Sorry, Pel.. i'm not sure if I should consider you to be intellectually dishonest here, or if you're simply not paying attention. But you have totally twisted the meaning and intent of my post so suit yourself.
For your benefit or those who might be misled by how you've twisted my words, let me make myself clear. I DID NOT CLAIM THAT THE PAPAL COUNCILS WERE PROOF OF JESUS NAME BAPTISM. Good grief. If you bothered to pay attention, all I said was that the key components of today's UPCI's teachings (Oneness +Bapstism in Jesus Name+ Holy Ghost baptism speaking with tongues etc) all existed throughout the centuries, so it is not unthinkable to believe there were groups that held to all those doctrinal components in much the same way that the UPCI does.
Focus for a minute on
your words here that I've highlighted in
RED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
Are you really ready for this? After the complaints we've heard in this thread about how people were calling others "Papists" and the like?
You have just cited over 1200 years of infant baptism by sprinkling in the titles of Matthew 28:19, a s "proof" of a continuous line of Jesus name Acts 2:38, beliefs?
Can you imagine standing in front of a college level review and presenting a paper on this? " Here's my proof of Jesus name baptism, 1200 years of baptism in the titles..."
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?" *** He invites any reader to do so by citing those documents as authoritative when they don't even purport to allow for his claims. These Councils did not endorse Acts 2:38 salvation. Their findings on infant baptism in the titles tell us nothing about Acts 2:38 salvation. And so, from this we are then implored to "pretend" that there really were Oneness Pentecostals in Nicea, Constanople and Trent? |
So your repeated references there give the impression that I was claiming
that the RCC was practicing Jesus name bapstism. Yet I was referring to
baptism for the remission of sins, which is a distinctly different issue; the distinction is not that difficult to grasp. Let me show you again what I said, since you weren't paying attention the first time. Note the parts I've highlighted
in red.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
. From examining the facts, it is not a stretch at all for one to believe that there were many who were Oneness, and held to Acts 2:38 water and spirit doctrine at the same time, much like today's UPCI. (As a matter of fact, in support of that, there is much documentation that shows that water baptism for the remission of sins was a very commonly held belief. For example, 1) ...the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed of 381 includes the clause "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins"
2)...Even the documents from the Council of Trent 12 centuries later illustrated that the "water and spirit" doctrine was well known at that time . For example, this quote from one of those documents. "...are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation. "For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5)". |
So you set up a "straw man" and then knock it down quite impressively... except that
you were arguing against a point I wasn't even making!!
In case you missed the distinction there, let me make it painstakingly clear...
All I said was that there was proof of the existence in the
belief in water baptism of the remission of sins, which in itself happens to be
a key component of the water/spirit doctrine held by today's apostolics. I never said those 2 references were proof of Jesus name baptism. Never. I thought was very clear in what I said. (If you still don't see the distinction there, then let me know)
So here I am making
one point.. and you're arguing strongly and forcefully about
a different point altogether. Thats almost comical. You seemed to have been quite pleased with yourself after that last post, but if you are arguing something very different from the point that I'm making, then it makes your argument somewhat less impressive, doesn't it?
Quote:
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.
Again, you don't need that elephant that isn't in your glove box. 
|
Your elephant in a glove box analogy is just silly. Its an apples-oranges analogy and
it just doesn't work. A full grown elephant can not not physically fit in a glove box. That is
an impossibility. It is
not an impossibility that
Acts 2:38 doctrine existed in the 2000 years since Christ, even though you wish to claim as fact that it didn't exist. I guess you thought your analogy was cute, but its not. Nice try though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
And we certainly have the records that you have cited for "water baptism for the remission of sins" in the Roman Catholic Church. After all, the Ecumenical Councils that you cited were pretty big events in those days. But why do you cite the RCC council decrees as authoritative and then complain about being called a "papist?" I'm not saying you are, but the motivation for this post puzzles me.
|
(There you go with that "papist" foolishness.)
Once again, take note, Pel... I
did not cite the Creeds as being
authoritative on doctrine. Again, I referred to them simply as historical references, simply to show that
the idea of water baptism for the remission of sins was a widely known belief throughout Christendom long, before the UPC was even thought of. If you think I am claiming them as being
doctrinally authoritative then again it proves you're just seeing what you want to.
I'm assuming you're a fairly intelligent guy, so I don't see why you are "puzzled" by the post. You were probably puzzled because you simply weren't paying proper attention to what was being said.
Linear Mode
