What Happened to AFF's Belief System?

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I thought no one was supposed to be allowed to tear down Pentecostal/Apostolic doctrine? What's up with all of the threads posted against Acts 2:38, water baptism, Holy Ghost-infilling and the like?

Not looking for argument, just clarification. Which threads were posted "against" Acts 2:38, water baptism, Holy Ghost-infilling and the like?

I have seen threads which tried to explore their purpose. But not even the "PCIers" or "one-steppers" or whatever, have not stated that they should not be done!

(BTW If you find one I AGREE it should be banned)

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by RevBuddy

Ferd...

Hey, man, I didn't fall off a turnip truck yesterday...nice try!!!

for the record, i dont believe anything I have posted in this thread thus far....

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Ferd

for the record, i dont believe anything I have posted in this thread thus far....

I cannot believe YOU posted THAT!

[Carpenter]

Originally Posted by ChicagoPastor

Ok maybe the thread should've been called something else, but PP brings up a valid point....

Isn't it kinda wrong that people that hold the traditional Oneness message and views feel like the minority on an Apostolic forum?

I am kind of concerned myself actually and I think my concern is why I believe that you are concerned.

First of all, it is troubling to me that so many on this forum, believes stronger that embracing the Acts 2:38 doctrine of baptism is what gives rise to Oneness revelation rather than what you used to believe took place according to that scripture...namely a filthy sinner coming to salvation and the remission of sin.

We jump up and down when we hear the 234 ministers in the Baptist General Conference in Uganda being baptized in Jesus name and all of the sudden we make the leap in assuming ALL of them now have a revelation of the Oneness.

Also, you cannot speak of A2:38 in a vacuum. It has been hotly contested from both sides whether baptism is FOR the remission of sins or BECAUSE OF the remission of sins. Both groups embrace the scripture, but they do not see eye to eye. So which side has prominance? Who is correct? Both?

Also there are folks here who believe that if you compromise the social and cultural doctrines you automatically denounce Acts 2:38, the Oneness, the Holy Ghost, Holiness, etc.

So, I think you may be concerned and that has me concerned.

[Carpenter]

Originally Posted by Ferd

for the record, i dont believe anything I have posted in this thread thus far....

That makes two of us.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I thought no one was supposed to be allowed to tear down Pentecostal/Apostolic doctrine? What's up with all of the threads posted against Acts 2:38, water baptism, Holy Ghost-infilling and the like?

Use the Post reporting tool. Good grief people, how many times does it need to be said???

[Carpenter]

I would like to report my post above.






...did it work?

[ChicagoPastor]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Maybe instead of complaining, join in and show what you feel is the correct message in these threads questioning our beliefs. :grouphug

BOOM,
are you calling me out? are you saying I don't stand up for my beliefs? (jk)

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by ChicagoPastor

BOOM,
are you calling me out? are you saying I don't stand up for my beliefs? (jk)

Not calling you out at all. We have a lot of threads with one side of the story. With someone posting what is Biblical and what is correct, we have then both sides.

I am sorry you felt I called you out.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

I am kind of concerned myself actually and I think my concern is why I believe that you are concerned.

First of all, it is troubling to me that so many on this forum, believes stronger that embracing the Acts 2:38 doctrine of baptism is what gives rise to Oneness revelation rather than what you used to believe took place according to that scripture...namely a filthy sinner coming to salvation and the remission of sin.

We jump up and down when we hear the 234 ministers in the Baptist General Conference in Uganda being baptized in Jesus name and all of the sudden we make the leap in assuming ALL of them now have a revelation of the Oneness.

Also, you cannot speak of A2:38 in a vacuum. It has been hotly contested from both sides whether baptism is FOR the remission of sins or BECAUSE OF the remission of sins. Both groups embrace the scripture, but they do not see eye to eye. So which side has prominance? Who is correct? Both?

Also there are folks here who believe that if you compromise the social and cultural doctrines you automatically denounce Acts 2:38, the Oneness, the Holy Ghost, Holiness, etc.

So, I think you may be concerned and that has me concerned.

Carpenter is correct. There is a lot of over sensitivity sometimes when peripheral matters are questioned.

A few people seem to take the "all or nothing approach." If you don't condemn coulottes then you must also baptize in the titles.