Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Baptism

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

I don't have any problem with it. It is fact. There were groups who baptized in the titles in the first century and before the church had more widespread access to more complete "canon" of scripture. It's right there to find in history whether many of my fellow OP's want to deny it or not. It isn't a problem to me at all.

You personally have a problem with it because of how YOU think it implicates the early Apostles and church fathers. And Jesus' words on Pentecost? Do you mean Peter's? Jesus ascended 10 days prior to Pentecost.

Nevertheless, I still have no issue with this. Assume Peter disciples someone. That man goes to another country and he disciples another man. This man is now once removed form the original. NOw this man comes upon a copy of Matthew, but not Luke or Acts. Now he discples another man. This new man is now twice removed from Peter, has likely never met Peter, and has only heard stories of Peter. He does however have a copy of Matthew which says baptize in the titles. If he takes the Sola Scriptura approach, Matthew beats rumors of Peter saying Baptize in Jesus name at Pentecost.

I would be interested in your evidence...

If the "nevertheless" is your evidence it is not evidence at all but fanciful speculation.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

I'm sorry I mistakenly thought I was clear. Let me try again.
This is an absolute tenet of Apostolic Theology and the undeniable teaching of scripture.

Why would ANY true believer want to avoid being baptized in the only saving Name?

No, you're not clear. Yet again....were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism is one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

Since the reformation days of Martin Luther, the Lord has brought a progressive revelation of truth to the church. This unfolding of restored understanding of himself and His Word is for the purpose of returning His Church to her original anointing, authority and mission. As God restores the foundational gifts and ministries there comes a shift in our understanding and doctrine.

What amazes me about the critics of the Apostolic Movement is their affirmation of progressive revelation on the one hand and their denial of it as it applies to Oneness Pentecostalism.

While there are no new revelations, there is restored understanding of the scriptures. Luther’s comprehension of salvation by faith was not a new revelation. It was there all the time, but the church had lost sight of it. God uses men such as this to call the church back to forgotten truths. We believe the reformation is not over. The greatest restoration is happening now!

What sets the Apostolic Church apart from the rest of Christendom is not merely its emphasis on Acts 2:38 salvation and worship of the One True and Living God in Jesus Christ but also a unique approach to scripture. Our actual goal as Christians is to be genuinely Apostolic. We strive to “weed out” traditions and doctrines of men which were added later. Basically, we try to take what Luther started to its logical conclusion, true biblical reformation. We see many doctrines and beliefs as not Apostolic, but as a later development. Even my learned seminary professors would agree with this, but they put much authority in church history. They see the goal of the Bible scholar/theologian to develop the seed left by the writers of the New Testament. They think it arrogant to even question the wisdom of the church fathers. We on the other hand see our job description as one of recovery of truth which has been lost or distorted, to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). We are at heart, restorationists, trying to help restore the Church to her original belief and power. Of course we don’t want to ignore what others have written or said about the Bible, but we understand this merely to be the thinking of fallible men. I believe that the church has gotten away from what the apostles taught in many respects and that we need to get it back. We need to stop seeing the church in Acts as in a “baby stage,” and start seeing it as the model upon which to base our belief and practice. Only when we return to New Testament patterns, principles and practice, will we experience true New Testament power.

The truth is the so-called, self-labeled 'apostolics' are experiencing no more power than those Christians they look down on. The Church of Jesus Christ wasn't invisible, dead, buried or absent for almost 2000 years, until the sudden appearance of the oneness pentecostal sect, and the Spirit of God was moving mightily in the decades preceding the latter day sect. If you simply look to the 1800s you'll see the Church of Jesus Christ growing and flourishing apart from oneness pentecostalism.

[MarieA27]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

I don't have any problem with it. It is fact. There were groups who baptized in the titles in the first century and before the church had more widespread access to more complete "canon" of scripture. It's right there to find in history whether many of my fellow OP's want to deny it or not. It isn't a problem to me at all.

You personally have a problem with it because of how YOU think it implicates the early Apostles and church fathers. And Jesus' words on Pentecost? Do you mean Peter's? Jesus ascended 10 days prior to Pentecost.

Nevertheless, I still have no issue with this. Assume Peter disciples someone. That man goes to another country and he disciples another man. This man is now once removed form the original. NOw this man comes upon a copy of Matthew, but not Luke or Acts. Now he discples another man. This new man is now twice removed from Peter, has likely never met Peter, and has only heard stories of Peter. He does however have a copy of Matthew which says baptize in the titles. If he takes the Sola Scriptura approach, Matthew beats rumors of Peter saying Baptize in Jesus name at Pentecost.

This could only happen if the disciples were leaning on their own interpretations and understandings and not God's. As if God wasn't with Peter when he discipled the first one, and then God wasn't opening up the understanding of the others so they'll understand the scriptures as in what God intended for that scripture to mean etc.,

If they were looking at it all natural, then yeah, they can be deceived...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Isn't Jesus name baptism one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

Baptism in Jesus name is a biblical precedent. He was quoting verses showing the early church followed that precedent

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

My very good Friend has a book with quotes from a 1st century source. In it, they speak of the body baptizing in the titles according to Matthew 28.

The reality, is that prior to our having a canonized scripture, you would have had groups out there who perhaps ONLY had Matthew as fas as the gospels go. Hence they would have baptized as Matthew 28 instructs them. Later, once the canon was compiled it became IMO clear that Jesus Name baptism was the only scripturally endorsed means of proper baptism.

You are referring to the Didache. It's hard to prove it's first century nor that it doesn't contain interpolations

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Baptism in Jesus name is a biblical precedent. He was quoting verses showing the early church followed that precedent

Some did, some didn't. The question is, does it matter? Was baptism in Jesus name a salvation issue or just a best practice issue in the early church?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Some did, some didn't. The question is, does it matter? Was baptism in Jesus name a salvation issue or just a best practice issue in the early church?

Why does it have to matter in order to discuss? Did anyone ask you if it matters in your thread about what makes you sick?

BTW don't you agree what God's word says is important?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Why does it have to matter in order to discuss? Did an protest k you if it matters in your thread about what makes you sick?

BTW don't you agree what God's word says is important?

Folks made observations concerning what made them sick. I certainly didn't protest when folks said they liked boiled okra. My position is to eat it if you like it.

When did encyclopedia brittanica become the word of God?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Folks made observations concerning what made them sick. I certainly didn't protest when folks said they liked boiled okra. My position is to eat it if you like it.

When did encyclopedia brittanica become the word of God?

So then why can't we discuss history?

When did I say it was the word of God? The topic relates to what the word of God says or what the early church believed was what the word of God says