Is Acts 2:38 Really Supported by History?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

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?

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).

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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).

But even more important.....what IF there was not a continuous line of "believers"? Would that mean we are wrong? WHy do we have to insist there was a continuous line?

Nobody has a continuous unbroken line. Not even the Trinitarians, though the Trinity "line" might be longer and more prominent. At some point Arianism replaced Trinitarianism as the Doctrine of the RE, but they soon too went by the way side. There was no real foundational "Trinitarian" theology until after Nicea. Where were the baptist or methodists or any protestants all this time up until Luther? And even Luther still retained baptismal regeneration.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

But even more important.....what IF there was not a continuous line of "believers"? Would that mean we are wrong? WHy do we have to insist there was a continuous line?

Nobody has a continuous unbroken line. Not even the Trinitarians, though the Trinity "line" might be longer and more prominent. At some point Arianism replaced Trinitarianism as the Doctrine of the RE, but they soon too went by the way side. There was no real foundational "Trinitarian" theology until after Nicea. Where were the baptist or methodists or any protestants all this time up until Luther? And even Luther still retained baptismal regeneration.

Good points. Constantine was never an enthusiastic Trinitarian. His two successors were, however enthusiastic Arians. The next emperor after that was Julian the Apostate who reestablished paganism as the official creed. Athanasius's party never won out until four generations later!

Revelation 13 describes "The Beast" as coming up out of "the sea." That roily and turbulent sea is contrasted to the "Sea of Glass" that surrounds the throne of God. The "sea" in chapter 13, is the world and its governments. It's turmoil and fraught with confusion and peril.

We are not doing ourselves any favors by trying to get anything up to the surface from that heaving and storm tossed sea. The only things that emerge are antagonistic to the Gospel of Peace!

Better that we go to the throne. There, we find a calm sea, mingled with the fire of battle. A sea governed by our God (Revelation 4:6 and Revelation 15:2).