Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
Theres a lot here to reply to, but I'll keep it relatively brief.
I wasn't mentioning Arnold's book as a way of defending "3-stepper" vs. one stepper doctrine. I simply mentioned the book because I found it to be an interesting read. I mostly find myself referring to the book when the issue is raised that Oneness belief is a new doctrine. Obviously you're already familiar with the book, so I guess its a moot point.
Anyway, I'm not saying the book is perfect either, but it is far from "an embarrassment" as you put it. It does show a credible trail of facts showing that there were Oneness believers, and Jesus name baptized/ Holy Ghost filled people throughout the centuries.
|
It does not, sorry. It doesn't provide a single "fact" referencing any individual or any group that practiced the
Acts 2:38 message. Not one. You can prove me wrong by naming one. Name one for me. Just one.
If you can't name one, how can you claim that the book shows "
a credible trail of facts showing that there were Oneness believers, and Jesus name baptized/ Holy Ghost filled people throughout the centuries?" It doesn't even accurately describe the beliefs of a single individual or group.
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. |
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
(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)" |
You have just cited over 1200 years of infant baptism by sprinkling in the titles of
Matthew 28:19, as
"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..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
That being said...There is not enough to make an airtight case to prove they believed in the same Acts 2:38 formulation now taught in the UPC and many similar Apostolic groups... |
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
but there isn't enough for anyone to say there weren't any such groups either! So for you to state or imply that Acts 2:38 salvation is a 20th century innovation, is something you can not back up with solid facts either. To do so you would have to "prove a negative" something that's just not possible in this case. |
You would have to go to the Council of Trent and provide some documentation on where I said "
that Acts 2:38 salvation is a 20th century innovation" Really, help me out with that one because that's one post I want to clean up. Where is it?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
Besides, churches back then weren't inclined to document their "Articles of faith" the way we do today, so a paper record of their precise beliefs is not something that would be available. Furthermore the RCC is known to have persecuted and destroyed the writings of many who opposed them.
|
Actually they were. We have extensive records for all kinds of things including how much beer was brewed and consumed by a particular abbott at a particular monestary in the darkest of the dark ages. We also have their Bibles and other written documents.
You can go
here and read the texts of the Cathari that Marvin Arnold calls "the true Christian Church..." Try to perform the "Lyon Ritual" in your church on Sunday. See how that goes.
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 authoratative and then complain about being called a "papist?" I'm not saying you are, but the motivation for this post puzzles me.
Again, you don't need that elephant that isn't in your glove box.
Threaded Mode
