Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Steppers

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Holyroller125

Everyone,

I am wondering if anyone of you know of:
-An Apostolic Minister
-An Apostolic Oneness Organization
-Any UPCI or Independent Apostolic Church

where the minister has the guts to believe and preach that conversion/salvation/becoming a Christian is the 1-steppers. The 1-steppers doctrine believes that conversion happens when you believe and confess/repent . They do not believe that all (3) of water baptism and speaking in tongues is required. They do water baptize in Jesus' name and Speak in Tongues. But, they believe that conversion can happen when you believe and confess/repent.

Anyone know of an Apostolic minister, church (UPCI, independent), or any organization that has theology open like this?

Thank You

I believe in justification by faith, that God is one, and that baptism should be done in Jesus name.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Holyroller125

Everyone,

I am wondering if anyone of you know of:
-An Apostolic Minister
-An Apostolic Oneness Organization
-Any UPCI or Independent Apostolic Church

where the minister has the guts to believe and preach that conversion/salvation/becoming a Christian is the 1-steppers. The 1-steppers doctrine believes that conversion happens when you believe and confess/repent . They do not believe that all (3) of water baptism and speaking in tongues is required. They do water baptize in Jesus' name and Speak in Tongues. But, they believe that conversion can happen when you believe and confess/repent.

Anyone know of an Apostolic minister, church (UPCI, independent), or any organization that has theology open like this?

Thank You

You'd have to have some guts to preach a message that isn't correct. Just sayin'...

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Those are called charismatics, not APOSTOLICS.

By some yes, but since Catholics and Mormons, amongst others also claim to be apostolic, I'd suggest that any real authority to identify oneself as apostolic or to label others as not being so is simply imagined.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You'd have to have some guts to preach a message that isn't correct. Just sayin'...

Oh its going to eat me up to have to disagree with you PO, but......

Frankly it does take guts to rock the boat, to note that neither Bible nor history, nor experience favors 3 step soteriology. To believe this and remain quiet is acceptable. To believe this and to speak it is to be ostracized, slandered, labeled, and misjudged. It is always easier to go with the flow, than to buck a system.

The same treatment is due those who point out that standards as taught in OPism are unbiblical. Or tithing. And some eschatoligical views are subject to the same.

One does not simply speak out against the system, thus Lee Stoneking's hairesy and outright lies go without being challenged, Anthony Mangum's unbiblical commands for everyone to speak in tongues at the count of 3 go uncorrected, Jeff Arnold's outrageous and disqualifying shtick goes without ever being addressed.

And sometimes bucking the established system is exactly what is needed, see the Reformation, and every significant Christian movement since.

Why assume the current "apostolic" doctrine is 100% true, with no error and no need for correction?

[Esaias]

Hey, Jason, will you demonstrate from scripture the following:

1. Baptism does not save us.
2. Baptism is not for the remission of sins.
3. One does not wash away your sins in baptism.
4. He that believes and is not baptized shall be saved.
5. People receive the Holy Spirit WITHOUT speaking with tongues.
6. The gift of the Holy Spirit is NOT the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
7. Receiving the Holy Spirit is something OTHER than the baptism with the Spirit.
8. Baptism with the Spirit WITHOUT tongues, where there clearly was NO speaking in tongues.
9. Anyone said to be a Christian or saved without either water baptism or the Spirit?
10. Anyone told to "pray" to be "saved".
11. Anyone told to "pray" as an instruction for sinners becoming Christians.
12. A way to get "into Christ" that excludes baptism.

Thanks!

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Hey, Jason, will you demonstrate from scripture the following:

1. Baptism does not save us.
2. Baptism is not for the remission of sins.
3. One does not wash away your sins in baptism.
4. He that believes and is not baptized shall be saved.
5. People receive the Holy Spirit WITHOUT speaking with tongues.
6. The gift of the Holy Spirit is NOT the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
7. Receiving the Holy Spirit is something OTHER than the baptism with the Spirit.
8. Baptism with the Spirit WITHOUT tongues, where there clearly was NO speaking in tongues.
9. Anyone said to be a Christian or saved without either water baptism or the Spirit?
10. Anyone told to "pray" to be "saved".
11. Anyone told to "pray" as an instruction for sinners becoming Christians.
12. A way to get "into Christ" that excludes baptism.

Thanks!

The first 4 demonstrate a misunderstanding of justification by faith and the command that the repentant sinner has to submit to water baptism as obedience to the Lord, identification with Him, and the symbolism baptism represents as a burying of the old man and a rising to new life.

5 is simply an untenable position, not supported by scripture, save of course proof texting, in the same manner JWs, Mormons, and SDAs all use small sound byte portions of scripture to arrive at their special "truths" to the neglect of the whole of scripture. Such is the OP conclusion of Acts 10:45 & 19:6, to the neglect of a mountain of scripture, and the very words of Christ himself, declaring belief in Him as the criteria for salvation above all else.

I hold no such positions as you imply in 6&7, I would agree all such language is interchangeable/equivalent.

8, the problems with this interpretation only start in Acts 2, when in 2:41 the 3,000 that responded to Peter's message simply believed and were baptized and added to the church. Then 5,000 in Acts 4:4 with no mention or implication of tongues, then essentially all Gentiles converted through the missionary efforts of the ministry of Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Mark, & Luke. Beyond that theres no witness in early church history that anyone ever believed that, and it has huge problems in that it damns everyone who has never spoken in tongues to hell, as I've discussed here before. This is really the house of cards that the 3 step doctrine collapses on.

9. Nada. As FF Bruce said in his commentary on Acts, the NT knows nothing of an unbaptized believer. I agree, and again any assumption that I believe that someone can refuse baptism and be saved is mistaken. I'd argue the person who refuses baptism probably has never genuinely repented, and thus neither justified.

9,10,11 is simply a confusion and failure to distinguish between the doctrine of justification by faith and easy believism. People who affirm justification by faith don't believe easy believism, consider:
https://youtu.be/dc5lY9YP_bE

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...D=517121529420

Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles https://g.co/kgs/SLwlW2

12, see first paragraph.

[Birddog]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Hey, Jason, will you demonstrate from scripture the following:

1. Baptism does not save us.
2. Baptism is not for the remission of sins.
3. One does not wash away your sins in baptism.
4. He that believes and is not baptized shall be saved.
5. People receive the Holy Spirit WITHOUT speaking with tongues.
6. The gift of the Holy Spirit is NOT the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
7. Receiving the Holy Spirit is something OTHER than the baptism with the Spirit.
8. Baptism with the Spirit WITHOUT tongues, where there clearly was NO speaking in tongues.
9. Anyone said to be a Christian or saved without either water baptism or the Spirit?
10. Anyone told to "pray" to be "saved".
11. Anyone told to "pray" as an instruction for sinners becoming Christians.
12. A way to get "into Christ" that excludes baptism.

Thanks!

[mfblume]

I think it takes more guts to preach all acts 2:38 in a world like this, when it's much easier to preach one step.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason B

The first 4 demonstrate a misunderstanding of justification by faith and the command that the repentant sinner has to submit to water baptism as obedience to the Lord, identification with Him, and the symbolism baptism represents as a burying of the old man and a rising to new life.

I'll take that to mean you decided to pass on the questions.

5 is simply an untenable position, not supported by scripture, save of course proof texting, in the same manner JWs, Mormons, and SDAs all use small sound byte portions of scripture to arrive at their special "truths" to the neglect of the whole of scripture. Such is the OP conclusion of Acts 10:45 & 19:6, to the neglect of a mountain of scripture, and the very words of Christ himself, declaring belief in Him as the criteria for salvation above all else.

In other words, you have no examples or statements or commands or necessary inferences from scripture that "People receive the Holy Spirit WITHOUT speaking with tongues." Thank you.

I hold no such positions as you imply in 6&7, I would agree all such language is interchangeable/equivalent.

Then can you demonstrate from scripture people are saved or Christians without receiving the Spirit? Otherwise, see #5.

8, the problems with this interpretation only start in Acts 2, when in 2:41 the 3,000 that responded to Peter's message simply believed and were baptized and added to the church. Then 5,000 in Acts 4:4 with no mention or implication of tongues, then essentially all Gentiles converted through the missionary efforts of the ministry of Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Mark, & Luke. Beyond that theres no witness in early church history that anyone ever believed that, and it has huge problems in that it damns everyone who has never spoken in tongues to hell, as I've discussed here before. This is really the house of cards that the 3 step doctrine collapses on.

You failed to prove those people in scripture did NOT speak in tongues.

9. Nada. As FF Bruce said in his commentary on Acts, the NT knows nothing of an unbaptized believer. I agree, and again any assumption that I believe that someone can refuse baptism and be saved is mistaken. I'd argue the person who refuses baptism probably has never genuinely repented, and thus neither justified.

Then you are at least a three stepper - belief, repentance, baptism. One more to go, and we'll have you shouting the victory yet!

9,10,11 is simply a confusion and failure to distinguish between the doctrine of justification by faith and easy believism. People who affirm justification by faith don't believe easy believism, consider:
https://youtu.be/dc5lY9YP_bE

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...D=517121529420

Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles https://g.co/kgs/SLwlW2 [/quote]

See above, we've got you three-quarters of the way home, but 99 and a half won't do!

12, see first paragraph.

So you accept there is no way to get into Christ that excludes water baptism.

Okay, all you need now is some time at the altar to pray through, brother! You believe that one must believe, must repent, and must be baptised. You also agree there is no difference between receiving the Spirit and being baptized with the Spirit. All you need is to clear up your doubts about tongues. I bet if we tarry in prayer just a little while longer till those doubts are removed you'll come through shoutin'!

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Hey, Jason, will you demonstrate from scripture the following:

1. Baptism does not save us.
2. Baptism is not for the remission of sins.
3. One does not wash away your sins in baptism.
4. He that believes and is not baptized shall be saved.
5. People receive the Holy Spirit WITHOUT speaking with tongues.
6. The gift of the Holy Spirit is NOT the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
7. Receiving the Holy Spirit is something OTHER than the baptism with the Spirit.
8. Baptism with the Spirit WITHOUT tongues, where there clearly was NO speaking in tongues.
9. Anyone said to be a Christian or saved without either water baptism or the Spirit?
10. Anyone told to "pray" to be "saved".
11. Anyone told to "pray" as an instruction for sinners becoming Christians.
12. A way to get "into Christ" that excludes baptism.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Jason B

The first 4 demonstrate a misunderstanding of justification by faith and the command that the repentant sinner has to submit to water baptism as obedience to the Lord, identification with Him, and the symbolism baptism represents as a burying of the old man and a rising to new life.

Mark 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

Acts 22:16

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord

1 Peter 3:21

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us

Sounds like more than symbolism to me. Additionally:

Exodus 30:20

When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the Lord:

Matthew 3:11

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mark 1:4

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:3

And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Followed up with Luke 24:47

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

I particularly like the imagery in this verse:

Hebrews 9:19

For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

Originally Posted by Jason B

5 is simply an untenable position, not supported by scripture, save of course proof texting, in the same manner JWs, Mormons, and SDAs all use small sound byte portions of scripture to arrive at their special "truths" to the neglect of the whole of scripture. Such is the OP conclusion of Acts 10:45 & 19:6, to the neglect of a mountain of scripture, and the very words of Christ himself, declaring belief in Him as the criteria for salvation above all else.

No one I know says that tongues saves you, merely that when one is saved and filled with the Holy Ghost, they will speak in tongues. What's so untenable about that?

Originally Posted by Jason B

8, the problems with this interpretation only start in Acts 2, when in 2:41 the 3,000 that responded to Peter's message simply believed and were baptized and added to the church. Then 5,000 in Acts 4:4 with no mention or implication of tongues, then essentially all Gentiles converted through the missionary efforts of the ministry of Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Mark, & Luke. Beyond that theres no witness in early church history that anyone ever believed that, and it has huge problems in that it damns everyone who has never spoken in tongues to hell, as I've discussed here before. This is really the house of cards that the 3 step doctrine collapses on.

You never proved they didn't speak in tongues, you only showed that it wasn't recorded in Scripture. Every other recorded instance in the Bible demonstrates people speaking in tongues. Just because the Bible doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by Jason B

9. Nada. As FF Bruce said in his commentary on Acts, the NT knows nothing of an unbaptized believer. I agree, and again any assumption that I believe that someone can refuse baptism and be saved is mistaken. I'd argue the person who refuses baptism probably has never genuinely repented, and thus neither justified.

So, you believe that one is not saved without baptism?

Originally Posted by Jason B

12, see first paragraph.

See my reply to your first paragraph.