Question For One Step Apostolics - Page 5

Abiding Now · #41 10-01-2014, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

So-called "one strep" apostolics lack a huge factor in their exegesis. They claim that Holy Ghost baptism and water baptism are post-soteriological. They occur AFTER salvation. But we have NO CASE in the entire New Testament where that concept is laid out. They claim the people on the day of Pentecost who received the Holy Ghost and were baptized experienced the baptism simultaneously, but yet distinctly, with their salvation. But we find no explanation to this effect and no example saying someone received the Spirit and were saved before they had Holy Ghost baptism and water baptism.

There is no New Testament plain statement anywhere saying that you have the Spirit in you before Spirit baptism. One has to simply want to believe that.

On the other hand, we have plain example of Spirit baptism and water baptism at salvation. And then there is Jesus' words saying he that believes AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved. Saying that Mark 16:16 is an interpolation is an excuse. With the Bible AS IS, baptism is part of salvation. 1 Peter 3 says it is part of salvation no matter how you slice it. It is as much part of remission of sins as is the blood of Jesus.

Jesus did not often use the phrase "for the remission of sins," but when He did it meant the same thing.

Mat 26:28 KJV For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Act 2:38 KJV Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Amen.

houston · #42 10-01-2014, 09:25 AM

The PCI position is VERY inconsistent, but they're closer to the truth than the 3 shteppers.

Abiding Now · #43 10-01-2014, 09:26 AM

BrotherEastman · #44 10-01-2014, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

So-called "one strep" apostolics lack a huge factor in their exegesis. They claim that Holy Ghost baptism and water baptism are post-soteriological. They occur AFTER salvation. But we have NO CASE in the entire New Testament where that concept is laid out. They claim the people on the day of Pentecost who received the Holy Ghost and were baptized experienced the baptism simultaneously, but yet distinctly, with their salvation. But we find no explanation to this effect and no example saying someone received the Spirit and were saved before they had Holy Ghost baptism and water baptism.

There is no New Testament plain statement anywhere saying that you have the Spirit in you before Spirit baptism. One has to simply want to believe that.

On the other hand, we have plain example of Spirit baptism and water baptism at salvation. And then there is Jesus' words saying he that believes AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved. Saying that Mark 16:16 is an interpolation is an excuse. With the Bible AS IS, baptism is part of salvation. 1 Peter 3 says it is part of salvation no matter how you slice it. It is as much part of remission of sins as is the blood of Jesus.

Jesus did not often use the phrase "for the remission of sins," but when He did it meant the same thing.

Mat 26:28 KJV For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Act 2:38 KJV Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

great post!

Esaias · #45 10-01-2014, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houston

The PCI position is VERY inconsistent, but they're closer to the truth than the 3 shteppers.

And the so called three steppers are almost identical to classic Covenanter and Reformed views (except for the issue of tongues).

houston · #46 10-01-2014, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

And the so called three steppers are almost identical to classic Covenanter and Reformed views (except for the issue of tongues).

Now you have my attention. Go on...

Michael The Disciple · #47 10-01-2014, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houston

Now you have my attention. Go on...

Yeah.

Esaias · #48 10-01-2014, 07:45 PM

I started a thread in the debate forum awhile back about the Reformed view of baptism which is very close to what apostolics believe. Even though most or all apostolics would not accept infant baptism, yet the very reason many Reformed churches practice infant or child baptism is because baptism is viewed as the means of grace whereby people are inducted into the new covenant.

And yes they view regeneration as preceding baptism. But they also view regeneration as preceding both faith and repentance, since for them regeneration is the act of God in making a person capable of believing in the first place.

Baptism is, in classical Reformed theology, the initiation of a person unto the salvation of God as a member of the kingdom and a participant in the new covenant.

Esaias · #49 10-01-2014, 07:51 PM

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=44264

houston · #50 10-01-2014, 08:12 PM

Oh, right. I figured that's where you were going. I lean heavily New Calvinism, not to be confused with Neo Calvinism. I think New Calvinism is the merging of Baptist soteriology with Calvinism. Many (most?) Baptists are Arminians. Many in the Reformed camp do not consider us to be Reformed because we reject paedobaptism and some other "minor" things. We're like the PCI equivalent of the Reformed. Mention that you're a continuationist and you're marked as charismatic and anathema.