Is Acts 2:38 Really Supported by History?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

The first secualr college Iwent to in the 1980's I was required to take a class in Western Civilization. One chapter spoke of the birth of the Christian church and the experience on the Day of Pentecost, and then the next chapter spoke of Peter being the first pope of the Catholic church.

As was always my custom in secular college [quite vocal] I raised my hand and asked, "How did Peter go from being the first to preach on the Day of Pentecost to the Pope of the Roman Catholic church?" The professor said we would talk after class. When class was finished he told me that Peter was never Catholic but he had to teach it that way according to policy of the college.



Blessings, Rhoni

Wow..that's pretty sad...this was a secular college? There is nearly no evidence whatsoever Peter was ever even in Rome let alone the Pope enthroned there. And the RCC did not really have a foundational beginning until sometime after Constantine....it was shaping up to being a city in leadership, but it was not THE "capital" if all christianity

[TRFrance]

Pelathais...I'm not sure it was necessary to make an entirely new post out of this. But anyway...

1- You're really stuck on Arnold's book for some reason. My conversations on the topic included him and then moved on to other historical references regarding elements of Acts 2:38/water-spirit doctrine...but you're stuck on him and his book like a dog to a bone. Quite puzzling.

2- As I've said on another post "I don’t claim that his book is proof that Acts 2:38 salvation 'exists in an unbroken line throughout history'. I do contend say that the historical information out there, (both in his book and outside of it), lends credence to the contention that Acts 2:38 salvation always existed somewhere, even though there is not a solid paper trail to prove it definitively.

3- I have never claimed that it was important to contend that there was an unbroken line throughout history. That is a false argument. You've set up this "straw man" argument and then torn it down quite impressively. I get the feeling you're quite proud of your rhetorical prowess. But again, arguing forcefully against something I've never even said is really not all that impressive in the end, is it?

4- Your post could easily give one the false impression that I was trying to "prove" my religion by an demonstrating an unbroken line of adherents throughout the centuries. It appears that some of those who've posted on this thread so far may have already gotten that impression. But that (whether intentional or not) would be an unfortunate misrepresentation of what I expressed to you in several posts on that previous thread.

My original point (back on that other thread) simply had to do with the fact that one particular aspect of water/spirit doctrine ,i.e. the idea of baptism for remission of sins, was a common idea in Christendom through many centuries (even though it wasn't always applied in Jesus' name.) It was a simple historical reference as part of a larger point being made, a point you've apparently missed by now. I'm surprised you've taken that small molehill and turn it into Mount Everest.

I don't know why you have such a fixation with this topic.

Is that somewhat related to your comment on that previous thread ?:

Originally Posted by pelathais

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

As for me, there's nothing for me to "battle" about. The Acts 2:38 salvation plan is the only valid biblical plan of salvation. Now if there were historical references to prove that others held the same beliefs throughout the centuries, then fine; that would be interesting to know. But even if there is no such proof to be found, it's irrelevant. Acts.2:38 was the plan of salvation on the day of Pentecost, and its still the plan of salvation today in 2007.

.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I would think to find true Christian History an appeal to the Bible is enough.
BTW I do believe all are supposed to be baptized in Jesus Name, however there is no power in H20 to regenerate anyone.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Does it matter if history supports it?

What history?

Who's history?

Isn't the Bible enough?

Let's look at the roots of this very forum and show why this post is wrong.

Prior to AFF, we were at NFCF. Pelathais if there was a lurker.
Prior to NFCF, we were at FCF
FaithChildForum and NewFaithChildForum are property of the Yohe Family.

Seems a radical name of Jim Yohe encouraged others to think waaaaaaaaay outside of the box.

This thread causes exactly that. Thought outside the box. Somethings that are written and taught are nothing more than Urban Legends.

Thinking is good.

[nwlife]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Does it matter if history supports it?

What history?

Who's history?

Isn't the Bible enough?

My great-uncle who was a high ranking member of the tulsa area mormans, used a very, very, similar argument in defending the book of mormon.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

I live in Mineola, a rural town in East TX.

Sis. Cneasttx,

My eldest brother lives in Mineola also. He and his wife have lived there

approx. 8 yrs. They attend church where Bro. IAin'tMovin's father pastored

until a short time ago when he retired. They have a new pastor from Okla.

there now.

Blessings,

Falla39

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

A more well known writer did and had access for a while before being shut out. I have gone through some unorganized archival material there back before the third floor was added. I'm sure that I wouldn't even recognize anything today.

The guy who "holds the keys" today kind of owes me a favor, but he would never admit it and he would certainly not allow the likes of me in there in the current climate of the UPC.

What's so damaging that those papers have to be top secret, classified, highly confidential?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Pelathais...I'm not sure it was necessary to make an entirely new post out of this. But anyway...

1- You're really stuck on Arnold's book for some reason. My conversations on the topic included him and then moved on to other historical references regarding elements of Acts 2:38/water-spirit doctrine...but you're stuck on him and his book like a dog to a bone. Quite puzzling.

LOL. Thanks, I think. It's important because his book keeps coming up even though it's been so thoroughly discredited by others over the years. In the past, I was often pushed to the front to be an "apologist" for OP doctrine. I was endlessly embarassed by the things that I had to defend as a younger man. I also wanted to "walk the line" out of respect and no question the things that were thrust into my hands by my elders. When I met Bro. Arnold and he himself would not defend his own writings I knew something was up.

If you want to move past it, so be it.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

2- As I've said on another post "I don’t claim that his book is proof that Acts 2:38 salvation 'exists in an unbroken line throughout history'. I do contend say that the historical information out there, (both in his book and outside of it), lends credence to the contention that Acts 2:38 salvation always existed somewhere, even though there is not a solid paper trail to prove it definitively.

This tricky part of what you say is "always." We find tantalizing hints sometimes, but no real evidence. Like I told Mizpeh, as a student of history I'm always looking for this kind of stuff and would love to find new info, but I've disappointed so mant times that I have grown skeptical.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

3- I have never claimed that it was important to contend that there was an unbroken line throughout history. That is a false argument. You've set up this "straw man" argument and then torn it down quite impressively. I get the feeling you're quite proud of your rhetorical prowess. But again, arguing forcefully against something I've never even said is really not all that impressive in the end, is it?

I'm not too interested in being "impressive." Like I said before, you presented a chain of reasoning to support a series of statements. If I misunderstood your enthusiasm for the matter, I apologize.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

4- Your post could easily give one the false impression that I was trying to "prove" my religion by an demonstrating an unbroken line of adherents throughout the centuries. It appears that some of those who've posted on this thread so far may have already gotten that impression. But that (whether intentional or not) would be an unfortunate misrepresentation of what I expressed to you in several posts on that previous thread.

Point well taken, thanks. TRFrance and I are in apparent agreement?
"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."

Originally Posted by TRFrance

My original point (back on that other thread) simply had to do with the fact that one particular aspect of water/spirit doctrine ,i.e. the idea of baptism for remission of sins, was a common idea in Christendom through many centuries (even though it wasn't always applied in Jesus' name.) It was a simple historical reference as part of a larger point being made, a point you've apparently missed by now. I'm surprised you've taken that small molehill and turn it into Mount Everest.

I don't know why you have such a fixation with this topic.

Is that somewhat related to your comment on that previous thread ?:

Not sure which comment you mean (I was overly verbose). But the works of Arnold, Chalfant, Weisser and others have stigmatized our fellowship. I personally asked Arnold about his work and he side stepped the whole thing. I watched Chalfant, in a room full of brethren who loved him, fumble and stumble about trying to defend his historical approach which he called "extrapolation."

We are and will continue to be under attack for our beliefs. Personally, I'm tired of being caught on the front lines with a rifle that doesn't work. When I've seen my brothers fall I was unable to help them or even to help myself. My thoughts are: it's better for us to settle this in a forum where the results really don't matter that much than for you and I to find ourselves sitting some place where the video will be recorded and be left say "uhm" and "er" and not having anything of substance to offer in defense of the Gospel.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

As for me, there's nothing for me to "battle" about. The Acts 2:38 salvation plan is the only valid biblical plan of salvation. Now if there were historical references to prove that others held the same beliefs throughout the centuries, then fine; that would be interesting to know. But even if there is no such proof to be found, it's irrelevant. Acts.2:38 was the plan of salvation on the day of Pentecost, and its still the plan of salvation today in 2007.

Complete agreement. Thanks. Nothing personal was intended but I honestly felt that I had to grind that axe. Sorry for the misunderstandings along the way.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

What's so damaging that those papers have to be top secret, classified, highly confidential?

That's unknown, though Thomas Fudge does cite one letter and an entry in Brother Goss's diary that seem to amount to a confession to some of the "morals" accusations against Parham.

It may be that there are statements about people still living, in which case it would be a standard procedure to leave some things tucked away until all concerned have passed. Our American government has done that with historical records in the past, though now they throw open anything salacious just for the "fun" of it.

However, a full explanation should always be given when records are kept shut. If nothing else, it stifles at least some of the inevitable conspiracy theories.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Does it matter if history supports it?

What history?

Who's history?

Isn't the Bible enough?

No, PP it is not enough, someone has to interpret the scripture, we all either accept what someone else says it all means or else what we personally have decided that it means. That is why a study of history, and what students of the Bible thru the ages have had to say about the Bible is so important. We must take the record (both history and the Word, and our spiritual leaders) and allow the Holy Spirit to enlighten the eyes of our understanding. Otherwise, we are just taking someone else's opinion for it.