Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old 12-28-2007, 11:48 AM
pelathais's Avatar
pelathais pelathais is offline
Accepts all friends requests


 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance View Post
Sorry Raven.. You're badly mistaken here. My argument is not on thin ice as you suppose. Just like I said to Pela, paying proper attention is key.

Indeed, the 2nd reference I quoted did apply to the RCC position on infant baptism; that much is true.

However , I gave another reference also. Why don't you refer to that too instead of picking just one ? The first reference I gave, which was from the Council of Nicea/Constantinople-381 AD stated belief in "one baptism for the remission of sins". This is a reference to baptism in general, not just their stance on infant baptism, as you assert. (I'm assuming you know that the 381 Nicene Creed was not in any way focused on infant baptism.) Your argument is very faulty here. Anyone coming into the church as as an adult would have been subject to baptism, so the reference to baptism in that instance was not limited to infant baptism.

My simple point there, which he (and you also, apparently) seemed to be misunderstanding, was a simple reference to the fact that a key component of Acts 2:38 salvation doctrine (i.e. the remission of sins via water baptism) was a widely held belief in Christendom, not just the Roman Church.

(And yes, I'm aware that many/most of the churches were already baptizing in the titles but that is/was not my point.)
It's helpful to see how this point has been argued historically:

There are two approaches to this issue:

Augustinian/Evangelical or Pelaganism/Arminian.

The "Evangelical" position would say that you are baptized because you are saved, that the baptism itself produces no "work."

The "free will" or Arminian side would emphasize the obedience angle and the "effective work of grace" in the act of being baptized.

My position on this? BOTH are correct. You're just looking at two sides of the same coin. And like a coin, our humaness keeps us from seeing both sides simultaneously.

I'm not at this position through wishy-washiness, either. It's been a long battle, but for me a very important battle.
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Acts 2:38 your god? SDG The D.A.'s Office 438 09-16-2010 06:00 PM
How Many "3 Steppers" Do We Have On Aff??? Caston Smith Fellowship Hall 261 10-30-2007 09:33 PM
Acts 2:38 in first several chapters of Acts mfblume Fellowship Hall 2 09-01-2007 10:25 AM
Acts 14:2 WOW!!! stmatthew Fellowship Hall 7 08-10-2007 09:58 PM
Acts 8:14 Kutless Deep Waters 122 05-01-2007 03:07 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.