Where are all the Acts 2:38 folks (3-steppers)??

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

And, here is a counter question? If a soul is physically unable to be baptized, if God's grace annulled because they cannot physically be baptized? I thought salvation was by grace through faith and NOT of works? Is God's grace limited when man cannot fulfill a works requirement for salvation?

So, is God unrighteous?

There was a man in the Bible who could not walk. His friends took him on his bed and opened up the roof of the house where Jesus was teaching and lowered him into the room for Jesus to heal him and he was healed and forgiven. This man found a way to get to Jesus. If someone wants to be baptized, they will find a way.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Renda,

You are correct in this assumption but people love to stir up trouble for those who do not teach it exactly as they believe it should be taught and therefore make another case against the Charismatic type folks among us.

Blessings, Rhoni

It goes both ways.

[Brother Price]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

There was a man in the Bible who could not walk. His friends took him on his bed and opened up the roof of the house where Jesus was teaching and lowered him into the room for Jesus to heal him and he was healed and forgiven. This man found a way to get to Jesus. If someone wants to be baptized, they will find a way.

Mizpeh, so a man who cannot even be touched because of the pain, God will send him to an eternal Hell because of his sickness? Sorry dude, but God is not as horrible as some make Him out to be.

[Brother Price]

Also, we want o judge the salvation of those who are not baptized according to one's personal understanding of Acts 2:38. Yet, in the same breath, we attempt to kick God off of His throne in order to do so.

Not me.

[OneAccord]

A man repented in a church I attended and requested to be baptized one Friday night during a revival. The pastor decided to wait until Sunday to have a baptismal service. The man was killed in a car accident on Saturday.

If this man was lost because he was not baptized... who will stand in judgement? Him for not being baptized or the one who refused to baptize him?

Could any of us look that mans family in the eye and tell them that, even though this man had repented, he is lost for all of eternity, because he had not been baptized?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

A man repented in a church I attended and requested to be baptized one Friday night during a revival. The pastor decided to wait until Sunday to have a baptismal service. The man was killed in a car accident on Saturday.

If this man was lost because he was not baptized... who will stand in judgement? Him for not being baptized or the one who refused to baptize him?

Could any of us look that mans family in the eye and tell them that, even though this man had repented, he is lost for all of eternity, because he had not been baptized?

Grace.

And thank the Lord that people aren't the deciding factor in these cases.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by scotty

Really? I would be curious to know what post that would be?

Here:

Originally Posted by scotty

With the uttmost respect , I don't see how you can back any of that with scripture?

And, in response to a post by CH where he says:

Down through history there have been outbreaks and revivals of this truth in various times and places throughout Christendom. And the Trinitarian church has waged all out war against it. One God Christians have been burned at the stake for refusing to believe in the Trinity or the triune baptismal formula. This isn't the time to back off the message....this is a time to get with the message.

Muslims love their Allah enough to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up....yet we water down the original teachings of our Lord Jesus and the Apostles he called. Would it be fair to say that the Apostolics we're seeing here don't love the full application of the gospel as much as Muslims love Islam?

Shake yourselves and awaken from your slumber my brethren. This is no time to retreat into the "average" Christian faith and practice of traditional Christian religion. This is a time to stand up and be counted...to prepare for war. To storm the very gates of Hell.

The idea that Acts 2:38 isn't essential is a lie from Hell and smells like smoke.

(I bolded and underlined the part that strays from Apostolic teaching)

You said:

Originally Posted by scotty

This sentiment of exclusivism against other Christians is new to the Apostolic movement. I dare say if A. D. Urshan were alive today, he wouldn't last a week on this board. The same with S.G. Norris, W.T. Witherspoon, John Dearing and many others.

I personally sat in a ministerial ethics class/seminar that was being taught be Stanley Chambers (back before the Internet was anything other than a Defense Department project). Brother Chambers shared his heart and was reviled for being a "compromiser."

We don't treat our elders very well. If they were alive and on this board, they would have probably been ridiculed and driven off within the first couple of days. There teachings are edited or thrown out entirely so that this new movement of exclusivism can be allowed to dominate.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

This WILL NOT happen.

We are even easy on those Mac users.

LOL! It's just that new avatar seems to reveal so many things about you that I never considered before.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This question avoids the point. Jesus taught that his baptism was to fulfill all righteousness, indicating that baptism was a command. Jesus also commanded that the church baptize converts in the Great Commission. We see Peter preaching to those in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost and in his sermon he admonished them to obey and be baptized after repentance. Peter also commanded that the gentiles be water baptized in the name of the Lord in Acts 10.

You're wanting to dance with Acts 2:38 while ignoring the whole of Scripture in regards to water baptism.

No, the question is the point... you're just avoiding my point.

It's funny how that when I asked a question, a question that you have so far refused to answer, I am said be "dancing" because I pull you back to my original question.

If you don't want to address the question I raise, that's cool. I'm so important that I demand such attention, just move along. However, if you wish to engage, then let's engage...

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again I ask; is water baptism a command of Scripture? Yes or no?

This is an important question because if we can conclude that it is a command, failure to baptize or be baptized is rebellion against the Scriptures.

Here's the original again:

Originally Posted by pelathais

At the heart of the issue is a paradox. It whittles down to the timeless free will verses determinism debate.

A "determinist" (Calvinist, Evangelical, educated Baptist, etc) might say something like this:

If God chose you from the foundation of the world to be saved, then nothing you do will frustrate the will of God. You will change your mind about sin, you will change your sinful behavior and you will of course be baptized. All of those things are brought about by the working of God's Spirit upon your sinful heart and are inevitable because you were saved from the foundation of the world.

A "free will" advocate (Like a Wesleyan, a non-Augustinian RC or Church of Christ) would say something like this:

You need to make a decision now. Choose who you will serve. Obey the Gospel and the teachings of the NT. Can't you feel the ministration of the Holy Spirit beckoning you to repent?

My view is that both sides are correct. We need to preach from both a free will and from a determinist point of view for balance. This is considered officially to be "heresy" by the UPCI, but so be it. Truth in balance will accomplish far more than a reactionary a paranoid approach to hill billy theology.

To help things along, was Jesus "commanded" to be baptized? On this issue of the "command" to be baptized, I am really keen to hear you bring up Acts 10! This is a fascinating topic, but if you don't want to go there, no biggie.

And the issue also includes the long running debate about the word "eis" ("for" in the KJV) in Acts 2:38. And for the record, I am already well aware of the copius posts and articles where "3 Stepper" proponents feel that they have "slam dunked" the issue.

Can you not see how both sides are correct, if given a complete hearing? Both sides are correct simultaneously. It is a fundamental paradox.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

There was a man in the Bible who could not walk. His friends took him on his bed and opened up the roof of the house where Jesus was teaching and lowered him into the room for Jesus to heal him and he was healed and forgiven. This man found a way to get to Jesus. If someone wants to be baptized, they will find a way.

I invite you to visit the hospital in a situation like the one that Bother Price describes and try to "open" up anything. Sadly, you would go from hospital ministry to a jail ministry as quickly as the paddy wagon can take you.