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

[Whole Hearted]

Originally Posted by philjones

I skipped the last 8 or so pages of posts (I have my preference set for 20 per page). If I am out of synch with the thread that HAS to be the reason because I am usually totally InSynch!

I am a firm believer in the new birth according to John 3:5-8 and Acts 2:38... the water and spirit doctrines or erroneously named 3 stepper doctrine.

I have found myself frequenting the site less since the referenced imbalance has occurred. Not so much because of the imbalance but because of the sick to my stomach feeling I get from the merry go round!

I stated in another thread that the mulberry bush has become a mountain top and those who continue to go round it seem to get lower every time! JMHO

I feel the same way.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

We're not on the same page, bro. Not even close.
You seem to trace your spiritual heritage back to the early 1900's. I trace mine back to the day of Pentecost, as do many of my fellow brethren.

What some now refer to as "PAJC-type" apostolic doctrine is not an "innovation" that began in the early 1900s, as you seem to think. Using that logic, one could also [wrongly] conclude that Jesus name baptism was also an "innovation" just because the early 1900's Pentecostals were originally baptizing in titles.

---

On a related note, I'd recommend the book Apostolic History Outline.
Theres a free downloadable online version available here.

Again with Marvin Arnold's book? Do you really believe that the Albigensians were Oneness Pentecostals? That book is an embarassment. Whatever happened to truth shall triumph?

As you "trace your heritage" back to the NT apostles you must fabricate a lot of fictional history to find your way. Why not just stick to the truth? You don't need to be ashamed of being a Oneness Pentecostal. And you don't need to make stuff up to substantiate your beliefs. You should be better than that.

[Nahum]

By the way, to me this new tolerance of trinitarianism and easy believism, and anything goes theology is worse than the charges leveled against those of us "three-steppers" of being Mormon sacramental papists.

Some of these folks are embarrassed for those of us who won't bend to New-Age Ecumenicalsim.

[rgcraig]

So when are we going to look forward?

Is today a good time to make a difference in the direction this forum is going?

[Nahum]

Sure Renda.

I'll try.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Sure Renda.

I'll try.

We all need to try!

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Again with Marvin Arnold's book? Do you really believe that the Albigensians were Oneness Pentecostals? That book is an embarassment. Whatever happened to truth shall triumph?

As you "trace your heritage" back to the NT apostles you must fabricate a lot of fictional history to find your way. Why not just stick to the truth? You don't need to be ashamed of being a Oneness Pentecostal. And you don't need to make stuff up to substantiate your beliefs. You should be better than that.

Twice you almost rant about Dr Marvin Arnold's work. Can you show the errors of this book?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by philjones

Well, Sam, not to be argumentative, so do the Roman Catholics... do you see yourself on par with the Roman Catholics?

Your assertion doesn't seem to have much to do with the statement that TRFrance made relative to Pelathais' implying our heritage began in the early 1900s.

I don't mean to imply that it began in 1900. I do observe that the beliefs of Apostolics in 1900 were not the exclusivistic beliefs being championed by some here today.

The direct lineal history of Acts 2:38 salvation goes back to the events of around 1900. Of course, those events themselves didn't happen in a vacuum and had their genesis in still earlier events. There is no record of the "whole package" Acts 2:38 salvation being taught and practiced from around 200 A.D. until 1913.

There were groups that practiced Jesus name baptism, and there were many groups that evidently experienced the baptism of the Holy Ghost during those years. But there is no record - none - of any group that practiced Acts 2:38, Water & Spirit salvation as is taught among OP's today.

Attempts to fabricate such a history only serve to discredit the message of Jesus name. We don't need to "prove" that something existed when it clearly did not. All we need is a little conviction that some how we've gotten the Bible into our own hands today and that we have the means to read its message.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I don't mean to imply that it began in 1900. I do observe that the beliefs of Apostolics in 1900 were not the exclusivistic beliefs being championed by some here today.

The direct lineal history of Acts 2:38 salvation goes back to the events of around 1900. Of course, those events themselves didn't happen in a vacuum and had their genesis in still earlier events. There is no record of the "whole package" Acts 2:38 salvation being taught and practiced from around 200 A.D. until 1913.

There were groups that practiced Jesus name baptism, and there were many groups that evidently experienced the baptism of the Holy Ghost during those years. But there is no record - none - of any group that practiced Acts 2:38, Water & Spirit salvation as is taught among OP's today.

Attempts to fabricate such a history only serve to discredit the message of Jesus name. We don't need to "prove" that something existed when it clearly did not. All we need is a little conviction that some how we've gotten the Bible into our own hands today and that we have the means to read its message.

Good post!

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

We all need to try!

Originally Posted by Jedi Master Yoda

Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'