What is a One Stepper?!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Yep, I've never heard an explanation either and I've asked a number of times in the past. You want to convert someone to agree with one step thinking, you have your chance with a cogent scriptural answer to that question.

Amen! I'm not sold - at all!

Someone also pointed out that the PCI view used to line up where you couldn't tell the difference in the message - I see a big difference now.

I'd like someone to explain the changes and when they occurred.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

These two threads should be merged.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...postcount=2245

No scriptures with that post - I need to see scriptures!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Amen! I'm not sold - at all!

Someone also pointed out that the PCI view used to line up where you couldn't tell the difference in the message - I see a big difference now.

I'd like someone to explain the changes and when they occurred.

I think it all has to do with what MOW is saying, if you believe Acts 2:38 is how to be saved then you are admitting that many believers in Christ throughout church history are lost.

When the current Oneness Pentecostal movement started after the Azuza Street revival, people had to figure out how this "new revelation" fit in with their prior theology especially what about my grandmother who never spoke in tongues or who was not baptized in Jesus name. They had to wrestle with these questions. Hence a PCI view or a PAJC view which differ in regard to when someone is saved and what the significance of the baptisms are.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I think it all has to do with what MOW is saying, if you believe Acts 2:38 is how to be saved then you are admitting that many believers in Christ throughout church history are lost.

When the current Oneness Pentecostal movement started after the Azuza Street revival, people had to figure out how this "new revelation" fit in with their prior theology especially what about my grandmother who never spoke in tongues or who was not baptized in Jesus name. They had to wrestle with these questions. Hence a PCI view or a PAJC view which differ in regard to when someone is saved and what the significance of the baptisms are.

Good explanation. I can see how it got started.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I think it all has to do with what MOW is saying, if you believe Acts 2:38 is how to be saved then you are admitting that many believers in Christ throughout church history are lost.

When the current Oneness Pentecostal movement started after the Azuza Street revival, people had to figure out how this "new revelation" fit in with their prior theology especially what about my grandmother who never spoke in tongues or who was not baptized in Jesus name. They had to wrestle with these questions. Hence a PCI view or a PAJC view which differ in regard to when someone is saved and what the significance of the baptisms are.

In the beginning, it had nothing to do with salvation. If I remember correctly, wasn't it William Durham who first began to teach it as a requirement? I'm reaching into the memory banks and that might not be completely correct.

I don't know how to merger threads or what the end result would be. I would bring doom and disaster upon us all!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Good explanation. I can see how it got started.

That is MOW's appeal to prove the 3 stepper's model of salvation false...not an appeal to the scriptures as much as to emotions and the nature of God.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

In the beginning, it had nothing to do with salvation. If I remember correctly, wasn't it William Durham who first began to teach it as a requirement? I'm reaching into the memory banks and that might not be completely correct.

Baptism has been held as a requirement of the Christian faith long before the current OP movement started last century. I'm not sure who first taught it in OP circles as necessary. It's strange how they didn't argue about these things or let these things prevent them from merging into forming the UPC.

I don't know how to merger threads or what the end result would be. I would bring doom and disaster upon us all!

I think Rhena or TheMrs knows how.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

That is MOW's appeal to prove the 3 stepper's model of salvation false...not an appeal to the scriptures as much as to emotions and the nature of God.

Yes, I do see that. I can also see where some see that as confusion. It's man's way of justifying himself, which has never worked with the Word of God.

We all have our Adamic nature to contend with, whether we are inherently good nor not. Scripture demands payment. Scripture demands a response to that payment.

There is no way around that.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Baptism has been held as a requirement of the Christian faith long before the current OP movement started last century. I'm not sure who first taught it in OP circles as necessary. It's strange how they didn't argue about these things or let these things prevent them from merging into forming the UPC.

This is where I would like to have more, from history, what is making the difference today.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yes, I do see that. I can also see where some see that as confusion. It's man's way of justifying himself, which has never worked with the Word of God.

We all have our Adamic nature to contend with, whether we are inherently good nor not. Scripture demands payment. Scripture demands a response to that payment.
There is no way around that.

Jesus paid the bill. I respond to that just as Abraham did, by faith. There are plenty of Scriptures that teach one step. For by grace are you saved through faith, not of works lest any man should boast. John 3:16. Romans 3:26-28

26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.