Mr. Rogers

The Apostolic perspective of the book of Acts suggests that believers must be baptized in Jesus's name in order to be saved. That is, the convert is to conform to the teachings and doctrines of Jesus Christ.

The Apostolic perspective also suggests that the name "Jesus" must be called during baptismal rites and that "speaking in other tongues" is the initial sign of receiving the Holy Ghost.

Are there any experts on this topic who can explain these two doctrines?

bahmer

I will wait with you to see what materializes.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Well, while "expert" isn't the term I would choose for myself, I do consider myself a capable teacher, believer, and champion of the beliefs you are asking about. Being as I'm a teacher, it means my heart is in imparting knowledge (a coy way of saying, please bare with me as I give you a comprehensive explanation!)




I believe a key scripture to begin with is this one:

"You worship that which you don't know. We worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews." John 4:22

Along with this verse is the following:

"Therefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 3:24

What these verses tell us, is that apostolic Christianity was the next level of Biblical Judaism, not an utter rejection of all that they learned in order to implement something totally foreign.

Frankly, a lot of people don't realize that the traditions they hold were developed long after the apostles. The method that is always used to support false teachings always follows the devil's method in the Garden: namely, quoting God's word, conceiving of a false dilemma, and then jumping to conclusions, which invariably negate the word of God, somewhere. This is no less true in the way some define "faith."

The "apostolic" method reverses the trend that relies on extrabiblical "systematic theology", and seeks to let the Bible define our beliefs and practices. In this case, we are talking about the meaning of "saving faith". The Bible is actually very clear about what saving faith requires. Note what Jesus and Paul say here, with Hebrews 11 in explanation:

"...Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham." John 8:39

"...For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10How then was it counted? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision, he might be the father of all those who believe, though they might be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might also be accounted to them. 12He is the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the , but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father , which he had in uncircumcision." Romans 4:9-12

Clearly, Jesus and Paul, when talking about Abraham, were explaining the very foundation of the salvation that was of the Jews: it was all explained, defined, realized, and ultimately is to be understood, through the example of Abraham. Abraham was the epitome of saving faith, he is called the father of faith because he is the original model, the prototype!

Here's what people miss who have a hard time seeing the apostolic position: Abraham obeyed two commandments from God before his faith was counted for righteousness:

"8By faith, Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out to the place which he was to receive for an inheritance. He went out, not knowing where he went. 9By faith, he lived as an alien in the land of promise..." Hebrews 11:8-9.

In Genesis 12, God basically appeared out of nowhere and told Abraham:

"1Now Yahweh said to Abram, "Get out of your country, and from your relatives, and from your father's house, to the land that I will show you. 2I will make of you a great nation..." Genesis 12:1-2.

What many miss, is, they conveniently negate chapters 12 through 14 and jump to Genesis 15, where we read:

1After these things the word of Yahweh came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Don't be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward."
2Abram said, "Lord Yahweh, what will you give me, since I go childless, and he who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?" 3Abram said, "Behold, to me you have given no seed: and, behold, one born in my house is my heir." 4Behold, the word of Yahweh came to him, saying, "This man will not be your heir, but he who will come forth out of your own body will be your heir." 5Yahweh brought him outside, and said, "Look now toward the sky, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." He said to Abram, "So shall your seed be." 6He believed in Yahweh; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness. 7He said to him, "I am Yahweh who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it." Genesis 15:1-7.

So, people who want an easy way out, jump to verse 6, and claim that is all there was to Abraham's faith. But the Bible is very clear that is not so. Not only do we have Hebrews 11:8, which says that by faith...Abraham obeyed...", but we also have Jews who tried to claim Abrahamic faith without doing the works, or walking in the steps of the faith of Abraham. Note who Jesus was talking to in John 8:

"31Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. 32You will know the t***h, and the t***h will make you free." 33They answered him, "We are Abraham's seed, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How do you say, 'You will be made free?'" John 8:31-33.

These are the types Jesus says need to learn that to be Abraham's children they need to do the works of Abraham, or as Paul said, walk in the steps of Abraham.

Those who jump to Genesis 15:6 and forget or ignore or discount Genesis 12-14, which were the steps of faith Paul explicitly referred to, are like these falsely believing Jews who thought they could be Abraham's children based on an unconditional promise Abraham had gotten through his obedient steps of faith.

What Paul was talking about in Galatians 3, was that he was contrasting "literal righteousness" verses "the righteousness of the faith of Abraham".

Literal righteousness would mean never sinning in your whole life and always being godly, by nature. "All have sinned and fallen short" including Abraham, so God made an alternative way for Abraham to have faith in God, and, step by step, through faith, God could perfect Abraham, but first, because of God's justice, He first had to justify Abraham, and the way God did this was by giving him a "way", a "salvation plan", which was something well within Abraham's means, and yet something that was still far from requiring Abraham to first become "literally righteous" before God would save him or help him. That is grace. That is how God bestowed His grace on Abraham. That, what God did with Abraham, and how Abraham responded, through trusting in God, is the basis of Jesus' statement, "salvation is of the Jews."

Abraham was given 2 commandments and a promise. Jesus said Abraham's children do the works of Abraham, Paul said Abraham's children walk in the steps of Abraham. In Acts 2:38, we are told how we, as Christians, are to walk in the steps of Abraham. We are given 2 commandments and a promise, just as Abraham was, but unique for us after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection:

"34For David didn't ascend into the heavens, but he says himself, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit by my right hand,
35until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."' 36"Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.
37Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself." 40With many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." Acts 2:43-40

"Repent" means to completely change ones mind, to turn around. In practice it correlates to Abraham leaving his father's house. It is a way for us to walk away from our safe, comfort zone.
"And be immersed everyone of you in the name of Jesus Anointed unto the remission of sins". This correlates to Abraham sojourning in the promised land. Keep in mind, he was sojourning there as a pilgrim; he did not possess it yet, it was a promise at that point, not a realized gift.
"And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit for the promise is unto you..." a promise is an oath that something will be received, a gift is that which has been received. Lots of people confuse the two. Clearly, Peter was promising these Jews would receive their own gift of the Holy Spirit, not merely partake in what the 120 had already received.

Peter had defined the promise of the Spirit like this:

"33Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this, which you now see and hear." Acts 2:33

This is what Peter was promising to those who would repent and be baptized in Jesus' name for the remission of sins.

I'll have much to say on these topics, but now I'm out of time!

"9Whom will he teach knowledge? To whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts?
10For it is precept on precept, precept on precept; line on line, line on line; here a little, there a little.
11But he will speak to this nation with stammering lips and in another language." Isaiah 28:9-11

To be continued as I find the time... Good night!

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part 2,

Dear Mr. Rogers,
Here are some key scriptures for this next part:

"...Moses was warned by God when he was about to make the tabernacle, for he said, "See, you shall make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain." Hebrews 8:5 (World English Bible)

Other verses put forth the same idea this way:

"Now indeed even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and an earthly sanctuary." Hebrews 9:1

"which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's." Colossians 2:17

"For the law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves." Hebrews 10:1

"1Now I would not have you ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3and all ate the same spiritual food; 4and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. 5However with most of them, God was not well pleased, for they were o*******wn in the wilderness.
6Now these things were our examples," 1 Corinthians 10:1-6

"12For although by this time you should be teachers, you again need to have someone teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God. You have come to need milk, and not solid food." Hebrews 5:12

These scriptures tell us that there are many foundational principles and lessons to be learned in the types, patterns and shadows of the Old Testament, which, as I quoted previously, is to be our tutor to bring us to Christ.

For example, I'm a carpenter, who uses math, but I'm far from a mathematician. Mathematicians can write "formulas" which, although I can make out some of the symbols, for the most part go way over my head. Obviously, if I were to attempt to interpret them, I'd fail miserably. The Bible can be like that, and false teachers often make themselves appear to be experts. And the way they do that is by taking a few of the "symbols", and by ignoring or negating symbols they either don't know, or don't like, and will then "interpret" the "problem" as if they do understand and their final "calculation" will be far from the mark... and they'll be oblivious of the error until a real mathematician comes along and dissects their formula and thereby exposes their ineptitude.

The scriptures above tell us the scriptures are like that. And in particular, that without a firm grasp of the "first principles of the word of God", many who should be teachers need to be brought back to the very basics. Guess what? You tell them that and they get highly offended...unless they really want t***h and don't give a hoot about their p***e!

The reason these questions come up, such as you have asked, Mr. Rogers, is, most likely, because some of these "teachers" who have forgotten the basics, have clouded the issues. When Jesus spoke, he spoke to Jews who knew the basics. When Paul wrote, he constantly referred back to the OT, implying that was the context of his understanding. When Paul spoke on faith, he based his discussions on lessons already learned in the Old Testament.

When mathematicians talk to other mathematicians they don't expect to have to re-explain all the meanings of the symbols, they just write out the symbols. And that phenomenon explains why the apostles weren't always as thorough in reestablishing the context of their teachings. Keep in mind that the epistles were all written to established saints, the four gospels were written to chronicle the high points of Jesus' life, and only the Book of Acts actually presented the history of the apostles, focusing mainly on Paul in the later part. Context is extremely important!

When false teachers read, for example, the book of Romans, or the book of Galatians, they come up with radically different ways to "interpret" the "symbols" of the Bible than how Jewish-trained-and-fluent apostles would interpret them, as evidenced by the fact that their "results" don't match the "Acts" of the apostles. That is because they "back-door" the gospel message. They often completely ignore, or negate, the actions of the apostles, when they should, rather, look to see how they were actually applying the gospel.

Reading the Book of Acts is a way, biblically, for us to "check our addition by subtraction", so to speak.

When the apostles, and especially Peter, who was given the keys of the kingdom, laid out for the Jews, who wanted to know how to rightly respond to the preaching, Peter said this:

"37Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself." 40With many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation!" Acts 2:37-40.

Fairly recently, that is, within the last couple centuries, a different "response" was developed and has become popularized. It goes something like this:

“Just accept Christ into your heart through prayer and he’ll receive you... You’ll be born again at the moment you receive Christ...”

The problem is, nowhere in the Bible will you read of the apostles ever giving this "advice" or offering this response as a legitimate method of being saved or being born again. This method is a prime example of some false mathematician/apostles attempting to reinterpret the symbols.

You can read a good expose of the development of this "formula" at the following site: https://www.disciplestoday.org/bible-study/teacher-s-corner/item-8589-teacher-s-corner-the-sinner-s-prayer-a-brief-history-of-a-novel-practice
The author even makes this claim: "Both Dwight Moody and Billy Sunday admitted they were somewhat ignorant of church history by the time they had already latched on to their perspectives. This is highly significant because the Anxious Seat phenomenon and offshoot practices were not rooted in Scripture nor in the early church." And if that weren't bad enough, this author also made this observation: "Later, in 1977 Billy Graham published a now famous work entitled, How to Be Born Again. For all the Scripture he used, he never once uses the hallmark rebirth event in the second chapter of the book of Acts. The cataract (blind spot) kept him away from the most powerful conversion event in all Scripture. It is my guess that it’s emphasis on baptism and repentance for the forgiveness of sins was incompatible with his approach."

So the above extra-biblical response was not, and actually has absolutely no basis in, the Old Testament as schoolmaster to bring us to the faith of Jesus Christ! Nor does it have any direct precedent or relationship with what the apostles actually preached, taught or even said.

That is a problem, a huge problem!

So, the simple answer to your questions, is actually a lot like l*****ts ask of, say the legitimacy of gun rights, for instance. They say they are obsolete, not for today. I love this response I recently read from another board:

“Original question: “Are gun right advocates misinterpreting the second amendment?”
“No. You see, we actually studied the topic. It’s history, both public and judicial. We know why it was written, we know what it meant when it was written, and we know how the courts interpreted it since it was written.
"See my überpost on its legal history. Pack a lunch.” -Kevin Baker

This is almost word for word how an "apostolic" would answer someone advocating "the (novel) sinner's prayer" response, who asks us why we baptize into the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and why we believe speaking in tongues will be manifested when one is born of the Spirit. The simple answer is because, we actually studied the topic, and it’s history, both (in the epistles, the Acts, and its types and shadows in the Old Testament). We know why it was written, we know what it meant when it was written, and we know how the apostles interpreted it (and practiced it in the book of Acts).

Here are a couple examples that Kevin Baker gave regarding the constitution that equally apply to loyalists of the biblical faith once delivered to the saints:

“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. “- James Madison
--
The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. --Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789.
--
The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)
--
A provision of the Constitution, it is hardly necessary to say, does not admit of two distinctly opposite interpretations. It does not mean one thing at one time and an entirely different thing at another time. - Justice Sutherland (dissenting), Blaisdell (1934)

These can be found here: https://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/06/cut-n-paste.html?m=1

Here are how I, as an apostolic, would apply the same reasoning to the words and teachings of the apostles as enshrined in the New Testament:

“Do not separate text (found in the epistles) from (the) historical background (of the Book of Acts). If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the (gospel), which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate (the kingdome of God). “- James Madison, paraphrased to support holding to the apostolic teachings, rather than the later developments of men that make the apostles teachings appear obsolete.

Scriptural basis:

“6I marvel that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different "good news"; 7and there isn't another "good news." Only there are some who trouble you, and want to pervert the Good News of Christ. 8But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any "good news" other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed. 9As we have said before, so I now say again: if any man preaches to you any "good news" other than that which you received, let him be cursed.” Galatians 1:6-9

--
“The whole of the (New Testament) is a declaration of the (commandments of God and promises to) the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority (of later day teachers with a different interpretation from the apostles) has a right to deprive them of. --Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789, paraphrased to support holding to the apostolic teachings, rather than the later developments of men that make the apostles teachings appear obsolete.

Scriptural basis:

“32This Jesus God raised up, to which we all are witnesses. 33Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this, which you now see and hear... 38Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself."
--

“The (New Testament) is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905), paraphrased to support holding to the apostolic teachings, rather than the later developments of men that make the apostles teachings appear obsolete.

Scriptural basis:

“3Beloved, while I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I was constrained to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 1:3
--

“A provision of the (New Testament), it is hardly necessary to say, does not admit of two distinctly opposite interpretations. It does not mean one thing at one time and an entirely different thing at another time. - Justice Sutherland (dissenting), Blaisdell (1934) , paraphrased to support holding to the apostolic teachings, rather than the later developments of men that make the apostles teachings appear obsolete.

Scriptural basis:

"...God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the assemblies of the saints." 1 Corinthians 14:33

"For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich to all who call on him." Romans 10:12

"one Lord, one faith, one baptism" Ephesians 4:5

"3Jesus answered him, "Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can't see the Kingdom of God." 4Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" 5Jesus answered, "Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can't enter into the Kingdom of God! 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Don't marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.' 8The wind blows where it wants to, and you hear its sound, but don't know where it comes from and where it is going. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:3-8

"44While Peter is yet speaking these sayings, the Holy spirit fell upon all those hearing the word, 45and those of the circumcision believing were astonished — as many as came with Peter — because also upon the nations the gift of the Holy Spirit hath been poured out, 46for they were hearing them speaking with tongues and magnifying God. 47Then
answered Peter, ‘The water is any one able to forbid, that these may not be baptized, who the Holy Spirit did receive — even as also we?’ 48he commanded them also to be baptized in the name of the Lord; then they besought him to remain certain days.

Well, I'd hoped to start getting into the specific lessons learned from the types and shadows of the Old Testament, but this is enough for now. Lord willing, I'll get to those next, again, as I can find the time.

bahmer

Very good dissertation there Tommy thanks very much for that.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Thanks for the encouragement, brother Bahmer! More to come! My goal is to make it air-tight, Lord willing! Of course, there will always be resisters! Your prayers would be much appreciated, both for me and especially for whoever is reading!

bahmer

Amen and Amen will do.