Baptism and obedience

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SolaScriptura in 2003: Can you prove that the thief on the cross did not accept John's baptism like virtually everyone in Judea (except the Pharisees) did? Can you prove that he was not baptized by the apostles when Jesus baptized & made more disciples than John?

Repentant sinners were baptized. The thief on the cross repented on the cross. </font>[/QUOTE]I think Sola answered this well. It is interesting that in Revalations 2 and 3 Jesus asks the Churches to repent. Now these are people who have already repented or they would not be a part of the Church. Repentence is an ongoiong thing in life. If it is not for you, you will not grow as a Christian.

 

[Glorious]

For goodness sake !!!!

Jesus only left two commandments.

I can't BELIEVE how complicated all these RELIGIONS are making it all!

LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE


NO WONDER he overthrew the tables!!!

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Glorious:
For goodness sake !!!!

Jesus only left two commandments.

I can't BELIEVE how complicated all these RELIGIONS are making it all!

LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE


NO WONDER he overthrew the tables!!!

Two? Yes, love of God and love of neighbor, Luke 10 I think it is, if that is what you are refering to. But those two were a sumation of the 10. If we are loving God we are worshipping him and not having idols and so on. If we love our neighbor we are not lying and cheating and stealing.

John 14:15
"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

This sounds an awful lot like obedience to me. So tell me, do we have to love Jesus to be saved?

 

[Glorious]

Dear Thess, my boy

So tell me, do we have to love Jesus to be saved?

It depends HOW we are saved (hahaha, now we are complicating matters, huh?? )

If one makes a head decision they will now be a christian and start following Jesus and walking in his way, then they may not have love at first. However, the more they walk, the more they grow in love for their Lord and Master, as they come to know Him and SEE him.


Sometimes tho, people have a salvation experience like Paul the Apostle did.
The scales fall from their eyes, and viola!!
Love instantly.


I can speak about this, because I had BOTH these experiences

I made a head decision to serve Christ at the age of 19. From that moment forwards I used obedience in my service, rather than love. I tried not to cheat, lie and murder. Sometimes. many times, I failed! (I never got around to murdering anyone tho' ) Gradually I grew to have a love for God.


Then when I was 44 years old, I had a remarkable personal experience with God and .......


VIOLA!!
I remember LOVE flooding my heart and from that day until now, I have not, nor can I possibly cease to love Him. God planted that Love, I am sure. Whatever .... I don't care! All I know is, love prompts obedience.

The love from this experience far surpassed the love which was VERY slowly growing, due to obedience. That obedience was done mostly in my own strength.

Now, my obedience is done in Gods strength!
It makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE!

May everyone ..... the most learned, the most simple minded, the olde and the young, and from all churches, all walks of life, lawyers, prime ministers, mothers at home, asians, africans, americans (etc), janitors, folks in prison, band members, zoo keepers, Sheraton Hotel maids, pilots, farmers, all sinners everywhere......

know of this incredible love for themselves.

Once you know of it, you will wish you'd had it earlier in your life

Nothing so great as our love for God and His love for us mingled.

Nothing!

GloriaS!

 

[Briguy]

Hi all, A couple people have argued the “must” of baptism by quoting what Peter said in Acts 2:38. Please read the quote in context with the scripture around it. Something else is happening here that many people miss.

KJV Acts 2: 34] For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
[35] Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
[36] Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
[37] Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
[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.

Peter’s audience is the “house of Isreal” not just any person here. He points out that “they” crucified Jesus and by doing so they have become an enemy of God, a “footstool”. We know that enemies of God are not people of God. Knowing that a person shouts out “what can we do?” The we is still the “house of Isreal”, it does not mean or have to mean Gentiles. Peter says “repent and be baptized”. This is a baptism of repentance, a way of getting the “footstool” label removed, which then would open the way of salvation back up. This is not believer Baptism as we see later in the book of Acts. This was a turning away from the horrible sin of putting to death God’s son and a chance for the “house of Isreal” to repent. It is not an argument for the “mustness” of baptism. Ok, I know I will be hammered for this but please be kind and really look at the passage before beating me up too badly. Thanks!!

In Love and Truth,
Brian

 

[thessalonian]

That's nice Briguy. But can you infallibly say these words "Baptism is absolutely not neccessary". I don't see them anywhere in the Bible so you had better be sure about it or you are leading people astray by your own opinion.

By the way, we also crucified Jesus

. For it was for each of us and our sins which we are guilty of that he went to the Cross. No sin, no cross. What Peter speaks in Acts 2:38 is for all Christians. Not just the Jews. You say you speak in love and truth. In using those words you had better be 100% sure what you say is truth or it is not love.

Blessings

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
You say you speak in love and truth. In using those words you had better be 100% sure what you say is truth or it is not love.

This statement is as absurd as it is inane. If what you said is true, then no one alive would ever open their mouth!

Reason also dictates that you yourself would never be able to counter an argument as you yourself could be guilty of "not love". That is, of course, unless you claim omnipotence or infallbility in an statement. Since I assume you do not, you could not reply, teach or even speak in most cases.

I think it would be better for you to use more rigorous terms if you want to make blanket statements. "Truth" and "love" can be taken to mean so many different ideas that your statement was bound to fail. Further clarification might find your underlying thought to be close to true, but your general pseudo-intellectual statement falls glaringly short.

jason

 

[thessalonian]

Jason,

Thank you for that analaysis. From a Protestant perspective I can see where you are coming from. If you aren't really sure that what your Church teaches is true what you say makes sense. Of course I do not think that Briguy is speaking out of maliciousness but if he speaks error and it does not lead someone to salvation then what good is it. Truth only saves. If someone is claiming there words are truth (as he did) then he had better be sure. By the way, they are not my statements they were his. I guess I should have quoted the post.

"In Love and Truth,
Brian "

We have a duty in conscience to ensure that we are really speaking the truth. I stand by my words. Brian can believe in his heart of hearts that Baptism is not neccessary for salvation but if it isn't true and he influences someone to be casual about it I see an eternal problem for both souls.

Blessings

Thessalonian

PS Will God say - Well that is not really what the Bible and my Church truly teach is neccessary for salvation but since you convinced the guy that what you said was true, I will let him in anyway? Just askin.

[ May 14, 2003, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Jason,

Thank you for that analaysis. From a Protestant perspective I can see where you are coming from. If you aren't really sure that what your Church teaches is true what you say makes sense.

Thank you for proving my point.

When you say "if you aren't really sure", you imply that you are infact "sure" that your church teaches truth. How do you know this? Now, you cannot quote the bible to imply that Jesus started the catholic church, becuase that is a matter of personal interpretation, as has already been established elsewhere in this forum.

There are two possibilities here:
1. You are sure of your church because you are omnipotent.
2. You are sure of your church because you think (have faith) it is is the right one.

# 1 cannot clearly be true.
# 2 can and is true.
Both you and Briguy are in # 2.

All this means is that neither of you can be 100%, absolutely sure of anything that either of your church's teach because neither of you is omnipotent. That is why we all need faith and to study the scriptures to find the truths.

Remember, you cannot come back and say you are sure because the bible clearly states that catholic church is "the" church, because you are using private interpretation to come to this conclusion. In doing such, you are again not 100% sure, but only as sure as you can be based upon what you know.

Of course I do not think that Briguy is speaking out of maliciousness but if he speaks error and it does not lead someone to salvation then what good is it. Truth only saves. If someone is claiming there words are truth (as he did) then he had better be sure. By the way, they are not my statements they were his. I guess I should have quoted the post.

"In Love and Truth,
Brian "

I understood the implication, but my contention was with the "100% sure" statement for, as I have shown, none of us can be 100% sure of it. Not you, not me and not even the Pope. Remember, we all need to have faith.

Though, the topic of truth and true is another topic that I am currently pondering and researching as well. This topic is much, much broader and more pervasive. I do not feel comfortable discussing the topic of God and "truth" right now.

We have a duty in conscience to ensure that we are really speaking the truth. I stand by my words. Brian can believe in his heart of hearts that Baptism is not neccessary for salvation but if it isn't true and he influences someone to be casual about it I see an eternal problem for both souls.

And how do you know you are speaking in the truth? Remember, you cannot claim truth because of church affiliation for 1.) your church affiliation is from private interpretation and 2.) your understanding of your church's teachings are from private interpretation as well.

So, if you claim to speak truth based upon private interpretation, where does that leave us in regard to your previous statements?

PS Will God say - Well that is not really what the Bible and my Church truly teach is neccessary for salvation but since you convinced the guy that what you said was true, I will let him in anyway? Just askin.

This very question is why I do not feel comfortable discussing this topic right now. This topic, I feel, is too grand. This might be one of those that is not truly answered until we get to Heaven.

In Christ,
jason

 

[thessalonian]

JasonW,

While I understand your points from your Protestant perspective and I don't expect you to understand my Catholic perspective unless God willing he reveals it to you, Catholicism is a completely different entity that Protestantism.

Protestantism is made up of thousands of denominations teaching differing doctrines that conflict and noone has to accept all of what their Church teaches anyway. It is a smorgasboard. You are gauranteed to hold some things in error in this system.

But a key difference in Catholicism is that it is not a menu of beliefs that we can choose from but a choice of a way of life. It is a package deal, like the Bereans who accepted the word readily or the Eunuch who believed what phillip taught him. Of course it takes faith and faith cannot be proven. In my catholic faith I am sure of my beliefs because they are not mine. I see that they have been passed on for 2000 years. The arguements I use today I see in the writings of Cyril and Augustine and Jerome. They are historically consistent and currently consistent (meaning I can go to Austrailia, go to Mass and find people who believe and worship just like me). And the contradictions I read on this board among Protestants confirm it. The unity I see among my Catholic breathern confirm it. Am I 100% sure? I don't see at this point in my life how I could remove a percentage point from it. Is it contradictory to be 100% sure and have faith. No, because I believe things I know I cannot fully comprehend because that is what the Church, which is equal in evidence to scirpture teaches. The Church is not individual men that I follow but the pillar and support of the truth. It is a collective of men teaching Christ's teachings and protecting them from error. When someone is teaching error the Church is the witness that refutes the error (2 Tim 2:2).

The very question at the end that you will not answer and say is too grand must be answered. For without and answer like you say, we should be afraid to speak. I am not because I have the Church and 2000 years of history to back me up. Where I see my teaching not lining up with the Church, I submit to her. I am not continuously pouring over scripture (though I read scripture every day) trying to figure which doctrines on the menu are true (I have not yet found one that does not match what the Bible says when understood in the proper light). Other people's salvation does not come down to my opinion. It cannot. The question of each man's salvation must be answered. There must be ways to know if we are leading someone down the correct path for certain. It is too important to be otherwise.


I know you will not agree with this post. So be it. Only God can open the locked doors. I will pray that you come to a knowledge of the fullness of the truth. In Christ,

Thess

 

[Briguy]

Hi Thess.

Couple things. I do believe that the CC has something very positive about itself in the fact that official doctrine is taught consistantly around the world. I think you would admit there are worship variances from congregation to congregation but that is to be expected. To argue that the CC has been consistant throughout time is kind of a stretch considering the doctrines/dogmas that keep being added. But even so the argument I have heard for that is that nothing has changed just more has been revealed. I can accept that from an argument perspective. To say that the age and the size of the tradition makes it right is not a great argument. Many a powerful king/ruler throughout time has told his people what to believe and it hasn't been right. Hitler being a classic example. A different argument would be that 2&2=4. It may be that a big group of people get together and decide the answer is 5. This group grows in number and teaches consistantly, year after year that 5 is the right answer. In fact, they notice that the math book doesn't support 5 being the right answer real well so they add sources by which a person can see that 5 is the right answer and count those sources a s worthy as the original math book. OK, enough you say, you get the over done point here. Consistancy is nice but if it is wrong in the begining it is taught wrong from that point. I think Satan has confused the world by the volume of belief systems to coose from. The message of Jesus is simple, Satan has used us to confuse things and we(people) have complied very readily.

Am I sure about baptism not being needed for salvation? YES- and I am willing to bank my Soul on that and more so I will leave Baptism for my family up to each individual. I will not force it on my kids just to be safe. Baptism adds to God's salvation for us. I see only Jesus as needed for salvation.

"In Love and Truth" I got from one of paul's letters where he says he writes in love and truth. It was meant as it sounds and not meant to be offensive but i understand your point with it.

In Christian Love

,
Brian

 

[trying2understand]

Brian, I just have to tease you a little with your math example.

In the Catholic Church, not only does 2+2=4 but also we have multiplication and division and algebra and calculus and trig and so much more.

Were all these mathmatical functions added to 2+2 (addition)? No, they were understood from the knowledge of addition.

Does the truth of additon make the understanding of the rest of math false. No.

Is it God's plan for us to be stuck at the most elementary understanding of His will and revelation? I don't think so.

Ron

 

[thessalonian]

Hi Briguy,

I must say one thing. There are not many on this board that it is easy to have a civil conversation with on this board. So I do admire you for that. Last thing first. You are 100% sure that baptism isn't really neccessary. Now I think you will admit that you are not 100% sure that all your scriptural interprutations are correct. So could you do me a favor, could you tell me which of your scriptural interprutations you have wrong? If you can be 100% sure of anything in your sola scriptura system surely you should be able to be 100% sure of everything or at least admit that you don't really know where you are right and where you are wrong and leave it at that. Once again, Catholicism is a package deal and I have not found one thing in it that contradicts scripture so I bought the whole package. As for the way you separate baptism and Jesus, that is a problem. What you are doing is reducing Christianity to a name and ignoring the teachings associated with that name. You cannot separate Jesus from obedience or love or hope or repentence or faith or baptism. By creating dichotomies as you Protestants do (Peter or Jesus as the rock, baptism or Jesus) you are showing that you do not really know the real Jesus for everything in scripture is who he is. He is the WORD made flesh. If you can ever understand this concept, the scriptures will unfold for you like you never imagined. People speak of how the Pope dictates us Catholics. I have to tell you under the confines of the traditions of the Catholic Church I know I am far more free with regard to scriptural interprutation and understanding than any protestant. I say this not to brag but because it is true. Theological constraints are to scriptural understanding as the ten commandments are to freedom of conscience. We become free by true constaints placed on us.

Worship variances? Yes, I know the byzantines do things a bit differently as do the Ukaranian Catholics. I plan to attend a Byzantine service this summer just to see what the differences are. They are in the area of practice however and not doctrine. That I know as a fact.


"To argue that the CC has been consistant throughout time is kind of a stretch considering the doctrines/dogmas that keep being added. But even so the argument I have heard for that is that nothing has changed just more has been revealed. I can accept that from an argument perspective. To say that the age and the size of the tradition makes it right is not a great argument.".
Can you tell me what doctrines are being added because I don't know of any. Praying to saints (include Mary in this category)? Sorry, clear evidence can be seen in the catcombs of the second century, Peter and Paul pray for us. Now today we have allowed that basic doctrine to grow but the basis for what we believe has always been there. The Eucharist? Hands down, real prescence was taught in the first 400 years. Baptismal regeneration? Find me a writer in the first 500 years who denied it? Find me one who didn't tie it to John 3, being born of water and spirit as protestants try to discociate it from. The only way you can do it is by saying "well this guy spoke of baptism but never used John 3 with regard to baptism.". Arguement from silence. Papal infallibility? This perhaps is your favorite since you don't see it explicitly stated until the 1870's. God a question for you. Were the Jews of the Old Testament saved by a man named Jesus Christ and by grace. I don't see that explictly stated anywhere in the OT. Was it true? Definitely. There is no other name by which any man is saved. They looked forward, we look back. Well I hate to tell you this but I am reading a book right now called Upon This Rock, by Steve Ray. And if you look at how the Church operated early on, there is know question that they revered the Bishop of Rome from all over the world and the Church in Rome in general as a model for truth. Irenaus, Ignatius, and even Cyril who many will try and use to deny the papacy, looked toward the Church of Rome and ran things by the Bishop of Rome. Considering that these people didnt have email and meet once a week, I wonder why this was such a widespread practice among the Christian leadership? Stephen in Cyrils time made a declaration regarding baptism by heretics. His decision is still in effect today. Was it something new back then? No, it was a clarification and a final binding decision on what had been done in the past. Was it an addition? Nope. Just a clarification of something that was always believed. If we have a red rubber ball that is what has been revealed to us. Now later if we add to our description the elastic properties and refractive properties of the color read, are we adding doctrines. No, we are coming to a deeper understanding of the one we already have. It is not knew revelation but deeper understanding of what has already been revealed. The Bible is not a static book and it's words will lead you to this deeper understanding if you don't put it in the sola scriptura staightjacket. We do not add doctrine, we make it explicit what has always been believe implicitly.

I am well aware of Paul's words with regard to love and truth and was not offended. It just seems to me that knowing that your understanding of what scirpture says is what has been conjured up in your mind with external inputs from others, I would think you would find it difficult to put it to your words. Especially since you know there are some errors in what you believe scripture says.

Appreciate the dialogue.

Blessings

 

[MEE]

I'd like to ask a question, about water baptism.

It looks as though that the only ones that believe that water baptism is a "must" for salvation are Catholics, Church of Christ, and Oneness Pentecostals.

To my knowledge, Oneness Pentecostals are the only ones that baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. This I'm sure you know was the only way it was done, according to the scriptures, until the year 325.

Now, what I want to know is, would the Catholic Church or the Church of Christ accept my water baptism, which was done in the name of Jesus Christ?...or would I have to be baptized again, using the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

MEE

 

[Briguy]

Hi Thess. Thanks for your post. The passion of Catholics on this board just blows me away. Here in the midwest I have never met a Catholic who knew what they believed and for sure didn't know why they believed it. You and other Catholics on this board know what, why, and you even love to share it.

Your post was so vast I can only address the 100% issue. I do believe 100% that what I believe the Bible says is correct. But that is to the point of my knowledge and understanding. I am willing to change what I believe if something is pointed out in scripture that I did not see before. I am talking about, like a word in Greek being explained, that I thought meant one thing but means more then one things and fits better with the different meaning. For example The end of 1 cor. 12 there is a scripture that says Covet earnestly the best gifts. From study and commentary I now believe that line is saying "You are coveting the best (showy) gifts. I was willing to see that verse differently when deeper teaching was pointed out. I hope that makes sense. I do believe my doctrine is correct but I am also willing to learn.

Thes, one more point. You don't have certain scriptual interpretation options if the go against CC doctrine. You are not at liberty to interpret Baptism the way you see scripture, if it differs from the church, or you can't say based on the Bible "I believe that a priest cannot himself forgive sins". I however can study and study and take in many views, including yours, and then draw a conclusion the way I see fit (with Holy Spirit guidence). To this point I have not drawn any conclusions that my local church hasn't drawn. Though my church stresses baptism as something believers should for sure do and I am not quite convinced it is deeply needed in this current dispensation. More to come later. Thanks again for the quality of your posts and the passion you have for Jesus. It does show

In Christian Love,
Brian

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by MEE:
I'd like to ask a question, about water baptism.

It looks as though that the only ones that believe that water baptism is a "must" for salvation are Catholics, Church of Christ, and Oneness Pentecostals.

To my knowledge, Oneness Pentecostals are the only ones that baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. This I'm sure you know was the only way it was done, according to the scriptures, until the year 325.

Now, what I want to know is, would the Catholic Church or the Church of Christ accept my water baptism, which was done in the name of Jesus Christ?...or would I have to be baptized again, using the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

MEE

Ahh...Still waiting for an answer! I am really wanting to know what some of you would do.

MEE

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by MEE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:
I'd like to ask a question, about water baptism.

It looks as though that the only ones that believe that water baptism is a "must" for salvation are Catholics, Church of Christ, and Oneness Pentecostals.

To my knowledge, Oneness Pentecostals are the only ones that baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. This I'm sure you know was the only way it was done, according to the scriptures, until the year 325.

Now, what I want to know is, would the Catholic Church or the Church of Christ accept my water baptism, which was done in the name of Jesus Christ?...or would I have to be baptized again, using the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

MEE

Ahh...Still waiting for an answer! I am really wanting to know what some of you would do.

MEE </font>[/QUOTE]First of all, what do you mean by: "the way it was done according to the scriptures until 325".

Secondly I just did some analysis on my 38 volume CD of the Church fathers and the vast majority (all but one or two out of perhaps 20 or so said it was to be done in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I beleive there was a quote from Cyril or was it cyprian that said in the name of Christ. I saw another that said by the trinitarian formula in the name of Christ. So it is hardly hands down.

Now for the answer you have been waiting for. It is my understanding that a baptism done in the name of Christ or name of Jesus by a ONENESS group would not be accepted in the Catholic Church. First of all it is not the proper form and secondly Oneness is not the proper understandign of the Godhead. I don't know for certain but I would say it is likely the Catholic Church would not view a Oneness religoin as Christian.

Hope that helps.

Blessings

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by thessalonian:

MEE [/qb]

First of all, what do you mean by: "the way it was done according to the scriptures until 325".

Secondly I just did some analysis on my 38 volume CD of the Church fathers and the vast majority (all but one or two out of perhaps 20 or so said it was to be done in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I beleive there was a quote from Cyril or was it cyprian that said in the name of Christ. I saw another that said by the trinitarian formula in the name of Christ. So it is hardly hands down.

Now for the answer you have been waiting for. It is my understanding that a baptism done in the name of Christ or name of Jesus by a ONENESS group would not be accepted in the Catholic Church. First of all it is not the proper form and secondly Oneness is not the proper understandign of the Godhead. I don't know for certain but I would say it is likely the Catholic Church would not view a Oneness religoin as Christian.

Hope that helps.

Blessings [/QB][/QUOTE]

***Keep in mind that I'm still learning the doctrines of some of the denominations on this board.

As much as I have learned, water baptism was never done, according to the scriptures, in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It was changed by the Catholic Church in 325. Check your encyclopedias or whatever books you choose.

Why would you say that water baptism, in the name of the Lord Jesus or Jesus Christ is not proper? It's how the apostles baptized. BTW, what church fathers are you referring? The ones in the days of the early church all baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Could Peter and the Apostle Paul have been wrong?

Still learning,
MEE

 

[Briguy]

Hey Carol, Hope you are well this fine day.

I just can't resist jumping in here. If you have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you, why worry about Baptism now, which I don't think you really are, but if you are don't.

""The completeness of your faith is made by the Out-pouring of your heart, not the In-pouring of water.""

Yes, I just made that up. It is almost poetic, don't you think?

Take care,
Your friend in Christ,
Brian

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by MEE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thessalonian:

MEE

First of all, what do you mean by: "the way it was done according to the scriptures until 325".

Secondly I just did some analysis on my 38 volume CD of the Church fathers and the vast majority (all but one or two out of perhaps 20 or so said it was to be done in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I beleive there was a quote from Cyril or was it cyprian that said in the name of Christ. I saw another that said by the trinitarian formula in the name of Christ. So it is hardly hands down.

Now for the answer you have been waiting for. It is my understanding that a baptism done in the name of Christ or name of Jesus by a ONENESS group would not be accepted in the Catholic Church. First of all it is not the proper form and secondly Oneness is not the proper understandign of the Godhead. I don't know for certain but I would say it is likely the Catholic Church would not view a Oneness religoin as Christian.

Hope that helps.

Blessings [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]***Keep in mind that I'm still learning the doctrines of some of the denominations on this board.

As much as I have learned, water baptism was never done, according to the scriptures, in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It was changed by the Catholic Church in 325. Check your encyclopedias or whatever books you choose.

Why would you say that water baptism, in the name of the Lord Jesus or Jesus Christ is not proper? It's how the apostles baptized. BTW, what church fathers are you referring? The ones in the days of the early church all baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Could Peter and the Apostle Paul have been wrong?

Still learning,
MEE

[/QB][/QUOTE]

I don't have an encyclopedia handy but while you are at it you might look up Popes. They go all the way back to Peter you know.

Baptism in the name of Jesus is in the authority of Jesus by his death and ressurection he won for us the grace to be made right with God. By his authority he commanded the trinitarian formula in Matt 28. "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). Your Oneness theology causes you to err in this area also. Tell me, do you baptize in the name of Jesus or Jesus Christ? Does your Oneness Church hold our baptisms to be valid?
Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit was practiced from the earliest days.

The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).



Tatian the Syrian

"Then said Jesus unto them, ‘I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world’ [Matt. 28:18-20]" (The Diatesseron 55 [A.D. 170]).



Hippolytus

"When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: ‘Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?’ And he that is being baptized shall say: ‘I believe.’ Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: ‘Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ?’ And when he says: ‘I believe,’ he is baptized again. Again shall he say: ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?’ The one being baptized then says: ‘I believe.’ And so he is baptized a third time" (The Apostolic Tradition 21 [A.D. 215]).



Tertullian

"After his resurrection he promises in a pledge to his disciples that he will send them the promise of his Father; and lastly, he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the three persons, at each several mention of their names" (Against Praxeas 26 [A.D. 216]).



Origen

"Why, when the Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, does this apostle [Paul] employ the name of Christ alone in baptism, saying, ‘We who have been baptized into Christ’; for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity" (Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D. 248]).



The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena

"Then Probus . . . leapt into the water, saying, ‘Jesus Christ, Son of God, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this water.’ And Paul said, ‘We baptize thee in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost.’ After this he made him to receive the Eucharist of Christ" (Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena 21 [A.D. 250]).



Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Jesus] commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do some say that though a Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or of whom, so long as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can follow—when Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?" (Letters 73:18 [A.D. 253]).



Eusebius of Caesarea

"We believe . . . each of these to be and to exist: the Father, truly Father, and the Son, truly Son, and the Holy Ghost, truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth his disciples for the preaching, said, ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy" (Letter to the People of His Diocese 3 [A.D. 323]).