Where are all the Acts 2:38 folks (3-steppers)?? - Page 18

Apprehended · #**171** 12-26-2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I am seeing less and less of the traditional Acts 2:38 believers posting here. Who is left that still believes that it takes obeying Acts 2:38 in its completion to be saved??

Is this the beginning of the end for this forum being an Apostolic forum?? Have we gone charismatic?? Is the fat lady singing??

Define "saved."

My bible tells me that it is not Acts 2:38 that saves but rather "he that endureth to the END...the same shall be saved."

Being "saved" does not start nor does it end with the Acts 2:38 experience as some who would worship ONE scripture without even a good undestanding of THAT ONE. It is a though we have torn out from the bible and have lifted up one lone verse upon the pole for the whole world to gaze upon rather than lifting up Jesus Christ...the cure for every human malaise. I'm not sure that it is not some form of idolatory.

Actually, over the many years of observing the Apostolic movement, I am now coming to the opinion that somehow many of us have morphed into a very strange looking Gargoyle of past resemblence.

Yes, I believe Acts 2:38 and obedience to it, in its proper place. My advice to the whole world is to look to Jesus and follow HIM. Acts 2:38 will find its proper place in your journey to heaven which BEGINS with HEARING the Gospel (See Matt. Mark, Luke and John) the placing FAITH in this uplifted savior of all who will come to HIM.

Regretfully, we have hardened to LAW-givers and LAW-adherents which LAW is not written on the tables of the heart but rather in a creed crafted and chiseled into stone by a DENOMINATION who demand all to bow before it as the image in the plains of Dura.

The sun of righteousness seems to be sinking low as the shadows of the envening grow longer upon this closing day of the Pentecostal revival that began at the beginning of the century past.

Felicity · #**172** 12-26-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I must ask a hypothetical question though... is it that there are more Bapticostals than true Apostolics on this site?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

TRFrance, I am amazed even you have degraded to name calling also.

Actually "Bapticostal" is not a derogatory name - at least not according to several of the Baptist pastors I've talked to. They quite willingly and freely acknowledge that many Baptists today are receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking in tongues.

To me this is great!! I.E. that the acknowledgement is given with no negative "attitude" attached. In fact laughter and smiles (in a good way) are presented along with the acknowledgement.

Well, it went along with the promise after all, didn't it?

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

"I will pour out my Spirit upon ALL flesh" -- even Baptist flesh.

Hehehe

Barb · #**173** 12-26-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

Actually "Bapticostal" is not a derogatory name - at least not according to several of the Baptist pastors I've talked to. They quite willingly and freely acknowledge that many Baptists today are receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking in tongues.

To me this is great!! I.E. that the acknowledgement is given with no negative "attitude" attached. In fact laughter and smiles (in a good way) are presented along with the acknowledgement.

Well it went along with the promise didn't it?

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

"I will pour out my Spirit upon ALL flesh" -- even Baptist flesh.

Hehehe

True enough, sis...I have a Bible Methodist friend who is beginning to refer to herself as "Methocostal."

I joked with her husband and said that I must be having an effect on her...he said, "Yes, and a good one!!"

I don't have a problem with it at all...

IAintMovin · #**174** 12-26-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I am seeing less and less of the traditional Acts 2:38 believers posting here. Who is left that still believes that it takes obeying Acts 2:38 in its completion to be saved??

Is this the beginning of the end for this forum being an Apostolic forum?? Have we gone charismatic?? Is the fat lady singing??

IAM here..............

Praxeas · #**175** 12-26-2007, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

How can you have true discussion if you are allowed to hold to only one view?

Who says you have to?

Falla39 · #**176** 12-26-2007, 06:05 PM

Click on the Dec. 12, 2007 program with a discussion

on the subject on speaking with tongues. These are Southern

Baptists, one of which pastored in a town about 5 miles from our

city.

http://www.tbn.org/index.php/2/37.html

Blessings,

Falla39

Praxeas · #**177** 12-26-2007, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

Actually "Bapticostal" is not a derogatory name - at least not according to several of the Baptist pastors I've talked to. They quite willingly and freely acknowledge that many Baptists today are receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking in tongues.

To me this is great!! I.E. that the acknowledgement is given with no negative "attitude" attached. In fact laughter and smiles (in a good way) are presented along with the acknowledgement.

Well, it went along with the promise after all, didn't it?

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

"I will pour out my Spirit upon ALL flesh" -- even Baptist flesh.

Hehehe

I agree. I first encountered this term when I ran into an EX-UPCer on Dalnet (IRC chat). He had a great attitude. He was not angry or mean spirited towards the UPC and in fact he spoke very lovingly of men like N Urshan. Yet he called himself a bapticostal

scotty · #**178** 12-26-2007, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Define "saved."

My bible tells me that it is not Acts 2:38 that saves but rather "he that endureth to the END...the same shall be saved."

Being "saved" does not start nor does it end with the Acts 2:38 experience as some who would worship ONE scripture without even a good undestanding of THAT ONE. ( as you see here, according to Apprehended, we are misunderstanding the Word ) It is a though we have torn out from the bible and have lifted up one lone verse upon the pole for the whole world to gaze upon rather than lifting up Jesus Christ...the cure for every human malaise. I'm not sure that it is not some form of idolatory. ( Now we are idolators )

Actually, over the many years of observing the Apostolic movement, I am now coming to the opinion that somehow many of us have morphed into a very strange looking Gargoyle of past resemblence.

Yes, I believe Acts 2:38 and obedience to it, in its proper place. My advice to the whole world is to look to Jesus and follow HIM. Acts 2:38 will find its proper place in your journey to heaven which BEGINS with HEARING the Gospel (See Matt. Mark, Luke and John) the placing FAITH in this uplifted savior of all who will come to HIM.

Regretfully, we have hardened to LAW-givers and LAW-adherents which LAW is not written on the tables of the heart but rather in a creed crafted and chiseled into stone by a DENOMINATION who demand all to bow before it as the image in the plains of Dura.

The sun of righteousness seems to be sinking low as the shadows of the envening grow longer upon this closing day of the Pentecostal revival that began at the beginning of the century past.(and I have no idea what this means)

Yet according to the rules we should not insult anothers beliefs.

Now , in the spirit of debate I would say that since the Word is God and Jesus and His Father are one then Jesus is the Word. So I beleive if Peter says thats what it takes to be saved then I will probably believe it.

TRFrance · #**179** 12-26-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

TRFrance, I am amazed even you have degraded to name calling also.

One of the owners started this thread. It is a high priority, or this thread would have been pulled.

Name-calling? I'm amazed you consider the term to be name calling.

A a few others have already commented on this issue, but I'll just add a few words of my own...

Bapticostal is not a derogatory term since it was invented by, well, the "Bapticostals" themselves! Most of them seem to wear the name like its a badge of honor.

In this case I was using it as a figure of speech since the PCI doctrine is very similar to the bapticostal "1-step" doctrine that's espoused on this board on a daily basis.

Besides, I wasn't the first one to use the term on this thread anyway, and I didn't see anyone else getting chastised for using the term.

Praxeas · #**180** 12-26-2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Name-calling? I'm amazed you consider the term to be name calling.

A a few others have already commented on this issue, but I'll just add a few words of my own...

Bapticostal is not a derogatory term since it was invented by, well, the "Bapticostals" themselves! Most of them seem to wear the name like its a badge of honor.

In this case I was using it as a figure of speech since the PCI doctrine is very similar to the bapticostal "1-step" doctrine that's espoused on this board on a daily basis.

Besides, I wasn't the first one to use the term on this thread anyway, and I didn't see anyone else getting chastised for using the term.

Ignore him....he's had way too much egg nog and is recovering from an egg nog hangover