-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
Let's look at this:
1. Patristic quotations of this verse prior to the Council of Nicaea read "in my name"
Quotations are found in the Didache (100 AD), Ignatius of Antioch (107-112 AD), Iranaeus (130-200), Tertullian (160-220), and Victorinus (270-303).
2. Scriptural examples of baptism uniformly document baptism done only in Jesus' name.
I conceed that in the book of Acts.
3. No other place in scripture prescribes, commands, or documents a trinitarian baptism.
Other than Matthew. On the other hand there are dozens of trinitarian passages, written by every human author in the New Testament, therefore giving plenty of support to Matthews's formula.
4. As you noted, we have no manuscripts that testify to your reading of Matthew prior to Nicaea.
There are no Greek manuscripts of Matthew that have any variation on the trinitarian formula. There is no textual evidence that this was not in Matthew. Rejecting this would involve rejecting Matthew's story of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Your implication is that there are manuscripts with variation before the council and with the trinitarian formula after, which is a false implication.
5. Scripture clearly teaches that baptism is the picture of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6), which would explain why it is done in His name.
And yet scripture never makes the connection. Never does Paul say, "This is why we baptize in Jesus name."
6. Without clear evidence that Matthew even belongs in the text, there is no reason to discuss either the Greek or the English grammar.
Yet the KJV, the NIV, the NASB, the ESV, the RSV, the NKJV, the Living, the GNFMM, the Phillips, the Jerusalem, the Textus Recepticus and the Nestle text all agree that is does belong in the text. You are building the entire argument on sand. Up against every major translation, the entire textual evidence, and the entire historical evidence, all the grammatical evidence, who is being dogmatic?
1. Patristic quotations of this verse prior to the Council of Nicaea read "in my name"
Quotations are found in the Didache (100 AD), Ignatius of Antioch (107-112 AD), Iranaeus (130-200), Tertullian (160-220), and Victorinus (270-303).
2. Scriptural examples of baptism uniformly document baptism done only in Jesus' name.
I conceed that in the book of Acts.
3. No other place in scripture prescribes, commands, or documents a trinitarian baptism.
Other than Matthew. On the other hand there are dozens of trinitarian passages, written by every human author in the New Testament, therefore giving plenty of support to Matthews's formula.
4. As you noted, we have no manuscripts that testify to your reading of Matthew prior to Nicaea.
There are no Greek manuscripts of Matthew that have any variation on the trinitarian formula. There is no textual evidence that this was not in Matthew. Rejecting this would involve rejecting Matthew's story of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Your implication is that there are manuscripts with variation before the council and with the trinitarian formula after, which is a false implication.
5. Scripture clearly teaches that baptism is the picture of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6), which would explain why it is done in His name.
And yet scripture never makes the connection. Never does Paul say, "This is why we baptize in Jesus name."
6. Without clear evidence that Matthew even belongs in the text, there is no reason to discuss either the Greek or the English grammar.
Yet the KJV, the NIV, the NASB, the ESV, the RSV, the NKJV, the Living, the GNFMM, the Phillips, the Jerusalem, the Textus Recepticus and the Nestle text all agree that is does belong in the text. You are building the entire argument on sand. Up against every major translation, the entire textual evidence, and the entire historical evidence, all the grammatical evidence, who is being dogmatic?
P
After reading most of the back and forth that has transpired here between those of the “Trinitarian” persuasion and those of the “Oneness” persuasion, it makes me wonder if they would have also considered the Apostle Paul a heretic since he taught something totally different than what the majority of mainstream Christianity has apparently been deluded to believe about the Godhead.
Paul told the Corinthians the following:
“To US there is only ONE GOD, THE FATHER
OUT OF WHOM are all things and WE are FOR HIM.”
And followed that with:
“To US there is also only ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST
THROUGH WHOM are all things and WE are THROUGH HIM.”
Isn’t it strange that he stopped right there and did not say any more? If the doctrine of the “Trinity” were Truth, you would think Paul would have continued with something along the lines of:
“And lastly, to US there is also only ONE HOLY SPIRIT BY WHOM are all things and WE BY HIM”,
Or, if the “Oneness” doctrine were Truth, he should have said something along the lines of:
“To US there is only ONE GOD, THE FATHER, Who is THE LORD, JESUS CHRIST and Who is also the HOLY SPIRIT OUT OF WHOM are all things and WE FOR HIM (THEM?).”
This would not only have been a very serious omission on Paul’s part but he also missed an excellent opportunity to introduce the TRUE make up of the Godhead to the former idol worshipping and idol sacrificing Corinthian believers.
Surely Paul, being the very knowledgeable Hebrew scholar that he was and having recently been taught directly by Jesus Christ Himself, would have known that there are supposedly “three persons” in the Godhead, or that there is supposedly only one person “playing” the role of two others and would have made that known to the Corinthian church. Wouldn’t he?
But he didn’t.
So why didn’t he? Because he knew full well what the composition of the Godhead was and it is neither a “Trinity” of Deities nor a “Oneness” Deity. Paul was making known EXACTLY what he had received from the risen Lord, as evidenced by how he concluded the above portion of his epistle:
“BUT NOT EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.”
And also as evidenced by what the Scriptures say and by what he wrote elsewhere:
For just as the HEAD OF THE WOMAN IS MAN, because OUT OF THE MAN CAME THE WOMAN and THROUGH THE WOMAN comes ALL OF HUMANITY………
So also is GOD, THE FATHER, IS THE HEAD OF JESUS CHRIST, because OUT OF GOD came forth………... HIS IMAGE, THE WORD, THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION, THE SON, THE LORD…………….. JESUS CHRIST.
And THROUGH JESUS CHRIST……….. THE LORD, HIS IMAGE, THE WORD, THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION, THE SON……….. GOD THE FATHER created ALL THINGS that exist both in heaven and in the earth.
Therefore, JESUS CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF MAN since THROUGH HIM was MAN-KIND CREATED.
So it seems to me that this whole question of there being a Godhead composed of a “Trinity” or a “Oneness” simply comes down to this:
Are you one of the “US”-es or are you one of the “EVERYONE”-es?
Paul told the Corinthians the following:
“To US there is only ONE GOD, THE FATHER
OUT OF WHOM are all things and WE are FOR HIM.”
And followed that with:
“To US there is also only ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST
THROUGH WHOM are all things and WE are THROUGH HIM.”
Isn’t it strange that he stopped right there and did not say any more? If the doctrine of the “Trinity” were Truth, you would think Paul would have continued with something along the lines of:
“And lastly, to US there is also only ONE HOLY SPIRIT BY WHOM are all things and WE BY HIM”,
Or, if the “Oneness” doctrine were Truth, he should have said something along the lines of:
“To US there is only ONE GOD, THE FATHER, Who is THE LORD, JESUS CHRIST and Who is also the HOLY SPIRIT OUT OF WHOM are all things and WE FOR HIM (THEM?).”
This would not only have been a very serious omission on Paul’s part but he also missed an excellent opportunity to introduce the TRUE make up of the Godhead to the former idol worshipping and idol sacrificing Corinthian believers.
Surely Paul, being the very knowledgeable Hebrew scholar that he was and having recently been taught directly by Jesus Christ Himself, would have known that there are supposedly “three persons” in the Godhead, or that there is supposedly only one person “playing” the role of two others and would have made that known to the Corinthian church. Wouldn’t he?
But he didn’t.
So why didn’t he? Because he knew full well what the composition of the Godhead was and it is neither a “Trinity” of Deities nor a “Oneness” Deity. Paul was making known EXACTLY what he had received from the risen Lord, as evidenced by how he concluded the above portion of his epistle:
“BUT NOT EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.”
And also as evidenced by what the Scriptures say and by what he wrote elsewhere:
For just as the HEAD OF THE WOMAN IS MAN, because OUT OF THE MAN CAME THE WOMAN and THROUGH THE WOMAN comes ALL OF HUMANITY………
So also is GOD, THE FATHER, IS THE HEAD OF JESUS CHRIST, because OUT OF GOD came forth………... HIS IMAGE, THE WORD, THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION, THE SON, THE LORD…………….. JESUS CHRIST.
And THROUGH JESUS CHRIST……….. THE LORD, HIS IMAGE, THE WORD, THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION, THE SON……….. GOD THE FATHER created ALL THINGS that exist both in heaven and in the earth.
Therefore, JESUS CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF MAN since THROUGH HIM was MAN-KIND CREATED.
So it seems to me that this whole question of there being a Godhead composed of a “Trinity” or a “Oneness” simply comes down to this:
Are you one of the “US”-es or are you one of the “EVERYONE”-es?
God loved us so much that he put the plan of redemption ahead of condemnation and sent his Son. God saved us through mercy (Titus 3:5) and grace (Eph 2:8) and the scriptures were inspired by God, who is the Father of all mercies (2Cor 1:3) and the God of all grace (1Pt 5:10). His words were not inspired apart from his mercy and grace. The faith that we receive from God's inspired word is according to mercy and grace and according to a gift of righteousness that is imputed to us when we believed (Rom 5:17,18, Rom 4;5-8). When we look at the scriptures we do not look at them according to the letter but according to their verbal inspiration. The letter kills but the Spirit of inspiration gives life (2Cor 3:6). So the words Christ speaks to us are spirit and life or inspired. If we do not believe that every word is verbally inspired then the word of God is not pure and our hearts are not pure. But if we believe every word is verbally inspired then our hearts are purified by the word and unto the pure all things or every word is pure (Titus 1:15). We are told to think on those things that are pure (Phil 4:8).
Concerning the members of the Godhead, every member is pure light and pure love and within each member there is no darkness and no fear at all (1Jn 1:5, Jn 8:12). We can accept the Godhead on the basis of pure light and pure love and upon the purity of every word that comes from the mouth of God. If we have a problem with the Godhead then our hearts are not pure and have not been purified by the truth (1Pt 1:22).
To live holy and to be holy as God is holy we must be merciful and gracious and live by every word of God. If we sin we confess it right away and let grace restore us immediately. If we continue in sin we will be chastised by the Father and if we continue in sin we will be scorged and if we do not respond to the scourging, God will take us through the sin unto physical death with no dying grace. We will be saved and go to heaven but will be ashamed and suffer the loss of rewards and our eternal weight of glory and joy will be dimished from others.
Concerning the members of the Godhead, every member is pure light and pure love and within each member there is no darkness and no fear at all (1Jn 1:5, Jn 8:12). We can accept the Godhead on the basis of pure light and pure love and upon the purity of every word that comes from the mouth of God. If we have a problem with the Godhead then our hearts are not pure and have not been purified by the truth (1Pt 1:22).
To live holy and to be holy as God is holy we must be merciful and gracious and live by every word of God. If we sin we confess it right away and let grace restore us immediately. If we continue in sin we will be chastised by the Father and if we continue in sin we will be scorged and if we do not respond to the scourging, God will take us through the sin unto physical death with no dying grace. We will be saved and go to heaven but will be ashamed and suffer the loss of rewards and our eternal weight of glory and joy will be dimished from others.
R
One final thought regarding Water Baptism in the Triune formula. In Matthew 16 verses 18+29; we see where Jesus gave Peter the "keys" whatsoever those shalt bind on earth., shall be bound in heaven"
Notice The Man with The "keys" by God's own Authority, told everyone gathered in the upper room, at the very first church service, to be Baptized in The Name of Jesus Christ, did he not? (Acts 2 v 38). So there is only a couple of conclusions we can come to
1. He knew Jesus is THE NAME of The Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
2. He disobeyed what Jesus said to do LITERALLY., and therefore lied to everyone at the first Church service.
I vote for #1.....Other wise Peter does not deserve to have the "keys" Jesus awarded him....
Notice The Man with The "keys" by God's own Authority, told everyone gathered in the upper room, at the very first church service, to be Baptized in The Name of Jesus Christ, did he not? (Acts 2 v 38). So there is only a couple of conclusions we can come to
1. He knew Jesus is THE NAME of The Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
2. He disobeyed what Jesus said to do LITERALLY., and therefore lied to everyone at the first Church service.
I vote for #1.....Other wise Peter does not deserve to have the "keys" Jesus awarded him....
I find it amazing that when we want to prove something from scripture, we take one or several verses and use them to support our thoughts. Notice that the thoughts do not come from the scripture, but that the scripture is used to support the thoughts. I have lately found this to be backwards, and that we should rather read and allow the Holy Spirit to give us His thoughts on what we read.
God's thoughts are not our thoughts. His thoughts are as far above our thoughts as the heavens are above the earth, (As the heavens are infinite, so are His thoughts above our thoughts.) But we hear a teaching, or read a study, and hear something which sounds good and reasonable to us, and decide that this is the truth. We read scripture and our mind gains certain truths which make sense to it, and this too is what we believe. And then we search to find ever supporting documents and teachings and verses of scripture to make our belief stronger, and to allow us to prove our belief to others, especially those who disagree with us.
This is not according to what Jesus teaches. He teaches to have righteous judgment, heavenly judgment, true judgment. When Jesus was questioning the disciples about who the people said He was, and having received all of the varied answers about what those people believed, He asked Peter who Peter said He was. Peter said that He was the Christ, the Son of God. And Jesus answered Peter and said that men did not reveal this to him, but that His Father in heaven revealed it to Peter. And then He said something even more amazing; that upon this revealing of the truth from God in heaven He would build His church. Not on the revelation of the truth to one man, or even a few, but to everyone who believes in Him. Our salvation is based upon this revelation, because He revealed Himself to us, as Christ and as Lord, risen from the dead; and this we believe and are saved.
"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said, that He will take of Mine, and will disclose it to you."
God's thoughts are not our thoughts. His thoughts are as far above our thoughts as the heavens are above the earth, (As the heavens are infinite, so are His thoughts above our thoughts.) But we hear a teaching, or read a study, and hear something which sounds good and reasonable to us, and decide that this is the truth. We read scripture and our mind gains certain truths which make sense to it, and this too is what we believe. And then we search to find ever supporting documents and teachings and verses of scripture to make our belief stronger, and to allow us to prove our belief to others, especially those who disagree with us.
This is not according to what Jesus teaches. He teaches to have righteous judgment, heavenly judgment, true judgment. When Jesus was questioning the disciples about who the people said He was, and having received all of the varied answers about what those people believed, He asked Peter who Peter said He was. Peter said that He was the Christ, the Son of God. And Jesus answered Peter and said that men did not reveal this to him, but that His Father in heaven revealed it to Peter. And then He said something even more amazing; that upon this revealing of the truth from God in heaven He would build His church. Not on the revelation of the truth to one man, or even a few, but to everyone who believes in Him. Our salvation is based upon this revelation, because He revealed Himself to us, as Christ and as Lord, risen from the dead; and this we believe and are saved.
"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said, that He will take of Mine, and will disclose it to you."
God has provided man with the scriptures so that man can think with God in the details of life. If I put scripture references after this comment, you will accuse me of supporting my thoughts with scripture. Perhaps I should reference the scriptures first and then make my comments, would that help you? Only an unwise and foolish man will lean on his own understanding and try to fit the scriptures into that mold. Many of us have done that early in our walk with God and we learned to acknowledge and to lean on him for our understanding. Scriptures are referenced so that others can see where those thoughts of understanding come from. You may not agree with them, and you often do not, but that does not mean that they do not come from God's verbally inspired written word. We have been given the scriptures to hid in our heart and to let dwell richly that we might not sin against God (Ps 119:130, Col 3:16), to be conformed into his image (Rom 8:29) and to have a word in season to give to them who are weary (Is 50:4). These are not my thoughts but God's thoughts and they teach me how to think with God and how to respond in the details of life by faith with the motivation of the love of God (Rom 5:5, Gal 4:6).
The issue that some are having concerning the Trinity and Oneness is simply competition in a fleshly mind that profanes the Godhead and brings it down to an earthly understanding for man to grasp with only his intellect and not with a fertile heart. I do not see the fruit of this debate magnifying Christ nor the edification it provides to the body of Christ. Many refer to the orthodox view and do not realize how dead that view has become even if they are knocking on the door of truth. The Godhead is a living Godhead that includes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit working together to reveal eternal life to man and provide a salvation for man by grace in the finished work of the Son. The Godhead planned it out before the foundation of the world. The Father loved the world and sent his only begotten Son, the Son went to the cross to bear the sin of the world upon his body as the Lamb and the Holy Spirit raised the Son from the dead and reveals to the heart of sinful man what the Son accomplished through his death, burial and resurrection. This is the gospel that we preach in all the world to every creature baptizing them in the name of the Godhead (my add - don't get upset and accuse me of adding to the scriptures).
The issue that some are having concerning the Trinity and Oneness is simply competition in a fleshly mind that profanes the Godhead and brings it down to an earthly understanding for man to grasp with only his intellect and not with a fertile heart. I do not see the fruit of this debate magnifying Christ nor the edification it provides to the body of Christ. Many refer to the orthodox view and do not realize how dead that view has become even if they are knocking on the door of truth. The Godhead is a living Godhead that includes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit working together to reveal eternal life to man and provide a salvation for man by grace in the finished work of the Son. The Godhead planned it out before the foundation of the world. The Father loved the world and sent his only begotten Son, the Son went to the cross to bear the sin of the world upon his body as the Lamb and the Holy Spirit raised the Son from the dead and reveals to the heart of sinful man what the Son accomplished through his death, burial and resurrection. This is the gospel that we preach in all the world to every creature baptizing them in the name of the Godhead (my add - don't get upset and accuse me of adding to the scriptures).
A
Baptism is not essential to one's reception of salvation. It is a symbol of one's identification with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The proper mode is immersion in the triune name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 must be read in context and in light of Jesus' clear command in Matthew 28:19.
Always interpreting Acts 2:38 in light of Oneness doctrine, and not truly in the light of "the whole counsel of God" despite misinterpreting lots of "supporting scriptures" to maintain your Oneness convictions doesn't benenfit you.
As ex-Oneness Pentecostal but now living in the truth of God's Word Mike Barden points out:
When we correctly understand the meaning of Acts 2:38, the whole Oneness "gospel" gets dismantled; it cannot exist without misinterpreting this verse.
Let's look at this verse, phrase by phrase, in light of all that has already been established about water and Spirit baptism (I'll use the King James Version, as would most Oneness Pentecostals):
"Then Peter said unto them,": The apostle Peter never heard Jesus teach that baptism was essential to forgiveness, and in his later preaching, Peter never taught it again. Unless Peter was mentally unstable, or grossly mistaken, he would not preach a different message in this sermon than what Jesus taught him, nor would he preach a different message here than he would anywhere else.
"Repent,": Repentance is simply "a change of mind." This is the true moment of Christian conversion, when a person stops living according to their own selfish desires, and starts living according to the promises and will of God. In the Greek text, this command is in the second person plural; it is addressed to the crowd as a whole. This is significant, as we will soon see.
"and be baptized every one of you": This is indeed a command to be baptized in water, but it is given in the third person singular, addressed to specific individuals who would soon come to saving faith. Again, the significance of the grammar will soon be apparent.
"in the name of Jesus Christ": Oneness adherents insist that this means that the words "in the name of Jesus Christ," or some equivalent, be spoken by the baptizing pastor at the time of the baptism. Biblically, however, to do something in someone's name means it is simply done in the authority and place of that person. This may or may not be accompanied by spoken words; Christians are commanded to do all things "in the name of Jesus Christ," but we are surely not expected to say "in the name of Jesus Christ" whenever we do anything. If a person is baptized as a submission to the authority of Jesus Christ, they are baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ," no matter what was spoken by the baptizing pastor.
"for the remission of sins,": Remember, remission is the same as forgiveness, which was already discussed in relation to Romans 4. The Greek word translated "for" is eis, which has two legitimate biblical meanings. It can mean "for the purpose of," or it can mean "because of." Depending on how you translate it, Peter is either preaching baptism "for the purpose of" forgiveness yet to be received, or baptism "because of" forgiveness already received. In light of the teaching in Romans 4:7-8, we know that God's forgiveness comes at the moment of justification, which happens when a person trusts in God's provision of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 4:23-25). Knowing this fact, we must assume that Peter was commanding new believers to be baptized "because of" the forgiveness they would have received at the first moment of their faith.
"and ye shall receive": This last part of Acts 2:38 is now back to second person plural, addressed to the whole crowd of listeners. This fact is reflected in the King James translation, which uses the word "ye" (plural) in this phrase, and the word "you" (singular) in the command to "be baptized." The significance of this grammar is that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is connected directly to repentance, not water baptism. The middle command to "be baptized" is a parenthetical command, addressed to those individuals who would already have repented and been forgiven.
"the gift of the Holy Ghost.": Notice also that Peter never teaches a prerequisite "seeking" in order to receive the Holy Spirit ("seeking," or "tarrying," is a common situation in most Oneness churches, and can include kneeling, praying, crying, continuous "repenting" of sins, raising of the hands, saying "hallelujah" repeatedly, etc.; this process may be only for a few minutes, or it may be repeated over a span of years). The Holy Spirit is a free gift, and He comes directly and instantaneously to the person who truly repents. For more about the exact nature of the Holy Spirit, go back to the previous section on "the Spirit."
When we see the real, simple message of Acts 2:38, we see that it does not at all support the "gospel according to Oneness Pentecostalism," but that it teaches a simple, powerful message of the grace and love of God to those who would come to Him.
Now that we've examined the heart of Oneness Pentecostalism's error, we can now more easily understand some of the other "bitter fruit" that grows out of this false "gospel."
Praise the Lord that Mark is now walking in the truth of God's Word free form Oneness Doctrine.
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/opgospel.html
Always interpreting Acts 2:38 in light of Oneness doctrine, and not truly in the light of "the whole counsel of God" despite misinterpreting lots of "supporting scriptures" to maintain your Oneness convictions doesn't benenfit you.
As ex-Oneness Pentecostal but now living in the truth of God's Word Mike Barden points out:
When we correctly understand the meaning of Acts 2:38, the whole Oneness "gospel" gets dismantled; it cannot exist without misinterpreting this verse.
Let's look at this verse, phrase by phrase, in light of all that has already been established about water and Spirit baptism (I'll use the King James Version, as would most Oneness Pentecostals):
"Then Peter said unto them,": The apostle Peter never heard Jesus teach that baptism was essential to forgiveness, and in his later preaching, Peter never taught it again. Unless Peter was mentally unstable, or grossly mistaken, he would not preach a different message in this sermon than what Jesus taught him, nor would he preach a different message here than he would anywhere else.
"Repent,": Repentance is simply "a change of mind." This is the true moment of Christian conversion, when a person stops living according to their own selfish desires, and starts living according to the promises and will of God. In the Greek text, this command is in the second person plural; it is addressed to the crowd as a whole. This is significant, as we will soon see.
"and be baptized every one of you": This is indeed a command to be baptized in water, but it is given in the third person singular, addressed to specific individuals who would soon come to saving faith. Again, the significance of the grammar will soon be apparent.
"in the name of Jesus Christ": Oneness adherents insist that this means that the words "in the name of Jesus Christ," or some equivalent, be spoken by the baptizing pastor at the time of the baptism. Biblically, however, to do something in someone's name means it is simply done in the authority and place of that person. This may or may not be accompanied by spoken words; Christians are commanded to do all things "in the name of Jesus Christ," but we are surely not expected to say "in the name of Jesus Christ" whenever we do anything. If a person is baptized as a submission to the authority of Jesus Christ, they are baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ," no matter what was spoken by the baptizing pastor.
"for the remission of sins,": Remember, remission is the same as forgiveness, which was already discussed in relation to Romans 4. The Greek word translated "for" is eis, which has two legitimate biblical meanings. It can mean "for the purpose of," or it can mean "because of." Depending on how you translate it, Peter is either preaching baptism "for the purpose of" forgiveness yet to be received, or baptism "because of" forgiveness already received. In light of the teaching in Romans 4:7-8, we know that God's forgiveness comes at the moment of justification, which happens when a person trusts in God's provision of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 4:23-25). Knowing this fact, we must assume that Peter was commanding new believers to be baptized "because of" the forgiveness they would have received at the first moment of their faith.
"and ye shall receive": This last part of Acts 2:38 is now back to second person plural, addressed to the whole crowd of listeners. This fact is reflected in the King James translation, which uses the word "ye" (plural) in this phrase, and the word "you" (singular) in the command to "be baptized." The significance of this grammar is that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is connected directly to repentance, not water baptism. The middle command to "be baptized" is a parenthetical command, addressed to those individuals who would already have repented and been forgiven.
"the gift of the Holy Ghost.": Notice also that Peter never teaches a prerequisite "seeking" in order to receive the Holy Spirit ("seeking," or "tarrying," is a common situation in most Oneness churches, and can include kneeling, praying, crying, continuous "repenting" of sins, raising of the hands, saying "hallelujah" repeatedly, etc.; this process may be only for a few minutes, or it may be repeated over a span of years). The Holy Spirit is a free gift, and He comes directly and instantaneously to the person who truly repents. For more about the exact nature of the Holy Spirit, go back to the previous section on "the Spirit."
When we see the real, simple message of Acts 2:38, we see that it does not at all support the "gospel according to Oneness Pentecostalism," but that it teaches a simple, powerful message of the grace and love of God to those who would come to Him.
Now that we've examined the heart of Oneness Pentecostalism's error, we can now more easily understand some of the other "bitter fruit" that grows out of this false "gospel."
Praise the Lord that Mark is now walking in the truth of God's Word free form Oneness Doctrine.
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/opgospel.html
A couple of things here. I don't disagree with scripture, but with how you interpret scripture. Maybe you might show from scripture where the Holy Spirit is who raised Jesus from the dead. Without doing a search, I don't seem to remember that from scripture, but then again, I don't remember all of scripture.
Without a doubt the Holy Spirit is the active part of the Godhead which brings us to salvation. Without His revelation of the finished work of Jesus, and His being raised from the dead, there is no salvation.
You know, we really don't disagree that much, but you really seem to dislike what I say.
In Christ,
vic
Without a doubt the Holy Spirit is the active part of the Godhead which brings us to salvation. Without His revelation of the finished work of Jesus, and His being raised from the dead, there is no salvation.
You know, we really don't disagree that much, but you really seem to dislike what I say.
In Christ,
vic
Originally Posted by forerunner
This is exactly my point. Either the Apostle purposely disobeyed Christ commandment on how one is to be baptized and baptized the entire first generation of disciples incorrectly, or they knew that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is JESUS
This is exactly my point. Either the Apostle purposely disobeyed Christ commandment on how one is to be baptized and baptized the entire first generation of disciples incorrectly, or they knew that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is JESUS
C
If the baptismal formula was not a cornerstone of Oneness theology, it would be nothing more than a stylistic difference, like the issue of whether to dunk once of thrice. In the act of baptism, it is the heart that matters, you are making a proclaimation of faith to the world, that the old man is dead and a new creation has been raised up in you. You cannot dogmatically condemn the use of the trinitarian formala nor can you declare that baptism in Jesus name is invalid. I believe that the differences even within Acts is God's way of frustrating any attempt to get our eyes off of the heart and on to the form.
Amen! Salvation truly is a matter of the heart, and that is where the change takes place. Is it just me, or do you think dogmatism actually takes away from the understanding of the importance of the change in the heart? Before Jesus, any approach to God was strictly controlled by a complex set of rules, and if there was any sin left in the heart of the high priest, he could die in the holy place, before the ark of the covenant. For is there is no ritual. We have free access to God through Jesus Christ. And so that we won't be killed in God's holy presence, we are washed clean in the Blood of Jesus. Our relationship with God through Jesus is meant to be an intensely personal and life changing experience, which will last throughout eternity, will be never ending.
C
Humans are creatures of pattern. It is how we learn and no matter how hard we try we don't truly get passed it. The problem is when the doctrines become words correctly lined out on a page instead of words burning in our hearts. Rituals are the same way. You can go through baptism in whatever formula and if the old man isn't dying and if there isn't a new man being resurrected in you, it is of no importance whatsoever. I believe and love the objective word of God. It is a judge on my heart for my benefit. But without faith in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross and without the seal of the Holy Spirit, there is no life or fire in the inspired words of scripture.
True, we are creatures of habit, even in our thought processes. I too love the objective truth of scripture, but have discovered over the years, as I grow closer to God, that even my understanding of this literal truth has changed. I believe that God changes us even in our understanding, in the very way our brain works, and how we even process truth. An example would John chapter 3. When I first read the entire chapter around 20 years ago, it said something completely different from what it says to me today. And I expect that in a few more years that what it says to me will change, or evolve, even more. It is not that the scripture has changed, but that I have changed, and this change is because of time spent growing in God. I believe that in this life we are not able to understand fully even the objective or literal truth of scripture. I sometimes wonder if we will be able to after we are with Him, but I suppose we will. Maybe. I think that we will spend eternity coming to know God.