Doctrinal Question - Someone Please Take a Shot at This.

[Steve Epley]

I seldom post here anyone and only lurk casually and this attitude reminds me why. The prevailent attitude against the doctrine of the Apostolic church is the banner of AFF it seems. Trinitarians are exalted even con men but Apostolic preachers and the doctrine are held in repute. I said sometime back I wondered if this had become an ex-Pentecostal site and it seems more and more it has become that. Just clearly my chest. You cannot even discuss doctrine without insulting your own heritage and roots and I find myself in a 'hog-butchering' mood which I don't like. I must reconsider my involvement on this forum.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Elder Epley please stay as we need you and your opinion.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Two questions have you read Acts 7? What is that if it is not a sermon?
But then that still doesn't help you NO ONE was baptized. Y'all guys are so easy.

I read it. Steve....there are people here who are not by your estimation preachers that give "sermons"...the definition of a preacher is someone that proclaims the gospel....unless you are brain dead most UPCers proclaim the gospel in one form or another. If all that is required for someone to be a preacher is to speak to someone else about Christ, like Stephen did, then there are a lot more preachers than we realized. (I believe there are more than most realize)..

As for being baptized, I was think of Philip actually. What about Ananias who baptized Paul?

Also can you respond to the rest of my post about the bible making a distinction between laypersons who can't do squat but sit there and pay tithes and "preachers"?

Why isn't the "layperson" who teaches bible study a preacher? What about the Sunday School teacher? What about the person that is constantly out on the street telling people about Jesus (how often do so called preachers do that?)

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

God had mercy on you and your friend that doesn't change the Book. That is why I am NOT a three-stepper so-called. In Acts the penitent twice recieved the HGB before they were baptized BUT they were immediately baptized. Anyone who refuses baptism in Jesus Name either did NOT recieve the genuine HGB or did not follow it. However sins in the NT dispensation are remitted ONLY in water baptism in Jesus Name for the penitent.

How can there be "mercy" without "forgiveness" (translated "remission" in the KJV)? This isn't addressing the theological question. If sin isn't forgiven until water baptism how did I and so many others receive the Holy Ghost prior to water baptism?

According to you, there we were...on our knees, yet unforgiven: repenting, weeping, sobbing, receiving the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues,and praising God. Experientially, in applied Apostolic faith, your position is problematic. Sure, it has it's scholars who support it (some scholars believe in a hollow eart too), and like Communism it makes sense on paper...but it just doesn't jive in the trenches of real life as experienced in the lives of the redeemed.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sam

Bro. Frank Curts, Bible teacher and Supt of UPC Ohio District for many years said that men can remit sins (by baptizing someone in Jesus' name) but men cannot forgive sins.

Almost sounds like RCC doctrine, doesn't it?

The words "remission" and "forgiveness" are the same...go back to the Greek. It amazes me how we can misinterpret so much.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

For the most part the PCIers or one steppers on this forum would agree w/ your post .... We all believe baptism is to be obeyed and is an visual representation and identification w/ His work.

As for calling the commands we must obey the "Apostolic Gospel" we would diverge.

To be a 3-stepper you must accept the doctrine of baptismal regeneration ... and you obviously don't/

No you DON'T have to accept baptismal regeneration

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Who said your sins were not forgiven?????????????? NOT I!!!!!!!

So my sins were forgiven upon repentance prior to baptism?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Does that make their knowledge of the greek somehow wrong? Or are you guys saying they lied? That claim can be made of anyone...under any circumstances

There are highly intelligent scholars in both camps. Therefore it's evident men have no sure answer. It's only in the original linguistic meaning of the text.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No you DON'T have to accept baptismal regeneration

Oh ... Praxeas ... here you go again redefining what is a commonly accepted term for those who are of the W&S persuasion ....

Here so you don't whine all nite ...

Aquila, You have to accept that unless there is not a properly administered baptism there is no remission of sins ... one is not born of the water .... and missing the important component to being regenerated or "born again"

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Elder Epley please stay as we need you and your opinion.

Bro. Scott I rarely post anymore and I enjoy the arguing. Dan, Adino and myself have argued til he cows came home and enjoyed it. But over time the attitude has gotten worse not better toward Pentecost in general and I find myself answering in kind. Then I feel bad because I am not a rude person. This topic interested me and I thought well we will fuss this again however I find myself getting upset NOT at the arguments of the Bible but rather insulting remarks made about Apostolic preachers and doctrine. And it is the NORM here. I ponder at the name Apostolic Friends Forum? I have discussed with posters on here of the PCI mentality and enjoyed it so I am NOT speaking of difference in doctrinal stances but attitudes.