Oneness and Acts 2:38

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If you wish to believe Pharisaic tradition regarding proselyte mikvah is "more Biblical" then you are placing yourself outside all historic streams of Christian faith.

I'm merely using Jewish culture of the time (John the baptist was baptizing and didn't need to explain what he was doing) as I look at Jews baptizing (the Apostles were Jewish). How are you determining what was happening at that time?

Originally Posted by Essaias

Not to mention outside Biblical doctrine.

How exactly is what I said about Jewish proselyte baptism of the time outside "Biblical" doctrine?

Originally Posted by Esaias

Mikvah requires one to "immerse oneself". Bible baptism is done with one person baptizing another. Thus, baptism and mikvah are not the same..But since we're not debating...

I don't consider your response to me to be debating at all...I'm taking it as you explaining your point of view. But your point of view right there is circular...you simply asserted your belief is Biblical as evidence that it is Biblical. I was providing Bible verses in the hope of trying to follow a baptism as Biblically literal as I could and you are saying it is all outside "Biblical doctrine," but you don't say where, how, or quote Scripture...so while I would like to understand why you believe that to be true regarding what I previously post, I have not the slightest idea.

Originally Posted by Esaias

BTW, Acts 22:16 is the basis for my statement "and prayer to be saved". I probably wasn't clear WHO is to make this prayer (it is the person being baptized).

I think I got that but thanks for clarifying (assume nothing when you are not sure someone else understands, I appreciate that). I have to be honest with you though since I did not write to debate either...I am discussing the idea of someone saying "the way I do something is Biblical and it is not a matter of interpretation" and someone else saying that it is a matter of interpretation.

For example, I am sure it is the person being baptized who needs to "call on the name of the Lord," not the person "baptizing them." You believe it is the person baptizing who needs to do this. From what I understand, you believe that a person being baptized folds their arms in front (I'm just guessing/assuming you do it the way most churches do) and they basically fall backwards into the baptizers arms who dunks them? If it is different than that please explain, and then SHOW ME IN THE BIBLE. I don't see any of that in the Bible, if you show it to me I will honestly be more than happy to read it. I do know that John didn't instruct anyone to be baptized differently than how Jews had always done it, so I don't think he was doing the dunking. But once again, if you have Bible passages that say otherwise I would love to read them. Otherwise, on what basis can you call YOUR WAY Biblical and call what I posted above outside Biblical doctrine?

Incidentally, I didn't say the one baptizing didn't say anything but I didn't need to go further than I did to get calling on the name of Jesus in Baptism. If the one baptizing says anything and I want to be Biblically literal, I find it right here:

Matthew 28:19-20 (NKJV)

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

That is the only thing I know of that might be a command to someone baptizing instead of being baptized with regard to saying something. That is a command to those who would baptize, not the one being baptized. So literally and Biblically, the one Baptizing should say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And that has nothing to do with doctrine of the Trinity, or what you believe regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus always referred to the Father and the Holy Spirit as something/someone other than Himself. I already know you want to "change" this to "Jesus" even though Jesus Himself never called the Father and the Holy Spirit Jesus...but the problem with being literal is that you would want to change it at all. See, Jesus could have said, "Baptizing them in my name" if that's what he meant. We can see that in Luke where he said (and as I already quoted):

Luke 24:45-47 (ESV)

45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

But that is not what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 regarding baptism, so if I want to do EXACTLY as the Bible says and I am the Baptizer instead of the Baptizee as it were (I'm not sure that's a word) I will baptize in "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." If you are right and there is a complete equivalence relation between "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and Jesus Christ (which there must be in order for you to justify this "change" at all in your interpretation), then it makes no difference and I would still be the one being more Biblically literal. If you are wrong and there is not a complete equivalence relation then you are the one outside "Biblical doctrine."

I'm going to stop here and say a couple of things. First off, I need to point out once again, I'm not debating baptism (I would go about this somewhat differently if I was). I'm using the topic of baptism to talk about and illustrate another topic...claiming your doctrine is "Biblical" (whatever that doctrine may be about) and that it is not a matter of "interpretation," and that you take the Bible "literally," and actually test that to see if that is true. I have taken a topic and tried to remain true to what it "literally says," as well as trying to understand it in the time and culture it was written and you have told me that I'm outside "Biblical doctrine" while you add things that cannot be found, change things that are there, and do not like to interpret within its historical context.

See, I'm not even trying to put this up for a vote, or a win or lose as in "my doctrine on Baptism is more Biblical than yours and is less interpretative," so if that's what your understanding stop, pause...I'm asking you and anyone else, ARE YOU SURE you are getting your doctrine straight from Scripture and taking it literally without adding anything, or are you interpreting, and does at least some of that interpretation come from the culture and people of today that are like minded to you? Is it possible that people who disagree with you have doctrine's that come from the Bible as much as yours? And they may even read it more literally than you?

So I can't be anymore clear than that. However, if you do want to answer my questions that are above somewhere, like I said, I don't consider that a debate, I think that is you explaining and I would be interested so if you have time.

Thanks Esaias.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

My question(s) are about Oneness Baptism and Acts 2:38 in general, not about Billy Graham, that is why I plucked this out of the Billy Graham thread and started a new thread with it. So in that thread, this was said:



So here are my questions (I may have follow ups). Can you tell me how Billy Graham didn't get it right? (without attacking Graham because if you do, this will immediately become another Billy Graham thread...feel free to detail how he got it wrong).

Layman how is someone saved in your church?

What does salvation look like where you pastor?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

I'm merely using Jewish culture of the time (John the baptist was baptizing and didn't need to explain what he was doing) as I look at Jews baptizing (the Apostles were Jewish). How are you determining what was happening at that time?



How exactly is what I said about Jewish proselyte baptism of the time outside "Biblical" doctrine?



I don't consider your response to me to be debating at all...I'm taking it as you explaining your point of view. But your point of view right there is circular...you simply asserted your belief is Biblical as evidence that it is Biblical. I was providing Bible verses in the hope of trying to follow a baptism as Biblically literal as I could and you are saying it is all outside "Biblical doctrine," but you don't say where, how, or quote Scripture...so while I would like to understand why you believe that to be true regarding what I previously post, I have not the slightest idea.



I think I got that but thanks for clarifying (assume nothing when you are not sure someone else understands, I appreciate that). I have to be honest with you though since I did not write to debate either...I am discussing the idea of someone saying "the way I do something is Biblical and it is not a matter of interpretation" and someone else saying that it is a matter of interpretation.

For example, I am sure it is the person being baptized who needs to "call on the name of the Lord," not the person "baptizing them." You believe it is the person baptizing who needs to do this. From what I understand, you believe that a person being baptized folds their arms in front (I'm just guessing/assuming you do it the way most churches do) and they basically fall backwards into the baptizers arms who dunks them? If it is different than that please explain, and then SHOW ME IN THE BIBLE. I don't see any of that in the Bible, if you show it to me I will honestly be more than happy to read it. I do know that John didn't instruct anyone to be baptized differently than how Jews had always done it, so I don't think he was doing the dunking. But once again, if you have Bible passages that say otherwise I would love to read them. Otherwise, on what basis can you call YOUR WAY Biblical and call what I posted above outside Biblical doctrine?

Incidentally, I didn't say the one baptizing didn't say anything but I didn't need to go further than I did to get calling on the name of Jesus in Baptism. If the one baptizing says anything and I want to be Biblically literal, I find it right here:

Matthew 28:19-20 (NKJV)

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

That is the only thing I know of that might be a command to someone baptizing instead of being baptized with regard to saying something. That is a command to those who would baptize, not the one being baptized. So literally and Biblically, the one Baptizing should say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And that has nothing to do with doctrine of the Trinity, or what you believe regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus always referred to the Father and the Holy Spirit as something/someone other than Himself. I already know you want to "change" this to "Jesus" even though Jesus Himself never called the Father and the Holy Spirit Jesus...but the problem with being literal is that you would want to change it at all. See, Jesus could have said, "Baptizing them in my name" if that's what he meant. We can see that in Luke where he said (and as I already quoted):

Luke 24:45-47 (ESV)

45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

But that is not what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 regarding baptism, so if I want to do EXACTLY as the Bible says and I am the Baptizer instead of the Baptizee as it were (I'm not sure that's a word) I will baptize in "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." If you are right and there is a complete equivalence relation between "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and Jesus Christ (which there must be in order for you to justify this "change" at all in your interpretation), then it makes no difference and I would still be the one being more Biblically literal. If you are wrong and there is not a complete equivalence relation then you are the one outside "Biblical doctrine."

I'm going to stop here and say a couple of things. First off, I need to point out once again, I'm not debating baptism (I would go about this somewhat differently if I was). I'm using the topic of baptism to talk about and illustrate another topic...claiming your doctrine is "Biblical" (whatever that doctrine may be about) and that it is not a matter of "interpretation," and that you take the Bible "literally," and actually test that to see if that is true. I have taken a topic and tried to remain true to what it "literally says," as well as trying to understand it in the time and culture it was written and you have told me that I'm outside "Biblical doctrine" while you add things that cannot be found, change things that are there, and do not like to interpret within its historical context.

See, I'm not even trying to put this up for a vote, or a win or lose as in "my doctrine on Baptism is more Biblical than yours and is less interpretative," so if that's what your understanding stop, pause...I'm asking you and anyone else, ARE YOU SURE you are getting your doctrine straight from Scripture and taking it literally without adding anything, or are you interpreting, and does at least some of that interpretation come from the culture and people of today that are like minded to you? Is it possible that people who disagree with you have doctrine's that come from the Bible as much as yours? And they may even read it more literally than you?

So I can't be anymore clear than that. However, if you do want to answer my questions that are above somewhere, like I said, I don't consider that a debate, I think that is you explaining and I would be interested so if you have time.

Thanks Esaias.

1. Jewish proselyte baptism. I believe so called Jewish proselyte baptism is a post-exilic (and likely post AD70) development within Judaism. There is no Biblical example or hint of proselyte baptism.

2. John's baptism. John's baptism was not directed at gentiles, therefore was not "Jewish proselyte baptism". It was a new thing, as evidenced by the theological dilemma it posed: who are you be baptizing if not the Christ, that Prophet, or Elijah?

3. Baptism vs mikvah. Both John's baptism and Christian baptism required two participants: the baptizee, and the baptizer. Jewish mikvah requires only one participant: the one being immersed. Both John's baptism and Christian baptism were non-repeatable, that is, a person received it once and there was no provision for it to be repeated. Mikvah is repeatable.

4. Baptismal formulae. Regardless of what one believes the proper formula to be, that there IS a formula of some sort is demonstrated by the following: A) History records the early introduction of controversy surrounding the proper baptismal formula, but there is no record of an innovative introduction of a formula per se. In other words, if original baptism did not involve the baptiser using a formula at all, we would expect to be able to identify when such an innovation was brought in. We can't, and the record of baptismal controversy simply assumes a formula of some sort was always used. B) The presence of both a baptizee and a baptizer implies the use of a formula or stated declaration of intent and purpose on the part of the baptizer. Matthew 28:19 is a command to the baptizers, whereas Acts 2:38 is a command to the baptizees. Thus, BOTH are commanded to "do something in the name". If Acts 2:38 is a command for the baptizee to verbally invoke the name in baptism, then Matthew 28:19 is a command for the baptizer to do the same when baptizing. This is further indicated by James 2:7 which can be read as "that worthy name which was called upon/over you". Additionally, the priestly blessing illustrates the same principle of placing the Name upon a people via oral invocation of that Name by the representative of that Name.

Now, as far as the mechanics, Scripture gives certain directions that are essential elements, while remaining silent regarding certain other directions which therefore are accidental elements and subject to local usage. For example, two persons, water, immersion, faithful profession of faith, are essential elements. Nose held or not, forward or backward, arms crossed or not, water temperature, stream, pond, lake, ocean or bathtub, etc are all accidental elements that are up to the church, minister, or individual to decide. The same applies to the express words used in baptism: as long as the essential element of "in the name of Jesus" is included, without adding names, or otherwise subverting the intention and purpose and object of baptism, then the particular form of words is flexible. The same principle holds true in benedictions or Eucharistic prayers: as long as the essential element of thanks to God through Christ is preserved and centermost, the one praying can use whatever words they want.

As for Bible vs Bible interpretation, one might say EVERYTHING is interpretation. The question is, which interpretation is most faithful to the Biblical data? Is affusion more faithful to the Biblical data than immersion? Etc. But this gets into the question of epistemology which is beyond the scope of this thread, I think.

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Layman how is someone saved in your church?

What does salvation look like where you pastor?

EB, it is too easy to begin a debate on these boards and for me to then violate the rules so I try to be very careful. These days if there is an area of Oneness I would like to gather some information on or understand more clearly, I begin a topic and seek information. In this thread (and frankly the one on tongues) I was actually trying to find out "how literal" some Oneness doctrines are, how "literal" and "Biblical" are determined, and if I was understanding from the Billy Graham thread, why many (not all) seem to have an aversion to saying that they have beliefs that are founded on an interpretation of something the Bible says rather than on what it literally says in a passage.

A couple of things I would say to anyone especially in people in my own sphere:

• The Bible is not a dictionary. All you need to do to understand this is look anywhere in the Bible and pick up a Webster's and compare the two...so don't treat it like a dictionary.
  
• The Bible is not a systematic theology book, you can't just look up soteriology, or Christology, or ecclesiology, and so forth. Can we find places where aspects of these things are discussed? Yes, absolutely...but there is an interpretation process. And after interpreting anything in context you need to find everywhere else that all of the important elements are discussed, interpret those, and reconcile them.
  
• And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I love to tell Protestants and Evangelicals (people in my sphere) that they believe their doctrine is "Biblical" and they don't rely on "Tradition" that they are wrong, they have plenty of "Tradition," which is why they have distinctives which define them.

Once again...I'm just looking at what people mean by saying they take the Bible "literally," their doctrine is "Biblical" and not a matter of "interpretation,"... not so much the doctrines themselves. As an example, what I have learned in this thread (I realize there is only limited participation, but I can still learn something), when Oneness speak about Acts 2:38, and preaching Acts 2:38, and Acts 2:38 baptism they don't really mean Acts 2:38, they mean how Oneness interprets Acts 2:38. Based on what I have learned you cannot find what Oneness do in Acts 2:38, but it can be said that what Oneness do is consistent with a certain interpretation of Acts 2:38 in conjunction with the interpretation of other passages.

TheLayman

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. Jewish proselyte baptism. I believe so called Jewish proselyte baptism is a post-exilic (and likely post AD70) development within Judaism. There is no Biblical example or hint of proselyte baptism.

2. John's baptism. John's baptism was not directed at gentiles, therefore was not "Jewish proselyte baptism". It was a new thing, as evidenced by the theological dilemma it posed: who are you be baptizing if not the Christ, that Prophet, or Elijah?

3. Baptism vs mikvah. Both John's baptism and Christian baptism required two participants: the baptizee, and the baptizer. Jewish mikvah requires only one participant: the one being immersed. Both John's baptism and Christian baptism were non-repeatable, that is, a person received it once and there was no provision for it to be repeated. Mikvah is repeatable.

4. Baptismal formulae. Regardless of what one believes the proper formula to be, that there IS a formula of some sort is demonstrated by the following: A) History records the early introduction of controversy surrounding the proper baptismal formula, but there is no record of an innovative introduction of a formula per se. In other words, if original baptism did not involve the baptiser using a formula at all, we would expect to be able to identify when such an innovation was brought in. We can't, and the record of baptismal controversy simply assumes a formula of some sort was always used. B) The presence of both a baptizee and a baptizer implies the use of a formula or stated declaration of intent and purpose on the part of the baptizer. Matthew 28:19 is a command to the baptizers, whereas Acts 2:38 is a command to the baptizees. Thus, BOTH are commanded to "do something in the name". If Acts 2:38 is a command for the baptizee to verbally invoke the name in baptism, then Matthew 28:19 is a command for the baptizer to do the same when baptizing. This is further indicated by James 2:7 which can be read as "that worthy name which was called upon/over you". Additionally, the priestly blessing illustrates the same principle of placing the Name upon a people via oral invocation of that Name by the representative of that Name.

Now, as far as the mechanics, Scripture gives certain directions that are essential elements, while remaining silent regarding certain other directions which therefore are accidental elements and subject to local usage. For example, two persons, water, immersion, faithful profession of faith, are essential elements. Nose held or not, forward or backward, arms crossed or not, water temperature, stream, pond, lake, ocean or bathtub, etc are all accidental elements that are up to the church, minister, or individual to decide. The same applies to the express words used in baptism: as long as the essential element of "in the name of Jesus" is included, without adding names, or otherwise subverting the intention and purpose and object of baptism, then the particular form of words is flexible. The same principle holds true in benedictions or Eucharistic prayers: as long as the essential element of thanks to God through Christ is preserved and centermost, the one praying can use whatever words they want.

As for Bible vs Bible interpretation, one might say EVERYTHING is interpretation. The question is, which interpretation is most faithful to the Biblical data? Is affusion more faithful to the Biblical data than immersion? Etc. But this gets into the question of epistemology which is beyond the scope of this thread, I think.

I didn't want you to think you took the time to write this and I didn't read it...I did read it and I appreciate your thoughts and input.

TheLayman

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

I didn't want you to think you took the time to write this and I didn't read it...I did read it and I appreciate your thoughts and input.

TheLayman

Perhaps you could explain what you see as the difference between "taking the Bible literally" and "interpreting the Bible"? What guidelines are there to differentiate the two, and where do those guidelines come from?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

I love to tell Protestants and Evangelicals (people in my sphere) that they believe their doctrine is "Biblical" and they don't rely on "Tradition" that they are wrong, they have plenty of "Tradition," which is why they have distinctives which define them.

First are you Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox? Please feel at ease here, I assure you, you will violate no rule of this forum by being frank. We had someone posing as a Muslim who really filled up a plethora of posts with his attacks on Oneness. I don't believe that is what you are doing. You are more like the man who only has one eye, trying to teach the blind. But "Tradition" vs "Sola Scriptura" is interesting, and that every movement and religion has "traditions" which they believe are Biblical and historical. Consider this, this country was predominantly colonized first by Puritans, these Puritans viewed this new world as their city set upon a hill, a New Jerusalem. They believed that would have a new start free from Roman Catholicism and the Anglican Church of England. Most movements in this country came out of those first religious settlers Pilgrims, Baptists, and Puritans. Roman Catholicism would have to wait way later until the potato famine would drive Irish refugees to the North East of this country. Little does anyone know that Washington was a closet Catholic. Yet, the big schism is Traditions of the Church, vs Sola Scriptura. So, please, be kind enough to tell us what you believe, what religious persuasion you are affiliated towards. Since you love to tell the two groups of Protesters and Evangelical Fundamentalists that their Bible only really isn't Bible only.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

Once again...I'm just looking at what people mean by saying they take the Bible "literally," their doctrine is "Biblical" and not a matter of "interpretation,"... not so much the doctrines themselves. As an example, what I have learned in this thread (I realize there is only limited participation, but I can still learn something), when Oneness speak about Acts 2:38, and preaching Acts 2:38, and Acts 2:38 baptism they don't really mean Acts 2:38, they mean how Oneness interprets Acts 2:38. Based on what I have learned you cannot find what Oneness do in Acts 2:38, but it can be said that what Oneness do is consistent with a certain interpretation of Acts 2:38 in conjunction with the interpretation of other passages.

TheLayman[/COLOR]

Right, because this is exactly where you wanted to arrive, on this Forum, all along.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Right, because this is exactly where you wanted to arrive, on this Forum, all along.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

Incidentally, I didn't say the one baptizing didn't say anything but I didn't need to go further than I did to get calling on the name of Jesus in Baptism. If the one baptizing says anything and I want to be Biblically literal, I find it right here:

Matthew 28:19-20 (NKJV)

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Perhaps you are not aware of over 50 different versions which have a different citation of Matthew 28:19

28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name:

I would say those minority versions are in accord with Acts 2:38.