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

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Admin

PP as with the Mormon/Papist rhetoric and as Jekyll was warned, this stuff needs to stop. This warning was given to everyone. It needs to stop and just because someone else did it is not ok to do it in reverse.

Now that everyone was warned...next stop will be bans-ville

Yes Sir.

Or Ma'am.

As the case may be.

That seems fair.

[Joelel]

Sin In peoples life will blind them to where they can't receive or understand truth

(Them that don't sin)
1 Cor. 02:006Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

1 Cor.003:001 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 003:002I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 003:003For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?


(Them that sin are forever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of truth.)
2 Tim:2:018 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 002:019Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 002:020But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 002:021If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. 002:022Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 002:023But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 002:024And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 002:025In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 002:026And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
003:001 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 003:002For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 003:003Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 003:004Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 003:005Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 003:006For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 003:007Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(Sin will darken your understanding) Eph.4:011And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 004:012For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 004:013Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 004:014That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 004:015But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 004:016From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. 004:017This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 004:018Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

(Them that practice sin or are lost are blinded to truth) 2 Cor.4:001 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 004:002But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 004:003But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 004:004In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them

[tv1a]

I haven't gone in depth of 1 step vs 3 step doctrine. WIth what I've observed so far I see huge holes in the one step theory. I am hesitant to bring them up because I don't have what I consider enough material on the one step side to make those points. One of the biggest questions I have is how how a 1 stepper defines the process of repentance. With the biblical definition of repetance so skewered, I don't see how repentance is the culmination of salvation. I'd would like one of you one-steppers to e-mail me resources to study this topic out. I'm not drawing the same conclusions as you. Unless no one wants a different perspective.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

We definitely have variety in our church.

Some newer folk wear earrings, make-up and the like.

Some folks wear jeans and the kids even wear shorts sometimes.

There are just as many that wear dresses and never cut their hair.

I do believe that a woman should not cut her hair at all.

I do have a leadership code of conduct, however.

I think we look like the average UPC church, all in all.

What is the average UPC church some going to hell and some not?

If you believe it preach it.

Don't hold the platform folks hostage....

[Neck]

Originally Posted by Neckstadt

The one step even Peter left out of Acts 2:38 was the word Belief, Believe or Believeth.

If Acts 2:38 were to hold the entire plan of salvation he would have reminded them of the fact they must believe.

He talked about the cross in verse verse 23.

See the Lord God Jehova wants us to believe on him.

Not to be commanded to believe on him.

Peter enlightened the fullness of Matthew 28:19.

In verse 12 of Acts the crowd states, "And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another. what meaneth this?

At the falling of the HG and hearing men speak in languages they were not taught.

Who were they that asked Peter, "What shall we do?".

Was it those who doubted this event of tongues.

The answer of Peter was in response to the question, what must we do?

Then Peter told them Acts 2:38.

John 3:15 Whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life.


It states these men doubted the HG and said one to another, what meaneth this?

Now they were pricked in their heart, but Peter did not tell them to believe.

In verse 44 They that believed......

We need to therefor preach Jesus Christ, him Crucified as did Peter leading up to Acts 2:38.

What most Oneness "Jesus only" folks do is skip the verses 12-36.

It is the preaching of the Cross that pricks the heart, Not Acts 2:38.

That is why many Oneness churches baptize many and few stay....

They are given the message of Acts 2:38 and not the finished work of Grace on calvary!

I Cor 1:18 for the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness: but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God.

The word "which" means because of this.

Because of the cross and us believing in the finished work are we saved.

Is the Holy Ghost the Power of God?

Or is the preaching of the Cross the Power of God?

The preaching of the Cross is the Power of God unto salvation.

The HG is the power of God in us to do his work.

It is not the Power of God unto salvation.

Believe first, grab ahold of the finished work of Calvary through the Grace of God.

Then take your converts to the, what shall we do?

Acts 2:38.

Stop looking at Acts 2:38 through the mirror and seeing the cross behind you!

Turn around and see the Lord hanging on the Cross for the sins of all Mankind!

Nathan Eckstadt

As for me and my house.

We stopped by the cross on the way to the city.

[TRFrance]

Pelathais, it seems like we've been talking past each other on those last couple of posts. A few clarifications may be in order, then we can just move on if you like.

Originally Posted by pelathais

The discussion involved Marvin Arnold's booklet "Outline of Church History." YOU brought up that book and YOU provided a link to a scan of that book to bolster your claims that the full package of Acts 2:38 salvation existed in an unbroken line through history.

Well, the discussion began with Arnold's book, but it was not exclusively about his book from my point of view. I thought you were following my train of thought throughout that post, but apparently not. The post dealt with the historical record in general, Arnold’s book being just a part of that. I was discussing the broader evidence out there regarding the history of Acts 2:38 salvation, and/or various components thereof, that were commonly believed throughout the centuries. And yes I referred to his book as a source of valuable info on the topic.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Perhaps you have access to the whole spectrum of your own thoughts and intentions, I'm afraid all I have is your posts. If you were intending to make a serious break from defending Arnold's "facts" (as you called them) and wanted to go into a more generalized discussion your readers would need more help then for you to say, "As a matter of fact, in support of that..."

Your statement, "As a matter of fact, in support of that..." would make it seem to all but the psychics among us that you were about to give something in support of Arnold's "facts" that you were just defending. The leap in logic and the change in subject (that you now say you intended) was so stark that it is incumbent upon you to help the reader here.

Actually, like I've said previously, the 2 historical references I gave did not speak of Jesus name baptism, but of baptism for the remission of sins. I thought I stated that very clearly… (remission of sins/ not Jesus name baptism).We all know the institutionalized church back then didn’t baptize in Jesus’ name, so it seemed obvious to me that you could see I wasn’t using the old catholic church as an example of those baptizing in Jesus name. That much seemed obvious.

Also in the clause “in support of that”… was not “in support of” Arnold’s book as you seemed to think! You skipped over this phrase I had there: “there were many who were Oneness, and held to Acts 2:38 water and spirit doctrine at the same time.” That was what I was speaking “in support of” (i.e. the simple idea that water & spirit doctrine was not a new innovation regarding baptism, even though it wasn’t always applied in Jesus name.) As I said, we both already knew the institutionalized church didn’t baptize in Jesus name, so that seemed to be a given. I was referring to the so-called “baptismal regeneration” part of the issue here. Obviously this is the kind of thing that would be a whole lot clearer in verbal conversation than it was on a message board post. But anyway...
So “in support of that” referred to my contention that various elements of Acts 2:38 doctrine (repent/be baptized for remission/ receive the HG speaking with tongues) existed throughout the centuries. I then spoke about one aspect of that (baptism for remission of sins)… and I specified that both those references related to “remission of sins”.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Originally Posted by TRFrance --From examining the facts [of Arnold's booklet], 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.

(For the clarity for any other reader I’ll just point out... the portion highlighted [in red]is of course your insertion, to specify what you thought I meant there.) Again, in that setting, I was not speaking solely of facts in Arnold's book. I was referring to the historical facts in general, of which Arnold's info fairly small part. Looking back at it, I can see how you'd conclude the “facts” there was supposed to refer to Arnold’s ‘facts’. That wasn’t as clear as it should be, so I’ll admit to that.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Perhaps you have access to the whole spectrum of your own thoughts and intentions, I'm afraid all I have is your posts. If you were intending to make a serious break from defending Arnold's "facts" (as you called them) and wanted to go into a more generalized discussion your readers would need more help then for you to say, "As a matter of fact, in support of that..."

Your statement, "As a matter of fact, in support of that..." would make it seem to all but the psychics among us that you were about to give something in support of Arnold's "facts" that you were just defending. The leap in logic and the change in subject (that you now say you intended) was so stark that it is incumbent upon you to help the reader here.

OK.. fair enough to an extent. (There was a transition in subject taking place, although no leap in logic) Looking back at it, I think my intent wasn’t as clear as it should be. As I mentioned before, my post encompassed a lot more than one book, but was not limited to it. The post as a whole dealt with my simple contention that there is historical documentation which shows that various groups held elements of Acts 2:38 doctrine throughout the centuries.

In my thought process while writing it, “the facts” were referring to all the historical facts that can be examined, not just one man’s book. Herein lies a key reason why we were pretty much talking past each other – we looked at that section of my post with a very different understanding of what it was supposed to mean.

Maybe a clearer way to express it would have been something like “in examining the available facts” or “in examining the historical facts on the topic” etc.


Finally, to make it clear… I don’t claim that his book is proof that Acts 2:38 “exists in an unbroken line throughout history”. I do contend say that the historical information out there, (both in his book and outside of it), lends credence to the contention that it always existed somewhere, even though there is not a solid paper trail to prove it definitively. I’ve already said plainly that there is not an airtight case to be made based on the available documentation. I also said that I believe Arnold's book is not perfect, but does provide a lot of good information. I’m not as much a fan of his book as you seem to think I am. I wouldn’t categorize it as “useless”, the way you do , though.

Anyway, we've spend enough time going around in circles on this.
Have a good day, sir.

I’m sure the chances are good that we’ll live to butt heads another day (fortunately, or unfortunately)

[mizpeh]

Pelathais wrote:

Originally Posted by pelathais
That really is a more complex issue and I'm sure it confounds the admin team at times. For example:

My beliefs tend to put me in the "1 Stepper" camp. When it comes down to the term "Apostolic doctrine" I am persuaded that I am following in the truest pattern of Apostolic teachings and beliefs as evidenced by the writings of the early 20th century Apostolic pioneers.

However, when an ardent "3 Stepper" comes into the fray, they may feel threatened when I don't agree with their statement "All 'trinnies' are LOST!" I can support my argument from the Bible and especially from the writings of our early 20th century Apostolic pioneers. Yet my "3 Stepper" brother may complain that I'm "tearing down" Oneness doctrine.

How should the admin team handle something like this?

They should let it slide if you are not attacking the person. Leave the '3 Stepper ' to defend his own beliefs.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No, I do not think there is "no possibility..." There may be a possibility. There may even be a likelihood.

However, the point that Arnold's book was brought up to support was of a "continuous line" of belief and practice from ~200 A.D. until 1913 A.D.

There is certainly ample evidence of people "speaking in tongues" throughout history, even predating Christianity. Now what and who and if they were "truly inspired" etc. gets very complicated. But it is a widely reported phenomena.

The same with Jesus name baptism. It is so plainly reported in the Acts of the Apostles that many people seemed to have picked up the practice at different times.

But what we don't have is the "complete package" of Acts 2:38 salvation being reported anywhere from ~200 A.D. until the events surrounding Arroyo Seco in 1913.

Again, is it "possible? -sure. Is it "likely? -well that's a little harder to say. Do we have any evidence? -No. None.


Nothing in this universe exists within a realm of 0% possibilities. It is possible that you may win the lottery tomorrow. It's not very likely however, I believe the odds are in the 100's of million to one against you. But it is possible.

However, if you send me $1 instead of spending it on a lottery ticket- then there is a certainty that I will have your dollar.

In other words, the odds of something happening can effect our behavior. It's possible that I may be killed on the city streets when I run some errands in a moment. But the odds are sufficiently unlikely that I will not cower in my home. Besides, radon gas or a meteor might get me if I sit still.

The odds of finding the "continous line" are very remote. There are better odds of finding revivals popping up here and there. But none of that should effect our behavior. Somehow or another we have a credible source of information contained within our Bibles. That book also gives the promise of a God who is both real and Personal. That is what we should act upon. jmho.

Pelathais,

Thanks for this answer. I appreciate your intelligent, gentlemanly manner of discussion.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

...
I’m sure the chances are good that we’ll live to butt heads another day (fortunately, or unfortunately)

Well, playing the odds again...

I think it's more likely that we'll find things to agree upon!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

At the heart of the issue is a paradox. It whittles down to the timeless free will verses determinism debate.

A "determinist" (Calvinist, Evangelical, educated Baptist, etc) might say something like this:

If God chose you from the foundation of the world to be saved, then nothing you do will frustrate the will of God. You will change your mind about sin, you will change your sinful behavior and you will of course be baptized. All of those things are brought about by the working of God's Spirit upon your sinful heart and are inevitable because you were saved from the foundation of the world.

A "free will" advocate (Like a Wesleyan, a non-Augustinian RC or Church of Christ) would say something like this:

You need to make a decision now. Choose who you will serve. Obey the Gospel and the teachings of the NT. Can't you feel the ministration of the Holy Spirit beckoning you to repent?

My view is that both sides are correct. We need to preach from both a free will and from a determinist point of view for balance. This is considered officially to be "heresy" by the UPCI, but so be it. Truth in balance will accomplish far more than a reactionary a paranoid approach to hill billy theology.

Your being sidetracked. The issue is baptism, is it a command and therefore necessary or was it an optional suggestion from Jesus.