PDA

View Full Version : born of water


Pages : [1] 2

phareztamar
12-03-2014, 06:19 PM
Born of Water

Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.


The Acts 2:38 message was first preached by Moses, at the base of the mount. It is confirmed throughout the Acts accounts, and is our very core doctrine. Water baptism…by complete immersion…in the name of Jesus Christ, is clearly a foundation stone of the new covenant. But to teach this water baptism from our text verse in John, is wrong.

Many ministers misquote this passage to read, “except a man be born again of water and of the spirit…” Not of any ill intent…but in zealous support of our position on water baptism. Our sanctioned bible study “In My Father’s House”…in Room One, paragraph three, finds the honorable Elder Yonts saying: “When we are baptized in Jesus’ name, we are born of the water.” Even the marginal notes of a Thompson Chain Reference Bible…here in John…states: 756-Baptism enjoined (1) Acts 2:38.

But the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus, has nothing to do with water baptism. The whole crux of their discussion is new birth. Not death (repentance)…not burial (water baptism)…but new birth. Moreover, great plainness of speech is used, to show that this new birth is entirely spiritual in nature. It is an anointing seal…given only by our Lord…to each one personally.

What is ironic, is that in every reference to water baptism, we ourselves concur that the rite represents a burial, or a grave. Only here in John, do we reverse our hermeneutic, and make water baptism part of a birth experience. There are ample scriptures in the bible to support baptism in Jesus’ name. But in rightly divided scripture, this text in John is not among them.

Jesus’ first words on the matter state:

Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.

And at the last, he closes the argument with these words:

The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.

No mention of water baptism, or water birth, in either the intro or the summary, of our Lord’s lesson. He teaches that the new birth…the born again moment…is a single, spiritual birth. Is it prefaced with a death and a burial? With repentance and water baptism? Yes, the scriptures bear this out. It is the usual order, and thus we so teach.

There simply is no tenable argument; against the process of salvation mirroring the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. Moses prophesied this in the altar of death, the laver of washing, and the presence of God in the holiest place. But the new birth is the resurrection part of that process. The born of the spirit here taught, is the climax of that salvation experience. We need not drag the laver into the holy place.

Born of water is mentioned a single time in their discussion. A befuddled Nicodemus asks Jesus:

How can a man enter a second time into his mother’s womb?

Concerning that natural birth, Jesus teaches:

Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

Jesus is here drawing a contrast between two births…not encouraging a new, two-part birth. The fleshly birth from a nine month amniotic sac, is not enough Nicodemus. You must be born again. It is the Lord himself making the argument here; that born of water, and born of the flesh, are synonymous terms. Paul echoes the same argument in Galatians; as does Peter, in his comparison between corruptible seed, and incorruptible seed.

The fact that you’re sitting here reading this, affirms you’re halfway there. You’ve made it through born of water. You out-rassled millions upon millions of other sperm cells, and qualified for life. But having so done, you now must be born again. Your water birth gave you this life. Your spiritual birth gives you life everlasting. You must be born again.

mfblume
12-03-2014, 08:34 PM
I disagree. Water and Spirit are clearly seen to be emphasis of Jesus in John 3, and the emphasis in Acts is water baptism and Spirit baptism. I have believed for years that death burial and resurrection are in baptism.

Romans 6:3-4 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.


Colossians 2:11-12 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: (12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

phareztamar
12-03-2014, 08:59 PM
I disagree. Water and Spirit are clearly seen to be emphasis of Jesus in John 3, and the emphasis in Acts is water baptism and Spirit baptism.

Don't know if you read this part of the post:

Born of water is mentioned a single time in their discussion. A befuddled Nicodemus asks Jesus:

How can a man enter a second time into his mother’s womb?

Concerning that natural birth, Jesus teaches:

Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

Jesus is here drawing a contrast between two births…not encouraging a new, two-part birth. The fleshly birth from a nine month amniotic sac, is not enough Nicodemus. You must be born again. It is the Lord himself making the argument here; that born of water, and born of the flesh, are synonymous terms. Paul echoes the same argument in Galatians; as does Peter, in his comparison between corruptible seed, and incorruptible seed.

So no, water and spirit are NOT clearly seen to be the emphasis of Jesus in John 3. Spirit...and Spirit baptism are His emphasis.

mfblume
12-03-2014, 09:02 PM
Don't know if you read this part of the post:

Born of water is mentioned a single time in their discussion. A befuddled Nicodemus asks Jesus:

How can a man enter a second time into his mother’s womb?

Concerning that natural birth, Jesus teaches:

Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

Jesus is here drawing a contrast between two births…not encouraging a new, two-part birth. The fleshly birth from a nine month amniotic sac, is not enough Nicodemus. You must be born again. It is the Lord himself making the argument here; that born of water, and born of the flesh, are synonymous terms. Paul echoes the same argument in Galatians; as does Peter, in his comparison between corruptible seed, and incorruptible seed.

So no, water and spirit are NOT clearly seen to be the emphasis of Jesus in John 3. Spirit...and Spirit baptism are His emphasis.

I heard that view before but it appears to me that Acts negates it. It's simple. Look in Acts to see where water and Spirit come into view.

phareztamar
12-03-2014, 09:06 PM
I heard that view before but it appears to me that Acts negates it. It's simple. Look in Acts to see where water and Spirit come into view.

You're all over the board my brother. Hard to have a fruitful discussion with you, when you keep jumping around like that.

mfblume
12-03-2014, 09:07 PM
You're all over the board my brother. Hard to have a fruitful discussion with you, when you keep jumping around like that.

I am sticking with my original premise and working from there. I haven't jumped from it to anywhere else as you claim.

phareztamar
12-03-2014, 09:09 PM
I am sticking with my original premise and working from there. I haven't jumped from it to anywhere else as you claim.

OK...guess we're done here. Thank you for your input.

mfblume
12-03-2014, 09:13 PM
Water and Spirit are seen in several places, with water alluding to water baptism in each case.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

in Ephesians, Christ died so he could wash us and present us to Himself as perfect. That is baptism. It is by the word because it is only through faith in what we are doing according to His word that baptism moves God to destroy our old man and remove everything that was repulsive to Him about us. Sins are gone and we are presented to him without spot or wrinkle.

The Titus passage mentions washing of regeneration. Again, the Spirit is never delineated as the washing agent. It sounds lyrically nice to sing a hymn about it, but it is strictly not that biblical. The Holy Ghost renews. It's clearly references to Acts 2:38. Even non-Spirit-filled scholars attest to this issue of water baptism in John 3, such as Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes and John Gill.

mfblume
12-03-2014, 09:14 PM
OK...guess we're done here. Thank you for your input.

You gave your premise and I gave mine. Big deal.

jfrog
12-04-2014, 02:03 AM
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


What the "baptism and spirit filled required for the new birth believers" confess is that only "being born of the Spirit" makes one half-born again. Yet, Jesus spoke of those "born of the Spirit" as if they were fully born again. How can that be?

thephnxman
12-04-2014, 06:05 AM
Born of Water

Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.


The Acts 2:38 message was first preached by Moses, at the base of the mount. It is confirmed throughout the Acts accounts, and is our very core doctrine. Water baptism…by complete immersion…in the name of Jesus Christ, is clearly a foundation stone of the new covenant. But to teach this water baptism from our text verse in John, is wrong.

Many ministers misquote this passage to read, “except a man be born again of water and of the spirit…” Not of any ill intent…but in zealous support of our position on water baptism. Our sanctioned bible study “In My Father’s House”…in Room One, paragraph three, finds the honorable Elder Yonts saying: “When we are baptized in Jesus’ name, we are born of the water.” Even the marginal notes of a Thompson Chain Reference Bible…here in John…states: 756-Baptism enjoined (1) Acts 2:38.

But the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus, has nothing to do with water baptism. The whole crux of their discussion is new birth. Not death (repentance)…not burial (water baptism)…but new birth. Moreover, great plainness of speech is used, to show that this new birth is entirely spiritual in nature. It is an anointing seal…given only by our Lord…to each one personally.


What is ironic, is that in every reference to water baptism, we ourselves concur that the rite represents a burial, or a grave. Only here in John, do we reverse our hermeneutic, and make water baptism part of a birth experience. There are ample scriptures in the bible to support baptism in Jesus’ name. But in rightly divided scripture, this text in John is not among them.


Jesus’ first words on the matter state:
Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.
And at the last, he closes the argument with these words:
The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.


No mention of water baptism, or water birth, in either the intro or the summary, of our Lord’s lesson. He teaches that the new birth…the born again moment…is a single, spiritual birth. Is it prefaced with a death and a burial? With repentance and water baptism? Yes, the scriptures bear this out. It is the usual order, and thus we so teach.
There simply is no tenable argument; against the process of salvation mirroring the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. Moses prophesied this in the altar of death, the laver of washing, and the presence of God in the holiest place. But the new birth is the resurrection part of that process. The born of the spirit here taught, is the climax of that salvation experience. We need not drag the laver into the holy place.
Born of water is mentioned a single time in their discussion. A befuddled Nicodemus asks Jesus:
How can a man enter a second time into his mother’s womb?
Concerning that natural birth, Jesus teaches:
Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

Jesus is here drawing a contrast between two births…not encouraging a new, two-part birth. The fleshly birth from a nine month amniotic sac, is not enough Nicodemus. You must be born again. It is the Lord himself making the argument here; that born of water, and born of the flesh, are synonymous terms. Paul echoes the same argument in Galatians; as does Peter, in his comparison between corruptible seed, and incorruptible seed.
The fact that you’re sitting here reading this, affirms you’re halfway there. You’ve made it through born of water. You out-rassled millions upon millions of other sperm cells, and qualified for life. But having so done, you now must be born again. Your water birth gave you this life. Your spiritual birth gives you life everlasting. You must be born again.

I just want to touch on the words I highlighted.

"Except a man be born again, he cannot SEE the kingdom of God." No, that is not referring to water baptism. Simply stated, it means that a man cannot see God's kingdom unless the Father reveals it. I'm surprised many scholars cannot understand that! The word "gennao" is translated "born": it has two definitions. (1) born, begotten; and (2) birthed, come out of the womb. Nicodemus only understood the first part, so he said: "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb?" The Lord went further into his explanation, saying: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter in..."

Why would anyone deny water baptism? Jesus said, "...make disciples of all nations, baptizing them..." Once more: "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved." But a man will see and believe only what he wants.

Originalist
12-04-2014, 07:08 AM
I agree with the original poster 100%. Water baptisms precedes the new birth. The necessity of water baptism as part of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, and as a step towards salvation does not rise and fall with John 3:5.

Originalist
12-04-2014, 07:11 AM
I just want to touch on the words I highlighted.

"Except a man be born again, he cannot SEE the kingdom of God." No, that is not referring to water baptism. Simply stated, it means that a man cannot see God's kingdom unless the Father reveals it. I'm surprised many scholars cannot understand that! The word "gennao" is translated "born": it has two definitions. (1) born, begotten; and (2) birthed, come out of the womb. Nicodemus only understood the first part, so he said: "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb?" The Lord went further into his explanation, saying: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter in..."

Why would anyone deny water baptism? Jesus said, "...make disciples of all nations, baptizing them..." Once more: "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved." But a man will see and believe only what he wants.

Why would anyone accuse someone of denying water baptism when they are not? BTW I was hoping you would respond to my answer to your comment on the other thread....

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=46434&page=4

shazeep
12-04-2014, 07:12 AM
The necessity of water baptism as part of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, and as a step towards salvation does not rise and fall with John 3:5.
amen to that--i seriously doubt that many--or any--of those sheep asking, "When did we..?" (do those things that got them 'saved') at the Separation Parable would even grasp any of this thread!

mfblume
12-04-2014, 08:20 AM
The necessity of water baptism as part of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, and as a step towards salvation does not rise and fall with John 3:5.

Amen.

mizpeh
12-04-2014, 10:02 AM
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


What the "baptism and spirit filled required for the new birth believers" confess is that only "being born of the Spirit" makes one half-born again. Yet, Jesus spoke of those "born of the Spirit" as if they were fully born again. How can that be?
The Spirit is intricately involved in water baptism and spirit baptism. Being "born of the Spirit" is not another way of saying "Spirit baptism" but being "born of the Spirit"is the same as saying being" born of water and the Spirit."

obriencp
12-04-2014, 11:43 AM
I agree 100% with the opening post.

Water and Spirit are seen in several places, with water alluding to water baptism in each case.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

in Ephesians, Christ died so he could wash us and present us to Himself as perfect. That is baptism. It is by the word because it is only through faith in what we are doing according to His word that baptism moves God to destroy our old man and remove everything that was repulsive to Him about us. Sins are gone and we are presented to him without spot or wrinkle.

The Titus passage mentions washing of regeneration. Again, the Spirit is never delineated as the washing agent. It sounds lyrically nice to sing a hymn about it, but it is strictly not that biblical. The Holy Ghost renews. It's clearly references to Acts 2:38. Even non-Spirit-filled scholars attest to this issue of water baptism in John 3, such as Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes and John Gill.

It always bothers me when people bring up the Titus passage and relate it to water baptism. Water baptism is NOT associated with regeneration. So if you're to bring up the "washing" part of that sentence, you must also deal with the "regeneration" part of that sentence. Regeneration is a function of the Holy Spirit. Titus 3:5 is talking about how the Spirit regenerates and renews. Certainly you are not a baptismal regenerist are you?

Also, regarding the Ephesians passage, are you suggesting that water baptism sanctifies us?

jfrog
12-04-2014, 03:24 PM
The Spirit is intricately involved in water baptism and spirit baptism. Being "born of the Spirit" is not another way of saying "Spirit baptism" but being "born of the Spirit"is the same as saying being" born of water and the Spirit."

Think about what you are saying for a moment. If being born of spirit means being born of water and the spirit then Jesus saying you must be born of water and the spirit is actually Jesus saying you must be born of water and of water and the spirit. Do you really think that's the best way to read John 3:5?

mfblume
12-04-2014, 06:43 PM
I agree 100% with the opening post.



It always bothers me when people bring up the Titus passage and relate it to water baptism. Water baptism is NOT associated with regeneration. So if you're to bring up the "washing" part of that sentence, you must also deal with the "regeneration" part of that sentence. Regeneration is a function of the Holy Spirit. Titus 3:5 is talking about how the Spirit regenerates and renews. Certainly you are not a baptismal regenerist are you?

Also, regarding the Ephesians passage, are you suggesting that water baptism sanctifies us?

Water is water baptism and regeneration is Spirit baptism. It's a combination work written there. Water baptism and spirit baptism are considered as accompanying words to sanctify not one on its own in this context.

Originalist
12-04-2014, 06:51 PM
I agree 100% with the opening post.



It always bothers me when people bring up the Titus passage and relate it to water baptism. Water baptism is NOT associated with regeneration. So if you're to bring up the "washing" part of that sentence, you must also deal with the "regeneration" part of that sentence. Regeneration is a function of the Holy Spirit. Titus 3:5 is talking about how the Spirit regenerates and renews. Certainly you are not a baptismal regenerist are you?

Also, regarding the Ephesians passage, are you suggesting that water baptism sanctifies us?

Amen. The UPCI's official stance is that water baptism is not associated with regeneration.

thephnxman
12-04-2014, 07:12 PM
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
What the "baptism and spirit filled required for the new birth believers" confess is that only "being born of the Spirit" makes one half-born again. Yet, Jesus spoke of those "born of the Spirit" as if they were fully born again. How can that be?

We should read the full context in the scriptures.

If someone at point A asked how to get from point A to point C, and was told that he must pass through point B: would you suppose that he went through point B, if you later saw that same person at point C?

"He that is born of the flesh is flesh; and he that is born of the Spirit is spirit." Jesus must have known that to get from the flesh to the Spirit, a person must pass through the waters (obedience)!

obriencp
12-04-2014, 08:00 PM
Water is water baptism and regeneration is Spirit baptism. It's a combination work written there. Water baptism and spirit baptism are considered as accompanying words to sanctify not one on its own in this context.

did you mean to say "washing is water baptism and regeneration is Spirit baptism" ?

If you're implying that washing in this passage = water baptism and regeneration = spirit baptism, your interpretation of Titus 3:5 would be "...but according to his mercy he saved us, by the 'water baptism' of 'Spirit Baptism,' and renewing of the Holy Ghost"

This seems to be both inconsistent and redundant.

maybe i misunderstood your reply?

I see that passage as two ways of describing the same event/moment when the Spirit comes into/onto a person... washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. I don't understand it as a regenerative water baptism event and a separate moment of Spiritual renewing.

obriencp
12-04-2014, 08:10 PM
Amen. The UPCI's official stance is that water baptism is not associated with regeneration.

I'm by no means an expert, but certain faiths believe that the spirit comes automatically upon water baptism right? Would those be considered baptismal regenerationalists? ... would Catholics and Baptists believe in baptismal regeneration? I'm asking because I really don't know.

Originalist
12-04-2014, 08:53 PM
did you mean to say "washing is water baptism and regeneration is Spirit baptism" ?

If you're implying that washing in this passage = water baptism and regeneration = spirit baptism, your interpretation of Titus 3:5 would be "...but according to his mercy he saved us, by the 'water baptism' of 'Spirit Baptism,' and renewing of the Holy Ghost"

This seems to be both inconsistent and redundant.

maybe i misunderstood your reply?

I see that passage as two ways of describing the same event/moment when the Spirit comes into/onto a person... washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. I don't understand it as a regenerative water baptism event and a separate moment of Spiritual renewing.

Right on!!

Hesetmefree238
12-04-2014, 09:31 PM
The new birth discourse in John 3 has greater emphasis on the born of the spirit or spirit birth. This seems to be where the emphasis is in this passage. Jesus, in fact goes into a description of likening the Spirit to the wind that blows. Whether water refers to water baptism or it is synonymous with born of the flesh in the following verse is insignificant to me in regards to baptism being a part of the plan of salvation. There are enough other scriptures to justify the necessity of water baptism.

Esaias
12-04-2014, 09:52 PM
Washing of regeneration. If washing refers to water baptism then water baptism is part of regeneration. It is not all of regeneration, but it is part of it.

If born of water means water baptism, then water baptism is PART of the new birth.

Israel was "baptised into/unto Moses" in the cloud and the sea. We are "baptised into/unto Christ" ... the parallel should be obvious. Thus, water baptism and Spirit baptism are two components if "regeneration". Historically, this was NEVER DISPUTED until the Nicene period when the Spirit baptism element faded out and was replaced by Chrismation, as far as I have been able to tell. Since the Apostasy had lost Spirit baptism, they moved ALL of regeneration to water baptism. Then the Reformers and Anabaptists and Baptists - Protesting Catholics - in rejecting popery often went to the doctrine of "regeneration comes before water baptism". The Reformed camp went so far as to claim regeneration came before belief, faith, repentance, or even hearing the gospel!

Anyway, a person must be born of water and Spirit. Since "a person" has already been born once, to be born of water and Spirit is to be born "again" or "anew".

mizpeh
12-05-2014, 03:05 PM
Washing of regeneration. If washing refers to water baptism then water baptism is part of regeneration. It is not all of regeneration, but it is part of it.

If born of water means water baptism, then water baptism is PART of the new birth.

Israel was "baptised into/unto Moses" in the cloud and the sea. We are "baptised into/unto Christ" ... the parallel should be obvious. Thus, water baptism and Spirit baptism are two components if "regeneration". Historically, this was NEVER DISPUTED until the Nicene period when the Spirit baptism element faded out and was replaced by Chrismation, as far as I have been able to tell. Since the Apostasy had lost Spirit baptism, they moved ALL of regeneration to water baptism. Then the Reformers and Anabaptists and Baptists - Protesting Catholics - in rejecting popery often went to the doctrine of "regeneration comes before water baptism". The Reformed camp went so far as to claim regeneration came before belief, faith, repentance, or even hearing the gospel!

Anyway, a person must be born of water and Spirit. Since "a person" has already been born once, to be born of water and Spirit is to be born "again" or "anew".:highfive

Pressing-On
12-05-2014, 06:22 PM
Washing of regeneration. If washing refers to water baptism then water baptism is part of regeneration. It is not all of regeneration, but it is part of it.

If born of water means water baptism, then water baptism is PART of the new birth.

Israel was "baptised into/unto Moses" in the cloud and the sea. We are "baptised into/unto Christ" ... the parallel should be obvious. Thus, water baptism and Spirit baptism are two components if "regeneration". Historically, this was NEVER DISPUTED until the Nicene period when the Spirit baptism element faded out and was replaced by Chrismation, as far as I have been able to tell. Since the Apostasy had lost Spirit baptism, they moved ALL of regeneration to water baptism. Then the Reformers and Anabaptists and Baptists - Protesting Catholics - in rejecting popery often went to the doctrine of "regeneration comes before water baptism". The Reformed camp went so far as to claim regeneration came before belief, faith, repentance, or even hearing the gospel!

Anyway, a person must be born of water and Spirit. Since "a person" has already been born once, to be born of water and Spirit is to be born "again" or "anew".

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Hesetmefree238
12-05-2014, 06:23 PM
I don't believe in baptismal regeneration. Regeneration is a rebirth of the inner man. If water baptism regenerated a man, then everyone who is baptized would come up a regenerated new creature in Christ. We know this isn't true. A person can go down in the water a sinner and come up a wet sinner. Simon the magician in Acts 8 is an example of this as his heart was not right with God even though he had recently been water baptized. Regeneration is the birth of the Spirit, which is the old man being transformed into a new creature with the new life of the Spirit of Christ.

mizpeh
12-05-2014, 06:36 PM
I don't believe in baptismal regeneration. Regeneration is a rebirth of the inner man. If water baptism regenerated a man, then everyone who is baptized would come up a regenerated new creature in Christ. We know this isn't true. A person can go down in the water a sinner and come up a wet sinner. Simon the magician in Acts 8 is an example of this as his heart was not right with God even though he had recently been water baptized. Regeneration is the birth of the Spirit, which is the old man being transformed into a new creature with the new life of the Spirit of Christ.

Basically you are building and attacking a strawman.

1) What you mean by baptismal regeneration and what most of us here mean is probably something very different. We are not Roman Catholics.

2) I agree with you that regeneration is a rebirth of the inner man.

3) No one says that water baptism is the be all and end all of regeneration in Christ.

4) One goes down in the water a sinner and back out of the water a sinner, without any change whatsoever IF it is not done in faith. But if it is done in faith in Jesus Christ then he will go down in the water buried with Christ and come up out of the water risen with Christ...the metaphor. Down in the water laden with a dirty conscience, up out of the water with the circumcision of the Spirit, the removal of the body of sin/a cleansed conscience...the reality. In water baptism the old man is buried and the new man is risen to become transformed into the image of Christ. All of this is done by the Spirit of Christ who does not have to be "indwelling" to do the work but does have to inhabit the cleansed dwelling to complete the new birth.

mizpeh
12-08-2014, 03:20 AM
What about this verse?

1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.

How does this fit in with "water and Spirit"?

Originalist
12-08-2014, 04:52 AM
What about this verse?

1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.

How does this fit in with "water and Spirit"?

It is simply reiterating that the only ones who have been born again are those that believe that Jesus is the Christ.

Sean
12-08-2014, 08:06 AM
Washing of regeneration. If washing refers to water baptism then water baptism is part of regeneration. It is not all of regeneration, but it is part of it.

If born of water means water baptism, then water baptism is PART of the new birth.

Israel was "baptised into/unto Moses" in the cloud and the sea. We are "baptised into/unto Christ" ... the parallel should be obvious. Thus, water baptism and Spirit baptism are two components if "regeneration". Historically, this was NEVER DISPUTED until the Nicene period when the Spirit baptism element faded out and was replaced by Chrismation, as far as I have been able to tell. Since the Apostasy had lost Spirit baptism, they moved ALL of regeneration to water baptism. Then the Reformers and Anabaptists and Baptists - Protesting Catholics - in rejecting popery often went to the doctrine of "regeneration comes before water baptism". The Reformed camp went so far as to claim regeneration came before belief, faith, repentance, or even hearing the gospel!

Anyway, a person must be born of water and Spirit. Since "a person" has already been born once, to be born of water and Spirit is to be born "again" or "anew".





Amen to the above statement!



Look at Romans 6....

6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?(those that are NOT baptized are NOT baptized into His death))

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.(How can we walk in newness of life if we are not "buried with him BY baptism" yet?)

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:(buried by baptism is also being "planted". If we are not baptized, we are not planted, nor ready to be resurrected either)

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.(baptism is also called a "crucifixion" here)

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.(verse 4 says we are "buried with Him by baptism INTO death". If we are not baptized, we are not dead to sin yet and subsequently not free from sin)

This ENTIRE passage cannot apply to those that have not been baptized yet, therefore water baptism is absolutely essential and AUTOMATICALLY part of the spiritual regeneration process.

If a person is NOT baptized, they are NOT saved!

thephnxman
12-08-2014, 08:30 AM
What about this verse?
1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.
How does this fit in with "water and Spirit"?

Born ("gennao"): is translated begotten and birthed.

In the following verses, John3:3; John 1:13; I Peter 1:23, the word "born" should be translated "begotten": and they agree in context.

Even the natural realm shows us that a child is first begotten ("born") in the womb of a woman, and then in due time she gives birth (is "born").
The word in both instances is "gennao".

The "born again" experience is the God-given ability to see his kingdom and choose whether or not to enter in! If a man chooses to enter in, it is due to repentance.

Being born (birthed) "...of water and of the Spirit..." gives us the ABILITY (by remission of sins and the Spirit) to enter into God's kingdom.

KeptByTheWord
12-08-2014, 09:00 AM
The way I understand this is very simple. Regardless of the difference in meaning perhaps of the different texts regarding water and spirit birth - I look to see how the apostles interpreted and understood how to be saved. What actions did they take?

We find both water baptism, and spirit baptism in the book of Acts. That answers the question for me. The understanding of the apostles was to baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus, and to receive the spirit. We know this because of Acts 10:44-48. "for they HEARD them speak with tongues and magnify God".

In my mind, this settles any questions there are. If the apostles baptized in water, and received the spirit through speaking with tongues, how much more simple can it get than to do what they did?

thephnxman
12-08-2014, 09:42 AM
The way I understand this is very simple. Regardless of the difference in meaning perhaps of the different texts regarding water and spirit birth - I look to see how the apostles interpreted and understood how to be saved. What actions did they take?

We find both water baptism, and spirit baptism in the book of Acts. That answers the question for me. The understanding of the apostles was to baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus, and to receive the spirit. We know this because of Acts 10:44-48. "for they HEARD them speak with tongues and magnify God".

In my mind, this settles any questions there are. If the apostles baptized in water, and received the spirit through speaking with tongues, how much more simple can it get than to do what they did?

That's good.

jfrog
12-08-2014, 11:53 AM
Born ("gennao"): is translated begotten and birthed.

In the following verses, John3:3; John 1:13; I Peter 1:23, the word "born" should be translated "begotten": and they agree in context.

Even the natural realm shows us that a child is first begotten ("born") in the womb of a woman, and then in due time she gives birth (is "born").
The word in both instances is "gennao".

The "born again" experience is the God-given ability to see his kingdom and choose whether or not to enter in! If a man chooses to enter in, it is due to repentance.

Being born (birthed) "...of water and of the Spirit..." gives us the ABILITY (by remission of sins and the Spirit) to enter into God's kingdom.

Why shouldn't born be translated as begotten in 1 John 5:1?

Aquila
12-08-2014, 02:10 PM
I found this to be interesting:

Born of the water and of the Spirit

Jesus said everyone must be born of the water and of the Spirit. Most Christians argue about being born of the water; does it mean being born of the birth water of a mother; or does it mean water baptism? For the most part, Christians are ignorant of the Jewish connection to water baptism. They see it as a new invention beginning with John the Baptist. This gives many to reject water and Spirit baptisms as two parts to being born again. For Apostolics, we see in Acts 2:38 the verification of water and Spirit baptisms as the born again experience. We do not need nor do we look for any other validation or proof to the meaning of Jesus in John 3:3-5. However, for those not convinced in water and Spirit baptisms of the one new birth, especially that being born of the water is water baptism: I offer the Jewish source as proof.

“The baptismal water (Mikveh) in rabbinic literature was referred to as the womb of the world, and as a convert came out of the water it was considered a new birth separating him from the pagan world. As the convert came out of these waters his status was changed and he was referred to as “a little child just born” or “a child of one day” (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b). We see the New Testament using similar Jewish terms as “born anew,” “new creation,” and “born from above.”

This mikveh in the above picture (ritual baptism of purification) was located to the south of the Temple close to the Huldah gate. It dates to the time of the Temple during the life-time of Jesus and the Apostles. It was covered up by dirt for centuries until it was discovered and excavated. At a time when people have concocted all sorts of theories about baptism and its origin, truth speaks from the ground. Here is the proof that water baptism has an ancient history and did not begin with John the Baptist.

The Mikveh was used for several different washings. They were all for a good conscience before God. The Mikveh was not a work of man, it was not invented by man. God is the designer and originator of this baptism (by baptism we mean immersion). There were several types of mikveh-baptisms. There was mikveh for women who completed their monthly cycle. This purification mikveh could be done at home and is the cause of the water pots where Jesus turned water into wine. It is said these contained water after the manner of the purification of the Jews. These waters of Mikveh were also for the washing of hands after being defiled by touching things unclean. They were used for washing clothes that might have become unclean by some contact with the profane. The waters of Mikveh were specifically designed to bring about sanctification. They were additionally the object for ceremonial washing and purification. In other words, whatever passed through the waters of Mikveh was then cleansed, purified, and sanctified, MADE HOLY!

Holiness is first the product of the Mikveh before it is the product of daily living and a part of a person's character. Even so, holiness begins at baptism when the blood of Jesus washes (cleanses) away all sin and uncleanness whereby a person is profane and unholy before God. This holiness is purification and the convert is in a state of total cleansing and purity having been washed by the blood of Jesus. In this condition of sanctification by the blood of Jesus, the convert cannot be condemned for past sins by anyone: not the devil, not the priest or preacher, not friends or relatives, no, not even by your own self. A person so baptized according to Acts 2:38 is free from all condemnation. After this holiness, baptism is seen as the sanctification and justification of God upon the convert. A person is then set aside by God for blessing and for special purpose in the Kingdom. The individual is totally and fully justified by the blood of Jesus. Justification simply means made just, without sin or evil, and without any condemnation before God. So, we are in baptism justified by the name and blood of Jesus Messieh (Romans 5:9; 1Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:16). Mikveh symbolism as it applied to all prior washings and cleansings are rolled into ONE BAPTISM, ONE MIKVEH! So there is no need for divers Mikveh washings or baptisms in the New Testament. Many are void of this understanding. They think Paul was saying ONE BAPTISM because he was either arguing for the trinity formula of Matthew 28:19 or he was arguing for the Acts 2:38 formula. This is not true. There were no trinitarians at that time and no trinity baptisms. In fact, the trinitarian language was not in the original Hebrew Matthew. Click here to see for yourself. Paul's ONE BAPTISM points to there being only one holy cleansing MIKVEH for the purification, sanctification, and justification of the convert and that being the one according to Acts 2:38. Any other explanation of ONE BAPTISM is simply conjecture and will not be explained in contrast to the previous many Mikveh-Baptisms of the Jews.

Mikveh is the gathering together of any waters where any form of washing or passing through is considered an act of cleansing and sanctification. The term arises from the creation account when God gathered the waters and separated the land from the sea. From this springs the idea that in all acts of Mikveh there is a separation made by the water. It is said when the children passed through the Red Sea on the way to the promised land and were thus separated and sanctified unto Moses from Egyptian defilement, that this was a mikveh. The passing through the waters of the Red Sea is called a mikveh by Jews. Likewise, any passing through waters of separation by any means of cleansing is called a mikveh. When a Gentile wanted to convert to Judaism, he/she had to undergo Mikveh-baptism as a sign they were passing from Gentileism into Judaism, passing from idols to the true God, passing from life as a dead person to a new life in God, passing from the darkness of evil knowledge into the light of God's truth, and passing from the religion of the nations to accept the religion of the Jews. A person who did not say as Ruth: Your people shall be my people and your God shall be my God, could not enter the waters of convert Mikveh because they had not brought forth the fruits of repentance (Turning to God from one's past sins, life, and identity). These could not be a convert to Judaism. Each convert must make the same confession as Ruth at the time of their convert Mikveh-baptism: Your people shall become my people, and your God my God. All these Mikveh were by immersion and the name of God was invoked over them as they were either self immersed or was plunged under by a baptizer. The name "ADONAI ELOHIM EHJEH" (Lord God of Salvation and Deliverance) was pronounced over the convert.

All water baptism of the New Testament have their beginning in these ancient Mikveh cleansing, purification washings of the Jews. Water baptism was essential to becoming Jewish in olden times and it is essential to becoming a Christian in the New Testament. Any doctrine on baptism that does not include the Jewish foundation of these Mikveh washings is incomplete and usually false.

If you have not come to Jesus by the waters of separation in New Testament Mikveh according to the grace of God found through faith in Acts 2:38, now is the TIME. Do it today. If there is no one to bring you into the no condemnation holiness of Jesus and you want to live for God in true holiness and separation from the world, then call me. I will make plans to see that you are immersed according to the correct manner of faith (1-813-238-SAVE).

Born of the water and of the Spirit is New Testament and Apostolic truth found in Acts 2:38.

Pastor Reckart

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/mikveh.html

Aquila
12-08-2014, 02:13 PM
Quote from a Jewish website:

"The mikvah personifies both the womb and the grave; the portals to life and afterlife."

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/1541/jewish/The-Mikvah.htm

Aquila
12-08-2014, 02:17 PM
Another interesting link...

http://www.setapartpeople.com/mikvah-part-1-spiritual-cleansing

Aquila
12-08-2014, 02:24 PM
My point is that the phrase "born again" (Hebrew "born anew") along with the reference to water would immediately speak of mikveh (precursor to water baptism) in the mind of Nicodemus, a teacher of the Law.

John 3:1-5King James Version (KJV)
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
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.


Nicodemus answers Christ's statement that a man must be born again with a question to clarify, "Can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Jesus then answers rightly to Nicodemus Jewish mind, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Nicodemus would have satisfactorily received Christ's clarification. Water and Spirit. Nicodemus would have also understood it's co-relation to the phrase "born again" when connected to mikveh (baptism), seeing that the mikveh was considered to be the "womb of the world" wherein men are "born anew" (all concepts predating the time of Jesus).

Not only that, but why would Jesus need to even speak of water in reference to amniotic fluid in natural birth? What man ISN'T "born of water" if this is so? So it causes a redundancy in Christ's clarification.

thephnxman
12-08-2014, 02:27 PM
Why shouldn't born be translated as begotten in 1 John 5:1?

Thank you, Beloved. I neglected the scripture that was originally in question!
I believe it should be included as "begotten".
It corresponds with the Lord's words to Peter:"Blessed art thou, Simon, Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you
but my Father which is in heaven."

I John 5:1__"Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (begotten of God): "and everyone that loves him that begat
(that loves the Father that begat the son) loves him also that is begotten of Him." ( loves the son that was begotten of the Father.)

jfrog
12-08-2014, 03:21 PM
My point is that the phrase "born again" (Hebrew "born anew") along with the reference to water would immediately speak of mikveh (precursor to water baptism) in the mind of Nicodemus, a teacher of the Law.

John 3:1-5King James Version (KJV)
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
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.


Nicodemus answers Christ's statement that a man must be born again with a question to clarify, "Can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Jesus then answers rightly to Nicodemus Jewish mind, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Nicodemus would have satisfactorily received Christ's clarification. Water and Spirit. Nicodemus would have also understood it's co-relation to the phrase "born again" when connected to mikveh (baptism), seeing that the mikveh was considered to be the "womb of the world" wherein men are "born anew" (all concepts predating the time of Jesus).

Not only that, but why would Jesus need to even speak of water in reference to amniotic fluid in natural birth? What man ISN'T "born of water" if this is so? So it causes a redundancy in Christ's clarification.

The only problem i have is that Christ mentions one 2nd birth but the water is baptism and spirit is Holy Ghost crowd forces 2 births into that one 2nd birth.

Disciple4life
12-08-2014, 05:15 PM
Why shouldn't born be translated as begotten in 1 John 5:1?

Personally I like this version of the verse.

1 John 5:1Amplified Bible (AMP)

5 Everyone who believes (adheres to, trusts, and relies on the fact) that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah) is a born-again child of God; and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him (His offspring).
:happydance

Disciple4life
12-08-2014, 05:29 PM
Great articles Aquila!!!

Disciple4life
12-08-2014, 05:31 PM
I always wondered something. If you put new wine in new wine skins then the person is new before the new spirit goes into the new person. Right?

thephnxman
12-08-2014, 05:41 PM
The only problem i have is that Christ mentions one 2nd birth but the water is baptism and spirit is Holy Ghost crowd forces 2 births into that one 2nd birth.

Beloved, you can't have one without the other.

Water baptism correlates to the burial: "...buried with him by baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father..." .
Paul writes that our natural bodies must die and be sown (planted in the waters), that we may be raised a spiritual body.

It is therefore, not 2 births, but one.

jfrog
12-08-2014, 05:42 PM
Beloved, you can't have one without the other.

Water baptism correlates to the burial: "...buried with him by baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father..." .
Paul writes that our natural bodies must die and be sown (planted in the waters), that we may be raised a spiritual body.

It is therefore, not 2 births, but one.

The birth of the spirit is one birth and the birth of the water is another. Else Jesus couldn't have spoken about those born of the spirit as if they were born again

jfrog
12-08-2014, 06:04 PM
In John 3:7 and 3:8 born again is directly correlated with being born of the spirit.

thephnxman
12-08-2014, 06:41 PM
In John 3:7 and 3:8 born again is directly correlated with being born of the spirit.

John 3:3__a man must be born (begotten) from above (the Father).
John 3:4__Nicodemus did not understand: he thought Jesus meant birthed (not begotten): "Can a man be born (birthed)
when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born (birthed)?
This revelation must can only come from God.

In John 3:8, the Lord was referring to the birth "...of water and of the Spirit." The natural man cannot understand the things of God.

jfrog
12-08-2014, 07:03 PM
John 3:3__a man must be born (begotten) from above (the Father).
John 3:4__Nicodemus did not understand: he thought Jesus meant birthed (not begotten): "Can a man be born (birthed)
when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born (birthed)?
This revelation must can only come from God.

In John 3:8, the Lord was referring to the birth "...of water and of the Spirit." The natural man cannot understand the things of God.

John 3:8 is explicitly about those born of the spirit not those born of water and the spirit

mfblume
12-08-2014, 08:44 PM
Beloved, you can't have one without the other.

Water baptism correlates to the burial: "...buried with him by baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father..." .
Paul writes that our natural bodies must die and be sown (planted in the waters), that we may be raised a spiritual body.

It is therefore, not 2 births, but one.

I cannot see how the spiritual body in 1 Cor 15 is speaking about water baptism burial. The context of he chapter is physical resurrection of bodies form the grave and change in the coming of Christ. Not baptism. The spiritual body is a physical body that was mortal but changed to be immortal, as Christ was changed in the tomb when He resurrected to have a body that never dies again.

Romans 6 says baptism is into death. It is burial, but burial into death. We are baptized into His death.

mfblume
12-08-2014, 08:46 PM
If baptism is a mikveh, then what has mikveh got to do with getting inclusion into Christ's death?

thephnxman
12-08-2014, 08:53 PM
John 3:8 is explicitly about those born of the spirit not those born of water and the spirit

"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned."
There are two part to the above verse: can one negate the other? Of course not!
The second part speaks only of "...he that believes not..."; because the person that does not believe will deny repentance or baptism.

John 3:8__ does not negate any portion of the scriptures in chapter 3 of John, nor do any other verses in that chapter negate verse 8.
Verse 5 stands by itself. It speaks of planting the natural man (going into the waters), and the birth of the spiritual man.

Even the natural realm testifies: an apple seed, by itself, cannot bring forth the tree that can give apples unless it is planted.
Man cannot be "born" into the kingdom of God unless he first dies (repents) and is then buried (in the waters of baptism).

jfrog
12-08-2014, 10:11 PM
"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned."
There are two part to the above verse: can one negate the other? Of course not!
The second part speaks only of "...he that believes not..."; because the person that does not believe will deny repentance or baptism.

John 3:8__ does not negate any portion of the scriptures in chapter 3 of John, nor do any other verses in that chapter negate verse 8.
Verse 5 stands by itself. It speaks of planting the natural man (going into the waters), and the birth of the spiritual man.

Even the natural realm testifies: an apple seed, by itself, cannot bring forth the tree that can give apples unless it is planted.
Man cannot be "born" into the kingdom of God unless he first dies (repents) and is then buried (in the waters of baptism).

And John 3:5 does not negate John 3:7-8

instead of being combative, think about the implications of what u are saying. If water and spirit is one birth then how can Jesus refer to those just born of the spirit. And if water and spirit denote two births why doesn't jesus say you need to be twice born again. Those are the implications of your interpretation of John 3:5

Originalist
12-09-2014, 07:16 AM
And John 3:5 does not negate John 3:7-8

instead of being combative, think about the implications of what u are saying. If water and spirit is one birth then how can Jesus refer to those just born of the spirit. And if water and spirit denote two births why doesn't jesus say you need to be twice born again. Those are the implications of your interpretation of John 3:5

Good point. Again, why do some hang their belief in the necessity of baptism on John 3:5? In John 4 and 7 Jesus clearly told us what the "water" is, the Spirit within. Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 and others are sufficient to establish that baptism is an essential step towards the new birth without trying to force John 3:5 to say something it is not.

Aquila
12-09-2014, 07:19 AM
It's really kind of simple...

John 3:5 (ESV)
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Originalist
12-09-2014, 07:25 AM
It's really kind of simple...

John 3:5 (ESV)
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Yeah when you compare it to John 4 and John 7 it sure is easy! :nod

Sean
12-12-2014, 06:26 PM
In John 3:7 and 3:8 born again is directly correlated with being born of the spirit.


.....which are a prophecy of Acts 2:2(sound of a wind) and completely fulfilled in Acts 2:38(water and Spirit)

jfrog
12-12-2014, 06:39 PM
.....which are a prophecy of Acts 2:2(sound of a wind) and completely fulfilled in Acts 2:38(water and Spirit)


The sound of the rushing mighty wind in acts 2 had nothing to do with John 3

mizpeh
12-12-2014, 07:18 PM
The sound of the rushing mighty wind in acts 2 had nothing to do with John 3

Sure it does! The wind in both places indicates a movement of the Holy Spirit.

jfrog
12-13-2014, 02:35 AM
Sure it does! The wind in both places indicates a movement of the Holy Spirit.

John 3 is an analogy that believers who are born of the spirit will be like the wind.

Acts 2 has the spirit itself causing the sound of a wind. That's much different.

Sean
12-13-2014, 06:46 AM
The sound of the rushing mighty wind in acts 2 had nothing to do with John 3



Nothing????


John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.(the wind blows here, but it cannot be felt. The direction it is coming from is undetectable. The only way it can be detected at all is by the SOUND of a wind. This is a MIRACLE)




Acts 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.(the SOUND of a wind filled the house that they were sitting, not a wind. No wind was actually felt, but only HEARD. This also is a miracle)


This MIRACLE Jesus spoke of in John 3, was fulfilled in Acts 2, to be COMPLETED by water birth here.....

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

jfrog
12-13-2014, 11:36 AM
John 3 is an analogy that believers who are born of the spirit will be like the wind.

Acts 2 has the spirit itself causing the sound of a wind. That's much different.

bump for Sean

Truthseeker
12-14-2014, 03:28 AM
Amen to the above statement!



Look at Romans 6....

6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?(those that are NOT baptized are NOT baptized into His death))

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.(How can we walk in newness of life if we are not "buried with him BY baptism" yet?)

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:(buried by baptism is also being "planted". If we are not baptized, we are not planted, nor ready to be resurrected either)

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.(baptism is also called a "crucifixion" here)

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.(verse 4 says we are "buried with Him by baptism INTO death". If we are not baptized, we are not dead to sin yet and subsequently not free from sin)

This ENTIRE passage cannot apply to those that have not been baptized yet, therefore water baptism is absolutely essential and AUTOMATICALLY part of the spiritual regeneration process.

If a person is NOT baptized, they are NOT saved!



Seems acts 10 destroys this position. They got filled with the Spirit (resurrection) without being water baptized (burial, baptized into his death)

thephnxman
12-14-2014, 07:23 AM
And John 3:5 does not negate John 3:7-8
instead of being combative, think about the implications of what u are saying. If water and spirit is one birth then how can Jesus refer to those just born of the spirit. And if water and spirit denote two births why doesn't jesus say you need to be twice born again. Those are the implications of your interpretation of John 3:5

Oooh, "combative"...LOL! That is so funny. Methinks some folks do not like to hear a sword unsheathed!

Beloved, this is how I read (not interpret) John 3:3-5, as they correlate to Mark 16:16:
"He that believes...": John 3:3 (eyes opened by God to see and choose;
...and is baptized...": John 3:5 (water baptism into) death;
...SHALL BE saved." John 3:5 (receive Holy Spirit/GRACE (unto eternal life)

Sean
12-14-2014, 07:30 AM
Seems acts 10 destroys this position. They got filled with the Spirit (resurrection) without being water baptized (burial, baptized into his death)Acts 10 "destroys" Romans 6???


When they were not baptized, they were still dead in their trespasses and sins, that is why they were baptized that very day.

If you agree that baptism is a burial,Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.....

then you believe that the souls in the N.T. that received the Spirit, prior to baptism were BURIED ALIVE!!!


Not cool bro...

thephnxman
12-14-2014, 07:50 AM
I cannot see how the spiritual body in 1 Cor 15 is speaking about water baptism burial. The context of he chapter is physical resurrection of bodies form the grave and change in the coming of Christ. Not baptism. The spiritual body is a physical body that was mortal but changed to be immortal, as Christ was changed in the tomb when He resurrected to have a body that never dies again.

Romans 6 says baptism is into death. It is burial, but burial into death. We are baptized into His death.

Amen
I Corinthians 15:
1-4_____is the gospel that saves;
42-46___is the sowing and reaping of the natural and spiritual bodies, respectively. "..sown in
corruption...raised in incorruption..."

Yes: baptism is into death ; the Holy Spirit is unto eternal life (grace).

thephnxman
12-14-2014, 07:53 AM
It's really kind of simple...

John 3:5 (ESV)
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Beloved, sometimes our (man's) complicated brains cannot fathom the simplicity of the gospel!

Sean
12-14-2014, 07:58 AM
Beloved, sometimes our (man's) complicated brains cannot fathom the simplicity of the gospel!




Especially those brains that do not agree with the ESSENTIALITY of water baptism to be saved.

thephnxman
12-14-2014, 09:25 AM
Especially those brains that do not agree with the ESSENTIALITY of water baptism to be saved.


Right!

Some folks understand one verse by itself, another verse, also by itself: then argue that they contradict each another.
Now this: if someone can not understand Jn. 3:3, they will neither be able to understand Jn. 4-8.

When the premise is wrong, the end result will also be wrong.

Truthseeker
12-14-2014, 02:39 PM
Acts 10 "destroys" Romans 6???


When they were not baptized, they were still dead in their trespasses and sins, that is why they were baptized that very day.

If you agree that baptism is a burial,Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.....

then you believe that the souls in the N.T. that received the Spirit, prior to baptism were BURIED ALIVE!!!


Not cool bro...


How were they resurrected before dying?

Truthseeker
12-14-2014, 02:49 PM
They had the spirit of life but dead in their trespasses and sins? Huh?

shazeep
12-14-2014, 03:36 PM
:lol ya, good luck with that

thephnxman
12-14-2014, 03:39 PM
1 How were they resurrected before dying?

2 They had the spirit of life but dead in their trespasses and sins? Huh?

1 The Holy Spirit is surely the power of the resurrection; but remember, it is the promise to be resurrected. So we who have
received the promise (Holy Spirit) will also be resurrected to be with the Lord Jesus. As long as we are in this body, then we
know it is not the actual resurrection itself.

2 It is God's prerogative to not impute sin: and the Lord witnessed salvation for the Gentiles by this very act. If the
Gentiles had not been baptized, then we could assume that salvation would be without water baptism "...for the remission of sins...".
This did not occur, therefore we must assume that water baptism is required to "...enter into the kingdom of God."

shazeep
12-14-2014, 03:44 PM
um...no. sorry. One need look no further than the parable of the Separation of Sheep and Goats to know that that cannot be true.

thephnxman
12-14-2014, 04:28 PM
um...no. sorry. One need look no further than the parable of the Separation of Sheep and Goats to know that that cannot be true.

Are you saying that both the faithful and unfaithful, believers and unbelievers will be judged regardless of whether or not
they repented, were baptized in water, or received the Holy Spirit? Are you touching upon the second death, or interweaving
the first and the second death?

thephnxman
12-14-2014, 04:29 PM
um...no. sorry. One need look no further than the parable of the Separation of Sheep and Goats to know that that cannot be true.

Are you saying that both the faithful and unfaithful, believers and unbelievers will be judged regardless of whether or not
they repented, were baptized in water, or received the Holy Spirit? Are you touching upon the second death, or
interweaving the first and the second death?

jfrog
12-14-2014, 05:53 PM
Right!

Some folks understand one verse by itself, another verse, also by itself: then argue that they contradict each another.
Now this: if someone can not understand Jn. 3:3, they will neither be able to understand Jn. 4-8.

When the premise is wrong, the end result will also be wrong.

Reading a bit into that verse eh?

shazeep
12-14-2014, 06:16 PM
Are you saying that both the faithful and unfaithful, believers and unbelievers will be judged regardless of whether or not
they repented, were baptized in water, or received the Holy Spirit? Are you touching upon the second death, or
interweaving the first and the second death?hmm, i don't know about all those; but i do know that many will cry "Lord, Lord," and many others, "unbaptized," at least by the Christian standard of baptized, will be in the KOG. I am pretty sure we just have poor definitions for the terms nowadays, in the verses that seem to indicate otherwise.For instance, i often hear "born of water" being confused for "baptism," etc.

good samaritan
12-14-2014, 06:34 PM
I am a little late getting into this thread, but it sounds like people are trying to make baptism symbolize the death and burial. repentance is death and baptism is burial(separate but essential). You can have a death without a burial and still have a resurrection(Holy Ghost infilling) , but all of this is symbolic and not literal. We must be baptized in Jesus name because it is the commandment of God's word. The death and burial are not literal in Romans 6 but symbolic. Repentance isn't a one time event either we must die(repent) daily.

If we literally died to the flesh the initial time we first repented then we would no longer struggle in the flesh, but we struggle as long as we live on this earth. We must crucify our flesh every day by refusing to indulge in the sinful lust thereof.

PS Jesus was baptized and wouldn't be denied it by John even when he had no sin to be baptized for.

shazeep
12-14-2014, 08:15 PM
We must be baptized in Jesus name because it is the commandment of God's word.
...or, what? {Actually, i agree with you, but i bet we differ @ the definition of this "baptism," by which i assume you mean dunking in water.}

thephnxman
12-14-2014, 08:29 PM
Reading a bit into that verse eh?

Am I reading too much into anything? Nope. I only read what I am offered to read.

Hesetmefree238
12-14-2014, 08:43 PM
Acts 10 "destroys" Romans 6???


When they were not baptized, they were still dead in their trespasses and sins, that is why they were baptized that very day.

If you agree that baptism is a burial,Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.....

then you believe that the souls in the N.T. that received the Spirit, prior to baptism were BURIED ALIVE!!!


Not cool bro...


The Spirit is Life. Paul said, the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. The Spirit is the life of Christ. I believe it's in error to say they were still dead in their sins after they had been filled with the Holy Spirit. I believe they had to be baptized, but I don't agree with your interpretation of saying they were still spiritually dead once they had received the Holy Spirit.

good samaritan
12-14-2014, 08:47 PM
...or, what? {Actually, i agree with you, but i bet we differ @ the definition of this "baptism," by which i assume you mean dunking in water.}

If you are not baptized by immersion in the name of Jesus you are disobedient to the word of God and the "or what" is between you and God.

The real question is why not? why not be obedient. I assume already that you love the Lord so why not be obedient?

thephnxman
12-14-2014, 08:56 PM
hmm, i don't know about all those; but i do know that many will cry "Lord, Lord," and many others, "unbaptized," at least by the Christian standard of baptized, will be in the KOG. I am pretty sure we just have poor definitions for the terms nowadays, in the verses that seem to indicate otherwise.For instance, i often hear "born of water" being confused for "baptism," etc.


You just said a mouthful!

Can anyone enter the kingdom and deny the scriptures? That's what you seem to be saying. Or can we enter the kingdom based on our own interpretation of scriptures?

The AOG believes that "born of water" points to the amniotic fluid taht protects the embryo: that one cannot be born of the Spirit, unless they are first born as a human. Is that you?

good samaritan
12-14-2014, 09:37 PM
"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water:and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?"

If baptism is nonessential then why did they do it? People are trying to make the righteous things of God optional. It is one thing for the sinner who is unlearned in the scripture to be disobedient because of ignorance but is a sad thing when those who know the word but compromise to make it more user friendly. Do I know that everyone who is not baptized in Jesus name is going to hell? No I really don't, but from my understanding of scripture they are wrong and they will answer to God just like myself.

Why is it so hard to be baptized(Jesus name). If a person proclaims to be a christian surely they want to follow Him so why not simply obey the scripture literally and not figuratively.

shazeep
12-15-2014, 04:50 AM
ok, no arguments there, as long as it is realized that following protocol will not get you saved; and that there is deeper meaning to 'baptism' than we currently afford it. Our "baptism" is now a ceremonial thing, something people do, and then go back to their lives, tra-la. Not what was originally meant to happen.
You just said a mouthful!

Can anyone enter the kingdom and deny the scriptures? That's what you seem to be saying. Or can we enter the kingdom based on our own interpretation of scriptures?

The AOG believes that "born of water" points to the amniotic fluid taht protects the embryo: that one cannot be born of the Spirit, unless they are first born as a human. Is that you?yes--and i guess i'm just realizing that this is not a widely held view. And imo, you can only enter the kingdom based upon your own interpretation of Scripture, with the Holy Spirit's help, of course. There is even Scripture for this; to not be letting others interpret Scripture for you. King James included. A lexicon will at least provide a sense of the original.

And so no, one cannot deny Scripture and enter the kingdom, i don't think; but i write because i see many who fulfill Scripture without knowing it, and many who know Scripture without fulfilling it--with the best of intentions. By all means, and especially if it has meaning for you, get baptized in Jesus' Name--and i mean the dunking in actual water part. I pray that in a couple, few, ten (forty, for me :lol ) years, one sees the real meaning of baptism, having learned the symbology; whereas church would have us go into navel-gazing mode. Again, with the best of intentions.

Sean
12-15-2014, 07:49 AM
The Spirit is Life. Paul said, the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. The Spirit is the life of Christ. I believe it's in error to say they were still dead in their sins after they had been filled with the Holy Spirit. I believe they had to be baptized, but I don't agree with your interpretation of saying they were still spiritually dead once they had received the Holy Spirit.




Did you know, that if someone NEVER gets baptized after receiving the Holy Ghost, and continues in sin, that they are not saved?

Why are they not saved?

They have received the Spirit, Right?

The Spirit alone does not guarantee salvation, it is primarily a tool used by God to cause us to become hungry for spiritual things, like wanting to be baptized and giving us a desire to stop sinning.


That is why the Bible terms WATER BAPTISM for the REMISSION of sins.

Spirit infilling is not for the remission of sins, but to lead a soul to get themselves water baptized for the remission of sins.

thephnxman
12-15-2014, 07:58 AM
ok, no arguments there, as long as it is realized that following protocol will not get you saved; and that there is deeper meaning to 'baptism' than we currently afford it. Our "baptism" is now a ceremonial thing, something people do, and then go back to their lives, tra-la. Not what was originally meant to happen.
yes--and i guess i'm just realizing that this is not a widely held view. And imo, you can only enter the kingdom based upon your own interpretation of Scripture, with the Holy Spirit's help, of course. There is even Scripture for this; to not be letting others interpret Scripture for you. King James included. A lexicon will at least provide a sense of the original.
And so no, one cannot deny Scripture and enter the kingdom, i don't think; but i write because i see many who fulfill Scripture without knowing it, and many who know Scripture without fulfilling it--with the best of intentions. By all means, and especially if it has meaning for you, get baptized in Jesus' Name--and i mean the dunking in actual water part. I pray that in a couple, few, ten (forty, for me :lol ) years, one sees the real meaning of baptism, having learned the symbology; whereas church would have us go into navel-gazing mode. Again, with the best of intentions.

I hear you. Too often, baptism is preached but the full gospel is not! That is why it becomes essential to
preach the full gospel message.
Jesus said, "...he that believes not is condemned." So a person can be condemned even if one is baptized,
because he believed not! Or we can possibly fulfill all the elements of church tradition and still be lost because
"...he has not believed in the NAME of the only begotten son of God."

There are too many denominations that are not only detracting from the scriptures, but they would also delete
baptism, and even the NAME of Jesus from baptism! Or find a "more convenient" definition for His NAME.

There is only ONE gospel that saves: it is found in the mouth or writings of the Lord Jesus Christ, (Mk. 16:16);
the Apostle Peter, (Acts 2:38); and the Apostle Paul, (I Cor. 15:1-4).

That is the gospel I preach.

good samaritan
12-15-2014, 02:09 PM
The moment a person puts their faith in Jesus the road to salvation begins. Repentance, water baptism in Jesus name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost should be the first response to this new found faith. Will God make exceptions? That is His business, but for those who know the truth about water and spirit baptism I don't believe you can make it without it. It is not about protocol in a religion, but it is about obedience in a relationship.

shazeep
12-15-2014, 02:28 PM
very well put, imo.

mfblume
12-15-2014, 02:31 PM
The moment a person puts their faith in Jesus the road to salvation begins. Repentance, water baptism in Jesus name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost should be the first response to this new found faith. Will God make exceptions? That is His business, but for those who know the truth about water and spirit baptism I don't believe you can make it without it. It is not about protocol in a religion, but it is about obedience in a relationship.

Exactly!

:thumbsup

mfblume
12-15-2014, 02:31 PM
I hear you. Too often, baptism is preached but the full gospel is not! That is why it becomes essential to
preach the full gospel message.
Jesus said, "...he that believes not is condemned." So a person can be condemned even if one is baptized,
because he believed not! Or we can possibly fulfill all the elements of church tradition and still be lost because
"...he has not believed in the NAME of the only begotten son of God."

There are too many denominations that are not only detracting from the scriptures, but they would also delete
baptism, and even the NAME of Jesus from baptism! Or find a "more convenient" definition for His NAME.

There is only ONE gospel that saves: it is found in the mouth or writings of the Lord Jesus Christ, (Mk. 16:16);
the Apostle Peter, (Acts 2:38); and the Apostle Paul, (I Cor. 15:1-4).

That is the gospel I preach.

Bingo!

Hesetmefree238
12-15-2014, 08:32 PM
Did you know, that if someone NEVER gets baptized after receiving the Holy Ghost, and continues in sin, that they are not saved?

Why are they not saved?

They have received the Spirit, Right?

The Spirit alone does not guarantee salvation, it is primarily a tool used by God to cause us to become hungry for spiritual things, like wanting to be baptized and giving us a desire to stop sinning.


That is why the Bible terms WATER BAPTISM for the REMISSION of sins.

Spirit infilling is not for the remission of sins, but to lead a soul to get themselves water baptized for the remission of sins.


We both believe baptism is part of the plan of salvation. I'm a Jesus name guy, but my point is I disagree with your description of a person filled with the Spirit, but that has not yet been water baptized. When a person is filled with the Spirit the life of Christ enters that person. They are born again, born of the Spirit. They have been made a new creature in Christ. Their heart and spirit has experienced a transformation and life giving regeneration. The inner man has been rebirthed.

So, my point is the Spirit of Christ puts the life of Christ in a believer and it is testimony and confirmation from God that he has honored the recipient's faith in Jesus and has forgiven their sins. (God doesn't fill unforgiven people. The Spirit bears witness of our sins being forgiven and that we are a part of the family of God) None of this does away with the fact that the Spirit filled believer must be baptized in Jesus name. Peter commanded this, but a person filled with the Spirit now has the life of Christ within them.

thephnxman
12-16-2014, 02:03 AM
We both believe baptism is part of the plan of salvation. I'm a Jesus name guy, but my point is I disagree with your description of a person filled with the Spirit, but that has not yet been water baptized. When a person is filled with the Spirit the life of Christ enters that person. They are born again, born of the Spirit. They have been made a new creature in Christ. Their heart and spirit has experienced a transformation and life giving regeneration. The inner man has been rebirthed.

So, my point is the Spirit of Christ puts the life of Christ in a believer and it is testimony and confirmation from God that he has honored the recipient's faith in Jesus and has forgiven their sins. (God doesn't fill unforgiven people. The Spirit bears witness of our sins being forgiven and that we are a part of the family of God) None of this does away with the fact that the Spirit filled believer must be baptized in Jesus name. Peter commanded this, but a person filled with the Spirit now has the life of Christ within them.

Can you see the contradiction above (bold letters)?

Could Jesus have risen and not been buried? Could he have been buried, and not died? The Lord Jesus HAD to fulfill everything.

Either we don't need to be baptized and we have eternal life through the Holy Spirit; or baptism is for "...remission of sins..."
and we need to be baptized. Can't have it both ways. Remember, it was not Peter that commanded:
he was speaking by the Holy Spirit!

We have been given a promise, and it is based on "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." So if a person repents and receives the
Holy Spirit, the eternal life IN the Holy Spirit is still conditional on "remission of sins"! That has done been invalidated. God is
still in the business of not imputing sin...and is still merciful.

Sean
12-16-2014, 07:38 AM
We both believe baptism is part of the plan of salvation. I'm a Jesus name guy, but my point is I disagree with your description of a person filled with the Spirit, but that has not yet been water baptized. When a person is filled with the Spirit the life of Christ enters that person. They are born again, born of the Spirit. They have been made a new creature in Christ. Their heart and spirit has experienced a transformation and life giving regeneration. The inner man has been rebirthed.

So, my point is the Spirit of Christ puts the life of Christ in a believer and it is testimony and confirmation from God that he has honored the recipient's faith in Jesus and has forgiven their sins. (God doesn't fill unforgiven people. The Spirit bears witness of our sins being forgiven and that we are a part of the family of God) None of this does away with the fact that the Spirit filled believer must be baptized in Jesus name. Peter commanded this, but a person filled with the Spirit now has the life of Christ within them.




Well, the Lord can forgive a sinner, fill them with His Spirit and they can continue sinning the next day.
This makes them sinful.
My point is that the Holy Ghost does not deal with the SIN NATURE like water baptism does.....Romans 6
6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.




The Lord can forgive a person of theirs past sins and fill them with the Holy Ghost, but that does not cover their sin nature that is still alive. Water Baptism KILLS the sin nature in the "spiritual" sense as the Lord sees' it.

After water baptism, the Lord does not see us as sinners, but as DEAD to SIN!

If a person is not baptized after receiving the Holy Ghost, the Lord simply sees' him as a sinner with the Holy Ghost.

Hesetmefree238
12-16-2014, 05:33 PM
I do believe a person is incomplete if they have not been baptized in Jesus name. They are missing something that is scriptural and part of God's plan, and it's very important that they be baptized in Jesus name. I believe repentance and even being filled with the Holy Ghost are incomplete without baptism, however I'm stating that the Spirit of Christ puts the life of Christ within a believer. Yes, a person still needs to bury the old man, but it is not the act of baptism itself that changes a person on the inside, that can only be done through the influence of the Holy Ghost converting a person's heart from the inside out. The work of the Holy Spirit / Spirit of Christ does the following:
- It transforms our nature
- It converts our heart
- It puts the LIFE OF CHRIST within us (the Spirit of Christ is the Life of
(Christ)
- It bears witness to the fact that we are accepted and forgiven by God. He has bore witness to our faith and confirmed it by filling us with His Spirit

This doesn't negate the necessity of baptism. It's still part of his new covenant plan, but neither does the fact that we must be baptized in Jesus name negate the fact that we receive the life of Christ when we are filled with his Spirit.

Originalist
12-16-2014, 06:04 PM
My point is that the Holy Ghost does not deal with the SIN NATURE like water baptism does....


If a person is not baptized after receiving the Holy Ghost, the Lord simply sees' him as a sinner with the Holy Ghost. [/COLOR]

Brother, please stop. Really. Please.

Originalist
12-16-2014, 06:07 PM
I do believe a person is incomplete if they have not been baptized in Jesus name. They are missing something that is scriptural and part of God's plan, and it's very important that they be baptized in Jesus name. I believe repentance and even being filled with the Holy Ghost are incomplete without baptism, however I'm stating that the Spirit of Christ puts the life of Christ within a believer. Yes, a person still needs to bury the old man, but it is not the act of baptism itself that changes a person on the inside, that can only be done through the influence of the Holy Ghost converting a person's heart from the inside out. The work of the Holy Spirit / Spirit of Christ does the following:
- It transforms our nature
- It converts our heart
- It puts the LIFE OF CHRIST within us (the Spirit of Christ is the Life of
(Christ)
- It bears witness to the fact that we are accepted and forgiven by God. He has bore witness to our faith and confirmed it by filling us with His Spirit

This doesn't negate the necessity of baptism. It's still part of his new covenant plan, but neither does the fact that we must be baptized in Jesus name negate the fact that we receive the life of Christ when we are filled with his Spirit.

Sound doctrine! Amen!

We renounce and surrender the old man figuratively in baptism. In other words, we give something to God for him to make new. At Holy Ghost baptism he makes it new.

shazeep
12-16-2014, 08:53 PM
Brother, please stop. Really. Please.:lol

Sean
12-17-2014, 08:44 AM
Brother, please stop. Really. Please.





I guess the truth hurts, Right?(its like water boarding you with Romans 6:1-7)....LOL

Sean
12-17-2014, 08:48 AM
Look at Romans 6....
[/COLOR]
6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?(those that are NOT baptized are NOT baptized into His death))

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.(How can we walk in newness of life if we are not "buried with him BY baptism" yet?)

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:(buried by baptism is also being "planted". If we are not baptized, we are not planted, nor ready to be resurrected either)

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.(baptism is also called a "crucifixion" here)

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.(verse 4 says we are "buried with Him by baptism INTO death". If we are not baptized, we are not dead to sin yet and subsequently not free from sin)

This ENTIRE passage cannot apply to those that have not been baptized yet, therefore water baptism is absolutely essential and AUTOMATICALLY part of the spiritual regeneration process.

If a person is NOT baptized, they are NOT saved!

[/QUOTE]





More water(baptism) boarding until you break and confess that baptism is MANDATORY for salvation!...LOL

Sean
12-17-2014, 08:49 AM
Sean stop!!!...Gasp...glug glug!!!

shazeep
12-17-2014, 09:24 AM
it's just that you're back to "everyone must do _________, in the way i interpret doing it from Scripture, or they are not saved," when many passages, and several parables do not bear this out. Since both would seem to be true, this leads me to believe that we really don't grasp--in this case--"baptism."

now, by all means, do the ceremony if it is important to you; but see that God judges one's heart, and that many conscientiously seeking all the jots and tittles, crying "Lord, Lord" are excluded, while many others, unaware of your ceremonies, or even actively disavowing them, are included, because their heart is just right. Ergo, they have somehow done this, "died with Christ," spiritually, without the ceremony.

Originalist
12-17-2014, 02:35 PM
Look at Romans 6....
[/COLOR]
6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?(those that are NOT baptized are NOT baptized into His death))

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.(How can we walk in newness of life if we are not "buried with him BY baptism" yet?)

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:(buried by baptism is also being "planted". If we are not baptized, we are not planted, nor ready to be resurrected either)

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.(baptism is also called a "crucifixion" here)

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.(verse 4 says we are "buried with Him by baptism INTO death". If we are not baptized, we are not dead to sin yet and subsequently not free from sin)

This ENTIRE passage cannot apply to those that have not been baptized yet, therefore water baptism is absolutely essential and AUTOMATICALLY part of the spiritual regeneration process.

If a person is NOT baptized, they are NOT saved!





More water(baptism) boarding until you break and confess that baptism is MANDATORY for salvation!...LOL



Since you know that I do feel that baptism is a step towards the new birth, the final line in your post of above can only be self deception on your part.

Your error IMO is that you take "being buried" in a literal sense. You see baptism as producing a literal cleansing of the heart and changing of our nature which these passages do not teach. Paul makes many figurative references to "dying daily" and "reckoning ourselves dead to sin", etc. our "reckoning ourselves dead to sin" starts in the waters of baptism. But obviously we don't really die.

Paul makes it clear that we are "buried" with him in baptism "in order that".... we too may live a new life just as Jesus was raised by the GLORY of the Father.

The phrase "in order that" is key to understanding this verse.

I can say "come to my house ye that are hungry in order that your bellies might be filled" So does that mean the moment they cross the threshold of my home that their bellies will be automatically filled? No. They can only be filled by sitting at the table and eating the food I've prepared for them.
You MUST interpret Romans 6:4 the same way. It says we are baptized (symbolically buried, dying to self, relinquishing control, etc) in order that we might live a new life, NOT to give us new life , as you insist. And what gives us the new life according to Romans 6:4? The same thing that raised Jesus from the dead, the GLORY of the Father. And what is the GLORY of the Father that raised Christ from the dead and also raises us to a new life? The answer is found in Romans 8:11....

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you,

THERE is that GLORY that raised Christ from the dead and raises us to walk in newness of life, the Holy Spirit of God!! We are baptized in order that we might receive the Spirit which gives us life.

My reaction to your previous comments were because you are embracing a teaching that belittles Holy Ghost baptism and makes one who the Spirit has "freed from the Law of sin and death" to be a "sinner with the Holy Ghost". You completely ignore the context of Paul's writings in Romans 8 concerning those who are "in the Spirit". I know you were referencing those who had received the Spirit but who had not been baptized. But I must assume you consider people who have the Spirit but were not baptized with what you and I consider to be the appropriate words spoken over them by the baptizer to have not really been baptized at all in God's eyes and thus still in their sins. That is error.

thephnxman
12-17-2014, 02:40 PM
it's just that you're back to "everyone must do _________, in the way i interpret doing it from Scripture, or they are not saved," when many passages, and several parables do not bear this out. Since both would seem to be true, this leads me to believe that we really don't grasp--in this case--"baptism."
now, by all means, do the ceremony if it is important to you; but see that God judges one's heart, and that many conscientiously seeking all the jots and tittles, crying "Lord, Lord" are excluded, while many others, unaware of your ceremonies, or even actively disavowing them, are included, because their heart is just right. Ergo, they have somehow done this, "died with Christ," spiritually, without the ceremony.

So you believe in "deathbed confessions" for salvation?
Do you believe a person can deny or reject the gospel all their lives, and repent at the
last minute and be saved? Or that a person can believe in false
doctrines until their deathbed, make a "confession of faith", and enter
into the kingdom of God?
Is that not another gospel?

I believe in a God that performs miracles: that can save a person
from an airplane crash, for example, so that
that person can believe and obey the gospel, exhibited by a righteous life.

good samaritan
12-17-2014, 04:22 PM
1 Peter 3:21 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

Baptism is essential and not optional. Baptism doesn't change us though, it takes God and a willingness own our part.

shazeep
12-17-2014, 05:05 PM
So you believe in "deathbed confessions" for salvation?
Do you believe a person can deny or reject the gospel all their lives, and repent at the
last minute and be saved? Or that a person can believe in false
doctrines until their deathbed, make a "confession of faith", and enter
into the kingdom of God?
Is that not another gospel?

I believe in a God that performs miracles: that can save a person
from an airplane crash, for example, so that
that person can believe and obey the gospel, exhibited by a righteous life.all well and good; if the Gospel is lived it is a powerful force. and would you want to be working next to a deathbed repentant? :lol

there is no fooling God, and understand this; God is larger than your religion makes Him out to be

thephnxman
12-17-2014, 07:38 PM
all well and good; if the Gospel is lived it is a powerful force. and would you want to be working next to a deathbed repentant? :lol
there is no fooling God, and understand this; God is larger than your religion makes Him out to be

I have been alongside of more that one "deathbed" incident. I have witnessed what the Lord can do.
A man shot five times, in a coma for seven months; and the Lord raised him up (I only saw him in the coma
for the last month); a man with advanced multiple sclerosis, unable to see and barely hear: he is completely
whole; and more. A four-years old child in an automobile accident, bleeding from her nose and ears, and not
breathing: is now a 32-years-old woman working for the State of Arizona.

"...larger that your religion"? What religion do you think is that? I stated that I believe in a God that performs miracles: that He can save people from certain death so that they may attain life. What is wrong with a God like that...or a gospel like that?

obriencp
12-17-2014, 09:46 PM
So you believe in "deathbed confessions" for salvation?
Do you believe a person can deny or reject the gospel all their lives, and repent at the
last minute and be saved? Or that a person can believe in false
doctrines until their deathbed, make a "confession of faith", and enter
into the kingdom of God?
Is that not another gospel?

While not a fan of deathbed confessions, i'm reminded of this parable:

Matthew 20:1-16

Similar to the full-day workers in this parable, those that live for Jesus for many years can't be bitter towards those who "lived it up" like the prodigal son. If we begrudge those brothers that come late to the party, it makes me wonder why we were living/working for Him... was it out of a self-righteous spirit or to earn a spot in heaven? I don't know if God accepts deathbed confessions, but i'm not going to get bent out of shape over it.

thephnxman
12-18-2014, 12:26 AM
While not a fan of deathbed confessions, i'm reminded of this parable:
Matthew 20:1-16
Similar to the full-day workers in this parable, those that live for Jesus for many years can't be bitter towards those who "lived it up" like the prodigal son. If we begrudge those brothers that come late to the party, it makes me wonder why we were living/working for Him... was it out of a self-righteous spirit or to earn a spot in heaven? I don't know if God accepts deathbed confessions, but i'm not going to get bent out of shape over it.

That parable speaks of men who went looking to work and found no one who would hire them. All those men
went looking to work, and all the men were hired: some early in the day, some later, and some much later, etc.
There are men who have worked in the Lord's vineyards for many years; others, have only just began their labor.
Nevertheless, each will get their rewards: whatever is right in the eyes of the Lord. And we must keep in mind that that
parable does not speak of men who did not risk their all for the kingdom of God, and only sought the kingdom as a last act.

Truthseeker
12-18-2014, 03:02 AM
Sean posted about water baptism takes away the sin nature. I am lost on how water can deal with an internal issue.

Sean
12-18-2014, 07:28 AM
Since you know that I do feel that baptism is a step towards the new birth, the final line in your post of above can only be self deception on your part.

Your error IMO is that you take "being buried" in a literal sense. You see baptism as producing a literal cleansing of the heart and changing of our nature which these passages do not teach.

When I was baptized on Oct. 7, 1979, I immediately was delivered SUPERNATURALLY from sin. I had not yet received the Holy Ghost, but had power to stop sinning. I could then, for the first time in my life, say no to sin. I was declared dead to sin.
Didnt' that happen to you?



Paul makes many figurative references to "dying daily" and "reckoning ourselves dead to sin", etc. our "reckoning ourselves dead to sin" starts in the waters of baptism. But obviously we don't really die.

Our OLD MAN(old nature) most certainly does. He is either ALIVE or DEAD. When he resurrects and is allowed off of the cross, we are sinners!


Paul makes it clear that we are "buried" with him in baptism "in order that".... we too may live a new life just as Jesus was raised by the GLORY of the Father.

Our New Life needs no great explanation. It is concluded in this verse....Rom 7:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Water baptism, not only remits sins, but FREE's us from sin!
We leave a PRISON called sin!!!


The phrase "in order that" is key to understanding this verse.

I can say "come to my house ye that are hungry in order that your bellies might be filled" So does that mean the moment they cross the threshold of my home that their bellies will be automatically filled? No. They can only be filled by sitting at the table and eating the food I've prepared for them.
You MUST interpret Romans 6:4 the same way. It says we are baptized (symbolically buried, dying to self, relinquishing control, etc) in order that we might live a new life, NOT to give us new life , as you insist. And what gives us the new life according to Romans 6:4? The same thing that raised Jesus from the dead, the GLORY of the Father. And what is the GLORY of the Father that raised Christ from the dead and also raises us to a new life? The answer is found in Romans 8:11....


THERE is that GLORY that raised Christ from the dead and raises us to walk in newness of life, the Holy Spirit of God!! We are baptized in order that we might receive the Spirit which gives us life.

My reaction to your previous comments were because you are embracing a teaching that belittles Holy Ghost baptism and makes one who the Spirit has "freed from the Law of sin and death" to be a "sinner with the Holy Ghost". You completely ignore the context of Paul's writings in Romans 8 concerning those who are "in the Spirit". I know you were referencing those who had received the Spirit but who had not been baptized. But I must assume you consider people who have the Spirit but were not baptized with what you and I consider to be the appropriate words spoken over them by the baptizer to have not really been baptized at all in God's eyes and thus still in their sins. That is error.



I don't belittle the Holy Ghost as you imply. I only put it on EQUAL FOOTING as water baptism in the salvation process.

If somebody is baptized, and NEVER receives the Spirit, their salvation is incomplete....

If somebody receives the Spirit, and NEVER gets baptized, their salvation is incomplete.

The Apostles insisted on baptism, whether or not folks received the Spirit. It is the part that man was required to do, regarding the salvation process. The Lord takes care of the Spirit birth part.

Sean
12-18-2014, 07:36 AM
Sean posted about water baptism takes away the sin nature. I am lost on how water can deal with an internal issue.





Not the water alone, my friend, but the NAME spoken over the candidate being baptized in the water is a SUPERNATURAL event.

It(water and the name, Jesus) works on our sin nature, just like using oil in the book of James is needed(and the prayer of faith) in the healing process.

Both of these events invite the miracle of God, because of our obedience to using water or oil in the process.

obriencp
12-18-2014, 08:35 AM
so unless someone has oil, the laying on of hands is wasted time... lol. Sean, I applaud your zeal, but everything to you is so rigid you limit what God can do. How many people were healed in the new testament without oil being put on their head?

shazeep
12-18-2014, 08:38 AM
I have been alongside of more that one "deathbed" incident. I have witnessed what the Lord can do.
A man shot five times, in a coma for seven months; and the Lord raised him up (I only saw him in the coma
for the last month); a man with advanced multiple sclerosis, unable to see and barely hear: he is completely
whole; and more. A four-years old child in an automobile accident, bleeding from her nose and ears, and not
breathing: is now a 32-years-old woman working for the State of Arizona.

"...larger that your religion"? What religion do you think is that? I stated that I believe in a God that performs miracles: that He can save people from certain death so that they may attain life. What is wrong with a God like that...or a gospel like that?those are all great! But i mean to say that God transcends religion, of which our notions of baptism are a part.

good samaritan
12-18-2014, 09:55 AM
those are all great! But i mean to say that God transcends religion, of which our notions of baptism are a part.

Our notions about baptism??? Baptism isn't a notion we have, but it is commanded by Jesus and His apostles. If God has something unwritten that will otherwise determine people's salvation then He is God, but I doubt it.

De. 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Paul again quotes from this in Romans 10. I don't think that God would put commandments in scripture and make them optional. God is very clear and we should obey. My Grandmother felt led to be re-baptized the night she first got the Holy Ghost. She didn't at that time understand Jesus name baptism, and had been baptized in the titles. She was led to be baptized in Jesus name and didn't even have the scriptural knowledge to validate it.

shazeep
12-18-2014, 10:04 AM
well, wadr i wonder if "led" is not the op word there, and this reinforces for me the confusion in our model. I don't mean to say that baptism is not important, but misunderstood. We have new converts--or really prospects, as most have also been confused as to what they are converting to--desiring "re-baptism" :lol i mean please

and you say "unwritten," but it is written, and just unseen. Not connected to baptism (or salvation) because the connection is spiritual. Wadr, i hear satan laughing with delight @ your rebaptisms.

Truthseeker
12-18-2014, 10:31 AM
Not the water alone, my friend, but the NAME spoken over the candidate being baptized in the water is a SUPERNATURAL event.

It(water and the name, Jesus) works on our sin nature, just like using oil in the book of James is needed(and the prayer of faith) in the healing process.

Both of these events invite the miracle of God, because of our obedience to using water or oil in the process.




Wouldn't oil just be used in a representative sense? No healing power in oil.

thephnxman
12-18-2014, 11:43 AM
well, wadr i wonder if "led" is not the op word there, and this reinforces for me the confusion in our model. I don't mean to say that baptism is not important, but misunderstood. We have new converts--or really prospects, as most have also been confused as to what they are converting to--desiring "re-baptism" :lol i mean please
and you say "unwritten," but it is written, and just unseen. Not connected to baptism (or salvation) because the connection is spiritual. Wadr, i hear satan laughing with delight @ your rebaptisms.

Baptism, as with repentance, is a matter of the heart. I wonder: if we asked everyone why they were baptized, if they
would answer: "Because I was told." I ask myself, "Is that the faith required for salvation? That they were baptized because
they were told, and not for "...remission of sons..."? I'm sorry to say, that the gospel that saves is not
really being preached today.

Would I rebaptize someone, today? I would sit them down, go over the essence of the gospel and ask if that is
what they believe today; then ask if that is what they believed when they were first baptized.

One Lord, one faith, one baptism. It is NOT the number of times the believer is baptized that matters most: it is
what one believes when one is baptized! It is not obedience plus faith; rather, it is faith plus obedience.

Originalist
12-18-2014, 01:09 PM
Not the water alone, my friend, but the NAME spoken over the candidate being baptized in the water is a SUPERNATURAL event.

It(water and the name, Jesus) works on our sin nature, just like using oil in the book of James is needed(and the prayer of faith) in the healing process.

Both of these events invite the miracle of God, because of our obedience to using water or oil in the process.




So the repentant sinner invoking Jesus Christ while being baptized won't do, huh? That name only has supernatural power if the the baptizer invokes it over the sinner who is being baptized.

Welcome to the Catholic Church.

shazeep
12-18-2014, 01:59 PM
:lol et al. there is also life after extreme pentecostalism :D
Baptism, as with repentance, is a matter of the heart. I wonder: if we asked everyone why they were baptized, if they
would answer: "Because I was told." I ask myself, "Is that the faith required for salvation? That they were baptized because
they were told, and not for "...remission of sons..."? I'm sorry to say, that the gospel that saves is not
really being preached today.

Would I rebaptize someone, today? I would sit them down, go over the essence of the gospel and ask if that is
what they believe today; then ask if that is what they believed when they were first baptized.

One Lord, one faith, one baptism. It is NOT the number of times the believer is baptized that matters most: it is
what one believes when one is baptized! It is not obedience plus faith; rather, it is faith plus obedience.well put, but i can only wonder what % of seekers in the Pent movement are being wooed with "every inch of skin will be stripped from you," and "count the cost." Imo, it will not matter how one holds their mouth at these baptisms.

thephnxman
12-18-2014, 03:16 PM
: lol et al. there is also life after extreme pentecostalism :D
well put, but i can only wonder what % of seekers in the Pent movement are being wooed with "every inch of skin will be stripped from you," and "count the cost." Imo, it will not matter how one holds their mouth at these baptisms.

Don't worry about how others are being woo'ed, or how they hold their mouths at baptism. You believe, obey, and please the Lord.

shazeep
12-18-2014, 03:19 PM
:lol and if it pleases God for me to worry at those who suggest one might accept Christ with their mouth, what then

thephnxman
12-18-2014, 03:58 PM
So the repentant sinner invoking Jesus Christ while being baptized won't do, huh? That name only has supernatural power if the the baptizer invokes it over the sinner who is being baptized.
Welcome to the Catholic Church.

Listen to the scripture: "For whosoever calls upon the NAME of the Lord shall be saved." Many who believe
the "Faith Gospel" read that to mean that one is saved upon believing. That's not how it should be understood.

The words "...shall be..." are a promise; even as the words found in Mk. 16:16__"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved."
So what is the Lord saying? "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him
of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they
be sent?" So are we sent to preach the gospel, that they may hear and believe and call on Him who hears the
prayer of a repentant heart.

Have you not heard? "The effectual prayer of a righteous man avails much." Who was Ananias? A "...disciple in
Damascus..."; perhaps the least of the disciples, who would preach the gospel to the man who was to be regarded as the
greatest among the apostles!

Originalist
12-18-2014, 05:20 PM
Listen to the scripture: "For whosoever calls upon the NAME of the Lord shall be saved." Many who believe
the "Faith Gospel" read that to mean that one is saved upon believing. That's not how it should be understood.

The words "...shall be..." are a promise; even as the words found in Mk. 16:16__"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved."
So what is the Lord saying? "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him
of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they
be sent?" So are we sent to preach the gospel, that they may hear and believe and call on Him who hears the
prayer of a repentant heart.

Have you not heard? "The effectual prayer of a righteous man avails much." Who was Ananias? A "...disciple in
Damascus..."; perhaps the least of the disciples, who would preach the gospel to the man who was to be regarded as the
greatest among the apostles!

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.

Hesetmefree238
12-18-2014, 05:28 PM
Not the water alone, my friend, but the NAME spoken over the candidate being baptized in the water is a SUPERNATURAL event.

It(water and the name, Jesus) works on our sin nature, just like using oil in the book of James is needed(and the prayer of faith) in the healing process.

Both of these events invite the miracle of God, because of our obedience to using water or oil in the process.




Sean, baptism does a lot of things, but it doesn't change the inner nature of a man. That can only be done via the effect of the operation of the Spirit of Christ. Only the Spirit can transform a person from the inside out. In water baptism we are baptized into Christ's death, buried with him in baptism, and we are to arise to walk in newness of life, however the change in the nature of a man is only accomplished through the Spirit. Yes, the Spirit can and will work through the process of baptism if there is faith in the heart of the person being baptized, however it's not the act of baptism itself that causes this change, but its the operation of the Spirit.
With that said, baptism is an ordinance of God, commanded by God, and essential for every repentant believer. Scripture tell us that it is a washing from sin (Acts 22:16), it is a burial place for the old man (Romans 6), through it we are baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27), we take on his name (Acts 8:16), and as the Red Sea cut off Israel from Egypt, we are cut off from out past life of sin as we go through the waters of baptism in Jesus name.

thephnxman
12-18-2014, 08:20 PM
lol and if it pleases God for me to worry at those who suggest one might accept Christ with their mouth, what then

Why would your worrying please the Lord? "Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto the Lord."

thephnxman
12-18-2014, 08:36 PM
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.

Every organization, like the Catholic Church, has a chain of command. Likewise the Body of Christ. Unlike the other organizations, the ministry is mandated to say "...thus saith the Lord...", and not voice personal opinions.

Calling on the NAME of the Lord at baptism, by the one baptized, is tantamount to baptizing oneself. Nowhere in scripture do we see that; even Saul of Tarsus, when the Lord called him, was sent to a disciple to show him the way.

mfblume
12-18-2014, 08:49 PM
Calling on the NAME of the Lord at baptism, by the one baptized, is tantamount to baptizing oneself. Nowhere in scripture do we see that; even Saul of Tarsus, when the Lord called him, was sent to a disciple to show him the way.

Very good point!

Originalist
12-19-2014, 02:31 AM
Every organization, like the Catholic Church, has a chain of command. Likewise the Body of Christ. Unlike the other organizations, the ministry is mandated to say "...thus saith the Lord...", and not voice personal opinions.

Calling on the NAME of the Lord at baptism, by the one baptized, is tantamount to baptizing oneself. Nowhere in scripture do we see that; even Saul of Tarsus, when the Lord called him, was sent to a disciple to show him the way.

How so? They are not physically immersing themselves. The one baptizing them will not immerse them until he hears them calling on the Lord. Sadly your view is typical of the sacerdotal teachings followed by many Apostolics, placing ones salvation in the hands of another instead of in Christ. There simply is no teaching in scripture that says my invoking the name of Jesus over a sinner somehow takes away or forgives their sins. As for "baptizing oneself", I would hope one would do so if they were in a country or situation where nobody was available to baptize them. God would honor so great a faith.

Sean
12-19-2014, 06:27 AM
Sean, baptism does a lot of things, but it doesn't change the inner nature of a man.

Is that right....Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;


Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Are you FREE from sin?....Baptism free's us from sin. That is an operation of God that has crucified the OLD MAN(old nature).


That can only be done via the effect of the operation of the Spirit of Christ. Only the Spirit can transform a person from the inside out. In water baptism we are baptized into Christ's death, buried with him in baptism, and we are to arise to walk in newness of life, however the change in the nature of a man is only accomplished through the Spirit. Yes, the Spirit can and will work through the process of baptism if there is faith in the heart of the person being baptized, however it's not the act of baptism itself that causes this change, but its the operation of the Spirit.

Is that what the passages say that I posted above?

With that said, baptism is an ordinance of God, commanded by God, and essential for every repentant believer. Scripture tell us that it is a washing from sin (Acts 22:16), it is a burial place for the old man (Romans 6), through it we are baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27), we take on his name (Acts 8:16), and as the Red Sea cut off Israel from Egypt, we are cut off from out past life of sin as we go through the waters of baptism in Jesus name.



It is more than just a symbolic ritual. It is an OPERATION of GOD, made without hands!!!

Sean
12-19-2014, 06:33 AM
So the repentant sinner invoking Jesus Christ while being baptized won't do, huh? That name only has supernatural power if the the baptizer invokes it over the sinner who is being baptized.

It works for faith healing, why not water baptism? The Apostles did it.


Welcome to the Catholic Church.

They actually are more correct than many folks here that think you can be saved prior to water baptism. You realize that the Catholics changed the method of baptism, but some folks here have completed the job by saying baptism is not necessary to remit sins. They say that you only need the Spirit....shame, shame!

Sean
12-19-2014, 06:42 AM
These "last days" anti-baptism arguments from Protestants are actually a step farther from the truth, and a continuation of the eroding and ultimately the eradication process of water baptism that the Catholics started!!!

obriencp
12-19-2014, 07:28 AM
I don't believe we are anti-baptism we just realize it's the operation of the Spirit that makes us born again. Baptism is a commandment and I personally believe it should be done in Jesus' name. I just believe it is part of the conversion process and not a "step" in one's salvation. A step in their walk with God yes, but if God fills someone with the Holy Ghost, they are born again and spiritually alive at that point.

Sean
12-19-2014, 07:35 AM
Like I said.....

Sean
12-19-2014, 07:39 AM
Here is what some folks are doing at these altars when they see someone get the Holy Ghost these days...

They tell the unbaptized individual.."you're saved now, you have the Spirit inside"!

All the while, the Lord says..."he that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved"!

I guess the Lord will just have to get over it and accept the fact that we have a difference of opinion with Him!!!

thephnxman
12-19-2014, 12:04 PM
I don't believe we are anti-baptism we just realize it's the operation of the Spirit that makes us born again. Baptism is a commandment and I personally believe it should be done in Jesus' name. I just believe it is part of the conversion process and not a "step" in one's salvation. A step in their walk with God yes, but if God fills someone with the Holy Ghost, they are born again and spiritually alive at that point.

Are you saying one can DENY baptism "...for the remission of sins...", and be saved? See, it's not just
about "baptism". If baptism is unnecessary, why would the Lord be so emphatic about it? For His own baptism,
he said "...it behooves us to fulfill all righteousness." Then, "Go you therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them..."; and then, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved."????

Baptism is not incidental, but a requirement for salvation.

Originalist
12-19-2014, 12:22 PM
Here is what some folks are doing at these altars when they see someone get the Holy Ghost these days...

They tell the unbaptized individual.."you're saved now, you have the Spirit inside"!

All the while, the Lord says..."he that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved"!

I guess the Lord will just have to get over it and accept the fact that we have a difference of opinion with Him!!!

What business scripturally do we have praying for people to receive the Spirit who have not been baptized? e

Originalist
12-19-2014, 12:23 PM
These "last days" anti-baptism arguments from Protestants are actually a step farther from the truth, and a continuation of the eroding and ultimately the eradication process of water baptism that the Catholics started!!!

You are not referring to me. I maintain baptism is a pre-new birth experience.

Originalist
12-19-2014, 03:19 PM
They actually are more correct than many folks here that think you can be saved prior to water baptism. You realize that the Catholics changed the method of baptism, but some folks here have completed the job by saying baptism is not necessary to remit sins. They say that you only need the Spirit....shame, shame!


Baptism does not remit sin. We are baptized that our sins might be remitted....by Jesus Christ.

mfblume
12-19-2014, 07:45 PM
Baptism does not remit sin. We are baptized that our sins might be remitted....by Jesus Christ.

:thumbsup

Hesetmefree238
12-19-2014, 08:31 PM
It is more than just a symbolic ritual. It is an OPERATION of GOD, made without hands!!!

For the record, I never said that baptism is just a symbolic ritual. Read my prior comments. You were writing earlier that people who have been filled with the Spirit are still spiritually dead until they are water baptized. I disagree with your position that one is spiritually dead until water baptism. It's imperative that they be baptized in Jesus name, but they have received the life of Christ within them. It's the Spirit that quickeneth and giveth life. One can be baptized and still be spiritually dead. Baptism by itself doesn't give life, however, it is part of God's new covenant plan, and the sin issue isn't completely taken care of until one has been baptized. We have to bury the old man, and going through the waters of baptism in Jesus name cuts us off from our past life of sin, however it takes the Spirit to give us the life of Christ. The Spirit is the life of Christ. They are synonymous.

Romans 8:10 "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

2 Corinthians 3:6 "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."

Romans 8:16 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God."

Sean
12-20-2014, 06:00 AM
For the record, I never said that baptism is just a symbolic ritual. Read my prior comments. You were writing earlier that people who have been filled with the Spirit are still spiritually dead until they are water baptized. I disagree with your position that one is spiritually dead until water baptism. It's imperative that they be baptized in Jesus name, but they have received the life of Christ within them. It's the Spirit that quickeneth and giveth life. One can be baptized and still be spiritually dead.


Exactly, that is my point....Acts 2:38 JOINS water and Spirit baptism into 1 plan....38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. One part of the plan is not complete without the other. Men have dissected and separated the 2 parts, saying one part is all that is needed. With only 1 part, you are only "partially" saved, which is NOT saved at all.


Baptism by itself doesn't give life, however, it is part of God's new covenant plan, and the sin issue isn't completely taken care of until one has been baptized.

Life cannot come for the born again believer until death occurs......
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:.....
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
A man is not FREED from sin unless he is baptized.

We have to bury the old man, and going through the waters of baptism in Jesus name cuts us off from our past life of sin, however it takes the Spirit to give us the life of Christ. The Spirit is the life of Christ. They are synonymous.

Amen

Romans 8:10 "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

2 Corinthians 3:6 "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."

Romans 8:16 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God."


The point to be made is that some folks here think that a man is saved BEFORE water baptism.
That is absurd according to the N.T. scripture.
There is a TREMENDOUS amount of spiritual work to be done by God upon water baptism. Some folks here can't see that.
There is a spiritual operation/circumcision happening to those that are baptized....
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
If a man is not baptized(while having the Spirit), they are not spiritually circumcized, neither are they OFFICIALLY in Christ.
The only way into Christ is to be baptized into Christ....
Romans 6: 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

The fact of the matter is a man can have the Spirit, but not be "IN" Christ, if they refuse to be baptized.

Believe it or not, some folks think that Spirit baptism REPLACES water baptism. They think the "death stuff" or having an "operation made without hands" is scary!

Sean
12-20-2014, 06:07 AM
Baptism does not remit sin. We are baptized that our sins might be remitted....by Jesus Christ.




Really???

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.



Hmmm.....Kinda looks like sins are remitted by the Lord when the name of Jesus is used during baptism...

Originalist
12-20-2014, 06:22 AM
Really???

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.



Hmmm.....Kinda looks like sins are remitted by the Lord when the name of Jesus is used during baptism...

"For the remission of sins" simply means "in order that your sins might be forgiven". And who forgives sins? The context here is not even orally invoking the name by the baptizer (which he should do) but one being commanded to repent and to be baptized into the authority (name) of the one Peter had been preaching about that God made to be both Lord and Christ. Is not an incantation or word taking away people's sins. It is GOD forgiving sin of those who are obedient to the message because they yielded to the Lordship of Christ by repenting and being baptized.

Sean
12-20-2014, 06:25 AM
You are not referring to me. I maintain baptism is a pre-new birth experience.



May I ask you this?

Do you believe that a man is saved before he is baptized, if he recieves the Spirit?

Sean
12-20-2014, 06:33 AM
What business scripturally do we have praying for people to receive the Spirit who have not been baptized? e



Actually, we dont....

We only OBSERVE the Spirit falling on them as we lead them to the water baptismal process.

We must preach the message that was originally intended for us to preach....

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.(look at the underlined comparison of Luke and Acts)

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Sean
12-20-2014, 06:37 AM
In the great, Holy Ghost revivals we are seeing these days, most of them have been baptized already, and many others are intending to be. The Spirit just fills those that have not yet been baptized, in order to influence them to do so.

Sean
12-20-2014, 07:04 AM
"For the remission of sins" simply means "in order that your sins might be forgiven". And who forgives sins? The context here is not even orally invoking the name by the baptizer (which he should do) but one being commanded to repent and to be baptized into the authority (name) of the one Peter had been preaching about that God made to be both Lord and Christ. Is not an incantation or word taking away people's sins. It is GOD forgiving sin of those who are obedient to the message because they yielded to the Lordship of Christ by repenting and being baptized.




Is the Name of Jesus we speak an incantation?


in·can·ta·tion noun \ˌin-ˌkan-ˈtā-shən\
: a series of words used to make something magic happen

Full Definition of INCANTATION

: a use of spells or verbal charms spoken or sung as a part of a ritual of magic; also : a written or recited formula of words designed to produce a particular effect

Sean
12-20-2014, 07:06 AM
When you speak the name of Jesus, are you speaking incantations?

Sean
12-20-2014, 07:11 AM
Originally Posted by Originalist View Post
"For the remission of sins" simply means "in order that your sins might be forgiven". And who forgives sins? The context here is not even orally invoking the name by the baptizer (which he should do) but one being commanded to repent and to be baptized into the authority (name) of the one Peter had been preaching about that God made to be both Lord and Christ. Is not an incantation or word taking away people's sins. It is GOD forgiving sin of those who are obedient to the message because they yielded to the Lordship of Christ by repenting and being baptized



So the authority of the name of Jesus is only in the thought process?

Do you pray for the sick like that also(silent prayers)?

Sean
12-20-2014, 07:19 AM
Originally Posted by Originalist View Post
"For the remission of sins" simply means "in order that your sins might be forgiven". And who forgives sins? The context here is not even orally invoking the name by the baptizer (which he should do) but one being commanded to repent and to be baptized into the authority (name) of the one Peter had been preaching about that God made to be both Lord and Christ. Is not an incantation or word taking away people's sins. It is GOD forgiving sin of those who are obedient to the message because they yielded to the Lordship of Christ by repenting and being baptized




You have implied that the VERBAL use of the name of Jesus here is an INCANTATION.....



in·can·ta·tion noun \ˌin-ˌkan-ˈtā-shən\
: a series of words used to make something magic happen

Full Definition of INCANTATION

: a use of spells or verbal charms spoken or sung as a part of a ritual of magic; also : a written or recited formula of words designed to produce a particular effect

Sean
12-20-2014, 07:21 AM
This is a classic example of your former beliefs still blended in your present beliefs

Sean
12-20-2014, 07:22 AM
This is known as Assemblicostal

Sean
12-20-2014, 07:25 AM
This is the name I love to "incant".....

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

good samaritan
12-20-2014, 07:32 AM
"For the remission of sins" simply means "in order that your sins might be forgiven". And who forgives sins? The context here is not even orally invoking the name by the baptizer (which he should do) but one being commanded to repent and to be baptized into the authority (name) of the one Peter had been preaching about that God made to be both Lord and Christ. Is not an incantation or word taking away people's sins. It is GOD forgiving sin of those who are obedient to the message because they yielded to the Lordship of Christ by repenting and being baptized.

I partially agree with this post. It is by God's authority that we are saved and not a magic baptismal formula. Peter had a revelation of the identity of Jesus Christ and upon the revelation of Christ's identity the church would be built. By invoking the name of Jesus you are acknowledging who it is that saves you. When I pray to God I don't have to using some generality of terms such as god or lord, but I can speak his name Jesus".

I know him personally and I enjoy invoking the name at every occasion and I don't want to do anything to belittle its importance. The way to be baptized is described by the apostles many times, so do it like they did. We don't have to break down the reason or logic behind it, but we should obey it. I don't want to stand before God for sending people astray for my use of vain philosophy. Its not about how eloquently I can describe the method be behind the madness as they say, but your obedience to the one who has saved you. Faith exists many times without understanding.

Originalist
12-20-2014, 11:17 AM
This is the name I love to "incant".....

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Brother, why did you create so many mini-posts about this? One post would have sufficed.

Concerning Acts 4:12. You cannot separate a name from the one bearing that name. Peter is simply saying that there is only one authority that can save men, Jesus Christ.

My use of the word "incantation" was used only to stress that there is nothing about the oral invoking of the name of Jesus that takes away sin. HE takes away sin, the one who bears that name.

If a king issues a decree, it becomes law the moment he issues it, not when it is read aloud to his subjects.

Hesetmefree238
12-20-2014, 02:57 PM
Sean, I think where we disagree is in our perspective of water baptism. You view water baptism as being the wheel in the middle of the wheel in new testament salvation. I believe the thing that everything revolves around is faith in the Saviour who shed his blood for our sins. Of course, this faith must be accompanied with calling on the name of Jesus in repentance, and that is to be followed by water baptism according to the new covenant plan. I've already said, I don't view water baptism as optional, it's an essential part of the new covenant, and the sin issue isn't dealt with in its finality until one goes through the waters of baptism in Jesus name.
However, I see everything from repentance, to water baptism, to being filled with the Holy Ghost revolving around placing our faith in Jesus. By faith we look towards Calvary trusting that Jesus's blood is sufficient to save us from our sins. I believe that God showed us that this faith is the one most essential element and is what is most important in Acts 10 when he filled Cornelius's household with the Spirit, because they believed in Jesus and called on his name. Peter confirmed this in

Acts 15:8-9 "And God which knoweth the hearts bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

He's saying God bare witness to their faith in Christ and he responded by filling them with the Holy Ghost. He forgave them of their sins, There was an application of the blood, there was a purifying (according to Acts 15:9) of the inner man, and they entered into the Holy of Holies being filled with the Spirit. They became Sons of God and the life of Christ came to reside in them. However, they were incomplete until they were baptized in Jesus name. I'm not going to try to define what incomplete may or may not mean. I think this is a mistake we make trying to determine exactly who has what at what point in their experience with the Lord. I do feel comfortable saying they were incomplete, because there is sufficient scripture that tells us that water baptism is part of the new testament plan of salvation. (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, St Mark 16:16)

Sean
12-21-2014, 06:13 AM
Sean, I think where we disagree is in our perspective of water baptism. You view water baptism as being the wheel in the middle of the wheel in new testament salvation. I believe the thing that everything revolves around is faith in the Saviour who shed his blood for our sins. Of course, this faith must be accompanied with calling on the name of Jesus in repentance, and that is to be followed by water baptism according to the new covenant plan. I've already said, I don't view water baptism as optional, it's an essential part of the new covenant, and the sin issue isn't dealt with in its finality until one goes through the waters of baptism in Jesus name.
However, I see everything from repentance, to water baptism, to being filled with the Holy Ghost revolving around placing our faith in Jesus. By faith we look towards Calvary trusting that Jesus's blood is sufficient to save us from our sins. I believe that God showed us that this faith is the one most essential element and is what is most important in Acts 10 when he filled Cornelius's household with the Spirit, because they believed in Jesus and called on his name. Peter confirmed this in

Acts 15:8-9 "And God which knoweth the hearts bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

He's saying God bare witness to their faith in Christ and he responded by filling them with the Holy Ghost. He forgave them of their sins, There was an application of the blood, there was a purifying (according to Acts 15:9) of the inner man, and they entered into the Holy of Holies being filled with the Spirit. They became Sons of God and the life of Christ came to reside in them. However, they were incomplete until they were baptized in Jesus name. I'm not going to try to define what incomplete may or may not mean. I think this is a mistake we make trying to determine exactly who has what at what point in their experience with the Lord. I do feel comfortable saying they were incomplete, because there is sufficient scripture that tells us that water baptism is part of the new testament plan of salvation. (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, St Mark 16:16)





Amen, your quotation of Mark 16 kinda explains it all...

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.(I have never in my 35 years as a believer, seen an unbeliever get baptized)

Folks that REFUSE water baptism, and say that all they must do is believe, excluding water baptism, dont believe enough to be baptized and shall ultimately be damned.

I did not say that...the Lord Jesus said that!

shazeep
12-21-2014, 08:42 AM
really, where? :D

thephnxman
12-21-2014, 05:39 PM
Amen, your quotation of Mark 16 kinda explains it all...

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.(I have never in my 35 years as a believer, seen an unbeliever get baptized)

Folks that REFUSE water baptism, and say that all they must do is believe, excluding water baptism, dont believe enough to be baptized and shall ultimately be damned.
I did not say that...the Lord Jesus said that!

YES, you DID say that...quoting the Lord Jesus!

obriencp
12-21-2014, 08:10 PM
May I ask you this?

Do you believe that a man is saved before he is baptized, if he recieves the Spirit?

Yes.

Do you believe that a man is saved after he is baptized, if he didn't receive the Spirit?

obriencp
12-21-2014, 08:18 PM
The Spirit just fills those that have not yet been baptized, in order to influence them to do so.

This quote is minimizing the operation of the spirit... it "just fills those" to influence them to be baptized? You don't believe they're saved at that point even though the Lord thought enough of them to give them His Spirit?

You can't be spiritually alive and simultaneously spiritually dead.

good samaritan
12-21-2014, 09:50 PM
The word "saved" is past tense and it isn't really correct to say I'm saved until I heard Him say well done. Repentance, Jesus name baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost isn't a magic formula, but is part of our new birth. It is necessary. It was the apostles doctrine and this message has been the common ground for apostolic churches. We may differ on holiness standards and certain church practices, but it is surprising to me that this up for criticism. Maybe a baptist web site or other trinity denominations, but not among apostolics.

Originalist
12-22-2014, 06:35 AM
This is known as AssemblicostalYou've made this accusation before, brother.

You obviously do not know Assembly of God doctrine or you would not make such a claim.

The AoG believes that water baptism is a "post-salvation" experience. I believe it normally precedes salvation. The AoG believes we get baptized because our sins have been forgiven. I believe we are baptized, as Peter said, in order that our sins may be forgiven. The AoG teaches that the Spirit baptism is subsequent to the birth of the Spirit. I believe the Spirit baptism IS the new birth of the Spirit.

Actually, it is you who sounds a bit AoG with your previous statement.......


The Spirit just fills those that have not yet been baptized, in order to influence them to do so.

With that statement you demean the Spirit baptism from being the new birth of the Spirit imparting a new nature to just something that is given to enhance our walk with God, to bring deeper understanding, etc...just like the AoG teaches.

Just curious. Do you consider the "unbaptized" to include Holy Ghost filled AoG members who were baptized in the titles?

Sean
12-22-2014, 07:27 AM
Yes.

Do you believe that a man is saved after he is baptized, if he didn't receive the Spirit?


Nope.....

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.

Sean
12-22-2014, 07:33 AM
This quote is minimizing the operation of the spirit... it "just fills those" to influence them to be baptized? You don't believe they're saved at that point even though the Lord thought enough of them to give them His Spirit?

You can't be spiritually alive and simultaneously spiritually dead.



The "old man " is crucified when AND ONLY when we are baptized. They must be baptized to be crucified with Christ....

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.



If you are NOT baptized, you are NOT dead to sin, nor are you FREE from sin.

Sean
12-22-2014, 07:40 AM
You've made this accusation before, brother.

You obviously do not know Assembly of God doctrine or you would not make such a claim.

I see SWAGGART and his cohorts(from the A/G) saving folks with a Spirit infilling only these days, without being baptized. The A/G has dropped the baptism requirement to get folks saved by Spirit only...Hardly anyone these days tells folks that baptism is part of the plan of salvation. They do this to get folks to support their TV program and save them without touching them personally.


The AoG believes that water baptism is a "post-salvation" experience. I believe it normally precedes salvation. The AoG believes we get baptized because our sins have been forgiven. I believe we are baptized, as Peter said, in order that our sins may be forgiven. The AoG teaches that the Spirit baptism is subsequent to the birth of the Spirit. I believe the Spirit baptism IS the new birth of the Spirit.

Actually, it is you who sounds a bit AoG with your previous statement.......

No, you are thinking about the OLD A/G doctrine.




With that statement you demean the Spirit baptism from being the new birth of the Spirit imparting a new nature to just something that is given to enhance our walk with God, to bring deeper understanding, etc...just like the AoG teaches.

Just curious. Do you consider the "unbaptized" to include Holy Ghost filled AoG members who were baptized in the titles?


That is a high probability...The Catholics are even baptized in the titles, both babies AND adult converts. I insist on them being re-baptized upon conversion. I insist that the baptismal candidate listen carefully of the way they are baptized, to be sure for themselves the name of Jesus was spoken during the baptism.

I mean, lets' face it...some folks say, "who cares what was said during baptism"....Those folks are BIG TIME gamblers with their salvation.

thephnxman
12-22-2014, 08:26 AM
That is a high probability...The Catholics are even baptized in the titles, both babies AND adult converts. I insist on them being re-baptized upon conversion. I insist that the baptismal candidate listen carefully of the way they are baptized, to be sure for themselves the name of Jesus was spoken during the baptism
I mean, lets' face it...some folks say, "who cares what was said during baptism"....Those folks are BIG TIME gamblers with their salvation.


Amen, Brother. Folks just don't believe they are being deceived! Many in the AoG, and other denominations, swear that they were baptized "in the name of Jesus". But eventually they say that the titles were pronounced over them. Those denominations have it backwards. The NAME of Jesus is not Father, and son, and Holy Ghost: the NAME of "...the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit...", is Jesus!

Originalist
12-22-2014, 09:55 AM
Amen, Brother. Folks just don't believe they are being deceived! Many in the AoG, and other denominations, swear that they were baptized "in the name of Jesus". But eventually they say that the titles were pronounced over them. Those denominations have it backwards. The NAME of Jesus is not Father, and son, and Holy Ghost: the NAME of "...the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit...", is Jesus!

They were indeed baptized in Jesus' name in that they did it as unto Jesus, or for his name's sake. And of course I'm speaking not of Catholics but rather of those who had genuine "repentance towards God, faith towards Jesus Christ."

I was rebaptized with the name being invoked over me NOT because I felt I was still in my sins or that my first baptism was invalid in God's eyes. I did so because my personal study led me to believe that if anything was said by the baptizer at all in acts, it was indeed an invocation of the name of Jesus Christ. I wanted to have practiced what I would from that time on be ministering to others. God led me to do it. That was July 2, 1980. However, to this day I see no connection between the oral invoking of the name of the baptizer some how washing away the sins of the baptizee. That is a not taught anywhere by the Apostles.

Last night I had a study with an AoG lady who has had the Holy Ghost since she was a little girl on why she should be rebaptized with the name of Jesus invoked over her. None of the reasons I gave questioned or involved her right standing with God. She is going to be rebaptized this week.

And BTW Swaggart teaches one is saved before he is Spirit baptized

Originalist
12-22-2014, 09:56 AM
delete

Originalist
12-22-2014, 09:57 AM
delete

good samaritan
12-22-2014, 10:24 AM
They were indeed baptized in Jesus' name in that they did it as unto Jesus, or for his name's sake. And of course I'm speaking not of Catholics but rather of those who had genuine "repentance towards God, faith towards Jesus Christ."

I was rebaptized with the name being invoked over me NOT because I felt I was still in my sins or that my first baptism was invalid in God's eyes. I did so because my personal study led me to believe that if anything was said by the baptizer at all in acts, it was indeed an invocation of the name of Jesus Christ. I wanted to have practiced what I would from that time on be ministering to others. God led me to do it. That was July 2, 1980. However, to this day I see no connection between the oral invoking of the name of the baptizer some how washing away the sins of the baptizee. That is a not taught anywhere by the Apostles.

Last night I had a study with an AoG lady who has had the Holy Ghost since she was a little girl on why she should be rebaptized with the name of Jesus invoked over her. None of the reasons I gave questioned or involved her right standing with God. She is going to be rebaptized this week.

And BTW Swaggart teaches one is saved before he is Spirit baptized

So do you believe that a literal Jesus name baptism is neccessary?

Originalist
12-22-2014, 12:04 PM
So do you believe that a literal Jesus name baptism is neccessary?


Why argue with scriptures like Mark 16:16? Baptism into the authority (name) of Jesus Christ is a God instituted, normative step concerning repentance towards God, faith towards Jesus Christ.

Originalist
12-22-2014, 12:07 PM
Correction. I was re-baptized with the name of Jesus Christ invoked over me on July 2, 1992.

good samaritan
12-22-2014, 03:20 PM
Why argue with scriptures like Mark 16:16? Baptism into the authority (name) of Jesus Christ is a God instituted, normative step concerning repentance towards God, faith towards Jesus Christ.

I still don't understand if you believe there should be a literal invocation of the name Jesus at baptism? I get the whole authority thing, but am getting the message that the name invocation is non-essential. Heard a pastor say that you could invoke the word bubble gum and it doesn't matter. The pastor was a trinity pastor, but it made me feel like he didn't take Gods word literally.

My thoughts are if it isn't necessary then you haven't hurt anything, but if it is you risk being disobedient and missing out on your reward. The scripture literally teaches Jesus name baptism by invoking the name.

Originalist
12-22-2014, 04:07 PM
I still don't understand if you believe there should be a literal invocation of the name Jesus at baptism? I get the whole authority thing, but am getting the message that the name invocation is non-essential. Heard a pastor say that you could invoke the word bubble gum and it doesn't matter. The pastor was a trinity pastor, but it made me feel like he didn't take Gods word literally.

My thoughts are if it isn't necessary then you haven't hurt anything, but if it is you risk being disobedient and missing out on your reward. The scripture literally teaches Jesus name baptism by invoking the name.

Since we are being baptized into his authority, it's just a given that the one performing the baptism would invoke his name. But I do not see the invoking of the name as being what appropriates the work of the cross in baptism.

Hesetmefree238
12-22-2014, 06:45 PM
Since we are being baptized into his authority, it's just a given that the one performing the baptism would invoke his name. But I do not see the invoking of the name as being what appropriates the work of the cross in baptism.

Just wondering are you UPC, Independent, etc..... I'm assuming you are a minister or pastor possibly

shazeep
12-22-2014, 06:56 PM
Since we are being baptized into his authority, it's just a given that the one performing the baptism would invoke his name. But I do not see the invoking of the name as being what appropriates the work of the cross in baptism.hmm. really?

Originalist
12-22-2014, 07:38 PM
hmm. really?

really. God does not forgive someone being baptized based on the words the baptizer says. That is mysticism.

good samaritan
12-23-2014, 12:56 AM
really. God does not forgive someone being baptized based on the words the baptizer says. That is mysticism.

I believe God forgives at repentance, but baptism is the graveyard ceremony. Who would leave a dead body laying around? You are right that it isn't a magical formula, but an inward work between God and the individual. The thing is that if there is an inward work there is going to be a desire for obedience.

This reminds me of grace vs. works debates. It is true that my salvation is built upon faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. James says it best, "you show your faith without works, and I'll show you my faith by my works." Jesus name invocation is essential because in order to do things with Gods authority we must do it with his directions.

The formula isn't mystical it's obedience. My turning to God and accepting Him as Lord of my life is where I find salvation. How can a person say Jesus is their Lord if they don't obey His word. Doesn't calling Him Lord mean we are under his authority. Jesus name baptism isn't mysticism but it is part of obedience to His word.

good samaritan
12-23-2014, 01:05 AM
What about those well meaning christians that don't accept Jesus name baptism? I am not their judge, but If Jesus is our Lord we should be students of His word. We have made salvation to be a selfish thing. Many people want only to be saved, and without any commitment to their savior. So many don't want to study God's word or to seek a relationship with him. They settle for "religion" to appease their fear of dying lost.

Abraham developed a relationship with God that was built on a faith that was proven by his obedience. I want to know him more and more!!!

Originalist
12-23-2014, 07:07 AM
I believe God forgives at repentance, but baptism is the graveyard ceremony. Who would leave a dead body laying around? You are right that it isn't a magical formula, but an inward work between God and the individual. The thing is that if there is an inward work there is going to be a desire for obedience.

This reminds me of grace vs. works debates. It is true that my salvation is built upon faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. James says it best, "you show your faith without works, and I'll show you my faith by my works." Jesus name invocation is essential because in order to do things with Gods authority we must do it with his directions.

The formula isn't mystical it's obedience. My turning to God and accepting Him as Lord of my life is where I find salvation. How can a person say Jesus is their Lord if they don't obey His word. Doesn't calling Him Lord mean we are under his authority. Jesus name baptism isn't mysticism but it is part of obedience to His word.

Again, if baptism is as you say, a burial (and I agree), shouldn't THAT be what is stressed? It's being baptized into the name (authority) of Jesus Christ. If the sinner has this in view when being baptized, then I do not think god is holding over them if the preacher misses the mark. The preacher will be held accountable, not God. This argument is reinforced if that person goes on to receive the Spirit since Peter makes it clear in Acts 5 that God only gives the Spirit to "those who obey him".

On the other hand I know people who had the name of Jesus invoked over them as baptism that I really do not consider to have been baptized into his authority at all.

Sean
12-23-2014, 07:46 AM
really. God does not forgive someone being baptized based on the words the baptizer says. That is mysticism.



Now you are saying the Name of Jesus we speak over the baptismal candidate is MYSTICISM???

Sean
12-23-2014, 09:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist View Post
"For the remission of sins" simply means "in order that your sins might be forgiven". And who forgives sins? The context here is not even orally invoking the name by the baptizer (which he should do) but one being commanded to repent and to be baptized into the authority (name) of the one Peter had been preaching about that God made to be both Lord and Christ. Is not an incantation or word taking away people's sins. It is GOD forgiving sin of those who are obedient to the message because they yielded to the Lordship of Christ by repenting and being baptized.



Is the Name of Jesus we speak an incantation?


in·can·ta·tion noun \ˌin-ˌkan-ˈtā-shən\
: a series of words used to make something magic happen

Full Definition of INCANTATION

: a use of spells or verbal charms spoken or sung as a part of a ritual of magic; also : a written or recited formula of words designed to produce a particular effect

Sean
12-23-2014, 09:25 AM
So your point of view is we are speaking MYSTICISM and INCANTATIONS when we baptize in Jesus name???

We should be better off with silent baptisms to better suit your theology.(just only have the baptismal candidate say the name of Jesus themselves)




When you get done with that idea regarding baptism, prayer for the sick and casting out devils is next.(since it is just mysticism or incantations to use the name of Jesus over someone)

Originalist
12-23-2014, 09:28 AM
Now you are saying the Name of Jesus we speak over the baptismal candidate is MYSTICISM???

No Sean. And it saddens me that you are allowing yourself to be intellectually dishonest.

Invoking his name vocally in baptism is not mysticism. Believing that when you invoke his name over someone you are baptizing applies blood and causes their sins to vanish is mysticism.

Originalist
12-23-2014, 09:31 AM
So your point of view is we are speaking MYSTICISM and INCANTATIONS when we baptize in Jesus name???

We should be better off with silent baptisms to better suit your theology.(just only have the baptismal candidate say the name of Jesus themselves)

Again, more straw men. Shameful. The sad part is your refusal to debate what I actually said.

Originalist
12-23-2014, 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist View Post
"For the remission of sins" simply means "in order that your sins might be forgiven". And who forgives sins? The context here is not even orally invoking the name by the baptizer (which he should do) but one being commanded to repent and to be baptized into the authority (name) of the one Peter had been preaching about that God made to be both Lord and Christ. Is not an incantation or word taking away people's sins. It is GOD forgiving sin of those who are obedient to the message because they yielded to the Lordship of Christ by repenting and being baptized.



Is the Name of Jesus we speak an incantation?


in·can·ta·tion noun \ˌin-ˌkan-ˈtā-shən\
: a series of words used to make something magic happen

Full Definition of INCANTATION

: a use of spells or verbal charms spoken or sung as a part of a ritual of magic; also : a written or recited formula of words designed to produce a particular effect



Yes, let's spam the board with a zillion mini-posts instead of tying our thoughts together in one post.

If you believe that invoking the name of Jesus over someone you are baptizing makes something happen (namely, washes away their sins) then you indeed have turned his name into an incantation.

Sean
12-23-2014, 12:31 PM
Just dont say nuttin bro when you are a baptizn em.....dont take a chance of bein' an ENCANTER or MYSTIC like us folks...LOL

Originalist
12-23-2014, 01:36 PM
Just dont say nuttin bro when you are a baptizn em.....dont take a chance of bein' an ENCANTER or MYSTIC like us folks...LOL

Still dodging the point and creating a false narrative. Very disappointing.

Sean
12-23-2014, 02:12 PM
No brother, I am trying to get you to see how ridiculous and sacrilegious you sound.....respectfully saying.

Originalist
12-23-2014, 02:58 PM
No brother, I am trying to get you to see how ridiculous and sacrilegious you sound.....respectfully saying.

I could understand that statement coming from a catholic priest. I could see why that would seem sacrilegious. Your reaction seems to indicate that you do indeed believe that when you pronounce the name of Jesus over those you are baptizing, that this vocalization on your part, in some mystical way, takes away their sins. i think that would more appropriately be defined as ridiculous.

mfblume
12-23-2014, 03:05 PM
Some folks have their own spin on many things that no one else believes.

Originalist
12-23-2014, 06:11 PM
Some folks have their own spin on many things that no one else believes.

To be fair I'd say Sean and I are not alone in our beliefs within the Oneness Pentecostal Camp. This division just goes to show that our movement really lacks a systematic theology.

shazeep
12-23-2014, 06:58 PM
Yes, let's spam the board with a zillion mini-posts instead of tying our thoughts together in one post.

If you believe that invoking the name of Jesus over someone you are baptizing makes something happen (namely, washes away their sins) then you indeed have turned his name into an incantation.
oh, i totally believe that. call it whatever. but i also believes this provides us only a glimpse, and must be a naive understanding that the Holy Spirit and Christ's many other Titles aren't confined by. i am not qualified to judge whether someone else is lost by virtue of their baptism via titles, or unbaptism, for that matter.

thephnxman
12-23-2014, 11:17 PM
oh, i totally believe that. call it whatever. but i also believes this provides us only a glimpse, and must be a naive understanding that the Holy Spirit and Christ's many other Titles aren't confined by. i am not qualified to judge whether someone else is lost by virtue of their baptism via titles, or unbaptism, for that matter.

But is anyone "qualified to judge whether someone else is lost", OR SAVED, if someone
else outwardly rejects or denies the gospel that saves, or any portion thereof.

Sean
12-24-2014, 05:52 AM
I could understand that statement coming from a catholic priest. I could see why that would seem sacrilegious. Your reaction seems to indicate that you do indeed believe that when you pronounce the name of Jesus over those you are baptizing, that this vocalization on your part, in some mystical way, takes away their sins. i think that would more appropriately be defined as ridiculous.




Because my brother...the Name of Jesus is SACRED, PRECIOUS, POWERFUL, SALVATION, HEALING, GLORIOUS, DEMON CASTING....etc,

How can ANYONE refer to the Name that is above every name as MAGIC or MYSTICAL and say they are walking in the Spirit? Look at this verse...
Phil 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;


I heard a man once call the Name of Jesus "our little magical formula" in a water baptism debate(he was baptist). This sent cold chills down my spine!!!

You are essentially saying the same thing, yet you are Pentecostal. Sorry bro., calling the name of my savior "magic" or "incantation" or "mystical" or any other derogatory term is not a good position for a Christian to take.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 08:17 AM
Because my brother...the Name of Jesus is SACRED, PRECIOUS, POWERFUL, SALVATION, HEALING, GLORIOUS, DEMON CASTING....etc,

How can ANYONE refer to the Name that is above every name as MAGIC or MYSTICAL and say they are walking in the Spirit? Look at this verse...
Phil 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;


I heard a man once call the Name of Jesus "our little magical formula" in a water baptism debate(he was baptist). This sent cold chills down my spine!!!

You are essentially saying the same thing, yet you are Pentecostal. Sorry bro., calling the name of my savior "magic" or "incantation" or "mystical" or any other derogatory term is not a good position for a Christian to take.


Wrong again, Sean. I'm not calling it "magical or mystical" and continuing to say that I am will not change the facts. Rather I am saying that is you who are treating his name as if though it was magical or mystical because you believe that vocalizing it over someone you are baptizing mysteriously takes away their sins.

And what does Phil. 2:10 have to do with this? That is a prophetic reference to the day Jehovah said every knee would bow and every tongue would bow to him. This will be fulfilled when every knee bows at the judgment to Jesus Christ, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead.

Sean, I really encourage to do a study on the significance of the name of Jesus and it's use in prayer, baptizing, etc.

thephnxman
12-24-2014, 08:41 AM
Wrong again, Sean. I'm not calling it "magical or mystical" and continuing to say that I am will not change the facts. Rather I am saying that is you who are treating his name as if though it was magical or mystical because you believe that vocalizing it over someone you are baptizing mysteriously takes away their sins.
And what does Phil. 2:10 have to do with this? That is a prophetic reference to the day Jehovah said every knee would bow and every tongue would bow to him. This will be fulfilled when every knee bows at the judgment to Jesus Christ, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead.
Sean, I really encourage to do a study on the significance of the name of Jesus and it's use in prayer, baptizing, etc.

The Church is stumbling at the NAME.

Phil 2:10: is not only prophetic. The Father KNEW that the Son would honor his NAME,
therefore the Father honored the Son with his NAME! "And you shall call his
NAME Jesus..."; once more, "I am come in my Father's NAME..." And yes, on the Day of
Judgment, "EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue shall confess...": sinners and saints.
Some to condemnation; and the elect to everlasting righteousness.

Sean
12-24-2014, 09:07 AM
Wrong again, Sean. I'm not calling it "magical or mystical" and continuing to say that I am will not change the facts. Rather I am saying that is you who are treating his name as if though it was magical or mystical because you believe that vocalizing it over someone you are baptizing mysteriously takes away their sins.

And what does Phil. 2:10 have to do with this? That is a prophetic reference to the day Jehovah said every knee would bow and every tongue would bow to him. This will be fulfilled when every knee bows at the judgment to Jesus Christ, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead.

Sean, I really encourage to do a study on the significance of the name of Jesus and it's use in prayer, baptizing, etc.



And I encourage you to pray for revelation of the POWER that is in using the Name of Jesus, like these guys had....

Acts 4:7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,

9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;

10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.



Jesus is not just a name, but a POWERFUL name. Powerful enough to heal, deliver or REMIT sins!!!

Sean
12-24-2014, 09:12 AM
Thats why ALL things must be done in His name...Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 09:21 AM
And I encourage you to pray for revelation of the POWER that is in using the Name of Jesus, like these guys had....

Acts 4:7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,

9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;

10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.



Jesus is not just a name, but a POWERFUL name. Powerful enough to heal, deliver or REMIT sins!!!

Again, you stumble all over it and don't see it. These unregenerate Jews were more educated on this than you, sadly. "Name" signifies authority. Our authority is not an abstract name, but a real person. Just look at what Peter said....


even by him [B]doth this man stand here before you whole

By HIM, not the vocalization or sound of his name. It's the same with the forgiveness of sins in baptism. Jesus forgives the sins, not his name. You are separating the name from the one bearing the name.

As far as a baptismal formula goes, the minister could say, "By the authority of Jesus Christ, the only one who forgives sins, I now baptize you.", and it would be just fine.

I know a minster who never says the word "name" at all when baptizing them, but simply quotes Romans 6:4 as the candidate is being immersed.......

4 Therefore we are buried with him, Jesus Christ, by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 09:30 AM
Thats why ALL things must be done in His name...Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Sean, is it necessary to vocalize his name every time you do something in his name in order for him to consider you to have obeyed this verse? If I give a profit a cup of cold water in his name, do I have to say, "In the name of Jesus I give you this cup of cold water" for it to be valid?

shazeep
12-24-2014, 09:56 AM
an excellent point!
But is anyone "qualified to judge whether someone else is lost", OR SAVED, if someone
else outwardly rejects or denies the gospel that saves, or any portion thereof.
to that i would also answer "no" due to the fact that
1) we tend to judge dogmas by their representatives, who may just be door-blockers,
2) this assumes that the Gospel, which is the only one that saves, has been completely understood by those who are familiar with those Words, and is completely codified by those or relative Words--meaning that the popular premise of "i understand it to be like ________, so everyone else better understand it exactly like that, or they are lost"--which is not true, imo, and i have lots of Scripture for these, btw, and i'll just stop at
3)--although i could go on--God judges the heart of a person, and not their verbal adherence to any dogma; and we mostly judge people by their words, and appearances--iow we are not qualified to judge the time of day.

i understand that this comes with the best of intentions. i am aware of the verses--meant for self-application--that often reveal judgemental premises, and i suggest that that is largely their function. There are inevitably more verses that would allow the same accuser to include the same "outward rejecter" rather than exclude them; the choice of premises--and thus salvation--resides with the premise.

i cannot reliably claim that you are 'saved,' simply because your "end" has not come yet; you cannot reliably claim that i am lost simply because i am not comfortable with your framing of the Gospel (for instance). This is the essence of The Vineyard Owner with Two Sons, isn't it?

ok and what's this "you err, not knowing the Scriptures" jazz? are you for real? i mean, you're right, but listen to yourself. do you really even want to be that guy? A gigantic, animated index finger?

mfblume
12-24-2014, 09:57 AM
Do you folks feel it is necessary to vocalize Jesus' name when casting out a devil? Ever try it?

shazeep
12-24-2014, 10:01 AM
exorcism? arg
Wrong again, Sean. I'm not calling it "magical or mystical" and continuing to say that I am will not change the facts. Rather I am saying that is you who are treating his name as if though it was magical or mystical because you believe that vocalizing it over someone you are baptizing mysteriously takes away their sins.

And what does Phil. 2:10 have to do with this? That is a prophetic reference to the day Jehovah said every knee would bow and every tongue would bow to him. This will be fulfilled when every knee bows at the judgment to Jesus Christ, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead.

Sean, I really encourage to do a study on the significance of the name of Jesus and it's use in prayer, baptizing, etc.really, i think you guys are pretty much in agreement, and just illuminating two sides of a coin. There are such things as Jesus cults, as weird as that sounds. All verbiage and no action, etc. Known by their fruit.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 10:11 AM
Do you folks feel it is necessary to vocalize Jesus' name when casting out a devil? Ever try it?


Apples and oranges. We don't cast out people's sins. And vocalizing the name of Jesus to demons is not a given they will leave. Just ask the sons of Sceva in Acts. They had no authority to use the name of Jesus because they did not know Jesus by way of the new birth. Therefore, by your thinking, a sincerely repentant sinner could be baptized with the name of Jesus invoked over them and still remain in their sins if the the one baptizing was not right with God.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 10:25 AM
Apples and oranges. We don't cast out people's sins. And vocalizing the name of Jesus to demons is not a given they will leave. Just ask the sons of Sceva in Acts. They had no authority to use the name of Jesus because they did not know Jesus by way of the new birth. Therefore, by your thinking, a sincerely repentant sinner could be baptized with the name of Jesus invoked over them and still remain in their sins if the the one baptizing was not right with God.

I did not say we cast out people's sins like you tried implying from my post before about this same issue. I am asking if the name needs to be vocalized or not when casting out a devil.

Yes or no?

mfblume
12-24-2014, 10:34 AM
I did not say we cast out people's sins like you tried implying from my post before about this same issue. I am asking if the name needs to be vocalized or not when casting out a devil.

Yes or no?

No Takers?

Originalist
12-24-2014, 10:42 AM
No Takers?

I'd say that if this is your first time encountering a particular demon, then you certainly need to tell him by what authority your telling him to get lost. But if you encounter the same demon later in a different person, he already knows you and the family name by which you are called, and that he has to obey your commands ("Paul I know").

Again, it is not the sound of the name of Jesus that makes devils tremble and flee, else they would have had to have obeyed the sons of Sceva.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 10:52 AM
I'd say that if this is your first time encountering a particular demon, then you certainly need to tell him by what authority your telling him to get lost. But if you encounter the same demon later in a different person, he already knows you and the family name by which you are called, and that he has to obey your commands ("Paul I know").

Again, it is not the sound of the name of Jesus that makes devils tremble and flee, else they would have had to have obeyed the sons of Sceva.

No one said it is the sound of His name.

Again yes or no? Does the name have to be vocalized? Is that a no, Originalist?

Jermyn Davidson
12-24-2014, 10:59 AM
No Takers?

I would not be willing to attempt such a task without using the Name of Jesus Christ.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 11:01 AM
No one said it is the sound of His name.

Again yes or no? Does the name have to be vocalized? Is that a no, Originalist?

Again Mike, I feel your question is asked from a faulty premise.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 11:05 AM
Again Mike, I feel your question is asked from a faulty premise.

The premise you are thinking of is what I have already stated is not the case at all. It has nothing to do with casting out sin. So, without trying to ascertain my premise, just say yes or no. :) THEN I will proceed to present my case.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 11:05 AM
I would not be willing to attempt such a task without using the Name of Jesus Christ.

Thank you. Anybody else?

I will make my point afterwards.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 11:07 AM
The premise you are thinking of is what I have already stated is not the case at all. It has nothing to do with casting out sin. So, without trying to ascertain my premise, just say yes or no. :) THEN I will proceed to present my case.


I was referring to the premise that we can only exercise the authority Christ has given us by vocalizing his name.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 11:11 AM
Let me clarify. I'd say that normatively one would indeed invoke the name of Jesus when confronting a demon. But personally I would do so by informing him from the start that I am a disciple of Jesus Christ endowed with authority to cast out devils. After that there would be no need to repeat over and over "in the name of Jesus!" which can itself become vain repetition.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 11:14 AM
Let me clarify. I'd say that normatively one would indeed invoke the name of Jesus when confronting a demon. But personally I would do so by informing him from the start that I am a disciple of Jesus Christ endowed with authority to cast out devils. After that there would be no need to repeat over and over "in the name of Jesus!" which can itself become vain repetition.

Cannot answer yes or no, can you?

mfblume
12-24-2014, 11:14 AM
I was referring to the premise that we can only exercise the authority Christ has given us by vocalizing his name.

That was not my premise either. Why did you think it was?

good samaritan
12-24-2014, 11:24 AM
Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee:In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.. 7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up:and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

If originalist is trying to say that the name can be used without the authority I agree. For instance if someone is baptized in the name Jesus Ramirez, that isn't the Jesus we need for salvation. If he is saying that we are given authority without the name that is contrary to the Bible. Peter had more supernatural experience through God than anyone on this earth today, but yet he still vocalized Jesus name here in the scripture.

I think that originalist probably sees the importance of the name. It seems he is trying give a deeper philosophy then is necessary. We should call on his name everyday, but it is up to God where his authority is used. If we don't acknowledge his name we disgrace his person. Have you ever been referred to in a group acquaintances as a he or him when they know your name? To me if it is done repeatedly it is insulting. I have name for a reason so use it when you refer to me.

By using His name when you speak of Him you acknowledge Him. By calling on His name in baptism you are being obedient. Originalist would probably be getting less debate if he would have said the use of the name is in vain if we truly don't know Him and don't experience His work in our lives.The name is important because of who it belongs to.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 11:30 AM
I thought it was a given that people who invoke the name and who have no faith are wasting their time.

Act 19:13 KJV Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

If simply saying the name would do things, then these men would not have failed in their "exorcism."

good samaritan
12-24-2014, 11:34 AM
I thought it was a given that people who invoke the name and who have no faith are wasting their time.

Act 19:13 KJV Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

If simply saying the name would do things, then these men would not have failed in their "exorcism."

I think that is really originalists point. Sometimes you can go so far trying to explain your point of view that you can leave the simple truth.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 11:39 AM
I believe that vocalizing the name in and of itself does nothing so much that if someone said "In the name of Jesus Christ" it would be meaningless if they had no faith in the issue. I spoke to people who had no faith when they were baptized in Jesus' name and did it due to pressure, and I told them they just got wet. The name has to be spoken, though not for the sake of sound waves, and it's useless without faith.

More to say, but some aren't answering my question. ;)

Originalist
12-24-2014, 11:47 AM
Cannot answer yes or no, can you?

People who play the "cannot answer yes or no" card often do so when they've been presented with an argument they do not want to consider.

It is a bully tactic.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 11:51 AM
People who play the "cannot answer yes or no" card often do so when they've been presented with an argument they do not want to consider.

It is a bully tactic.

You really do assume too much. First my premise and now this. Whatever you want to believe. Facts are facts. You just can;t answer yes or no. It means your argument is shakey and you realize it to a degree.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 12:00 PM
Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee:In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.. 7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up:and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

If originalist is trying to say that the name can be used without the authority I agree. For instance if someone is baptized in the name Jesus Ramirez, that isn't the Jesus we need for salvation. If he is saying that we are given authority without the name that is contrary to the Bible. Peter had more supernatural experience through God than anyone on this earth today, but yet he still vocalized Jesus name here in the scripture.

I think that originalist probably sees the importance of the name. It seems he is trying give a deeper philosophy then is necessary. We should call on his name everyday, but it is up to God where his authority is used. If we don't acknowledge his name we disgrace his person. Have you ever been referred to in a group acquaintances as a he or him when they know your name? To me if it is done repeatedly it is insulting. I have name for a reason so use it when you refer to me.

By using His name when you speak of Him you acknowledge Him. By calling on His name in baptism you are being obedient. Originalist would probably be getting less debate if he would have said the use of the name is in vain if we truly don't know Him and don't experience His work in our lives.The name is important because of who it belongs to.


I can accept much of what you say here.

My biggest beefs are with people who, when trying to cast out a demon, scream "in the name of Jesus!" at the top of their lungs over and over and over like that is somehow going to intimidate the demon into leaving. That's not what constitutes using the authority of his name.

Secondly, concerning Jesus name baptism, people who believe that the blood of Jesus is somehow applied mysteriously to the sinner through the invoking of the name in baptism are in error. I'm not picking on Apostolics here. I know Trinitarians who believe the same thing happens when the sinner invokes (calls on) the name of Lord at repentance.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 12:01 PM
You really do assume too much. First my premise and now this. Whatever you want to believe. Facts are facts. You just can;t answer yes or no. It means your argument is shakey and you realize it to a degree.


I'm not shaky at all. I'm deliberate and thoughtful in my responses because doctrine deserves such an approach.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 12:06 PM
Let me clarify. I'd say that normatively one would indeed invoke the name of Jesus when confronting a demon. But personally I would do so by informing him from the start that I am a disciple of Jesus Christ endowed with authority to cast out devils. After that there would be no need to repeat over and over "in the name of Jesus!" which can itself become vain repetition.

I fail to see how this was not an adequate answer.

good samaritan
12-24-2014, 12:56 PM
I can accept much of what you say here.

My biggest beefs are with people who, when trying to cast out a demon, scream "in the name of Jesus!" at the top of their lungs over and over and over like that is somehow going to intimidate the demon into leaving. That's not what constitutes using the authority of his name.

What constitutes using the authority to his name? I only know how to call on the name. I don't how to use the authority because that is up to Him. I have prayed for many things in my life with faith in Jesus and using his name, but God did not do what I asked. I believe in His authority and His will and sometimes it is not going to have the outcome that I want.

You may not be meaning to, but your argument sounds like the name is pointless. People will never know when God is going to move supernaturally, and many who are baptized in Jesus name may not make it to heaven, but that does not change the fact that we should call on his name literally. Just because a man repeatedly yells out the name of Jesus and nothing is evident who are we to say that it was in vain.(Many times that is done out of desperation) I have no beef with anyone who calls on the name of Jesus unless it is to profane it.

Even muslims and other religions believe in the names of their god. Names are important and we should use them whether or not we have the authority or not at that moment. The next time my children are sick I am going to pray in the name of Jesus for their healing regardless of how vain someone else thinks it is. God's "authority" or "will" is up to Him.

P.S. you are making this more complicated then what it needs to be. You should encourage people to call upon Jesus name because that shows that they are placing their faith in who He is.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 01:05 PM
What constitutes using the authority to his name? I only know how to call on the name. I don't how to use the authority because that is up to Him. I have prayed for many things in my life with faith in Jesus and using his name, but God did not do what I asked. I believe in His authority and His will and sometimes it is not going to have the outcome that I want.

You may not be meaning to, but your argument sounds like the name is pointless. People will never know when God is going to move supernaturally, and many who are baptized in Jesus name may not make it to heaven, but that does not change the fact that we should call on his name literally. Just because a man repeatedly yells out the name of Jesus and nothing is evident who are we to say that it was in vain.(Many times that is done out of desperation) I have no beef with anyone who calls on the name of Jesus unless it is to profane it.

Even muslims and other religions believe in the names of their god. Names are important and we should use them whether or not we have the authority or not at that moment. The next time my children are sick I am going to pray in the name of Jesus for their healing regardless of how vain someone else thinks it is. God's "authority" or "will" is up to Him.

P.S. you are making this more complicated then what it needs to be. You should encourage people to call upon Jesus name because that shows that they are placing their faith in who He is.

Wow. Either I am not articulating my points adequately or you are having a hard time assimilating information. If I encounter a demon possessed person, and I address the demons by saying, "I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, endowed by him with authority to cast out demons, and I command you to leave now", I have used the name (authority). I do not need to keep saying the name over and over and over. It won't hurt anything if I do, but it is not necessary either.

If the demon resists, I have found that worshiping Jesus Christ in the demon's presence is more effective than just repeating his name.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 01:13 PM
Why are some pictures of fanatics and errant people always brought up whenever something that can be done the correct way is mentioned?

The truth is that speaking the name of Jesus in faith that God will work, is not putting faith in our sound waves as though God need not be involved. God's Word is powerful enough to create. I believe speaking the name of Jesus in genuine and correct faith actually moves God to work and accomplish a supernatural feat. We are labourers together with Christ. We cannot do anything without Him. He's the vine that supplies the life into us the branches.

Invoking His name is part of what is required to see God move, just because He said so! Speaking His name in and of itself does nothing, as is evident from the exorcists who spoke His name in Acts 19 and accomplished nothing.

But when a person speaks the name of Jesus to cast out devils, for example, something actually happens supernaturally by God that would not happen if the name was not invoked. Again, do not confuse this with mere sound waves as though God's power is not involved. God sees us speak His name in faith that we are one with Him by the work of the cross, and HE STEPS IN AND WORKS! That is a far cry from "abracadabra".

The demons feel a power overwhelm them and they leave.

Speaking the actual name "JESUS" was implied when Jesus told us to cast out devils in His name. The reference to "in my name" is found in the command to cast out devils as well as to baptize people. That does not mean the casting out is common as though we cast out sin. Far from it. It simply means baptizing people must include the actual utterance of the name TO SEE GOD'S POWER WORK. God steps in and no sins are cast out (lo) but He puts us into the death of Christ and operates a spiritual circumcision in our hearts to remove the body of sins of the flesh, and not physical flesh as in natural circumcision. God actually does something.

The actual working of God in His power is what is common in casting out devils while speaking Jesus' name as well as baptism while speaking that name. The commonality IS NOT something cast out, as Originalist thought I implied.

Because Jesus commanded us to cast out devils in His name as well as baptise in His name, and because we read Paul actually invoking that name (whether the demons knew him or not) in obedience to Christ's command, we know that actually invoking the name must be administered in baptism.

We never see Paul cast a devil out without invoking the name Jesus, as you implied can be done, Originalist, if the devils already know us. They knew Paul. He still used the invocation.

Again, GOD DOES A WORK when we invoke that name. He does a work that simply He does not do when the name is not invoked. One brother agreed he would not seek to attempt to cast out a devil without invoking the name. By the same token, I would never seek to baptize someone without invoking the name. It's not the sound waves that do anything. It's HIS NAME THROUGH FAITH IN HIS NAME that moves GOD TO DO THE WORK described in Romans 6 and Col 2:11-12, and the remission of sins in Acts 2:38. And without repentance as well, it cannot happen.

good samaritan
12-24-2014, 01:13 PM
Wow. Either I am not articulating my points adequately or you are having a hard time assimilating information. If I encounter a demon possessed person, and I address the demons by saying, "I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, endowed by him with authority to cast out demons, and I command you to leave now", I have used the name (authority). I do not need to keep saying the name over and over and over. It won't hurt anything if I do, but it is not necessary either.

I agree about the repitiveness, but most people would probably do it because they didn't get immediate results. I don't condemn them it shows faith. You sound like you don't have to use the name because you somehow possess the authority of God.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 01:14 PM
Wow. Either I am not articulating my points adequately or you are having a hard time assimilating information. If I encounter a demon possessed person, and I address the demons by saying, "I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, endowed by him with authority to cast out demons, and I command you to leave now", I have used the name (authority). I do not need to keep saying the name over and over and over. It won't hurt anything if I do, but it is not necessary either.

If the demon resists, I have found that worshiping Jesus Christ in his presence is more effective than just repeating his name.

The name does not have to be said over and over, but it does have to be said in faith, for God to step in and work through you. He just demands it.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 01:15 PM
I fail to see how this was not an adequate answer.

I fail to see, then, why you just could not say yes.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 01:32 PM
A post full of misrepresentation and straw man arguments. In particular the comment below....





We never see Paul cast a devil out without invoking the name Jesus, as you implied can be done, Originalist, if the devils already know us. They knew Paul. He still used the invocation.

.

I will now repost what I actually said.....

If I encounter a demon possessed person, and I address the demons by saying, "I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, endowed by him with authority to cast out demons, and I command you to leave now", I have used the name (authority). I do not need to keep saying the name over and over and over. It won't hurt anything if I do, but it is not necessary either.

If the demon resists, I have found that worshiping Jesus Christ in the demon's presence is more effective than just repeating his name.

By repeating the name over and over, no more supernatural power will be released by God to aid me against the demon than if I only said his name once. Either I have the authority to cast him out or I don't. If the demon tries to resist , I will begin to worship the Lord creating an atmosphere he simply will not be able to abide in.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 01:52 PM
16 Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a female slave who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling.

17 She followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.”

18 She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her. (Acts 16:16-18)

Here Paul used the authority he possessed by virtue of the fact he was a Spirit filled child of God. It wasn't that anything supernatural had to be released by invoking the name of Jesus. When the demon realized by what authority Paul commanded him to leave, he knew he had no choice but to go. He knew that greater was he that was already IN Paul! Paul did not have to repeat the name of Jesus over and over like we think we have to.

Now certainly there is a necessity of using the name in order to demonstrate to unregenerate witnesses the authority that Jesus Christ possesses. This is why the Lord "confirmed the word with signs following".

I find the story of the sons of Sceva to be interesting, in particular the reaction this incident brought to the witnesses and others in that region that received word of it....

17 When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor.

18 Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done.

19 A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas.[c]

20 In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.

This incident made them realize that it was not the name of Jesus itself that held power, but the one who bore that precious name, and that the apostles were endowed with authority by the one who bears that name (Jesus himself) because they were his followers!

thephnxman
12-24-2014, 02:00 PM
Why are some pictures of fanatics and errant people always brought up whenever something that can be done the correct way is mentioned?
The truth is that speaking the name of Jesus in faith that God will work, is not putting faith in our sound waves as though God need not be involved. God's Word is powerful enough to create. I believe speaking the name of Jesus in genuine and correct faith actually moves God to work and accomplish a supernatural feat. We are labourers together with Christ. We cannot do anything without Him. He's the vine that supplies the life into us the branches.
Invoking His name is part of what is required to see God move, just because He said so! Speaking His name in and of itself does nothing, as is evident from the exorcists who spoke His name in Acts 19 and accomplished nothing.
But when a person speaks the name of Jesus to cast out devils, for example, something actually happens supernaturally by God that would not happen if the name was not invoked. Again, do not confuse this with mere sound waves as though God's power is not involved. God sees us speak His name in faith that we are one with Him by the work of the cross, and HE STEPS IN AND WORKS! That is a far cry from "abracadabra".
The demons feel a power overwhelm them and they leave.
Speaking the actual name "JESUS" was implied when Jesus told us to cast out devils in His name. The reference to "in my name" is found in the command to cast out devils as well as to baptize people. That does not mean the casting out is common as though we cast out sin. Far from it. It simply means baptizing people must include the actual utterance of the name TO SEE GOD'S POWER WORK. God steps in and no sins are cast out (lo) but He puts us into the death of Christ and operates a spiritual circumcision in our hearts to remove the body of sins of the flesh, and not physical flesh as in natural circumcision. God actually does something.
The actual working of God in His power is what is common in casting out devils while speaking Jesus' name as well as baptism while speaking that name. The commonality IS NOT something cast out, as Originalist thought I implied.
Because Jesus commanded us to cast out devils in His name as well as baptise in His name, and because we read Paul actually invoking that name (whether the demons knew him or not) in obedience to Christ's command, we know that actually invoking the name must be administered in baptism.
We never see Paul cast a devil out without invoking the name Jesus, as you implied can be done, Originalist, if the devils already know us. They knew Paul. He still used the invocation.
Again, GOD DOES A WORK when we invoke that name. He does a work that simply He does not do when the name is not invoked. One brother agreed he would not seek to attempt to cast out a devil without invoking the name. By the same token, I would never seek to baptize someone without invoking the name. It's not the sound waves that do anything. It's HIS NAME THROUGH FAITH IN HIS NAME that moves GOD TO DO THE WORK described in Romans 6 and Col 2:11-12, and the remission of sins in Acts 2:38. And without repentance as well, it cannot happen.

Good post. If I my interject...

"Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship..."
We are the work of God through the very work He performed in the body of
the Lamb of God.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my NAME shall they cast out devils,
they shall speak with new tongues..." And just WHO are they that will cast out devils
and speak with new tongues, etc.? They are the very ones who believed
and were baptized and received the promise of salvation!

shazeep
12-24-2014, 02:14 PM
well wadr, you have just assumed that last part--Scripture just calls them "them that believe."
But to be fair, i doubt Christian exorcism, and am much more impressed with devils being cast out by means that are mostly unfamiliar to us; ie the way "mom" does it.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 02:17 PM
Good post. If I my interject...

"Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship..."
We are the work of God through the very work He performed in the body of
the Lamb of God.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my NAME shall they cast out devils,
they shall speak with new tongues..." And just WHO are they that will cast out devils
and speak with new tongues, etc.? They are the very ones who believed
and were baptized and received the promise of salvation!

"In my name" is the same as saying "by my authority".

How does one speak in tongues in his name otherwise? Did you have to command yourself in the name of Jesus to speak in tongues? No. By the authority of Jesus himself you did so. He authorized you to do so!

mfblume
12-24-2014, 02:42 PM
A post full of misrepresentation and straw man arguments. In particular the comment below....





I will now repost what I actually said.....



By repeating the name over and over, no more supernatural power will be released by God to aid me against the demon than if I only said his name once. Either I have the authority to cast him out or I don't. If the demon tries to resist , I will begin to worship the Lord creating an atmosphere he simply will not be able to abide in.

If something is said in mistake it's not the same as a strawman. I thought you implied the name not be said at all for the devil to be cast out. But if that is not the case, then thanks for the correction.

At any rate, there is the demand for the name to be invoked in baptism to see God move.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 02:43 PM
Good post. If I my interject...

"Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship..."
We are the work of God through the very work He performed in the body of
the Lamb of God.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my NAME shall they cast out devils,
they shall speak with new tongues..." And just WHO are they that will cast out devils
and speak with new tongues, etc.? They are the very ones who believed
and were baptized and received the promise of salvation!

Amen!

mfblume
12-24-2014, 02:44 PM
Here Paul used the authority he possessed by virtue of the fact he was a Spirit filled child of God. It wasn't that anything supernatural had to be released by invoking the name of Jesus. When the demon realized by what authority Paul commanded him to leave, he knew he had no choice but to go. He knew that greater was he that was already IN Paul! Paul did not have to repeat the name of Jesus over and over like we think we have to.

Now certainly there is a necessity of using the name in order to demonstrate to unregenerate witnesses the authority that Jesus Christ possesses. This is why the Lord "confirmed the word with signs following".

I find the story of the sons of Sceva to be interesting, in particular the reaction this incident brought to the witnesses and others in that region that received word of it....



This incident made them realize that it was not the name of Jesus itself that held power, but the one who bore that precious name, and that the apostles were endowed with authority by the one who bears that name (Jesus himself) because they were his followers!

I think the name being spoken does move God to act. But like I said, the utterance of the name without faith is useless.

Originalist
12-24-2014, 03:07 PM
If something is said in mistake it's not the same as a strawman. I thought you implied the name not be said at all for the devil to be cast out. But if that is not the case, then thanks for the correction.

At any rate, there is the demand for the name to be invoked in baptism to see God move.


Invoking of the name AKA "calling on the name", as in, calling out to the Lord in repentance confessing that he has indeed been exalted and is Lord.

If you mean that unless the baptizer says "in the name of Jesus" while baptizing the person, that "God does not move", as in, God does not forgive the person being baptized of their sins, in spite of their faith, repentance and submission, and in spite of the fact that they go on to receive the Holy Ghost......then that is error (if that is what you mean).

Either way, I esteem you as a brother and do respect you.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 04:39 PM
Invoking of the name AKA "calling on the name", as in, calling out to the Lord in repentance confessing that he has indeed been exalted and is Lord.

If you mean that unless the baptizer says "in the name of Jesus" while baptizing the person, that "God does not move", as in, God does not forgive the person being baptized of their sins, in spite of their faith, repentance and submission, and in spite of the fact that they go on to receive the Holy Ghost......then that is error (if that is what you mean).

Either way, I esteem you as a brother and do respect you.

Let me get this straight. You believe that the baptizee is meant to call on the name of the Lord as per Acts 22:16? And does that imply the person doing the baptism does not need to call on the name in invocation? If so, then the person is baptizing him/herself, and that does not work.

The minister must invoke the name for God to act and move to do the washing away or remission of sins, otherwise the person doing the baptizing did not obey the Lords command to baptize people in Jesus' name. When devils are cast out to move the Lord into action the person being delivered does not call out the name of the Lord. That damsel did not call out in Jesus' name. So when Jesus told people to baptize in His name He did not mean for the candidate to call out His name.

When a person is baptized in the name of Jesus, that person is not the one calling out the name. They are BEING BAPTIZED BY SOMEONE in the name of Jesus. This puts the onus on the baptizer to speak the name.

thephnxman
12-24-2014, 04:47 PM
Invoking of the name AKA " calling on the name", as in, calling out to the Lord in repentance confessing that he has indeed been exalted and is Lord.
If you mean that unless the baptizer says "in the name of Jesus" while baptizing the person, that "God does not move", as in, God does not forgive the person being baptized of their sins, in spite of their faith, repentance and submission, and in spite of the fact that they go on to receive the Holy Ghost......then that is error (if that is what you mean).
Either way, I esteem you as a brother and do respect you.

I see you know scripture, and I must also assume you believe that Peter was full of the
Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, and spoke by the Holy Spirit when he stood before
rulers, elders, and scribes saying, "...for there is none other NAME...in which we
must be saved". Or when the Lord said, "...that repentance and remission of sins should
be preached in his NAME..." Do you believe the apostles were silent when it came to the
preaching of the NAME: or are we to be ashamed to "...shout it from the housetop"? Or
should we conform to the morés of the world and give them their moment of silence? Don't you
know that that (moment of silence) is asking the christian to shut up? I believe that.

obriencp
12-24-2014, 09:20 PM
The name does not have to be said over and over, but it does have to be said in faith, for God to step in and work through you. He just demands it.


At any rate, there is the demand for the name to be invoked in baptism to see God move.

I think the name being spoken does move God to act. But like I said, the utterance of the name without faith is useless.

I've bolded the areas in MFBlumes recent posts are troubling to me. It seems he's implying that God will do something if we literally speak His name, but won't if we don't. If God's will isn't for something to happen and we "invoke" his name because we believe we're in his will, do you really believe He will do what we want because we used His name? I believe Originalist took issue too and replied below.

Invoking of the name AKA "calling on the name", as in, calling out to the Lord in repentance confessing that he has indeed been exalted and is Lord.

If you mean that unless the baptizer says "in the name of Jesus" while baptizing the person, that "God does not move", as in, God does not forgive the person being baptized of their sins, in spite of their faith, repentance and submission, and in spite of the fact that they go on to receive the Holy Ghost......then that is error (if that is what you mean).

Either way, I esteem you as a brother and do respect you.

Let me get this straight. You believe that the baptizee is meant to call on the name of the Lord as per Acts 22:16? And does that imply the person doing the baptism does not need to call on the name in invocation? If so, then the person is baptizing him/herself, and that does not work.

The minister must invoke the name for God to act and move to do the washing away or remission of sins, otherwise the person doing the baptizing did not obey the Lords command to baptize people in Jesus' name. When devils are cast out to move the Lord into action the person being delivered does not call out the name of the Lord. That damsel did not call out in Jesus' name. So when Jesus told people to baptize in His name He did not mean for the candidate to call out His name.

When a person is baptized in the name of Jesus, that person is not the one calling out the name. They are BEING BAPTIZED BY SOMEONE in the name of Jesus. This puts the onus on the baptizer to speak the name.

Here again, if the repentant person is being baptized and placing their faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross for them, but the baptizer doesn't physically say "in the name of Jesus," their sins are unforgiven?

You can't have it both ways MFBlume. In some instances you place the emphasis on the intent and faith of the person acting according to God's will even if they don't invoke the name, but in other posts you seem to over emphasize the importance of physically invoking the name.

If we are in tune with God's will and functioning in the authority of His name, what we pray "in Jesus' name" (either authoritative or literally speaking) will come to pass. If we're not in tune with His will, physically praying for something in the "name of Jesus" will not force God to honor our prayer and alter His will for that situation.

mfblume
12-24-2014, 10:30 PM
I've bolded the areas in MFBlumes recent posts are troubling to me. It seems he's implying that God will do something if we literally speak His name, but won't if we don't. If God's will isn't for something to happen and we "invoke" his name because we believe we're in his will, do you really believe He will do what we want because we used His name?

How on earth can it not be God's will to do his work when we baptize someone in his name for you to say it may not be his will? I am talking about doing things in his name that he commanded us to do. Baptism in this case. You're taking this way out there.

I believe Originalist took issue too and replied below.

Here again, if the repentant person is being baptized and placing their faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross for them, but the baptizer doesn't physically say "in the name of Jesus," their sins are unforgiven? Show me where you get the authority to say otherwise.

You can't have it both ways MFBlume. In some instances you place the emphasis on the intent and faith of the person acting according to God's will even if they don't invoke the name, but in other posts you seem to over emphasize the importance of physically invoking the name. It's both that are required.

If we are in tune with God's will and functioning in the authority of His name, what we pray "in Jesus' name" (either authoritative or literally speaking) will come to pass. If we're not in tune with His will, physically praying for something in the "name of Jesus" will not force God to honor our prayer and alter His will for that situation.That is moot when it comes to baptism in his name.

It's always his will to do the work he does in baptism when everyone involved is there for salvation. How can you even apply this reasoning to baptism? We're talking about baptism.

Of course a thing had to be God's will before he works. That's a given. He won't work just because we invoke his name. But he also demands it in baptism.