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

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Scotty, I'll ask you the question that StMatthew will never answer: Why don't you hold to the beliefs of the founders of the Apostolic Faith movement? They were the ones who coined the phrase "Apostolic Faith" and applied it to their practice of Spirit filled worship and associated beliefs.

If you call yourself "Apostolic" why don't you believe what the pioneers of this movement preached?

I'll add BOOMMster's question as well...



BOOMM, why don't you believe what our founders taught?

Why would you think I would not answer this??

Peter, James, and John were the founders Apostolic Faith Movement, and I agree 100% with their teachings that one must repent of their sins, be baptized in Jesus Name for the remission of their sins, and receive the Holy Ghost.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

I'm not out to blast and condemn people,but I do believe it's God will for all people to repent and be baptized in Jesus Name and become Spirit Filled and live a life pleasing to The Lord.

It is nothing more nor is it anything less than "walking in the light." But let us not be so deceived that is all there is to it. A walk with God is just that...a walk. "The path of the just is as a shinging light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." At any point that we fail to walk on in the light, as He gives us the light, we are no longer living a life pleasing to the Lord.

Acts 2:38 is neither the beginning of the "walk" nor is it the end as some would have you to believe. He that endureth to the end..... Many get up and testify that they were saved 20 or 30 years ago when they obeyed Acts 2:38 who are now so backslid that they are in worse condition than when they were first baptized so long ago. "Having a form or a formula but are denying the power of God..."

[Scott Hutchinson]

I believe the church was started on the Day Of Pentecost so Peter's altar call in response to the question what shall we do is foundational truth to me.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

It is nothing more nor is it anything less than "walking in the light." But let us not be so deceived that is all there is to it. A walk with God is just that...a walk. "The path of the just is as a shinging light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." At any point that we fail to walk on in the light, as He gives us the light, we are no longer living a life pleasing to the Lord.

Acts 2:38 is neither the beginning of the "walk" nor is it the end as some would have you to believe. He that endureth to the end..... Many get up and testify that they were saved 20 or 30 years ago when they obeyed Acts 2:38 who are now so backslid that they are in worse condition than when they were first baptized so long ago. "Having a form or a formula but are denying the power of God..."

Exactly!! That is what I meant in an earlier post...

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Can't say I agree with this. We've had great fellowship with both.

We were part of the UPCI as pastors and missionaries for almost 25 years and again, for the most part worked in harmony and unity with the fellowship on a district level and in every other way with so called *3-steppers*. It was hardly ever an issue because WE didn't make it an issue. It was just always "the way things were".

Granted, you may have had great fellowship with both.
My point is though, on the issue of salvation, you are closer to them than us.

If a sinner were to walk in off the street, "accept Jesus", and say the sinners prayer, the Bapticostal and a PCI person will both agree that the man is saved at that moment. The "3 stepper" is the one who'd would say the man is not saved if he didnt get baptized and filled yet. If a dispute were to arise over the issue , the Bapiticostal and PCI believer would naturally be on the same side of the argument.

One need only read thru a few threads on this site to see that many of the PCI folk here are more in agreement with Baptists on the salvation issue, than they are with PAJC/Oneness believers. In fact, they seem to spew more of their antagonism toward us, than toward the multitude of false-doctrine churches out there that don't have truth... (which is ridiculous in itself). Lord help us.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

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.

My humble apologies TRFrance. Felicity and your self show even though I read much here, I miss some things. Perhaps I am over sensitive to the fact that the name calling has gotten extreme of late. Prax, not eggnog hangover- that suggests alcoholism. It was a long week today at work.

The fact remains that one side only is represented here and we have seriously lost the balance we enjoyed for about 7 months. (Some enjoyed the balance, others did not) I am not sure of why all of a sudden we have lost so many of the ones who made this a place I enjoyed. Nonetheless, there are some voices missing among the multitudes or late. The voice that remains is troubling and not friendly. A few of those who are PCI in expression are engaging in conversation, seldom out of line, and even use spell check.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Yes I think we can discuss how we draw our conclusions on Biblical matters without being unkind to one another.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

My humble apologies TRFrance. Felicity and your self show even though I read much here, I miss some things.

Perhaps I am over sensitive to the fact that the name calling has gotten extreme of late.

Not a problem, bro. Keep up the good work.

You guys are providing a valuable service. This site has been a blessing to me, despite a few aggravating moments.
(ok... maybe more than a few such moments)

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

G
One need only read thru a few threads on this site to see that many of the PCI folk here are more in agreement with Baptists on the salvation issue, than they are with PAJC/Oneness believers. In fact, they seem to spew more of their antagonism toward us, than toward the multitude of false-doctrine churches out there that don't have truth... (which is ridiculous in itself). Lord help us.

I am ok with someone who had a raw deal at some point in live. I have had a few flat tires in my day. I don't stand outsiide of the local GoodYear dealer screaming how insane they are for selling damaged tires. A few of the ones here who were "liberated from Apostolic Pentecostal" churches are using the same method.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by scotty

I joined this forum just a few months ago, I have posted on several threads and have found the typical response from most on here is "my traditional way of believing is wrong". I have looked at several other threads here and see a moving from what true apostolic has always been to something that resembles an over all attitude that says "if you don't want to live like you should then twist the word to live like you want".
...

It's kinda surprising that you think this forum is moving away from "what true apostolic has always been."

What are you taking for a starting point for what you consider "true apostolic"?

Your starting point can't be 1906 on Azusa Street when folks were receiving the Holy Ghost Baptism and operating in the gifts of the Spirit. They called themselves Apostolic but they were trinitarians, believed in justification/salvation/regeneration by faith without water and/or Spirit baptism and many even believed in sanctification as a second work of grace happening after salvation and before the Holy Ghost Baptism.

Your starting point can't be 1945 when the UPC was formed because that new organization was built on the premise that ministers could preach, teach, and submit articles to the Pentecostal Herald which taught both viewpoints i.e. that folks were saved prior to water and/or Spirit baptism or that folks were not saved until after water and Spirit baptism.

Your starting point can't be 1973 when the fundamental doctrine statement of the UPC was revised to add the words "for the remission of sins." The man who seconded the motion to adopt the modification was W.M. Greer who believed that "for the remission of sins" meant "because of the remission of sins" and was assured by Nathaniel Urshan that he would not have to modify his beliefs.