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

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by scotty

Boy wish I would have caught you before you typed all that.

Sorry Some where back at the beginning I must have missed the word "pioneers"


No arguments here with your post, My fault Brother.

No prob. I thought that it was a good opportunity to question this point from the angle of our pioneers.

I remember hearing NA Urshan say a lot of things about his dad's beliefs. He wasn't disrespectful of his father in the least, but he did feel like he had to "push" the movement away from his father's position (and many other people's position) on the issue of exclusivism.

Remember that famous (infamous?) televised debate where Walter Martin ask N A Urshan, "Do you consider me your brother?" If A D Urshan had been there instead, the whole complexion of the debate would have been different. The elder Urshan (going by his writings) would not have hesitated or stammered and try to dodge the question.

Walter Martin was a rascal at times, and his soul in in God's hands now. But we hurt only ourselves when we are met with a genuine offer of friendship by other Bible believing Christians and we turn them away. We don't compromise our distinctives by sharing a burden with other Christians. In the end we may even help them to gain some very essential things.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Ferd

St. Matthew, your tHread has turned into one of the best on the forum.

there is a whole bunch of meat here for any willing to slog thru nearly 700 pages. Lots of very thoughtful stuff!

Thanks! It sure has exceeded all my expectations. I just expected a few to chime in and say "I'm here!".

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

Also, we want o judge the salvation of those who are not baptized according to one's personal understanding of Acts 2:38. Yet, in the same breath, we attempt to kick God off of His throne in order to do so.

Not me.

Would you not be "kicking God off His throne" by saying that someone NOT baptized in Jesus Name is saved just as much as some who is saying that someone MUST be baptized in Jesus name to be saved?? Looks like just a kick from the opposite side to me.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No prob. I thought that it was a good opportunity to question this point from the angle of our pioneers.

I remember hearing NA Urshan say a lot of things about his dad's beliefs. He wasn't disrespectful of his father in the least, but he did feel like he had to "push" the movement away from his father's position (and many other people's position) on the issue of exclusivism.

Remember that famous (infamous?) televised debate where Walter Martin ask N A Urshan, "Do you consider me your brother?" If A D Urshan had been there instead, the whole complexion of the debate would have been different. The elder Urshan (going by his writings) would not have hesitated or stammered and try to dodge the question.

Walter Martin was a rascal at times, and his soul in in God's hands now. But we hurt only ourselves when we are met with a genuine offer of friendship by other Bible believing Christians and we turn them away. We don't compromise our distinctives by sharing a burden with other Christians. In the end we may even help them to gain some very essential things.

Martin was probably a nice guy he just wasn't saved. NOT ONE person is saved since Pentecost that has not obeyed Acts 2:38 including Martin and the other two false teachers that were with him.

[Brother Price]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Would you not be "kicking God off His throne" by saying that someone NOT baptized in Jesus Name is saved just as much as some who is saying that someone MUST be baptized in Jesus name to be saved?? Looks like just a kick from the opposite side to me.

Not at all. One side says man can judge the salvation of an individual because man had a hand in it. The other side says God is the judge and the only one who can save by His grace through our faith.

One says man must help God save a man, the other says God alone can save.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Martin was probably a nice guy he just wasn't saved. NOT ONE person is saved since Pentecost that has not obeyed Acts 2:38 including Martin and the other two false teachers that were with him.

Again, we hurt only ourselves...

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Again, we hurt only ourselves...

There are many sincere folks in the religious world but ALL of them are lost without obeying Acts 2:38. As Joe Friday would say "just the facts."

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

There are many sincere folks in the religious world but ALL of them are lost without obeying Acts 2:38. As Joe Friday would say "just the facts."

How do you respond to those who point out the teachings of our Apostolic pioneers? The "exclusivism" that you appear to embrace is something that has grown within the movement gradually. I think you once described it as "progress."

Were the pioneers like A.D. Urshan wrong? Do you keep fellowship with people who support the "Light Doctrine" or any of its paramutations?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by pelathais

How do you respond to those who point out the teachings of our Apostolic pioneers? The "exclusivism" that you appear to embrace is something that has grown within the movement gradually. I think you once described it as "progress."

Were the pioneers like A.D. Urshan wrong? Do you keep fellowship with people who support the "Light Doctrine" or any of its paramutations?

Yes those who taught the light doctrine were and are wrong. Do I think they are saved? They obeyed Acts 2:38 so that saved them. Are they wrong to build a doctrine on human emotions? Surely.

[Brother Price]

Bro. Epley,

In the use of water baptism, where does grace fit in? Does it fit in with the faith of the individual, or the water they are baptized in?