From discussion in the "Where have all the 3-Steppers Gone?" thread

Thank you. However, you were offering the Councils to support Arnold's "facts" about the continous line of history. The Councils do not support Arnold's "facts." Plain and simple. If you wanted to traipse off at this point, then I brought you right back to YOUR original point - "Arnold's facts."

If the fire I'm holding your feet to is too hot, don't throw more fuel on the fire. Just tell me and we'll move on. Just tell me that you now no longer support Arnold's booklet as "fact."

It's no biggie to me. I bought into that same booklet when Brother Arnold was still alive. As a young college history major I sat in a parsonage office and asked him about it. He let me know that he didn't really want to talk about it.
I'm happy if you think you can do a little dance here. That's cool, I want you to be happy. But you did say the Council quotes were being offered to support Arnold's "facts." If I dispelled you of that single notion, then I rejoice with you.

On the point of the councils: My "forceful" arguments did include the statement that you had provided "proof" only for 1200 years of infant baptism in the Matthew 28:19 formula, right? No evidence whatsoever of Acts 2:38 salvation.

You said: "To do so you would have to "prove a negative" something that's just not possible in this case."

To say, "You can't prove a negative" is a common rhetorical ploy that is used whenever a person runs out of evidence. By this point in the discussion, you had run out of evidence. I wanted to shake you up to the possibilities of our subject and not leave you in a dour mood.

You can prove a negative when it involves the absence of possibility, or odds so great that the situation is indeed impossible for all practical purposes. Finding a continuous line of Acts 2:38 salvation being practiced from ~200 A.D. until 1913 A.D. is impossible.

This might be worth of its own thread. Consider: For years we have put forth "evidence" like Arnold's that Acts 2:38 salvation existed in a continuous unbroken line through history. Our primary excuse for the absence of evidence was, "the evil Catholic church burned all the records..."

When this tact didn't really pan out, and we simultaneously faced challenges from Evangelical groups, many of who also support the idea of the "evils of the Catholic Church," we began to take a new approach. I was there and I spoke in favor of this "new approach" (just for the record...).

A Oneness writer was as unsatisfied with the current bit of scholarship on this issue as I was. To be fair, he was far too gracious and would never come right out and put it that way. But he did offer some help for many of us who were beleaguered by the status quo.

In his writings he focused more upon answering the Evangelical attacks than on trying to provide the "continuous line" argument. This did appear to be a more productive approach to the issue of OP history and it benefitted greatly from the fact that we didn't have to make up stuff any more.

However, the approach did open us up to accusations of being called "papists" by the anti-RCC people among our Evangelical "friends." That's just part of the story, but it's important to see that as "the lay of the land" in this new approach to OP apologetics.

Since this approach does rest heavily upon historical integrity it has proven to be the preferred method of most new OP historians. However, they seem to balk at the idea of being called "papists" and "baptismal regenerationalist."

This is also an issue that we are dealing with on this board right now. We do teach baptismal regenerationalism- at least the vast majority of us do. When someone wants to "shake us up" about that they will inevitably call us "papists" and the like. That's just the way it goes. If you don't have a heart for that kind of debate, it's really easy to avoid becoming involved with the whole discussion- just stop talking about baptism!

I don't have you in mind here TRFrance, obviously you're game for a little rough and tumble action- that's cool. But there are so many others who come out swinging and when they knock themselves upside the head they cry out "foul."

My question here... (and again, it's not really for TRFRance, but for "whomsoever will...") are you ready for this approach? Are you really ready to discuss the issue from this angle? Don't cry "foul" when an Evangelical says, "Hey! THAT'S WHAT THE POPE TEACHES...!!!"
Well, flattery might get you somewhere... http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif. And I did see the juxtaposition in your argument when you went from "Arnold's facts" to baptismal regenerationalism. It's just that such a leap is very controversial on AFF right now. You may not be entirely aware of it but folks have been banned for engaging in this discussion.

I won't fall for the fallacy of trying to prove my religion by an unbroken line of "church" adherents to any viewpoint...that truely is the Roman Catholic way of thinking which ironically many Protestants buy into when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity. When it comes to salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone...they take a detour from that route.

If I am to be Sola Scriptura then I don't see how I can appeal to history (argument of antiquities)

Pel, you have done a great job of pointing out some of the fallacies here.

I don't think too many will want to challenge you on the specifics.

As Prax said and also Chris Hall said in the other thread, I don't need some historic time line to be secure in the Apostolic message. If I were the first to believe this since the Apostles, I would still be secure in my being right!

I would like to see if we could actually find real evidence of post AD300 of people being Baptized in Jesus Name and also (but not necessarily connected to) HGB.

there may be little historical evidence of people being baptized either way before that date or after. What we have is people saying how TO baptize people and for that we might find both before that date such as the Didache which has echoes of both "formulas" I think. And I do agree though that there probably were some documents favorable to our view point that did not survive history for whatever reason, including the victors "burning" them...but it's irrelevent

Often the burning of a "heretic's" writings was symbolic and not intended to destroy all evidence of the person's existence. Having the writings of those so condemned proved valuable in countering their claims.

The Vatican Library is a repository of a wealth of "heretical" material though to uncover more than just the standard fare requires credentialing by an accreditted university.

Still it's easier to comb those archives than it would be to get a look at Charles F. Parham's letters to Howard Goss which are kept in the vaults of an different "vatican" in Hazelwood.

Have you tried?

Pela, allow me to interject a post of yours and mine from several days ago...it was on the KH/Light Doctrine thread...


Originally Posted by Barb

Pela, you are too smart for me!!

However, let me just say though many have said Bro. A's history outline is "full of holes," I do believe he was right that the Church has existed in some form since it's birth.

I sit here with tears in my eyes, Pela, trying to put this into words that make sense. I simply cannot embrace the notion that Oneness Pentecostalism is a new fangled voice...I just cannot.

There has always been a remnant, perhaps not referred to as OPs or Apostolics, but those who held to belief, repentance, baptism in the Name, and Spirit infilling never ceased to exist.

I will believe this until I kick...

Originally Posted by pelathais

Hi Barb, Like you, I also do not believe the Oneness Acts 2:38 message to be "new fangled." It was the practice of the Apostles in the first century. It's just that over the last 100 years we've been accused of inventing it. To answer those accusations we've tried to find historical support for the doctrine and we have presented some unfortunate ideas and examples and people have actually lost faith because of it.

The Bible plan of salvation is quite clear. We are not saved by works of righteousness that we have done, but "by grace through faith" (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). I believe that there is also a grace that is conferred through our obedience to the command to be baptized in Jesus name, though I'm not entirely satisfied with the ways in which I have tried to articulate that in the past.

Today there is a continuing movement within our ranks to move our attitudes toward other Christians away from the attitude that was held by our Pentecostal forebears. This movement will often frame their arguments in terms of "our heritage." They wish to get us to abandon our heritage by appealing to a heritage that they just made up. This conundrum has honestly brought me to tears.

I spent years being frustrated by it and even intimidated by it. Holding my tongue has almost cost me my life - literally. Our pioneers did not condemn other Christians. Our pioneers did not make statements like a few posters have made in this thread. Our pioneers did not say things like, "I believe Trinitarians are lost..."

I'm trying to be true to what I sincerely believe to be a remarkable and important heritage.

A more well known writer did and had access for a while before being shut out. I have gone through some unorganized archival material there back before the third floor was added. I'm sure that I wouldn't even recognize anything today.

The guy who "holds the keys" today kind of owes me a favor, but he would never admit it and he would certainly not allow the likes of me in there in the current climate of the UPC.

Does it matter if history supports it?

What history?

Who's history?

Isn't the Bible enough?

That's what I have been saying...there has always been a remnant, whether I can prove it in a text book or document or not.

I am convinced of it... :star

I was gonna mention the vatican library, but so far nobody has said they contain Praxeas writing. I can assume, though I might be wrong, that given the prominence of Praxeas (enough for Tertullian to devote writing against him) that he must have written something. Maybe they just did not survive antiquity. However as it was said about the victor, often winning armies attempted to wipe out the culture of the conquored. Rome did this (The Roman Empire). Even muslims did it. They intermarried and forced their religion on others and got rid and out lawed the old. Russia did it to a degree. I WISH the Vatican would open up those archives...has to make you wonder :santathumb

Ancient manuscripts of the time were written on vellum- calf or sheep skin. Even after curing, the manuscripts made an attractive meal for rats. Tischendorf famously rescued Codex Sinaiticus just before the monks at Saint Catherine's were about to burn it for kindling. There were a lot of things lost without a malicious intent. Ignorance, time, rodents and water have eaten up huge volumes of history.

I would have loved to have been in Baghdad when a lot of the mosques were being attacked. The walls of many of those places are stuffed with old worn out Korans. A lot of light on the development of the Koran and early Arab literature could be gleaned by a discrete and careful soldier.

The first secualr college Iwent to in the 1980's I was required to take a class in Western Civilization. One chapter spoke of the birth of the Christian church and the experience on the Day of Pentecost, and then the next chapter spoke of Peter being the first pope of the Catholic church.

As was always my custom in secular college [quite vocal] I raised my hand and asked, "How did Peter go from being the first to preach on the Day of Pentecost to the Pope of the Roman Catholic church?" The professor said we would talk after class. When class was finished he told me that Peter was never Catholic but he had to teach it that way according to policy of the college.

:star

Blessings, Rhoni

I think that is sad Sis. Rhoni. Was going to joke with you about going to one of those secular schools, but don't know you well enough...... Hope that's ok.


I wonder if they still teach that now.

You might as well join the bandwagon about my secular education...my skin has toughened up quite a bit since I first began posting about 4-5 years ago:jolly

The college was Florida State University and I do doubt they allow that particular chapter taught taught anymore but the history books do record Pentecost long before the governmental church of catholicism was established...they just don't broadcast it.

Blessings, Rhoni

Sometimes it's hard to navigate around here, but I notice you seem to have a sweet spirit. But at least you asked the question where others might have sat quietly. :)

Thank-you for the compliment. You have pegged me correctly though...for some reason I just can't shut my mouth about the things I am passionate about. God wired me that way...he does have a sense of humor.:jolly

Don't you live close to me? I live in Rowlett.

All true. BTW did you read the news article about an ancient Quran found in a mosque in Dubar or somewhere there that shows evidence of editing? Interesting read and very embarrassing for many muslims

I live in Mineola, a rural town in East TX.

Wow..that's pretty sad...this was a secular college? There is nearly no evidence whatsoever Peter was ever even in Rome let alone the Pope enthroned there. And the RCC did not really have a foundational beginning until sometime after Constantine....it was shaping up to being a city in leadership, but it was not THE "capital" if all christianity

Pelathais...I'm not sure it was necessary to make an entirely new post out of this. But anyway...

1- You're really stuck on Arnold's book for some reason. My conversations on the topic included him and then moved on to other historical references regarding elements of Acts 2:38/water-spirit doctrine...but you're stuck on him and his book like a dog to a bone. Quite puzzling.

2- As I've said on another post "I don’t claim that his book is proof that Acts 2:38 salvation 'exists in an unbroken line throughout history'. I do contend say that the historical information out there, (both in his book and outside of it), lends credence to the contention that Acts 2:38 salvation always existed somewhere, even though there is not a solid paper trail to prove it definitively.

3- I have never claimed that it was important to contend that there was an unbroken line throughout history. That is a false argument. You've set up this "straw man" argument and then torn it down quite impressively. I get the feeling you're quite proud of your rhetorical prowess. But again, arguing forcefully against something I've never even said is really not all that impressive in the end, is it?

4- Your post could easily give one the false impression that I was trying to "prove" my religion by an demonstrating an unbroken line of adherents throughout the centuries. It appears that some of those who've posted on this thread so far may have already gotten that impression. But that (whether intentional or not) would be an unfortunate misrepresentation of what I expressed to you in several posts on that previous thread.

My original point (back on that other thread) simply had to do with the fact that one particular aspect of water/spirit doctrine ,i.e. the idea of baptism for remission of sins, was a common idea in Christendom through many centuries (even though it wasn't always applied in Jesus' name.) It was a simple historical reference as part of a larger point being made, a point you've apparently missed by now. I'm surprised you've taken that small molehill and turn it into Mount Everest.

I don't know why you have such a fixation with this topic.

Is that somewhat related to your comment on that previous thread ?:
As for me, there's nothing for me to "battle" about. The Acts 2:38 salvation plan is the only valid biblical plan of salvation. Now if there were historical references to prove that others held the same beliefs throughout the centuries, then fine; that would be interesting to know. But even if there is no such proof to be found, it's irrelevant. Acts.2:38 was the plan of salvation on the day of Pentecost, and its still the plan of salvation today in 2007.

.

I would think to find true Christian History an appeal to the Bible is enough.
BTW I do believe all are supposed to be baptized in Jesus Name, however there is no power in H20 to regenerate anyone.

Let's look at the roots of this very forum and show why this post is wrong.

Prior to AFF, we were at NFCF. Pelathais if there was a lurker.
Prior to NFCF, we were at FCF
FaithChildForum and NewFaithChildForum are property of the Yohe Family.

Seems a radical name of Jim Yohe encouraged others to think waaaaaaaaay outside of the box.

This thread causes exactly that. Thought outside the box. Somethings that are written and taught are nothing more than Urban Legends.

Thinking is good.

My great-uncle who was a high ranking member of the tulsa area mormans, used a very, very, similar argument in defending the book of mormon.

Is Acts 2:38 Really Supported by History?
 

Sis. Cneasttx,

My eldest brother lives in Mineola also. He and his wife have lived there

approx. 8 yrs. They attend church where Bro. IAin'tMovin's father pastored

until a short time ago when he retired. They have a new pastor from Okla.

there now.

Blessings,

Falla39

What's so damaging that those papers have to be top secret, classified, highly confidential?

LOL. Thanks, I think. It's important because his book keeps coming up even though it's been so thoroughly discredited by others over the years. In the past, I was often pushed to the front to be an "apologist" for OP doctrine. I was endlessly embarassed by the things that I had to defend as a younger man. I also wanted to "walk the line" out of respect and no question the things that were thrust into my hands by my elders. When I met Bro. Arnold and he himself would not defend his own writings I knew something was up.

If you want to move past it, so be it.

This tricky part of what you say is "always." We find tantalizing hints sometimes, but no real evidence. Like I told Mizpeh, as a student of history I'm always looking for this kind of stuff and would love to find new info, but I've disappointed so mant times that I have grown skeptical.
I'm not too interested in being "impressive." Like I said before, you presented a chain of reasoning to support a series of statements. If I misunderstood your enthusiasm for the matter, I apologize.
Point well taken, thanks. TRFrance and I are in apparent agreement?
"The odds of finding the "continous line" are very remote. There are better odds of finding revivals popping up here and there. But none of that should effect our behavior. Somehow or another we have a credible source of information contained within our Bibles. That book also gives the promise of a God who is both real and Personal. That is what we should act upon."

Not sure which comment you mean (I was overly verbose). But the works of Arnold, Chalfant, Weisser and others have stigmatized our fellowship. I personally asked Arnold about his work and he side stepped the whole thing. I watched Chalfant, in a room full of brethren who loved him, fumble and stumble about trying to defend his historical approach which he called "extrapolation."

We are and will continue to be under attack for our beliefs. Personally, I'm tired of being caught on the front lines with a rifle that doesn't work. When I've seen my brothers fall I was unable to help them or even to help myself. My thoughts are: it's better for us to settle this in a forum where the results really don't matter that much than for you and I to find ourselves sitting some place where the video will be recorded and be left say "uhm" and "er" and not having anything of substance to offer in defense of the Gospel.
Complete agreement. Thanks. Nothing personal was intended but I honestly felt that I had to grind that axe. Sorry for the misunderstandings along the way. http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

That's unknown, though Thomas Fudge does cite one letter and an entry in Brother Goss's diary that seem to amount to a confession to some of the "morals" accusations against Parham.

It may be that there are statements about people still living, in which case it would be a standard procedure to leave some things tucked away until all concerned have passed. Our American government has done that with historical records in the past, though now they throw open anything salacious just for the "fun" of it.

However, a full explanation should always be given when records are kept shut. If nothing else, it stifles at least some of the inevitable conspiracy theories.

No, PP it is not enough, someone has to interpret the scripture, we all either accept what someone else says it all means or else what we personally have decided that it means. That is why a study of history, and what students of the Bible thru the ages have had to say about the Bible is so important. We must take the record (both history and the Word, and our spiritual leaders) and allow the Holy Spirit to enlighten the eyes of our understanding. Otherwise, we are just taking someone else's opinion for it.

Yes ma'am I know them very well and one of your other brother's and his wife. Will be going to church tomorrow for the first time in a while. Been missing going to church. Both of your brother's and their wives are some of my favorite people. My youngest daughter was taught at school by your brother and SIL. Wonderful blessings to our family. And I really miss seeing your other brother and his wife, and of course hearing him sing.

Is Acts 2:38 Really Supported by History?
 

Will you be going there! We are planning on visiting my brother and

SIL again soon and would love to meet you.

The "other brother" who sings is doing so great healthwise and other-

wise. He wasn't well for some time but God has definitely touched him.

Blessings,

Falla39

I think you have missed the point of the criticism of the book. I don't criticize because I reject his soteriology. Soteriology isn't really the premise of his book - it's not a book about "how to get saved."

Arnold himself declares his purpose as shown below. Note: I am using the PDF file available at http://www.threeq.com/pdf/apo.pdf. This has not been run through an OCR and it would be difficult to do so because of the markings that the original owner had added. The electronic versions of Arnold's writings that I have are of the self-published variety and are not as accessible as this version.

The Preface to Apostolic History Outline by Marvin M. Arnold:

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/c...s_preface1.jpg
He makes quite an assertion there. To "revisit" or "revise" his work would mean to revisit and revise his underlying premise. His work was never intended to be a chronicle of "what's out there" in the historical record. It was specifically targeted to prove his hypothesis, that the "UPPER ROOM CHURCH" ... was alive and doctrinally intact in every century until this moment."

My hypothesis is that we have no record of any group in the years from ~200 A.D. until the events surrounding the Arroyo Seco camp meeting in 1913, which practiced the "whole package" of Acts 2:38 salvation as practiced by the Oneness Pentecostal movement today.

For sake of breivity that "whole package" does not include the various holiness issues that have been taught - just the soteriology of repentence, baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ and the infilling of the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in other tongues.

Yes ma'am I will, and I knew he had been very ill but of course God is a good and had heard he is doing well. I think I met you once when you visited.

I haven´t read all these items but I do believe God has always had a people...I don´t know if it is the ones in that book but He has always had a people and always will have a people.

Is it that someone disagrees that there has always been a ACTS 2:38 people?

Sister Alvear: It does not surprise what some of the people here believe.

Yes, He has always had people whose hearts were toward to Him and seeking truth, good and light. Were they always "Acts 2:38 people"? Who says they had to have been? God is God and He will talk to and relate to who He chooses, after all, "...the earth is the Lord's and ALL that is in it."

So I agree with you, Sister.

Truth is truth wherever it is found, even if it is only a piece of truth it is still truth, good is good wherever it is found, and both are of God and can only come from God.

Pela, I have been saying for the longest that I believe what Bro. A wrote above.

The rest of the book may have inaccuracies...don't know and am taking y'all's word for it. You and Adino have first hand knowledge and are brighter than I re this.

However, I am convinced without in my hand evidence that the Acts 2:38 message was preached through every age.

I cannot invision it ever dying out...what birthed it has kept it.

: Is Acts 2:38 Really Supported by History?
 

Sis. Cneasttx,

That is good! I have been praying for your recent prayer requests and

will continue to do so. God is faithful and sees our every care. God bless

you and your family, in Jesus Name!

Falla39

No, it's just that we have no record of it. For someone to believe that such beliefs and practices have always existed is one thing, to say "I can PROVE IT!" is another. Our attempts to prove it have failed in embarassing fashion over the years.

Far better to say, "Here's the Bible, and here I am Oh Lord..." We have a Bible message, not so much an historical one. For though history is interesting, in the end we really are claiming that salvation is through the Jesus Christ revealed in the Bible.

Remember, His truth endures to all generations (Psalm 100:5). But we are a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away (James 4:14).