Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

Ante-Nicene Fathers affirmed baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Ante-Nicene Fathers affirmed baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ Resident Skeptic
This is an off-shoot of the thread on the name of Jesus and the remission of sins.


I believe the following about baptism. Number 3 sets me apart from many in the Oneness Pentecostal movement.....

1) It is to be done by the authority (name) of Jesus Christ,

2) That repentance and baptism are "for" the remission of sins ("so that your sins may be forgiven"), and that both are essential elements of "believing on the Lord Jesus Christ".

3) That while the name of Jesus Christ was invoked by those baptizing in Acts (and not the words of Matthew 28:19), that the invoking of the name of Jesus by the baptizer is NOT connected to the remission of sins.

4) Baptism is not connected to regeneration, which is solely a work of the Holy Spirit.

What I consider to be the greatest error among Evangelicals concerning baptism is not the lack of invocation of the name of Jesus (which is an error), rather it is the teaching that baptism is a "post salvation step". Clearly Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16)


People often ask for proof that the early church invoked the name of Jesus Christ in baptism. Below is an excerpt from a commentary by some Ante-Nicene Fathers that demonstrates invoking the name of Jesus was the common mode of baptism at that time.

The whole commentary is too long to post, but I'll include the link with these short excerpts...


Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5.
Quote:


Argument.— That They Who Have Once Been Washed in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Ought Not to Be Re-Baptized.

1. I Observe that it has been asked among the brethren what course ought specially to be adopted towards the persons of those who, although baptized in heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and subsequently departing from their heresy, and fleeing as supplicants to the Church of God, should repent with their whole hearts, and only now perceiving the condemnation of their error, implore from the Church the help of salvation. The point is whether, according to the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition, it would suffice, after that baptism which they have received outside the Church indeed, but still in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, that only hands should be laid upon them by the bishop for their reception of the Holy Spirit, and this imposition of hands would afford them the renewed and perfected seal of faith; or whether, indeed, a repetition of baptism would be necessary for them, as if they should receive nothing if they had not obtained baptism afresh, just as if they were never baptized in the name of Jesus Christ......


Nor, as I think, was it for any other reason that the apostles had charged those whom they addressed in the Holy Spirit, that they should be baptized in the name of Christ Jesus, except that the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon any man by baptism might afford to him who should be baptized no slight advantage for the attainment of salvation, as Peter relates in the Acts of the Apostles, saying: “For there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12 As also the Apostle Paul unfolds, showing that God has exalted our Lord Jesus, and “given Him a name, that it may be above every name, that in the name of Jesus all should bow the knee, of things heavenly and earthly, and under the earth, and every. tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord in the glory of God the Father.” And he on whom, when he should be baptized, invocation should be made in the name of Jesus, although he might obtain baptism under some error, still would not be hindered from knowing the truth at some time or another, and correcting his error, and coming to the Church and to the bishop, and sincerely confessing our Jesus before men; so that then, when hands were laid upon him by the bishop, he might also receive the Holy Spirit, and he would not lose that former invocation of the name of Jesus. Which none of us may disallow, although this invocation, if it be standing bare and by itself, could not suffice for affording salvation, lest on this principle we should believe that even Gentiles and heretics, who abuse the name of Jesus, could attain unto salvation without the true and entire thing. Yet it is extremely useful to believe that this invocation of the name of Jesus, together with the correction of error and the acknowledgment of the belief of the truth, and with the putting away of all stain of past conversation, if rightly performed with the mystery of God among men of this kind, obtains a place which it would not have had, and finally, in the true faith and for the maintenance of the integrity of the sign, is no hindrance, when its supplement which had been wanting is added; and that it is consistent with good reason, with the authority of so many years, and so many churches and apostles and bishops; even as it is the very greatest disadvantage and damage to our most holy mother Church, now for the first time suddenly and without reason to rebel against former decisions after so long a series of so many ages.



http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0515.htm
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI


Last edited by Resident Skeptic on 2/17/17 7:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/15/17 7:28 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post I'm a little ... Mat
I'm a little unclear on the phrase "although baptized in heresy". Were these baptisms more mystic in nature, much like the seven sons of Sceva using the name of Jesus, or like the sorcerer Bar-Jesus baptizing people in his name. Is the heresy being dealt with, from your perspective, that of accepting Jesus as Savior, but not being baptized by authority in the "recognized" church?

I need a little more clarity on the situation before I can understand the solution.

By the way, I use the Water Baptism formula, "In accordance to the command of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and by the authority vested in me as a minister of the Gospel, I baptize you my brother/sister in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." In the baptism class I teach them that if any one ask if they have been baptized in the Name of Jesus I tell them to say "yes".

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1972
2/16/17 7:58 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: I'm a little ... Resident Skeptic
Mat wrote:
I'm a little unclear on the phrase "although baptized in heresy". Were these baptisms more mystic in nature, much like the seven sons of Sceva using the name of Jesus, or like the sorcerer Bar-Jesus baptizing people in his name. Is the heresy being dealt with, from your perspective, that of accepting Jesus as Savior, but not being baptized by authority in the "recognized" church?

I need a little more clarity on the situation before I can understand the solution.

By the way, I use the Water Baptism formula, "In accordance to the command of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and by the authority vested in me as a minister of the Gospel, I baptize you my brother/sister in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." In the baptism class I teach them that if any one ask if they have been baptized in the Name of Jesus I tell them to say "yes".

Mat


While I do not think that Jesus intended on his words in Matthew 28:19 to be recited as a baptismal formula, I agree with what you tell those in your baptism class. If they were baptized "for Christ's sake", then they were indeed baptized "in his name", regardless of what the baptizer may have invoked or omitted. This is my biggest area of contention with my associates in the Oneness ranks. But they cannot refute my reasoning.

Concerning your questions concerning the reference to some being "baptized in heresy", yes I think it is simply a reference to those who baptized by leaders of some of the heretical sects such as Arianism. But it could also refer to those baptized by anti-establishment fundamentalists who continued to meet in homes, practicing primitive Christianity against the will of Rome.

It amuses me a bit to see the writer mentioning "heresy", when he and most of the established church were obviously embracing the heretical idea that those administering baptism have the power to remit sin through invocation of the name of Jesus. But regardless of their error, this document provides strong proof that invoking the name of Jesus at baptism was the standard practice for at least the first three centuries of Christianity.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/16/17 11:04 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Even more confused ... Mat
Even more confused now that I look at the source - Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. I not sure of the state of the Roman Church prior to the creed (and all that came out of the counsel), but I thought the centralization of authority to the Roman Church was not total even after 325 AD. Do you have any reference from the Apostolic Fathers that would agree with your position?

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1972
2/16/17 3:36 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: Ante-Nicene Fathers on re-baptism Old Time Country Preacher
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Number 3 sets me apart from many in the Oneness Pentecostal movement.....


RS, do you believe that:

1. A new convert must be baptized in water in the name of Jesus instead of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit?

2. The name of the Father and Holy Spirit is Jesus?

3. Speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation?
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15559
2/16/17 3:53 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Ante-Nicene Fathers on re-baptism Resident Skeptic
Old Time Country Preacher wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Number 3 sets me apart from many in the Oneness Pentecostal movement.....


RS, do you believe that:

1. A new convert must be baptized in water in the name of Jesus instead of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit?

I believe all Christian baptism of those who have truly repented is done in the name of Jesus (for Christ's sake) regardless of what words are invoked by the baptizer. Neither Acts 2:38 or Matthew 28:19 are teaching a verbal invocation. However, I think it is more logical to invoke the name of Jesus , if any invoking is done at all.

2. The name of the Father and Holy Spirit is Jesus?

The word "name" in Matthew 28:19 simply means "authority"and is not referring to a literal name. In verse 18, Jesus has just said that "all authority in Heaven and in Earth is given unto me". Thus to paraphrase verse 19, "So you go and baptize in that authority that was given to the Son by God, and is shed forth by the Holy Ghost". This view obviously puts me at odds with most in the Oneness movement. Now, since God (the Father) is fully incarnate in and mediated to us through the Son, then there is nothing wrong with saying that God's name is Jesus (Jehovah-Savior).

3. Speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation?

No. But it should be normative for all believers. Sadly, there are quite a few Holy Ghost filled Baptists who miss out on tongues.



_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/16/17 4:50 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: Even more confused ... Resident Skeptic
Mat wrote:
Even more confused now that I look at the source - Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. I not sure of the state of the Roman Church prior to the creed (and all that came out of the counsel), but I thought the centralization of authority to the Roman Church was not total even after 325 AD. Do you have any reference from the Apostolic Fathers that would agree with your position?

Mat



The writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers are a common historical source. We would have to do a little digging to see exactly when they were written. As for this being "my position", I'm simply sharing what their position was.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/16/17 4:54 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: Even more confused ... Resident Skeptic
Mat wrote:
Even more confused now that I look at the source - Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. I not sure of the state of the Roman Church prior to the creed (and all that came out of the counsel), but I thought the centralization of authority to the Roman Church was not total even after 325 AD. Do you have any reference from the Apostolic Fathers that would agree with your position?

Mat



Here is what Wikipedia says....

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, subtitled "The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325", is a collection of books in 10 volumes (one volume is indexes) containing English translations of the majority of Early Christian writings. The period covers the beginning of Christianity until before the promulgation of the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea. The translations are very faithful, and provide valuable insights into the spirituality and theology of the early Church fathers.


The series was originally published between 1867 and 1873 by the Presbyterian publishing house T. & T. Clark in Edinburgh under the title Ante-Nicene Christian Library (ANCL), as a response to the Oxford movement's Library of the Fathers which was perceived as too Roman Catholic. The volumes were edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. This series was available by subscription, but the editors were unable to interest enough subscribers to commission a translation of the homilies of Origen.

In 1885 the Christian Literature Company, first of Buffalo, then New York, began to issue the volumes in a reorganized form, edited by the Episcopalian bishop of New York, A. Cleveland Coxe. Coxe gave his series the title The Ante-Nicene Fathers. By 1896, this American edition/revision was complete. In 1897, a volume 9, which contained new translations, was published by T. & T. Clark as an additional volume, to complete the original ANCL. Apart from volume 9, the contents entirely derived from the ANCL, but in a more chronological order. Coxe added his own introductions and notes, which were criticized by academic authorities and Roman Catholic reviewers.

T. & T. Clark then associated with the Christian Literature Company and with other American publisher for the publication of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/16/17 4:59 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: Even more confused ... Mat
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Mat wrote:
Even more confused now that I look at the source - Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. I not sure of the state of the Roman Church prior to the creed (and all that came out of the counsel), but I thought the centralization of authority to the Roman Church was not total even after 325 AD. Do you have any reference from the Apostolic Fathers that would agree with your position?

Mat



Here is what Wikipedia says....

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, subtitled "The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325", is a collection of books in 10 volumes (one volume is indexes) containing English translations of the majority of Early Christian writings. The period covers the beginning of Christianity until before the promulgation of the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea. The translations are very faithful, and provide valuable insights into the spirituality and theology of the early Church fathers.


The series was originally published between 1867 and 1873 by the Presbyterian publishing house T. & T. Clark in Edinburgh under the title Ante-Nicene Christian Library (ANCL), as a response to the Oxford movement's Library of the Fathers which was perceived as too Roman Catholic. The volumes were edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. This series was available by subscription, but the editors were unable to interest enough subscribers to commission a translation of the homilies of Origen.

In 1885 the Christian Literature Company, first of Buffalo, then New York, began to issue the volumes in a reorganized form, edited by the Episcopalian bishop of New York, A. Cleveland Coxe. Coxe gave his series the title The Ante-Nicene Fathers. By 1896, this American edition/revision was complete. In 1897, a volume 9, which contained new translations, was published by T. & T. Clark as an additional volume, to complete the original ANCL. Apart from volume 9, the contents entirely derived from the ANCL, but in a more chronological order. Coxe added his own introductions and notes, which were criticized by academic authorities and Roman Catholic reviewers.

T. & T. Clark then associated with the Christian Literature Company and with other American publisher for the publication of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.


I know of the collect, though only having read bits and pieces, and by no means familiar with it. I have viewed A. J. Tomlinson's set of these books over at the COGOP archives. It is said that he focused on the writing of the Apostolic Fathers (which he quoted sometimes in his writings), who were the church leaders who directly followed and knew the Apostles and their ministry. Your reference strikes me as much closer to the time of the counsel and creed, and the institutionalization of the church that separates the "priest" from the laity. In other words it sounds to "Catholic" for my restorationalist (if that's a word) ears.

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1972
2/16/17 7:09 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: Ante-Nicene Fathers on re-baptism Old Time Country Preacher
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Old Time Country Preacher wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Number 3 sets me apart from many in the Oneness Pentecostal movement.....


RS, do you believe that:

1. A new convert must be baptized in water in the name of Jesus instead of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit?

I believe all Christian baptism of those who have truly repented is done in the name of Jesus (for Christ's sake) regardless of what words are invoked by the baptizer. Neither Acts 2:38 or Matthew 28:19 are teaching a verbal invocation. However, I think it is more logical to invoke the name of Jesus , if any invoking is done at all.

2. The name of the Father and Holy Spirit is Jesus?

The word "name" in Matthew 28:19 simply means "authority"and is not referring to a literal name. In verse 18, Jesus has just said that "all authority in Heaven and in Earth is given unto me". Thus to paraphrase verse 19, "So you go and baptize in that authority that was given to the Son by God, and is shed forth by the Holy Ghost". This view obviously puts me at odds with most in the Oneness movement. Now, since God (the Father) is fully incarnate in and mediated to us through the Son, then there is nothing wrong with saying that God's name is Jesus (Jehovah-Savior).

3. Speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation?

No. But it should be normative for all believers. Sadly, there are quite a few Holy Ghost filled Baptists who miss out on tongues.





RS, son, just leave at Oneness Jesus Only gang behind, an git on with good Trinitarian ministry. Hey, we prayin fer ya.
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15559
2/16/17 7:37 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Ante-Nicene Fathers on re-baptism Resident Skeptic
Old Time Country Preacher wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Old Time Country Preacher wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Number 3 sets me apart from many in the Oneness Pentecostal movement.....


RS, do you believe that:

1. A new convert must be baptized in water in the name of Jesus instead of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit?

I believe all Christian baptism of those who have truly repented is done in the name of Jesus (for Christ's sake) regardless of what words are invoked by the baptizer. Neither Acts 2:38 or Matthew 28:19 are teaching a verbal invocation. However, I think it is more logical to invoke the name of Jesus , if any invoking is done at all.

2. The name of the Father and Holy Spirit is Jesus?

The word "name" in Matthew 28:19 simply means "authority"and is not referring to a literal name. In verse 18, Jesus has just said that "all authority in Heaven and in Earth is given unto me". Thus to paraphrase verse 19, "So you go and baptize in that authority that was given to the Son by God, and is shed forth by the Holy Ghost". This view obviously puts me at odds with most in the Oneness movement. Now, since God (the Father) is fully incarnate in and mediated to us through the Son, then there is nothing wrong with saying that God's name is Jesus (Jehovah-Savior).

3. Speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation?

No. But it should be normative for all believers. Sadly, there are quite a few Holy Ghost filled Baptists who miss out on tongues.





RS, son, just leave at Oneness Jesus Only gang behind, an git on with good Trinitarian ministry. Hey, we prayin fer ya.


Actually, I think the Oneness view fits under the Trinitarian umbrella just fine. Both camps are just too stubborn to admit it.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/16/17 9:05 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: Even more confused ... Resident Skeptic
Mat wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Mat wrote:
Even more confused now that I look at the source - Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. I not sure of the state of the Roman Church prior to the creed (and all that came out of the counsel), but I thought the centralization of authority to the Roman Church was not total even after 325 AD. Do you have any reference from the Apostolic Fathers that would agree with your position?

Mat



Here is what Wikipedia says....

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, subtitled "The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325", is a collection of books in 10 volumes (one volume is indexes) containing English translations of the majority of Early Christian writings. The period covers the beginning of Christianity until before the promulgation of the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea. The translations are very faithful, and provide valuable insights into the spirituality and theology of the early Church fathers.


The series was originally published between 1867 and 1873 by the Presbyterian publishing house T. & T. Clark in Edinburgh under the title Ante-Nicene Christian Library (ANCL), as a response to the Oxford movement's Library of the Fathers which was perceived as too Roman Catholic. The volumes were edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. This series was available by subscription, but the editors were unable to interest enough subscribers to commission a translation of the homilies of Origen.

In 1885 the Christian Literature Company, first of Buffalo, then New York, began to issue the volumes in a reorganized form, edited by the Episcopalian bishop of New York, A. Cleveland Coxe. Coxe gave his series the title The Ante-Nicene Fathers. By 1896, this American edition/revision was complete. In 1897, a volume 9, which contained new translations, was published by T. & T. Clark as an additional volume, to complete the original ANCL. Apart from volume 9, the contents entirely derived from the ANCL, but in a more chronological order. Coxe added his own introductions and notes, which were criticized by academic authorities and Roman Catholic reviewers.

T. & T. Clark then associated with the Christian Literature Company and with other American publisher for the publication of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.


I know of the collect, though only having read bits and pieces, and by no means familiar with it. I have viewed A. J. Tomlinson's set of these books over at the COGOP archives. It is said that he focused on the writing of the Apostolic Fathers (which he quoted sometimes in his writings), who were the church leaders who directly followed and knew the Apostles and their ministry. Your reference strikes me as much closer to the time of the counsel and creed, and the institutionalization of the church that separates the "priest" from the laity. In other words it sounds to "Catholic" for my restorationalist (if that's a word) ears.

Mat


That was also my impression.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/16/17 9:06 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Total heresy all of it brotherjames
We went through this nonsense in the Assemblies of God in 1916. Total denial of the Trinity and dangerous to boot. IT is adding conditions to salvation and removes justification by faith and the sole manner of salvation. Every oneness person should answer these questions for themselves by solo scriptura.

Is Jesus His own Father?

If Jesus' will and the Father's will were identical, then why did Jesus express the desire to escape the cup but resigns Himself not to His own will but the will of the Father?

Was Jesus praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane?

If Jesus was praying to the divine side of Himself, then isn't He still praying to Himself?

Why was Jesus not saying, "Not My will, but MY will be done?" if there is only one person and one will involved when He was praying in Luke 22:42 & Matt. 26:39.
If baptism is essential for salvation, then what happens to someone who repents of sin, accepts Jesus as Savior, walks across the street to get baptized but is killed by a car. Does he go to heaven or hell?
If he goes to heaven, then baptism isn't a requirement is it?

If he goes to hell, then faith in Christ isn't sufficient to save him is it?

Since the Bible teaches us that Jesus is in bodily form now (Col. 2:9), then how does the Oneness Pentecostal person maintain that God is in the form of the Holy Spirit? Also, when Jesus returns, will He return in His body? Will God's form then revert to the form of the Son at a later date?

If God is only one person, why did Jesus say in John 14:23, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." If God is only one person, why does Jesus say, "we"?

Oneness theology teaches that God was in the mode of the Father in the Old Testament. God was seen in the OT (not as a vision or a dream or an angel in the following verses: Exo. 6:2-3; Gen. 19:24; Num. 12:6-Cool. But, Jesus said no one has seen the Father (John 6:46). If they were seeing God Almighty (Exo. 6:2-3) but it wasn't the Father, who was it?
Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
2/16/17 11:17 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
'Heresy' would have been a division, a split off the main church.

A friend of mine checked all the so-called 'church father's' for references to 'born of water and of the Spirit.' If I remember right, of the 18 references, 17 associated it with water baptism and one wasn't definitive.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/17/17 3:45 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Total heresy all of it Resident Skeptic
brotherjames wrote:
We went through this nonsense in the Assemblies of God in 1916. Total denial of the Trinity and dangerous to boot. IT is adding conditions to salvation and removes justification by faith and the sole manner of salvation. Every oneness person should answer these questions for themselves by solo scriptura.

Is Jesus His own Father?

If Jesus' will and the Father's will were identical, then why did Jesus express the desire to escape the cup but resigns Himself not to His own will but the will of the Father?

Was Jesus praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane?

If Jesus was praying to the divine side of Himself, then isn't He still praying to Himself?

Why was Jesus not saying, "Not My will, but MY will be done?" if there is only one person and one will involved when He was praying in Luke 22:42 & Matt. 26:39.

If baptism is essential for salvation, then what happens to someone who repents of sin, accepts Jesus as Savior, walks across the street to get baptized but is killed by a car. Does he go to heaven or hell?
If he goes to heaven, then baptism isn't a requirement is it?

If he goes to hell, then faith in Christ isn't sufficient to save him is it?

Since the Bible teaches us that Jesus is in bodily form now (Col. 2:9), then how does the Oneness Pentecostal person maintain that God is in the form of the Holy Spirit? Also, when Jesus returns, will He return in His body? Will God's form then revert to the form of the Son at a later date?

If God is only one person, why did Jesus say in John 14:23, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." If God is only one person, why does Jesus say, "we"?

Oneness theology teaches that God was in the mode of the Father in the Old Testament. God was seen in the OT (not as a vision or a dream or an angel in the following verses: Exo. 6:2-3; Gen. 19:24; Num. 12:6-Cool. But, Jesus said no one has seen the Father (John 6:46). If they were seeing God Almighty (Exo. 6:2-3) but it wasn't the Father, who was it?



And you don't see the same problems in the Trinity doctrine? You have a God with "three selves". The doctrine of the Trinity is emphatic on God being only one being and not three. So you have God praying to himself in the garden. Any such argument against Oneness applies to the Trinity.

And no, the Oneness doctrine does not teach that God was Father in the Old Testament, wore a Son mask later, and a dove suit later. If you are going to critique at least know what you are talking about.

As for baptism, you have an issue with Jesus, not me..."He who believes and is baptized shall be saved..." (Mark 16:16) Exceptions like a guy walking across the street and getting killed I'm sure God understands.

The purpose of this thread was not to prove the Oneness position on the Godhead, but to demonstrate the baptism in the name of Jesus was not an invention of Oneness Pentecostals but is grounded in church history. You are now trying to change the subject.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI


Last edited by Resident Skeptic on 2/17/17 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/17/17 6:03 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Man defining God? Mat
Man defining God? I know there will never be a clear and concise definition of God written by man. The infinite God who is limitless is beyond comprehension by the finite and mortal mind of man. God choose to reveal Himself to man in the measure necessary for our salvation, but by no means is God limited to the total number of words in the Bible. To try and define the substance of God, who is revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is a greater task than counting all the stars and plants which God the Creator made, even though it is a finite number. We do comprehend there is an order of salvation revealed in the Word, but the mystery of God is not fully revealed.

I do not believe man is capable of a perfect definition of God. The Bible is clear that the only way to be saved is in relationship with Jesus Christ (the only Name given). He is our God given "vehicle" of salvation. He will get us from here to there, but we can not define all that "there" entails.

My Opinion, I think some are running around the same mountain in different directions.

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1972
2/17/17 7:27 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: Man defining God? Resident Skeptic
Mat wrote:
Man defining God? I know there will never be a clear and concise definition of God written by man. The infinite God who is limitless is beyond comprehension by the finite and mortal mind of man. God choose to reveal Himself to man in the measure necessary for our salvation, but by no means is God limited to the total number of words in the Bible. To try and define the substance of God, who is revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is a greater task than counting all the stars and plants which God the Creator made, even though it is a finite number. We do comprehend there is an order of salvation revealed in the Word, but the mystery of God is not fully revealed.

I do not believe man is capable of a perfect definition of God. The Bible is clear that the only way to be saved is in relationship with Jesus Christ (the only Name given). He is our God given "vehicle" of salvation. He will get us from here to there, but we can not define all that "there" entails.

My Opinion, I think some are running around the same mountain in different directions.

Mat


I agree completely. And it is because of this that I think Oneness and Trinitarians should be careful in pointing out each other's inconsistencies as they relate to the Godhead. Both groups believe there is one God who exists as Father, Son and Spirit simultaneously, and that salvation is solely through Jesus. Both groups often misrepresent each other as well.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/17/17 8:22 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Link wrote:
'Heresy' would have been a division, a split off the main church.

A friend of mine checked all the so-called 'church father's' for references to 'born of water and of the Spirit.' If I remember right, of the 18 references, 17 associated it with water baptism and one wasn't definitive.



I'm not endorsing all the views in these writings. I am just pointing out that charges that Oneness Pentecostals cannot find historical precedent for invoking the name of Jesus in baptism are false.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/17/17 6:00 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Link wrote:
'Heresy' would have been a division, a split off the main church.

A friend of mine checked all the so-called 'church father's' for references to 'born of water and of the Spirit.' If I remember right, of the 18 references, 17 associated it with water baptism and one wasn't definitive.


What's so funny about that is that I am one of the few Oneness Pentecostals that does not think "being born of water" in John 3:5 is a reference to water baptism.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/18/17 9:20 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Link
Resident Skeptic wrote:

What's so funny about that is that I am one of the few Oneness Pentecostals that does not think "being born of water" in John 3:5 is a reference to water baptism.


I didn't know you still identified as Oneness. Were you Oneness before or after JSBC?
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/19/17 8:04 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.