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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Many Trinitarian denominations teach that baptism is a necessity:

Church of Christ
Orthodox
Catholic

...and many many others. I don't see them compromising. Why are we?

Baptism is a command to be obeyed. I sincerely believe that those who teach otherwise are in grave error though they may be good people.

Faith without works is dead. Those who believe that baptism isn't a necessity (a command taught in Scripture) may need spiritual CPR.

Even Martin Luther still believed in the necessity of water baptism to save and continued to teach infant baptism

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

It's also highly important to remember that history is written by the victor. Since many of these ancient Apostolic movements were declared heretical their beliefs were often distorted or misunderstood.

However, if it were not for the Orthodox Trinitarian Harlot and her daughter churches declaring murderous persecutions against the "heretics" (Apostolics) you wouldn't have much intrigue in Christian history today.

I'm not picking on you- but this is one of my favorites! "History is written by the victors."

How do you know that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and conquered Judea in 70 A.D.? Roman histories give scant mention of that event. However, it was the general who lost everything but his life, Flavius Josephus who gives us the most complete account. Everything we know about the details of that war comes from the commander of the Jewish army of Galilee, the loser Josephus.

You've heard of the Peloponnesian War, right? Epic struggle between Athens and Sparta in which Sparta finally overcomes and defeats her rival. Yet you know absolutely nothing about that war from the Spartan side. Nothing. It was the loser, again a losing general named Thucydides who chronicles the war for us.

And it was another loser of that war, a lowly hoplite who fought on the famous "Long Wall" between Athens and its port at Pireaus who provides the great moral lessons on war and empire; Socrates.

How do you know Nebuchanezzar conquered Judah?

What do you know about the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941? It was the loser - the Americans that told that story. "Yes," you will say, "but the Americans won the war!"

Ever see the movie Tora! Tora! Tora!? The Americans never knew how to tell the story of Pearl Harbor until we heard it from the Japanese.

We know a lot of history from the loosers.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

My niece calls me Aunt RaHenda! LOL!

That's cute...

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Very conservative doctrinally.

Somewhat conservative in personal lifestlye.

Not so conservative in social standards.

To the ultracons I am a lib.

To the ultralibs I am a con.

To the world I am a right-wing fundamentalist whacko.

Originally Posted by LadyChocolate

see, i feel the same way about myself.... my veryconservative friends would think i had gone off the deep end and yet liberals out there for sure say i am a conservative.... do the women in your church keep the holiness standards of dress and of not cutting the hair? (this is a major impact on how one is labelled) do the men in your church wear shorts below the knee without any kind of reprimand? or can they wear just about anything? I am curious on where I would be compared to someone who thinks they stand where i stand ! LOL

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.

[Praxeas]

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.

I hate to say this but I think many Apostolics look at history with a bias and presumption and then read into such vague references "Apostolic Jesus name Oneness Pentecostal"

[pelathais]

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?

BUMP.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Like Nathan said earlier, are there any here who have not been baptised in Jesus Name?

Is there any here, when baptising, that would not proclaim the Name of Jesus?

Some people are unable to really read what others are saying. I have not seen anyone here say that either

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

One is either obedient to the teachings of Jesus or they are not. If they have faith in Jesus they will repent of their sins. If they repent of their sins they will want to obey and be baptized. If their Christian desire is genuine they will want to be filled with the Holy Ghost. There's no way around it. If one says they have faith in Jesus but doesn't want to repent of sin...that isn't saving faith. If one says they have repented of sin and desire to live an obedient Christian life and yet they refuse to be baptized in Jesus name...that isn't repentance unto salvation. If they don't desire to be filled with the Holy Ghost...can they be said to have true Christian desire?

Faith without works is....dead.

Faith without repentance is dead.
Faith without obeying the command to be baptized is dead.
Faith without wanting the Holy Ghost is dead.

Dead religion. Outside of Acts 2:38 all one has is faith without works. The three-steppers contend that we should show our faith by our works...for without our works our faith is dead.

Down through history there have been outbreaks and revivals of this truth in various times and places throughout Christendom. And the Trinitarian church has waged all out war against it. One God Christians have been burned at the stake for refusing to believe in the Trinity or the triune baptismal formula. This isn't the time to back off the message....this is a time to get with the message.

Muslims love their Allah enough to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up....yet we water down the original teachings of our Lord Jesus and the Apostles he called. Would it be fair to say that the Apostolics we're seeing here don't love the full application of the gospel as much as Muslims love Islam?

Shake yourselves and awaken from your slumber my brethren. This is no time to retreat into the "average" Christian faith and practice of traditional Christian religion. This is a time to stand up and be counted...to prepare for war. To storm the very gates of Hell.

The idea that Acts 2:38 isn't essential is a lie from Hell and smells like smoke.

Oooh, I like this post veddy muchly.

It is so true.

Nobody is making me believe what I believe.

I just believe it because it's there, and I love it.

[Joelel]

Believe means many things.If a person really believes they will do many things.


Acts10:43: To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.So to believe means to Repent and be baptized because Acts 2:38: says,Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,So we must conclude that if believing gives remission of sins and Repenting and being baptized gives remission of sins,then believing don't simply mean to believe Jesus died for your sins and accept him as you savour.

We are also saved by sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.2 Thes.2:13: But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.We are saved by sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. We are saved by the truth,not a perverted gospel and lies like alot of people are preaching.

1 John 5:1: Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. We see here that a true believer is born of God.We see that a true believer is one who has repented and been baptized and is sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Here we find we shall be saved,shall be is feture.We shall be saved when ?Rom.10:9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom.10:13: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (when do we call on the name of the Lord? In baptism) Acts22:16:And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized,and wash away thy sins,calling on the name of the Lord

So the bottom line is,Jesus is the word of God and if we believe in Jesus we believe the word of truth.ALL OF IT.It takes all of the word of TRUTH to be saved.


Mark 1:14: Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15: And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospelActs 2:38 is the part of the gospel,believe the gospel,not anything you want to.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Like Nathan said earlier, are there any here who have not been baptised in Jesus Name?

Is there any here, when baptising, that would not proclaim the Name of Jesus?

I think there is a representation of both groups here.