Question For One Step Apostolics

[Michael The Disciple]

Would you say the one step is faith alone?

[BrotherEastman]

Baptism and the infillment of the HG with evidence of tongue talking are not important to one steppers.

[Jason B]

Not in the sense we use it.

Faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin. As a penny without both is counterfeit so is the man who claims he has faith in Christ but has not turned from sin.

To truly BELIEVE the gospel one must have their eyes opened to the fact that 1)they are a sinner and the wrath if God abides upon them and 2)Christ's substitionary sacrifice and atonement on the cross and subsequent resurrection paid their penalty for sin and makes eternal salvation possible*.

To truly understand that Christ died on the cross for MY sin and to truly believe that can (thus "have faith") the only response to that can be to repent of my sins and follow Christ OR one can understand it but continue in unbelief.

*the sinner need not understand these words, just the concept Christ died in their place and rose again

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Baptism and the infillment of the HG with evidence of tongue talking are not important to one steppers.

Baptism is VERY important. If someone refuses baptism there is a very good chance (line 99% IMO) that they have not truly repented and have a counterfeit faith.

Baptism is so closely linked to conversion in the NT that a very strong case can be made for the absolute necessity of water baptism (such as Church of Christ and Oneness Pentecostals believe). But I do believe that saying baptism is necessary (is the moment of salvation) is problematic and doesn't fit with the truth if justification by faith, nor the many cases where Jesus obviously forgave people based on belief (and yes I know that was before the cross, I'm more than willing to discuss), or the fact that salvation has always been by faith (As Romans 4, Gen 15:6, and Hebrews 11 demonstrate).

But scriptures such as Acts 2:38, 22:16, Mark 16:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 can be strung together to make a strong argument. I grant that...I'm just not convinced they are to be understood in the baptismal regeneration sense.

As for tongues....

[pilgram]

First of all, I am so glad the Lord led me to oneness in the first place instead of being raised in some mess.
I frankly don't get how someone can read Acts 2:38 and not know it is a command.

Just read it. They ask Peter with ALL the APOSTLES present: "what MUST WE DO to be SAVED?"

He answers them:

1- REPENT
2- BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS - FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS
3- RECIEVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST

Just READ it and OBEY it.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pilgram

First of all, I am so glad the Lord led me to oneness in the first place instead of being raised in some mess.
I frankly don't get how someone can read Acts 2:38 and not know it is a command.

Just read it. They ask Peter with ALL the APOSTLES present: "what MUST WE DO to be SAVED?"

He answers them:

1- REPENT
2- BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS - FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS
3- RECIEVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST

Just READ it and OBEY it.

First you didn't correctly quote Acts 2:37.

Second are there 3 commands in Acts 2:38 or 2 commands and a promise?

Third those who were baptized were added to the church (v 41) with no mention or indication they spoke in tongues.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Baptism is VERY important. If someone refuses baptism there is a very good chance (line 99% IMO) that they have not truly repented and have a counterfeit faith.

Baptism is so closely linked to conversion in the NT that a very strong case can be made for the absolute necessity of water baptism (such as Church of Christ and Oneness Pentecostals believe). But I do believe that saying baptism is necessary (is the moment of salvation) is problematic and doesn't fit with the truth if justification by faith, nor the many cases where Jesus obviously forgave people based on belief (and yes I know that was before the cross, I'm more than willing to discuss), or the fact that salvation has always been by faith (As Romans 4, Gen 15:6, and Hebrews 11 demonstrate).

But scriptures such as Acts 2:38, 22:16, Mark 16:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 can be strung together to make a strong argument. I grant that...I'm just not convinced they are to be understood in the baptismal regeneration sense.

As for tongues....

Ok here is my point. If one step believers think one is saved by faith alone and they don't see as we do, that faith is like a vehicle driving you through a journey to your final destination:

Do you think that CONFESSION is adding works to faith? After all Paul says if we BELIEVE in our heart and CONFESS with our mouth the Lord Jesus we shall be saved.

So isn't this the same principal as when Christ says he who believes and is BAPTIZED shall be saved?

Does not confession ADD to faith in your belief?

How about repentance? If we are saved by faith ONLY apart from doing anything why must we REPENT?

Paul told the Philippian jailer "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved".

Evangelicals use this all the time. Just believe!

And they cant see that according to their own doctrine THEY are adding to the "finished work of Christ" by adding (at least some of them) confession, calling on the name, and repenting.

Altho there is scripture for all these things they say they are preaching salvation by faith alone. Well we do the exact same thing when we teach baptism
in water and the Holy Spirit baptism as essential.

See where Im coming from? If being saved by faith rules out the essentiality of baptism why not rule out confession with the mouth? Having to repent? Having to CALL on the name?

Why are these not considered works?

[pilgram]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

First you didn't correctly quote Acts 2:37.

Second are there 3 commands in Acts 2:38 or 2 commands and a promise?

Third those who were baptized were added to the church (v 41) with no mention or indication they spoke in tongues.

Ever heard of the simplicity of Christ?

Instead of making it complicated like our enemy always wants to just read and obey it.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pilgram

Ever heard of the simplicity of Christ?

Instead of making it complicated like our enemy always wants to just read and obey it.

As if telling people they must speak in tongues to be saved simplifies the gospel.
And tarrying, crying, begging, stammering, etc for weeks, months, and years doesn't make it complicated.

Especially in light of Christ's words in Luke 11:13.

The simplicity of the gospel is repent of your sins and trust in Christ.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Baptism is VERY important. If someone refuses baptism there is a very good chance (line 99% IMO) that they have not truly repented and have a counterfeit faith.

Baptism is so closely linked to conversion in the NT that a very strong case can be made for the absolute necessity of water baptism (such as Church of Christ and Oneness Pentecostals believe). But I do believe that saying baptism is necessary (is the moment of salvation) is problematic and doesn't fit with the truth if justification by faith, nor the many cases where Jesus obviously forgave people based on belief (and yes I know that was before the cross, I'm more than willing to discuss), or the fact that salvation has always been by faith (As Romans 4, Gen 15:6, and Hebrews 11 demonstrate).

But scriptures such as Acts 2:38, 22:16, Mark 16:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 can be strung together to make a strong argument. I grant that...I'm just not convinced they are to be understood in the baptismal regeneration sense.

As for tongues....

I agree with you, I just don't see how one can get away without receiving the HG and stay saved without it. I'm glad I received the HG because living for God without this precious promise would be difficult enough.