Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-19-2012, 12:52 PM
Pliny Pliny is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,678
Re: Trinity Diagnosis

Quote:
Originally Posted by navygoat1998 View Post
AYR
We are on the other side of that coin God lead us out from false teachings. The Assembly God Church we went to the very morning we left had a tongues and interpretation how the shackles and bonds had been broken and that He led us out.
We had never been to that church ever and prior to that morning I was a stuck in my suit Oneness Pentecostal. I have seen to much and have eaten the Word and have closer to walk with Jesus because I dropped my made made exceptions of whom He calls His child.

If Christ wanted us back in Oneness we would know it and would obey.
Why? I am new here and don't know. Is it Christology or some other reason?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-19-2012, 01:04 PM
navygoat1998's Avatar
navygoat1998 navygoat1998 is offline
Repent and believe the Gospel!


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Jacksonville FL
Posts: 3,090
Re: Trinity Diagnosis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
Why? I am new here and don't know. Is it Christology or some other reason?
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=40250
__________________
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)

Scripture is its own interpreter. Nothing can cut a diamond but a diamond. Nothing can interpret Scripture but Scripture" Thomas Watson.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-19-2012, 01:16 PM
seekerman seekerman is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,406
Re: Trinity Diagnosis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Paths View Post
Trinitarians aren't Christians.

All 1st century Christains were baptized in Jesus Name and believed in Deut. 6:4......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
As mentioned in another post Christians are Christians only after being baptized in Jesus' name. Thus the first part is proven simply with common sense. You are not a Christian until His name is invoked in baptism no matter what century.
Note: This is an Apostolic site so I have not emphasized repentance and receiving the Holy Ghost because it is assumed we all agree with this. What was being asked was proof of Christians being baptized in Jesus name and belief in Deu. 6:4.

As to the Deu. 6:4 - it is established that the early church was established upon Juddaic principles. The gospel was established through Judaism. Deu. 6:4 is the single most important verse within Judaism. Therefore in keeping with the monotheism of Judaism Christianity is monotheistic (Deu. 6:4). Proof is not required for this as this is the natural flow of doctrine.

"Proof" is required by those who would argue for a different foundation than Deu. 6:4. Prima Facie evidence is that Christians "born" into a Christianity rooted and established upon Judaism would without question be established upon Deu. 6:4. It is the responsibility of the critic to "prove" otherwise.

Ball in your court...
Well, I'm not surprised. When you said that "All 1st century Christains were baptized in Jesus Name and believed in Deut. 6:4", I assumed that you had some sort of source of 1st century writers which stated that the 1st century Christians were baptized with a man uttering a phrase over another person during baptism which is acceptable to you. You didn't have such a source. Why make the claim if you didn't have a source to support your claim?

If you're interested in early teachings on baptism, I suggest you read the Didache. According to it, the following was the baptismal teaching of the early church.....

Chap. VII.

1. Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things, baptize ye into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.

2. And if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm (water).

3. But if thou hast neither, pour [water] thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

4. But before Baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others who can; but thou shalt command the baptized to fast for one or two days before.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-19-2012, 01:27 PM
AreYouReady? AreYouReady? is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,600
Re: Trinity Diagnosis

Quote:
Originally Posted by navygoat1998 View Post
AYR
We are on the other side of that coin God lead us out from false teachings. The Assembly God Church we went to the very morning we left had a tongues and interpretation how the shackles and bonds had been broken and that He led us out.
We had never been to that church ever and prior to that morning I was a stuck in my suit Oneness Pentecostal. I have seen to much and have eaten the Word and have closer to walk with Jesus because I dropped my made made exceptions of whom He calls His child.

If Christ wanted us back in Oneness we would know it and would obey.
Navygoat, I no longer attend Oneness Pentecostal churches. God led me out of dictatorial, controlling pastors who felt that they could control my life from one morning to next morning. When they started in controlling my family, it was time to go. It was becoming a task to try to live up to what they said we should do every single day we were in their "fellowship".

That being said, I have attended different churches that professed 'trinitarian' beliefs. I found the same Holy Ghost moving in those churches as in the OP churches. That being said, I cannot just shake off my Oneness belief because of God leading me to my baptism in Jesus Name back in 1980. Nobody told me to be baptized in His name, but God is the one who led me to the church that baptizes in Jesus Name. It is my personal testimony that I cannot go back on. I believe it. I don't believe that I have to forsake my baptismal experience to worship Christ in any other church system, oneness or trinitarian.

You write: "If Christ wanted us back in Oneness we would know it and would obey".

I certainly believe that you would obey. It is your's and your wife's walk and be it far from me to make judgment upon your walk. In fact, one day when each of us take that final breath here on earth, I hope to find you in heaven and give you and your wife a holy kiss and for added measure a holy hug! I may never meet you in this lifetime, but hope to meet you in the next.
__________________
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. (Psalms 118:8)
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-19-2012, 01:29 PM
Pliny Pliny is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,678
Re: Trinity Diagnosis

Quote:
Originally Posted by seekerman View Post
Well, I'm not surprised. When you said that "All 1st century Christains were baptized in Jesus Name and believed in Deut. 6:4", I assumed that you had some sort of source of 1st century writers which stated that the 1st century Christians were baptized with a man uttering a phrase over another person during baptism which is acceptable to you. You didn't have such a source. Why make the claim if you didn't have a source to support your claim?

If you're interested in early teachings on baptism, I suggest you read the Didache. According to it, the following was the baptismal teaching of the early church.....

Chap. VII.

1. Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things, baptize ye into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.

2. And if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm (water).

3. But if thou hast neither, pour [water] thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

4. But before Baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others who can; but thou shalt command the baptized to fast for one or two days before.
Do you believe this as well?
Chapter 11:4 “But every apostle coming to you shall not remain more than one day, or another if necessary, but if three days, he is a false prophet.”
Where does scripture state this? It simply doesn't.

There are two points an intellectually honest person will make:
1) Additions need to be viewed with skepticism. Especially since we do not have the original writing but a copy centuries removed from the original. It’s possible for it to have been added to the text later.
2) When an author, any author, makes statements about a topic it is incumbent upon the reader to pay attention. Otherwise, the reader will jump to conclusions the author never intended. Seems like I read something about this somewhere… Oh I remember:
Pro 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Now let's turn to chapter nine.
Here is what this author had to say concerning the Eucharist.
9:1 But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.
9:2 First, as regards the cup:
9:3 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou madest known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:4 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:5 Then as regards the broken bread:
9:6 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:8 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
9:9 for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord;
9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:
9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.} http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html

The Eucharist is a solemn occasion. There was and is great respect given to the occasion.

1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
1Co 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, will be guilty of the body of the Lord and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and in this way let him eat from the bread and drink from the cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not judging correctly the body of the Lord.

This is a clear reference to how the instructions of chapter 7 were obeyed. The Eucharist is a solemn event with much reverence to be observed. The author forbade the observance of this occasion until the observers were baptized and to the author this meant “into the name of the Lord”. The observers are to be Christians and all Christians were baptized, historically.

By doing this it’s clear the author has tied being baptized “into the name of the Lord” with Mtt. 28. it appears that you only want to deal with this by ignoring it.

The Eucharist is a solemn occasion and must be taken with sincerity and reverence. In the “great specificity” given in the instructions the author clearly states that a person must be baptized “into the name of the Lord” – they must be a Christian. This should not be a surprise to anyone considering the Bible only knows of Jesus name baptism.

As to chapter 7 it is clear that the author added many thoughts of his own. With that said it is also understandable that someone would make the connection between Mtt. 28 and Acts 2. That is tying the two together and by being baptized in Jesus name the command of Mtt. 28 is fulfilled because this is exactly what happened in the Bible. Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Peter then, in obedience to the command of Christ, preached baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins (Acts 2). Therefore, it’s easy to see how this would be propagated later as we see here. Obviously the author of the Didache tied the directions given in chapter 7 to being baptized in Jesus name by forbidding the Eucharist to anyone who was not baptized that way. Only by jumping to conclusions and ignoring the whole text can someone hope to obfuscate the facts.

As to the charge of first century documents I give you the book of Acts. If there was no other writing this would be sufficient. You have not brought any evidence to support the claim of anyone being a Christian actually baptizing in any other way. Quoting Matt. does not work. Adding to Matthew does not work. The Didache was most likely a mid second century document as Matthew would have had to be written then disseminated. This would have taken time.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-19-2012, 01:39 PM
Pliny Pliny is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,678
Re: Trinity Diagnosis

Quote:
Originally Posted by navygoat1998 View Post
Thanks. it does not sound like it was a doctrinal difference? Perhaps a heavy handed shepherd? Please understand I am neither affirming nor condemning just trying to understand what I read. I don't know you nor the circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-19-2012, 01:43 PM
seekerman seekerman is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,406
Re: Trinity Diagnosis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
Do you believe this as well?
Chapter 11:4 “But every apostle coming to you shall not remain more than one day, or another if necessary, but if three days, he is a false prophet.”
Where does scripture state this? It simply doesn't.

There are two points an intellectually honest person will make:
1) Additions need to be viewed with skepticism. Especially since we do not have the original writing but a copy centuries removed from the original. It’s possible for it to have been added to the text later.
2) When an author, any author, makes statements about a topic it is incumbent upon the reader to pay attention. Otherwise, the reader will jump to conclusions the author never intended. Seems like I read something about this somewhere… Oh I remember:
Pro 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Now let's turn to chapter nine.
Here is what this author had to say concerning the Eucharist.
9:1 But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.
9:2 First, as regards the cup:
9:3 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou madest known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:4 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:5 Then as regards the broken bread:
9:6 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:8 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
9:9 for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord;
9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:
9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.} http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html

The Eucharist is a solemn occasion. There was and is great respect given to the occasion.

1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
1Co 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, will be guilty of the body of the Lord and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and in this way let him eat from the bread and drink from the cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not judging correctly the body of the Lord.

This is a clear reference to how the instructions of chapter 7 were obeyed. The Eucharist is a solemn event with much reverence to be observed. The author forbade the observance of this occasion until the observers were baptized and to the author this meant “into the name of the Lord”. The observers are to be Christians and all Christians were baptized, historically.

By doing this it’s clear the author has tied being baptized “into the name of the Lord” with Mtt. 28. it appears that you only want to deal with this by ignoring it.

The Eucharist is a solemn occasion and must be taken with sincerity and reverence. In the “great specificity” given in the instructions the author clearly states that a person must be baptized “into the name of the Lord” – they must be a Christian. This should not be a surprise to anyone considering the Bible only knows of Jesus name baptism.

As to chapter 7 it is clear that the author added many thoughts of his own. With that said it is also understandable that someone would make the connection between Mtt. 28 and Acts 2. That is tying the two together and by being baptized in Jesus name the command of Mtt. 28 is fulfilled because this is exactly what happened in the Bible. Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Peter then, in obedience to the command of Christ, preached baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins (Acts 2). Therefore, it’s easy to see how this would be propagated later as we see here. Obviously the author of the Didache tied the directions given in chapter 7 to being baptized in Jesus name by forbidding the Eucharist to anyone who was not baptized that way. Only by jumping to conclusions and ignoring the whole text can someone hope to obfuscate the facts.

As to the charge of first century documents I give you the book of Acts. If there was no other writing this would be sufficient. You have not brought any evidence to support the claim of anyone being a Christian actually baptizing in any other way. Quoting Matt. does not work. Adding to Matthew does not work. The Didache was most likely a mid second century document as Matthew would have had to be written then disseminated. This would have taken time.
By your suggestion, I was expecting something from an early 1st century other than the bible. Of course the bible was 1st century, that's what everyone here is using to support their various views and beliefs.

I know of no 1st century historical non-biblical document which reveals that a group of people baptized with a specific verbal ritual which would satisfy your requirement that an individual must have another individual intone proper words over the baptizee in order for the baptizee to be redeemed/saved. If you have one, I'd be interested in reading it.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-19-2012, 01:48 PM
Pliny Pliny is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,678
Re: Trinity Diagnosis

Quote:
Originally Posted by seekerman View Post
By your suggestion, I was expecting something from an early 1st century other than the bible. Of course the bible was 1st century, that's what everyone here is using to support their various views and beliefs.

I know of no 1st century historical non-biblical document which reveals that a group of people baptized with a specific verbal ritual which would satisfy your requirement that an individual must have another individual intone proper words over the baptizee in order for the baptizee to be redeemed/saved. If you have one, I'd be interested in reading it.
There is no first century document, not even the Didache. I would have to check my references for the second century but within the confines of the first century there is the Bible and it is clear. Christians were baptized in Jesus name. This was carried over by the heretics and they baptized in Jesus' name as well, many if not all of them. But, that is another century.

Thus the critic must prove the opposite is true.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-19-2012, 01:54 PM
navygoat1998's Avatar
navygoat1998 navygoat1998 is offline
Repent and believe the Gospel!


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Jacksonville FL
Posts: 3,090
Re: Trinity Diagnosis

Quote:
Originally Posted by AreYouReady? View Post
That being said, I have attended different churches that professed 'trinitarian' beliefs. I found the same Holy Ghost moving in those churches as in the OP churches. That being said, I cannot just shake off my Oneness belief because of God leading me to my baptism in Jesus Name back in 1980. Nobody told me to be baptized in His name, but God is the one who led me to the church that baptizes in Jesus Name. It is my personal testimony that I cannot go back on. I believe it. I don't believe that I have to forsake my baptismal experience to worship Christ in any other church system, oneness or trinitarian.
Sister AYR,
My old UPC pastor asked me a few years ago where we were going to church and I told him the Assemblies of God, he told me that UPC and AG are cousins related by marriage.

I have been in some services that if I did not know where I was I would have sworn I was in a UPC service.

I have been upfront and honest about my past and no one has questioned by Salvation or my Baptism.
__________________
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)

Scripture is its own interpreter. Nothing can cut a diamond but a diamond. Nothing can interpret Scripture but Scripture" Thomas Watson.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-19-2012, 01:57 PM
navygoat1998's Avatar
navygoat1998 navygoat1998 is offline
Repent and believe the Gospel!


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Jacksonville FL
Posts: 3,090
Re: Trinity Diagnosis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
Thanks. it does not sound like it was a doctrinal difference? Perhaps a heavy handed shepherd? Please understand I am neither affirming nor condemning just trying to understand what I read. I don't know you nor the circumstances.
We came out like most do hurt and confused but we had started questioning what was being preached across the pulpit. It did not even start with our own Pastor it started with Brother Stoneking and his infatuation with angels and that opened us to thinking and that started us to studying and then that's when the bottom fell out.

God has been so faithful to us and we have seen His hand on us from the very morning we left.
__________________
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)

Scripture is its own interpreter. Nothing can cut a diamond but a diamond. Nothing can interpret Scripture but Scripture" Thomas Watson.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I Am Going Trinity. Scott Hutchinson Fellowship Hall 15 12-15-2014 11:50 AM
Are We Trinity? Sam Fellowship Hall 5 11-07-2009 11:17 AM
Self-diagnosis= phlebitis; anyone have experience? commonsense Fellowship Hall 10 06-05-2008 07:28 AM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.