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

[MikeinAR]

I'm an AOG guy so most of you know how I believe on these issues. Most of you know that I also don't have a huge taste for endless debates that cause grudges.

With that disclaimer, I would ask the 3 steppers who are convinced absolutely that water baptism is a must for salvation, was the thief on the cross baptized? Do we have any historical data to suggest that at any time prior to his crucifixion with Christ that he was baptized.

Do you believe that post-resurrection the conditions of salvation changed even though Christ obviously endorsed and advocated for baptism prior to the crucifixion when he was baptized by John?

I'm interested to hear your opinions on the thief in particular.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

I'm an AOG guy so most of you know how I believe on these issues. Most of you know that I also don't have a huge taste for endless debates that cause grudges.

With that disclaimer, I would ask the 3 steppers who are convinced absolutely that water baptism is a must for salvation, was the thief on the cross baptized? Do we have any historical data to suggest that at any time prior to his crucifixion with Christ that he was baptized.

Do you believe that post-ressurection the conditions of salvation changed even though Christ obviously endorsed and advocated for baptism prior to the crucifixion when he was baptized by John?

I'm interested to hear your opinions on the thief inparticular.

Was Enoch water baptised?
Was Elijah?

Look God being God can do whatever he wishes & is sovereign, but you also have to understand that water baptism in Jesus name & the infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in other tongues didn't happen until the day of Pentecost!

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

I'm an AOG guy so most of you know how I believe on these issues. Most of you know that I also don't have a huge taste for endless debates that cause grudges.

With that disclaimer, I would ask the 3 steppers who are convinced absolutely that water baptism is a must for salvation, was the thief on the cross baptized? Do we have any historical data to suggest that at any time prior to his crucifixion with Christ that he was baptized.

Do you believe that post-ressurection the conditions of salvation changed even though Christ obviously endorsed and advocated for baptism prior to the crucifixion when he was baptized by John?

I'm interested to hear your opinions on the thief inparticular.

Mike,

The thief on the cross died prior to the new covenant coming into force. Until the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, and the giving of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, we cannot define anyone as "in the new covenant".

[MikeinAR]

So, Bro. Ron just to be clear you are asserting that the means necessary for salvation were changed on the day of Pentecost?

[MikeinAR]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Mike,

The thief on the cross died prior to the new covenant coming into force. Until the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, and the giving of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, we cannot define anyone as "in the new covenant".

So the paralytic in Matthew 9:2 who Jesus assured by his faith his "sin's were forgiven" was reconciled to God through the old covenant?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Just to quibble with your good point academically...

Your formulation appears to miss the folks (like Daniel A., if I've understood him correctly) who believe that baptism in Jesus name is biblical, but not always salvational.

I believe baptism in Jesus name is the manner in which the first century church baptized (at least predominately baptized). Thus we find descriptions of baptism in Luke's history all being "in Jesus name."

But there are those who can sincerely ask about the meaning of "baptism in Jesus name" as well. By this phrase, did Luke intend for us to picture the traditional baptismal method of a preacher holding the convert in his arms and immersing him while saying, "IN JESUS NAME?"

Or was there an acceptable diversity, for example occasions where the one being baptized made the formal vocalization and immersed themself? Or perhaps a group of people offering up and calling upon the name of Jesus in prayer while a person was being immersed.

The problem with allowing such a diversity would be that the "power" of salvation is taken out of the hands of an authoritarian bureaucracy and invested in the masses of believers. And baptism itself no longer "saves us," but our faith in the work work of Jesus Christ does (1 Peter 3:21).

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I disagree.

The AFF Statement that Daniel has used states that baptism in Jesus name is the ONLY BIBLICAL MODE of baptism. Daniel has stated that one can be baptized in Titles and be saved, thus he does not believe that Jesus Name Baptism is the ONLY BIBLICAL MODE of baptism. Either that or he believes that someone can not obey scripture and still be saved.

You can bump it all you want Matt ... In the words of Rush Limbaugh ... Words mean things ... biblical does not mean salvational or regenerational ....

It's the leaps in logic and struggles to decode that make finding an conservative intellectual an impossibility.

We can argue semantics all day ... but the inability to decipher layers and gradations is where this line of communication breaks down.

I can believe that a baptism should be officiated in the name of Jesus ... use that wording ... but what makes it done is his name is the authority he granted me .... is that too difficult to grasp?

Your impetuosity and religious zeal about this issue along w/ your cronies has been made evident to most who have followed this soap opera,

This AFF afffimation statement was suppose to root out the Apostolics from the non-Apostolics ... but what it did was lead to divisiveness within the Admin team ... and created an insurmountable challenge to those that wanted to make this their forum an impossibility and when faced with the added peer pressure from your cohorts to sanitize this place which seemingly got out of control ... y'all bailed.

I remain still more Apostolic than you'll ever be.

And more importantly a son of God

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Ron

Was Enoch water baptised?
Was Elijah?

Look God being God can do whatever he wishes & is sovereign, but you also have to understand that water baptism in Jesus name & the infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in other tongues didn't happen until the day of Pentecost!

So the apostles didn't need Jesus name baptism but they needed to talk in tongues .... Nice.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

You can bump it all you want Matt ... In the words of Rush Limbaugh ... Words mean things ... biblical does not mean salvational or regenerational ....

It's the leaps in logic and struggles to decode that make finding an conservative intellectual an impossibility.

We can argue semantics all day ... but the inability to decipher layers and gradations is where this line of communication breaks down.

I can believe that a baptism should be officiated in the name of Jesus ... use that wording ... but what makes it done is his name is the authority he granted me .... is that too difficult to grasp?

Your impetuosity and religious zeal about this issue along w/ your cronies has been made evident to most who have followed this soap opera,

This AFF afffimation statement was suppose to root out the Apostolics from the non-Apostolics ... but what it did was lead to divisiveness within the Admin team ... and created an insurmountable challenge to those that wanted to make this their forum an impossibility and when faced with the added peer pressure from your cohorts to sanitize this place which seemingly got out of control ... y'all bailed.

I remain still more Apostolic than you'll ever be.

And more importantly a son of God

And a you apparently remain a little haughty to boot!

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

You can bump it all you want Matt ... In the words of Rush Limbaugh ... Words mean things ... biblical does not mean salvational or regenerational ....

It's the leaps in logic and struggles to decode that make finding an conservative intellectual an impossibility.

We can argue semantics all day ... but the inability to decipher layers and gradations is where this line of communication breaks down.

I can believe that a baptism should be officiated in the name of Jesus ... use that wording ... but what makes it done is his name is the authority he granted me .... is that too difficult to grasp?

Your impetuosity and religious zeal about this issue along w/ your cronies has been made evident to most who have followed this soap opera,

This AFF afffimation statement was suppose to root out the Apostolics from the non-Apostolics ... but what it did was lead to divisiveness within the Admin team ... and created an insurmountable challenge to those that wanted to make this their forum an impossibility and when faced with the added peer pressure from your cohorts to sanitize this which seemingly got out of control ... y'all bailed.

I remain still more Apostolic than you'll ever be.

And more importantly a son of God

I wrote the statement, so I know what it means. I don't have to quote anyone else in an attempt to gain understanding of what it means. It was not a statement of salvation, but what ALL THE FORUM ADMIN AT THAT TIME (excluding MOW) had agreed was "apostolic". It states that Jesus name baptism is the ONLY biblical mode of baptism. You sought to try to use it for your advantage, but you are not being truthful. either that or you believe one can be disobedient to the bible concerning baptism, and still be saved.

As to you being Apostolic in any shape or fashion, only in your dreams.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

So the paralytic in Matthew 9:2 who Jesus assured by his faith his "sin's were forgiven" was reconciled to God through the old covenant?

All I can give is my opinion. Jesus walked as the Savior prior to his death, burial, and resurrection. If he chose to remit sins, as God that was his right. But I cannot change the fact that the new covenant did not take effect until the blood was shed and offered in the Holiest of all. And it was not confirmed, and the laws written into the hearts of Man until Pentecost.