Banned from AMF

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Barb

Yes...

You are coming at this with the thought that "if my doctrine is true then there must have been people throughout history to believe this way" and "my doctrine is true therefore there have always been people who believed this way."

P -> Q

There is an equally true way of looking at this:

not Q -> not P

This would be the thought that "if there weren't people throughout history that believed this way then my doctrine isn't true" and "there weren't people throughout history who believed this way therefore my doctrine isn't true."
---------------------

I suppose there isn't anyway to prove that there weren't people all throughout history that believed that way. There is evidence though: the lack of evidence that anyone believed that way is evidence that no one believed that way. But this is not conclusive.

I suppose someone might could prove what they believe from the bible. Though I think this is much harder said then done. Take this forum for example. We are always arguing about which doctrine is right and which is not.

So I'm not really sure if we can solely depend on one approach concerning this...
I think both should be considered and neither totally relied upon.

[Scott Hutchinson]

This is lengthy.
http://books.google.com/books?id=VcT...age&q=&f=false

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://ecclesiasticalhistory.com/chr...chaff_ch04.htm

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Interesting that you would bring that up. Because I for one have no idea what you are referring to. Therefore if anyone had a problem or issue with these chaps the above would confirm any harshness they had in their mind towards these individuals. Therefore it just makes the messenger look bad.
People won't say anything directly to the messenger, they will just chalk it up to that he or she thinks they are better than everyone else. Therefore correcting them is a futile endeavor, and the well need not a physician.

You're reeling now EB. I "spoke" (via Internet postings) directly with one of the ones involved in the "gay jesting." I was banned for bringing it up with him. He questions my "ethics."

As far as background goes, review the thread on AMF about the BOTT conference - see especially the posts about "hugging," "hugging below the waist" and "sharing hotel rooms."

The reason I brought it up here was because this same man had banned another poster for questioning the "Three Stepper" perversion of history that's needed to maintain your delusion. Not satisfied with merely banning the poster, the man came on AFF and began to taunt both him and other posters.

That's when I decided that I'd had enough and commented on the "gay jesting" mess. I was essentially called a liar for even suggesting that such "men of God" would say such things - so I offered to email the threads in question to any who ask.

That offer still stands. PM me with your email address and I'll send you the thread and posts themselves. You can be the "judge" on this one.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Barb

I had just told someone I was going to take a forum break, and then I read your post. Kinda makes me feel like the Godfather..."Just when I thought I was OUT, they pull me back in!!"

David, I'm not sure on what you base your declaration that "God very clearly did not preserve an "Acts 2:38, Full Package Three Stepper Church" throughout approximately 1,700 years of the Church Age."

Is it a lack of historical proof?

Sadly, I thought we had it in the form of a book, only to discover that the book is incorrect.

But be that as it may, I am a believer that the life of the message endured.

Posted below is something I wrote not long ago in response to Daniel. I don't have any thought in the world that my little opinion or belief will make a bit of difference in someone's opinion or belief, but for whatever it is worth, here it is...

Thank you Barb, and sorry about interrupting your break!

Some would say that the "absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." This is an old saying and applied to a number of circumstances.

However, this saying fails here for a number of reasons. We are talking about a period of time that covers about 1,700 years out of almost 2,000 years. That represents the vast majority of church history.

We are also talking about a time when (from about 900 A.D. through to the present) the records of Christendom are rather extensive and rather extensively preserved. It is true that the "preservation" of records was at times selective, but the "heretical" writings and the writings of pagans and other non-Christians is relatively massive, especially after the invention of the printing press.

We can see that for much of this period the Roman Catholic Church as we know it simply did not yet exist. We can see a large number of rival Christian sects and even completely rival religions that often made the adherents to the Roman rite the minority.

What we cannot ever see is a "full package Acts 2:38 church" - nor even a single such believer - in existence for about 1,700 of the almost 2,000 years since Pentecost 30 A.D.

Given that scope of detail, and over such a broad sweep of history it is unreasonable to maintain that such a belief was ever extant in a continuous form for all those years. We don't even have any evidence of it popping up "here and there" - not once until the early 20th century.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Daniel - I meant nothing by putting "you" in quotes other that to emphasize my thoughts that YOU don't preach/teach everything exactly like YOUR Dad did. This was in reference to your comment that if KH believed in a remnant church through the dark ages, it put HIM at odds with what HIS Dad believed....


We are in total agreement agree on the bolded above! KH is a very gracious man - and He teaches/preaches the grace of God in a strong way!!! He believes it and he extends grace and mercy to many that others would condemn! He is an awesome man of God! I am so thankful for the years I was able to sit under his ministry!

I did not say this put KH at odds with his dad ... I stated that this seemingly contrasts with his dad's views on Friends of the Bride. The semantical difference is important.

Also, I was not referring to KH as the gracious elder ... although he is .... but rather your dad, having sat and chatted with him face to face... along with your lovely mother about 2 years ago. I have witnessed his graciousness with me and my family in many ways since we forged our friendship here at AFF.

I have enjoyed many of our ensuing chats ... including theological ones ... as well

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by DAII

I did not say this put KH at odds with his dad ... I stated that this seemingly contrasts with his dad's views on Friends of the Bride. The semantical difference is important.

Also, I was not referring to KH as the gracious elder ... although he is .... but rather your dad, having sat and chatted with him face to face... along with your lovely mother about 2 years ago. I have witnessed his graciousness with me and my family in many ways since we forged our friendship here at AFF.

I have enjoyed many of our ensuing chats ... including theological ones ... as well

Sorry - you must have me mixed up with someone else! I'm quite sure that you have never met my dad - and I am just as sure that you have never had any theological discussions with him....

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Brother David

Thank you Barb, and sorry about interrupting your break!

Some would say that the "absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." This is an old saying and applied to a number of circumstances.

However, this saying fails in many respects here for a number of reasons. We are talking about a period of time that covers about 1,700 years out of almost 2,000 years. That represents the vast majority of church history.

We are also talking about a time when (from about 900 A.D. through to the present) the records of Christendom are rather extensive and rather extensively preserved. It is true that the "preservation" of records was at times selective, but the "heretical" writings and the writings of pagans and other non-Christians is relatively massive, especially after the invention of the printing press.

We can see that for much of this period the Roman Catholic Church as we know it simply did not yet exist. We can see a large number of rival Christian sects and even completely rival religions that often made the adherents to the Roman rite the minority.

What we cannot ever see is a "full package Acts 2:38 church" - nor even a single such believer - in existence for about 1,700 of the almost 2,000 years since Pentecost 30 A.D.

Given that scope of detail, and over such a broad sweep of history it is unreasonable to maintain that such a belief was ever extant in a continuous form for all those years. We don't even have any evidence of it popping up "here and there" - not once until the early 20th century.

It also seemingly puts at odds two theological ideas as presented by those who teach remnant theology ...

As most Christians firmly God is almighty and powerful and loves His Church ...

and according to this group, Matthew 16:18 says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the 3 stepper Church ...

Yet it would seem that if there is no evidence and the facts remain hidden for 1700 years ... that our Sovereign God is enfeebled as has not been able to reveal His Truth and the Church remains bunkered.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Sorry - you must have me mixed up with someone else! I'm quite sure that you have never met my dad - and I am just as sure that you have never had any theological discussions with him....

I am sorry .. I had someone else in mind from the CLC family ... whose child also has posted here.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by DAII

I am sorry .. I had someone else in mind from the CLC family ... whose child also has posted here.

No need to be "sorry". I'm thinking you are probably referring to Raven - and it would be an honor to be a part of his family - however, he might not appreciate it that you thought he was my dad.