Fundamental Doctrine

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by pastor febus

The last two days I have been researching Arnolds Book and it appears that some of you have a point on how he presented his argument. He should not have made such sweeping declarations knowing that someone one day would discover how sloppy his research turned out. This in and of itself does not disprove my position. The Apostolic movement has had its records burned and destroyed throughout history. This was obviously the struggle that Dr. Arnold incurred in researching his material. I have always had a problem with people that use extra biblical material to prove biblical concepts. That is why we need to pay close attention to Scripture.
Getting back to the original issue at hand… I never considered my self a three stepper. I was saved 28years before I ever heard the term used. It is not a biblical term; neither is this “one stepper” term that is used. The reason I am not happy with this denial of the essentiality of the Holy Ghost and the baptism in Jesus Name is because it also denies the death burial and resurrection outlined in the Feasts of Israel. We enter that tomb with Christ in baptism; we are risen with Him by virtue of receiving the Holy Ghost. If this is not accomplished an individual will not inherit eternal life. That type was given on Mount Sinai to be fulfilled by Christ and the Church. The Feasts portray the harvests accomplished through their respective prophetic fulfillments (I.e. The harvest of souls). This protestant dogma inadvertently conveys everlasting life to those who do not enter into the ancient pattern of that which was established on Mount Sinai and fulfilled in the Church. In my estimation that cannot be easily overlooked.
This is a serious issue because I have a mandate to preach salvation as recorded by the Apostles. This is not about friendship or getting along. I’ve learned long ago that alliances are very fragile in our movement. I do not preach out of the upc manual I preach out of the word of God. The charters created by man are just that; man made Churches patterned after their own image.
Those who align themselves with Protestant dogma should at least honestly admit it. Please do not misrepresent it by saying that it is Apostolic. Peter never preached it and neither will I.
I know that my stand offends some but my intention is not to personally offend anyone. BTW I do not know anyone of you on this thread personally. I would discuss these issues with you as I would anyone else.

God Bless You All,


====

Wow turn down the volume.

You kinda mis-characterize the "one-stepper" theology, many if not the majority believe for example that baptism is a commandment and not a suggestion. The difference comes in WHY to baptize- is it representative of an act of grace or the act that actually applies it. In other words because sins have been remitted or in order to remit sins. Either way baptism in Jesus' Name is taught.

In the good old days it would have been pretty much impossible to differentiate the PCI sermons from the PAJC ones.

[pastor febus]

The size of the font was not intentional. My wife posted it a little too large. We are over 60 and like large font. No offence intended.

[pastor febus]

Master Mind said:
You kinda mis-characterize the "one-stepper" theology, many if not the majority believe for example that baptism is a commandment and not a suggestion. The difference comes in WHY to baptize- is it representative of an act of grace or the act that actually applies it. In other words because sins have been remitted or in order to remit sins. Either way baptism in Jesus' Name is taught.

In the good old days it would have been pretty much impossible to differentiate the PCI sermons from the PAJC ones.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .............................................

Pastor Febus said:

Where in the bible does it say that baptism is only an "act of grace?" It plainly states that it is for the remission of sins. I would not relegate grace to only baptism but to every act of faith we implement in our walk with the Lord.

They speak of grace and do not understand what it means and Apostolics are caught up in the confusion. We have been taught for years that grace is “unmerited favor”. This definition is not accurate. Unfortunately, this misinformation has framed theological arguments for years and to our detriment. The strong’s concordance renders the word as “divine influence on the heart”. That influence is none other than the power of God empowering the activities of His kingdom. It is not a margin of error; neither does it overlook sin. Grace is mistaken for His mercy. God is merciful but He is not permissive.

Grace: Charis, the root word for charisma or gifting. When Paul says, “grace be unto you” he is praying Gods power upon those he addresses. Yes, By grace we are saved THROUGH FAITH. Grace is activated through our response to the wishes of God. The faith of Abraham is the prototype of faith because he believed (obeyed) God.
Living faith is responsive faith. As I have said many times faith is information acted upon. What is information is that? The word that God communicates through the many avenues we receive it.

So yes, it takes grace to repent because the grace (power) of God draws us, but remember it takes faith to get there.
Yes, the power of grace removes our sins at baptism and again we must remember that it takes faith to get into the water and BELIEVE that our sins are remitted when we submit to the word preached that we obey.
Yes, the power of grace is the resurrection dynamo we received when we had faith to believe in seeking the infilling of the Holy Ghost.

In my many conversations with “one steppers”, the necessity of water baptism for the remission of sins is marginalized by their belief that sins are remitted at repentance. They add that they are complete in their salvation by virtue of that repentance. I do not think that I have misread their theology. One-step is exactly what it appears to be, one-step. The infilling of the Holy Ghost with its evidence of tongues is not necessary either. Talk to any Baptist and they will tell you the same, one-step. What am I missing here? How Have I misread them? You said that baptism is a commandment and not a suggestion. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if it is a commandment then you are doing the “two step” not the “one step”. The more I hear about this dogma the more I get confused. I really need you or someone to break this thing down to me and make it simple without the two step or the cha cha cha .

[Hoovie]

Pastor feb, I think no one really likes the terms "One Step" or even "Three Step", and I would agree they are not biblical terms. However, we also read nothing of "Line Dancing" which may better describe the view of salvation others have - given their never ending requirements to "get right with God".

I think pretty much all here agree on the absolute necessity of water baptism - even though there is some disagreement as to the exact moment one is justified.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by pastor febus

The last two days I have been researching Arnolds Book and it appears that some of you have a point on how he presented his argument. He should not have made such sweeping declarations knowing that someone one day would discover how sloppy his research turned out. This in and of itself does not disprove my position. The Apostolic movement has had its records burned and destroyed throughout history. This was obviously the struggle that Dr. Arnold incurred in researching his material. I have always had a problem with people that use extra biblical material to prove biblical concepts. That is why we need to pay close attention to Scripture.
Getting back to the original issue at hand… I never considered my self a three stepper. I was saved 28years before I ever heard the term used. It is not a biblical term; neither is this “one stepper” term that is used. The reason I am not happy with this denial of the essentiality of the Holy Ghost and the baptism in Jesus Name is because it also denies the death burial and resurrection outlined in the Feasts of Israel. We enter that tomb with Christ in baptism; we are risen with Him by virtue of receiving the Holy Ghost. If this is not accomplished an individual will not inherit eternal life. That type was given on Mount Sinai to be fulfilled by Christ and the Church. The Feasts portray the harvests accomplished through their respective prophetic fulfillments (I.e. The harvest of souls). This protestant dogma inadvertently conveys everlasting life to those who do not enter into the ancient pattern of that which was established on Mount Sinai and fulfilled in the Church. In my estimation that cannot be easily overlooked.
This is a serious issue because I have a mandate to preach salvation as recorded by the Apostles. This is not about friendship or getting along. I’ve learned long ago that alliances are very fragile in our movement. I do not preach out of the upc manual I preach out of the word of God. The charters created by man are just that; man made Churches patterned after their own image.
Those who align themselves with Protestant dogma should at least honestly admit it. Please do not misrepresent it by saying that it is Apostolic. Peter never preached it and neither will I.
I know that my stand offends some but my intention is not to personally offend anyone. BTW I do not know anyone of you on this thread personally. I would discuss these issues with you as I would anyone else.

God Bless You All,

====

I can top that...I am Apostolic born and bred, and for almost 50 years never heard tell of 1 or 3 steppers.

I only used the term '3-stepper' to identify my beliefs, and I said in my post it is a misnomer.

And for the record, there are a lot of terms not biblical...

[MrMasterMind]

There are hundreds of threads here on the topics, some of them with hundreds of posts.

Bottom line and with all due respect your post does nothing to alter.

The main difference is why to baptize, not whether or how.....

[helen_febus]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

There are hundreds of threads here on the topics, some of them with hundreds of posts.

Bottom line and with all due respect your post does nothing to alter.

The main difference is why to baptize, not whether or how.....

Act 2:38 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.

According to this verse Sins are only remitted after baptism.

I feel that this is a good "why".

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by helen_febus

Act 2:38 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.

According to this verse Sins are only remitted after baptism.

I feel that this is a good "why".

Thanks Sis. And with regard to the whole "One Stepper"/"Three Stepper" thing - it is a sloppy shorthand and it does tend to ignore the fact the most "Three Steppers" actually articulate things like God's grace in the same fashion as "One Steppers."

But it is historic terminology that many people in the discussion immediate recognize and can use to jump right into the fray.

With regard to Acts 2:38 and "remission of sins" - Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77-78 and Luke 3:3, all tell us that the "disciples of John" - those who were baptized in John's "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" had all received just that: the remission of sins!

The language here is identical to Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins." Some people want to argue about the meaning of "for" in these passages. Does it mean "because of" or does it mean "in order to..."? For me, I see that the Greek word "εις" can mean either, depending on context; so what does it mean here? (Clicking this link opens a PDF document on the subject).

One way to try and see, is to look at how the "disciples of John" would be later incorporated into the "disciples of Jesus Christ." Acts 18:24-28 and Acts 19:1-8, has an account of several people (including Apollos) who went through just this process.

Now, John the Baptist and John's father Zacharias (speaking as he was 'filled with the Spirit') along with Mark and Luke ALL tell us that the disciples of John the Baptist already had "the remission of sins" through repentance and John's baptism.

So, why does Paul rebaptize people in Jesus' name who already have clearly received the remission of sins? AND - How does this help to inform our understanding of Acts 2:38, in the "in order to receive" versus "because of" debate?

For me, it does appear that water baptism in the name of Jesus is an essential element for entering into the Christian community. However, the "remission of sins" is a work associated with Calvary, the blood of Jesus Christ and BY TYPE - the repentance of the believer.

[pastor febus]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Pastor feb, I think no one really likes the terms "One Step" or even "Three Step", and I would agree they are not biblical terms. However, we also read nothing of "Line Dancing" which may better describe the view of salvation others have - given their never ending requirements to "get right with God".

I think pretty much all here agree on the absolute necessity of water baptism - even though there is some disagreement as to the exact moment one is justified.

One is justified by faith. Not information in our heads. Faith is responding to God. When one responds to God then we are justified. That is WHEN we are justified.The word justified means to be made innocent.
I still have not received an explination as to what this doctrine really means. I only hear this thing about remission before baptism but what about this one step? Is that the one step you are referring to? Or is there more to this dogma no one here cares to break down?
BTW my name is spelled Febus

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by helen_febus

Act 2:38 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.

According to this verse Sins are only remitted after baptism.

I feel that this is a good "why".

ROFLOL and off we go.