Question For One Step Apostolics

[Sean]

Originally Posted by pilgram

First of all, I am so glad the Lord led me to oneness in the first place instead of being raised in some mess.
I frankly don't get how someone can read Acts 2:38 and not know it is a command.

Just read it. They ask Peter with ALL the APOSTLES present: "what MUST WE DO to be SAVED?"

He answers them:

1- REPENT
2- BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS - FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS
3- RECIEVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST

Just READ it and OBEY it.

Amen, in our dispensation, we MUST have the EXACT SAME doctrine, and the EXACT SAME experience as the early church...anything different than the original church of the Apostles day is a counterfeit church.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

I agree with you, I just don't see how one can get away without receiving the HG and stay saved without it. I'm glad I received the HG because living for God without this precious promise would be difficult enough.

Brother, if they didn't receive the Holy Ghost they weren't saved to begin with (Romans 8:9, John 3:5). The question isn't whether or not one has to be born again of the Spirit, but whether or not tongues is an essential indispensable evidence of such a birth, which I deny.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Ok here is my point. If one step believers think one is saved by faith alone and they don't see as we do, that faith is like a vehicle driving you through a journey to your final destination:

Do you think that CONFESSION is adding works to faith?

Not at all.

But admittedly some do. I have said before and say again, I think 3 steppers have difficulty sometimes making a distinction between easy believism and salvation by faith. Indeed there are those who endorse easy believism and claim that even repentance and confession are "works". John MacArthur wrote 3 books tearing such a doctrine to shreds (The Gospel According to Jesus, Faith Works-The Gospel According to the Apostles, and Hard to Believe). He also wrote "Ashamed of the Gospel" a hard hitting attack against the gimmick driven seeker sensative church movement. So there are some very influential voices who speak out against the insanity of those who reduce salvation to mental assent.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

How about repentance? If we are saved by faith ONLY apart from doing anything why must we REPENT?

Paul told the Philippian jailer "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved".

Repentance is tied to believing. As I said earlier there is no way to divorce faith and repentance. Consider:

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 1 Cor 15:1-4 (KJV)

The atonement (and the implication that we must turn from sin, ie repent) is the very foundation of the gospel story and message. I suppose the question is what does someone have to believe? Just simply "believing" in Jesus is insufficient to save. It is the person and work of Jesus that matter.

The person-He is the Christ, the Son of God
The work-He atoned for our sins by his death on the cross, and rose again

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Evangelicals use this all the time. Just believe!

And its shameful. And deceiving. And it makes me as a "1 stepper" as sick as you, and is a primary reason Christianity in America is in such a pathetic state.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Altho there is scripture for all these things they say they are preaching salvation by faith alone. Well we do the exact same thing when we teach baptism in water and the Holy Spirit baptism as essential.

See where Im coming from? If being saved by faith rules out the essentiality of baptism why not rule out confession with the mouth? Having to repent? Having to CALL on the name?

Why are these not considered works?

I don't think any of these things are work, with the possible exception of baptism. But I'm leery of saying baptism is a 'work" because it is only effective by faith, and is hardly "earning/working" for salvation. I don't think I've ever called baptism "salvation by works" and if I did, and someone refers me to the post, I will apologize and repent. Thats not my view. Though I do think it CAN be made into a work and meaningless ritual, such as in Catholicism.

As for the Spirit's baptism, we all agree that is essential, as I posted to Bro. Eastman.

[Frazy]

I grew up UPCI and adhered to it for my first 35 years, but the past year and a half I've switched over to Jason's point of view from my study of the word. I've followed Jason's and MTD's posts almost daily and thoroughly have enjoyed learning and understanding more about both sides than I ever did toting the UPCI line of "don't question, just live it." Thanks to both of you and even Luke the Trin for your insites and making me think.

[Abiding Now]

Beats me why someone who claims the Holy Ghost wouldn't want to speak in tongues? Why would someone deny others the experience? Peter and the 120 spoke in tongues. Paul spoke in tongues. We tongue speakers are in good Bible company.

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by Frazy

I grew up UPCI and adhered to it for my first 35 years, but the past year and a half I've switched over to Jason's point of view from my study of the word. I've followed Jason's and MTD's posts almost daily and thoroughly have enjoyed learning and understanding more about both sides than I ever did toting the UPCI line of "don't question, just live it." Thanks to both of you and even Luke the Trin for your insites and making me think.

WOW! Thank God I never had that experience. Always had good teachers in my life that weren't afraid of questions, but really encouraged dialog.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

WOW! Thank God I never had that experience. Always had good teachers in my life that weren't afraid of questions, but really encouraged dialog.

I'm amazed. I was always "allowed to question" as long as I accepted the answer. If the answer was insufficient and I continued "questioning" I was rebellious.

I think that's pretty standard. You line up well with the UC doctrines so you're questions were probably OK since you accepted all the standard talking points.

[Esaias]

So the question comes down to "how does one know anyone has received the spirit of God?"

James Dunn in his essays on Pneumatology (Christ and the Spirit) demonstrates (conclusively, imo) that receiving the spirit per Acts is undeniably accompanied by an observable, external manifestation or "effect" of some kind, though he does not accept glossalalia as THE normative sign.

He also demonstrates that water baptism is presented in the NT as a part of "conversion-initiation" experience and not merely as a post-salvation or post-regeneration symbolic memorial.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Frazy

I grew up UPCI and adhered to it for my first 35 years, but the past year and a half I've switched over to Jason's point of view from my study of the word. I've followed Jason's and MTD's posts almost daily and thoroughly have enjoyed learning and understanding more about both sides than I ever did toting the UPCI line of "don't question, just live it." Thanks to both of you and even Luke the Trin for your insites and making me think.

:thumbs up

And FTR I'm still in the process of reevaluating doctrine. I'm not claiming to have it all figured out and not claiming I won't shift or find an area I over corrected in and make adjustments.

For me, I converted to Christ in a UPC church in Jan 2000. I wasn't raised in a church and came out if the world. I was in terrible bondage to sin.

But Jesus Christ saved me, radically changed my life and now 14 years later I'm still here and Ive been preaching the gospel of Christ for several years.

However upon conversion I knew little (nothing) about the Bible, doctrine, or anything else. I accepted the churches teachings and the doctrine presented in various UPC Bible Studies I went through.
I read through the reading lists to get licensed, and through several DKB books. I read the entire Bible through and have continued to read it regularly to this day. But it took me a decade to realize I didn't really know the Bible, I just knew oneness pentecostal doctrine. And when I read the Bible I was reading it with my OP slant.

But I didn't realize this until I was preaching on a regular basis every Sunday as asst pastor at a independent holiness church (it was OP). I wanted to preach deeper than just messages on core doctrines (oneness, baptism, the Holy Ghost, and holiness/standards), and more than the empty emotional messages so common in Pentecost. And so I began to study the book of Romans. A book I was never totally comfortable with as an OP (always had to explain why Romans 10:9-10 DIDN'T mean what it said when I taught Search for Truth in home bible studies) and I was convinced that Romans was being abused by evangelicals. I was determined to understand the book at its depths (and the entire NT, to add depth and variety to my preaching) and to strengthen my OP doctrine through this study. IOW I didn't go into Romans looking to find something else. I went into Romans fully expecting to fortify my view of salvation at the time (the traditional 3 step method). However that study turned my world upside down.


So after my conversion I was told what to believe and spent all my efforts learning it. In the last several years I've studied scripture and history for myself.

I've shifted on soteriology. But historically I think the oneness of God and baptism in JN are pretty strong. I also reject tithing. I think a plurality of elders is a more biblical way to oversee a church (instead of a pastor-monarch). I've got a lot to learn and I'm the first to admit it. But I thank God for the journey.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So the question comes down to "how does one know anyone has received the spirit of God?"

James Dunn in his essays on Pneumatology (Christ and the Spirit) demonstrates (conclusively, imo) that receiving the spirit per Acts is undeniably accompanied by an observable, external manifestation or "effect" of some kind, though he does not accept glossalalia as THE normative sign.

He also demonstrates that water baptism is presented in the NT as a part of "conversion-initiation" experience and not merely as a post-salvation or post-regeneration symbolic memorial.

I agree with the latter. That is pretty much the mainstream view amongst scholars.

As for the former I'm real curious about how Dunn would demonstrate from scripture an "undeniable, observable, external manifestation" with the 3,000 of Acts 2:41, the 5,000 of Acts 4:4, the Eunuch in Acts 8:39 (its a stretch to say he spoke in tongues because he had joy, especially when cross referenced w/Acts 8:8), Acts 13:12, Acts 13:42-48, etc.