouldn't, that's just something to make us feel better about small churches.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

I have come to believe that doctrinal content has very little to do with mass appeal, except for the fact that according to the bible 'most people don't want the truth' (paraphrased, of course).

There are big Mormon churches, big Catholic churches, big Baptist churches, big Charismatic churches, and big Pentecostal churches (even some big Oneness Pentecostal churches). These days, it seems the deciding factor for large numbers is the answer to the questions "How good is the music?", "How nice is the building?", "How interesting is the preacher?", and "What does the church offer in the way of services or products for my kids?"

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

This!

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

I disagree.

Hit nail on head.

Still waiting....

Yes sir. Planning to respond. Tablet charging now.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Granted, I affirm all those scriptures as legitimate, inspired, and authoritative. But here's issue, not only are Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 inspired and authoritative, but so are also John 1:12, John 3:16-18, John 6:40, Acts 10:43, Acts 16:31, Romans 3:21-5:2, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 2:8-9 also as inspired, and so the point is not who can proof text a few verses, but ratherhow do these verses compliment each other and present a unified message.

And therefore I see my position as true to the entire testimony of scripture. I do not have to redefine what it means to be saved by grace through faith without works, nor dance around the teaching of justification by faith, so plainly explained by Paul in Romans and Galatians.


See note above, let me add this. If your position says "you can't be saved unless you are baptized", then your position equates the application of the blood of Christ at baptism. It also equates justification at baptism. But there are two major problems with this position
1)Cornielius' house received the Spirit BEFORE baptism. That alone destroys any argument that salvation, forgiveness of sin, or application of the blood is made AT baptism.
2)Paul goes to great lengths in Romans 4 to teach on justification by faith, and especially in Romans 4:10 emphasizes Abraham was justified BEFORE circumcision. That same argument applies to justitification before baptism.

I totally understand where you are coming from, but I simply don't think your position is completely consisitent with ALL of scripture.
I know thats what they say, but its a matter of semantics. They also say, when you buy a pair of shoes you don't buy the tongues, but you get the tongues, so it is with the Holy Ghost. No one who believes that will affirm that people can be saved without speaking in tongues, thus the logical conclusion is anyone who hasn't spoken in tonuges is not and cannot be saved. This is untenable because not only does it lack Biblical proof, but also it doesn't hold up historically.

Oneness people who affirm this, NEVER want to deal with the logical conclusion (except Steve Epley). The logical conclusion is essentially every Christian for 2000 years was a false convert who will burn in hell for eternity, having neither been baptized in Jesus name nor spoken in tongues, and certainly not both. Thus essentially everyone who has advanced the Gospel message and the cause of Christ through the history of the church was lost-Wycliffe, John Huss, Luther, Melanchton, William Tyndale, John Knox, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, John & Charles Wesley, Savanarola, John Bunyan, etc to the recent times, David Wilkerson, Leonard Ravenhill, Hudson Taylor, and many men now living, who have never spoken in tongues, even some who desire to (see John Piper), all lost. *BUT* while condemning all them to hell, Charles Parham and all those who follow him are seen as true Christian (well except the fact many of them were trinitarians and came down against the "new issue" in the early 1900s and died outside the oneness movement. Thus what OPs are left with as the truly saved are the Urshans, GT Haywood, Howard Goss, Frank Bartleman, and a handful or organizational heros, while condemning the rest of Christianity to hell fire. YET where are the great oneness contriubtions to the church-where is the oneness blood spilt for Bible translations, hymns, commentaries, etc? Oneness is built on the backs of trinitarians who didn't speak in tongues, while condemning the same. That position is untenable. Do you sing Amazing Grace? The old rugged cross? Rock of Ages? Crown Him with many crowns? Why? Why use songs written about God and his salvation by people who didn't know God, nor his salvation? It's untenable, and inconsistent.
Several times its not recorded. In fact only in a few cases is it. 24 of 27 NT books never mention tongues. Acts has 21 converstion accounts/reports, only 3 mention tongues. One can assume they always spoke in tongues, but its simply not in the text.
I believe that a repentant sinner is justified by faith as an instantaneous act of God, and baptism is subsequent.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Those verses do not preclude baptism being essential to salvation. Care to explain how that proves your point? I'm not seeing it.


No, it doesn't. There is nothing in my argument that says baptism must come before the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Also, the argument can be (and has been) made, that God needed to fill them with His Spirit, in order to convince Peter and the other Jews that they were indeed part of the new birth experience, and were equally accepted by God.

You fail to take into account that the book of Romans (and every book after Acts, in fact) was written to those already saved. They didn't need to go back and build up the basics of water baptism again, every one of them had already been baptized.

But you haven't proved it.

I'll come back to this at the end.

You assume several things.

1) You assume there were none who spoke in tongues during the time between the rise of Catholicism and Azusa Street.
2) You assume that just because someone did something for the kingdom of God, that they should be saved. Remember, Jesus said that the day will come when many will hear, 'depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you'. That wasn't directed at the lost, that was directed at those who claimed to be part of the body of Christ, but never actually were.
3) You assume that one must be saved to be used of God. God used a donkey to talk to Balaam, does that mean the donkey was saved?

Again, lack of reporting doesn't mean it didn't happen. Now, if you could find a verse that proves someone received the Holy Ghost and did NOT speak in tongues, I would pay you $1,000. Heck, let's make it $1,000,000.

Remember when I said I'd address your point below? This is it. Using your own argument that you made against us, the logical conclusion of your argument here is that you cannot be saved without baptism.

We say when one receives the Holy Ghost, they will speak in tongues. You say, the logical conclusion is that tongues saves.

Here, you say that when one is saved, they will be baptized. The logical conclusion then, is that baptism saves you.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Jason, I will answer your questions en tachei, but for the moment I defer to Jito's excellent response as being sufficient and thorough.

:)

What? His excellent response? Its the same ole talking points, "no one says tongues saves" " Romans was written to believers", if I'd have brought up the thief on the cross the response would be "he was saved under the old covenant". The responses are the standard OP talking points.

Now, that said, I appreciate the tone, and despite my lack of enthusiasm for the responses, I mean no disrespect for JITO. Its just a bit of exasperation of hearing the same things over and over again.

And note, Esaias, I'm still waiting on your response.

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Yes, it is the "same old" arguments, because they've not been disproved. Why reinvent the wheel?

Re: Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Step
 

Thanks! Much appreciated. :highfive

I don't consider myself a deep scholar or anything, but I have spent a lot of time studying the doctrines we hold so dear.