Are you an Apostolic?

[Jay]

I am unequivocally an Apostolic with no interest in turning aside and becoming something different. There was not wiggle room when the Bible stated that 'remission of sins should be preached in His name.' That name is the name of Jesus, and remission of sins is what Peter preached in Acts 2, Philip in Acts 8, Paul in Acts 19, and in many other references that I could cite (but lacking time can not).

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Jay

I am unequivocally an Apostolic with no interest in turning aside and becoming something different. There was not wiggle room when the Bible stated that 'remission of sins should be preached in His name.' That name is the name of Jesus, and remission of sins is what Peter preached in Acts 2, Philip in Acts 8, Paul in Acts 19, and in many other references that I could cite (but lacking time can not).

I don't think many Christians, if any, would argue against remission of sins in the name of Jesus. The question is, are one's sins remitted by one's own confession or is one's sins remitted with the involvement of another man on the sinner's behalf?

[Jay]

The Bible states with specificity that sins are remitted in baptism. No other place does it occur.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Jay

The Bible states with specificity that sins are remitted in baptism. No other place does it occur.

But the question remains, are one's sins remitted by the confession of the baptizee or are one's sins remitted by the confession of the baptizor....or both?

[Jay]

They are not remitted by the statements but by the complete action. There is no separation between the two.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Jay

They are not remitted by the statements but by the complete action. There is no separation between the two.

Let me ask it this way, would a person's sins be remitted if the baptizor said nothing but the baptizee called upon Jesus?

[BeenThinkin]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The only thing that really upsets me is the preaching of standards, while also saying it is NOT a "heaven or hell" issue - YET - not using anyone who doesn't follow OR treating them like a red-headed step-child. Now that right there is a huge problem if there ever was one. And, frankly, that makes me angry.

Be angry and sin not!!! Whatever that means!!!

BT

[LifeUncommon]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:

1. There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
2. The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
3. Every sinner must repent of their sins.
4. That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
5. That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
6. The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.

Do you believe in the above statements? Yes or No?

Absolutely! 100%!!

But I do not follow the man made teachings of the modern day churches that choose to call themselves "apostolic" and "Pentecostal".

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by Jay

I am unequivocally an Apostolic with no interest in turning aside and becoming something different. There was not wiggle room when the Bible stated that 'remission of sins should be preached in His name.' That name is the name of Jesus, and remission of sins is what Peter preached in Acts 2, Philip in Acts 8, Paul in Acts 19, and in many other references that I could cite (but lacking time can not).

Amen! I am right there with you my friend!

[bbyrd009]

Um, doesn't confessing your sins=remission?