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

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

The only issue I have with your post her Pel, is that those with John didn't know who Jesus was at that time, so how could they believe on Him? Their belief would have been put in a future Savior.

Also, we cannot go beyond the plainly stated scripture that Sam posted.

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.


Until the death of Christ, the new covenant had NO LEGAL bite. If anyone was "saved" prior to His death and blood offering, then it was either through the old covenant, or Jesus simply worked outside of the scope we understand. But the latter would have been an exception, and not the rule.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

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.

Until the death of Christ, the new covenant had NO LEGAL bite. If anyone was "saved" prior to His death and blood offering, then it was either through the old covenant, or Jesus simply worked outside of the scope we understand. But the latter would have been an exception, and not the rule.

All were saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ ... forward and backwards ... to say someone was saved through the Old Covenant means what Matt ??... the Law??? ...

One writer states:

Salvation in the Old Testament isn't discussed primarily in terms of “going to heaven”— but in terms of belonging to God” as his people. This is true of the New Testament, too—heaven is mentioned, but union with Christ is mentioned almost 200 times just in Paul's letters.

God promised Abraham that he would make him into a great nation, bless him, and bless all the peoples of the earth through him (Gen 12:1-3). Also included in this promise was the land itself (Gen 15:18-21). It’s in this context that Scripture says, "Abram believed God, and he credited it to him as righteousness" (Gen 15:6). Abraham was justified by faith. God then gave him an outward sign of this covenant relationship in circumcision (Gen 17).

What's so striking about all of this is that God did it all—it's salvation by grace alone. Certainly Abram responded to this call—which was a major endeavor, leaving his people and traveling through the desert to a far-off land. But God made the choice. God gave the call. God made all the promises. Salvation was from the Lord.

When Abram believed, God saw his faith and credited righteousness to his account, even though Abraham continued to be a sinner (...doubting God's promise of a son, committing adultery with his servant, lying about his wife—almost causing her to end up in an adulterous relationship with a foreign king, etc). Though faith was required and outward signs were taken very seriously—remember how God came after Moses to kill him when Moses failed to circumcise his sons— still, salvation was by grace through faith, according to God's calling.

He goes on to say:

Paul mentions in Romans 3 that Old Testament believers were forgiven "in the forbearance of God" (Rom 3:25). A forbearance is a postponement on a debt—like when a student graduates from college but doesn't have a good enough job to repay his student loans, the feds may say "We'll give you five years— but then you'll have to start paying." In the Old Testament, God gave his people a forbearance until Christ could come and pay their sin-debt for them. In this way they could avoid the punishment for their sins, even though Christ had not yet died for them.

When Paul introduces his doctrine of justification by faith alone in this same chapter, be backs it up with the Old Testament, saying it's a "righteousness from God apart from law," but one "to which the Law and the Prophets testify" (Rom 3:21). The "Law and the Prophets" is a technical term for the Hebrew Scriptures, our Old Testament Paul specifically backs up his teaching by citing Abraham's justification by faith from Genesis (Rom 4) and David's speaking of the forgiveness of sins in Psalm 32 (Rom 4:7-8).

Our justification ... or right standing w/ God ... for both Old and New Testament saints is rooted in Jesus Christ ... saved by grace through faith ...

Paul recognizes this in Philippians ....

"not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith."

The law in the OT was not a way to win favor, or achieve righteousness, w/ God as Galatians tells us ...

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: `Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law' " (v. 10).

"No one is justified before God by the law, because, `The righteous will live by faith.' The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, `The man who does these things will live by them

Another writer shares this:

The Law cannot give life, because we all fall short of what it requires. "The Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe" (v. 22). Instead of giving life, the Law prescribes penalties, and the result is that the promise of salvation can come only through God's grace. The Law makes it clear that we all fall short and need the salvation that Jesus offers by faith.

But before faith in Christ came, "we [the Jewish people] were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed" (v. 23).

The Jews were under the restrictions of the law, under its temporary jurisdiction or custody. "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (v. 24). The law had authority from Moses until Christ. It showed that humans are prisoners of sin, unable to save themselves through human effort. It showed that salvation can be received only through faith, not by law.

....

Hence, it was their faith in God/Christ .... looking forward to God's Plan of Salvation through Jesus Christ at Calvary that justified them ... not through the Old Covenant.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Sam,

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

If you are asserting that the thief on the cross was saved under the old covenant ... what does that mean to you, Matt?

You insist, that the covenant has no bite until the death of the testator yet the bible tells us Jesus promises the thief salvation before He (Jesus dies).

and ....

not to get too technical ....

the thief dies after Jesus dies ...

so to say that he is judged under the law ... is inaccurate then under your parameters.

You reiterate that a covenant comes into force with the death of the testator: "For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives." (Hebrews 9:16-17).

but Jesus predeceased the thief ...

"Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs." (John 19:32-33).

Legs were broken to finish the job ....

Thus the thief died, unbaptized ... much less using the right formula, under the new covenant.

If it is not possible for a new covenant believer to enter heaven without baptism...what's the thief doing in Paradise? ... Which I believe is Mike from Arkansas original question.

One writer on the subject states:

Baptism was no more and no less expected in the thief's lifetime as it would later come to be. John's baptism was the will of God: "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him." (Luke 7:3). Jesus' followers also baptized: "After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized." (John 3:22).

Astonishingly, some of the same people who will tell you that Jesus is telling Nicodemus about baptism in John 3:5, present-tense, will also tell you that...(Saving) Christian baptism was not instituted until the Day of Pentecost!

Ron did the same thing on this thread ....

Keep in mind Jesus promises his salvation knowing full well He would die before the thief ... He's omniscient as God. Are you suggesting Jesus didn't know that thief would enter his reward ... during the "new convenant" era ... that requires baptism to be saved???

Surely the thief could have cursed God and not believed in the hours that he languished after Christ's death ... yet salvation is granted to a new testament believer looking forward ... to a dispensation you view as grace through obeying 3 steps.

Surely Jesus knew what He was doing, no?

Furthermore ...No one has ever been acquitted by the law ... Matt

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

"We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Galatians 2:15-16)


So when does the New Covenant have bite or goes into effect??? Is it until He dies??, resurrects ???... the Day of Pentecost???

Did the thief still die under the Old Covenant ... and thus saved by the Old Covenant? Do you have Scripture to support this claim?

An answer to these questions is warranted ...

[SDG]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

The only issue I have with your post her Pel, is that those with John didn't know who Jesus was at that time, so how could they believe on Him? Their belief would have been put in a future Savior.

This statement is also not entirely accurate .... some of them did know who he was ... John told them in John 3.

22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. 24(This was before John was put in prison.) 25An argument developed between some of John's disciples and a certain Jew[i] over the matter of ceremonial washing.

26They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him."

27To this John replied, "A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. 28You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ[j] but am sent ahead of him.' 29The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. 30He must become greater; I must become less.


31"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[k] gives the Spirit without limit. 35The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

Surely this was not a message to be decoded ... for a later time ... they knew of Jesus, John's testimony of him and we see that John tells them what they must do .... in verse 36. It parallels what Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:16.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Thought I would bump this one more time. Again, to agree with the rules as written, one cannot accept that someone that has been baptized any other way than in Jesus name has been baptized biblically. Therefore, those that accept any other mode other than Jesus name baptism as ok are not in agreement with the AFF Statement of Faith. I see a few names in the "Yes" line that I know do not believe Jesus Name baptism is exclusively (the only) biblical.

St Matt, not to be rude here, but SO WHAT? The rules don't say you have to agree to agree with those definitions. They're there as informational. What's the point you are making? It seems almost as if you are accusing people of breaking the rules here by not agreeing with what's laid out in those definitions.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

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?

Absolutely honest!!! NONE of us are doing everything biblically. There are some things that we can do unbiblically out of ignorance and it won't affect our salvation. However, one NOT giving their life to Jesus completely is not one of them. I fully believe that immersion in water in the name of the Jesus Christ IS the only biblical mode of water baptism. I have always done it that way and always will do it that way.

But someone not doing it that way out of ignorance and not rebellion, who is still giving their life to Jesus Christ is just as saved as I am not because of the technicality of baptism but because of their surrender to the Lord. God will NOT reject someone on a technicality if they have surrendered their lives to Him. The key to someone's salvation is the complete surrender to Jesus Christ not the technically correct things they do or even should do. God will lead them into all truth and we have to accept it if He chooses to lead them in a way we don't think He would.

I do not believe for a minute that God can't open the eyes of trinitarians world-wide to the oneness of God and baptism in Jesus' name. For some strange reason, unknown to us, He hasn't for centuries. However, He is still accepting followers and filling them with His Spirit even though they have an imperfect understanding of doctrine. That is just the truth that we have to deal with. It is easy to say that they ALL have rejected truth and are headed for hell, but I don't think that is the case and that is not in line with the nature of the God I know.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Absolutely honest!!! NONE of us are doing everything biblically. There are some things that we can do unbiblically out of ignorance and it won't affect our salvation. However, one NOT giving their life to Jesus completely is not one of them. I fully believe that immersion in water in the name of the Jesus Christ IS the only biblical mode of water baptism. I have always done it that way and always will do it that way.

But someone not doing it that way out of ignorance and not rebellion, who is still giving their life to Jesus Christ is just as saved as I am not because of the technicality of baptism but because of their surrender to the Lord. God will NOT reject someone on a technicality if they have surrendered their lives to Him. The key to someone's salvation is the complete surrender to Jesus Christ not the technically correct things they do or even should do. God will lead them into all truth and we have to accept it if He chooses to lead them in a way we don't think He would.

I do not believe for a minute that God can't open the eyes of trinitarians world-wide to the oneness of God and baptism in Jesus' name. For some strange reason, unknown to us, He hasn't for centuries. However, He is still accepting followers and filling them with His Spirit even though they have an imperfect understanding of doctrine. That is just the truth that we have to deal with. It is easy to say that they ALL have rejected truth and are headed for hell, but I don't think that is the case and that is not in line with the nature of the God I know.

MOW, provide some scripture to back your assertion in the part I bolded. Man, it sure sounds good, but good luck finding the scripture to back it.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by pelathais

So then, even if my own baptism wasn't "perfect" - my faith in Jesus Christ still saves me?

Like Peter puts it- "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us ... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 3:21 Peter tells us how baptism saves us - by what only Jesus Christ Himself could accomplish, the resurrection from the dead.

I was saved and was baptized (Mark 16:16), but it was Jesus Christ Himself who saved me, not my baptism.

Bingo. Saved by grace through faith!

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Tim Rutledge

Acts 4:12. No other name, given among men, whereby we must be saved. Titles do not remit sin.

Good thing you quoted that verse. There is no other savign name, but baptism don't save ya bro. So that verse does not fit in context, good try though.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Rico

Dan, I am not the one claiming a PCI heritage. You are. Therefore, the burden for proving your beliefs falls on you, not me. You know as well as I do that credibility is everything when it comes to doctrine. I wouldn't take Ankerberg's word for anything pertaining to salvation any more than I would take some other trinitarian's word for anything pertaining to salvation. The least you could do, since it's you making this claim of being a PCIer, would be to cite other PCIers who agree with your conclusions. I don't think it's too much to ask for, and I certainly don't think that makes me look half as silly as you'd like to think. Anyway, do whatever makes ya feel good, Bruh.

Rico - here are some documented examples of founders who did not believe 3 steps.

C.H. Yadon taught the one step view from the time of the merger until he left the UPCI in 1992. As did most of the Yadons.

“In fact, some of them urged us to send a letter to both sides, [Oneness and Trinitarian camps] which we did, and in which we declared our natural stand regarding doctrines of baptism, and the Diety [sic] of Jesus Christ.” Andrew Bar David Urshan, The Life of Andrew Bar David Urshan (Portland, Oregon: Apostolic Book Publishers, 1982), 180.

“It was during this revival also, that we were forced by our leading Trinitarian brethren to take our stand – either with them, or with the Oneness Saints – whom they called the “New Issue” People. Andrew Bar David Urshan, 184.
Talmadge French asserts that “Urshan attempted a total posture of neutrality throughout the debate within the Assemblies of God, including the expulsion of the Oneness proponents in October 1916. His outstanding and successful ministry was in increasing demand throughout the Assemblies of God, as well as churches throughout the Oneness movement” The footnote to this in French’s book notes that, “Andrew Urshan was ordained with the AG September 1917” Talmadge L. French, 75.

“The one question that is so often asked is, ‘are all those people who thought they were born of the Spirit, and were not, lost?’ No, not by any means.” G.T. Haywood, The Life and Writings of Elder G.T. Haywood (Portland: Apostolic Book Publishers, 1984), 19

“A small minority of PCI [Pentecostal Churches Inc.]and a vocal portion (possibly a majority) of PAJC [Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ] ministers preached “Holy Ghost or Hell” (the old timer’s term for a doctrine that anyone not baptized in the name of Jesus and not evidencing Spirit baptism by speaking in tongues was damned, perhaps better referred to as the “No Mercy” position).” It also seems clear to me that the “No Mercy” position is losing its dominance (if it ever actually was dominant). The most vocal group in the UPCI may remain “No Mercy,” but I question the assertion that they are the majority.” Raymond Cownover who's father came in under the PCI teaching.