Fundamental Doctrine

[MrMasterMind]

Quick question PF

Are you saying if someone were to get baptized in Jesus' Name by a good ole Apostolic Oneness Preacher after having sincerely repented and subsequently get filled with the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues-- that their baptism doesn't count if they thought their sins were forgiven and remitted when they repented !!!!

[pastor febus]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Thanks Sis. And with regard to the whole "One Stepper"/"Three Stepper" thing - it is a sloppy shorthand and it does tend to ignore the fact the most "Three Steppers" actually articulate things like God's grace in the same fashion as "One Steppers."

But it is historic terminology that many people in the discussion immediate recognize and can use to jump right into the fray.

With regard to Acts 2:38 and "remission of sins" - Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77-78 and Luke 3:3, all tell us that the "disciples of John" - those who were baptized in John's "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" had all received just that: the remission of sins!

The language here is identical to Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins." Some people want to argue about the meaning of "for" in these passages. Does it mean "because of" or does it mean "in order to..."? For me, I see that the Greek word "εις" can mean either, depending on context; so what does it mean here? (Clicking this link opens a PDF document on the subject).

One way to try and see, is to look at how the "disciples of John" would be later incorporated into the "disciples of Jesus Christ." Acts 18:24-28 and Acts 19:1-8, has an account of several people (including Apollos) who went through just this process.

Now, John the Baptist and John's father Zacharias (speaking as he was 'filled with the Spirit') along with Mark and Luke ALL tell us that the disciples of John the Baptist already had "the remission of sins" through repentance and John's baptism.

So, why does Paul rebaptize people in Jesus' name who already have clearly received the remission of sins? AND - How does this help to inform our understanding of Acts 2:38, in the "in order to receive" versus "because of" debate?

For me, it does appear that water baptism in the name of Jesus is an essential element for entering into the Christian community. However, the "remission of sins" is a work associated with Calvary, the blood of Jesus Christ and BY TYPE - the repentance of the believer.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
The argument you presented on the baptism of John does not hold water. John preached to bring Israel to repentance. This was done under old testament times. Their sins were remitted under the jurisdiction of the old testament. The death of the testator had not occurred. The New Testament application of its covenantal blessings began on Pentecost 53 days after the blood of Christ was shed. If the repentance and subsequent baptism of Johns deciples was a New Testament Application, Paul would not have wasted his time re baptizing those folks in Acts 19

Again , I will refer to the harvest feasts. They are fulfilled in Gods prophetic timetable to establish when the harvests were to take place. The agricultural language in the Old and New Testaments depicted Gods covenantal plan in its order. Therefore the ministry of John prepared Israel for the first harvest of Covenant believers ;the harvest feast of Pentecost.

Therefoer,the ministry of John could not dispence new testament salvation through his baptism because he was before the cross and Pentecost.

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

Quick question PF

Are you saying if someone were to get baptized in Jesus' Name by a good ole Apostolic Oneness Preacher after having sincerely repented and subsequently get filled with the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues-- that their baptism doesn't count if they thought their sins were forgiven and remitted when they repented !!!!

BUMP for PF

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pastor febus

One is justified by faith. Not information in our heads. Faith is responding to God. When one responds to God then we are justified. That is WHEN we are justified.The word justified means to be made innocent.

I still have not received an explination as to what this doctrine really means. I only hear this thing about remission before baptism but what about this one step? Is that the one step you are referring to? Or is there more to this dogma no one here cares to break down?
BTW my name is spelled Febus

The pattern for justification is seen in the life of the OT patriarch Abraham. God made a covenant with Abraham involving circumcision in Genesis 17. You do have to pretty much read the whole chapter to get the story but I'm certain you've been there before. I just didn't want the covenantal aspect to be slighted by me just giving a single verse or two.

Paul explains this type and pattern as it relates to the NT believer in Romans 4:1-12. Here, Paul tells us that God did indeed make the covenant and seal it with circumcision - HOWEVER - Abraham was JUSTIFIED long before the covenant and circumcision was introduced.

As Paul points out, Abraham was JUSTIFIED in Genesis 15:6! Paul of course didn't use the chapter and verse reference, but he did emphasize that Abraham was JUSTIFIED long before he obey the covenant requirements. See Romans 4:10 -11.

James picks up on this theme from a different angle and to a different audience, but his admonishments are still relevant. If Abraham had simply stayed at the "first step" his faith might eventually be dead, "being alone." Faith and belief are the first step into the new life. And, it is clearly at this point that a person is "justified."

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by pastor febus

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
The argument you presented on the baptism of John does not hold water. John preached to bring Israel to repentance. This was done under old testament times. Their sins were remitted under the jurisdiction of the old testament. The death of the testator had not occurred. The New Testament application of its covenantal blessings began on Pentecost 53 days after the blood of Christ was shed. If the repentance and subsequent baptism of Johns deciples was a New Testament Application, Paul would not have wasted his time re baptizing those folks in Acts 19

Again , I will refer to the harvest feasts. They are fulfilled in Gods prophetic timetable to establish when the harvests were to take place. The agricultural language in the Old and New Testaments depicted Gods covenantal plan in its order. Therefore the ministry of John prepared Israel for the first harvest of Covenant believers ;the harvest feast of Pentecost.

Therefoer,the ministry of John could not dispence new testament salvation through his baptism because he was before the cross and Pentecost.

Exactly. John's baptism was for the remission of sins. New testament baptism is also for the remission of sins. The same way that John's baptism was for the remission of sins is the same way that new testament baptism is for the remission of sins. Therefore, if John's baptism could not remit ones sins then neither can new testament baptism.

[pastor febus]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

Quick question PF

Are you saying if someone were to get baptized in Jesus' Name by a good ole Apostolic Oneness Preacher after having sincerely repented and subsequently get filled with the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues-- that their baptism doesn't count if they thought their sins were forgiven and remitted when they repented !!!!

What I am saying is that that person needs a bible study on what repentance is all about. The misunderstanding this "someone" has is the notion that the act of repentance remits sin. Preachers tell them this, pat them on the back and tell them "boy, you are saved". No he has not entered resurrected state of a born again believer. Repentance prepares us for the remission of sins by virtue of death to self thus crucifying the old man. He is then ready for the burial of that body of sins.
I have found that most people violate the prophetic patterns with great regularity. Weather it be on salvation issues or on age ending issues. The patterns are there if you would care to seek them out. what we have today is a lack of knowledge on a grand scale in regard to these types.
If people would study the Feasts of the Lord they would see salvation, the first coming and second coming of christ, the Resurrection and a host of other prophetic fulfillments, but tradition is a hard nut to crack.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pastor febus

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
The argument you presented on the baptism of John does not hold water. John preached to bring Israel to repentance. This was done under old testament times. Their sins were remitted under the jurisdiction of the old testament. The death of the testator had not occurred. The New Testament application of its covenantal blessings began on Pentecost 53 days after the blood of Christ was shed. If the repentance and subsequent baptism of Johns deciples was a New Testament Application, Paul would not have wasted his time re baptizing those folks in Acts 19

Here the application of hyper-dispensationalism will fail us. The BIBLE clearly states that the disciples of John had the remission of sins.

Mar 1:4-4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luk 1:77-78 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,

Luk 3:3-4 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Your argument here isn't with me, it's with Mark, Luke, John the Baptist and Zacharias the father of John along with the Holy Spirit that filled these men. They said "THE REMISSION OF SINS." If no ones sins were remitted by the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins - then John wouldn't have "wasted all that time" calling people to repentance and baptizing them.

They received "THE REMISSION OF SINS."

John's disciples in Acts 19, clearly had the remission of sins already; yet Paul still rebaptized them in Jesus' name. He wasn't "wasting time." He was doing something important. But what he did was NOT for the remission of the sins of these disciples.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pastor febus

Again , I will refer to the harvest feasts. They are fulfilled in Gods prophetic timetable to establish when the harvests were to take place. The agricultural language in the Old and New Testaments depicted Gods covenantal plan in its order. Therefore the ministry of John prepared Israel for the first harvest of Covenant believers ;the harvest feast of Pentecost.

Therefoer,the ministry of John could not dispence new testament salvation through his baptism because he was before the cross and Pentecost.

Again, I will refer to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:21.

People in all ages of time are saved by the same thing - faith in God. (See Romans 4:1-12 again). The same God saved Abraham that saved you and me.

How did John's ministry "prepare Israel?"

Luke 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins.

Luke 3:3-4 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

The sins of the disciples of John were already remitted years before they were baptized by Paul in Acts 19. This is what the Bible clearly states. If it doesn't fit your paradigm then you will need to work on that paradigm until it lines up with what the Bible is telling us here.

[pastor febus]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The pattern for justification is seen in the life of the OT patriarch Abraham. God made a covenant with Abraham involving circumcision in Genesis 17. You do have to pretty much read the whole chapter to get the story but I'm certain you've been there before. I just didn't want the covenantal aspect to be slighted by me just giving a single verse or two.

Paul explains this type and pattern as it relates to the NT believer in Romans 4:1-12. Here, Paul tells us that God did indeed make the covenant and seal it with circumcision - HOWEVER - Abraham was JUSTIFIED long before the covenant and circumcision was introduced.

As Paul points out, Abraham was JUSTIFIED in Genesis 15:6! Paul of course didn't use the chapter and verse reference, but he did emphasize that Abraham was JUSTIFIED long before he obey the covenant requirements. See Romans 4:10 -11.

James picks up on this theme from a different angle and to a different audience, but his admonishments are still relevant. If Abraham had simply stayed at the "first step" his faith might eventually be dead, "being alone." Faith and belief are the first step into the new life. And, it is clearly at this point that a person is "justified."

Abraham although justified by faith before circumscision never refused circumcision because he was obedient to God. Pauls argument was not about justification before baptism it was about the law verses grace. Lets not confuse the argument. The issues were the insistance of the Christian Judiazers in their desire to continue in the ceremonial works of the law to obtain righteousness. Let us not superimpose Baptism into that argument, it is another issue altogether. Paul never argued that baptism was a work of the law. I have seen this argument before it only serves to hijack the ligitamite issues at hand.

Justification is only realized through obedience, which is an ACT of faith which Abraham was famous. Faith is an on going process. It is required of us all.

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by pastor febus

What I am saying is that that person needs a bible study on what repentance is all about. The misunderstanding this "someone" has is the notion that the act of repentance remits sin. Preachers tell them this, pat them on the back and tell them "boy, you are saved". No he has not entered resurrected state of a born again believer. Repentance prepares us for the remission of sins by virtue of death to self thus crucifying the old man. He is then ready for the burial of that body of sins.
I have found that most people violate the prophetic patterns with great regularity. Weather it be on salvation issues or on age ending issues. The patterns are there if you would care to seek them out. what we have today is a lack of knowledge on a grand scale in regard to these types.
If people would study the Feasts of the Lord they would see salvation, the first coming and second coming of christ, the Resurrection and a host of other prophetic fulfillments, but tradition is a hard nut to crack.

Good, then we agree that someone needs to repent, be baptized in Jesus' name and receive Holy Ghost. Just disagree as to why.

Now you know how the PCI and PAJC managed to merge.

Peace out.