Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lemon
I am just trying to ask a question and understand full well the Apostolic viewpoint - I did not roll out of bed into church yesterday.
Even Jeff Arnold will tell you that the gospel is not ACTS 2:38 - it can be stated that it is the response but it certainly is not the gospel.
I am also friends with men like Chester Wright who will not take the position of sending AG folks to hell over the titles baptism. He will not emphatically state that he knows they are saved, but he also will not state they are not. when he and I talked he simply stated "I hope so" - this is someone who is invited to preach at many "trinitarian" pentecostal churches.
The only thing I find hard to grasp is taking a hard line stance on this - Cornelieus may have been taught more truth, but was still considered a man mighty in the scriptures. Like I said, I am not waffling on how I would baptize, just curious on the absolute dogmatic approach....
Maybe I should have kept it to myself...
|
No you should not IMO. Sincere questions should never be kept to yourself. You have a sincere question and though you may agree or disagree there is nothing wrong with asking the question.
As you can tell in my post I absolutely believe in the necessity of Jesus name baptism. Why? Because it is
FOR the remission of sins which has everything to do with the gospel. There is only one gospel.
I hope I am wrong if that makes sense but I would not count on that.
The ancient church believed baptism was part of the new birth - universally.
The ancient church believed baptism was for the remission of sins - universally.
The ancient church recognized Jesus name baptism as the most ancient form of baptism.
It was Trinitarian theology that changed baptism (Jesus name baptism) by emphasizing the need to be baptized into the trinity (titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost). A little leaven leavens the whole lump.