Early Deceivers?

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1270854' date='May 10 2007, 11:59 PM']Godchasser, are we to assume you consider the Arians to have been the early believers? Though it is theologically terrible and heretical, your opinion is much less open to historical attack because indeed there are records of Arians and people who denied the Christological and Trinitarian Truths set down by the Apostles.

Budge's position is that there were obscure christians who were never written into history anywhere who did not even participate in the debate about arianism, who were trinitarians (as she is) and who were not arians.

So Godchaser/Fulltruth, I will say you have a much more historically defensible position. I would disagree with it, and argue history with you to show that the Arians were not of the same faith as the Apostles; but we could both unite and say to Budge "whilst we both have predecessors in this time period who believed as we do now, you do not. why is that?"[/quote]
Thank you for the compliment.

I think you can baptize in Jesus name and be a Trinitarian too. But that's JMHO. Remember, I'm not Arian - they're dynamic modalists, and I'm not Oneness- monarch modalist, I'm just a economic Trinitarian - the three are one - with no words added, because that is scriptural. So if they are one, if you baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, it still makes it valid, because Jesus, being one of the three, is one!

Plus it identifies you with the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus Christ. I love the fact I was baptized in Jesus name as a beliver, and I think everybody who wants to, should experience that blessed baptism.

I see no difference, because if you are being baptized because you have repented of your sins, and you want to be obedient to God and God's word. It's the faith in Jesus Christ's death, and the obedience to God's word that saves you, the baptism matters not - except it is obedience to Christ to be born again of the water and of the spirit.

I don't think being baptized in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost matters either. Both are in scripture, and God is not looking for exactness in ritual, but he looks at the heart of the person who is being baptized.

Though we can disagree with the way baptism should be done, because I would baptize in full immersion in the name of Jesus Christ, and you can baptize in full immersion in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy ghost.

It's the people who changed it that will one day who will pay. Those who were giving their lives to God through that baptized will not be judged for that error, but the ones who created it will.

[jeffpugh]

You almost talk like Baptism was radically changed. All that has happened is that water is poured upon the head in Our Church. It is only certain prods who "sprinkle". Anywho, I have no need to address the whole baptism in the name of the trinity issue. It has been addressed. Check it out again. You're not really debating, but lecturing a bit.

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1271607' date='May 11 2007, 09:29 PM']You almost talk like Baptism was radically changed. All that has happened is that water is poured upon the head in Our Church. It is only certain prods who "sprinkle". Anywho, I have no need to address the whole baptism in the name of the trinity issue. It has been addressed. Check it out again. You're not really debating, but lecturing a bit.[/quote]
Lecturing, preaching, same difference.

I will stand on the truth when I can. If it is for Catholics, or Budgianitists (I hope I spelt that one correct), I just want to stand on a truth.

I'm the kind of person that doesn't like going from the right or left from God's laws, and if Baptism was immersion in the greek, than that means immersion, not pouring, not sprinkling, immersion.

[Aloysius]

Neither lecturing nor preaching is what this phorum is about. This phorum is about discussion and debate, if you are not here to do that then, with all due respect, you ought to leave. We are not here to be preached to, we are here to discuss and debate. If you're not going to consider our arguments but rather simply preach as if we ought to be your students, then you would have the wrong attitude. This doesn't seem to be the case for the most part, but I just want to make that clear. Debate and discuss, but mere lecturing/preaching is just going to be pointless for all involved.

Anyway, like I said: you identify with people who actually have historical roots in Christendom, which places you historically better than Budge. But theologically, you are much worse off than Budge to the point of flirting with the border of what is "Christian" and what is not. Budge, howeverr, has no historical roots nor any basis for her absolutely wild assertion that there were people who believed as he does now in this time period.

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1271738' date='May 12 2007, 02:21 AM']Neither lecturing nor preaching is what this phorum is about. This phorum is about discussion and debate, if you are not here to do that then, with all due respect, you ought to leave. We are not here to be preached to, we are here to discuss and debate. If you're not going to consider our arguments but rather simply preach as if we ought to be your students, then you would have the wrong attitude. This doesn't seem to be the case for the most part, but I just want to make that clear. Debate and discuss, but mere lecturing/preaching is just going to be pointless for all involved.

Anyway, like I said: you identify with people who actually have historical roots in Christendom, which places you historically better than Budge. But theologically, you are much worse off than Budge to the point of flirting with the border of what is "Christian" and what is not. Budge, howeverr, has no historical roots nor any basis for her absolutely wild assertion that there were people who believed as he does now in this time period.[/quote]
Okay, you give the great commision scripture in Matthew 28:19,

Go ye into all the world, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost.


Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, [b]baptizing (From Strong's concordance - 907)[/b] them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

baptizo (907)

baptizw baptizo

Pronunciation: bap-tid'-zo
Origin: from a derivative of 911
Reference: TDNT - 1:529,92
PrtSpch: verb
In Greek: baptisyhnai 10, baptizwn 7, ebaptizonto 5, ebaptisyh 4, ebaptisen 4, ebaptisyhte 4, ebaptisa 4, baptisei 3, baptisyhsesye 3, baptizw 3, ebaptisyhmen 3, baptisyeiv 3, ebaptisyhsan 2, baptisyentev 2, baptizein 2, baptizei 2, ebaptizen 2, baptizontai 1, baptisyhtw 1, bebaptismenoi 1, baptisyentov 1, baptizontov 1, baptizeiv 1, baptizontev 1, baptisai 1, ebaptisanto 1, baptizomenoi 1
In NET: baptized 46, baptizing 12, baptize 10, baptizer 3, undergo 1, baptizes 1
In AV: baptize (76), wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + 2258 1
Count: 80
Definition:

[b]1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean
with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e.
fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution,
especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian
baptism:-Baptist, baptize, wash.
see GREEK for 911[/b]

Submerge, Immerse, dipping submerging, to make clean, to overwhelm, to make fully wet?

Christ said we needed to be submerged and immersed in the water, and if that is what he said and what he meant, what right does a Pope have to change it to pouring? I guess Jesus gives Popes the ability to say, Jesus - I am your follower and I say we shouldn't have to do that.

Okay Pope, you're right. Jesus says.

Thanks Jesus, the Pope says.

Hmmm, who has the power, Jesus or the Pope?

Again, when it comes to the intrepration of scripture, the Pope is sorely wrong! Opps, that must be the Protestant in me saying that!

[url="http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Baptized+Jesus+Name&x=0&y=0"]Scriptural proof that Baptism in Jesus Name happened[/url]

And before you give me that pitiful, in the authority of Jesus Christ arguement, you have to utter the name of the authority to do that. So if they were baptizing in the authority of Jesus Christ, they would be pronouncing Jesus Christ's name during the Baptism!

Edited May 13, 2007 by GodChaser

[Aloysius]

Jesus did say "whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

so yes, the apostles and the popes and the bishops may either bind us to full submersion, or loosen it to partial submersion, which pouring on the head would be. Jesus did not, in fact, specify that full submersion was necessary, He said you must be submersed; and then told His apostles that they could bind and loose the specifics of how to do the act on earth and He would bind and loose them in heaven, requiring His followers to do no more than what those to whom He gave the keys and the power to bind and loose bound them to do.

[quote]Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[/quote]
It always amazes me what power a comma (which is not a punctuation mark in the greek text) has for the meaning of a scriptural verse.

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ." would mean the same as "In the name of Jesus Christ, be baptized!".

it does not indicate that the baptism is done "in the name of Jesus Christ", ie that those words are used. That's a common phrase used by the Apostles to exhort people to do things, that doesn't mean he had changed the formula given to him at the great commission, the phrase 'in the Name of Jesus Christ" referred not to the baptism, but to his exortation. ie "I exhort you in the name of Jesus Christ, be baptized"

apply that reasoning to these texts, it is perfectly valid:
[url="http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22In+the+name+of+Jesus%22&x=0&y=0"]http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?q...amp;x=0&y=0[/url]

for most of those, it is quite clear that the Apostles are talking about exhorting, teaching, and preaching in the name of Jesus. So too did the Apostles exhort people, in the name of Jesus, to be baptized (in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as Jesus had told them to do)

That's a perfectly valid way of reading the text, perfectly feasable, and much more in line with the Great Commission which Peter himself would have heard Jesus say. Moreover, we know from the texts arrising out of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century Christianity that baptism was done "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"; and not "in the name of Jesus"; at least in the Universal Church, I do not know if any such practice arose among arians or gnostics or donatists or some other heretical group, but all the bishops who were taught by the Apostles themselves, and all the bishops those bishops taught, et cetera through these centuries, all describe baptism in the form given by the Great Commission; lending more credence to this reading of scripture, the reading whereby St. Peter exhorts them, in the name of Jesus Christ, to REPENT and to BE BAPTIZED. He was not instituting any formula for how they were to repent, by saying "I repent in the name of Jesus Christ"; nor was he instituting any formula for how they were to be baptized, by saying "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ"; no, He exhorted them in the name of Jesus Christ to do both of these things, but when he baptized them he did so in the exact words given to him by his Lord and Saviour on the occasion of His return into heaven: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"

Acts 8:16 seems to make it clear that baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" was incomplete, the Holy Spirit had not come upon them. Of course, it is describing these people's confirmation, wherein the Apostles (the Bishops) came and laid hands on them so that they might rerceive the Holy Spirit. But again, this verse means, consistent with all that we know from the history of the Church and from what we know of Our Lord's Command in the Great commission, that the people who had baptized them had done so in the name of Jesus Christ; and as such, they used the words Jesus Christ commanded them to use. In all likelihood they could have said "In the name of Jesus Christ I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"; there is no indication of a formula CONTRARY to the formula given to the Apostles by JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF; and in the absence of such direct evidence, it is clear that we must assume they used the formula given to them by Jesus Christ. Then, of course, it goes on to describe how the Holy Spirit had not come to them yet; because those who came in the name of the Lord Jesus to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, had only been those who came as Jesus came to the Apostles, and even after Jesus came to the Apostles they were still in need of Him sending the Holy Spirit.

I think those two answers suffice for any other verse, most of those verses didn't even pose that much of a possibility. I can foresee you're going to try to tell me I'm stretching the words; I assure you I am not, in a couple of these cases the scriptures could mean either thing, either what I said or what you said, both are equally as likely from the particular text. You think yours is more likely because that's what immediately comes to mind when you read these english translations with their commas all in place, i's dotted and t's crossed, chapters and verse-numbers set. I think mine is more likely because it fits in more with the command of Jesus Christ and the known history of the Early Church. But know this: there is nothing in the original greek texts which clarifies that the actual text means either what you say it does or what I say it does; therefore, I think my argument holds more weight, as I compare it to the rest of scripture, namely the gospels, and the history of the Church who was the first interpreter of scripture, who learned their faith from the writers of scripture themselves and from those who were present at the events.

[Aloysius]

This is how Acts 2:38 might of looked in the original text, I'll put in little english benchmarkers for you:

ΠΕΤΡΟΣ [Peter] ΔΕ ΠΡΟΣ ΑΥΤΟΥΣ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΗΣΑΤΕ [repent] ΦΗΣΙΝ [declared] ΚΑΙ ΒΑΠΤΙΣΘΗΤΩ [be baptized] ΕΚΑΣΤΟΣ ΥΜΩΝ ΕΠΙ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ [name] ΙΗΣΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ [Jesus Christ] ΕΙΣ ΑΦΕΣΙΝ ΤΩΝ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΩΝ ΥΜΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΛΗΜΨΕΣΘΕ ΤΗΝ ΔΩΡΕΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ

If someone who read in Greek read that sentence, they'd be likely enough to believe it said that "Peter declared in the name of Jesus Christ" that "everyone should be baptized". Word ordering in Greek is different than in English, and there is nothing in there indicating that the "in the name of Jesus Christ" was intended to modify "baptized"

Here's one given in your NIV as:

Acts 10:48
So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

in the greek, it is:

ΠΡΟΣΕΤΑΞΕΝ [he ordered] ΔΕ ΑΥΤΟΥΣ [him] ΕΝ [in] ΤΩ [the] ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ [name] ΙΗΣΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ [Jesus Christ] ΒΑΠΤΙΣΘΗΝΑΙ [be bapized] ΤΟΤΕ ΗΡΩΤΗΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΜΕΙΝΑΙ ΗΜΕΡΑΣ ΤΙΝΑΣ

Clear to me: /he ordered in the name of Jesus Christ/ that they be baptized. perfectly logical reading of the text, perfectly in line with the Great Comission and with the history of the Early Church.

Do you see how easy it is for a translator to mess with your faith? Kind of ruins the whole idea of breaking away from some oppressive Church hierarchy that was altering biblical truths, the translators themselves decide how the scriptures are going to read in places like this: and either way their translation isn't necessarily wrong. That's why doctrines need to be trusted to the Church. at least with the Church, there is the idea that they received a promise as the successors to the Apostles that their doctrines would be guided into all Truth by the Spirit of Truth.

there is no such promise nor claim of a promise for translators.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1271610' date='May 11 2007, 10:33 PM']I'm the kind of person that doesn't like going from the right or left from God's laws, and if Baptism was immersion in the greek, than that means immersion, not pouring, not sprinkling, immersion.[/quote]

I know it's useless to tell you that you are wrong, as are all the "immersion only" Christians. It's not true that baptism in the NT means immersion only. I was taught that as a Baptist, and I know now that it's a fallacy.

The oriignal Baptists in Amsterdam practiced baptism by infusion, as did the Mennonites from whom they were formed in 1607. They split and split again and in 1644, back in London where they started, a separate denomination of "Immersion Baptists" began the practice of immersion (submersion) only, which was adopted by some other Protestants.

It's my assessment, GC, that you are beyond learning, since you are convinced that you alone already possess the truth. But others may read this, and it is for them that I write. This article from Catholic Answers explains the practice of baptism in the NT.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp[/url]

What baptism has to do with the subject of this thread is beyond me, but since this is where you brought it up, this is where I'll answer it.

Likos