How many times did you ask God for the Holy Ghost?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

And yet... (here we go again)...

The startling absence of any one - not one - not one single person - not one single reference - not a hint - nothing! - nobody - teaching the "full package Acts 2:38," message at any point from about the year 200 AD until 1913 gives us a pretty good idea that there is a huge gap along the way.

Simply put - nobody taught this message during that time frame. Nobody.

Still... If what we have as history was as as complete and infallible as the Bible I would agree with you. I believe there was always a church who taught this.

I have to live with my own conscience as to what I think the bible says. Period. My choice, but my belief.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Because the assertion is frequently made that this was always taught all throughout the church age. It clearly was not.

From there we go to our challenge: Did the "church" die out for all those years, or are those who insist that the "full package Acts 2:38," message is the only means to salvation mistaken?

I believe that the church and her Savior have been triumphant.

It was in the Bible, Pel. Goodness, who cares if anyone recorded anything about it in the annals of history? I don't. His Word is forever settled in heaven. He didn't include Josephus, et al, in that. LOL!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Still... If what we have as history was as as complete and infallible as the Bible I would agree with you. I believe there was always a church who taught this.

I have to live with my own conscience as to what I think the bible says. Period. My choice, but my belief.

Touche' - good post!

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It's pretty much laid out in the Bible. Why are we looking for history here?

Well, one would think that the powerful, viable and victorious church of the Living God would be just as visible as all those false churches in the 1800's, yet it's not. It's nowhere to be found. Until after 1913.

Where was the visible, viable and powerful church in the 1800's?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Well, one would think that the powerful, viable and victorious church of the Living God would be just as visible as all those false churches in the 1800's, yet it's not. It's nowhere to be found. Until after 1913.

Where was the visible, viable and powerful church in the 1800's?

But it's in His Word. Will we be derailed by the writings of men?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Still... If what we have as history was as as complete and infallible as the Bible I would agree with you. I believe there was always a church who taught this.

I have to live with my own conscience as to what I think the bible says. Period. My choice, but my belief.

It's really not about incomplete history, it's about a total lack of a visible, viable and powerful church of the Living God for several centuries....until after 1913 at which time we suddenly begin having some sort of record of the church.

Why would there be a total absence of the church until 1913 do you think? Did the gates of hell prevail against the church in the 1800's?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Still... If what we have as history was as as complete and infallible as the Bible I would agree with you. I believe there was always a church who taught this.

I have to live with my own conscience as to what I think the bible says. Period. My choice, but my belief.

Your assertion of the Bible being "complete" is a bit lacking, IMHO. There is scant mention of which of Noah's sons were the ancestors of the Polynesians. It's like the ancient Hebrews were completely unaware of the existence of Polynesians. The enormously populous races of the Chinese and the inhabitants of the Subcontinent of India are MIA as well.

And "infallible" depends upon one's interpretation. The "plenary verbal inspiration" of the fundamentalists fails the infallibility test when considering verses like 1 Kings 7:23 and a host of others.

Given all of that uncertainty, I find that when I am in dialog with someone about the Bible's claims and my own claim that salvation is real, I need to be as accurate as possible to maintain any credibility whatsoever. Thus, I have to admit that my own views on the New Birth and such are an historical novelty, birthed from the fertile fields of 19th Century Dispensationalism and Fundamentalism and that they do not represent the historic teachings of the Christian community.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It was in the Bible, Pel. Goodness, who cares if anyone recorded anything about it in the annals of history? I don't. His Word is forever settled in heaven. He didn't include Josephus, et al, in that. LOL!

How dare you "LOL" at Flavius Josephus!

If it's so clear in the Bible, why did this escape the attention of everyone for 1700 years of the church's 2000 year existence?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

But it's in His Word. Will we be derailed by the writings of men?

It's your assertion that it's "His Word." So now we must evaluate your writings.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Your assertion of the Bible being "complete" is a bit lacking, IMHO. There is scant mention of which of Noah's sons were the ancestors of the Polynesians. It's like the ancient Hebrews were completely unaware of the existence of Polynesians. The enormously populous races of the Chinese and the inhabitants of the Subcontinent of India are MIA as well.

Woah! What chu tawkin about?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Woah! What chu tawkin about?

I'm sorry, but the font encoding for my browser doesn't render that clearly. What are you speaking of?