Apostolic Litumus Test: Do you affirm - Yes or no?

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Falla39

I believe that the initial evidence that one has received the Spirit is
the sound of the Spirit. A certain sound. No, I don't think at first it
sounds like a language just as the first cry from an infant does not
sound like a language. It is the cry of a newborn. But it is a certain
sound. Stammering lips and another tongue.

It will be evident in time if a person has the Spirit. No Spirit, No fruit of
the Spirit. And fruit does not appear immediately no more that fruit on a
tree appears immediately. Some of the signs of new life is budding, flowers
and leaves and eventually fruit, IF it is indeed there has been sap flowing
in that tree.

I knew a woman many years ago who claimed to be pregnant. She wore
maternity clothes on and on but no baby. She said that she was ex-
pecting a baby but there was never any evidence. Eventually she went to
the doctor and he told her she was not pregnant. Just saying or thinking you
are Spirit-filled doesn't mean you are full of the Spirit. Just saying you are
a Christian doesn't mean a person IS a Christian. It will be evident after a
while. If a person is a Christian, they should be exhibiting a Christ-like
Spirit.

Please no offence. Just my thoughts!

Falla39

Well, I have to apologize to all on this forum, for I have not been showing fruit of the Spirit nor Christ likeness in my posts on this thread. I am grateful that we have ones like you on the forum Sis. Falla. My apologies to the Admin team especially.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Tim Rutledge

I am amazed that on an Apostolic forum, people actually question Baptism in Jesus name. That is the core of the Apostles Doctrine.

Oh I don't think anyone here advocating any other name in baptism.

There is, and has been, an ongoing question regarding what actually is happening in the symbolic baptismal rite and whether Christ justifies sinners apart from the act.

In case you are not aware...
Howard Goss the first UPC General Superintendent believed in the "light" doctrine, and stated "I have not and do not teach that a person will go to hell if he has not been baptized with the Holy Spirit"

W T Witherspoon assistant General Superintendent of the UPC wrote "they that have not been taught concerning the Bible New Birth but have thoroughly repented and lived what they know of the Christian life will be on the right hand at the white throned Judgment..." and will be "Delegated to the Kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world".

The notion that God is able to spare from eternal death outside the OP movement is not a new one.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I have a question for you bro. The minister who baptized me is no longer a Christian - of any kind. Dumped his wife and advertised online for for others who were never to be his wife.

Is my Jesus name baptism valid? Or do I need to be rebaptized in Jesus name by a faithful pastor?

This is a very very very old historical church argument.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Tim Rutledge

Yor baptism is valid. Demas forsook Paul.. and I beleive if Demas had baptised someone, it was valid. But.. for conscious sake, its ok to be rebaptised.

I appreciate that answer. I guess this whole thing really does boil down to that old argument of "When was the Blood Applied."

I feel that it is wrong to marginalize a brother (or sister) who holds to the blood being "applied" at the altar or at repentance. These folks still go on to experience all of Acts 2:38, so why the criticism?

By pushing them out we are often forcing some of them to embrace other theologies, and that hinders our message in so many ways.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Rico

I would hardly go so far as to claim you are a "PCIer." From everything I have heard of them, they preached Jesus name baptism as hard as anyone else. None of this "it's optional" nonsense that you believe.

Howard Goss, first G.S. of UPC told Bro. Carl Ballestero at a camp meeting in Indiana that "even the Baptists will be in the Bride of Christ."

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

So someone can go to heaven without being baptized in Jesus name?

Unfortunately these must be answered first.

What does it mean to "go to heaven"?

What does it mean to be "baptized in Jesus name"?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

This is a very very very old historical church argument.

Donatism in the 4th century. This was countered with the idea that "the Church" was the agent that was really doing the baptisms so baptisms by clergy who lapsed back to paganism were still valid.

I guess the "modern day" example would be that I was baptized by "Hazelwood" and that they owe me some sort of stampt or wall hanging.

I'd kind of like that, actually. A framed parchment looking cert with a handsome seal mailed from Hazelwood, Mo. I might even get batized again to get one.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Unfortunately these must be answered first.

What does it mean to "go to heaven"?

What does it mean to be "baptized in Jesus name"?

Thanks SH for responding - had to step away for a bit.

[JaneEyre]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Oh I don't think anyone here advocating any other name in baptism.

There is, and has been, an ongoing question regarding what actually is happening in the symbolic baptismal rite and whether Christ justifies sinners apart from the act.

In case you are not aware...
Howard Goss the first UPC General Superintendent believed in the "light" doctrine, and stated "I have not and do not teach that a person will go to hell if he has not been baptized with the Holy Spirit"

W T Witherspoon assistant General Superintendent of the UPC wrote "they that have not been taught concerning the Bible New Birth but have thoroughly repented and lived what they know of the Christian life will be on the right hand at the white throned Judgment..." and will be "Delegated to the Kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world".

The notion that God is able to spare from eternal death outside the OP movement is not a new one.

I don't have to go back to UPCI leadership for my quotes.

I go all the way back to the book of Acts.

When the people standing by asked what what they should do to be saved, what were they told??

Acts 2:37-39 (King James Version)


37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

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.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Quote anyone you want, but there is no person better to quote than the man to whom Jesus Christ gave the keys to the kingdom.

(This probably won't help me to win any cokereward.com points.)

God bless you, StephenHoover and others....Just love to quote Acts 2:37-39.
Please do not take offense.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

No, you didn't miss anything. No one is questioning Jesus name baptism.

There are some, however, that are not sending everyone to hell that hasn't been baptised in Jesus' name.

Renda, you opened a flood gate in me just now. You are awesome. Don't stop being yourself!

I agree it matters not who baptized you. It matters that you were baptized. I say this without confusion baptism should be administered in Jesus name. Having said that I stand firm behind what I said on this forum months ago. The word in the Bible baptiso or baptismo both speak to washing as in washing hands, dunking something like cookies in milk as example, running under water-like washing hands, DROWNING-like dying because you consume too much water. In other words, it was and is a common word used in various ways. There are a lot of people that put a ton of importance into the word and pull out the meaning of dunk or dip under and say 'that is why baptism is to be administered in dunking under the water. Baptism is a outward sign that you have mad Christ your King.

In the Bible the baptism was administered in the name of the person that the person being baptized had followed. People following John were baptized in John name because the followed him. Following God/Jesus we are to be baptized in his name, however, the mode of baptism is not the most important factor in the whole procees. The important factor is that the one being baptized is identifying with the one they are following now, Jesus the Christ!