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

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

It is my own soul that I seek to save, first of all. How can I help another if I am shipwrecked myself?

You make an interesting statement: "Argue that obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ isn't a necessity and then suddenly hundreds of millions of Christians can be classified as being saved!"

How can these "millions" even be "Christians" if they haven't "obeyed the Gospel?"

One can be a disobedient Christian. A Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ as Messiah. However, many Christians have yet to obey his commands. So yes...they are Christians, but will answer for their disobedience.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I think very solid evidence has been offered that suggests some of the major points of the book are inaccurate.

i would like to know if any of the book is accurate as well.

Adino evidently helped with the research.

I have two issues with the above. First, I'd like to examine the evidence myself. Second, such absolutism isn't wise. Many human reference materials have mistakes and errors, yet they also contain some very true facts. If your logic is taken to an extreme one could even question the idea of there being one God since it was in Arnold's book. No one would jump to such a conclusion...so I admonish we not do the same in relation to the rest of Arnold's work. Maybe some things will need to be revisited and updated with more accurate information. Such is the case with any work of reference literature.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

I know this is not talking to me. I love my Jesus with all within me. He saved me from my sins when I repented and asked forgiveness. I love Him enough to die for Him!

Ok...you repented and asked his forgiveness. He had believers be baptized throughout his ministry and commanded the church to do so in the Great Commission. If one refuses baptism as a necessity, they are doing violence to the very teachings of Jesus Christ.

If one says they love Jesus in one breath...and then discounts his teachings with the next, I'd say their love and devotion is questionable at best.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Read it. http://www.threeq.com/pdf/apo.pdf

Just one example, but you can do this on your own:


The English historian Margaret Deanesly (Arnold's "Deanseley" sic) never once makes any sort of a reference to anything resembly Acts 2:38 salvation being practiced in the Old Celtic Church. "pp. 4 -15" describe the ecclesastical seperation that the church enjoyed from Roman domination, but there is nothing there that even remotely describes anything resembling a UPC or OP style of worship or soteriology.

J.T. McNeill is a noted Church historian. His book The Celtic Churches, A History 200 AD to 1200 AD, never once even refrences the biblical passage "Acts 2:38."

The phrase "one God" with or without the hyphen appears once in Bede's history. Here is the context and quote:

" In the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the tenth year of the reign of our most pious lord, Egfrid, king of the Northumbrians, the seventeenth of September, the eighth indiction; and in the sixth year of the reign of Ethelfrid, king of the Mercians, in the seventeenth year of the reign of Aldhulf, of the East Angles, in the seventh year of the reign of Lothair, king of Kent; Theodore, by the grace of God, archbishop of the island of Britain, and of the city of Canterbury, being president, and the other venerable bishops of the island of Britain sitting with him, the holy Gospels being laid before them, at the place which, in the Saxon tongue, is called Heathfield, we conferred together, and expounded the true and orthodox faith, as our Lord Jesus in the flesh delivered the same to his disciples, who saw Him present, and heard his words, and as it is delivered in the creed of the holy fathers, and by all holy and universal synods in general, and by the consent of all approved doctors of the Catholic church; we, therefore, following them jointly and orthodoxly, and professing accordance to their divinely inspired doctrine, do believe, and do, according to the holy fathers, firmly confess, properly and truly, the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, a trinity consubstantial in unity, and unity in trinity, that is, one God subsisting in three consubstantial persons, of equal honour and glory."

Notice Bede's explanation of the "one God." This was the common and even characteristic teaching of the Celtic Church. They spread this Trinitarian message all over Western Europe.

Thomas Cahill's book How the Irish Saved Civilization gives a popular treatment to the influence that the Celtic Church had over Western Europe during the Dark Ages. The Old Celtic Church itself was dismembered after Pope Adrian (the only Englishman to serve as Pope) gave his blessings to England's Henry II to invade and conqueror Ireland.

On a brighter note: it has been been reported by some writers that the Celtic Church did in fact baptize in or into Jesus name as opposed to using the triune formula of Matthew 28:19. It's just that they coupled this with a very emphatic undertanding of the Trinity.

So let's consider Arnold's inaccuracy. Does that mean that Arnold was wrong or that Acts 2:38 is wrong?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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

I've often been met with this response so I would welcome any opportunity to improve my articulation.

One of the key points of disagreement about baptism is often summed up in the debate about how "eis" (translated as "for" in KJV) is to be understood in Acts 2:38. Do we "obey the command" to be baptized in order that our sins may be remitted, or do we "follow the instructions because our sins have already been remitted" and thus we are baptized (in a manner of speaking) as Jesus was: "to fulfill all righteousness?"

My working hypothesis is "yes" to both. And I'm not just trying to get two sides to agree either. But underlying this debate is a fundamental paradox that our human abilities will always struggle to grasp. I feel that both sides are correct. but also that both sides are wrong when they leave out "the other side of the coin."

[Aquila]

This question will resolve the issue if it is answered:

Is water baptism a command found in Scripture?

If so, failure to be water baptized or teach water baptism as a necessity for the Christian is disobedience. If not, it's merely a suggestion, another unnecessary Christian ritual.

For those who are very interested in studying baptism, there is another thread on it that I started. I'd like some of your thoughts on it. It's in regards to water baptism and pouring:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=10460

[LadyChocolate]

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.

Thankx for answering me. please forgive me, i wasn't trying to put you on the spot. I was just curious, that's all!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I have two issues with the above. First, I'd like to examine the evidence myself. Second, such absolutism isn't wise. Many human reference materials have mistakes and errors, yet they also contain some very true facts. If your logic is taken to an extreme one could even question the idea of there being one God since it was in Arnold's book. No one would jump to such a conclusion...so I admonish we not do the same in relation to the rest of Arnold's work. Maybe some things will need to be revisited and updated with more accurate information. Such is the case with any work of reference literature.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So let's consider Arnold's inaccuracy. Does that mean that Arnold was wrong or that Acts 2:38 is wrong?

I think you have missed the point of the criticism of the book. I don't criticize because I reject his soteriology. Soteriology isn't really the premise of his book - it's not a book about "how to get saved."

I am moving my responses over to the new thread on "Acts 2:38 history" that BOOMM created. This thread here is really about forum issues and I don't want to continue to hijack it any further.

My response and "that other thread" are

Originally Posted by pelathais

here.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

In the wake of hearing about an Islamic extremist killing a world leader and blowing himself up...I'm realizing why the world doesn't take Apostolics seriously.
Muslims are dying for what they believe. Catholics are dying for what they believe...we on the other hand....we compromise the truth for the sake of debate on web forums. Frankly...I don't take us seriously either.

They love their Allah more than some of us do our Jesus.

PREACH!!!!!!!

[scotty]

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?

Easy brother, this falls within the realm of debate "within" the apostolic beliefs, yet if started , that debate should be policed so as not to allow other posting that are obviously not even close to apostolic doctrine, ie. all are saved in the end, once saved always save, etc. Let those post debates against our doctrine in a different area,

People this very question is why this thread was started. A thread gets started that debates the Apostolic Doctrine with in itself then gets hijacked by those whose post are degrading, insulting, and/or anti-apostolic in any belief. That is when most of us here walk away, some leave the board for a while and some just go to other parts of the board, either way what started out as an awesome debate amoungst saints of God gets taken apart, dissasembled and the remains resembles the aftermath of a war zone with little if any sign of Apostolic Friends what so ever.


STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Brothers and Sisters of AFF,
As Bro. Ferd has said, there are some good debates among the Apostolic beliefs going on right now. Go back through the pages with one question in mind, where are the anti-apostolics?
Thats right, they are not here. WHY?!? BECAUSE WE ARE HERE.!!! Divided among ourselves, yet united as saints of the gospel. There are one or two post from them but they have not hijacked this thread despite our doctrinal debate.

While we have come together to stand for our forum, we lost a spiritual battle as evidenced by this thread. Whenever others who would tear us down appear on a thread, there should have been a show of power of those here now flooding that thread as we have flooded this one. Instead we have allowed them to pick us apart to the point they have almost hijacked the whole board and coralled us into one thread (this one) arguing and trying to figure out how we got here.

This is not Admin. Friends Forum, it is the Apostolic Friends Forum!! It is our board, our belief, our gospel!! If anyone turns away from a thread hijacked by those against us, it better be to call in the rest of the forum and make a stand!

(PS .. there are some here who have asked questions of me I have not answered, You deserve a reason. This thread has branches going into different debates, which was not Matts intention. I could start 20 threads on just the questions asked of me. I will try to return responses asap but would prefer to do so on threads pertaining to that subject. If you require an answer or understanding of me that can't wait, then please pm me. Thanks, and God Bless you all)