Where are all the Acts 2:38 folks (3-steppers)??

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

This happens all the time on the other side of the belief spectrum as well ...it takes two to tango...see link

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...&postcount=184

Were bans handed out because people were calling each other by the names of other religions? Like, "You're a Mormon..." and "You're a Baptist..." ??? Somebody got a ban for calling another AFF poster a "Baptist?"

'Cause I've been called a lot worse on here, even today. I don't suppose it would do any good for me to play a "Tulsa" here and threaten to leave if you all weren't nicer to me?

I have a Paypal account where you can make up for any hard feelings you may have toward me. Wait a minute... the admin team called me a "dork" earlier this evening! I'm posting the Paypal URL as soon as I find it... Visa or MasterCard!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

It doesn't matter if absolutely NOBODY obeyed the Bible until yesterday...it's the BIBLE that is the final authority of faith and practice NOT popular historical practice or understanding. Paul warned that wolves would enter into the church, not sparing the flock, shortly after his departing. We see that Apostolic Christianity drifted from it's original teachings drastically within a single generation. We see glimmers of radical departure in the writings of Justin Martyr and others within 150 to 200 years of the time of the Apostles.

Think about it....Apostolic Christianity experienced it's modern revival at around 1913 or 1914. If history is a model we should begin to see rumblings of a departure within 150 to 200 years from those dates....hey....we're seeing it right here!

Say that again!

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Hey ChristopherHall, thanks. But what we were looking for is the "full package" of Acts 2:38 salvation for the years 200 A.D. through 1913 A.D.

It's good that you've gotten rid of Arnold's History Outline though.

Amen! And we find that formula in the New Testament. It would probably be a hit or miss thing if we went through the documents from the 16th century Council of Trent looking for it, right?

None of that matters...we have the Bible. It was the subtle compromise with Greek philosophy and ecclesiastical consensus that paved the way for the centuries of apostate Christianity.

[ChristopherHall]

I don't care if you're the only man on earth that believes in Acts 2:38 as practiced by the Apostolic Christianity expressed in the Bible....you'd be right and the whole world wrong. But I got good news for ya...you and God alone constitutes a MAJORITY!

[ChristopherHall]

I think it's great when one repents. I believe they get God's attention when they do that. However, at that point they will either choose to obey the Scriptures and be saved or refuse to obey and be lost.

Repentance from sin and water baptism are not works of the law or even Christian "religion"...they are acts of faith:

" 12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." - Colossians 2:9

"12[Thus you were circumcised when] you were buried with Him in [your] baptism, in which you were also raised with Him [to a new life] through [your] faith in the working of God [as displayed] when He raised Him up from the dead." - Colossians 2:12 (AMP)

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

It doesn't matter if absolutely NOBODY obeyed the Bible until yesterday...it's the BIBLE that is the final authority of faith and practice NOT popular historical practice or understanding. Paul warned that wolves would enter into the church, not sparing the flock, shortly after his departing. We see that Apostolic Christianity drifted from it's original teachings drastically within a single generation. We see glimmers of radical departure in the writings of Justin Martyr and others within 150 to 200 years of the time of the Apostles.

Think about it....Apostolic Christianity experienced it's modern revival at around 1913 or 1914. If history is a model we should begin to see rumblings of a departure within 150 to 200 years from those dates....hey....we're seeing it right here! Some of our well meaning brothers here are modern day Justin Martyrs who are paving the way for a second radical departure from Apostolic Christianity. And it will herald a future spiritual Dark Ages...just as it did in centuries past.

If we don't learn from history...we're destined to repeat it. We need to get some guts and take a stand for TRUTH.

Yes, we have the Bible, but men continue to interpert what it means, so it still leaves plenty of room for imperfection in the understanding. Somebody interperted the OP view, this is men trying to understand God's intentions, not so easy to accomplish. It will be ongoing until we see "face to face", interpertation thru a "glass darkly" is not perfect.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

There is not even a hint that "they" did. Not even a glimmer. I assure you, the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Trent did not even think of sanctioning Jesus name baptism. And, by some twist of fate the RCC seems to have neglected to burn the records of those councils, so we know what was said and agreed upon.

*** Could someone on the board or the admin team please tell me why it would be wrong to compare TRFrance's appeal to the rulings of the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Trent to "papism?" ***

How does citing these creeds make someone a PAPIST? A Papist, as I have shown before, is a derogatory term for Roman Catholics but even if not, it refers to people who put their authority in the papal office. These creeds were all ecumenical, not Roman Catholic. They were and are held by Protestants today as well as Orthodox catholics. Calling people papists and mormons when we all know full well those terms would be taken in a negative light is in my opinion derogatory, inflammatory and insulting. Why is it necessary to label someone with disparaging titles?

BRB...I have to make a public service announcement

[Admin]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

By the way, to me this new tolerance of trinitarianism and easy believism, and anything goes theology is worse than the charges leveled against those of us "three-steppers" of being Mormon sacramental papists.

Some of these folks are embarrassed for those of us who won't bend to New-Age Ecumenicalsim.

PP as with the Mormon/Papist rhetoric and as Jekyll was warned, this stuff needs to stop. This warning was given to everyone. It needs to stop and just because someone else did it is not ok to do it in reverse.

Now that everyone was warned...next stop will be bans-ville

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I can prove a negative. I can prove right now that there is NO full grown African elephant in the glove box of your car. Say what you want. Call me "psychic" or any other name. There is no full grown African elephant in the glove box of your car.

Do you know how I know? Want to know how I can be so confident about it? It's simple... you don't need a full grown African elephant in the glove box of your car.

Are you saying it is impossible for a remnant of people somewhere on this earth to have baptized in Jesus name and been filled with the Spirit during the time of the early church until the early 1900's? And you want to compare this improbalility to that of an elephant in the glove compartment of a car?

No proof exists so someone believing and obeying Acts 2:38 could not possibly exist? Is that your solid rock? We'll have to wait and see on that assertion.

[Brother Price]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I am sick of being called Mormon, papist, sacrementalist and the like by men who have no love for sound doctrine. Men who only desire to destroy. Men who have an insidious agenda.

Look, we can argue standards all day long, but I got tired of being castigated and gang-tackled by this bunch of heretical hyenas.

This is uncalled for. It shows a bad spirit and a clear attack on people who have defended their stances, even if they do not agree with the norm.

For one to call a belief or doctrine papist or Mormon is one thing, but to call someone a heretical hyena, that is downright against the rules.