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

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

Let me try and point out what I seem to not be saying clearly. It may be that everyone wants to make the statement a salvational one, and it was not ever intended to be one.


If I look at the statement as it is written, That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism, And say I agree with it, yet accept titles as a legitimate baptism, am I being honest?

[SDG]

Pelathais I have to accept Trinitarians are going to hell ... apparently and are not baptized in the authority of Jesus Christ to meet Matt's affirmation statement ...

And don't fool yourself ... that's whose it is ... his ...

Stating that everyone agreed ... is moot ...

being that it was a handful of conservative owners who sought to have it written because the heat was getting higher in the kitchen and insisted in it's implementation

In the end it's there ... as his legacy ... cryptic as it may be.

Maybe MOW can tell us the whole story.

[MikeinAR]

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.

Thanks Sam for the concise summary of fervent dispensationalists. At least I understand more fully exactly what the position on the dispensations are. Not saying that I agree with that sentiment fully, but nonetheless clears some things up for me.

[MikeinAR]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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

Pel that statement is full of wisdom. I would give that one my highest ranking of signature material.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Pelathais I have to accept Trinitarians are going to hell ... apparently and are not baptized in the authority of Jesus Christ to meet Matt's affirmation statement ...

And don't fool yourself ... that's whose it is ... his ...

Stating that everyone agreed ... is moot ...

being that it was a handful of conservative owners who sought to have it written because the heat was getting higher in the kitchen.

YOU are the one that brought out AFF's statement and made this thread as an attempt to prove that everyone here is Apostolic. Funny that you have done nothing but throw out your regular garbage instead of dealing with the subject. But, that is what you do best.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

YOU are the one that brought out AFF's statement and made this thread as an attempt to prove that everyone here is Apostolic. Funny that you have done nothing but throw out your regular garbage instead of dealing with the subject. But, that is what you do best.

That's because based on YOUR definition of Apostolic ... the bulk are ... although you claimed today that most here aren't ...

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I got to this part of the thread and had to say AMEN to this. While there may be a few Apostolics that post here, I do not think the forum as a whole represents what Apostolic is. Not sure if it ever did.


Of course, we only have to look at Daniel to see what a true Apostolic is, because he is more Apostolic than us all.

You see sir ... this was an exercise in showing how contradictory your words were today ... being that this forum is indeed Apostolic based on your definition of Apostolic.

Although perhaps it never was .. as you assert.

As much as that makes you writhe.

Even more fascinating is how this UnApostolic forum was born under your watch.

How's that for trash talk?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Sam,

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

This one also touches on the question about John's baptism being "for the remission of sins." The Bible clearly and repeatedly states that John's was a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins..." (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77 and Luke 3:3).

How was it possible for the people to receive "the remission of sins" in John's baptism if Jesus had not yet been crucified? Paul tells us how in Acts 19:4. If the people believed on the One who was to follow John, then they received remission of sins - before Calvary. The Bible cl;early states that they did.

This points out emphatically, the importance of of faith in baptism. I am personally at a loss as to why Apostolic churches are so timid about the the issue of faith in baptism. When pressed about it they'll say something in an embarassed tone. But why don't we lead with faith? Why isn't faith in Jesus Christ the foundational topic in every Bible study and Sunday School lesson on baptism? Why?

The answer is a little hard to acknowledge for us. But could it be that we are allowing "the Trintarians" to write our doctrines for us in an off-handed manner? Most of our Articles of Faith are a reactionary statement to something someone else said or had done. Why don't we tell folk outright - it doesn't matter who helps you into the water, it doesn't matter if they mess it all up or forget a line or miss a beat - what matters is your own personal faith in Jesus Christ.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

That's because based on YOUR definition of Apostolic ... the bulk are ... although you claimed today that most here aren't ...




You see sir ... this was an exercise in showing how contradictory your words were today ... being that this forum is indeed Apostolic based on your definition of Apostolic.

Although perhaps it never was .. as you assert.

As much as that makes you writhe.

Even more fascinating is how this UnApostolic forum was born under your watch.

How's that for trash talk.

Daniel,

I made an exaggerated statement after reading on here the last couple of weeks about folks on here that are embracing the Todd Bentley garbage as God at work, the promotion of the UR doctrine in the debate forum, and also reading a post about men being able to continue to be homosexuals (though not practicing), and be saved. Sue me.

But it doesn't change the fact that you still refuse to see your dishonest vote?? Oh well, I tried.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

Pel that statement is full of wisdom. I would give that one my highest ranking of signature material.

Thanks MikeinAR. And thanks for your questions and thoughts. I was going to chime in about the Dispensational aspect of the Thief on the Cross but Sam did so nicely that there wasn't much more to say other than "yeah."

Darby's Dispensationalism played a huge role in the formation of the early Apostolic Faith Movement (which included the precursors to the AoG, by the way... guys!). The charts by Clarence Larkin, H.A. Ironside and others literally framed the way in which we all read the Bible for several generations.

We just called it "Bible Prophecy" and anything else simply wasn't "Bible." It was a rigid worldview that undergird much of our faith - but nobody ever talked about where it came from or how it developed.

[SDG]

Gnite, Matt ...

cut Bentley some slack ... who knows who God can use ... he used a stubborn mule once didn't he?

We will disagree on what "in the name of Jesus" means .. you believe it's articulating it to effectuate remission... I believe it's doing so under the authority of his personage.

This is where we diverge ...

One can make a forum rule stating ... one must believe that being born again is the ONLY biblical mode of salvation ...

Yet ask a Baptist what "born again" means and it will differ from a Mormon as it will differ from a Water and Spirit view ...

Yet each one can confidently say they believe being born again is biblical and necessary for quickening us into eternal life ... as well as the only biblical way ... and how we are saved ...

None would be dishonest in affirming such a belief.

I'm glad you now consider us to be an Apostolic forum.