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

[Neck]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Hmmm...

Because I challenged you for using an improper generalization you say I did not stop at the cross in my response? Please.

Whatever your experience has been in the UPC churches you mentioned... The fact is "teaching people how to speak in tongues" is an aberrational practice, not a normal practice in UPC churches. If you think the opposite is the case then you are very sadly misinformed.

You can't misinform personal experiences of 43 years...

[Neck]

Originally Posted by Ferd

there you have it. I am the bad guy.

Not a bad guy just respect the God you know that Acts 2;38 will help you see one day!

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Again with Marvin Arnold's book? Do you really believe that the Albigensians were Oneness Pentecostals? That book is an embarrassment. 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.

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.

Theres a lot here to reply to, but I'll keep it relatively brief.
I wasn't mentioning Arnold's book as a way of defending "3-stepper" vs. one stepper doctrine. I simply mentioned the book because I found it to be an interesting read. I mostly find myself referring to the book when the issue is raised that Oneness belief is a new doctrine. Obviously you're already familiar with the book, so I guess its a moot point.

Anyway, I'm not saying the book is perfect either, but it is far from "an embarrassment" as you put it. It does show a credible trail of facts showing that there were Oneness believers, and Jesus name baptized/ Holy Ghost filled people throughout the centuries. From examining the facts, it is not a stretch at all for one to believe that there were many who were Oneness, and held to Acts 2:38 water and spirit doctrine at the same time, much like today's UPCI.

(As a matter of fact, in support of that, there is much documentation that shows that water baptism for the remission of sins was a very commonly held belief. For example, 1) ...the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed of 381 includes the clause "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins"

2)...Even the documents from the Council of Trent 12 centuries later illustrated that the "water and spirit" doctrine was well known at that time . For example, this quote from one of those documents. "...are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation. "For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5)"

That being said...There is not enough to make an airtight case to prove they believed in the same Acts 2:38 formulation now taught in the UPC and many similar Apostolic groups... but there isn't enough for anyone to say there weren't any such groups either! So for you to state or imply that Acts 2:38 salvation is a 20th century innovation, is something you can not back up with solid facts either. To do so you would have to "prove a negative" something that's just not possible in this case.

---

Besides, churches back then weren't inclined to document their "Articles of faith" the way we do today, so a paper record of their precise beliefs is not something that would be available. Furthermore the RCC is known to have persecuted and destroyed the writings of many who opposed them.


.

[Joseph Miller]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I read most of this thread and found there is very little true value in it.

As a top-ten poster here, I think I have the right to say what others have tried to say - and have not been able to.

First, there is a group of posters who are ANTI-APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL that are here to convert those of us who believe in the necessity of Jesus-name baptism and the Oneness of God. Their desire is to blend Oneness/Trinitarian doctrine into unrecognizable, unimportant mush.

IMO, tolerance is our enemy here. I believe those who teach and push trinitarianism as a viable doctrinal belief - while knowing all the while it is not - are in danger of Hell-fire. I believe those who would abort the new birth process - by telling lost souls that mere belief is enough - are in danger of Hell-fire.

These people are the worst sort of representatives of what true Oneness Pentecostal doctrine is about.

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I am sick of being called Mormon, papist, sacrementalist and the like by men who have no love for sound doctrine. Men who only desire to destroy. Men who have an insidious agenda.

Look, we can argue standards all day long, but I got tired of being castigated and gang-tackled by this bunch of heretical hyenas.

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Also, there is no way any trinitarian site/forum would have been as lenient as AFF has been. IMO admin needs to rein this junk in.

We need to make up our minds. Are we Oneness Pentecostal or not?

And the idea that this alternative group is somehow "Apostolic" is laughable.

I could NOT have said any of this any better. PP you are 100% right.

[J-Roc]

This happens all the time on the other side of the belief spectrum as well ...it takes two to tango...see link



http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...&postcount=184

[ChristopherHall]

One is either obedient to the teachings of Jesus or they are not. If they have faith in Jesus they will repent of their sins. If they repent of their sins they will want to obey and be baptized. If their Christian desire is genuine they will want to be filled with the Holy Ghost. There's no way around it. If one says they have faith in Jesus but doesn't want to repent of sin...that isn't saving faith. If one says they have repented of sin and desire to live an obedient Christian life and yet they refuse to be baptized in Jesus name...that isn't repentance unto salvation. If they don't desire to be filled with the Holy Ghost...can they be said to have true Christian desire?

Faith without works is....dead.

Faith without repentance is dead.
Faith without obeying the command to be baptized is dead.
Faith without wanting the Holy Ghost is dead.

Dead religion. Outside of Acts 2:38 all one has is faith without works. The three-steppers contend that we should show our faith by our works...for without our works our faith is dead.

Down through history there have been outbreaks and revivals of this truth in various times and places throughout Christendom. And the Trinitarian church has waged all out war against it. One God Christians have been burned at the stake for refusing to believe in the Trinity or the triune baptismal formula. This isn't the time to back off the message....this is a time to get with the message.

Muslims love their Allah enough to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up....yet we water down the original teachings of our Lord Jesus and the Apostles he called. Would it be fair to say that the Apostolics we're seeing here don't love the full application of the gospel as much as Muslims love Islam?

Shake yourselves and awaken from your slumber my brethren. This is no time to retreat into the "average" Christian faith and practice of traditional Christian religion. This is a time to stand up and be counted...to prepare for war. To storm the very gates of Hell.

The idea that Acts 2:38 isn't essential is a lie from Hell and smells like smoke.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Theres a lot here to reply to, but I'll keep it relatively brief.
I wasn't mentioning Arnold's book as a way of defending "3-stepper" vs. one stepper doctrine. I simply mentioned the book because I found it to be an interesting read. I mostly find myself referring to the book when the issue is raised that Oneness belief is a new doctrine. Obviously you're already familiar with the book, so I guess its a moot point.


Anyway, I'm not saying the book is perfect either, but it is far from "an embarrassment" as you put it. It does show a credible trail of facts showing that there were Oneness believers, and Jesus name baptized/ Holy Ghost filled people throughout the centuries.

It does not, sorry. It doesn't provide a single "fact" referencing any individual or any group that practiced the Acts 2:38 message. Not one. You can prove me wrong by naming one. Name one for me. Just one.

If you can't name one, how can you claim that the book shows "a credible trail of facts showing that there were Oneness believers, and Jesus name baptized/ Holy Ghost filled people throughout the centuries?" It doesn't even accurately describe the beliefs of a single individual or group.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

From examining the facts, it is not a stretch at all for one to believe that there were many who were Oneness, and held to Acts 2:38 water and spirit doctrine at the same time, much like today's UPCI.

Are you really ready for this? After the complaints we've heard in this thread about how people were calling others "Papists" and the like?

Originally Posted by TRFrance

(As a matter of fact, in support of that, there is much documentation that shows that water baptism for the remission of sins was a very commonly held belief. For example, 1) ...the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed of 381 includes the clause "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins"

2)...Even the documents from the Council of Trent 12 centuries later illustrated that the "water and spirit" doctrine was well known at that time . For example, this quote from one of those documents. "...are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation. "For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5)"

You have just cited over 1200 years of infant baptism by sprinkling in the titles of Matthew 28:19, as "proof" of a continuous line of Jesus name Acts 2:38, beliefs?

Can you imagine standing in front of a college level review and presenting a paper on this? "Here's my proof of Jesus name baptism, 1200 years of baptism in the titles..."

Originally Posted by TRFrance

That being said...There is not enough to make an airtight case to prove they believed in the same Acts 2:38 formulation now taught in the UPC and many similar Apostolic groups...

There is not even a hint that "they" did. Not even a glimmer. I assure you, the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Trent did not even think of sanctioning Jesus name baptism. And, by some twist of fate the RCC seems to have neglected to burn the records of those councils, so we know what was said and agreed upon.

*** Could someone on the board or the admin team please tell me why it would be wrong to compare TRFrance's appeal to the rulings of the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Trent to "papism?" *** He invites any reader to do so by citing those documents as authoritative when they don't even purport to allow for his claims. These Councils did not endorse Acts 2:38 salvation. Their findings on infant baptism in the titles tell us nothing about Acts 2:38 salvation. And so, from this we are then implored to "pretend" that there really were Oneness Pentecostals in Nicea, Constanople and Trent?

Originally Posted by TRFrance

but there isn't enough for anyone to say there weren't any such groups either! So for you to state or imply that Acts 2:38 salvation is a 20th century innovation, is something you can not back up with solid facts either. To do so you would have to "prove a negative" something that's just not possible in this case.

You would have to go to the Council of Trent and provide some documentation on where I said "that Acts 2:38 salvation is a 20th century innovation" Really, help me out with that one because that's one post I want to clean up. Where is it?

I can prove a negative. I can prove right now that there is NO full grown African elephant in the glove box of your car. Say what you want. Call me "psychic" or any other name. There is no full grown African elephant in the glove box of your car.

Do you know how I know? Want to know how I can be so confident about it? It's simple... you don't need a full grown African elephant in the glove box of your car.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Besides, churches back then weren't inclined to document their "Articles of faith" the way we do today, so a paper record of their precise beliefs is not something that would be available. Furthermore the RCC is known to have persecuted and destroyed the writings of many who opposed them.

Actually they were. We have extensive records for all kinds of things including how much beer was brewed and consumed by a particular abbott at a particular monestary in the darkest of the dark ages. We also have their Bibles and other written documents.

You can go here and read the texts of the Cathari that Marvin Arnold calls "the true Christian Church..." Try to perform the "Lyon Ritual" in your church on Sunday. See how that goes.

And we certainly have the records that you have cited for "water baptism for the remission of sins" in the Roman Catholic Church. After all, the Ecumenical Councils that you cited were pretty big events in those days. But why do you cite the RCC council decrees as authoratative and then complain about being called a "papist?" I'm not saying you are, but the motivation for this post puzzles me.

Again, you don't need that elephant that isn't in your glove box.

[ChristopherHall]

Water baptism in Jesus name isn't a 20th century innovation:

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)…"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

Christians today should use the biblical baptismal formula as found in the New Testament. Everyone should be baptized by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Water baptism in Jesus name isn't a 20th century innovation: ...

Hey ChristopherHall, thanks. But what we were looking for is the "full package" of Acts 2:38 salvation for the years 200 A.D. through 1913 A.D.

It's good that you've gotten rid of Arnold's History Outline though.

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Christians today should use the biblical baptismal formula as found in the New Testament. Everyone should be baptized by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Amen! And we find that formula in the New Testament. It would probably be a hit or miss thing if we went through the documents from the 16th century Council of Trent looking for it, right?

[ChristopherHall]

It doesn't matter if absolutely NOBODY obeyed the Bible until yesterday...it's the BIBLE that is the final authority of faith and practice NOT popular historical practice or understanding. Paul warned that wolves would enter into the church, not sparing the flock, shortly after his departing. We see that Apostolic Christianity drifted from it's original teachings drastically within a single generation. We see glimmers of radical departure in the writings of Justin Martyr and others within 150 to 200 years of the time of the Apostles.

Think about it....Apostolic Christianity experienced it's modern revival at around 1913 or 1914. If history is a model we should begin to see rumblings of a departure within 150 to 200 years from those dates....hey....we're seeing it right here! Some of our well meaning brothers here are modern day Justin Martyrs who are paving the way for a second radical departure from Apostolic Christianity. And it will herald a future spiritual Dark Ages...just as it did in centuries past.

If we don't learn from history...we're destined to repeat it. We need to get some guts and take a stand for TRUTH.