I really do think you mean well, but you've yet to catch on to what I'm saying. And it's not your fault. Sometimes just reading something without seeing non-verbals, inflection, etc. is challenging for the best of people.
I'm going to try to help clarify as best I can. None of this is intended as a slam against you personally. But take a deep breath and try to understand what I'm saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by n david
"LoL" I do though. You're making a statement (God failed, hell prevailed. No one repented, was baptized or received the HG in 1,800) based on zero evidence or proof. You're claiming that because EB may not be able to quote you historical records proving there were people who experienced the New Birth that somehow this means it didn't happen.
|
Actually, I didn't claim that. My point was that one of the implications of EB's statement would be that it didn't matter if there were anyone saved for 1,800 years, because the Bible is still the Bible (his interpretation of it being considered the rule). And IF that were so, that would have the secondary implications that Hell prevailed for 1,800 years, and a vast "gap" of darkness and damnation would exist.
I'm not claiming that this is true. I'm only saying that IF what EB is saying, one possible implication is so ridiculous, both you and I clearly see it as untenable. Both you and I agree, someone had to be saved during that period (later EB confirms that he does too). You and EB argue that "someone somewhere, somehow" knew the truth and was saved. I'm saying that I'd love to see evidence of that to put such implicative terms to rest, and if I was presented with reliable confirmation of such, I'd proudly join ranks with you. Why? Because I love
Acts 2:38 and I believe it to be the fullness of truth. But if we don't see ANY evidence whatsoever of such, I'm not comfortable arguing from silence. Saying, "Well there had to be someone to embraced my interpretation of the Bible whether we see it or not.", doesn't sit well with me. If we don't see it... and we believe that there wasn't a gap in which Hell prevailed... then perhaps we should look at all angles. Is our interpretation of
Acts 2:38 as it relates to justification, identification, and regeneration the only possibility? I present to you that it isn't. Now, I'm not demanding that anyone embrace it, but I am saying we can put that card in our back pocket for consideration.
Here's a soteriological question in relation to our take on
Acts 2:38...
At want point during repentance, water baptism, and HG infilling does one experience justification by faith?
The answer to this question is key to determining if one can be "saved" without having obeyed the fullness of the salvation provided in
Acts 2:38. Understand, when I say "fullness of salvation", I'm talking about all that is provided for the individual. I'm talking about what goes beyond justification, things like, sanctifying identification and regeneration. It's my experience that most of us Apostolics aren't taught a systematic approach to soteriological realities. And so, we're kind of assuming things just take place without considering why they take place as one enters the fullness of NT salvation.
Quote:
|
What is your proof that it didn't happen? Have you read every historical record? Have you traveled back in time? Did you fall into a trance whilst in contemplative prayer and see through 1,800 years in the past?
|
Remember, I wasn't claim that what I said was so. I was only claiming that one implication of EB's statement would make such a possibility. Which clearly, you and I both reject.
Quote:
Here's my evidence: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."
For there to be an 1,800 year gap means the Bible isn't true.
|
Exactly! I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of my statements. You're assuming that the picture I paint is what I believe. I was only painting the ridiculous picture the implications of EB's logic could demand. But EB later clarified that he believed "someone" had to know the truth and be saved during those years. I'm saying, I wouldn't be surprised. However, no argument can stand on silence. We need at least a shred of evidence establishing a justification for embracing that idea. Because without it... EB's untenable implication of no one being saved remains a viable possibility.
Linear Mode
