View Full Version : Baptism from God's Perspective
gloryseeker
06-10-2009, 09:54 AM
I was thinking about all the posts about baptism...you know whether it is important what the preacher says prior to baptism.
Let me challenge you to back away from your theology for a moment and think about a couple of points about the Body of Christ in general.
Two men - one is "trinity" and one is "oneness" both tell stories of how they had visitation from Jesus and that He spoke with them about their ministries about the times they lived in and so forth.
The men: Kenneth Hagin (the Senior one) and Chester Hensley
I have heard accounts of both men (Hensley in person and Hagin through books). Both claiming to have had several encounters with Jesus, yet neither of these men stated that Jesus Himself told them, "Make sure and get 'the others' rebaptized the way you understand it."
As the one guy posted on this forum (don't remember who it was) proclaimed in bold, colored, all cap letters "if you are not baptized in the Name of Jesus you are going to hell." Well, if this is true there are a lot of trinitarian people out there who truly love the Lord. I would think that if "the way" of baptism was so important that Jesus would have mentioned it to one of these guys.
Then we could look at a multitude of people who are considered to be "God's Generals." These would be people like Alexander Dowie, Maria Woodworth Etter, Seymour, Kuhlman, Wigglesworth, Branum, Sumrall, and others. Of those who operated in an absolute power and demonstration of God they were split with about 30% being oneness and about 70% being trinity.
People have die hard opinions of baptism, but my question is....."does God?"
OnTheFritz
06-10-2009, 09:57 AM
:popcorn2
Jermyn Davidson
06-10-2009, 10:33 AM
I hope not.
There are just so many sincere Trinitarians baptized the way they know.
ManOfWord
06-10-2009, 10:44 AM
You know, that has been the major point of contention (in oneness circles) for decades! We, I believe, can't see the forrest for the trees. God, could easily, if He wanted to, give the oneness revelation including baptism in Jesus' name on a wide scale. He hasn't. He has had plenty of opportunities to do so and still does.
So, is God playing a game? Does He not relent in sending HG filled "trinnies" to hell?
Has he blinded the eyes of the vast majority of ALL sincere believers/christians throughout the ages only to consign them to a devil's hell for their omission which HE was in control of?
My thoughts: What kind of a sick "moral" creature would actually behave that way? I'm sorry, but is NOT the God whom I serve. The God whom I serve and whom the bible speaks of hears the sinner's cry for salvation and receives those who genuinely put their lives into His hands! If He desires to lead them further into "truth" then that really is not difficult for Him to do.
Why doesn't He? That's the question! IMO, it is because He is far MORE concerned about them coming to Him than he is about the doctrinal minutiae that we fuss and fight about down here. I think "we'll" be sorely surprised when we get to the other side and find out who made it. :D
Jermyn Davidson
06-10-2009, 10:50 AM
You know, that has been the major point of contention (in oneness circles) for decades! We, I believe, can't see the forrest for the trees. God, could easily, if He wanted to, give the oneness revelation including baptism in Jesus' name on a wide scale. He hasn't. He has had plenty of opportunities to do so and still does.
So, is God playing a game? Does He not relent in sending HG filled "trinnies" to hell?
Has he blinded the eyes of the vast majority of ALL sincere believers/christians throughout the ages only to consign them to a devil's hell for their omission which HE was in control of?
My thoughts: What kind of a sick "moral" creature would actually behave that way? I'm sorry, but is NOT the God whom I serve. The God whom I serve and whom the bible speaks of hears the sinner's cry for salvation and receives those who genuinely put their lives into His hands! If He desires to lead them further into "truth" then that really is not difficult for Him to do.
Why doesn't He? That's the question! IMO, it is because He is far MORE concerned about them coming to Him than he is about the doctrinal minutiae that we fuss and fight about down here. I think "we'll" be sorely surprised when we get to the other side and find out who made it. :D
Sir,
God does not blind anyone-- people blind themselves in error.
The Bible speaks of the blind being led by the blind and the both falling into the ditch.
The Bible speaks of folks who do great exploits in the Name of Jesus, and those folks are told, "Depart from me ye workers of iniquity. I never knew you."
So there is some danger in deception, some danger in not doing things and not believing the way the Bible prescribes, teaches, and commands.
It was a man that changed Matthew 28:19 (so I beleive).
It was a sin commited by a sinful man.
Who's to say that this good-willed but blind man did not do the unthinkable-- leading millions of souls away from GOD, His Will, and His Identity through His Son?
If that man was wrong? Was it sin?
If it was sin, the people who follow him are in sin too, right?
*AQuietPlace*
06-10-2009, 11:03 AM
We believe that God has preserved his word for us, and that it is true. So why did he allow Matt. 28:19 to be changed, and to stand all of these years? When it will cause so many sincere, honest, God-fearing and loving people to burn in hell?
KWSS1976
06-10-2009, 11:10 AM
For all you greek,hebrew,noun,pronoun proper grammer folks on here...lol
http://www.velocity.net/~edju/web/Trinity7.htm
Jermyn Davidson
06-10-2009, 11:14 AM
For all you greek,hebrew,noun,pronoun proper grammer folks on here...lol
http://www.velocity.net/~edju/web/Trinity7.htm
But Matthew 28:19 in the original Greek does not mention the F, S or Hg in the first place!
So the whole premise in the link provided is based on a fallacy in the first place!
Steve Epley
06-10-2009, 11:24 AM
Everyone from Pentecost until the rapture is lost without being immersed in Jesus Name. ONLY through immersion in Jesus Name are sins remitted in the NT church age. I hope this helps.
KWSS1976
06-10-2009, 11:27 AM
But Steve you said that the water does not save you so how can you be lost If I am correct here you said the blood on calvery is what saved us not immersion....
Steve Epley
06-10-2009, 11:30 AM
But Steve you said that the water does not save you so how can you be lost If I am correct here you said the blood on calvery is what saved us not immersion....
The shed blood forgives and remits sins through faith I appropriate the blood through obeying the gospel. Part of that gospel is immersion in Jesus Name FOR the remission of sins and all who have not been immersed in Jesus Name do NOT have their sins remitted.
KWSS1976
06-10-2009, 11:39 AM
So everytime you sin Steve you go get rebaptised?
Praxeas
06-10-2009, 11:43 AM
I was thinking about all the posts about baptism...you know whether it is important what the preacher says prior to baptism.
Let me challenge you to back away from your theology for a moment and think about a couple of points about the Body of Christ in general.
Two men - one is "trinity" and one is "oneness" both tell stories of how they had visitation from Jesus and that He spoke with them about their ministries about the times they lived in and so forth.
The men: Kenneth Hagin (the Senior one) and Chester Hensley
I have heard accounts of both men (Hensley in person and Hagin through books). Both claiming to have had several encounters with Jesus, yet neither of these men stated that Jesus Himself told them, "Make sure and get 'the others' rebaptized the way you understand it."
As the one guy posted on this forum (don't remember who it was) proclaimed in bold, colored, all cap letters "if you are not baptized in the Name of Jesus you are going to hell." Well, if this is true there are a lot of trinitarian people out there who truly love the Lord. I would think that if "the way" of baptism was so important that Jesus would have mentioned it to one of these guys.
Then we could look at a multitude of people who are considered to be "God's Generals." These would be people like Alexander Dowie, Maria Woodworth Etter, Seymour, Kuhlman, Wigglesworth, Branum, Sumrall, and others. Of those who operated in an absolute power and demonstration of God they were split with about 30% being oneness and about 70% being trinity.
People have die hard opinions of baptism, but my question is....."does God?"
God's opinion on baptism is written in the word of God. Does God have die hard opinions on baptism? Does the word say he does or does not?
Steve Epley
06-10-2009, 11:43 AM
So everytime you sin Steve you go get rebaptised?
No baptism remits past sins it is the birth of water of Jn. 3:5 we are only born once. Repentance takes care of the sins of saints they have already been born again.
KWSS1976
06-10-2009, 11:48 AM
I thought repentance removed past sins.....If you repent,be baptised in jesus name the next day go sin then when you repent you are remiting the past sin you just commited plus when you repent the first time god remits those past sins...Your way you have to get baptised in water everytime you sin to get sins remitted..
gloryseeker
06-10-2009, 12:37 PM
Everyone from Pentecost until the rapture is lost without being immersed in Jesus Name. ONLY through immersion in Jesus Name are sins remitted in the NT church age. I hope this helps.
You comment is interesting although as I believe totally in error. Although I think the most interesting thing about it is the power of personal theology.
Now, I know you fully believe what you have said and I respect that, but it is so contrary to what God has done.
I think that Man of the Word's comments would more be more accurate in a pure oneness theology, but even his comments are extremely interesting because his approach is that he is totally correct and is trying to fit God into His belief system.
Could it possibly be that God knows more than us and those who say "God's opinion is clearly written in His Word" are really saying that in terms of "how they interpret His Word."
It is very evident that there are many trinitarians who live cleaner more holy lives than oneness (and vice versa), there are many trinitarians who pray in the Spirit more than oneness (and vice versa), there are many mighty works done through trinitarians (and vice versa), so it may just be that God's standard is different than man's standard
Aquila
06-10-2009, 01:03 PM
I was thinking about all the posts about baptism...you know whether it is important what the preacher says prior to baptism.
Let me challenge you to back away from your theology for a moment and think about a couple of points about the Body of Christ in general.
Two men - one is "trinity" and one is "oneness" both tell stories of how they had visitation from Jesus and that He spoke with them about their ministries about the times they lived in and so forth.
The men: Kenneth Hagin (the Senior one) and Chester Hensley
I have heard accounts of both men (Hensley in person and Hagin through books). Both claiming to have had several encounters with Jesus, yet neither of these men stated that Jesus Himself told them, "Make sure and get 'the others' rebaptized the way you understand it."
As the one guy posted on this forum (don't remember who it was) proclaimed in bold, colored, all cap letters "if you are not baptized in the Name of Jesus you are going to hell." Well, if this is true there are a lot of trinitarian people out there who truly love the Lord. I would think that if "the way" of baptism was so important that Jesus would have mentioned it to one of these guys.
Then we could look at a multitude of people who are considered to be "God's Generals." These would be people like Alexander Dowie, Maria Woodworth Etter, Seymour, Kuhlman, Wigglesworth, Branum, Sumrall, and others. Of those who operated in an absolute power and demonstration of God they were split with about 30% being oneness and about 70% being trinity.
People have die hard opinions of baptism, but my question is....."does God?"
It is my opinion that one has to be water baptized to be saved. Any acceptations due to disability make the rule and leave us with the ability without excuse).
As to “wording” when being water baptized. I sometimes fear that we use the name of Jesus like it’s some kind of magic incantation spoken by a minister that washes away sin. Biblically speaking, it is the one being baptized that is commanded to call on the name of the Lord, not the baptizer. Look at what Paul was told,
Acts 22:16
16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
It was Paul’s responsibility to call upon the name of the Lord at his baptism and have his sins washed away.
I believe whole heartedly that the original Apostolic method of water baptism involves calling on, or invoking, the name of the Lord Jesus at the moment of baptism. However, I don’t think these “formulas” are the point. The point is … is the one being water baptized calling on the power of the name of Jesus to wash away their sins? Many powerful men of God down through history were baptized under the traditional Trinitarian formula. However, a number of them were being obedient to Scripture by seeking water baptism… and were indeed calling upon the name of the Lord at the moment they were water baptized. While I will agree that these men underwent a baptism using a traditional “formula”, I firmly believe that if they, themselves, were calling on the name of the Lord in a humble and repentant heart, God accepted their act of faith-filled obedience and remitted their sin. In Heaven, they will give glory to Jesus, remembering having called upon his name… not the words muttered by some religious official. Same with Oneness Apostolic folk; if the individual being water baptized is relying on the verbiage of some Apostolic preacher… he’s not relying on Jesus. He’s relying on a man, and the baptism is ineffectual, they only get wet. However, if that person is praying and calling on the name of Jesus, the man of God of course freely praying and calling on the name with them, God hears him regardless of what the preacher says.
As for Holy Ghost infilling - men like Tyndale, Luther, Wesley, etc. had very powerful spiritual experiences while in prayer with weeping, groaning, and unintelligible sobbing that they didn’t label or fully understand. I believe that this was the baptism of the Holy Ghost. While yes, they were still entrenched in much “tradition” they were being used of God to bring the church back to Apostolic purity like the prophets of old… one generation at a time. And I do expect to see them in Heaven. I wouldn’t be reading a Bible today if not for Tyndale. He will not loose his reward. If these men were alive today, I believe they’d be at the cutting edge of what God is doing. Sadly, our Apostolic denominations are growing cold and traditional in their own ways. Keep an eye open… the weather’s right for another move of God… another reformation.
Most might shudder at the idea of another Reformation and our beloved organizations becoming old wineskins. But think about it… there’s still much “tradition” in us; for example, the Lord’s Supper. Biblically speaking, the Lord’s Supper isn’t adequately observed with a wafer and thimble of juice. It’s a full meal, remembering the broken body and shed blood at Calvary and looking forward to Christ’s coming and the day when we will sit and feast with him at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Our pot-luck dinners have more in common with the Lord’s Supper than our Catholic Communion services. This is a Catholic Tradition we embrace and practice often. It needs to go and we need to return to the fullness of the Lord’s Supper.
I’ll stop there. You get my point.
For me the issue isn’t so much who muttered what over one being baptized… it’s whose name was the one being baptized calling upon at the moment of water baptism. That is where baptism has its true power.
I digress.
gloryseeker
06-10-2009, 01:07 PM
It is my opinion that one has to be water baptized to be saved. Any acceptations due to disability make the rule and leave us with the ability without excuse).
Aquila, maybe I didn't have enough coffee this morning, but could you rephrase the above as I don't get what you are saying
KWSS1976
06-10-2009, 01:08 PM
Aquila per your statement
It is my opinion that one has to be water baptized to be saved. Any acceptations due to disability make the rule and leave us with the ability without excuse).
show me where in scripture someone with a disability gets a free ride...
gloryseeker
06-10-2009, 01:11 PM
As to “wording” when being water baptized. I sometimes fear that we use the name of Jesus like it’s some kind of magic incantation spoken by a minister that washes away sin. Biblically speaking, it is the one being baptized that is commanded to call on the name of the Lord, not the baptizer. Look at what Paul was told,
Acts 22:16
16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
It was Paul’s responsibility to call upon the name of the Lord at his baptism and have his sins washed away.
I believe whole heartedly that the original Apostolic method of water baptism involves calling on, or invoking, the name of the Lord Jesus at the moment of baptism. However, I don’t think these “formulas” are the point. The point is … is the one being water baptized calling on the power of the name of Jesus to wash away their sins? Many powerful men of God down through history were baptized under the traditional Trinitarian formula. However, a number of them were being obedient to Scripture by seeking water baptism… and were indeed calling upon the name of the Lord at the moment they were water baptized. While I will agree that these men underwent a baptism using a traditional “formula”, I firmly believe that if they, themselves, were calling on the name of the Lord in a humble and repentant heart, God accepted their act of faith-filled obedience and remitted their sin. In Heaven, they will give glory to Jesus, remembering having called upon his name… not the words muttered by some religious official. Same with Oneness Apostolic folk; if the individual being water baptized is relying on the verbiage of some Apostolic preacher… he’s not relying on Jesus. He’s relying on a man, and the baptism is ineffectual, they only get wet. However, if that person is praying and calling on the name of Jesus, the man of God of course freely praying and calling on the name with them, God hears him regardless of what the preacher says.
Aquila,
I have to honestly say that there is very little that I agree with you on. But the above was worded excellently and I totally agree with it! :thumbsup
I'll leave the rest of what you said alone. I don't want to ruin a good moment
Steve Epley
06-10-2009, 01:20 PM
NOT ONE person since Pentecost has recieved remission of sins without being immersed in Jesus Name. I hope that clears everything up.:thumbsup
LUKE2447
06-10-2009, 01:27 PM
We believe that God has preserved his word for us, and that it is true. So why did he allow Matt. 28:19 to be changed, and to stand all of these years? When it will cause so many sincere, honest, God-fearing and loving people to burn in hell?
Seriously, shall we start with all the issues in the Bible that make Matt 28:19 simply another issues of a interpolation like several others. God did preserve his word whether Matt 28:19 is part of the original or not. If your view of preserved 100% accurate.... your out of luck as no scholar except delusional KJ Only people who don't even agree with the Greek would say that. Thus they make the KJV a new revelation without anything to verify it as it even corrects teh Greek it came from. Talking about a world turned upside down on it's head.
KWSS1976
06-10-2009, 01:30 PM
So not one person is saved at repentance....Jesus does not save at repentance Steve
LUKE2447
06-10-2009, 01:32 PM
Repentance only brings a person properly before God to the alter of sacrifice to be joined togethor with Christ. Baptism is the place we are unified in his death. Without repentance there is no joining in sacrifice with Christ as you are unequally trying to yoke two hearts.
KWSS1976
06-10-2009, 01:41 PM
So jesus does not remit your sins at repentence
gloryseeker
06-10-2009, 01:46 PM
NOT ONE person since Pentecost has recieved remission of sins without being immersed in Jesus Name. I hope that clears everything up.:thumbsup
It only clears up where your theology is, but that was not difficult to figure out :thumbsup
Aquila
06-10-2009, 01:50 PM
me – “It is my opinion that one has to be water baptized to be saved. Any acceptations (I meant exceptions) due to disability make the rule and leave us with the ability without excuse.”
I’m not absolutely certain that there would be any exceptions. I believe that our God is merciful and isn’t a legalistic tyrant who would watch one who cannot be baptized due to circumstance - or disability – to perish if it is possible to save them by his own decree. If anything, just as Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us who obey, certainly his obedience to water baptism could be imputed to those who cannot. But I have NO biblical grounds to establish this as a certainty.
I am reminded of a passage in the Law. At one point a sacrifice was required, however, if one couldn’t afford to bring the prescribed sacrifice, they were permitted to offer up turtledoves (which were cheap and abundant) in its place. It’s the spirit of this Law from which I draw the possibility of there being a possible exception. Of course, this doesn’t lay out any certainty of there being an exception for those whose circumstances or health present disability. I’m just considering the spirit of this Law in context of this question. IF (big “if” here) a mercy can be granted here it leaves us who can be baptized and refuse to without excuse.
Personally, I believe that the anointing of the sick in the book of James presents a very powerful truth in this area. Please review it and consider its implications.
Aquila
06-10-2009, 01:51 PM
NOT ONE person since Pentecost has recieved remission of sins without being immersed in Jesus Name. I hope that clears everything up.:thumbsup
Allow God to be God.
Aquila
06-10-2009, 02:34 PM
I had a provocative thought while sitting here contemplating this thread.
We would all agree that it wouldn’t matter if an individual had 100 Apostolic ministers screaming the proper Jesus name “formula” over them at their water baptism if that person wasn’t individually calling upon the name of Jesus to wash away his or her sins.
With that in mind let me ask this question…
If an individual had 100 Trinitarian ministers screaming the Trinitarian “formula” over them at their water baptism, yet they as an individual cried out to the name of Jesus to wash away their sins, is it of no effect?
KWSS1976
06-10-2009, 02:40 PM
If an individual called out to Jesus which is repenting asking for fogivness why do we need water the water does not physically remove sin Jesus does
Steve Epley
06-10-2009, 02:48 PM
It only clears up where your theology is, but that was not difficult to figure out :thumbsup
Thank you that was the purpose for the post just in case someone was in doubt.
"All Trinitarians are lost" remember that thread? :thumbsup
LUKE2447
06-10-2009, 02:54 PM
So jesus does not remit your sins at repentence
Are you in the body at repentance? No! Have you been united with is death at repentance? No! Thus your answer is no! Repentance brings you to the place of the alter "then you can offer your gift/yourself"!
LUKE2447
06-10-2009, 02:55 PM
If an individual called out to Jesus which is repenting asking for fogivness why do we need water the water does not physically remove sin Jesus does
uh maybe to be united in his death/blood/sacrifice. In which I have explained to you before!
KWSS1976
06-10-2009, 02:58 PM
His blood was the gift........Not you.... and yes you are in his body at Repentence because you are forgiven when you repent....
LUKE2447
06-10-2009, 03:06 PM
His blood was the gift........Not you.... and yes you are in his body at Repentence because you are forgiven when you repent....
So you don't offer yourself to be united with him? Seriously you need to read his Word! By you turning to him through repentance unto baptism you are offering yourself as his servant pledging loyalty to him. Thus you bring yourself to his "offering" of which he has promised to be united with him in his sacrifice! Understand Romans 6 and
Mat 5:23 So then, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift.
This is the law of atonement! Your must first turn in pureness of heart before you can offer yourself to God in baptism/sacrifice to be united with him in HIS DEATH. You are united in HIS sacrifice/death!
U376977
06-10-2009, 03:12 PM
NOT ONE person since Pentecost has recieved remission of sins without being immersed in Jesus Name. I hope that clears everything up.:thumbsup
Bro Steve. Please reconcile your statement above with this verse.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Seems to me that Peter clearly states that baptism does NOT SAVE FROM THE FILTH OF THE FLESH, but only allows for a "good conscience toward God."
I have known people baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ, in the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the name of Jesus Christ" etc.
These seemly, by our preaching, have the name and are "on the road to heaven waiting for the rapture" but yet many have no victory in their life and continue to live in their sin. If there is no salvation in their heart, the water does no good at all.
I contend that even "saved" "baptized" "holy Ghost filled" "saints" who do not change but continue to live in their sin are still not going into the kingdom of God. Living clean and holy would seem to be a fruit of our salvation. My point being that the "water" and "when the blood is applied" argument is fruitless without carrying it to the end, personal holiness. ?? So just to say that if one is baptized in Jesus' name they are save is not the complete picture.
Agree?
Steve Epley
06-10-2009, 03:51 PM
Bro Steve. Please reconcile your statement above with this verse. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Seems to me that Peter clearly states that baptism does NOT SAVE FROM THE FILTH OF THE FLESH, but only allows for a "good conscience toward God." I have known people baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ, in the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the name of Jesus Christ" etc. These seemly, by our preaching, have the name and are "on the road to heaven waiting for the rapture" but yet many have no victory in their life and continue to live in their sin. If there is no salvation in their heart, the water does no good at all... I contend that even "saved" "baptized" "holy Ghost filled" "saints" who do not change but continue to live in their sin are still not going into the kingdom of God. Living clean and holy would seem to be a fruit of our salvation. My point being that the "water" and "when the blood is applied" argument is fruitless without carrying it to the end, personal holiness. ?? So just to say that if one is baptized in Jesus' name they are save is not the complete picture. Agree?Note:
Peter clearly states "Baptism doth now save us!"
No it is not a ceremonial washing to the cleansing of the flesh but it IS AN ANSWER OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE toward God. Baptism in Jesus Name remits sins thus clears the conscience of all wrong doing.
gloryseeker
06-10-2009, 04:32 PM
So you don't offer yourself to be united with him? Seriously you need to read his Word! By you turning to him through repentance unto baptism you are offering yourself as his servant pledging loyalty to him. Thus you bring yourself to his "offering" of which he has promised to be united with him in his sacrifice! Understand Romans 6 and
Mat 5:23 So then, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift.
This is the law of atonement! Your must first turn in pureness of heart before you can offer yourself to God in baptism/sacrifice to be united with him in HIS DEATH. You are united in HIS sacrifice/death!
Your passage in Matthew has nothing to do with baptism, but your relationship with others.
Atonement has nothing to do with the New Testament. In fact the word is only used like one time in the New Testament and is a poor translation of the original word.
To say that Jesus blood "atoned" for the sins of man is to reduce the blood of Jesus to blood of bulls and goats. Jesus' blood remitted our sins not covered them.
gloryseeker
06-10-2009, 04:35 PM
I had a provocative thought while sitting here contemplating this thread.
We would all agree that it wouldn’t matter if an individual had 100 Apostolic ministers screaming the proper Jesus name “formula” over them at their water baptism if that person wasn’t individually calling upon the name of Jesus to wash away his or her sins.
With that in mind let me ask this question…
If an individual had 100 Trinitarian ministers screaming the Trinitarian “formula” over them at their water baptism, yet they as an individual cried out to the name of Jesus to wash away their sins, is it of no effect?
Your illustration reminded me of a story I read today...it's off topic other than it deals with baptism.
The article was about the church in China and the need for solid teaching. Anyway, a lady read were Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit was seen like a dove coming down from heaven. As a believer she felt the need to be baptized, however when she didn't see the dove she kept getting baptized over and over again and eventually drowned.
I wonder if she went to heaven :)
U376977
06-10-2009, 05:03 PM
Note:
Peter clearly states "Baptism doth now save us!"
No it is not a ceremonial washing to the cleansing of the flesh but it IS AN ANSWER OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE toward God. Baptism in Jesus Name remits sins thus clears the conscience of all wrong doing.
He does clearly state "Baptism doth now save us" but the parenthetical statement that follows clarifies the original statement, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh". To me that is very plain. Baptism has nothing to do with the cleansing of the flesh nor does it remit sins. It is, however, the proper response of one who has been cleansed and demonstrates that they have a clear conscience toward God.
Though I do not agree with you on this one point (baptism)....I highly respect you...and appreciate your posts and your stand for the truth (the Oneness of God and Deity of Jesus Christ).
I was actually more interested in your perspective on people who seem to follow the repentance, baptism, and filled with the Holy Ghost, steps. And yet do not continue in holiness; they go back to a woman or man, drugs and drinking etc. Not to mention the ones in our churches who look the part but inside are full of gossip, hatred, and a brother killing spirit of Cain. A minister recently made the case to me that Apostolic people have more adultery, fornication, incest, and homosexuality than any other denomination. That may or may not be true. But I still do not understand how a people who claim to have THE ONLY WAY OF SALVATION have so many who continue to live unholy, ungodly, and defeated lives; why is not our salvation more effective on our people if it is the ONLY WAY?
*AQuietPlace*
06-10-2009, 05:41 PM
But I still do not understand how a people who claim to have THE ONLY WAY OF SALVATION have so many who continue to live unholy, ungodly, and defeated lives; why is not our salvation more effective on our people if it is the ONLY WAY?
Exactly the question that has been driving me batty lately. I have many homeschool (non-Pentecostal) friends who live lives devoted to God, their children love God, go on mission trips, keep themselves pure before God... and then I look around me at many of the teens in my church who can't wait to get out from under their parents' control so they can 'live it up'. I just don't understand. If our way is the only way, why don't we have better results??? I know our results aren't all bad, but our percentages are no better than any other denomination's.
We live such radical lives (ultra-cons especially), why don't we have radical results??
I'm not asking that in a snotty way, I seriously just don't understand. :(
LUKE2447
06-10-2009, 05:42 PM
Your passage in Matthew has nothing to do with baptism, but your relationship with others
Atonement has nothing to do with the New Testament. In fact the word is only used like one time in the New Testament and is a poor translation of the original word.
It has everything to do with it. It is the principle in which a person can come to God. If you can't understand the depth of the passage then that is a serious issue. Also it doesn't HAVE TO say baptism. It does refer though to the alter which points to "SACRIFICE" and how reconciling/repentance relates before you can come and offer your sacrifice/self. Thus the alter is a type of baptism in which is seen as the death/sacrifice. Which according to Romans 6 baptism is the place you are united with his death/sacrifice/blood. As you are united in his death/sacrifice and by declaring him Lord of your life in baptism. Repentance/reconciliation of heart has brought you to that point which acceptable unto him. In this you become baptized as then you are now united and thus dead with him to the past.
So atonement has nothing do with the NT? I guess Jesus means nothing and he was not the reality of that which was offered in the OT.
To say that Jesus blood "atoned" for the sins of man is to reduce the blood of Jesus to blood of bulls and goats. Jesus' blood remitted our sins not covered them.
Obviously you lack much depth to even argue these points as if I even said them. Seriously....... :thumbsdown Also it is a pardon not an acquittal. Also if you don't forgive, your sins will come back on you!
LUKE2447
06-10-2009, 05:44 PM
Exactly the question that has been driving me batty lately. I have many homeschool (non-Pentecostal) friends who live lives devoted to God, their children love God, go on mission trips, keep themselves pure before God... and then I look around me at many of the teens in my church who can't wait to get out from under their parents' control so they can 'live it up'. I just don't understand. If our way is the only way, why don't we have better results??? I know our results aren't all bad, but our percentages are no better than any other denomination's.
I'm not asking that in a snotty way, I seriously just don't understand. :(
Flesh is flesh
gloryseeker
06-10-2009, 06:17 PM
Flesh is flesh
Personally I think this is an over simplistic answer that is entrenched with a "religious" overtone.
Raise up a child in the way they should go and when they are old they will not depart from it. Scripture is truth and while flesh can play into the equation which is why you will have a prodigal from time to time it should not be the norm.
The Word is clear that children are part of our inheritance therefore if we have high numbers that are wayward then don't excuse it as just flesh, look at the teaching...it's not working!
Aquila
06-10-2009, 07:22 PM
If an individual called out to Jesus which is repenting asking for fogivness why do we need water the water does not physically remove sin Jesus does
I think that is a very important question KW. I certainly don’t speak for all Apostolics, but I can share with you what I believe.
First, man is hopelessly lost in sin without a Savior. However, there are several different elements to our salvation. I’ll list them as I understand them…
- Propitiation
- Justification
- Adoption
- Sanctification
Christ died to provide propitiation for our sins. He did that part. That opens the door for all mankind to come and be saved.
Those who repent of their sins are now “justified” by faith to come forward and be adopted into the family of God by taking upon them the name of Jesus. One cannot just have sin forgiven at will... one must be justified in God's sight to even come forward for the remission of sins.
When one is water baptized in the name of Jesus they take upon themselves His name, indeed even the likeness of Christ in his death and burial. At this point sin is remitted (forgiven) and the individual becomes a child of God.
As a new born babe must take its first breath or die, when one receives the Holy Ghost they are given new life and are empowered to live holy. Their sanctification begins here and continues throughout their entire lives.
Each element is vitally essential and accomplishes a different aspect of our salvation.
It’s like a marriage. A couple can know each other and love each other. But without the formal covenantal bond… they are just shacking up. A woman isn't a man's bride until she takes upon herself his name. One can be justified, and yet choose not to come forward for the remission of sins. Baptism is that covenantal step where one takes on Christ's name, becomes a child of God, becomes part of the bride. It’s the bond. Of course… the marriage can die without life being breathed into it. So the Spirit is also vitally essential to continue on as the Bride.
It's all necessary and it all plays a role. That's my understanding.
U376977
06-10-2009, 09:30 PM
Exactly the question that has been driving me batty lately. I have many homeschool (non-Pentecostal) friends who live lives devoted to God, their children love God, go on mission trips, keep themselves pure before God... and then I look around me at many of the teens in my church who can't wait to get out from under their parents' control so they can 'live it up'. I just don't understand. If our way is the only way, why don't we have better results??? I know our results aren't all bad, but our percentages are no better than any other denomination's.
We live such radical lives (ultra-cons especially), why don't we have radical results??
I'm not asking that in a snotty way, I seriously just don't understand. :(
Personally I think this is an over simplistic answer that is entrenched with a "religious" overtone.
Raise up a child in the way they should go and when they are old they will not depart from it. Scripture is truth and while flesh can play into the equation which is why you will have a prodigal from time to time it should not be the norm.
The Word is clear that children are part of our inheritance therefore if we have high numbers that are wayward then don't excuse it as just flesh, look at the teaching...it's not working!
I kindly asked Elder to repond with his thoughts as to why this is so, if he agrees that it is true, and he may still reply.
I admit it is a somewhat "loaded" question. You are right "it's not working." In our little assembly that I have attended for 7 years we have had about 30 kids grow up....not one is serving God out of High School. They are in drugs, fornication, homosexuality, and one kid tried to kill himself....etc. We cannot claim even one who is still serving God.
So OK, my theory... GENERALLY SPEAKING we are "water churches." We teach the 3 steps and thereby put the remmision of sins in the water. And we leave off the preaching of the blood. BUT the fact is that the blood and only the blood can bring salvation. The water is what one does as a response to salvation. In short, we preach the water and do not emphasize the blood of Christ. Whereas a "good baptist" hears the cross message almost every week. And here in NC (baptist) country there are a lot of good baptist kids that live holy (in regard to fleshly sins) godly lives.
Aquila
06-10-2009, 10:56 PM
I kindly asked Elder to repond with his thoughts as to why this is so, if he agrees that it is true, and he may still reply.
I admit it is a somewhat "loaded" question. You are right "it's not working." In our little assembly that I have attended for 7 years we have had about 30 kids grow up....not one is serving God out of High School. They are in drugs, fornication, homosexuality, and one kid tried to kill himself....etc. We cannot claim even one who is still serving God.
So OK, my theory... GENERALLY SPEAKING we are "water churches." We teach the 3 steps and thereby put the remmision of sins in the water. And we leave off the preaching of the blood. BUT the fact is that the blood and only the blood can bring salvation. The water is what one does as a response to salvation. In short, we preach the water and do not emphasize the blood of Christ. Whereas a "good baptist" hears the cross message almost every week. And here in NC (baptist) country there are a lot of good baptist kids that live holy (in regard to fleshly sins) godly lives.
Amen. It's all by the blood. From start to finish.
*AQuietPlace*
06-10-2009, 11:16 PM
So OK, my theory... GENERALLY SPEAKING we are "water churches." We teach the 3 steps and thereby put the remmision of sins in the water. And we leave off the preaching of the blood. BUT the fact is that the blood and only the blood can bring salvation. The water is what one does as a response to salvation. In short, we preach the water and do not emphasize the blood of Christ. Whereas a "good baptist" hears the cross message almost every week. And here in NC (baptist) country there are a lot of good baptist kids that live holy (in regard to fleshly sins) godly lives.
I'm in my early 40s, raised Pentecostal, and I'm just now beginning to learn what the blood of Jesus was all about. Just now understanding that it's not my works that will save me.
U376977
06-10-2009, 11:27 PM
I'm in my early 40s, raised Pentecostal, and I'm just now beginning to learn what the blood of Jesus was all about. Just now understanding that it's not my works that will save me.
Your honesty touches me. Thank you. Without faith in the blood for our salvation everything that we do in regard to "living holy", our works, is just religion and no better than any other faith.
LUKE2447
06-11-2009, 07:07 AM
Personally I think this is an over simplistic answer that is entrenched with a "religious" overtone.
Raise up a child in the way they should go and when they are old they will not depart from it. Scripture is truth and while flesh can play into the equation which is why you will have a prodigal from time to time it should not be the norm.
The Word is clear that children are part of our inheritance therefore if we have high numbers that are wayward then don't excuse it as just flesh, look at the teaching...it's not working!
No it's not. The basic playing field of her point are people who believe in the Bible and teach there children it's principles and how to love God. Flesh is flesh. I don't believe in total depravity so the view of man's ability to choose a good life based on philisophical teaching is still valuable though worthless without Christ. Thus flesh in the end is flesh but to be "perfect/complete" you must go beyond the principles into living by the Spirit unto life. That is the difference! We all can live "good" principled lives and all be viewed similar accross the religious field but it's not about do we live be principle which is important but by the Spirit. Thus the baptist and the pentecostal are on the same field flesh wise. Many pentecostals live by the flesh as do baptists and not led by God but by principled living. We might get a "move" of God but most just make it a short storm and harden the ground more in there everyday lives. Thus most are not totaly sold unto the Spirit and bankrupt to the flesh.
LUKE2447
06-11-2009, 07:11 AM
Your honesty touches me. Thank you. Without faith in the blood for our salvation everything that we do in regard to "living holy", our works, is just religion and no better than any other faith.
Yep, which is my point above.
LUKE2447
06-11-2009, 07:13 AM
I'm in my early 40s, raised Pentecostal, and I'm just now beginning to learn what the blood of Jesus was all about. Just now understanding that it's not my works that will save me.
You will be judged by your works unto life or unto death.
Falla39
06-11-2009, 07:14 AM
Obedient faith in God's Word will get the job done.
It is amazing how many will do everything BUT what God's Word asked them to do.
Naaman, the Syrian, fussed and fumed that the prophet wanted him to dip seven
times in muddy Jordan. He argued that the rivers of Damascus were cleaner than
any of Israel's rivers. He was angered that the prophet didn't come to him, but
asked the Naaman to come to where the prophet was. Then when they came to
where the prophet was, instead of going out to Naaman, the prophet sent word out
by a servant, telling Naaman what to do. Of course Naaman was angry and didn't
want to do what the prophet of God asked of him. His wise servant remarked that
IF the prophet had told him to do some hard thing, he would have done it.
Only when Naaman obeyed the prophet's words, was he healed and made whole of
his leprosy. His curse (sin) was removed. By obedient faith.
The results in the laying on of hands in James 5, is NOT in the oil, but in the name
that it's done in. Obedient Faith in THE NAME!
The results in baptism is not in the water, but in The Name that that it's done in.
Why is is SO hard to understand that faith in THE NAME of JESUS is what brings
results. For there is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven given among men whereby
we MUST be saved.
I know many people through the last 50 yrs that have argued and been angered
because of THE NAME!!! But they get sick and many call our people to pray for
them. But you mention The Name of JESUS for water baptism and they are through
talking to you.
I know a lady that lived neighbors to us that asked my late parents
if they would be willing to go pray for her sister who was diagnosed with cancer. (This was in the 1950's.)
They went and when the lady went back to the doctor, no cancer could be found.
There was such a backlash among people, that the doctor left town that diagnosed
her. They felt he was a quack. That lady lived to be almost 90 yrs old. I saw her son
who is a few years older than I at a funeral a few yrs ago. His mother was still either
still alive and died shorly afterward or had just died of old age. I asked Troy if he rem-
embered my parents praying for his mother. He said, "I certainly do". There are many
witnesses of healings, etc. from people who simply had obedient faith. They had faith
in my parents prayers, but when it came to obeying the Word of God in baptism, they
turned a deaf ear.
No, it's not in the oil or the water, but in THE NAME of JESUS! Yes, the Word said to
anoint with OIL, and to baptize in WATER, but without THE NAME, you don't
have a "contract".
Not to offend!
Falla39
Falla39
06-11-2009, 07:24 AM
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Falla39
Sherri
06-11-2009, 07:37 AM
There are so many sincere godly people that I know who love the Lord with all their hearts and live holy lives, separated unto Him. But they don't understand Jesus' name baptism, or the godhead like we do. They have unbelievable prayer lives and put me to shame witnessing. I believe they are SAVED. If God chooses to show them the truths that we love, then He will. They certainly spend time with Him in sincere prayer and are willing to listen to His voice. Those people are as much His as any of us.
Falla39
06-11-2009, 07:53 AM
If we know more, it is our responsibility to tell them the more we know.
To whom much is given, shall much be required. Paul stated these words in ! Cor. 9:16,
16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
Not to offend, but to speak the truth in love. The love of God shed abroad in our
hearts by the Holy Ghost.
Falla39
LUKE2447
06-11-2009, 07:56 AM
There are so many sincere godly people that I know who love the Lord with all their hearts and live holy lives, separated unto Him. But they don't understand Jesus' name baptism, or the godhead like we do. They have unbelievable prayer lives and put me to shame witnessing. I believe they are SAVED. If God chooses to show them the truths that we love, then He will. They certainly spend time with Him in sincere prayer and are willing to listen to His voice. Those people are as much His as any of us.
Here is the problem... You claimed you believe they are saved. You have now set a precedent that you can deny truth and still be saved based on committment. Many will come to me and say did we not.... Committed people who God used for his work yet they did not obey and are found lawless.
I believe in teaching and admonishing doctrine that is correct but you have nothing to base that they are saved besides well they are "better" than me. Mormons, JW's and many other groups along with Hindu and Islamic religions have people much more committed from the heart than most Christians. IT means NOTHING as being committed is important but it in itself does not necessitate salvation. God in the end will be just and in the mean time we are to speak truth to the hungry and who need him and in the end God will sort it all out. In the end we are ALL HIS some to honor and others to dishonor and it's up to us when faced with his word to choose which vessel we will be.
LUKE2447
06-11-2009, 08:03 AM
If we know more, it is our responsibility to tell them the more we know.
To whom much is given, shall much be required. Paul stated these words in ! Cor. 9:16,
16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
Not to offend, but to speak the truth in love. The love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost.
Falla39
AMEN!
Sherri
06-11-2009, 08:06 AM
Here is the problem... You claimed you believe they are saved. You have now set a precedent that you can deny truth and still be saved based on committment. Many will come to me and say did we not.... Committed people who God used for his work yet they did not obey and are found lawless.
I believe in teaching and admonishing doctrine that is correct but you have nothing to base that they are saved besides well they are "better" than me. Mormons, JW's and many other groups along with Hindu and Islamic religions have people much more committed from the heart than most Christians. IT means NOTHING as being committed is important but it in itself does not necessitate salvation. God in the end will be just and in the mean time we are to speak truth to the hungry and who need him and in the end God will sort it all out. In the end we are ALL HIS some to honor and others to dishonor and it's up to us when faced with his word to choose which vessel we will be.
They HAVE obeyed all that they've seen. They're not in disobedience! I have explained the godhead in detail to some and they still don't understand it, but they are open to God speaking to them about it. I believe you're only in danger when you close your mind and heart to the voice of God. As long as you're seeking, God will honor that - JMHO.
LUKE2447
06-11-2009, 08:27 AM
They HAVE obeyed all that they've seen. They're not in disobedience! I have explained the godhead in detail to some and they still don't understand it, but they are open to God speaking to them about it. I believe you're only in danger when you close your mind and heart to the voice of God. As long as you're seeking, God will honor that - JMHO.
I agree, God will lead them if they have a open heart and teaching the truth is all you can do. In the end God will see them for who they are as he will all of us and be the righteous judge he is.
Falla39
06-11-2009, 08:58 AM
If we preach/teach part/gospel when we know whole/gospel, is that not
deception. Our statements of faith must be whole gospel. The whole gospel
to the whole world.
Through the years some have preached part-gospel and now their children
are confused and and have risen up against those who preach/teach the
whole gospel.
The A of G pastor in our city was circulating tracts against the Apostles
Doctrine. My late father talked to him and asked him if they could sit down
in brotherly love and with their Bibles discuss the Word of God. He told my
Dad, "We're friends now, but if we did that, we would no longer be friends".
Yet when he was due to have open heart surgery, he asked my dad to pray
for him. He refused to listen to more, but when he was on his deathbed, Dad
and I went to his home and prayed for him. Although he never was willing to
listen to more truth, Dad was a friend until death, always willing to tell him
the whole truth. Part-truth is dangerous because it deceives.
I graduated from high school with his only child, a son, who married my best
friend in school from 6th grade to graduation. She has been very ill the last
few years. I have prayed and others have prayed and her husband told our son
this week, that she was better. My son said, My mom has prayed and had us
pray for her many times. He said, I know!
They left his father's church many years ago and now belong to the 140 yr
old, very large Baptist church in our city.We have many neighbors and friends
there who I know, know there is more. But woe is me IF I ever tell them they
can be saved with less than the whole gospel!
Two of them came several months ago, to our church, because of despera-
tion because one had diagnosed with breast cancer. One had been our neigh-
bor, and had come to our church for a time, several yrs ago with her two small
sons and husband, until pressure from family and friends caused them to dis-
continue.
But those two close friends for many years, came on a Wed. night with two
other friends. These four were all classmates and graduates with my young-
est sister who survived lymphoma and a bone marrow transplant, a few yrs ago
and has and is doing wonderful. TO GOD BE ALL the Praise and GLORY.
That Wed. night, the four, plus my sister who came also to be with them, went to
the front for prayer for their friend. She had come with such fear. She didn't leave
the same way she came, in Jesus Name!!! She received the HOLY GHOST, speaking
with tongues. Her closest friend and she, continued to come and now both are filled
with the Spirit of the living God. Both baptized in Jesus Name.
Last night at church, the one with breast cancer, gave her PET/CT results for the
second time since that first Wed. Night, NEGATIVE Completely negative. NO cancer
in her body. She came with childlike, obedient faith and her need was taken care of.
She had her PET/CT scan on Mon. The church had prayed for her on
Sunday. Her husband who visited our church many years ago with two of my
brother, has been coming with her for several months and is visibly under the
convicting power of God. Obedient faith will get the job done!
No offense intended ever!
Falla39
KWSS1976
06-11-2009, 09:07 AM
See thats the thing whos to say you know the whole truth Sis Falla other people are wise also the AofG pastor might have been right and your Father wrong I know it is hard to think about but I like some have a hard time believing that the Pentecostals and the Apostolics are the only ones "who know it all"
Falla39
06-11-2009, 09:35 AM
See thats the thing whos to say you know the whole truth Sis Falla other people are wise also the AofG pastor might have been right and your Father wrong I know it is hard to think about but I like some have a hard time believing that the Pentecostals and the Apostolics are the only ones "who know it all"
For your information, we don't claim to know it all. But we do know MORE
than is being preached by some. In 1926, God healed my Methodist grand-
mother and raised her from her deathbed. MORE truth came to her a few
years later and she with her young son, my late father, obeyed the MORE
and with the obedient faith, came abundant blessings to our family. HE
came to give us life and MORE abundantly.
No, dear poster, we don't claim to know everything, BUT if we walk in
what TRUTH HE leads and guides us in, HE will continue to bless us and
give us more!!!
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=15547
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=20312
Not to offend!
Falla39
KWSS1976
06-11-2009, 09:42 AM
Thats great God healed (Lance Armstrong) the bicyclist too see where I am coming from......
Falla39
06-11-2009, 09:43 AM
A short time after we came to our city in 1950, a A of G lady told three of we three
siblings, (we were like 9,11, and 13) that we were "new lights", and that their church
was praying and fasting that we would leave. We are still here after 50 yrs. Most of
the A of G from back then are gone. Dead! Of course we, as children didn't understand
what she was saying, so we just told our Daddy. He told his DADDY and the rest is
history. For the most part, that is!
Falla39
Falla39
06-11-2009, 09:47 AM
Thats great God healed (Lance Armstrong) the bicyclist too see where I am coming from......
That IS great! He can have mercy on whom HE WILL have mercy.
HE IS GOD, and we are NOT!!:thumbsup
Blessings,
Falla39
LUKE2447
06-11-2009, 09:55 AM
See thats the thing whos to say you know the whole truth Sis Falla other people are wise also the AofG pastor might have been right and your Father wrong I know it is hard to think about but I like some have a hard time believing that the Pentecostals and the Apostolics are the only ones "who know it all"
and that's your problem! Quite worrying about whether someone has the market on truth or who has it all and should you believe X that means Y is going to hell. As you have been defining your doctrines based on that whether you admit it or not. That is the only reason people lesson what they think is really right as to accomodate those who are good people and not be the mean guy. That is the reason why Jesus name baptism is compromised or anything else. Sure we hope and pray good people are not left to detruction. We all pray that God has mercy but in the end we are not to be deceived and to rely on him for truth as he will direct our paths. He will be just and truth is truth.
KWSS1976
06-11-2009, 10:02 AM
Luke are we in the last days?
gloryseeker
06-11-2009, 10:23 AM
If we know more, it is our responsibility to tell them the more we know.
To whom much is given, shall much be required. Paul stated these words in ! Cor. 9:16,
16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
Not to offend, but to speak the truth in love. The love of God shed abroad in our
hearts by the Holy Ghost.
Falla39
Your error is that you have an assumption that you know more based on your revelation, but their assumption is that they know more based on their revelation.
Both can dissect the Word of God to validate their position. The most interesting aspect (to me) is how everyone on this thread makes the assumption that they hold the complete truth and although not intended their truth really usurps God and His power.
On the flip side, I do think we should hold to the truth that we have revelation of, but when it condemns another who is sincerely seeking God then we error. God is righteous and He leads His people whether you and I define them as His people or not
*AQuietPlace*
06-11-2009, 10:31 AM
Your error is that you have an assumption that you know more based on your revelation, but their assumption is that they know more based on their revelation.
Both can dissect the Word of God to validate their position. The most interesting aspect (to me) is how everyone on this thread makes the assumption that they hold the complete truth and although not intended their truth really usurps God and His power.
On the flip side, I do think we should hold to the truth that we have revelation of, but when it condemns another who is sincerely seeking God then we error. God is righteous and He leads His people whether you and I define them as His people or not
Amen!
Falla39
06-11-2009, 10:47 AM
Your error is that you have an assumption that you know more based on your revelation, but their assumption is that they know more based on their revelation.
Both can dissect the Word of God to validate their position. The most interesting aspect (to me) is how everyone on this thread makes the assumption that they hold the complete truth and although not intended their truth really usurps God and His power.
On the flip side, I do think we should hold to the truth that we have revelation of, but when it condemns another who is sincerely seeking God then we error. God is righteous and He leads His people whether you and I define them as His people or not
Who is condemning anyone?
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Aquila
06-11-2009, 10:50 AM
Many of our Trinitarian friends and those down through history have looked at God through the stained glass windows of human tradition. While the Trinity is a man made innovation attempting to make God "understandable" to early European pagans, it's not something I view as being "damnable". It's a traditional way of looking at God. That's all. I believe that God often has to work through our limited and traditional understandings to speak to us and thus many Trinitarians and those down through history have sincerely heard from God. I think they'll be amazed how far off base they were with their tradition when they see the Lord, but I don't entirely write them off. Afterall... I don't even understand the mystery of God entirely and I'm Apostolic.
Most believers have repented of sin and been baptized. Some may have been baptized with traditional words spoken over them. My question is, - Were they trusting in the minister’s words… or the power of Jesus, calling on him in their hearts for salvation?
You see, I don’t believe there is a “formula” for baptism. *the room gasps*
That’s right. I believe that both Trinitarian and Oneness folks who believe in a “formula” are gravely mistaken. Baptism isn’t accompanied by a formula of magic words whereby it works only if the words are exactly right. Paul was told,
Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
The issue isn’t what Ananias spoke over Paul when Paul was baptized…the issue is, did Paul call on the name of the Lord when partaking in water baptism? What a minister mutters over you at your baptism doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if YOU are not crying out to Jesus for salvation when you’re baptized. Some people think that their sins were forgiven because Pastor So & So said thus and such. WRONG! Their sins were only remitted if they themselves were crying out for salvation when water baptized.
Formulas are just baptismal liturgies. The question is… did the one being water baptized call upon the name of the Lord?
When it comes to “formulas” (baptismal liturgies) we Oneness folks are just as “traditional” as the Trinitarians and we risk giving the candidate religion instead of Jesus.
U376977
06-11-2009, 11:53 AM
Your error is that you have an assumption that you know more based on your revelation, but their assumption is that they know more based on their revelation.
Both can dissect the Word of God to validate their position. The most interesting aspect (to me) is how everyone on this thread makes the assumption that they hold the complete truth and although not intended their truth really usurps God and His power.
On the flip side, I do think we should hold to the truth that we have revelation of, but when it condemns another who is sincerely seeking God then we error. God is righteous and He leads His people whether you and I define them as His people or not
Awesome post.
And I as I wrote earlier, it is hard to understan how that Apostolics who claim to have the only way of salvation cannot seem to explain why people who follow the "steps" have no greater victory in thier lives than sincere people who do not understand our revelation of one God. It would seem that if apostolics have cornered the market on salvation that all our people would be the most holy, most righteous and closest to God people. Not.
Falla39
06-11-2009, 11:57 AM
Pardon, some spirits are showing!
Falla39
U376977
06-11-2009, 12:09 PM
Pardon, some spirits are showing!
Falla39
You do not need to be pardoned. And if you are going to accuse someone of showing a "spirit" ...please name who and what kind of spirit.
U376977
06-11-2009, 12:12 PM
Many of our Trinitarian friends and those down through history have looked at God through the stained glass windows of human tradition. While the Trinity is a man made innovation attempting to make God "understandable" to early European pagans, it's not something I view as being "damnable". It's a traditional way of looking at God. That's all. I believe that God often has to work through our limited and traditional understandings to speak to us and thus many Trinitarians and those down through history have sincerely heard from God. I think they'll be amazed how far off base they were with their tradition when they see the Lord, but I don't entirely write them off. Afterall... I don't even understand the mystery of God entirely and I'm Apostolic.
Most believers have repented of sin and been baptized. Some may have been baptized with traditional words spoken over them. My question is, - Were they trusting in the minister’s words… or the power of Jesus, calling on him in their hearts for salvation?
You see, I don’t believe there is a “formula” for baptism. *the room gasps*
That’s right. I believe that both Trinitarian and Oneness folks who believe in a “formula” are gravely mistaken. Baptism isn’t accompanied by a formula of magic words whereby it works only if the words are exactly right. Paul was told,
Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
The issue isn’t what Ananias spoke over Paul when Paul was baptized…the issue is, did Paul call on the name of the Lord when partaking in water baptism? What a minister mutters over you at your baptism doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if YOU are not crying out to Jesus for salvation when you’re baptized. Some people think that their sins were forgiven because Pastor So & So said thus and such. WRONG! Their sins were only remitted if they themselves were crying out for salvation when water baptized.
Formulas are just baptismal liturgies. The question is… did the one being water baptized call upon the name of the Lord?
When it comes to “formulas” (baptismal liturgies) we Oneness folks are just as “traditional” as the Trinitarians and we risk giving the candidate religion instead of Jesus.
So true. I cannot stand religion instead of Jesus.
LUKE2447
06-11-2009, 12:17 PM
Luke are we in the last days?
unsure of your question and it's point. I don't know as what is the concept of last days. If last days is 2000 years long. I guess.... I don't worry if we are or not. I look for his coming but I worry more about those around me whom I might reach than hearing Jack Vanpimp and his ilk trying to raise cane over his new found revelation etc...
U376977
06-11-2009, 12:37 PM
unsure of your question and it's point. I don't know as what is the concept of last days. If last days is 2000 years long. I guess.... I don't worry if we are or not. I look for his coming but I worry more about those around me whom I might reach than hearing Jack Vanpimp and his ilk trying to raise cane over his new found revelation etc...
Way off the topic of this thread but that has never stopped anyone before. I think the term "last days" refers to the period of time just prior to the end of OT. The NT started on day of Pentecost in Ac. 2. And the writer of Hebrews wrtes about what it "old and passing away." Some historians have said that was AD 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem.
Falla39
06-12-2009, 07:53 AM
If an individual called out to Jesus which is repenting asking for fogivness why do we need water the water does not physically remove sin Jesus does
Why question Jesus! John 3:5,
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
KWSS1976
06-12-2009, 08:14 AM
Apparently water is not important Sis Falla according to this in Corithians.........
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom
KWSS1976
06-12-2009, 08:25 AM
Onot to mention the sign it talks about the Jews needing which I will post
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=393
Falla39
06-12-2009, 08:40 AM
Apparently water is not important Sis Falla according to this in Corithians.........
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom
One plants, another waters, but only God can give the increase!
In Luke 24, just prior to his ascension, Jesus appeared and ate a meal
with his disciples. He wanted to give them some last minute instructions
before he went away.
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
They went to the upper room in Jerusalem, rejoicing, expecting, believing
that the Promise of the Father would come to them.
They were tarrying in one mind and accord a few days later and the Promise
of the Father arrived. Read again in Acts 2. Peter's sermon and what happened.
How do we know the disciples knew what to do. Jesus told them and then
opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures.
They did exactly what Jesus told them to do and they received the Promise
of the Father.
The NT wasn't written then so Jesus was referring to the OT. The law, the
prophets and psalms. Confusion comes when men try to understand with their
own minds. We need the mind of Christ, by the Holy Ghost. The Word of God
proclaims, but the Spirit of Truth illuminates. Sheds light on the Word so that
we may understand the Word. We must have anointed minds and ears to
hear and understand the Word.
Blessings,
Falla39
gloryseeker
06-12-2009, 08:46 AM
Why question Jesus! John 3:5,
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Poor example. John 3 has nothing to do with salvation, but the working of miracles, read it carefully...
Verse one clearly defines who came to Jesus...a Pharisee, a ruler of the Jews.
1. At that point they were still under the law, the Pharisees were sticklers of the law he wasn't coming to Jesus to find out what they need to do they knew it and lived it to the letter, although not according to the Spirit of the law.
2. He was a ruler...people who rule are rulers, gives us insight as to who this person was.
Verse to tells us that Nick acknowledges that "we know that you are a teacher come from God because no one can do the miracles that you are doing except God be with him.
1. Notice in verse one it was Nicodemus who came, but in verse two he states "we know." He is representing the Pharisees. Why is he representing these "rulers"? Because Jesus is drawing all the people whom they rule away from them.
2. He then states "no one can do these miracles..."
Verse three Jesus answers...what was the question? How are you doing these miracles, NOT how do I get saved. This chapter is TOTALLY taught wrong in most circles.
Jesus then goes into being born of water and the Spirit and how a person taps into this miracle working power of God.
While baptism plays a part, just as being filled with the Spirit plays a part of operating in miracle working power the context of this conversation has nothing to with getting saved.
gloryseeker
06-12-2009, 08:48 AM
Apparently water is not important Sis Falla according to this in Corithians.........
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom
That scripture has nothing to do with the "importance" of baptism, but the focus of Paul's ministry
KWSS1976
06-12-2009, 08:51 AM
Thats right Pauls ministry..... and apparently baptism was not important in his ministry....
LUKE2447
06-12-2009, 09:01 AM
Thats right Pauls ministry..... and apparently baptism was not important in his ministry....
Oh of course.... didn't matter at all to Paul! Just don't baptize anymore. Commandments mean nothing and are not important. Just do what you want!
Paul taught on it's importance but it wasn't important at all really even though he decalred it to be our uniting with the death/sacrifice of Christ.... aahhh what's that. It's not really all that important! Baptize however you want and in whoever's name as that don't matter either.
KWSS1976
06-12-2009, 09:12 AM
Hey Luke Paul stated that in the bible not me I was just quoting scripture......Sorry if you don't agree with him...
LUKE2447
06-12-2009, 09:14 AM
Hey Luke Paul stated that in the bible not me I was just quoting scripture......Sorry if you don't agree with him...
oh I agree with him but not your flawed interpretation of one scripture of which goes against everything else he said about baptism. Not including the rest of the Bible. If you are depending on Paul to negate baptism then you are sadly mistaken as most who rely on Paul without proper biblical perspective do so to there own destruction "per Peter"
KWSS1976
06-12-2009, 09:21 AM
So your interpretation is not flawed who said you were the great and powerful OZ...
Aquila
06-12-2009, 02:02 PM
I have a question. Where in Scripture do we see the words spoken over a person at the moment of water baptism?
There isn't a formula. It is an act of faith wherein the repentant seeks cleansing, calling on the name of the Lord.
We've ritualized it into a Oneness liturgy.
KWSS1976
06-12-2009, 02:06 PM
So I would be even prong to say if you are in the bathtub and call out to jesus that would be a baptism but then again how can you call out to him while your head is under the water...LOL
Pressing-On
06-12-2009, 02:10 PM
So I would be even prong to say if you are in the bathtub and call out to jesus that would be a baptism but then again how can you call out to him while your head is under the water...LOL
I believe it's always wrong to "prong". :D Toe torry, couldn't pass that up! :bliss
KWSS1976
06-12-2009, 02:12 PM
LOL
Pressing-On
06-12-2009, 02:14 PM
LOL
I think I might have "pronged" you! :toofunny
Aquila
06-12-2009, 02:58 PM
So I would be even prong to say if you are in the bathtub and call out to jesus that would be a baptism but then again how can you call out to him while your head is under the water...LOL
A number of Pentecosts pioneers baptized themselves.
stasis
07-13-2009, 02:58 PM
I was thinking about all the posts about baptism...you know whether it is important what the preacher says prior to baptism.
Let me challenge you to back away from your theology for a moment and think about a couple of points about the Body of Christ in general.
Two men - one is "trinity" and one is "oneness" both tell stories of how they had visitation from Jesus and that He spoke with them about their ministries about the times they lived in and so forth.
The men: Kenneth Hagin (the Senior one) and Chester Hensley
I have heard accounts of both men (Hensley in person and Hagin through books). Both claiming to have had several encounters with Jesus, yet neither of these men stated that Jesus Himself told them, "Make sure and get 'the others' rebaptized the way you understand it."
As the one guy posted on this forum (don't remember who it was) proclaimed in bold, colored, all cap letters "if you are not baptized in the Name of Jesus you are going to hell." Well, if this is true there are a lot of trinitarian people out there who truly love the Lord. I would think that if "the way" of baptism was so important that Jesus would have mentioned it to one of these guys.
Then we could look at a multitude of people who are considered to be "God's Generals." These would be people like Alexander Dowie, Maria Woodworth Etter, Seymour, Kuhlman, Wigglesworth, Branum, Sumrall, and others. Of those who operated in an absolute power and demonstration of God they were split with about 30% being oneness and about 70% being trinity.
People have die hard opinions of baptism, but my question is....."does God?"
I should point something out, not with intention to offend, but to bring out an important issue.
Those men claimed to have personal visitations with Christ?! In stating such, they have condemned themselves.
Matthew 24:23-27
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Christ commands me to not believe these men who claim they saw him. Christ says the next time he returns, he will shine from east to west (everyone will see him). If these men truly claimed this, either Christ is a liar, or these men are liars or at best deluded. I'll take Christ's word for it.
Look here. I wouldn't even believe a sweet little old granny who claimed to see Jesus by her bedside. Christ through scripture commands us to not believe such claims of private appearances..
giftofgrace
07-13-2009, 03:11 PM
Thats true, but the Bible does also say in the last days there will be dreams and visions given..
KWSS1976
07-13-2009, 03:14 PM
So just go with what portion of scripture you like best I said it once and I will say it again at how much the bible scriptures contridict themselves....
pelathais
07-13-2009, 03:14 PM
A number of Pentecosts pioneers baptized themselves.
Name one. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
stasis
07-13-2009, 03:20 PM
Thats true, but the Bible does also say in the last days there will be dreams and visions given..
Did you look up 'dreams' and 'visions' in a Strong's Exhaustive concordance and see what the original Hebrew and Greek words were and what they meant, as used in Joel and Acts?
Even if they do mean 'dreams' and 'visions' as we define them in our washed-up 21st century Babylon-infected thinking, they can't imply 'personal appearances with Christ', because Christ isn't a liar.
GrowingPains
07-13-2009, 03:30 PM
So I've repented, confessed Christ, and have been baptized (in the name of Jesus). I am seeking the Holy Ghost. Does God see me as His?
pelathais
07-13-2009, 03:30 PM
I should point something out, not with intention to offend, but to bring out an important issue.
Those men claimed to have personal visitations with Christ?! In stating such, they have condemned themselves.
Matthew 24:23-27
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Christ commands me to not believe these men who claim they saw him. Christ says the next time he returns, he will shine from east to west (everyone will see him). If these men truly claimed this, either Christ is a liar, or these men are liars or at best deluded. I'll take Christ's word for it.
Look here. I wouldn't even believe a sweet little old granny who claimed to see Jesus by her bedside. Christ through scripture commands us to not believe such claims of private appearances..
Now, I am the very last guy to take up for Kenneth Hagin, et al. ... but how would you apply the words of Jesus from Matthew 24 with the experiences of Paul? Paul claimed to have "seen" Jesus.
I'm not saying that Hagin & Co. are on any level even near to the Apostle Paul; just wondering about this application of Matthew 24. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
KWSS1976
07-13-2009, 03:34 PM
growing pains why are you seeking the holyghost? Find me someone in the bible that was seeking the holyghost...
stasis
07-13-2009, 03:38 PM
Here's a question.
Read these.
Matt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Matt 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! (The following day Christ was crucified)
Apparently baptism is something DIFFICULT, and something Christ had not even completed until his crucifixion. Was Christ really saying "Are ye able to be dipped in water and have the words 'In Jesus Name' spoken over you?" or "Are ye able to walk down an aisle and have an ecstatic emotional experience?"
We know Christ said there is one Lord, one Faith and ONE BAPTISM (not two, water and an emotional experience)
HERE'S A SUGGESTION. Get a McClinktock & Strong's encyclopedia and look up 'Blood Baptism'.
Luke 9:23
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
KWSS1976
07-13-2009, 03:40 PM
Yea don't get me started on the 2 baptism thing bible only says one baptism..
stasis
07-13-2009, 03:49 PM
Now, I am the very last guy to take up for Kenneth Hagin, et al. ... but how would you apply the words of Jesus from Matthew 24 with the experiences of Paul? Paul claimed to have "seen" Jesus.
I'm not saying that Hagin & Co. are on any level even near to the Apostle Paul; just wondering about this application of Matthew 24. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Paul saw Christ before the Gentile church came to fruition. Christ's Matthew 24 prophecy is in the context of the Gospel having been preached to the Gentiles ('the nations'). Paul was used to form and minister to the beginning Gentile Church. Kenneth Hagin and Chester Hensley were not. In fact the word 'apostle' means 'first letter carrier', ie, the first messenger to receive a letter or message (in this case, from Christ) to be delivered by chain relay to a specific party (in this case, the gentiles). So, it's also impossible for Hagin and Hensley, or anyone else today to be apostles. Apostles of Christ no longer exist, by the very definition of the word.
In fact, I'll add this. The only 'Apostles' that could exist today would not be apostles of Christ, but rather apostles of the 'other Jesus' mentioned by Paul, leaders of the apostate church which infects the world with false doctrine (apostate is the Greek word apo-stasis - apo-to cast off, stasis-cross or upright. Apostate means casting off the cross, teaching against the daily cross and against suffering for Christ's namesake), TEACHING ANOTHER BAPTISM which doesn't involve BEARING A DAILY CROSS. A baptism that makes one FEEL good (like a person who is drunk on scorpion venom), and makes one think "I'm okay" instead of convicting one of their sinful nature.
I think we'd all better MAKE SURE we know what a DAILY CROSS really is, and figure out HOW TO GET ONE.
pelathais
07-13-2009, 03:59 PM
So I've repented, confessed Christ, and have been baptized (in the name of Jesus). I am seeking the Holy Ghost. Does God see me as His?
Be confident that He does: Philippians 1:6
stasis
07-13-2009, 04:18 PM
So I've repented, confessed Christ, and have been baptized (in the name of Jesus). I am seeking the Holy Ghost. Does God see me as His?
Nothing you can do will cause God to see you as his. Only what GOD can do TO YOU will cause you to be his. He chooses whomever he wills, we don't choose him unless he has chosen to drag us toward him, causing us to choose him.
John 15:16
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
In fact, if you are his, it's because he determined it before time.
Romans 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Also, if you're his, your life will be filled with the pains of bearing the cross until the day you die, toward conforming you to the image of Christ. This is a true baptism which will straighten you (put you in dire straights) until it be accomplished (till the day you die).
Matthew 24:13
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
So, you wont even be 'saved' until you die. But if you are predestined, you are ordained to salvation. 'Salvation' is a life-long process. The english 'Saved' is the greek word 'Sozo', which means to be safely carried from one point to another, remaining preserved (in this case, spiritually).
Also, you say you've 'confessed' Christ. 'Confess' is the Greek 'homologeo' (homo - same, logos-word - To speak the same words as, or to be in the same words with (follow commandments, which are anything Christ said with an imperative mood (an order) - such as 'Follow me')). So, to confess Christ, you have to speak the same words as him and follow his commandments. That includes all the hard things like calling down false teachers when you know they're lying no matter how much it may hurt your life or your standard of living (as Christ did to the Pharisees), and having to bear your cross to be his disciple, etc., etc.... WHICH YOU WILL DO, IF YOU ARE HIS, because God will IMPOSE it upon you!
GrowingPains
07-13-2009, 05:17 PM
Nothing you can do will cause God to see you as his. Only what GOD can do TO YOU will cause you to be his. He chooses whomever he wills, we don't choose him unless he has chosen to drag us toward him, causing us to choose him.
So, you wont even be 'saved' until you die. But if you are predestined, you are ordained to salvation. 'Salvation' is a life-long process. The english 'Saved' is the greek word 'Sozo', which means to be safely carried from one point to another, remaining preserved (in this case, spiritually).
Also, you say you've 'confessed' Christ. 'Confess' is the Greek 'homologeo' (homo - same, logos-word - To speak the same words as, or to be in the same words with (follow commandments, which are anything Christ said with an imperative mood (an order) - such as 'Follow me')). So, to confess Christ, you have to speak the same words as him and follow his commandments. That includes all the hard things like calling down false teachers when you know they're lying no matter how much it may hurt your life or your standard of living (as Christ did to the Pharisees), and having to bear your cross to be his disciple, etc., etc.... WHICH YOU WILL DO, IF YOU ARE HIS, because God will IMPOSE it upon you!
Interesting opinions here. Calvin'sPredestination, and seeming contradictions: I have no action/responsibility for my salvation, only if He calls me (fatalism), but later, IF you confess, you will follow his commandments. We will do (I assume automatically like a robot) because He will impose it. :nah
stasis
07-13-2009, 05:23 PM
Interesting opinions here. Calvin'sPredestination, and seeming contradictions: I have no action/responsibility for my salvation, only if He calls me (fatalism), but later, IF you confess, you will follow his commandments. We will do (I assume automatically like a robot) because He will impose it. :nah
Nothing YOU can do will make you his, but what Christ does THROUGH YOU, and to you. Through Christ we can do all things, like be persecuted and bear a cross. Christ imposes his instruction upon us, and makes us DOERS, and this by his grace alone in choosing us before time, to form us into doers of his Word.
So... bearing your cross and doing what Christ says is "no action/responsibility". Yeah, that makes sense. Following Christ is "doing nothing". Being conformed to the image of Christ throughout your entire life, which involves suffering, is sitting around doing "nothing". I speak in sarcasm.
What do you do to a robot? You write an instruction upon it's circuitry. What does God do to us? He writes his laws upon our hearts. Yes, if you are God's you WILL, LIKE A ROBOT, DO HIS WILL. We are spiritual robots.
Opinion is 'opinios', which means, to think for one's self. I have no opinion but the Word of God. We must crucify our opinions and let God's Word think for us.
No, it isn't fatalism, it's blood baptism and the sovereign power of God alone, who stands above man's will.
What say you? It's unfair for God to choose one above another? What man calls unfair, God calls Grace, intervening through Christ the intercessor. What is fair? Fair is EVERYONE GOING TO HELL.
Aquila
07-13-2009, 05:34 PM
There is only one baptism. However, it is composed of two elements, water and Spirit. Just as you are composed of matter and spirit yet one whole. Both your body and spirit must undergo baptism. Remember... your body will be raised from the dead and thus it must be baptized also.
stasis
07-13-2009, 05:43 PM
There is only one baptism. However, it is composed of two elements, water and Spirit. Just as you are composed of matter and spirit yet one whole. Both your body and spirit must undergo baptism. Remember... your body will be raised from the dead and thus it must be baptized also.
Oh. I thought we would have spiritual bodies (the body of Christ), not fleshly ones.
stasis
07-13-2009, 05:49 PM
There is only one baptism. However, it is composed of two elements, water and Spirit. Just as you are composed of matter and spirit yet one whole. Both your body and spirit must undergo baptism. Remember... your body will be raised from the dead and thus it must be baptized also.
It's one baptism, with one element, the living water, which is the blood of Christ.
Blood was called 'living water' by the Jews. Remember when Christ told the woman about drinking the living water? Then told the disciples to drink of the cup which is his blood?
The Jews had a custom or tendency to speak in doubles which referred to the same thing, to solidify their point. "The water and the spirit" is one of many examples in scripture.
Spirit = Blood of Christ = Living Water = Truth
One baptism, one element.
The actual washing with literal water was the Jewish Proselyte Baptism, to be done along with offering of turtle doves and circumcision. This was an ordinance nailed to the cross by christ (a nullified contract), which Christ's disciples later figured out (some were still washing people in water early in their ministries), particularly Paul who stated later that he came not to baptize with water (being adamant that the New Jerusalem Church not be amalgamated into the old Judaism, but which the 'Jews' were constantly demanding), and Peter who (in the actual Greek text) said "The water, forbid!", not "Can any man forbid water?" (as in the poorly translated english passage), to the Egyptian Eunuch who was on the way to Jerusalem to undergo becoming a Jew (the proselyte baptism)
Aquila
07-13-2009, 06:18 PM
Oh. I thought we would have spiritual bodies (the body of Christ), not fleshly ones.
Your body will be raised a spiritual body, changed, transformed. And for those alive and remaining, they shall also be changed... in the twinkling of an eye.
stasis
07-13-2009, 06:30 PM
Your body will be raised a spiritual body, changed, transformed. And for those alive and remaining, they shall also be changed... in the twinkling of an eye.
2+2=9 and literal water gives you a spiritual body.
I guess eating a cracker and drinking some grape-juice also brings me into communion with Christ, a tradition of men which Christ neither commanded nor sanctioned, especially in his statements during the last supper regarding eating of this body and drinking of his blood.
Aquila
07-13-2009, 06:37 PM
It's one baptism, with one element, the living water, which is the blood of Christ.
Blood was called 'living water' by the Jews. Remember when Christ told the woman about drinking the living water? Then told the disciples to drink of the cup which is his blood?
The Jews had a custom or tendency to speak in doubles which referred to the same thing, to solidify their point. "The water and the spirit" is one of many examples in scripture.
Spirit = Blood of Christ = Living Water = Truth
One baptism, one element.
The actual washing with literal water was the Jewish Proselyte Baptism, to be done along with offering of turtle doves and circumcision. This was an ordinance nailed to the cross by christ (a nullified contract), which Christ's disciples later figured out (some were still washing people in water early in their ministries), particularly Paul who stated later that he came not to baptize with water (being adamant that the New Jerusalem Church not be amalgamated into the old Judaism, but which the 'Jews' were constantly demanding), and Peter who (in the actual Greek text) said "The water, forbid!", not "Can any man forbid water?" (as in the poorly translated english passage), to the Egyptian Eunuch who was on the way to Jerusalem to undergo becoming a Jew (the proselyte baptism)
There is so much wrong with the above paragraph I'm not sure where to start. My wife's family is half Jewish. The "Jewish Proselyte Baptism" you speak of isn't in the Bible, it's a post-exilic tradition. In addition Jewish mikveh was to be performed nude, none of the baptisms of the Apostles or even the John the Baptist were part of this man made tradition.
Also Paul never said that he wasn't sent to baptize... you have to read it in context. Let's take a look. To the Corinthians Paul wrote...
I Corinthians 1:11-17
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
The issue was that there were contentions among the Corinthians because they were boasting over who baptized them as though it made them more spiritual or more Christian. One was saying I'm of Paul, another, I'm of Apollos, and yet another, I'm of Christ. Paul then indicates that they were not baptized in these names, and definitely not his own because he wasn't crucified for them (an allusion to Jesus name baptism). Then Paul is thankful that out of the Corinthians he only baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. Paul was thankful because none could say he baptized in his own name. Paul then states that Paul was not sent to baptize, meaning to baptize making coverts after himself, but rather to preach the Gospel (which includes baptism - see Acts 2:38) lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
You have to take an entire passage and it's context into consideration. By just reading verse 17 one would think that Paul wasn't sent to baptize period... but in context we see that Paul meant he wasn't sent to baptize to make disciples after himself. We also know that this is an error because we see Paul baptizing new believers in the book of Acts:
(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Paul preached the same Gospel that Peter preached on Pentecost. There is only one Gospel message. The only difference is that while Peter was called to preach to the Jews, Paul was called to preach to the Gentiles. Two distinct missional callings.
stasis
07-13-2009, 07:56 PM
There is so much wrong with the above paragraph I'm not sure where to start. My wife's family is half Jewish. The "Jewish Proselyte Baptism" you speak of isn't in the Bible, it's a post-exilic tradition. In addition Jewish mikveh was to be performed nude, none of the baptisms of the Apostles or even the John the Baptist were part of this man made tradition.
Also Paul never said that he wasn't sent to baptize... you have to read it in context. Let's take a look. To the Corinthians Paul wrote...
I Corinthians 1:11-17
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
The issue was that there were contentions among the Corinthians because they were boasting over who baptized them as though it made them more spiritual or more Christian. One was saying I'm of Paul, another, I'm of Apollos, and yet another, I'm of Christ. Paul then indicates that they were not baptized in these names, and definitely not his own because he wasn't crucified for them (an allusion to Jesus name baptism). Then Paul is thankful that out of the Corinthians he only baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. Paul was thankful because none could say he baptized in his own name. Paul then states that Paul was not sent to baptize, meaning to baptize making coverts after himself, but rather to preach the Gospel (which includes baptism - see Acts 2:38) lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
You have to take an entire passage and it's context into consideration. By just reading verse 17 one would think that Paul wasn't sent to baptize period... but in context we see that Paul meant he wasn't sent to baptize to make disciples after himself. We also know that this is an error because we see Paul baptizing new believers in the book of Acts:
(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Paul preached the same Gospel that Peter preached on Pentecost. There is only one Gospel message. The only difference is that while Peter was called to preach to the Jews, Paul was called to preach to the Gentiles. Two distinct missional callings.
You have no idea what you're talking about regarding scripture.
As far as proselyte baptism being post-exilic, you're admitting it's a Babylonian Heresy, so I guess you're saying you don't believe in water baptism?
Hey, did you ever stop to think about the brasen-sea from which the priests 'cleansed' themselves? Seperate from the proselyte ritual, but nevertheless another instance of a ritual around cleansing by water.
Half-Jewish? So I guess some of her family at least know how ridiculous modern 'christianity' really is... or are they the 'athiest jews' (whatever that even means).
Hey, keep believing in that holy water, enchanted by mystical utterance "In the name of Jesus", and your ecstatic emotional experiences. I'm sure they'll mean a lot when you stand before God Almighty.
U376977
07-13-2009, 08:12 PM
Not that Aquila needs me to defend him......but
Anyone who wrote this.....
Christ commands me to not believe these men who claim they saw him. Christ says the next time he returns, he will shine from east to west (everyone will see him). If these men truly claimed this, either Christ is a liar, or these men are liars or at best deluded. I'll take Christ's word for it.
Look here. I wouldn't even believe a sweet little old granny who claimed to see Jesus by her bedside. Christ through scripture commands us to not believe such claims of private appearances..
And this......
In fact the word 'apostle' means 'first letter carrier', ie, the first messenger to receive a letter or message (in this case, from Christ) to be delivered by chain relay to a specific party (in this case, the gentiles). So, it's also impossible for Hagin and Hensley, or anyone else today to be apostles. Apostles of Christ no longer exist, by the very definition of the word.
In fact, I'll add this. The only 'Apostles' that could exist today would not be apostles of Christ, but rather apostles of the 'other Jesus' mentioned by Paul, leaders of the apostate church which infects the world with false doctrine (apostate is the Greek word apo-stasis - apo-to cast off, stasis-cross or upright. Apostate means casting off the cross, teaching against the daily cross and against suffering for Christ's namesake), TEACHING ANOTHER BAPTISM which doesn't involve BEARING A DAILY CROSS. A baptism that makes one FEEL good (like a person who is drunk on scorpion venom), and makes one think "I'm okay" instead of convicting one of their sinful nature.
.
Has no room to say this.....!!!!
You have no idea what you're talking about regarding scripture.
stasis
07-13-2009, 08:14 PM
Hey Aquila! I finally figured it out!
After reading your post more thoroughly, I now realize the Baptism Christ spoke of!
Matt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Matt 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! (The following day Christ was crucified)
He was actually saying "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straightened till it be accomplished being dunked in some water".
and
"Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to get dunked in some water, the baptism that I am baptized with? It's really difficult, do you think you're capable of getting dunked in some water and have an emotional experience?!"
Aquila
07-13-2009, 08:32 PM
You have no idea what you're talking about regarding scripture.
As far as proselyte baptism being post-exilic, you're admitting it's a Babylonian Heresy, so I guess you're saying you don't believe in water baptism?
Stasis, why do you speak with such venom? Oh well... I'll try to answer your question but it's obvious that you're bitter. Just relax and pray.
The post-exilic proselyte baptism known as mikveh is a tradition of men that began among rabbinical theologians around the time of Ezra. Prior to this ceremonial washings were conducted by pouring and sprinkling. You can find this throughout the Law of Moses from the ordination of the Levites to the cleansing of lepers. I do indeed believe in water baptism, however, I believe it is biblically administered by effusion (pouring and sprinkling). For example God "poured" out the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, why shall we not pour out water baptism? In Ezekiel 36 we see a prophecy of Pentecost where God promises to sprinkle the people with clean water to cleans them of their sin. How else do you think Peter and the Apostles baptized 3,000 people in the streets of the lower quarter of the Upper City of Jerusalem?
Hey, did you ever stop to think about the brasen-sea from which the priests 'cleansed' themselves? Seperate from the proselyte ritual, but nevertheless another instance of a ritual around cleansing by water.
Amen. Again administered through pouring upon the priests, not immersion.
Half-Jewish? So I guess some of her family at least know how ridiculous modern 'christianity' really is... or are they the 'athiest jews' (whatever that even means).
You're making no sense. A few are Conservative Jews and the rest are Reformed Jews. Rabbi Kopmar is a dear friend who shares a Jewish perspective when I bounce various Scriptures off of him.
Hey, keep believing in that holy water, enchanted by mystical utterance "In the name of Jesus", and your ecstatic emotional experiences. I'm sure they'll mean a lot when you stand before God Almighty.
I think you're definitely in need of much prayer my beloved. Listen, it doesn't matter what a person says over you when you're water baptized. The issue isn't what some preacher says... the issue is... what are you saying? Are you calling upon the name of the Lord for salvation? Notice, Ananias didn't use a mystical utterance of the name. Ananias told Paul to call on the name of the Lord himself to wash away his sins at his water baptism:
(Acts 22:16 KJV)
(16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
You see, modern day Apostolics are making the same error as Trinitarians. We've codified the name of Jesus into a "formula" to be spoken by a minister at the moment of water baptism. We've missed it entirely. The issue isn't what someone is saying over you when your baptized, the issue is that water baptism is the moment NT Christians had converts call on the name to be saved. Baptism isn't a time for formulas... it's a time to prayerfully call upon the name of the Lord, asking that your sins be washed away; just as Paul was told.
Aquila
07-13-2009, 08:36 PM
Hey Aquila! I finally figured it out!
After reading your post more thoroughly, I now realize the Baptism Christ spoke of!
Matt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Matt 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! (The following day Christ was crucified)
He was actually saying "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straightened till it be accomplished being dunked in some water".
and
"Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to get dunked in some water, the baptism that I am baptized with? It's really difficult, do you think you're capable of getting dunked in some water and have an emotional experience?!"
Baptizo and Baptizmos mean so much more than merely dunking. I've been talking with Bro. Blume about this for days. Baptism can also mean "washing", "cleansing", or be a euphemism or idiom to represent a traumatic experience. We use it in the phrase "baptized by fire" when someone is just thrown into a situation they are unprepared for. The meaning of this word is very dynamic and expansive.
stasis
07-13-2009, 08:36 PM
You sound like a pompous fool with your false humility.
You call a Babylonian Rabbi your friend? A friend of the world is the enemy of God.
Aquila
07-13-2009, 08:38 PM
You sound like a pompous fool with your false humility.
You call a Babylonian Rabbi your friend? A friend of the world is the enemy of God.
Stasis, what's really eating at you right now? Certainly you can't have this much animosity built up over a difference in opinion over water baptism. What happened? Talk to me.
U376977
07-13-2009, 08:39 PM
Amen!! That is one reason why I hesitate to identify myself with Apostolics. That and the fact that many of them are "everybody-is-going-to-hell-but-me-and-those-exactly-like-me attitude."
You see, modern day Apostolics are making the same error as Trinitarians. We've codified the name of Jesus into a "formula" to be spoken by a minister at the moment of water baptism. We've missed it entirely. The issue isn't what someone is saying over you when your baptized, the issue is that water baptism is the moment NT Christians had converts call on the name to be saved. Baptism isn't a time for formulas... it's a time to prayerfully call upon the name of the Lord, asking that your sins be washed away; just as Paul was told.
Aquila
07-13-2009, 08:50 PM
Amen!! That is one reason why I hesitate to identify myself with Apostolics. That and the fact that many of them are "everybody-is-going-to-hell-but-me-and-those-exactly-like-me attitude."
I've done something similar. I've refused to identify myself as a United Pentecostal. I'm an "Apostolic Christian". I believe in the Oneness of God, Acts 2:38, and common sense Christian living. I don't identify with the exclusivism or the legalism. I'm not big on big religion or organized religion. I'm turning to house churching. I believe in water baptism's necessity, but I believe in pouring over immersion. I believe that the convert is to call upon the name of Jesus at the moment they are water baptized, it doesn't matter what anyone says over them if they are not calling on the name themselves. I believe many Christians in the traditional church down through the ages called on the name of Jesus for salvation when baptized and God honored that... even though a priest uttered a traditional trinitarian formula. On the flip side, I believe that many Apostolic preachers have spoken the name of Jesus over individuals being water baptized but those individuals didn't receive remission because they themselves were relying on the preacher's words and not calling upon the name themselves.
I'm Apostolic... I'm just not UPCI, ALJC, PAW, WWPF, ALF, AMF, ABC, 123, or any of the other alphabet soup denominations. I just don't identify with them.
giftofgrace
07-13-2009, 10:06 PM
Hm..I don't like the spirit in here. Let's remember that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ people.:thumbsup :friend
GrowingPains
07-14-2009, 11:01 AM
Nothing YOU can do will make you his, but what Christ does THROUGH YOU, and to you. Through Christ we can do all things, like be persecuted and bear a cross. Christ imposes his instruction upon us, and makes us DOERS, and this by his grace alone in choosing us before time, to form us into doers of his Word.
So... bearing your cross and doing what Christ says is "no action/responsibility". Yeah, that makes sense. Following Christ is "doing nothing". Being conformed to the image of Christ throughout your entire life, which involves suffering, is sitting around doing "nothing". I speak in sarcasm.
What do you do to a robot? You write an instruction upon it's circuitry. What does God do to us? He writes his laws upon our hearts. Yes, if you are God's you WILL, LIKE A ROBOT, DO HIS WILL. We are spiritual robots.
Opinion is 'opinios', which means, to think for one's self. I have no opinion but the Word of God. We must crucify our opinions and let God's Word think for us.
No, it isn't fatalism, it's blood baptism and the sovereign power of God alone, who stands above man's will.
What say you? It's unfair for God to choose one above another? What man calls unfair, God calls Grace, intervening through Christ the intercessor. What is fair? Fair is EVERYONE GOING TO HELL.
Brother, this is above and beyond even the usual discussions here on AFF, and is outright false doctrine.
GrowingPains
07-14-2009, 11:03 AM
It's one baptism, with one element, the living water, which is the blood of Christ.
Blood was called 'living water' by the Jews. Remember when Christ told the woman about drinking the living water? Then told the disciples to drink of the cup which is his blood?
The Jews had a custom or tendency to speak in doubles which referred to the same thing, to solidify their point. "The water and the spirit" is one of many examples in scripture.
Spirit = Blood of Christ = Living Water = Truth
One baptism, one element.
The actual washing with literal water was the Jewish Proselyte Baptism, to be done along with offering of turtle doves and circumcision. This was an ordinance nailed to the cross by christ (a nullified contract), which Christ's disciples later figured out (some were still washing people in water early in their ministries), particularly Paul who stated later that he came not to baptize with water (being adamant that the New Jerusalem Church not be amalgamated into the old Judaism, but which the 'Jews' were constantly demanding), and Peter who (in the actual Greek text) said "The water, forbid!", not "Can any man forbid water?" (as in the poorly translated english passage), to the Egyptian Eunuch who was on the way to Jerusalem to undergo becoming a Jew (the proselyte baptism)
So what then was the significance of blood and water coming out of Christ's pierced side, or was it all one and the same?
Timmy
07-14-2009, 11:04 AM
Brother, this is above and beyond even the usual discussions here on AFF, and is outright false doctrine.
What did he get wrong? Just askin'.
GrowingPains
07-14-2009, 11:04 AM
There is so much wrong with the above paragraph I'm not sure where to start. My wife's family is half Jewish. The "Jewish Proselyte Baptism" you speak of isn't in the Bible, it's a post-exilic tradition. In addition Jewish mikveh was to be performed nude, none of the baptisms of the Apostles or even the John the Baptist were part of this man made tradition.
Also Paul never said that he wasn't sent to baptize... you have to read it in context. Let's take a look. To the Corinthians Paul wrote...
I Corinthians 1:11-17
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
The issue was that there were contentions among the Corinthians because they were boasting over who baptized them as though it made them more spiritual or more Christian. One was saying I'm of Paul, another, I'm of Apollos, and yet another, I'm of Christ. Paul then indicates that they were not baptized in these names, and definitely not his own because he wasn't crucified for them (an allusion to Jesus name baptism). Then Paul is thankful that out of the Corinthians he only baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. Paul was thankful because none could say he baptized in his own name. Paul then states that Paul was not sent to baptize, meaning to baptize making coverts after himself, but rather to preach the Gospel (which includes baptism - see Acts 2:38) lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
You have to take an entire passage and it's context into consideration. By just reading verse 17 one would think that Paul wasn't sent to baptize period... but in context we see that Paul meant he wasn't sent to baptize to make disciples after himself. We also know that this is an error because we see Paul baptizing new believers in the book of Acts:
(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Paul preached the same Gospel that Peter preached on Pentecost. There is only one Gospel message. The only difference is that while Peter was called to preach to the Jews, Paul was called to preach to the Gentiles. Two distinct missional callings.
:thumbsup
GrowingPains
07-14-2009, 11:05 AM
You have no idea what you're talking about regarding scripture.
As far as proselyte baptism being post-exilic, you're admitting it's a Babylonian Heresy, so I guess you're saying you don't believe in water baptism?
Hey, did you ever stop to think about the brasen-sea from which the priests 'cleansed' themselves? Seperate from the proselyte ritual, but nevertheless another instance of a ritual around cleansing by water.
Half-Jewish? So I guess some of her family at least know how ridiculous modern 'christianity' really is... or are they the 'athiest jews' (whatever that even means).
Hey, keep believing in that holy water, enchanted by mystical utterance "In the name of Jesus", and your ecstatic emotional experiences. I'm sure they'll mean a lot when you stand before God Almighty.
Who are you and where did you come from?
GrowingPains
07-14-2009, 11:11 AM
I've done something similar. I've refused to identify myself as a United Pentecostal. I'm an "Apostolic Christian". I believe in the Oneness of God, Acts 2:38, and common sense Christian living. I don't identify with the exclusivism or the legalism. I'm not big on big religion or organized religion. I'm turning to house churching. I believe in water baptism's necessity, but I believe in pouring over immersion. I believe that the convert is to call upon the name of Jesus at the moment they are water baptized, it doesn't matter what anyone says over them if they are not calling on the name themselves. I believe many Christians in the traditional church down through the ages called on the name of Jesus for salvation when baptized and God honored that... even though a priest uttered a traditional trinitarian formula. On the flip side, I believe that many Apostolic preachers have spoken the name of Jesus over individuals being water baptized but those individuals didn't receive remission because they themselves were relying on the preacher's words and not calling upon the name themselves.
I'm Apostolic... I'm just not UPCI, ALJC, PAW, WWPF, ALF, AMF, ABC, 123, or any of the other alphabet soup denominations. I just don't identify with them.
So you wouldn't even fellowship with churches that baptize by immersion?
Interesting Aquila. I've listened to all your evidence on baptism, and find it interesting. There's clear evidence in the NT that the persons being baptized "went down into the water", and "came up out of the water." However, I don't believe that's necessarily critical, but you think your new revelation of baptism is somehow superior and don't identify with churches that baptize by immersion, saying they have made the same error as trinitarians? Do you really believe that?
SeekingOne
07-14-2009, 04:29 PM
Does anyone have any speculation on how the jailer and his family were baptized by Paul? Just curious if there would have been a place for them to be "dunked" or not. My husband just asked me this question and I saw this thread and thought this would be the place to ask. I hope it fits in.
GrowingPains
07-14-2009, 04:50 PM
Does anyone have any speculation on how the jailer and his family were baptized by Paul? Just curious if there would have been a place for them to be "dunked" or not. My husband just asked me this question and I saw this thread and thought this would be the place to ask. I hope it fits in.
We don't know as the text doesn't specify. I wouldn't doubt there wouldn't be a place in the prison though. We also have numerous other examples of baptism in the NT that indicated water.
Bottom line: who does this affect? All of us talking about have "already been to the water." Are we wanting to preach a different baptism? Sometimes I get curious about our motives, including my own.
SeekingOne
07-14-2009, 08:39 PM
We don't know as the text doesn't specify. I wouldn't doubt there wouldn't be a place in the prison though. We also have numerous other examples of baptism in the NT that indicated water.
Bottom line: who does this affect? All of us talking about have "already been to the water." Are we wanting to preach a different baptism? Sometimes I get curious about our motives, including my own.
I didn't have an agenda with my question. I told my husband what I was reading and he just asked me to type that in. I don't see that God has a perfect way. If the person getting baptized is doing so out of faith in Jesus, I don't think God will send them to hell for doing it different than the disciples did it.
pelathais
07-14-2009, 08:51 PM
I didn't have an agenda with my question. I told my husband what I was reading and he just asked me to type that in. I don't see that God has a perfect way. If the person getting baptized is doing so out of faith in Jesus, I don't think God will send them to hell for doing it different than the disciples did it.
The one thing that has been consistent concerning baptism - about the only thing! - from the Day of Pentecost until today is faith in Jesus Christ.
That's why there's always a deafening silence whenever you ask for examples of "Acts 2:38 believers" between the years 200 - 1900 A.D. There weren't any. So how did the church prevail against the gates of hell all those years? Through faith in Jesus Christ.
Praxeas
07-15-2009, 12:34 AM
I was thinking about all the posts about baptism...you know whether it is important what the preacher says prior to baptism.
Let me challenge you to back away from your theology for a moment and think about a couple of points about the Body of Christ in general.
Two men - one is "trinity" and one is "oneness" both tell stories of how they had visitation from Jesus and that He spoke with them about their ministries about the times they lived in and so forth.
The men: Kenneth Hagin (the Senior one) and Chester Hensley
I have heard accounts of both men (Hensley in person and Hagin through books). Both claiming to have had several encounters with Jesus, yet neither of these men stated that Jesus Himself told them, "Make sure and get 'the others' rebaptized the way you understand it."
As the one guy posted on this forum (don't remember who it was) proclaimed in bold, colored, all cap letters "if you are not baptized in the Name of Jesus you are going to hell." Well, if this is true there are a lot of trinitarian people out there who truly love the Lord. I would think that if "the way" of baptism was so important that Jesus would have mentioned it to one of these guys.
Then we could look at a multitude of people who are considered to be "God's Generals." These would be people like Alexander Dowie, Maria Woodworth Etter, Seymour, Kuhlman, Wigglesworth, Branum, Sumrall, and others. Of those who operated in an absolute power and demonstration of God they were split with about 30% being oneness and about 70% being trinity.
People have die hard opinions of baptism, but my question is....."does God?"
I'll wait until you get to God's perspective on the issue and not man's
GrowingPains
07-15-2009, 09:38 AM
The one thing that has been consistent concerning baptism - about the only thing! - from the Day of Pentecost until today is faith in Jesus Christ.
That's why there's always a deafening silence whenever you ask for examples of "Acts 2:38 believers" between the years 200 - 1900 A.D. There weren't any. So how did the church prevail against the gates of hell all those years? Through faith in Jesus Christ.
How can you say this so smugly? That's the stuff that amazes me.
Also, when you say "Acts 2:38 believers" you're referring to UPCI-type churches. Get that out of your head and read up on the subject of baptism in historical textbooks. You will see that you are plain wrong. Baptism was a new issue before it was the New Issue.
And if any of you build a church in a dessert, where there is no water, then I'm sure God will accept your token of faith and sincerity in obedience to His word. Otherwise, we debate such moot points.
Aquila
07-15-2009, 09:46 AM
So you wouldn't even fellowship with churches that baptize by immersion?
Please don’t jump to conclusions dear Growing. I love and fellowship anyone with the Holy Ghost, even if I disagree with them on many things, including water baptism.
Interesting Aquila. I've listened to all your evidence on baptism, and find it interesting. There's clear evidence in the NT that the persons being baptized "went down into the water", and "came up out of the water."
I know that this is the traditional view. However, one has to consider the details. For example, in the book of Acts we read about how Philip baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch. If you read the entire passage you’ll discover that the text explains that they were traveling a road between Jerusalem and Gaza, “which is desert”. And indeed this is a desert road. There are no large bodies of water along this stretch wherewith to immerse someone. However, the area is known for something that delighted travelers. You see there were seasonal waters that would trickle down from the higher regions forming desert wadis (shallow streams) with which they would stop and refresh themselves or their camels. These streams were typically ankle to shin deep on average. This is why the Eunuch was so elated saying, “Look, here is water!” The text briefly indicates that Philip baptized the Eunuch and then they both came “up out of the water”. This may appear at first to demand that they were wading at waist waste deep in a river or lake… but when the geography and water tables are examined one realizes that most likely they both stepped down into a desert wadi. Please also note, if Philip immersed the Eunuch it would read that only the Eunuch “came up out of the water”, because the Eunuch was the only one being baptized. It’s most probable that both the Eunuch and Philip stepped down and stood in the water, and perhaps the Eunuch knelt down upon his knees. There Philip would have poured water over his head. Once finished they came “up out of the water”, merely meaning that they stepped up out of the wadi.
Another interesting detail is found where John baptized. John baptized in Aenon near to
Salim, “because there was much water there.” (John 3:23). This isn’t an accurate translation. Most scholars admit that this really translates, “because there were many waters there”. And in fact, this area isn’t known for being a place of large bodies of water either. However, it is known for its many springs and wells fed by fresh spring waters. It’s also important to note that “Aenon” translates, “springs”, because of these “many waters”. So most likely John baptized believers near a well where he drew water to pour upon them or had them stand in a natural spring where he poured water upon them. One has to take the geography and language into account before assuming anything in Scripture.
However, I don't believe that's necessarily critical, but you think your new revelation of baptism is somehow superior and don't identify with churches that baptize by immersion, saying they have made the same error as trinitarians? Do you really believe that?
I only think it’s critical when claiming to be “Apostolic”. If one claims to be “Apostolic” they are claiming that their Christianity is just like that of the Apostles. While they may be saved, if they are not having teaching, prayer, fellowship, and conducting sacraments such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper like the Apostles, they really aren’t following Apostolic patterns. I rejoice in Christian fellowship, especially among fellow Holy Ghost filled Christians be they Apostolic or Trinitarian. Again, my typical standard of friendship and fellowship is Holy Ghost baptism with speaking in other tongues. My logic is… if God chooses to fill them with his Spirit, who am I to deny them fellowship or friendship? I will admit however, when it comes to Trinitarians, I’m more on the level of maintaining friendship and not such much “fellowship” as we might define it.
When I say that Oneness folks have made the same error as Trinitarians, I’m talking about how we have “formulized” and essentially turned baptism into a Jesus name liturgy where a specific “formula” has to be spoken. Again, my conviction is that it’s not so important what a minister says over you as it is that you’re calling out to Jesus, praying for the washing away of your sins. Baptism isn’t so much about the preacher’s words as it is your heart before God. In codifying a “formula” and denouncing anyone who doesn’t follow our “formula” we’ve essentially done exactly what the Trinitarians have done with their “formula” in codifying it and denouncing those who disagree (Nicea 325 AD). Thank God this isn’t the 1300’s or 1400’s. We’d be killing people who didn’t agree with our Oneness formula. I think we miss the point by focusing on formula spoken… the point is the power of the name as an individual is baptized, washing away their sins, calling upon the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).
I want to thank you for your questions because you’ve granted me the floor to clarify my thoughts. Odds are, if you misunderstood what I meant others did too. Thank you for asking pointed and straight forward questions. I welcome them because they also help me to clarify and examine what I believe. Not to mention… I enjoy a good, healthy, and fun debate with brothers and sisters that I love! :lol But don’t we all? Isn’t that why some of us are here on this website? We mean no harm… we just want to have a voice at the table – and all too often that isn’t allowed in traditional churches. Here… we’ve got permission to be mistaken, to be wrong, and to play the devil’s advocate; to share what we really think without ourselves or our families experiencing the pain and trauma of being disfellowshipped. God bless Apostolic Friends.
And God bless you Growing. I enjoy talking with you. May your day be filled with grace and peace.
~ Bro. Chris
Aquila
07-15-2009, 09:47 AM
Does anyone have any speculation on how the jailer and his family were baptized by Paul? Just curious if there would have been a place for them to be "dunked" or not. My husband just asked me this question and I saw this thread and thought this would be the place to ask. I hope it fits in.
I see something provocative in the text. It reads,
Acts 16:25-33
{16:25} And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang
praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. {16:26}
And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the
foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all
the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed.
{16:27} And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his
sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his
sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the
prisoners had been fled. {16:28} But Paul cried with a loud
voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
{16:29} Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came
trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, {16:30}
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be
saved? {16:31} And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. {16:32} And
they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that
were in his house. {16:33} And he took them the same hour
of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized,
he and all his, straightway.
Notice that this conversion takes place in the jail well after midnight. Most believe Paul and Silas took this jailer and his family, tromping through the Philippian wilderness to look for a river or lake at 1 or 2 in the morning. However, we see water clearly mentioned in the passage. Let’s take a closer look.
Evidently they were brought into the jailer’s house (most likely adjacent to or attached to the prison). After they preached the Gospel to the jailor and his family the jailer brought a basin and most likely a pitcher of water to wash their stripes. Then the jailer and his family were baptized.
Water was present… in what was used to wash their stripes. Most don’t see this. It is most likely that Paul and Silas baptized this family by pouring water from the pitcher that the jailor used to wash their stripes. Remember, the jailer was suicidal. He was facing certain death if his prisoners fled. But Paul and Silas would rather remain in chains than see this man die. Imagine how deeply this must have affected the jailer. He had a wife and children. And here these captive Christians are essentially sacrificing their own liberty to ensure his wellbeing. With that kind of witness the jailer didn’t stand a chance against the love of Jesus. Next we see the jailer washing their stripes… and then we see Paul and Silas using the same implements of water to wash his soul.
It’s implied that they baptized the family of a man who may have bound them for their beating. Think about it, a jailer turns to wash the wounds inflicted upon his prisoners (this may imply that he bound them or had part in their scourging). I can hear him sobbing as he expresses his sorrow for having bound them for their beatings. These Christian prisoners then wash his soul from the guilt and grief of having done them harm. It’s truly touching. What a picture of grace, forgiveness, and mutual healing. Oh how they loved their enemies. If we could only love one another like this.
Oh well, that’s my take on it.
God bless.
Aquila
07-15-2009, 06:31 PM
So what are your thoughts SeekingOne?
SeekingOne
07-16-2009, 10:36 PM
So what are your thoughts SeekingOne?
At first I wondered if this was another of those "tricks" you guys love to do where we all read our own name. :foottap But then I realized that you actually did just respond to something I posted. :rolleyes:
It does seem unlikely that they would have traipsed out to a river in the middle of the night and equally doubtful that they would have enough water drawn along with a deep basin to baptize the whole family in. But, maybe they had a pool for washing in?
Again, I think these discussions are interesting, but I gave up all those heaven and hell issues that can be debated a few months ago. God is NOT the God of confusion. I believe He speaks clearly about issues that we MUST pay close attention to. He also provided His Holy Spirit to dwell in us to lead and guide us individually.
Bottom line opinion: I don't think either way can be proven or there would not be a debate. :nah Since God did not make sure that people thousands of years later would know for sure how they should be baptized, I don't think it is a heaven or hell issue how a person is baptized. I do think that everyone must obey what they feel God leading them to do. :heart
I have already been baptized twice, I don't intend to go for a third round. :sad I was baptized when I first accepted Jesus, but the Jesus Name people said I would go to hell with that one so they dunked me again saying the correct words over me.
I guess faith in Jesus doesn't always count. The first time I was baptized, they asked me to testify about my faith in Jesus. They mentioned that because of my faith in Jesus and because I wished to be obedient in baptism as Jesus comanded that they were baptizing me. Besides, these are the words of Jesus (not men): (He could have said to baptize them in His name, but he didn't. I still believe in one God by the way.)
Matt: 28:16 - 20
16 But the eleven disciples proceeded ato Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Sorry you asked??? :ursofunny :smack
Aquila
07-16-2009, 10:46 PM
No. Actually I thought you offered a fair response. There are many things that can't be concluded. Sometimes we have to do our best to fill in the blanks by looking at cultural customs, common implements, etc. I agree with you... I wouldn't condemn someone to Hell just because they weren't baptized the way I believe the Apostles did it.
But about this statement you made...
It does seem unlikely that they would have traipsed out to a river in the middle of the night and equally doubtful that they would have enough water drawn along with a deep basin to baptize the whole family in. But, maybe they had a pool for washing in?
Pools and that sort of thing were very luxurious items typically enjoyed by the Roman aristocracy. I don't see one being at a jail. Tradition modes of bathing were essentially a large basin of water. The one bathing would squat down next to it and scrub themselves and anoint with oils. Then they'd rinse with a cloth or laver like implement. It being a prison... back in those days prisons had NO amenities. I don't see it. Personally, I think the jailer had a wash basin and a pitcher of water. That would be what they'd typically use to wash wounds. Pools, lakes, rivers, tubs, etc. are not mentioned in the text. The washing of wounds is mentioned in the text. So I have to lean on what I believe was present... a basin and a pitcher of water.
SeekingOne
07-17-2009, 11:11 AM
Well Aquilla, it looks like you are probably correct. Since God didn't see fit to tell us a particular method is necessary or important, I will add this information to my "Isn't this interesting" file in my head since I have been baptized twice already. ;-)
I love reading all these discussions! I have changed my views from what has been forced into my head by others on many subjects. It is great to be able to read the Bible again and be open to what God wants me to see instead of being expected to agree with someone or go hell.
GrowingPains
07-17-2009, 12:35 PM
I don't think it's critical if you're dunked or splashed. That's not the point of baptism. I think our tradition of immersion if a pretty biblical one. Speculating on what the jailer did, does not take away from other NT evidence of immersion.
Aquila
07-17-2009, 03:56 PM
I don't think it's critical if you're dunked or splashed. That's not the point of baptism. I think our tradition of immersion if a pretty biblical one. Speculating on what the jailer did, does not take away from other NT evidence of immersion.
Personally, I think a detailed study will demonstrate otherwise. ;) Can you show me what you believe to be evidence of immersion?
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.