Where are all the Acts 2:38 folks (3-steppers)??

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I think very solid evidence has been offered that suggests some of the major points of the book are inaccurate.

i would like to know if any of the book is accurate as well.

Adino evidently helped with the research.

Hey, hey..... I did some legwork and proofreading. I did not add to the content. Don't lay Arnold's skewed interpretation of history on me.


In fact, I confronted him on whether he was able find a witness of the "water/spirit" position in the form he taught it..... he smirked and told me he had not.

Yes, there are accuracies in his books... they're not ALL wrong. Arnold was just too willing to slant the evidence in his favor at times.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Can someone provide me solid evidence that Arnold's work was entirely inaccurate?

Read it. http://www.threeq.com/pdf/apo.pdf

Just one example, but you can do this on your own:


The English historian Margaret Deanesly (Arnold's "Deanseley" sic) never once makes any sort of a reference to anything resembly Acts 2:38 salvation being practiced in the Old Celtic Church. "pp. 4 -15" describe the ecclesastical seperation that the church enjoyed from Roman domination, but there is nothing there that even remotely describes anything resembling a UPC or OP style of worship or soteriology.

J.T. McNeill is a noted Church historian. His book The Celtic Churches, A History 200 AD to 1200 AD, never once even refrences the biblical passage "Acts 2:38."

The phrase "one God" with or without the hyphen appears once in Bede's history. Here is the context and quote:

" In the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the tenth year of the reign of our most pious lord, Egfrid, king of the Northumbrians, the seventeenth of September, the eighth indiction; and in the sixth year of the reign of Ethelfrid, king of the Mercians, in the seventeenth year of the reign of Aldhulf, of the East Angles, in the seventh year of the reign of Lothair, king of Kent; Theodore, by the grace of God, archbishop of the island of Britain, and of the city of Canterbury, being president, and the other venerable bishops of the island of Britain sitting with him, the holy Gospels being laid before them, at the place which, in the Saxon tongue, is called Heathfield, we conferred together, and expounded the true and orthodox faith, as our Lord Jesus in the flesh delivered the same to his disciples, who saw Him present, and heard his words, and as it is delivered in the creed of the holy fathers, and by all holy and universal synods in general, and by the consent of all approved doctors of the Catholic church; we, therefore, following them jointly and orthodoxly, and professing accordance to their divinely inspired doctrine, do believe, and do, according to the holy fathers, firmly confess, properly and truly, the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, a trinity consubstantial in unity, and unity in trinity, that is, one God subsisting in three consubstantial persons, of equal honour and glory."

Notice Bede's explanation of the "one God." This was the common and even characteristic teaching of the Celtic Church. They spread this Trinitarian message all over Western Europe.

Thomas Cahill's book How the Irish Saved Civilization gives a popular treatment to the influence that the Celtic Church had over Western Europe during the Dark Ages. The Old Celtic Church itself was dismembered after Pope Adrian (the only Englishman to serve as Pope) gave his blessings to England's Henry II to invade and conqueror Ireland.

On a brighter note: it has been been reported by some writers that the Celtic Church did in fact baptize in or into Jesus name as opposed to using the triune formula of Matthew 28:19. It's just that they coupled this with a very emphatic undertanding of the Trinity.

[Neck]

The one step even Peter left out of Acts 2:38 was the word Belief, Believe or Believeth.

If Acts 2:38 were to hold the entire plan of salvation he would have reminded them of the fact they must believe.

He talked about the cross in verse verse 23.

See the Lord God Jehova wants us to believe on him.

Not to be commanded to believe on him.

Peter enlightened the fullness of Matthew 28:19.

In verse 12 of Acts the crowd states, "And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another. what meaneth this?

At the falling of the HG and hearing men speak in languages they were not taught.

Who were they that asked Peter, "What shall we do?".

Was it those who doubted this event of tongues.

The answer of Peter was in response to the question, what must we do?

Then Peter told them Acts 2:38.

John 3:15 Whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life.


It states these men doubted the HG and said one to another, what meaneth this?

Now they were pricked in their heart, but Peter did not tell them to believe.

In verse 44 They that believed......

We need to therefor preach Jesus Christ, him Crucified as did Peter leading up to Acts 2:38.

What most Oneness "Jesus only" folks do is skip the verses 12-36.

It is the preaching of the Cross that pricks the heart, Not Acts 2:38.

That is why many Oneness churches baptize many and few stay....

They are given the message of Acts 2:38 and not the finished work of Grace on calvary!

I Cor 1:18 for the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness: but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God.

The word "which" means because of this.

Because of the cross and us believing in the finished work are we saved.

Is the Holy Ghost the Power of God?

Or is the preaching of the Cross the Power of God?

The preaching of the Cross is the Power of God unto salvation.

The HG is the power of God in us to do his work.

It is not the Power of God unto salvation.

Believe first, grab ahold of the finished work of Calvary through the Grace of God.

Then take your converts to the, what shall we do?

Acts 2:38.

Stop looking at Acts 2:38 through the mirror and seeing the cross behind you!

Turn around and see the Lord hanging on the Cross for the sins of all Mankind!

Nathan Eckstadt

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Adino

Hey, hey..... I did some legwork and proofreading. I did not add to the content. Don't lay Arnold's skewed interpretation of history on me.


In fact, I confronted him on whether he was able find a witness of the "water/spirit" position in the form he taught it..... he smirked and told me he had not.

Yes, there are accuracies in his books... they're not ALL wrong. Arnold was just too willing to slant the evidence in his favor at times.

That was probably my bad, Adino. I was speaking from memory about a discussion we had on AFF a while back about Brother Arnold. I couldn't remember the exact way that you had described your relationship with him and described you as giving "research assistance" or something like that.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

LOL......no "h" in there, but too cool!!!!

That is the old school rendering, sis...

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If I told you that I would freely give you a million dollars and all I asked of you is that you be baptized… would you?

If you really believed that I had the power to freely give you a million dollars you would.

Brethren... either you believe in Jesus or you don’t. There’s no middle ground.

Like Nathan said earlier, are there any here who have not been baptised in Jesus Name?

Is there any here, when baptising, that would not proclaim the Name of Jesus?

[OneAccord]

Originally Posted by Barb

That is the old school rendering, sis...

No...no...no. Not OLD school. "NO SCHOOL" would be more appropriate.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

No...no...no. Not OLD school. "NO SCHOOL" would be more appropriate.

My niece calls me Aunt RaHenda! LOL!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

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.

Chris, you're a nice guy and I don't want to come across as mean spirited but as I asked before, are you ready to do this?

What I mean by a "continuous line" is exactly that - a continuous line. Either it's there, or it isn't there. Can you show me one? You can not. In fact, in this post- you don't even try. You say it's there., but you don't even offer a single example.

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Often the groups were not related to each other.

What "groups" are you talking about here. At least make one up so you don't come to this table empty handed. What "groups?" What "revivals?" Who, what, where and when?

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Many Modalistic groups were also Montanist,

Here we go, you made one up. That's actually progress. Now then, in the time period under discussion (~200 A.D. to 1913 A.D) name one Modalist Montanist. And then, name enough of them to form a historical continuity throughout the time period under discussion.

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

meaning that one of their beliefs was in the prophetic gifts and "speaking in tongues". Some embraced Jesus name baptism, others didn't.

Who embraced Jesus name baptism? Who? Where?

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

The fact is that in every generation there has been a church walking in the revealed will of God somewhere.

"The fact" !!??!! Bro, you just made up this entire argument. You invented it all out of whole cloth. You did that just now. And now you assert it as "a fact?"

Where's that $100 you owe me, huh? It's a fact, you owe me $100 now pay up!

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Amen. And many were indeed Modalists and it's conceivable that at the very least some baptized in Jesus name.

I give in. Okay, it is concievable that the people you just made up could have also been anything else that you want to throw in there. Maybe one of them has that $100 you owe me.

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

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.

"whining"? You come to this debate with incoherent fairy tales and then you go one step further and make up the idea that I'm going to "whine" because you have embarassed yourself and Oneness people all over the world?

I've already put one poster to bed by showing him I could prove a negative. What you need to understand is that we live in a universe that we can rationally observe, record and measure. In the years under question there is no "unbroken line" of Acts 2:38 salvation being preached. None. You can't even make one up for us to play "pretend" with, otherwise we'd have had it presented by now.

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

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.

See my earlier post on the Old Celtic Church. We can surmise that they may have baptized in Jesus name, but we have their own records attesting to their "Trinitarian orthodoxy." Your "logic problem" becomes a problem with reality.

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

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.

Christopher, you can't even name a single "modalist tongue talking" individual for the time period under discussion. I don't know what kind of odds your imaginary friends need to have in order to become real, but could you help us all out by providing at least a little substance for your proud assertions?

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

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.

Christopher, Christopher... what "revivals" are you talking about? You can't just make stuff up and expect everybody to believe you. Some Pentecostal preachers get away with that, but I've been doing my best to shut down such wolves preying upon the people of God. We demand truth! We will settle for nothing less.

You should read David Bernard's series on the history of the church. If you can't afford the PPH prices PM me... (shhh!).

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Please read...

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...l/New-Ch10.htm

Read that when the ink was still wet and you were in diapers.

Still no continuous line. Still no "modalist tongue talkers" for the years under question.

Again Chris, my confidence is that we don't even need to find such things. If something turns up, well that's great and history is always interesting. But our faith and our beliefs that we hold dear must be communicated to our children in such a way so that when we are gone, and our children are standing under the sword, they will have the absolute confidence to know what to do.

I don't want my grand child to say, "Well grandpa was way off when he said the Albigensians were Oneness people, so how can I trust anything grandpa said, especially when my life depends upon it?"