Does being Apostolic make you better?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

First, you must show me where El Predicator has defined "apostolic" as salvation contained in the three steps of Acts 2:38. He has only defined apostolic as following the teachings of the apostles, as far as I can see. For all we know he is a Roman Catholic.

This is what can be very frustrating. Most all apostolics talk a big talk and bark relentlessly about how their way is the only way. But when backed into a corner and asked pointedly if lack of adherence to "their way" will result in eternal damnation, they won't give a straight "yes" or "no" answer.

So come on, Mizpeh, stop sounding like a politician at a press conference. You know good and well what Redman believes for salvation and you wouldn't for one single second believe that he believes anything else. Just tell me straight up, if I'm not in complete compliance of Acts 2:38, am I eternally damned?

And pleeeeeeeaaase don't resort to the "God is the judge" routine.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

The only logical conclusion to your reaction to what I said actually.

There is only one correct reaction to the gospel, Acts 2:38.

By following it, you follow the Apostle's doctrine, which makes you apostolic.

Ergo you are saved.

If you are not saved, you are not Apostolic.

If you are not saved you are going to hell.

The original question, are Apostolics better?

Of course they are not better (for the THIRD time), they are saved.

If you have a problem with any of this you either:

1. Don't believe Acts 2:38 to be necessary, ie Peter blew it.

2. You don't believe in hell, or that the unsaved are going there.

3. You did not read carefully and actually agree with post #4.


As far as arrogance, labeling and name calling, none of that was in MY posts. You guys take the time to read your own...

Well, I'll tell you what, Redman, I'll give you my list. Ready?

1) I believe in Acts 2:38 as much as you do.

2) Furthermore, I have complied with Acts 2:38 as much as you have.

3) I am empowered on a daily basis by the Holy Spirit which was given to me when I believed according to Ephesians 1:13, John 7:39, I John 4:15, and other places.

4) I am not an apostolic by your definition, nor do I care to be. Nor, apparently, was Paul. He never mentioned your three steps as you define them.

5) It appears to me that you move beyond theological arrogance and into the field of.......well, I can't say it. I'll get an infraction.


Enjoy your sub-culture of solidarity and exclusion today!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

1) There is only one faith that was once delivered to the saints.
2) Paul taught the same salvation message as Peter and the rest of the disciples. They had the same doctrine. Paul even verified the gospel he received from the Lord with Peter in Jerusalem.
3) What was the "word of the Lord" that Paul spoke to the jailer and his house? It had to be something about Jesus dying on the cross for their sins, being buried, and rising from the dead, and judgement to come....the gospel. Why? because the jailer and his family needed to hear the gospel. The "word of the Lord" must have included everything that Peter taught in Acts 2...repentance, baptism in water and in the Spirit. Paul is going to teach the same thing he was taught by Ananias (the baptisms) because they all taught the same thing! Acts 9:17-18
4) In Acts 16, Paul spoke more words than just "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved". If salvation only consists of "believing" then baptism in the middle of the night was unnecessary.


This is what I mean by "guesstimate". Logical deduction from harmonizing the entirety of scriptures and not taking one verse alone to derive a doctrine.

I'm a one-stepper, but there is no indication that the jailer alone in the middle of the night there with Paul sang, "I can, I will, I do believe" and signed a decision card. The message of salvation by faith was for the jailer and his whole family. So, they gathered the family together, including children, and they heard the Word. Everyone in the family believed (including infants?) and followed up that belief with baptism while they were at the water (or had enough water) to clean up the stripes on the apostles. Paul must have said something to them about water baptism. If you are a three-stepper you believed he told them it was part of a "plan of salvation" and if you are a one-stepper you believe he told them it was the follow up to salvation. There is no word as to whether any or all of them received the Holy Ghost Baptism so we cannot draw any conclusion on that here.

[berkeley]

Including infants? Who said anything about infants?

[berkeley]

not feeling very diplomatic today.... *yawn*

to answer the question: Yes!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Bryan

Including infants? Who said anything about infants?

The reason I brought up the subject of infants was because that passage has been used to show that infant baptism was practiced in the early church. Verse 33 says that he and all of his were baptized. That would include infant children if there were any. However, verse 32 says that they spoke the Word of the Lord to him and all that were in his house, and verse 34 said he believed in God with all his house. So, it would seem that anyone who was baptized had heard the Word and had believed. This would fit the pattern of what we term "believer's baptism" i.e. that nobody should be baptized unless they have first believed per the pattern of Acts 8:36-37 and Acts 18:8.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Sam

The reason I brought up the subject of infants was because that passage has been used to show that infant baptism was practiced in the early church. Verse 33 says that he and all of his were baptized. That would include infant children if there were any. However, verse 32 says that they spoke the Word of the Lord to him and all that were in his house, and verse 34 said he believed in God with all his house. So, it would seem that anyone who was baptized had heard the Word and had believed. This would fit the pattern of what we term "believer's baptism" i.e. that nobody should be baptized unless they have first believed per the pattern of Acts 8:36-37 and Acts 18:8.

Who here baptizes an "unbeliever?" The issue isn't baptism of a believer v. an unbeliever. The issue is: when is one saved? when they "believe?" or after their "belief" compels them to repentance... baptism... and the reception of the Holy Spirit?

[Coffee99]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

First, you must show me where El Predicator has defined "apostolic" as salvation contained in the three steps of Acts 2:38. He has only defined apostolic as following the teachings of the apostles, as far as I can see. For all we know he is a Roman Catholic.

By his posting style, I believe that he is a former Posse leader and we can all be fairly certain that he is not Roman Catholic.

In answer to the question of the thread, I'm part of a mainstream religion which believes we are Apostolic and don't consider myself better than any sinner or other religion. I do believe that God's mercy and His grace have given me a more fortunate life than many who have not experienced or accepted the same.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Coffee99

By his posting style, I believe that he is a former Posse leader and we can all be fairly certain that he is not Roman Catholic.

In answer to the question of the thread, I'm part of a mainstream religion which believes we are Apostolic and don't consider myself better than any sinner or other religion. I do believe that God's mercy and His grace have given me a more fortunate life than many who have not experienced or accepted the same.

Hello, Coffee! I was hoping you'd been reading all this gibberish and hoping you'd say something at some point. How've you been?

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by Coffee99

By his posting style, I believe that he is a former Posse leader and we can all be fairly certain that he is not Roman Catholic.

In answer to the question of the thread, I'm part of a mainstream religion which believes we are Apostolic and don't consider myself better than any sinner or other religion. I do believe that God's mercy and His grace have given me a more fortunate life than many who have not experienced or accepted the same.

ROFLOL

You made my day!!!!