Your points are taken but Pelathais has made the same arguments on other threads which you may not be aware of without anyone making a link to Arnold's book. I agree if someone makes those claims they should be able to prove them. I believe Pel makes his statements based on NO historical record and because of his elephant/ glove compartment comment I believe Pel thinks there is no possibility that anyone obeyed Acts 2:38 since the early church until the early 1900's and because he doesn't allow for the remotest possibility that someone may have obeyed it, I doubt he believes there is evidence that may be forthcoming.
Only Pel and Raven can clear up any misunderstanding I have about their post but I think it is good of you try to help me to see what they wrote in a different light.
Maybe I'm wrong in what I think he is saying.
well, lets ask it point blank shall we?
Pelathias do you
1. Think there is no possibility that anyone obeyed Acts 2:38 since the early church until the early 1900's
2. Do you believe there is any posiblilty of finding such evidence?
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I've been to a couple of Oneness Pentecostal fellowship meetings where preachers got mad and stomped out but I haven't seen them come to blows yet.
Well, one time when I was sitting on the platform I saw someone go out the back door and then re-enter a few minutes later with blood running down his face. He'd stepped outside and got into a fight. Meanwhile the singing and shouting went on. Earlier that evening one sister was dancing in the Spirit near that open door and suddenly disappeared as she fell out of the door. The sidewalk was a step or two below the door.
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
I don't understand your question. Jesus name baptism is NOT optional. It is a Bible practice. Please let me know what you were trying to say.
You asked for someone to prove it optional. I was asking to show that it is not. I do not believe baptisim is optional, it is for every believer. I am just asking. I know you and others have a problem with doing it Matt 28:19 + Acts 2:38, F,S, and HG which is Jesus Christ. Can you show where this is incorrect?
Sorry should have written that post better.
__________________
"If we don't learn to live together we're gonna die alone"
Jack Shephard.
Pelathias do you
1. Think there is no possibility that anyone obeyed Acts 2:38 since the early church until the early 1900's
No, I do not think there is "no possibility..." There may be a possibility. There may even be a likelihood.
However, the point that Arnold's book was brought up to support was of a "continuous line" of belief and practice from ~200 A.D. until 1913 A.D.
There is certainly ample evidence of people "speaking in tongues" throughout history, even predating Christianity. Now what and who and if they were "truly inspired" etc. gets very complicated. But it is a widely reported phenomena.
The same with Jesus name baptism. It is so plainly reported in the Acts of the Apostles that many people seemed to have picked up the practice at different times.
But what we don't have is the "complete package" of Acts 2:38 salvation being reported anywhere from ~200 A.D. until the events surrounding Arroyo Seco in 1913.
Again, is it "possible? -sure. Is it "likely? -well that's a little harder to say. Do we have any evidence? -No. None.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
2. Do you believe there is any posiblilty of finding such evidence?
Nothing in this universe exists within a realm of 0% possibilities. It is possible that you may win the lottery tomorrow. It's not very likely however, I believe the odds are in the 100's of million to one against you. But it is possible.
However, if you send me $1 instead of spending it on a lottery ticket- then there is a certainty that I will have your dollar.
In other words, the odds of something happening can effect our behavior. It's possible that I may be killed on the city streets when I run some errands in a moment. But the odds are sufficiently unlikely that I will not cower in my home. Besides, radon gas or a meteor might get me if I sit still.
The odds of finding the "continous line" are very remote. There are better odds of finding revivals popping up here and there. But none of that should effect our behavior. Somehow or another we have a credible source of information contained within our Bibles. That book also gives the promise of a God who is both real and Personal. That is what we should act upon. jmho.
No, I do not think there is "no possibility..." There may be a possibility. There may even be a likelihood.
However, the point that Arnold's book was brought up to support was of a "continuous line" of belief and practice from ~200 A.D. until 1913 A.D.
It depends on what one believes the term "continuous line" to mean. For example there have been various revivals of Modalism in pockets of Christendom down through the centuries. This is a continuous line of "revival" and spiritual outbreaks of truth. Though it isn't a continuous line of organization. Often the groups were not related to each other. Many Modalistic groups were also Montanist, meaning that one of their beliefs was in the prophetic gifts and "speaking in tongues". Some embraced Jesus name baptism, others didn't. The fact is that in every generation there has been a church walking in the revealed will of God somewhere.
Quote:
There is certainly ample evidence of people "speaking in tongues" throughout history, even predating Christianity. Now what and who and if they were "truly inspired" etc. gets very complicated. But it is a widely reported phenomena.
Amen. And many were indeed Modalists and it's conceivable that at the very least some baptized in Jesus name.
Quote:
The same with Jesus name baptism. It is so plainly reported in the Acts of the Apostles that many people seemed to have picked up the practice at different times.
Amen, I had just read this so you can refer to the statement of mine above.
Quote:
But what we don't have is the "complete package" of Acts 2:38 salvation being reported anywhere from ~200 A.D. until the events surrounding Arroyo Seco in 1913.
Now here's where I'm going to challenge you. You stated, and I quote, "But what we don't have is the "complete package" of Acts 2:38 salvation being reported anywhere from ~200 A.D. until the events surrounding Arroyo Seco in 1913." You made the statement...you now have to prove it. Now, before you go arguing and whining, "I can't prove a negative." I'll show you something you can do. Since Montanistic Modalism (tongue talking Modalism) was often linked in these Modalistic groups...you have to show that none of these groups baptized in Jesus name by finding out how they did baptize.
Also I see a logic problem. You and I agree that Jesus name baptism and tongue talking have occurred many times down through history. However, Trinitarian orthodoxy forbade the Jesus name formula. It becomes obvious that any group that observed Jesus name baptism would be non-trinitarian. Therefore we are left with the high probability that many Modalistic groups indeed baptized in Jesus name. Since Montanism and other tongue talking phenomena occurred in these Modalist groups we see that the odds highly favor that the "complete package" of Acts 2:38 would exist down through history.
Quote:
Again, is it "possible? -sure. Is it "likely? -well that's a little harder to say. Do we have any evidence? -No. None.
You cannot say that there is no evidence unless you can verify that no Modalistic, tongue talking group baptized in Jesus name. Until you do...the odds are very much in their favor.
Quote:
The odds of finding the "continous line" are very remote. There are better odds of finding revivals popping up here and there. But none of that should effect our behavior. Somehow or another we have a credible source of information contained within our Bibles. That book also gives the promise of a God who is both real and Personal. That is what we should act upon. jmho.
The "revivals" are a continuous line of truth down through the ages. The continuity isn't in the natural organization of each movement...but the Spirit received and the truth preached.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
I think many have to understand that the Apostolic Pentecostal phenomena is a move of God...it's not a movement lead by men. Therefore each ancient Apostolic group received the truth through the unity of spirit, yet independently of human organization.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
The Apostolic Friends Forum has reached new heights in recent days. A friendly question regarding WATER BAPTISM seems to have erupted into yet another long, drawn out discussion about the Christian rite of baptism. Yet, in this discussion, it isn't the age old debate as to the proper mode and method of baptism, but, rather, whether or not history supports WATER BAPTISM in the name of Jesus Christ. Apostolic believers worldwide accept Acts 2:38 as the basis of their faith because it is very explicitly spelled out in the Scriptures that this is the formula commanded by Christ Himself. Further Biblical precedence reveals that the Apostle Peter fully endorsed baptism by immersion in the Name of Jesus Christ on the Day of Pentecost, and again when he baptized Gentile believers in Acts 10. The Apostle Paul continued the practice be baptizing 12 disciples of John "...in the Name of the Lord Jesus". Paul further admonished that all that is said or done should be done so in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why it is important to prove or disprove baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ was practiced during the Dark Ages is not readily apparent. The Bible, God's Written Word tells us "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost". History is fleeting, historical records are as accurate as the author is honest. But the Word of God stands forever settle in heaven!
__________________
"Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him...." -Psa. 37:7
Waiting for the Lord is easy... Waiting patiently? Not so much.
The continuity isn't in the natural organization of each movement...but the Spirit received and the truth preached.
Linear Mode
