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.
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.)
Their ( Pelathais and Raven) point is that there are no historically verified documentation that Acts 2:38 was taught and obeyed. So they take your reference to history above and beyond what you are trying to say. I understand what your point is and that you are ONLY saying baptism was for the remission of sins throughout church history. They will not even allow this small concession. They want the whole 'shebang' of Acts 2:38 or nothing at all.
Even if one could prove there were some people who were filled with the Spirit with evidenced 'glossalia' at one time and a scattered few who baptised by immersion in Jesus name another time in history and one or two dying for the Oneness of God teaching somewhere else in history, these folks will not allow that is a significant enough proof that there may be even a remote possibility that perhaps some a small remnant of folk may have been enlightened to all three in some far corner of the planet!
Only time will tell through either archeology or hidden records or heaven itself will reveal it in the rapture. I think you are being strawmanned to death!
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
After ruminating on this post quite a bit, I find it to be very insightful.
it also carries implications.
It carries disturbing implications outside of this forum.
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
Their ( Pelathais and Raven) point is that there are no historically verified documentation that Acts 2:38 was taught and obeyed. So they take your reference to history above and beyond what you are trying to say. I understand what your point is and that you are ONLY saying baptism was for the remission of sins throughout church history. They will not even allow this small concession. They want the whole 'shebang' of Acts 2:38 or nothing at all.
Even if one could prove there were some people who were filled with the Spirit with evidenced 'glossalia' at one time and a scattered few who baptised by immersion in Jesus name another time in history and one or two dying for the Oneness of God teaching somewhere else in history, these folks will not allow that is a significant enough proof that there may be even a remote possibility that perhaps some a small remnant of folk may have been enlightened to all three in some far corner of the planet!
Only time will tell through either archeology or hidden records or heaven itself will reveal it in the rapture. I think you are being strawmanned to death!
Mizpeh, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of both Raven and Pelathias.
I suspect that both would be quite interested in finding some historical record that supports any form of Oness Doctrine.
Pelathias has not suggested that it could never have happened, just that the work in question that makes that argument fails the test of scrutany.
Likewise Raven has not suggested only that the record to date, does not support the idea, and the work mentioned by several here is at best problematic.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Are you saying it is impossible for a remnant of people somewhere on this earth to have baptized in Jesus name and been filled with the Spirit during the time of the early church until the early 1900's? And you want to compare this improbalility to that of an elephant in the glove compartment of a car?
I'm saying there is no historical evidence "for a remnant of people somewhere on this earth to have baptized in Jesus name and been filled with the Spirit during the time of the early church until the early 1900's."
Remember, this is in the context of a discussion of the "facts" presented in a booklet which can be found here. The elephant in the glove box comes in because of TRF's challenge to me to "prove a negative."
I didn't want to merely smash his argument. I'm not cruel. I wanted to show him that he had a better argument elsewhere. Thus, he needs the "continuous line through history" about as much as he needs an elephant in his glove box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizpeh
No proof exists so someone believing and obeying Acts 2:38 could not possibly exist? Is that your solid rock? We'll have to wait and see on that assertion.
"Could not possibly...?" I honestly don't know. For all I know TRF maybe working to prove me wrong about the elephant... it is possible after all.
But we are engaged in a battle of ideas. We have to pick our battles carefully or our children will loose hope when they have to contend with our errors. There is no proof for the existence of an unbroken chain of belief in the Acts 2:38 message of salvation from the time of the apostles until 1913.
But guess what? There's no proof that we need to even try and make that case!
For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations (Psalm 100:5).
The Lord... mercy... and truth! Those are the things that endure. "Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away (James 4:14).
My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. 
Linear Mode
