Very Interesting From The Apostolic News

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by coadie

Good old heretic hunters. What will you do to them after you round them up?

Coadie, you have no idea what your talking about. Back away slowly so as not to get hurt.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by DAII

If his recent interview is any indication of how he montages his information ... then don't stay up too late waiting for it ...

It would NOT surprise me, if Boora's scholarship in his new baptism book, promoted by the Enseyites, is wrought with cropped misquotations and faulty conclusions ... if this recent interview is any indication of the patchwork scholarship that besets Apostolica :

Boora in his August 2010 interview with Paul Baumeister, a leading editor of the Apostolic News -
Quote:


Well let's look at the entire quote by Christopher Wadsworth ... mis-attributed to a Charles Wodsworth by the author ... and perhaps Boora himself:



Notice parts conspicuously missing or cropped in quote 1 by Boora in comparison .... to the actual Wodsworth quote ... while omitting unfavorable language and context?

This Augustine sourced quote in its totality no doubt affirms Wodsworth belief in three persons in the Godhead and that being in baptized in the name of Christ is in effect being baptized in the Trinity but in no way is supporting a historical view affirming the validity of Jesus name baptism.

Nor does it express necessary invocation .... nor does it show that Jesus name baptism flourished during that time or any time?

Notice Wodsworth, a paedobaptist not supporting immersion ... later in his commentary???


Here Wodsworth sources another piece authored by Augustine where he affirms baptism in the Trinity used by the 12 Apostles and their successors ... and a reference to the belief that they would be baptized or let down three times (page 52)




Here Wodsworth affirms the belief of a Triune baptism conferring grace (page 92):



I am tempted to buy this Ensey-sponsored book ... just to see what other adulterations are present. I know Pelathais has read some of his work already.

If Boora can use Wodsworth as part of a montage of quotes to conclude:

....

Then color me an atheist and a theological doctor myself.

Source: The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: in the ..., Volume 2 By Christopher Wordsworth

http://books.google.com/books?id=RuI...rinity&f=false
__________________

Why do they lie like this? Do they not know that their lies will be discovered??? Or do they know that there are those who believe what is spoon fed to them from "Apostolic" leaders regardless of the facts? I actually had a man tell me, "I don't care what the FACTS are, I'm obeying my pastor!" Well... that's one way to be led into the ditch.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by DAII

I have read this other Kal Boora quote in his interview with Baumeister ...



And have compared them with the greater context of Mason's thoughts about the Novation writings ... and I must say it is taken out of greater context with some quotes completely changed or non-existent.

This book by Mason can be viewed here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=skB...page&q&f=false

I will give specific examples and images of pages later this evening.

Have you declared him an anathema?


to be .banished, exiled, excommunicated

Heat up the oil.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by coadie

Have you declared him an anathema?


to be .banished, exiled, excommunicated

Heat up the oil.

Yes, Dan heat up the oil, Coadie would like a bath.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Justin

Do you have any proof of Arnold's Oneness history book being "corrupt"?

"Corrupt" in the sense of inaccurate? Yes. The book itself is proof. This has been hashed over on here quite a number of times.

Adino worked with Marvin Arnold - with some reservations, and he's a great source of personal info. I spoke to Marvin Arnold personally myself on one occasion and asked specifically about his claims that the Albigensians of the 13th Century were "Oneness Apostolic Acts 2:38 believers."

Bro. Arnold responded that since the RCC had "burned all of their books" there was no way to prove that they were not. I then informed him that the library at a nearby university had copies of original Albigensian writings and their English translations. He stammered a bit and had to be "saved" by our mutual host.

Arnold's work is a complete fiction. Plain and simple. Arnold was surprised to find out that there were actual Albigensian works available. This seems to be a poor testament of his "research."

His book was essentially a "Oneness" retelling of J.M. Carrol's earlier book about "how the Baptists had always existed throughout Church history." Instead of saying "Baptist," Arnold merely inserted the words "Oneness" or "Acts 2:38."

Originally Posted by Adino

The late church historian, Rev. Marvin M. Arnold who wrote, "The Origin and Spread of Man," "History of the Christian Church," "Nicaea and the Nicene Council of AD 325," "Pentecost (Acts 2:38 in America) Before Azusa," "Apostolic History Outline" and "The Bible Trinity and Matthew 28:19" could not find a single witness to the current water/spirit interpretation. If someone else has succeeded where he failed, please show us the historical evidence. Thank you.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

Thank you for being honest with this.
Just curious, how do you reconcile this with how some preach that the church will not be prevailed against?

I think you may have read over my post a little too quickly. I said that "The Church" was comprised of those who Jesus Christ has saved. He at least appears to have been saving rather consistently over the past 2,000 years.

Originally Posted by Sam

Do you believe in an early and latter rain with a period of drought in between? or the idea that God's people were still God's people while they were in the wilderness or in captivity and did not keep the rituals?

I said that my ecclesiology involves the so-called "Acts 2:38 formula." Others are obviously free to insert whatever prayers and God honoring affirmations they wish. It is Jesus Who saves, not our rituals or even the works of righteousness that we have done (Titus 3:5). Jesus saves.

Originally Posted by Sam

My personal opinion is that water baptism in Jesus' name is a truth but is not necessary for salvation so the church is still the church without it. Also, the Holy Ghost baptism and the gifts are empowerments from God and not necessary for salvation so the church is the church without them. In my opinion, justification/salvation/regeneration happens when one trusts in Jesus as Savior and there have always been some (they would make up the Church) who have trusted in Jesus. That's how I see the Church always existing.

It is my opinion that "Jesus' name baptism" as advocated so strenuously by some is neither "a truth" nor an "untruth." It's merely a side-track to a much more important discussion.

We have a Savior. Jesus saves. We don't need decoder rings or "special revelations" to be saved. We just need a Savior.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by DAII

I think Kal has the same problem ... he can try to prove baptism with the right formula being used ... but even his examples of Anglican paedobaptists baptizing primarily babies by sprinkling in the name of Christ (not Gee-zuz) falls considerably short of the "Apostolic" message.

Yes. There were many elements of the "Three Step" throughout history but there is not a single shred of evidence that anyone practiced the "full package" until the 20th Century.

This of course presents no problem at all for those who believe that Jesus Christ Himself is the Savior. Those who demand formula or rituals being done in just the right manner will have some problems. Formulas and rituals don't save. Jesus saves.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Yes, Dan heat up the oil, Coadie would like a bath.

I'm afraid we're losing the coadster again. It's all so very sad. He was almost lucid the past couple of day. Oh well, hang in there coadie. We're all rooting for you and hoping that you'll be able to form a sentence again sometime soon.

[DAII]

Boora in his interview, referencing his book states:

Mason’s work notes quite distinctively that baptism in the name of Jesus is nevertheless sufficient to secure salvation. Thus, as Professor Mason notes (see p. 132 of the version published by Bibliolife, LLC):

“Baptism, though uncompleted by confirmation, is nevertheless sufficient to secure salvation… and this, even if the formula be … only the name of Jesus Christ.”

Did the author Mason, state, or note this, Kal? Really?

First, you chose to chop off the unfavorable parts from the quote itself ... that refers to this formula as "defective" :



Second, Kal, you do realize Mason's giving a commentary and directly quoting from "De Rabaptismate" (p,.123,129,130), which some attribute to Cyprian, and concluding this to be Cyprian's authorial intent?

If your intent is to show that some have baptized in the name of Jesus thoughout Anglo-Catholic history ... this is not news but misrepresenting context and quotes makes your work spurious.

Source: Mason's book .... http://books.google.com/books?id=skB...page&q&f=false

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yes. There were many elements of the "Three Step" throughout history but there is not a single shred of evidence that anyone practiced the "full package" until the 20th Century.
This of course presents no problem at all for those who believe that Jesus Christ Himself is the Savior. Those who demand formula or rituals being done in just the right manner will have some problems. Formulas and rituals don't save. Jesus saves.

How many languages do you read? Where are all the big Oneness Seminaries with their original works libraries? You aren't famous for providing evidence.