1. I’m not saying that history is unimportant, in deed I think the whole of early Christians history is on my side of the matter, but ultimately it doesn’t matter what people have done throughout religious history, nor what any people, scholars or otherwise, may be ignorant of concerning archaic, pagan beliefs. What matters is what God has communicated through the Scriptures. If we begin to denounce any teaching that has some parallel in other religions, soon there will be nothing left to teach. The fact is, Satan is a liar and has been from the beginning. He has made it his mission to convolute the truth and deceive. If the Scriptures teach something, then it is something we must believe, regardless of who has or hasn’t believed it in the past or any apparent connection to other religions.
2. I’m not sure of the question here, but you seem to be intimating that the Scriptures were changed to fit a popular belief. I disagree with your synopsis and I would issue a stern warning here: claiming that someone has changed the Bible when it doesn’t fit with a current belief system is a serious accusation (which must be accompanied by overwhelming evidence) and is a tenuous position at best.
First, the evidence against the ending of Mark is relatively small, primarily it’s being absent two codices (both from around the 4th century). However, there is evidence for the long ending in many textual witnesses that are older (some dating back to the 2nd century). Additionally, the long ending to Mark is quoted by Justin Martyr, Tatian and Irenaeus. It’s also interesting to note that the same approach to other passages is not taken as some do with the ending of Mark. For example, the ending of Mark 16 is not included in the Codex Vaticanus, and this causes some to question its validity. Now, let’s be consistent and question everything not in that codex – that’s fair, right? If we throw out everything not included in that Codex, then you need to get rid of the entire book of Revelation. Editors love to put footnotes at the end of Mark, but no one ever puts a note about Revelation. Regardless, even if Mark ended at verse 9, it doesn’t change what is written in other places, e.g. Matthew 28:18-20. Rather than arguing that the Bible was changed in antiquity due to a popular doctrine, I argue the abundance of evidence shows that people are trying to alter the Scriptures today because they don’t like what it teaches.
3. No, I do not agree to that. I believe that the baptism of John and the baptism Jesus commanded were different. The baptism that John commanded was not “into the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:18-20). The baptism of John did not connect the person receiving it to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as does baptism as commanded by Christ. Though there may be similarities, they are not the same thing. When Paul encountered people who had been baptized by John, he had them baptized again into the name of Jesus (Acts 19:1-7)
4. The passing of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit were not done at the whim of the apostles. The Scriptures clearly state “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good…All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Corinthians 12:7-11). As indicated above, the baptisms of John and Jesus are two different things.
5. No, that is not my understanding of Acts 22:16. In the passage, when one carefully examines the grammatical structure of the sentence, it becomes clear that baptism is how one calls upon the name of the Lord. Paul believed when he met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul prayed for three days without food and water. Yet, through all of this, Paul was still in his sins, otherwise, why would Ananias, at the command of Jesus, tell Paul, “Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins…” If he was already saved, there would be no sins to wash away. Baptism was an essential part of the salvation process and it could not willfully be omitted. This is also seen in 1 Peter 3:21 in that baptism is how we make our appeal to God. Baptism, according to Peter, is how we ask God for a clean or good conscience. We ask God to save us when we are baptized into Jesus Christ.
6. It is my understanding that Romans 6 was not written until approximately 30 years after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This, however, certainly does not mean that the teaching was not present. Just because something was not recorded immediately doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist at the beginning of the faith. The gospel of Mark was not written until about 20 years after the resurrection of Jesus. Following any logic that discredits Romans 6 based on the passing of time, then the entire gospel of Mark – indeed all of the New Testament writings – become suspect. As it stands, there is more evidence for the continuity of Christianity and its doctrines than any other ancient information we have. If we can’t trust the New Testament, then we can’t trust anything when it comes to historiography. To deny something because it wasn’t immediately present in writing necessitates the denial of the entire faith.
7. No, I don’t believe it necessary to understand each step of the process thoroughly, only trusting that God will do exactly as he says. There is certainly information that must be known, but to say that one must know it thoroughly would certainly mean that no one could every be saved. Regarding true belief, the demons truly believe. However, they refuse to act on their belief. If we are to be saved, there must not only be the mental ascent to Biblical truth but also the willingness to act upon it. James would say that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). To deny that one must be willing to act upon what God has said is to say that demons are saved (cf James 2:19).
8. I don’t believe the letters of Peter are questionable. I believe they are inspired by God and their teaching is plain. When Peter plainly declares that baptism is part of salvation, I believe what he says. One must either deny or twist the words of Scripture to come away with an understanding other than the necessity of baptism when Peter writes “Baptism now saves you…” It’s quite plain.
9. Actually, I don’t believe that God has a “name”, at least not one that must be spoken in order to be saved.
10. It is clear that God has laid out a rule of faith, a process by which salvation occurs. This process involves things like hearing the gospel (Rom 10:17), repenting of unbelief (Acts 2:38), and being baptized into Christ (Rom 6:3-4). This is the rule that has been laid out, plainly, in the Scriptures and all people should strive to follow it. Might there be an exception to the rule? Surely one would not deny the right of a Sovereign God to do whatever he pleases. However, rather than undo the rule, any exception strengthens it. If there is to be an exception, it means that there is a prescribed, standard process put in place. Any exception which then exists only serves to prove and provide credence for the rule.
However, I would advise caution in this line of thinking. What if you didn’t get the chance to be baptized? Only God truly knows whether the person literally never had the opportunity. Putting too much emphasis on this or using this as an excuse for disobedience to plain Bible teachings creates a slippery slope via which we can excuse any kind of responsibility on our part: what about people who never had an opportunity to believe? Clearly, then, we don’t need to believe, right? Jolly good for all the atheists out there, they’ve been all right all along. All joking aside, it’s a serious matter to start undoing clear Biblical teaching because of hypothetical happenstances. We are not to sit as judges over the word of God, but to be obedient servants of it (cf James 4:11-12; Luke 17:10).
***
I'm looking forward to reading @Cuddles222 first negative rebuttal
