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

[SDG]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

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.

And all of us can read ...

You wrote it and yet it did does NOT convey what you desired to convey ... maybe you should hire a ghost writer next time ...

Often my students want to say something yet they are limited in their abilities to do so ... if you wanted the statement to read that one must believe that Jesus name is baptism is salvational then you should have said so ... but you knew that most of the 1 steppers would have balked ...

That's what happens when you get cute ... or deceptive ...

You see I can insinuate that you are being duplicitous too.

Kudos for trying ... your experiment failed.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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

And can you give me the scripture that says they were never baptized in Jesus name?

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

And all of us can read ...

You wrote it and yet it did does convey what you desired to convey ... maybe you should a ghost writer next time ...

Often my students want to say something yet they are limited in their abilities to do so ... if you wanted the statement to read that one must believe that Jesus name is baptism is salvational then you should have said so ... but you knew that most of the 1 steppers would have balked ...

That's what happens when you get cute ... or deceptive ...

You see I can insinuate that you are being duplicitous too.

Kudos for trying ... your experiment failed.

Danny, I don't know who spit in your corn flakes, but your posting shows a real contempt for things Apostolic.

There is scriptures what God thinks of those who sow discord!

[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!

Originally Posted by Ron

And can you give me the scripture that says they were never baptized in Jesus name?

Ron ... you said that this did not happen until the day of Pentecost ...

When you decide when God decided to do this ... we'll continue down this line of argumentation.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Ron

Danny, I don't know who spit in your corn flakes, but your posting shows a real contempt for things Apostolic.

There is scriptures what God thinks of those who sow discord!

Three times today ... twice in this thread ... and once in another ... Matt has made it his objective to "prove" or highlight I am not Apostolic ...

The term to me is just a label ...

yet interestingly enough we don't hear from him in days ... yet you'll find him gunning for me at every corner ...

It happened a few weeks ago in the El Predicador thread and now ...

He sought to permanently ban me, Ron ... succeeded .... and that was his prerogative but life is funny sometimes ....

if he so desires to continue down this vein ...

Lets do it.

[Sam]

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?

Where there is a testament, there has to be the death of the testator because a testament is in force after the death of the testator.

Fervent dispensationalists like Scofield (of Scofield Bible fame), Plymouth Brethren, some Baptists and some Apostolics believe that the Church began on Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 and that nobody (not even the apostles) was really saved until then. All those whose sins were forgiven; those who preached, healed and cast out demons in Jesus' name; even the woman to whom Jesus said, "Woman, thy faith hath saved thee" in Luke 7:50; and those that Jesus spoke about in John 3:11 when He said He and His disciples had seen and known about people who had been born again; none of these were really saved under the new testament or new covenant. Some Apostolics believe that when 120 (out of the 500 believers that existed at that time) were empowered by or baptized in the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts chapter 2, that was when they got saved. I think that some Apostolics believe that those 120 also got rebaptized in water that day because their previous water baptism by John or by Jesus became ineffective.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

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.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

And all of us can read ...

You wrote it and yet it did does convey what you desired to convey ... maybe you should hire a ghost writer next time ...

Often my students want to say something yet they are limited in their abilities to do so ... if you wanted the statement to read that one must believe that Jesus name is baptism is salvational then you should have said so ... but you knew that most of the 1 steppers would have balked ...

That's what happens when you get cute ... or deceptive ...

You see I can insinuate that you are being duplicitous too.

Kudos for trying ... your experiment failed.

IF you had taken a moment to actually READ the post, you would have saw where I plainly stated that it was NOT a salvational statement. It conveyed exactly what I wanted it to convey. So your implication that I was being deceptive is dishonest of you.

BUT, it does not change the fact that you believe one can be baptized in titles, which is contrary to what the AFF Statement says, and then vote that you agree with the statement??? Now who is being honest here?

[pelathais]

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.

Well, I'm certain that Daniel could speak for himself - he hasn't been shy about that... But again, I think your articulation here misses his point.

Let me try to explain myself: It is biblical to "lay hands on the sick and they shall recover..." (Mark 16:18); but it is not a requirement for salvation. There are many other things, some very important things that are biblical but they are not salvational. The Lord's Supper comes to mind.

If the basis for salvation in baptism is faith in the work that Jesus Christ has done (1 Peter 3:21; Colossians 2:12) then the mechanics of the baptism are secondary - faith trumps all (Romans 4:17).

If however, we see that baptism is a rite that must be performed with more or less invarying exactness according to one take on the first century church then we place "the Church" (whatever "the Church" may be) and its clergy into a position of granting the graces and benefits that accompany salvation and not Jesus. In this scenario, "The Church" and her clergy become the mediators between man and God. Only by finding out from the Church's teachings can we see the exact name(s) that must be uttered to open the gates of hell and death and allow us to pass to immortality.

For me, this smacks of Ishtar and her passage through the firery fortress. She had to obey a command at each gate. Failure to perform the command meant she could not pass. In the Egyptian form of the myth, Isis must know the name of the god stationed at each gate in order to pass. With our monotheistic creed, we need know only one name to open the gate and gain eternal life - but the parallels with the older myths are interesting.

In the First Intermediate Period, a time of chaos and decline in ancient Egypt, the great pyramids at Giza and Saqqara were opened and looted. The most important item that was discovered by the ancient Egyptians was the early form of The Book of the Dead - or the Pyramid Texts. These were the secret instructions for Pharoah to use to pass through the underworld and gain immortality. The looting of the pyramids has been called the "democratization of the after life" by many historians. For the first time in Egypt, the masses knew "The Secrets" for getting through the maze of death and even their pets were buried with scrolls from the Book of the Dead.

Are we trying to reverse that rebellion, in a way? Are we perhaps guilty of acting like some other organizations in history by trying to consolidate the graces of eternal life into a power that is dispensed only by us - the elite?

Baptism in Jesus name is biblical. Faith in Jesus Christ is salvational.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Sam

Where there is a testament, there has to be the death of the testator because a testament is in force after the death of the testator.

Fervent dispensationalists like Scofield (of Scofield Bible fame), Plymouth Brethren, some Baptists and some Apostolics believe that the Church began on Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 and that nobody (not even the apostles) was really saved until then. All those whose sins were forgiven; those who preached, healed and cast out demons in Jesus' name; even the woman to whom Jesus said, "Woman, thy faith hath saved thee" in Luke 7:50; and those that Jesus spoke about in John 3:11 when He said He and His disciples had seen and known about people who had been born again; none of these were really saved under the new testament or new covenant. Some Apostolics believe that when 120 (out of the 500 believers that existed at that time) were empowered by or baptized in the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts chapter 2, that was when they got saved. I think that some Apostolics believe that those 120 also got rebaptized in water that day because their previous water baptism by John or by Jesus became ineffective.

Sam,

What do YOU believe? Do you believe the new covenant came into effect prior to the death of Jesus?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

IF you had taken a moment to actually READ the post, you would have saw where I plainly stated that it was NOT a salvational statement. So your implication that I was being deceptive is dishonest of you.

BUT, it does not change the fact that you believe one can be baptized in titles, which is contrary to what the AFF Statement says, and then vote that you agree with the statement??? Now who is being honest here?

Matt ... you lose.

Playing gotcha all night will result in you flopping again and asking for me being banned ... which really is becoming predictable and common place.

The heart of the matter is that ...

Your affirmation statement is born of out the same spirit as the Westburg Resolution ...

it is one of disfellowship ...one that does not want varying views on salvation ...but one that hates ...

Hates the Body of Christ that does not look or believe exactly as you do ...

One that does not see through the eyes of the Almighty who declares them His ... but through tradition and exclusivity.

You're campaign to discredit me ... is curious at best ... and ineffective at the most.