Trinitarian

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

Was Plato alive before James?

only about 400 years.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Its amazing to me how some people will never miss an opportunity to make excuses for Trinitarians and the trinity doctrine, while being quick very quick to be critical of Apostolics and OP doctrine.

I must say I find it a bit disturbing, to say the least.

But it is so popular with the world so it must be ok.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

only about 400 years.

Okay, then I am not surprised that James quoted him. We all draw from things we know.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

But it is so popular with the world so it must be ok.

Totally

[Antipas]

Again the issue is using philosophy in polemic as opposed to theology. No one would embrace Plato's concepts in theology....accept the Church Fathers.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I am not saying that everything they said was true and yes I believe that at times many other religions have things that are truth. If it doesn't fit the Scripture that's another issue. My point is you can't throw something out just because another religion or philosophy embraces a similar position. Do we throw out adultery because other religions forbid it?

You’re not getting it. For example, one could take the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf and teach a very important truth about honesty and not exaggerating. We would also see that idea in the Bible. Sure, you could use that story in a letter or in a sermon. BUT I wouldn’t try to use a child’s story book to define God.

Polemic and Theology are very different.

Your first statement scares me. We have to give someone the proper interpretation? Let the Scripture speak for itself.
Secondly SOME scholars deny part of the eighth chapter, specifically the woman caught in adultery, not chapters 5-7. And SOME question 2 verses in chapter 5.

Baron, please pay attention to CONTEXT. We all know that some kids can misunderstand Scripture, especially with so many traditions and denominations out there. I actually heard a man once say that Jesus and his disciples smoked “weed”. Then he explained how Jesus fed the multitudes where there was “much grass”. He then went on to talk about the leaves of the tree in Revelation being used to heal the nation. He honestly thought the stuff was “weed”. It took us a moment to explain proper interpretation to him. In the example presented to me we had a young person involved in Bible quizzing. Young people should always be guided in proper interpretation of Scripture. Even if one is Trinitarian…I would expect them to guide their children in what they believe to be proper interpretation. Letting a child forge their theology without guidance is a foolish.

[Antipas]

The Trinitarian Christian should note that water baptism was always performed in conjunction with the oral invocation of the name of Jesus, not the tree part formula of tradition:

(Acts 2:38-41 KJV)
(38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

(Acts 8:14-17 KJV)
(14) Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (17) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

(Acts 10:44-48 KJV)
(44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

(Acts 22:16 KJV)
(16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

All examples given by Scripture demonstrate the primitive formula for baptism being an oral invocation and calling upon the name of Jesus by the believers present. Such is fitting in that water baptism identifies us with Jesus Christ and his burial.

Historians also indicate that the original custom was to invoke the single name of Jesus during water baptism….

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name? The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion? in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)?"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence? suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus? which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' ? or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'? Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning? Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

[SDG]

Antipas none of those verses you quoted speak of an oral invocation ... simply states they were baptized in the name of the Lord ....

The idea that invoked formula effectuates salvation or applies the blood has no basis in Scripture.

[SDG]

As for the interpretation of Acts 22:19 ... here is some context to the idea of calling on the name of the Lord as it is expressed throughout scripture ... since context is important to you, Antipas.

Thoughts on Calling on the Name of the Lord -

the Jewish tradition .... the baptizee did the confession of faith ... some have confused what being baptize into the name, or authority of Jesus Christ w/ the biblical principle of CALLING UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD .... which was more that the incantation of a name. You won't see this practice in scripture that salvation or a covenant somehow hangs on a third party officiator getting it right.

Calling upon the name of the Lord in the OT and NT have a distinct meaning to what many of my OP brethren have twisted it to mean w/ their Water and Spirit rose colored glasses on.

One of the gravest errors we make in rightly dividing the word is our failure to understand idiomatic expressions of the Hebraic language.

In the OT ... to call upon the name of the Lord, the word upon is the particle preposition b or beth. There is no Strong's number that corresponds. Only the use of this Hebrew preposition separates to call the LORD or to call to the LORD from to call upon the LORD or to call upon the name of the LORD.

Almost every use of to call on the name of the LORD involves the construction of an altar and the offering of a sacrifice (Genesis 12:8, 13:4, 21:33--implied, 26:25; 1 Kings 18:24).

All of the Old Testament sacrifices were only as effective as the believing of the one offering them.All of these sacrifices entailed acknowledging God's lamb who would be revealed in the future. To call “upon the name of the LORD” was to formally enter into a covenant by coming into His presence.

Notice that it was between the believer and God ... not the officiator of a baptismal ceremony invoking it on someone else.

CrazyHomie once stated:

If we are going to be called "Apostolic" and a "new testament church", obviously one would think we would want to be biblically based in our baptism. Baptism was a ritual cleansing incorportated into the mosaic law. If a woman was on her monthly, she would go and "cleanse" herself. If you were healed of leprosy, etc. one would obey the law and cleanse themselves. These baptism pools were all over the holy land and were called "Mikvahs". When Peter preached in Acts 2, he told them to go wash according to the "new covenant" which was Christ. They were no longer to cleanse themselves according to the "old covenant" which was the law. Also, it was a public confession as to their new found faith in this messiah called Jesus Christ. In those days to public confess ones faith away from the law to follow Jesus, was inviting persecution if not death from the religious community. Three thousand obeyed Peter and went and washed themselves. I am not saying an individual is not saved by invocation, rather biblically speaking, it is always up to the believer to call on Christ for salvation.

Entering this new covenant is through our confession of faith in the Lamb ... my friend and brother ... as it was for Abraham, Jacob, Moses (See Hebrews 11)

[SDG]

In Romans 10 Paul echos the words and thoughts about how calling upon the name of the Lord ... brings salvation ... HE NEVER THOUGHT THAT IT MEANT THE VERBALIZATION OF A PROPER NAME!!!!


These too are the words of the prophet Joel and Peter ... and others also ... there is witness in Scripture .... and calling upon the name has alway fell upon the believer as it relates to salvation ... not the utterances of third party ... i.e. baptizer.

The name is undoubtedly attached to the person and His authority and his entire nature as Savior and God.

A sinner, Jew or Gentile, who has sincerely believed and calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved ....

John says

And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another just as he commanded us

I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

As does Joel:

Quote:
32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

As does the Psalmist:

Quote:
Psalm 116:4, "Then called I upon the name of the LORD [YHWH] ; O LORD [YHWH], I beseech thee, deliver my soul."

As does Paul:

Quote:
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

As does Ananias, in Acts:

Quote:
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

As does Peter, in the book of Acts on the day of Pentecost:

Quote:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.