Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
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)
|
Thank you. However,
you were offering the Councils to support Arnold's "facts" about the continous line of history. The Councils do not support Arnold's "facts." Plain and simple. If you wanted to traipse off at this point, then I brought you right back to
YOUR original point - "
Arnold's facts."
If the fire I'm holding your feet to is too hot, don't throw more fuel on the fire. Just tell me and we'll move on. Just tell me that you now no longer support Arnold's booklet as
"fact."
It's no biggie to me. I bought into that same booklet when Brother Arnold was still alive. As a young college history major I sat in a parsonage office and asked him about it. He let me know that he didn't really want to talk about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
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?
|
I'm happy if you think you can do a little dance here. That's cool, I want you to be happy. But you did say the Council quotes were being offered to support Arnold's
"facts." If I dispelled you of that single notion, then I rejoice with you.
On the point of the councils: My "forceful" arguments did include the statement that you had provided "
proof"
only for 1200 years of infant baptism in the Matthew 28:19 formula, right? No evidence whatsoever of
Acts 2:38 salvation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
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. |
You said: "
To do so you would have to "prove a negative" something that's just not possible in this case."
To say, "You can't prove a negative" is a common rhetorical ploy that is used whenever a person runs out of evidence. By this point in the discussion, you had run out of evidence. I wanted to shake you up to the possibilities of our subject and not leave you in a dour mood.
You can prove a negative when it involves the absence of possibility, or odds so great that the situation is indeed impossible for all practical purposes. Finding a continuous line of
Acts 2:38 salvation being practiced from ~200 A.D. until 1913 A.D. is impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
(There you go with that "papist" foolishness.)
|
This might be worthy of its own thread. Consider:
For years we have put forth "evidence" like Arnold's that Acts 2:38 salvation existed in a continuous unbroken line through history. Our primary excuse for the absence of evidence was, "the evil Catholic church burned all the records..."
When this tact didn't really pan out, and we simultaneously faced challenges from Evangelical groups, many who also supported the idea of the "evils of the Catholic Church;" we began to take a new approach. I was there and I spoke in favor of this "new approach" (just for the record...).
A Oneness writer was as unsatisfied with the current bit of scholarship on this issue as I was. To be fair, he was far too gracious and would never come right out and put it that way. But he did offer some help for many of us who were beleaguered by the status quo.
In his writings he focused more upon answering the Evangelical attacks than on trying to provide the "continuous line" argument. This did appear to be a more productive approach to the issue of OP history and it benefitted greatly from the fact that
we didn't have to make up stuff any more.
However, the approach did open us up to accusations of being called "
papists" by the anti-RCC people among our Evangelical "friends." That's just part of the story, but it's important to see that as "the lay of the land" in this new approach to OP apologetics.
Since this approach does rest heavily upon
historical integrity it has proven to be the preferred method of most new OP historians. However, they seem to balk at the idea of being called "papists" and "baptismal regenerationalist."
This is also an issue
that we are dealing with on this board right now. We
do teach baptismal regenerationalism- at least the vast majority of us do. When someone wants to "shake us up" about that they will inevitably call us "papists" and the like. That's just the way it goes. If you don't have a heart for that kind of debate, it's really easy to avoid becoming involved with the whole discussion-
just stop talking about baptism!
I don't have you in mind here TRFrance, obviously you're game for a little rough and tumble action- that's cool. But there are so many others who come out swinging and when they knock themselves upside the head they cry out "foul."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
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.
|
My question here... (and again, it's not really for TRFRance, but for "whomsoever will...")
are you ready for this approach? Are you really ready to discuss the issue from this angle? Don't cry "foul" when an Evangelical says, "Hey! THAT WHAT THE POPE TEACHES...!!!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
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.
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?
|
Well, flattery might get you somewhere...
. And
I did see the juxtaposition in your argument when you went from "Arnold's facts" to baptismal regenerationalism. It's just that such a leap is very controversial on AFF right now. You may not be entirely aware of it but folks have been banned for engaging in this discussion.
Linear Mode
