No Jesus Name Invoked, No Valid Baptism?

[TyronePalmer]

Ok so we all know that the NAME of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit is JESUS.

So if a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ is baptized by someone who does not know this truth says, "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" does that make the believers baptism invalid in the sight of God?

This is my case by the way, I was baptized in water by full immersion, I confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and the person baptizing me said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit", I didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until eight years later. Now, one might say I need to be re-baptized in Jesus name only, but technically I was, just because the one baptizing me did not explicitly say "I now baptize you in the name of Jesus", I was still baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit which is JESUS!

I also participated in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ according to Romans 6:3-4

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

And what about the Ethiopian Eunuch?

He was baptized by Philip the Evangelist and the text does not say the Eunuch was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 8:36-38

"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him."

Was the Eunuch's baptism valid?

I certainly believe it was, the Eunuch may not have received the Holy Spirit at that point though, because earlier in the chapter we see those who were baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' as the text says, but did not receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL the apostles were called down and they land hands on the people and prayed for them to be baptized with the Spirit.

Perhaps God allowed these events to be recorded exactly as they happened so that we don't become too dogmatic about baptism or receiving the Holy Spirit? Or maybe Philip did say, 'in Jesus name', but it's not recorded?

Like Cornelius, his family, and the rest of the people in his house received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water, and not one hand was laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit.

So those who say, Trinitarians for example, should be re-baptized in Jesus name should re-think their beliefs in light of the scriptures, that show us God doesn't do things exactly the same way every time and that we don't need to get stuck in some formulaic tradition that may cause us to believe that if a person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, has an invalid baptism.

[Originalist]

Ok so we all know that the NAME of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit is JESUS.


The word "name" in Matthew 28:19 is not referring to what someone is called. It means authority. Both Trinitarians and Oneness miss what Jesus is saying. We must look at the previous verse (18) to understand the context of verse 19. In verse 18, Jesus is referring to his coming exaltation/glorification, where he "sits at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool". And of course, we all know "right hand" is figurative. In verse 19, Jesus is referring to the same authority he spoke of being given in verse 18. Who gave it to him? The Father, the only true God. Thus in verse 19, Jesus in saying, "Because I've been given all authority in Heaven and Earth, I command you to go teach all nations and baptize, endowed with the authority that is the Father's, that he gave to me his Son, and will be made manifest through you by the Holy Ghost you will soon receive." Since Peter understood that Jesus was saying that all of God's authority was now operating exclusively through him, he could simply and more correctly command the people in Acts 2 to be baptized, "upon the authority of Jesus Christ" or , in his name. Trinitarians stumble over this by thinking Jesus was teaching a baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19. Apostolics miss it by calming Jesus was trying to teach us what God's real "name" is in that verse. Both miss the context completely.

So if a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ is baptized by someone who does not know this truth says, "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" does that make the believers baptism invalid in the sight of God?


No. Because he is not telling a lie. He is indeed baptizing them by the authority that the Father gave to the Son (verse 18) and is now operating through Spirit-filled believers by way of the Spirit of Christ. However, it certainly would be more appropriate for the baptizer to give Christ the credit for having all of that authority.

This is my case by the way, I was baptized in water by full immersion, I confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and the person baptizing me said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit", I didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until eight years later. Now, one might say I need to be re-baptized in Jesus name only, but technically I was, just because the one baptizing me did not explicitly say "I now baptize you in the name of Jesus", I was still baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit which is JESUS!

I also participated in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ according to Romans 6:3-4

Those on here who link remission of sins to a proper invocation by the baptizer will claim God does not forgive those who were baptized as you describe. But then they turn around and claim credit for forgiving the one who was baptized.

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

And what about the Ethiopian Eunuch?

He was baptized by Philip the Evangelist and the text does not say the Eunuch was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 8:36-38

"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

HIS confession of Jesus being the Son of God is the only "invoking of the name" that was necessary for his sins to be forgiven when he was baptized.

So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him."

Was the Eunuch's baptism valid?

I certainly believe it was, the Eunuch may not have received the Holy Spirit at that point though, because earlier in the chapter we see those who were baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' as the text says, but did not receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL the apostles were called down and they land hands on the people and prayed for them to be baptized with the Spirit.

Perhaps God allowed these events to be recorded exactly as they happened so that we don't become too dogmatic about baptism or receiving the Holy Spirit? Or maybe Philip did say, 'in Jesus name', but it's not recorded?

Like Cornelius, his family, and the rest of the people in his house received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water, and not one hand was laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit.

So those who say, Trinitarians for example, should be re-baptized in Jesus name should re-think their beliefs in light of the scriptures, that show us God doesn't do things exactly the same way every time and that we don't need to get stuck in some formulaic tradition that may cause us to believe that if a person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, has an invalid baptism.


I believe we as Apostolics should re-examine our "name" view of Matthew 28:19. Then we will be in a more scriptural position to exhort our Trinitarians brothers to use the name Jesus in their baptismal invocations. Even from a Trinitarian standpoint, using the name Jesus in a baptismal invocation makes more sense, for the reasons I cited.

:thumbsup

[Aquila]

Ok so we all know that the NAME of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit is JESUS.

So if a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ is baptized by someone who does not know this truth says, "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" does that make the believers baptism invalid in the sight of God?

This is my case by the way, I was baptized in water by full immersion, I confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and the person baptizing me said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit", I didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until eight years later. Now, one might say I need to be re-baptized in Jesus name only, but technically I was, just because the one baptizing me did not explicitly say "I now baptize you in the name of Jesus", I was still baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit which is JESUS!

I also participated in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ according to Romans 6:3-4

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

And what about the Ethiopian Eunuch?

He was baptized by Philip the Evangelist and the text does not say the Eunuch was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 8:36-38

"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him."

Was the Eunuch's baptism valid?

I certainly believe it was, the Eunuch may not have received the Holy Spirit at that point though, because earlier in the chapter we see those who were baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' as the text says, but did not receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL the apostles were called down and they land hands on the people and prayed for them to be baptized with the Spirit.

Perhaps God allowed these events to be recorded exactly as they happened so that we don't become too dogmatic about baptism or receiving the Holy Spirit? Or maybe Philip did say, 'in Jesus name', but it's not recorded?

Like Cornelius, his family, and the rest of the people in his house received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water, and not one hand was laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit.

So those who say, Trinitarians for example, should be re-baptized in Jesus name should re-think their beliefs in light of the scriptures, that show us God doesn't do things exactly the same way every time and that we don't need to get stuck in some formulaic tradition that may cause us to believe that if a person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, has an invalid baptism.

Dude, just be water baptized in Jesus name, it identifies you with Him, and Him alone. You're currently identified with the Trinity doctrine. Lol

[Aquila]

The Trinity is a pagan notion adopted by really Hellenized scholars.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bThWd1HgnTY

[TyronePalmer]

I believe we as Apostolics should re-examine our "name" view of Matthew 28:19. Then we will be in a more scriptural position to exhort our Trinitarians brothers to use the name Jesus in their baptismal invocations. Even from a Trinitarian standpoint, using the name Jesus in a baptismal invocation makes more sense, for the reasons I cited.

:thumbsup

Yes! Great explanation of the authority of Christ, that helped me so much, but how many of those who believe in the trinity would be willing to listen in the first place?

It seems it's getting harder and harder for people to change their minds about anything these days!

But perhaps it is more important for the one being baptized to invoke the name of Jesus, like the Ethiopian Eunuch, than the one who is baptizing.

Jesus knows the hearts of all, even Simon the sorcerer believed and was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but his heart wasn't right!

[Originalist]

Dude, just be water baptized in Jesus name, it identifies you with Him, and Him alone. You're currently identified with the Trinity doctrine. Lol

Contextually, he is NOT being identified with the Trinity doctrine. He is being identified with the authority that the Father (the One True God) gave to his Son, Jesus of Nazareth by exalting him, and is operating in believers who are indwelt by the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Christ.

[Originalist]

The Trinity is a pagan notion adopted by really Hellenized scholars.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bThWd1HgnTY

Over time, many Trinitarian views have evolved to mirror the oneness view, while still self-styling themselves "Trinitarian". You seem to be using the same argument here that others have used to protest Christians celebrating Christmas.

[TyronePalmer]

Dude, just be water baptized in Jesus name, it identifies you with Him, and Him alone. You're currently identified with the Trinity doctrine. Lol

Exactly why I posted this topic, Jesus knows my heart, as He did when I was baptized. So you are saying I'm identified with a doctrine and not Jesus Christ at all, the One whom I confessed and believed upon with all my heart when I got baptized.

As long as the believer has been taught Jesus beforehand and knows the reason he/she is being baptized, it shouldn't matter if the believer is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or Jesus, to me they are the same.

What should matter is how GOD views the heart and the baptism, not what man thinks.

[Originalist]

Yes! Great explanation of the authority of Christ, that helped me so much, but how many of those who believe in the trinity would be willing to listen in the first place?

Sadly, many Trinitarians view Matthew 28:19 as a proof-text that "all 3 persons of the Trinity are involved in our salvation".

It seems it's getting harder and harder for people to change their minds about anything these days!

God seldom violates our prejudices.

But perhaps it is more important for the one being baptized to invoke the name of Jesus, like the Ethiopian Eunuch, than the one who is baptizing.

That is the whole point of being baptized, what the one being baptized is doing.

Jesus knows the hearts of all, even Simon the sorcerer believed and was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but his heart wasn't right!

Indeed.




:thumbsup

[Aquila]

Exactly why I posted this topic, Jesus knows my heart, as He did when I was baptized. So you are saying I'm identified with a doctrine and not Jesus Christ at all, the One whom I confessed and believed upon with all my heart when I got baptized.

As long as the believer has been taught Jesus beforehand and knows the reason he/she is being baptized, it shouldn't matter if the believer is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or Jesus, to me they are the same.

What should matter is how GOD views the heart and the baptism, not what man thinks.

Yes, God alone knows your heart, thoughts, and intentions. I can't judge those things.

What I do know is that the triune baptism didn't exist until the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It's not Apostolic in origin. In fact, the Trinity doctrine is just pagan/Christian synchronization. And the triune baptism began as a part of this synchronization.

If you know the proper, biblical, Apostolic way, there's really no excuse.

If you wish to take your chances with holding to your triune baptism, that's entirely your choice. But I can't offer you any assurance outside of Acts 2:38.

[Originalist]

Yes, God alone knows your heart, thoughts, and intentions. I can't judge those things.

What I do know is that the triune baptism didn't exist until the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It's not Apostolic in origin. In fact, the Trinity doctrine is just pagan/Christian synchronization. And the triune baptism began as a part of this synchronization.

If you know the proper, biblical, Apostolic way, there's really no excuse.

If you wish to take your chances with holding to your triune baptism, that's entirely your choice. But I can't offer you any assurance outside of Acts 2:38.

The idea that the words of the baptizer remitted sin was the beginning of the error. It then devolved further from there.

[Aquila]

The idea that the words of the baptizer remitted sin was the beginning of the error. It then devolved further from there.

The sinner repents.
There Church water baptizes.
The Lord fills with the Sprit.

All play key rolls.

John 20:22-23 King James Version (KJV)
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

This is a part of the closing of John, where the Great Commission is in the other Gospels.

Luke put it this way:

Luke 24:47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

The elders of the church have authority to remit sin in accordance to the sinner's willingness to obey the Gospel. And it is done through the name.

[Esaias]

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
(Matthew 28:19)

πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ῾Αγίου Πνεύματος,

EIS TO ONOMA - literally, INTO THE NAME. We are to baptise people INTO THE NAME.

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.
(Acts 2:38)

Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς· μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ λήψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ῾Αγίου Πνεύματος.

EPI TO ONOMATI - literally, UPON THE NAME. Each of us is to be baptised UPON THE NAME.

These constructions suggests more than merely "in the name". They suggest INTO the name and UPON the name, both of which suggest more than merely "in the authority of". Jesus and Peter could have easily said "baptised in the authority of" but they did not say that. When you combine James 2:7 and Acts 15:17, it is clear - there is an oral invocation of the name which is called upon or "invoked over" the one being baptised. The one being baptised is thus baptised upon the name (that is, upon the oral invocation of the name) and the church is to baptise people into the name (which requires a declaration, an oral statement as to the purpose and intent of the baptism). This is why Christian baptism requires TWO PEOPLE. It is why people are told to LET THEMSELVES BE BAPTISED, not "baptise yourselves".

This is also why there is ZERO RECORD of any innovation whereby somebody introduced the idea of a baptismal formula. When the trinitarian controversy began, and the trinitarian formulas were introduced (see Justin Martyr, for example), there was no dispute about whether there ought to be a formula or not, there was only dispute about WHAT FORMULA TO USE. That issue continued non-stop all the way up to the middle of the Reformation period, and still continues today.

There is a Hebraism involved, regarding the people "called by my name" or called by the name of the Lord. That old testament idea whereby Israel, the people of God, are the people "called by His Name", originates from the Aaronic blessing instituted by God through Moses:

Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.
(Numbers 6:23-27)

The Aaronic blessing was an oral invocation of the name of Jehovah, and this official invocation of the name of Jehovah upon the children of Israel was how God said "and you will PUT MY NAME UPON THEM."

The Mosaic blessing concludes as follows:

The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways. And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of thee.
(Deuteronomy 28:9-10)

The Greek (used by the apostles) is interesting here:

And all the nations of the earth shall see thee, that the name of the Lord is called upon thee, and they shall stand in awe of thee. (Brenton's English Translation of the LXX)

Being the people who are "called by the name of the Lord" means the people upon whom the Lord's name has been invoked or called. Under the Old covenant this was accomplished by means of the Aaronic blessing. Under the New covenant it is accomplished in baptism when the church (the body of Christ, His earthly representatives in this world) declare the remission of sins of the convert by means of baptising the convert into the NAME OF THE LORD.

Thus, John 20:23 is fulfilled:

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
(John 20:23)

The church remits sins by baptising converts into the name of the Lord. It is not that the church sovereignly pardons sinners (as in the catholic sacramental view) but rather that by baptism the convert is identified with Christ and enters into the remission of their sins, and the church is who baptises people. therefore, whose soever sins the church remits, they are remitted unto them (that is, whoever the church admits to baptism enters the remission of sins), and whose soever sins the church retains, they are retained (that is, whoever the church refuses to baptise does NOT enter into identification with Christ and does NOT enter into remission of sins). And this is clearly exemplified by Peter's words in his visit to Cornelius:

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
(Acts 10:47)

Obviously, Peter DID INDEED acknowledge and believe that the church COULD FORBID BAPTISM to someone deemed unrepentant or defective in their profession of faith. Phillip's encounter withe Ethiopian eunuch verifies this:

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 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? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(Acts 8:35-37)

The eunuch could not be baptised by himself, he required Phillip to do it. And he asks "what hinders me?" That is, what objections are there that would prevent me from being baptised? And Phillip gave him the prerequisite: IF you believe with all your heart THEN YOU MAY BE BAPTISED, but NOT UNLESS YOU BELIEVE WITH ALL YOUR HEART. If the eunuch did not believe with all his heart then Phillip would have no AUTHORITY to baptise, and would have REFUSED TO BAPTISE him. And the eunuch's sins would have been RETAINED.

Those who claim "oh this is catholic sacramentalism" do not know what they are talking about. The catholic doctrine of the sacrament is that the church has a treasury (like a bank account) of grace and merit that it can dispense to whom it will, with efficacious results. Thus, they baptise infants, give last rites, hold confession, command penance, and so on and so forth. This is totally different from the apostolic and bible doctrine of the church's role in bringing salvation to the lost. The church is commissioned with the task of making disciples and baptising them into the name of God. It is tasked with the purpose and mission of proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to all and sundry and receiving into fellowship via baptism all who believe that message. It is also tasked with refusing entrance to those who REFUSE TO BELIEVE. When the church does it's job, by baptising those responding to the Gospel, and by refusing baptism to those who do not believe with all their heart, then the church fulfills John 20:23.

[Originalist]

The sinner repents.
There Church water baptizes.
The Lord fills with the Sprit.

All play key rolls.

John 20:22-23 King James Version (KJV)
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

If you think this verse is referring to water baptism, then we should not mock Catholics for confession booths. If I have the power to forgive in baptism, then I also have the power to forgive the transgression of a believer.

This is a part of the closing of John, where the Great Commission is in the other Gospels.

Luke put it this way:

Luke 24:47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

All this is saying is that we go in his authority (name) preaching repentance and the remission of sins.

The elders of the church have authority to remit sin in accordance to the sinner's willingness to obey the Gospel. And it is done through the name.

There is no scriptural basis for this. It is pure Catholicism. Seriously, build a confession booth.




:nod

[Originalist]

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
(Matthew 28:19)

πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ῾Αγίου Πνεύματος,

EIS TO ONOMA - literally, INTO THE NAME. We are to baptise people INTO THE NAME.

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.
(Acts 2:38)

Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς· μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ λήψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ῾Αγίου Πνεύματος.

EPI TO ONOMATI - literally, UPON THE NAME. Each of us is to be baptised UPON THE NAME.

These constructions suggests more than merely "in the name". They suggest INTO the name and UPON the name, both of which suggest more than merely "in the authority of". Jesus and Peter could have easily said "baptised in the authority of" but they did not say that. When you combine James 2:7 and Acts 15:17, it is clear - there is an oral invocation of the name which is called upon or "invoked over" the one being baptised. The one being baptised is thus baptised upon the name (that is, upon the oral invocation of the name) and the church is to baptise people into the name (which requires a declaration, an oral statement as to the purpose and intent of the baptism). This is why Christian baptism requires TWO PEOPLE. It is why people are told to LET THEMSELVES BE BAPTISED, not "baptise yourselves".

This is also why there is ZERO RECORD of any innovation whereby somebody introduced the idea of a baptismal formula. When the trinitarian controversy began, and the trinitarian formulas were introduced (see Justin Martyr, for example), there was no dispute about whether there ought to be a formula or not, there was only dispute about WHAT FORMULA TO USE. That issue continued non-stop all the way up to the middle of the Reformation period, and still continues today.

There is a Hebraism involved, regarding the people "called by my name" or called by the name of the Lord. That old testament idea whereby Israel, the people of God, are the people "called by His Name", originates from the Aaronic blessing instituted by God through Moses:

Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.
(Numbers 6:23-27)

The Aaronic blessing was an oral invocation of the name of Jehovah, and this official invocation of the name of Jehovah upon the children of Israel was how God said "and you will PUT MY NAME UPON THEM."


Several things here. First, this was not an ongoing practice to be institutionalized by the New Testament Church.

Two, it was limited to a few men having the authority to carry it out, namely priests.

Three, It was for people already in a covenant relationship with God.

Four, it was not for the remission of sins.

Five, there is nothing the Apostles preached concerning baptism and the remission of sins that even remotely parallels this incident. Baptism is about having your sins forgiven because you believed what God said concerning his Son, that he has been made both Lord and Christ. It has nothing to do with speaking God's name over people. God gives you his name when he adopts you by Spirit baptism.

And yet, many Apostolics use this as a proof text for connecting the forgiveness of sins with "taking on the name in baptism as a baptizer speaks it over you." Horrible, horrible soteriology and hermeneutics.

The Mosaic blessing concludes as follows:

The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways. And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of thee.
(Deuteronomy 28:9-10)

The Greek (used by the apostles) is interesting here:

And all the nations of the earth shall see thee, that the name of the Lord is called upon thee, and they shall stand in awe of thee. (Brenton's English Translation of the LXX)

Being the people who are "called by the name of the Lord" means the people upon whom the Lord's name has been invoked or called. Under the Old covenant this was accomplished by means of the Aaronic blessing. Under the New covenant it is accomplished in baptism when the church (the body of Christ, His earthly representatives in this world) declare the remission of sins of the convert by means of baptising the convert into the NAME OF THE LORD.

Thus, John 20:23 is fulfilled:

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
(John 20:23)

The church remits sins by baptising converts into the name of the Lord. It is not that the church sovereignly pardons sinners (as in the catholic sacramental view) but rather that by baptism the convert is identified with Christ and enters into the remission of their sins, and the church is who baptises people. therefore, whose soever sins the church remits, they are remitted unto them (that is, whoever the church admits to baptism enters the remission of sins), and whose soever sins the church retains, they are retained (that is, whoever the church refuses to baptise does NOT enter into identification with Christ and does NOT enter into remission of sins). And this is clearly exemplified by Peter's words in his visit to Cornelius:

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
(Acts 10:47)

Obviously, Peter DID INDEED acknowledge and believe that the church COULD FORBID BAPTISM to someone deemed unrepentant or defective in their profession of faith. Phillip's encounter withe Ethiopian eunuch verifies this:

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 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? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(Acts 8:35-37)

The eunuch could not be baptised by himself, he required Phillip to do it. And he asks "what hinders me?" That is, what objections are there that would prevent me from being baptised? And Phillip gave him the prerequisite: IF you believe with all your heart THEN YOU MAY BE BAPTISED, but NOT UNLESS YOU BELIEVE WITH ALL YOUR HEART. If the eunuch did not believe with all his heart then Phillip would have no AUTHORITY to baptise, and would have REFUSED TO BAPTISE him. And the eunuch's sins would have been RETAINED.

Those who claim "oh this is catholic sacramentalism" do not know what they are talking about. The catholic doctrine of the sacrament is that the church has a treasury (like a bank account) of grace and merit that it can dispense to whom it will, with efficacious results. Thus, they baptise infants, give last rites, hold confession, command penance, and so on and so forth. This is totally different from the apostolic and bible doctrine of the church's role in bringing salvation to the lost. The church is commissioned with the task of making disciples and baptising them into the name of God. It is tasked with the purpose and mission of proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to all and sundry and receiving into fellowship via baptism all who believe that message. It is also tasked with refusing entrance to those who REFUSE TO BELIEVE. When the church does it's job, by baptising those responding to the Gospel, and by refusing baptism to those who do not believe with all their heart, then the church fulfills John 20:23.

Many Protestant groups have a form a baptismal invocation they claim remits sins. Though they may differ some from strict Catholic interpretation, they are branches of the same error, just as what many in the Apostolic ranks teach about "the name" is error.

:spit

[TyronePalmer]

Phillip's encounter withe Ethiopian eunuch verifies this:

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 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? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(Acts 8:35-37)

The eunuch could not be baptised by himself, he required Phillip to do it. And he asks "what hinders me?" That is, what objections are there that would prevent me from being baptised? And Phillip gave him the prerequisite: IF you believe with all your heart THEN YOU MAY BE BAPTISED, but NOT UNLESS YOU BELIEVE WITH ALL YOUR HEART. If the eunuch did not believe with all his heart then Phillip would have no AUTHORITY to baptise, and would have REFUSED TO BAPTISE him. And the eunuch's sins would have been RETAINED.

The text does not say that Philip invoked the name of Jesus, it was the Eunuch's belief and invocation of the name of Jesus, that caused Philip to respond by getting down in the water and baptizing him.

So if Philip did not invoke the name of Jesus is the Eunuch's baptism valid? Or maybe he did but it's just not recorded.

[Originalist]

The text does not say that Philip invoked the name of Jesus, it was the Eunuch's belief and invocation of the name of Jesus, that caused Philip to respond by getting down in the water and baptizing him.

And the Eunuch's invocation was the only one needed for his sins to be forgiven in baptism. Philip's invocation , whatever it was, was incidental.

So if Philip did not invoke the name of Jesus is the Eunuch's baptism valid?

He had been invoking the name of Jesus all through the Bible study. If he did not do it while dunking the guy, that did not make the baptism any less "in the name of Jesus".

Or maybe he did but it's just not recorded.

Sorry, I know you weren't talking to me.

[TyronePalmer]

Sorry, I know you weren't talking to me.

Totally agree with you!

[Esaias]

The text does not say that Philip invoked the name of Jesus, it was the Eunuch's belief and invocation of the name of Jesus, that caused Philip to respond by getting down in the water and baptizing him.

So if Philip did not invoke the name of Jesus is the Eunuch's baptism valid? Or maybe he did but it's just not recorded.

You cannot prove Phillip did NOT speak the name of Jesus, which is what you would have to do for your point to be valid.

I brought up the eunuch to prove that baptism requires two people, and that baptism can be refused to someone on the basis of a defective profession of faith. That is all.

James 2:7 proves the name is invoked upon or over the believer. So does Acts 15:17. The Aaronic blessing proves the name of the LORD is put upon His people via an actual oral invocation of the ministry. The Greek text of Deuteronomy 28:9-10 proves that the phrase "called by My Name" is a Hebraism referring to having had the name of Jehovah actually invoked upon or called upon the people.

Jesus did not authorise the trinitarian baptism or its formula. Therefore, the trinitarian baptism and its formula cannot be performed "in the authority of Christ" (since He never authorised it).

The historical record confirms all this, that the trinitarian baptism and its formula were post apostolic developments derived entirely from trinitarian theological developments, and that the original formula was in the name of Jesus Christ.

[Esaias]

Many Protestant groups have a form a baptismal invocation they claim remits sins. Though they may differ some from strict Catholic interpretation, they are branches of the same error, just as what many in the Apostolic ranks teach about "the name" is error.

:spit

Unproven claims from you, as usual. "Spit" all you want, the facts remain.

[Originalist]

Unproven claims from you, as usual. "Spit" all you want, the facts remain.

I have read baptismal invocations from various , liturgical oriented Protestant groups. They do indeed feel the baptizer's invocation plays a part in the remission of sins. This is a carry over from Catholicism. Explain why I am wrong.

[Originalist]

You cannot prove Phillip did NOT speak the name of Jesus, which is what you would have to do for your point to be valid.


Oh my. I think you have this backwards. YOU cannot prove Phillip uttered a baptismal invocation. I believe he did. But I cannot prove it.

I brought up the eunuch to prove that baptism requires two people, and that baptism can be refused to someone on the basis of a defective profession of faith. That is all.

James 2:7 proves the name is invoked upon or over the believer.

Not in the least. The word baptism is not mentioned in James 2:7.

So does Acts 15:17. The Aaronic blessing proves the name of the LORD is put upon His people via an actual oral invocation of the ministry. The Greek text of Deuteronomy 28:9-10 proves that the phrase "called by My Name" is a Hebraism referring to having had the name of Jehovah actually invoked upon or called upon the people.


Oh for crying out loud. This was a prophecy. In fact, all of this argument came about when Cornelius received the HOLY GHOST AKA The Spirit of Adoption. That is when Gentiles began to bear his name. When was this "calling the name of God" by priests over people institutionalized by God as an ongoing act? This is the crux of your thesis and it crumbles like a house of cards.

Jesus did not authorise the trinitarian baptism or its formula. Therefore, the trinitarian baptism and its formula cannot be performed "in the authority of Christ" (since He never authorised it).

Jesus never instituted ANY "formula" for a baptizer to utter.

The historical record confirms all this, that the trinitarian baptism and its formula were post apostolic developments derived entirely from trinitarian theological developments, and that the original formula was in the name of Jesus Christ.

And that error sprang from the previous error that the baptizer saying the name Jesus over someone cleanses them from sin and brings regeneration. It got all the attention off of faith and Christ's exaltation and put the attention on formulas.



:nod

[Esaias]

I have read baptismal invocations from various , liturgical oriented Protestant groups. They do indeed feel the baptizer's invocation plays a part in the remission of sins. This is a carry over from Catholicism. Explain why I am wrong.

Any group that uses the trinitarian formula is a carryover from catholicism. Believing that baptism is for the remission of sins is not a carryover from catholicism, anymore than believing Jesus is the Son of God is a carryover. And believing that baptism is to be done in the name of Jesus, and that "in the name of Jesus" requires an invocation of the actual name Jesus, is not a carryover from catholicism. Especially considering that catholicism rejects and refuses to recognise any such "Jesus name baptism".

But they WILL accept a baptism that uses the trinitarian formula.

[Esaias]

By the way, you used the word "liturgical" incorrectly. EVERY church is liturgical, some more complex than others. Liturgy is simply "what a congregation does when they come together to worship". It is from Greek, leiturgos, and means the work (ergos) of the people (laos). That is to say, the activity of the congregation in divine service or "worship".

[Evang.Benincasa]

Oh my. I think you have this backwards. YOU cannot prove Phillip uttered a baptismal invocation. I believe he did. But I cannot prove it.
:nod

Here we go again! Round and round the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel?

Bro, everyone can prove that Jesus was called over the neophyte. It is New Testament understanding that a baptizer is required to fulfill all righteousness. That the same as we casting out devils with the name of Jesus invoked and healings performed with the name of Jesus invoked, the same goes for baptism. Tyrone please you need to be baptized in Jesus name, re-baptized with the name of Jesus spoken over you. If you refuse it will only be due to your stubborn and prideful heart. You knew you were on a forum where everyone baptizes in Jesus name with the name of Jesus Christ being invoked over the baptized. If you say you are now in shock and awe over this than you are a dishonest liar. Therefore you will be unable to be dealt with by any means. Jesus' name was invoked over the baptized. You had to believe with all your mind that Jesus is the Christ, and then be baptized by a minister who would then invoke the name of Jesus over you.

James 2:7 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
7 Is it not they who slander and blaspheme that precious name by which you are distinguished and called [the name of Christ invoked in baptism]?

[Evang.Benincasa]

By the way, you used the word "liturgical" incorrectly. EVERY church is liturgical, some more complex than others. Liturgy is simply "what a congregation does when they come together to worship". It is from Greek, leiturgos, and means the work (ergos) of the people (laos). That is to say, the activity of the congregation in divine service or "worship".

:highfive

[Originalist]

Any group that uses the trinitarian formula is a carryover from catholicism. Believing that baptism is for the remission of sins is not a carryover from catholicism, anymore than believing Jesus is the Son of God is a carryover.

Nice try. I never claimed teaching baptism being for the remission of sins was a carry over from Catholicism, Sean. I said that connecting the name Jesus to the invocation of the baptizer as a means to remit sin is a carry over from Catholicism.


And believing that baptism is to be done in the name of Jesus, and that "in the name of Jesus" requires an invocation of the actual name Jesus, is not a carryover from catholicism.

It's right there in the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers on baptism, at the advent of the Catholic Church.


Especially considering that Catholicism rejects and refuses to recognize any such "Jesus name baptism".

They once did, but that is irrelevant. Even when they did, it was still connected in their doctrine to baptismal invocations remitting sins.

But they WILL accept a baptism that uses the trinitarian formula.

Again, irrelevant to the questions asked by the original poster.



:nod

[Evang.Benincasa]

Any group that uses the trinitarian formula is a carryover from catholicism. Believing that baptism is for the remission of sins is not a carryover from catholicism, anymore than believing Jesus is the Son of God is a carryover. And believing that baptism is to be done in the name of Jesus, and that "in the name of Jesus" requires an invocation of the actual name Jesus, is not a carryover from catholicism. Especially considering that catholicism rejects and refuses to recognise any such "Jesus name baptism".

But they WILL accept a baptism that uses the trinitarian formula.

I'm sorry, but this isn't rocket science or performing brain surgery. The name of Jesus Christ was to be called, invoked, upon the neophyte as they confessed their faith, and repented of their sins. This was prophesied by the prophet Joel. Confirmed by the James who would then repeat it in James 2:7

Acts 15:17

That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

[Evang.Benincasa]

:nod

How can it be irrelevant? They changed the formula, from Jesus Christ being invoked to titles being invoked over the convert. That is documented history. Why go through the trouble to stop people from doing something as early as the second century A.D.? Especially if it wasn't even a practice?

[Esaias]

Here we go again! Round and round the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel?



Indeed. SOP for those who can't make their case. Argumentum ad confusium.

:thumbsup

[Originalist]

How can it be irrelevant? They changed the formula, from Jesus Christ being invoked to titles being invoked over the convert.

It is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Nobody disputes Catholic meddling in the baptism issue. That is not what is in question here.


That is documented history. Why go through the trouble to stop people from doing something as early as the second century A.D.? Especially if it wasn't even a practice?

Again, nobody is questioning this.




:thumbsup

[Originalist]

Indeed. SOP for those who can't make their case. Argumentum ad confusium.

:thumbsup

Says the guy who links one or two time acts by Levitical Priests, that were never instituted into the Law as repetitive acts, to New Testament baptism.

Really, you should pull the California Redwood out of your own eye before trying to pull microscopic fiber out of mine.


:laffatu

[Evang.Benincasa]

Indeed. SOP for those who can't make their case. Argumentum ad confusium.

:thumbsup

That's why people get upset when we start to believe that there is NO invocations whatsoever. Silent baptism or no baptizer. Self baptism is special circumstances when we have no such examples. All these teachings are created for, is to make Trinitarians comfortable in there baptisms, and therefore making the Word of God of no effect. John 20:23 is as simple as Dick and Jane in the first reader. See Sally? Silly Sally, Sally Silly? John 20:23 Acts 2:38, Acts 15:17, and James 2:7 THIS IS NOT HIGHER MATH.

[Evang.Benincasa]

:thumbsup

It is very relevant, it is simple logic. Why meddle with something which supposedly by your position the primitive church was never involved in?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Says the guy who links one or two time acts by Levitical Priests, that were never instituted into the Law as repetitive acts, to New Testament baptism.

Really, you should pull the California Redwood out of your own eye before trying to pull microscopic fiber out of mine.


:laffatu

Easy does it bro, here you go getting lousy on us again. If you can't handle discussion then bow out. If you want to proceed forward then cool your jets. I can play hard if that is what you want from me. But I am trying to lower the volume. You want to raise it up, and get a good hair pulling contest going just tell me your pleasure?

[Originalist]

Here we go again! Round and round the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel?

Bro, everyone can prove that Jesus was called over the neophyte.

Here we go again. You shame yourself. I've never disputed that the name Jesus was used somehow by the one baptizing.

It is New Testament understanding that a baptizer is required to fulfill all righteousness.

A baptizer's invocation does not impart righteousness. Really, Jesus' baptism, John's baptism are apples and oranges comparisons to NT baptisms.

That the same as we casting out devils with the name of Jesus invoked

Yes, the demon had to understand by whose authority he was being commanded to leave. But he feared the authority (the one who gave it), not the word "J-E-S-U-S". The name Jesus did not function as pepper spray or insect repellent against demons.


and healings performed with the name of Jesus invoked,

The authority to heal miraculously was given to the 12 in the upper room at Pentecost. I believe it as literally at their disposal in a way not commonly distributed to any saint. When they healed, they used that authority. Saying the name of the one who gave them the authority was incidental and to bring him glory, just as it is in baptism.

the same goes for baptism. Tyrone please you need to be baptized in Jesus name, re-baptized with the name of Jesus spoken over you. If you refuse it will only be due to your stubborn and prideful heart.

Tyrone, I encourage you to be rebaptized NOT because you remain unforgiven (you re forgiven), or because God rejected your first baptism (he didn't). Do it so you can say you have experienced what you may be administering to others.

You knew you were on a forum where everyone baptizes in Jesus name with the name of Jesus Christ being invoked over the baptized. If you say you are now in shock and awe over this than you are a dishonest liar. Therefore you will be unable to be dealt with by any means. Jesus' name was invoked over the baptized. You had to believe with all your mind that Jesus is the Christ, and then be baptized by a minister who would then invoke the name of Jesus over you.

That part is incidental to the forgiveness of sins.

James 2:7 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
7 Is it not they who slander and blaspheme that precious name by which you are distinguished and called [the name of Christ invoked in baptism]?



The Amplified Bible is the only version to mention baptism in his verse. Don't hang your hat on that one.

[Originalist]

Easy does it bro, here you go getting lousy on us again.

I notice you and Esaias never correct each other. Hmm. Pot meet kettle?

If you can't handle discussion then bow out. If you want to proceed forward then cool your jets. I can play hard if that is what you want from me. But I am trying to lower the volume. You want to raise it up, and get a good hair pulling contest going just tell me your pleasure?


Amazing that you cannot see how you come across on this forum. Incredibly amazing.

[Esaias]

Amazing that you cannot see how you come across on this forum. Incredibly amazing.

EDIT: Never mind.

[Esaias]

Says the guy who links one or two time acts by Levitical Priests, that were never instituted into the Law as repetitive acts, to New Testament baptism.

Really, you should pull the California Redwood out of your own eye before trying to pull microscopic fiber out of mine.


:laffatu

Have a good day.

[Aquila]

Guys, just be baptized, and baptize, in Jesus name.

I don't get the problem.

[Originalist]

Guys, just be baptized, and baptize, in Jesus name.

I don't get the problem.

I think it is healthy for Apostolics to revisit this issue to examine if we've really been faithful ro biblical intention.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Amazing that you cannot see how you come across on this forum. Incredibly amazing.

Am I doing that with you? I can count on one hand those who I bump heads with. is that what is happening with you?

[consapente89]

Ok wait. Originalist confirms Tyrones erroneous beliefs that he doesn't actually need to be baptized in Jesus name. Proceeding then to encourage him to go ahead and get baptized so that he can at least appease the Apostolics and those he may baptize in the future. Sounds like something a poser would say.

Tyrone, you need to get baptized in Jesus name so that your sins can be remitted. I encourage you NOT to get baptized until you understand and believe that.

[Steve Epley]

Only baptism in Jesus Name are sins remitted since Pentecost.

[consapente89]

Only baptism in Jesus Name are sins remitted since Pentecost.

Amen

[RachelRose]

The Trinity is a pagan notion adopted by really Hellenized scholars.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bThWd1HgnTY

:highfive

I think so.

I am presently reading a book that talks about this at length. One of the places I normally take people I witness to is Acts 19. You may want to consider being re-baptized. Paul thought it was important enough to get those follows re-baptized.

think about it.

[TyronePalmer]

Here we go again! Round and round the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel?

Bro, everyone can prove that Jesus was called over the neophyte. It is New Testament understanding that a baptizer is required to fulfill all righteousness. That the same as we casting out devils with the name of Jesus invoked and healings performed with the name of Jesus invoked, the same goes for baptism.

Tyrone please you need to be baptized in Jesus name, re-baptized with the name of Jesus spoken over you. If you refuse it will only be due to your stubborn and prideful heart. You knew you were on a forum where everyone baptizes in Jesus name with the name of Jesus Christ being invoked over the baptized.

If you say you are now in shock and awe over this than you are a dishonest liar. Therefore you will be unable to be dealt with by any means. Jesus' name was invoked over the baptized. You had to believe with all your mind that Jesus is the Christ, and then be baptized by a minister who would then invoke the name of Jesus over you.

Wow all this from a man who calls himself an Evangelist. I wonder if Philip spoke to his brother's in Christ like that?

Where is the Love? Jesus did say the love of many would grow cold didn't He?

Jesus is my judge sir and if He thought I needed to be re-baptized in water just to have the name Jesus explicitly said and invoked over me, He would have told me and compelled me to do so when He baptized me with the Holy Spirit, which was eleven years ago, I haven't heard a word from Him about it, however He has spoken to me many other times in the last decade.

So what happens if a minister forgets to invoke the name of Jesus over a believer? Then he/she needs to be re-baptized until the minister get's it right?

For the record I do know the truth now and I have baptized a few souls invoking the name of Jesus over the believer, but I truly believe like with the Ethiopian Eunuch, it matters more what the convert believes and their confession of Jesus Christ than the baptizer invoking the name of Jesus over them.

So if I'm not re-baptized having the name of Jesus invoked over me, will I lose my salvation? Will God reject me and send my soul to Hell when I die?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Here we go again. You shame yourself. I've never disputed that the name Jesus was used somehow by the one baptizing.

Now, you are caught in pyschological projection. Because you are you state that Jesus never gave such command to either formula. Therefore you are hard to logically follow. Teachers are supposed to make things clear, the tongues of angels. Which means to take spiritual truths and make them plain, tongues of men. If you can't do one you can't do the other. You end up confusing the student. The Bible therefore becomes a book of a cryptic mystery religion. Where we all would have to have YOU as our pastor. Let , me go further, to understand clearly what I am saying is that a child shouldn't be able to be in error and that as a teacher you would make things plain. If you cannot prove to us your case simply, then we must look for another. If you have something which can only be explained by YOU, then you instead of the scriptures are our guide. You run from stem to stern, and one minute you actually state that it doesn't matter to what is said over us, and then you say you do believe that something is said over us. Bro, it must also be a consistent teaching in order for it to be bulletproof. If you are going to replace something with something supposedly to be truth, then it has to be better than what we already know. It must also be able to withstand scrutiny no matter how stupid YOU may think we are.


A baptizer's invocation does not impart righteousness. Really, Jesus' baptism, John's baptism are apples and oranges comparisons to NT baptisms.

Ok, do you see what you are doing here? You aren't saying anything. What you are doing is not teaching, not even refuting. You are in short just saying I'm wrong, without clarifying explanation. How is it apples and oranges? How does it compare to New Testament baptism? How does it not? Bro, you aren't helping me to understand you in the least. Jesus' words to John is that John NEEDED to baptize Jesus to complete all righteousness. Period. Those are Jesus' statements on the matter, because Jesus would be the firstborn of many brethren and therefore He set out and took His men to also baptize. Did I say anything about imparting righteous? Does the scripture verse mention an impartation of righteousness? No, the only thing mentioned is a fulfillment of righteousness. Righteousness is completed with the baptizer baptizing the Christ.


Yes, the demon had to understand by whose authority he was being commanded to leave. But he feared the authority (the one who gave it), not the word "J-E-S-U-S". The name Jesus did not function as pepper spray or insect repellent against demons.

Bro, that isn't what we see in the scripture, because in Mark 9:38 the disciples forbid a man from casting out devils who was using the name of Jesus. The man wasn't in Jesus' authority, because obviously Jesus didn't know the man. In the judgement Jesus solidifies this fact by telling the man and others that He NEVER knew them Matthew 7:22-23. Just like the devils didn't KNOW the sons of Sceva who are Biblically documented as using the name of Jesus accompanied by the name of the Apostle Paul Acts 19:13.

Now yes or no, in Acts 19:13 do the audibly say the words "we adjure you in THE NAME OF JESUS, whom Paul preaches?" Yes, or NO?

[Evang.Benincasa]

The authority to heal miraculously was given to the 12 in the upper room at Pentecost. I believe it as literally at their disposal in a way not commonly distributed to any saint. When they healed, they used that authority. Saying the name of the one who gave them the authority was incidental and to bring him glory, just as it is in baptism.

Let me ask you a question, have you ever cast out a devil, or prayed over anyone saying the name of Jesus and witnessed a healing?


Tyrone, I encourage you to be rebaptized NOT because you remain unforgiven (you re forgiven), or because God rejected your first baptism (he didn't). Do it so you can say you have experienced what you may be administering to others.

Does that actually make sense to you? Because logically it makes no sense to me.


That part is incidental to the forgiveness of sins. The Amplified Bible is the only version to mention baptism in his verse. Don't hang your hat on that one. [/COLOR]

The only reason why the Amplified writes it out that way is one) because it is amplifying the verse, and two) because that IS WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS IN THE GREEK!!!

Show me any Greek text which doesn't say that name which was called upon you. I'll wait while you look. Also, have you happened to come across that verse you spoke of that said God calls the name upon us? I'll wait for that also.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Wow all this from a man who calls himself an Evangelist. I wonder if Philip spoke to his brother's in Christ like that?

Where is the Love? Jesus did say the love of many would grow cold didn't He?

Jesus is my judge sir and if He thought I needed to be re-baptized in water just to have the name Jesus explicitly said and invoked over me, He would have told me and compelled me to do so when He baptized me with the Holy Spirit, which was eleven years ago, I haven't heard a word from Him about it, however He has spoken to me many other times in the last decade.

So what happens if a minister forgets to invoke the name of Jesus over a believer? Then he/she needs to be re-baptized until the minister get's it right?

For the record I do know the truth now and I have baptized a few souls invoking the name of Jesus over the believer, but I truly believe like with the Ethiopian Eunuch, it matters more what the convert believes and their confession of Jesus Christ than the baptizer invoking the name of Jesus over them.

So if I'm not re-baptized having the name of Jesus invoked over me, will I lose my salvation? Will God reject me and send my soul to Hell when I die?

Your not a child, I believe I'm speaking to an adult. Jesus is the judge? Then I suggest you listen to the judge and get baptized in His name. This isn't an argument, this is simple. What if the baptizer didn't say the name? You see, you aren't even serious about this, so why are you here? Are you looking to convert some of us to what you believe?

[TyronePalmer]

Your not a child, I believe I'm speaking to an adult. Jesus is the judge? Then I suggest you listen to the judge and get baptized in His name. This isn't an argument, this is simple. What if the baptizer didn't say the name? You see, you aren't even serious about this, so why are you here? Are you looking to convert some of us to what you believe?

I'm on here to have an intelligent dialogue with other believers, I just asked a few questions, why not answer them?

I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything, people are gonna believe what they want to believe, just like you, unable to even consider that GOD may view my baptism and countless others as valid in His sight.

I'm certainly not in shock and awe at the hard hearts of the religious, it was the same two thousand years ago!

[Evang.Benincasa]

I'm on here to have an intelligent dialogue with other believers, I just asked a few questions, why not answer them?

I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything, people are gonna believe what they want to believe, just like you, unable to even consider that GOD may view my baptism and countless others as valid in His sight.

I'm certainly not in shock and awe at the hard hearts of the religious, it was the same two thousand years ago!

Yep, two thousand years ago there were a group who took Torah, with their oral law, mystical traditions to create a religion to circumvent what God had instructed. God views your baptism as not valid, you as you stated above have already have circumvented that, with your own justification. Therefore the well never have need of a physician. If Jesus preached and David played his harp you will still continue in your way.

[Originalist]

Let me ask you a question, have you ever cast out a devil, or prayed over anyone saying the name of Jesus and witnessed a healing?






Does that actually make sense to you? Because logically it makes no sense to me.



The only reason why the Amplified writes it out that way is one) because it is amplifying the verse, and two) because that IS WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS IN THE GREEK!!!

No. Baptism is not mentioned in the Greek in that verse in James.

Show me any Greek text which doesn't say that name which was called upon you. I'll wait while you look. Also, have you happened to come across that verse you spoke of that said God calls the name upon us? I'll wait for that also.

I was referring to baptism being mentioned in the verse you cited in James. I do not deny it says "called over you". I simply do not see the link to baptism.



:nod

[Evang.Benincasa]

No. Baptism is not mentioned in the Greek in that verse in James.

The Amplified version and others aren't delusional, they simply understand that James is making reference to baptism. The name is called upon us. Which he refers to baptism. They were audibly blaspheming the name of Jesus Christ, which was called UPON the ones who were baptized. That is how the Greek is worded. Read it for yourself in Greek.


I was referring to baptism being mentioned in the verse you cited in James. I do not deny it says "called over you". I simply do not see the link to baptism. :nod

Again, James speaks of the prophet Joel's comments concerning the remnant of Israel and all the Gentiles in which the name was called upon. Then he repeats himself in James 2:7. James logically was referring to the water immersion and the invocation from the baptizer.

[Esaias]

"The Waterway": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAcG8B9dZcU

[Esaias]

One One One Way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMqVYOmi36Y

[Esaias]

Gino Jennings - 1/2 Baptism name of Jesus Christ …: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDCyrkeXB6I

[Esaias]

Gino Jennings - 2/2 Baptism name of Jesus Christ …: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCVTAtqs4gM

[Originalist]

Now, you are caught in pyschological projection. Because you are you state that Jesus never gave such command to either formula.

No, I said he never instructed on ANY formula.


Therefore you are hard to logically follow. Teachers are supposed to make things clear, the tongues of angels. Which means to take spiritual truths and make them plain, tongues of men. If you can't do one you can't do the other. You end up confusing the student.

I have been very clear. Try being a better listener.


The Bible therefore becomes a book of a cryptic mystery religion. Where we all would have to have YOU as our pastor. Let , me go further, to understand clearly what I am saying is that a child shouldn't be able to be in error and that as a teacher you would make things plain. If you cannot prove to us your case simply, then we must look for another. If you have something which can only be explained by YOU, then you instead of the scriptures are our guide. You run from stem to stern, and one minute you actually state that it doesn't matter to what is said over us, and then you say you do believe that something is said over us.


Please stop pretending like this is some sort of contradiction. I think your game is to pull a Sean an keep pretending I didn't answer your points. You know very well that I've always stated that the baptizer most likely mentioned Jesus in any invocation (though a prayer is more likely what was uttered). My contention has always been, it is not the utterance of the baptizer that remits sins. Are we clear now? Is that good enough of a teaching style for you? Can you read plain English? Stop making this disingenuous claim that I'm al over the map on this one.

Bro, it must also be a consistent teaching in order for it to be bulletproof. If you are going to replace something with something supposedly to be truth, then it has to be better than what we already know. It must also be able to withstand scrutiny no matter how stupid YOU may think we are.

My teaching is consistent. I don't have to read into the narrative some hocus-pocus mumbo-jumbo that neither the Apostles or Christ taught. I don't have to take out of context some Priestly blessing in the Old Testament that was uttered over the Hebrews and use it as a proof-text for incantational heresy.



Ok, do you see what you are doing here? You aren't saying anything. What you are doing is not teaching, not even refuting.

When there is nothing taught about it in scripture, I don't have to waste my time refuting it. There is nothing remotely taught in scripture concerning baptismal invocations remitting sin.


You are in short just saying I'm wrong, without clarifying explanation. How is it apples and oranges? How does it compare to New Testament baptism? How does it not? Bro, you aren't helping me to understand you in the least.

Oh please. Why insult me?


Jesus' words to John is that John NEEDED to baptize Jesus to complete all righteousness.

And HOW does that prove YOR theory concerning baptismal invocations remitting sin? You have repeated this same thing over and over . I'm still at a loss on how this proves your theory. As I've stated, no pre-Pentecost baptism can be compared with ours, not even that of Jesus.


Period. Those are Jesus' statements on the matter, because Jesus would be the firstborn of many brethren and therefore He set out and took His men to also baptize. Did I say anything about imparting righteous? Does the scripture verse mention an impartation of righteousness? No, the only thing mentioned is a fulfillment of righteousness. Righteousness is completed with the baptizer baptizing the Christ.



Bro, that isn't what we see in the scripture, because in Mark 9:38 the disciples forbid a man from casting out devils who was using the name of Jesus. The man wasn't in Jesus' authority, because obviously Jesus didn't know the man.

And you red on to verse 41 and STILL think the word "name" is not referring to authority? We say "in the name of Jesus" when we give that cup of water? That's how we do that act "in his name"? Sorry, but verse 38 is indeed talking about authority. The man was casting out devils "in his name" NOT "WITH his name".


In the judgement Jesus solidifies this fact by telling the man and others that He NEVER knew them Matthew 7:22-23. Just like the devils didn't KNOW the sons of Sceva who are Biblically documented as using the name of Jesus accompanied by the name of the Apostle Paul Acts 19:13.

Maybe they made the same mistake doctrinally you are concerning the name.

Now yes or no, in Acts 19:13 do the audibly say the words "we adjure you in THE NAME OF JESUS, whom Paul preaches?" Yes, or NO?

As I stated previously, a demon is an intelligent, thinking being. Certainly an intelligent being must be made to understand vocally by whose authority he is being ordered out. That is why the name Jesus was mentioned. I have explained this at least 20 times to you. Thus, do you see that I am not denying the name was said? Do you see that? Yes or no? We seem to differ, however, on the significance of its use.

In the Sceva case, that word was a vain repetition, meaningless. There was no Holy Ghost authority behind it. This proves to me it is the authority and not he word Jesus that is the issue.

Honestly, if I am still not being clear to you, let me know.





:thumbsup

[Esaias]

Why Water Baptism In Jesus' Name by Dr. Talmadge …: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1l9KMgQIn4

[Esaias]

I don't have to take out of context some Priestly blessing in the Old Testament that was uttered over the Hebrews and use it as a proof-text for incantational heresy.

Ah, now those who believe in the necessity of Jesus' name baptism are heretics!

lol

[Aquila]

God gave us Jesus.

Theologians gave us the Trinity.

Baptism is supposed to identify us with Christ, "buried with Him in baptism". That seals the deal and remits our sin. Think of justification at repentance as a pardon, and remission at baptism as an expungement of all record of wrongs.

To be baptized in the later development of the triune formula identifies us with the Trinity doctrine, not Christ. And it can hardly be said to remit sin.

[rdp]

https://apostolicacademics.com/

https://vimeo.com/album/2065086

[1ofthechosen]

Ok so we all know that the NAME of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit is JESUS.

So if a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ is baptized by someone who does not know this truth says, "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" does that make the believers baptism invalid in the sight of God?

This is my case by the way, I was baptized in water by full immersion, I confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and the person baptizing me said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit", I didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until eight years later. Now, one might say I need to be re-baptized in Jesus name only, but technically I was, just because the one baptizing me did not explicitly say "I now baptize you in the name of Jesus", I was still baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit which is JESUS!

I also participated in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ according to Romans 6:3-4

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

And what about the Ethiopian Eunuch?

He was baptized by Philip the Evangelist and the text does not say the Eunuch was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 8:36-38

"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him."

Was the Eunuch's baptism valid?

I certainly believe it was, the Eunuch may not have received the Holy Spirit at that point though, because earlier in the chapter we see those who were baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' as the text says, but did not receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL the apostles were called down and they land hands on the people and prayed for them to be baptized with the Spirit.

Perhaps God allowed these events to be recorded exactly as they happened so that we don't become too dogmatic about baptism or receiving the Holy Spirit? Or maybe Philip did say, 'in Jesus name', but it's not recorded?

Like Cornelius, his family, and the rest of the people in his house received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water, and not one hand was laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit.

So those who say, Trinitarians for example, should be re-baptized in Jesus name should re-think their beliefs in light of the scriptures, that show us God doesn't do things exactly the same way every time and that we don't need to get stuck in some formulaic tradition that may cause us to believe that if a person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, has an invalid baptism.

Ok I'm going to say the samething one more time. But it's very simple Jesus foreshadows in all 4 Gospels the covenant to come. I'll begin at John 3:5 "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."
In Mark 16:16 He says something similar as to solidify the importance of baptism "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Now, we know it has importance so how should it be done don't worry Jesus says that too!! He tells you in Luke 24:47 "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." So how are these sins remitted?
Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and :into all nations,baptizing them in the nameof the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
He never said repeat what I said, just as the "Our Father" was a format of prayer; it was never intended to just be recited ritualistically. So what is that Name? Let's let the Bible tell us!!
On the day of Pentecost the comforter came and the beginning of the church era had begun. And then this is important, Peter proclaimed the fulfillment of all 4 of those scriptures. Now this holds weight what he says because it's called "the law of first mention". That for you who don't know "is the principle in the interpretation of Scripture which states that the first mention or occurrence of a subject in Scripture establishes an unchangeable pattern, with that subject remaining unchanged in the mind of God throughout Scripture."
So that brings us to the very first sermon, when they asked what they shall do it plainly says "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."
That's the answer, not what I think, but from the Word of God!!

https://youtu.be/O7A0Pv8w5iw

Check it out hope it helps!

[TyronePalmer]

Yep, two thousand years ago there were a group who took Torah, with their oral law, mystical traditions to create a religion to circumvent what God had instructed. God views your baptism as not valid, you as you stated above have already have circumvented that, with your own justification. Therefore the well never have need of a physician. If Jesus preached and David played his harp you will still continue in your way.

So did God tell you that? Or are you just going by the letter of scripture and saying that God could never look upon a man's heart, who repented, who sincerely loves Jesus, confesses His name as Lord as he went down into the watery grave. But since the name Jesus was not invoked over me by the baptizer, my baptism was not valid in the sight of God and my former sins still remain upon me.

Surely the last days are upon us. I'll be praying for you. I would hope you pray for me, but it doesn't sound like you would.

[Esaias]

So did God tell you that? Or are you just going by the letter of scripture and saying that God could never look upon a man's heart, who repented, who sincerely loves Jesus, confesses His name as Lord as he went down into the watery grave. But since the name Jesus was not invoked over me by the baptizer, my baptism was not valid in the sight of God and my former sins still remain upon me.

Surely the last days are upon us. I'll be praying for you. I would hope you pray for me, but it doesn't sound like you would.

Perhaps you could show from the Scripture that "what a baptizer says is irrelevant"?

If the guy who baptized you said "...in the name of Charles Russell" would your baptism be "valid"?

[Originalist]

I don't have to take out of context some Priestly blessing in the Old Testament that was uttered over the Hebrews and use it as a proof-text for incantational heresy.

Ah, now those who believe in the necessity of Jesus' name baptism are heretics!

lol

No. Those who believe that the invocation of the baptizer remits sin are the heretics, not those who believe in the necessity of Jesus name baptism.

There is a huge difference between the two.

[Originalist]

God gave us Jesus.

Theologians gave us the Trinity.

Baptism is supposed to identify us with Christ, "buried with Him in baptism". That seals the deal and remits our sin. Think of justification at repentance as a pardon, and remission at baptism as an expungement of all record of wrongs.

To be baptized in the later development of the triune formula identifies us with the Trinity doctrine, not Christ. And it can hardly be said to remit sin.

Contextually it would not identify us with the Trinity doctrine, but with the authority of Christ. If the one being baptized has invoked the name of the Lord, why aren't their sins forgiven in such a baptism?

[Originalist]

Perhaps you could show from the Scripture that "what a baptizer says is irrelevant"?

Saying the invocation of the baptizer is incidental is not saying it is irrelevant.

If the guy who baptized you said "...in the name of Charles Russell" would your baptism be "valid"?

If he said "Charles Russell", then he is claiming to be baptizing per Charles Russell's authority, and not the authority of Christ. But your example still does not prove that remission of sins comes from the baptizer's invocation.



:nod

[Esaias]

No. Those who believe that the invocation of the baptizer remits sin are the heretics, not those who believe in the necessity of Jesus name baptism.

There is a huge difference between the two.

Who believes "the invocation of the baptizer remits sin"? God remits sin.

You sounded like you were saying those who believe baptism in Jesus name requires the baptizer actually invoking the name of Jesus are heretics. Is that what you were saying?

[Originalist]

Who believes "the invocation of the baptizer remits sin"? God remits sin.

You sounded like you were saying those who believe baptism in Jesus name requires the baptizer actually invoking the name of Jesus are heretics. Is that what you were saying?

To say that God withholds or grants his forgiveness over an invocation by the baptizer is heresy. That is what I am saying.

Early this morning, at a local lake, i witnessed a baptism. The pastor asked the convert, "What is your profession of faith?" The lady burst in tears exclaiming,"Jesus is alive! He is Lord! He is MY Lord and Savior! I have repented of my past and give my life to serve him!". The pastor then did his typical Baptist thing, using an invocation that rightfully declares by whose authority he was baptizing, but that did not clarify that authority belongs exclusively to the Son of God. I believe she is forgiven based on her own profession of faith and invoking of the name of the Lord Jesus. None of you can give a scriptural reason as to why God would not forgive this woman.

[Evang.Benincasa]

So did God tell you that? Or are you just going by the letter of scripture and saying that God could never look upon a man's heart, who repented, who sincerely loves Jesus, confesses His name as Lord as he went down into the watery grave. But since the name Jesus was not invoked over me by the baptizer, my baptism was not valid in the sight of God and my former sins still remain upon me.

Surely the last days are upon us. I'll be praying for you. I would hope you pray for me, but it doesn't sound like you would.

God look upon a man’s heart and see that he has no interest in what God actually said. Last days upon us? Tyrone, why because you are blendeble and assimilate into the lion share of Churchdom. So you can go in and out of both camps patting yourself on the back. Last days? Because I don’t swallow your act? Where baptism doesn’t matter? Yes Tyrone baptism doesn’t matter to you. Scriptural baptism anyway. You posted that you baptized people in Jesus name? Is that what you posted? What for? Did you earn some points in the heavenlys?
In the words of my old pap, “religion and brains” one has nothing to do with the other. Tyrone, look at what your saying is focused primarily on emotions. Also your rebuttal is a plea to emotions. Tell you what Tyrone, go get your arguments together and prove your position.

[Evang.Benincasa]

To say that God withholds or grants his forgiveness over an invocation by the baptizer is heresy. That is what I am saying.

Early this morning, at a local lake, i witnessed a baptism. The pastor asked the convert, "What is your profession of faith?" The lady burst in tears exclaiming,"Jesus is alive! He is Lord! He is MY Lord and Savior! I have repented of my past and give my life to serve him!". The pastor then did his typical Baptist thing, using an invocation that rightfully declares by whose authority he was baptizing, but that did not clarify that authority belongs exclusively to the Son of God. I believe she is forgiven based on her own profession of faith and invoking of the name of the Lord Jesus. None of you can give a scriptural reason as to why God would not forgive this woman.

An emotional story to appeal to emotion.

Brother what you propose is question begging. You actually hold to a teaching which makes the narrow way wider and the strait door swung wide open. Many are called and many are chosen. You go back and forth that you believe they say something over the convert. You posted that Jesus never said to say anything but in His instruction for baptism He required His name. You haven’t proved there is no need of the baptizer to say anything. Also you don’t really know what Jesus meant when He told His ministers “whatever sins you remit are remitted, and any sins that you don’t remit are not remitted.”

[Originalist]

An emotional story to appeal to emotion.

No, it is a relaying of something I witnessed for the purpose if biblical analysis. I understand though why you want to poison the debate out of the gate.

Brother what you propose is question begging. You actually hold to a teaching which makes the narrow way wider and the strait door swung wide open. Many are called and many are chosen.

Uh, no. Jesus is the door, way and gate. That is who the lady called on in baptism. Thus, your charge that I'm making the narrow way wider has no merit. In fact, that might be the most ridiculous thing yet I've heard anyone say on AFF. Seanesque in every detail.


You go back and forth that you believe they say something over the convert.


No I don't. You have to keep trying to convince yourself I'm doing that, but you know you're full of it. I've never questioned that baptizers used an invocation. The only thing I've questioned is whether that baptismal invocation is linked to the forgiveness of sins. So how many times will you keep falsely claiming that I "keep going back and forth".

Comon, are you going to tell me that I'm not being clear here? Read the above paragraph I just wrote and kindly tell me where your still confused .


You posted that Jesus never said to say anything but in His instruction for baptism He required His name.

In instructions on baptism he required authority. "In the name of". Even a law school drop-out understands what that term means. You do not.


You haven’t proved there is no need of the baptizer to say anything.

I don't have to prove anything. You are the one claiming there is such a requirement. Thus the burden of proof is on you, not me. It's like you're sayng I still have not proved I was not in Antarctica last Thursday. If you claim I was, then back up the claim.

Also you don’t really know what Jesus meant when He told His ministers “whatever sins you remit are remitted, and any sins that you don’t remit are not remitted.”

And neither do you. I don't have to have a dogmatic view on everything in scripture. I do know that your view is bogus. By your view, you could forgive me if I stole something today, like a priest.





.

[Evang.Benincasa]

No, I said he never instructed on ANY formula.

Wonderful, now you can teach us how Jesus gave no instruction what was to be said. Also explain the meaning of Matthew 28:18-19 what does it mean to you?



I have been very clear. Try being a better listener.

Actually no one is listening to anything. But we are reading. Which is easier than listening. But instead of throwing the blame on the student, you may try a bit harder to fill the students request. Therefore if the student cannot understand your position which you are teaching ask questions. Find out where we are missing what you are posting. I understand that you believe that you are typing out pure manna, and that may very well be the case for you. But If we are not seeing what you are saying you might take the time for a different approach.


Please stop pretending like this is some sort of contradiction.

How does that clarify anything to me? It sounds more like "You! Yes! You Stand still laddie!" Honestly there isn't any pretending going on. Because none of this is higher math, or bioengineering. We are dealing with how to baptize. Please, do me a favor, make this less tedious and own your own behavior.



I think your game is to pull a Sean an keep pretending I didn't answer your points.

I could say the same about you? I can say you are doing what Sean was doing. How Sean would constantly make statements which weren't backed up with clear definitions. Yes, he would post scripture, and give his own commentary. But, alas, when he was given a rebuttal, he got cranky. Like you do. No doubt you will not agree with me, as I don't agree with you when you disparage me by calling me "Sean." So, now that i got that out of the way, would like you know procede like a bigger kid in the sandbox and explain your points?



You know very well that I've always stated that the baptizer most likely mentioned Jesus in any invocation (though a prayer is more likely what was uttered).

Yet are contention is that is exactly what was instructed by Jesus, and would of been customary. Like you have been told over and over again, it is only God who remits sin. But, you seem to be blind to that which we are posting to you.


My contention has always been, it is not the utterance of the baptizer that remits sins. Are we clear now?

God remits sins, are we clear now. Do you need a baptizer to be New Testament Biblical? Yes, or no? You mentioned that self baptism was used in only extreme cases? yes, or no? If yes explain scripturally how this was accomplished.


Is that good enough of a teaching style for you? Can you read plain English? Stop making this disingenuous claim that I'm al over the map on this one.

Is it good enough teaching style? Actually no, because you cannot maintain some sort of balance while your teaching ends up begging the question. You certainly never ask why I am saying you are all over the map? You just take an easy out by making me the problem. Bro, you do have other posters in this thread who are bit confused as to what you are saying as well? If this was a class setting would you then storm out of the classroom, dragging your dollies behind you? Ask questions to see how much we are following you. If this is too much for you then find another topic in another thread.


My teaching is consistent. I don't have to read into the narrative some hocus-pocus mumbo-jumbo that neither the Apostles or Christ taught. I don't have to take out of context some Priestly blessing in the Old Testament that was uttered over the Hebrews and use it as a proof-text for incantational heresy.

It actually looks like you are reading a bunch into the narrative. Let me give you an example. Please readers go back to the discussions between Originalist and I and you will notice what I'm explaining. Og, I brought up James 2:7? Correct? But you told me that was God calling the name upon us. When I asked you for book, chapter, and verse you gave me none. Now, if anyone takes the time to view our discussion in retrospect, they will see you actually do that quite a bit.



When there is nothing taught about it in scripture, I don't have to waste my time refuting it. There is nothing remotely taught in scripture concerning baptismal invocations remitting sin.

But just making baseless statements isn't teaching. Also your Strawman accusal that we are saying that a minister remits sin is baseless. But, you really need to define John 20:22-23 maybe it would help to see it in the light of Matthew 16:19? Jesus telling the Baptist to baptize Him was to COMPLETE all righteousness, not to impart righteousness or to remit Jesus' sins. But, since you are the teacher, you need to explain the meaning of John 20:22-23.



Oh please. Why insult me?

Honestly? Please, how did what I say insult you? Go back (hopefully everyone) and explain how that was insulting?




And HOW does that prove YOR theory concerning baptismal invocations remitting sin? You have repeated this same thing over and over . I'm still at a loss on how this proves your theory. As I've stated, no pre-Pentecost baptism can be compared with ours, not even that of Jesus.

I believe I already dealt with your hysterics concerning your strawman. But, we weren't discussing ministers remitting sins, we were discussing the importance of the baptizer being with the baptized. That the Baptizer had to invocate the name of Jesus Christ, and the Baptized had to repent.



And you red on to verse 41 and STILL think the word "name" is not referring to authority? We say "in the name of Jesus" when we give that cup of water? That's how we do that act "in his name"? Sorry, but verse 38 is indeed talking about authority. The man was casting out devils "in his name" NOT "WITH his name".

Mark 9:38 How was this man and the seven sons of Sceva in Jesus' authority? Both were doing the exact same thing, both were unknown in the spiritual realm to God and demon. How were they both in Jesus' authority? don't worry, I'll wait.



Maybe they made the same mistake doctrinally you are concerning the name.

So, you don't know, therefore you resort to being facetious. Hey, that's cool, if you don't know, you know. :heeheehee


As I stated previously, a demon is an intelligent, thinking being. Certainly an intelligent being must be made to understand vocally by whose authority he is being ordered out. That is why the name Jesus was mentioned. I have explained this at least 20 times to you. Thus, do you see that I am not denying the name was said? Do you see that? Yes or no? We seem to differ, however, on the significance of its use.

Then there is power in using the name audibly. Not as some magic talisman, but that the name Jesus Christ spoken by a true believer, whether neophyte or apostle has power.



In the Sceva case, that word was a vain repetition, meaningless. There was no Holy Ghost authority behind it. This proves to me it is the authority and not he word Jesus that is the issue.

It actually looks like you are reading a bunch into the narrative. But if we just use scripture to explain scripture we have a different view than what you posted. The seven sons of Sceva invoke the name over people who were inflicted with demonic spirits. Mark 9:38 we see the exact same thing happening again, the ONLY DIFFERENCE is that only the name of JESUS is being invoked. If Jesus didn't know the sons of Sceva, the demons didn't know the sons of Sceva, and Jesus and His apostles didn't know the guy in Mark 9:38. We also know his final outcome Matthew 7:21-23, that Jesus didn't know the man. Clearly he didn't have the Holy Ghost behind him. Yet, power was still in that name when you place faith in that name. When we look at Matthew 7:22 we see something else, which you ALREADY ADMITTED TO. You admitted that they did you the name audibly in both cases, the Greek actually says invoked. So, when we read Matthew 7:22 καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι δαιμόνια ἐξεβάλομεν! Bro, it says in your name, but we know that they used the name audibly? Therefore we have faith in that name be we baptizer or baptized, if we are casting out devils, or performing miracles. The name must be invoked, but we must have faith in the one who owns the NAME.

[Evang.Benincasa]

No,

Yes, it is, and further more if we posted it to you you would of said it was irrelevant. Which I would agree, because it was nothing more than religious confusion at a Baptist church.


it is a relaying of something I witnessed for the purpose if biblical analysis. I understand though why you want to poison the debate out of the gate.

But, think of it, please reread what you posted. Any other religion on the planet could tug at heart strings for a plea to one's emotions. Yet, we are discussing the book. For you claiming we are injecting your own narrative into the scripture, this is a doozy. Because we are to consider Baptists down by a lake in the morning a Biblical New Testament original?


Uh, no. Jesus is the door, way and gate. That is who the lady called on in baptism. Thus, your charge that I'm making the narrow way wider has no merit. In fact, that might be the most ridiculous thing yet I've heard anyone say on AFF. Seanesque in every detail.

Brother, you have no witness, the baptizer said what father, son, holy spirit. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. That is what the Apostle says in 2nd Corinthians 11 that there was false Apostles. Did they preach Jesus? Yes, a different Jesus, one having three heads? One who is the second person in a God squad? Receiving a different spirit? Could be your woman being baptized was under strong delusion? We don't know, you don't know. Og, you really don't have a defining line, because you make the word of God of no effect. You tell Tyrone to get baptized in Jesus name, but then say there isn't anything wrong with the Baptist Title baptism. Bro, if you don't see anything wrong with your logic, then I would say you are Seanesque in every detail.


No I don't. You have to keep trying to convince yourself I'm doing that, but you know you're full of it.

Now, now, there should be no reason for you to fall apart like this? Telling me I'm full of it? Here, go sign off and come back in a couple of years when you grow up. :lol

No I don't, No I don't, No I don't, you are full of it. :laffatu

You are funny. :highfive


I've never questioned that baptizers used an invocation. The only thing I've questioned is whether that baptismal invocation is linked to the forgiveness of sins. So how many times will you keep falsely claiming that I "keep going back and forth".

Bro, you never questioned? Bro, show us where the baptizer says anything in the Bible?


Comon, are you going to tell me that I'm not being clear here? Read the above paragraph I just wrote and kindly tell me where your still confused .

So, me anywhere in the New Testament where you believe we are being told, or even suggested that we are to say anything over the baptized? Oh, I believe strongly that we must say Jesus Christ over the baptized, but then I have scripture for what I post. You need to show me where you get your reasons to say anything over the neophyte. Please tell the forum where YOU say the name of Jesus over a convert, and where you get the scriptural proof to do so.



In instructions on baptism he required authority. "In the name of". Even a law school drop-out understands what that term means. You do not.

I often wonder if you guys are so mouthy in real life? I tend to believe you are not, or you never have Bible studies with unchurched men. Because where I come from, there not only cornbread and chicken. But a fistfull of broken teeth for those who can talk smack with out any abdominal backup.
I honestly cannot see where I treated you like this, but I'm learning. Anyway, you say that you NEVER questioned Jesus' name being invoked over the neophyte. Therefore could you settle all hearts and minds by showing us in the scripture where we are told that this should be done to the convert?



I don't have to prove anything.

Oh, but actually you do. Because I am claiming that we do need to do it. You are claiming the opposite. Therefore you need to prove what you are claiming as well as me claiming my position.



You are the one claiming there is such a requirement. Thus the burden of proof is on you, not me. It's like you're sayng I still have not proved I was not in Antarctica last Thursday. If you claim I was, then back up the claim.

Bro, you being on the moon isn't relevant to our discussion. I'm not saying you are, were, or going to be in Antarctica, last Thursday, this Thursday, or any Thursday. We aren't discussing the events of your life, but we are discussing the information found in the Bible. I hold to the Orthodox view, meaning that the minister is admonished to invoke the name of Jesus over the baptized. You are claiming and defending the unorthodox view, that something could be said, but might not be necessary, sincer you believe JESUS didn't give any such instruction. So, you have the burden, Deal with it, or move on.


And neither do you. I don't have to have a dogmatic view on everything in scripture. I do know that your view is bogus. By your view, you could forgive me if I stole something today, like a priest.
.

You don't know if anything is bogus or real, because bro, YOU DON'T KNOW.

Got it.

With all your posting of colleage thesis, and your bluster here, didn't prove a thing. Sean? Calling me Sean? How sad, grow up. You don't know, but you are going to teach us.

Good luck with that.

[Aquila]

To say that God withholds or grants his forgiveness over an invocation by the baptizer is heresy. That is what I am saying.

Early this morning, at a local lake, i witnessed a baptism. The pastor asked the convert, "What is your profession of faith?" The lady burst in tears exclaiming,"Jesus is alive! He is Lord! He is MY Lord and Savior! I have repented of my past and give my life to serve him!". The pastor then did his typical Baptist thing, using an invocation that rightfully declares by whose authority he was baptizing, but that did not clarify that authority belongs exclusively to the Son of God. I believe she is forgiven based on her own profession of faith and invoking of the name of the Lord Jesus. None of you can give a scriptural reason as to why God would not forgive this woman.

The Trinity is as pagan as the Aztec death whistle.

It's entirely up to God to forgive such error, and honor this woman's faith. But according to Scripture, that church is in error. I cannot offer any assurance that the woman was forgiven. We'll have to find out.

Let me ask this... Did she receive the Holy Ghost, with speaking in other tongues, as seen in Scripture? If not, she's yet to be born of Spirit. No regeneration. Meaning that her experience isn't complete even if she was justified by faith in repentance, and her sins forgiven at her pagan baptism.

Repentance unto justification, baptism unto identification & remission, Holy Spirit unto regeneration.

That makes one a child of God, adoption.

The Bible is the Bible. There is more error out there than truth. Even as much as 75% of Apostolic churches are in some form of compromise or error.

[Esaias]

To say that God withholds or grants his forgiveness over an invocation by the baptizer is heresy. That is what I am saying.

Early this morning, at a local lake, i witnessed a baptism. The pastor asked the convert, "What is your profession of faith?" The lady burst in tears exclaiming,"Jesus is alive! He is Lord! He is MY Lord and Savior! I have repented of my past and give my life to serve him!". The pastor then did his typical Baptist thing, using an invocation that rightfully declares by whose authority he was baptizing, but that did not clarify that authority belongs exclusively to the Son of God. I believe she is forgiven based on her own profession of faith and invoking of the name of the Lord Jesus. None of you can give a scriptural reason as to why God would not forgive this woman.

Oh, but see that's the problem We have given numerous Scriptural reasons why a trinitarian baptism is not Christian baptism. You, however, have NOT given any Scriptural reasons why a trinitarian baptism IS a valid Christian baptism. In order for it to be valid, you would have to show that what the baptizer is saying is irrelevant. Trinity, shminity, Willie Branham, Joe Smith, Larry, Moe, and Curly, whatever, has no effect on the validity of a baptism. You have not demonstrated that FROM THE BIBLE.

And that brings up the question: if what the baptizer is doing is irrelevant, then what purpose does he serve? Why are TWO PEOPLE required? Why must there be a baptizer? Why not self baptism?

You already claimed self baptism would be acceptable if a baptizer couldn't be found. Which means a baptizer is actually unneeded. Which raises the question: why did Jesus command us to baptize? Why not command us to command others to baptize themselves?

See, your theories simply don't match up with Scripture, it's a never ending dangle glob of unexplained loose ends.

And the worst part? You just keep making assertions but NEVER JUST LAY OUT THE SCRIPTURES TO BUILD YOUR CASE. That's a sure sign you're flying by the seat of your pants and that you really have no BIBLE doctrine, just your personal opinion.

[consapente89]

To say that God withholds or grants his forgiveness over an invocation by the baptizer is heresy. That is what I am saying.

Early this morning, at a local lake, i witnessed a baptism. The pastor asked the convert, "What is your profession of faith?" The lady burst in tears exclaiming,"Jesus is alive! He is Lord! He is MY Lord and Savior! I have repented of my past and give my life to serve him!". The pastor then did his typical Baptist thing, using an invocation that rightfully declares by whose authority he was baptizing, but that did not clarify that authority belongs exclusively to the Son of God. I believe she is forgiven based on her own profession of faith and invoking of the name of the Lord Jesus. None of you can give a scriptural reason as to why God would not forgive this woman.

Then Why not just go back to your AoG roots and stop posing as an Apostolic? You would be of better service to them than as a poser in Jesus Name Pentecost. We have enough of those.

[Originalist]

Then Why not just go back to your AoG roots and stop posing as an Apostolic?

Why not engage in dialog instead of suggesting I leave? Why would I go back to the AG?

1) AG believes that baptism is a "post-salvation experience". I believe it is normatively a PRE-salvation experience connected to the forgiveness of sins. So while I feel it is error to link forgiveness of sins in baptism to a baptizer's invocation, I still affirm baptism is an essential step of faith towards receiving the new birth of the Spirit. In addition, I want the liberty to use whatever invocation God lays on my heart rather than recite their liturgy.

2) In the AG, I would be obliged to comply with their misunderstanding that Matthew 28:19 is a baptismal invocation taught to the disciples by Christ.

3) The AG believes that the new birth of the Spirit and the baptism in the Spirit are two distinct works of grace. I believe they are one and the same. Sadly, fewer and fewer people are receiving the Holy Ghost in North American AG churches.

4) I do not feel comfortable using the title "Trinity" to describe God's existence as Father, Son and Spirit.


You would be of better service to them than as a poser in Jesus Name Pentecost. We have enough of those.

I am what you describe as a "Jesus Name" believer.





Thank you.

[Originalist]

Oh, but see that's the problem We have given numerous Scriptural reasons why a trinitarian baptism is not Christian baptism.

There is no such thing as a "Trinitarian baptism". Those words are speaking of the authority of the Father (the one true God), given to the Son (Matthew 29:18), made active in the believer by receiving the Holy Ghost. It certainly is a mis-understanding to recite them as a baptismal invocation, but doing so in inert. God pardons the sinner, like the lady I mentioned this morning, because she went into baptism "in the name of Jesus" or "per Christ's authority" or "for the sake of Christ".


You, however, have NOT given any Scriptural reasons why a trinitarian baptism IS a valid Christian baptism.

I defer to my comments above. ^^^^^ If you need further clarification on those remarks, feel free to ask.


In order for it to be valid, you would have to show that what the baptizer is saying is irrelevant.

It is actually quite the opposite. Any law school drop-out knows what it means to do something in the name of another. For the baptizee, confession with the mouth is required. For the baptizer, there is nothing that requires him to say anything, nor is there any link between his invocation and the forgiveness of the sins of the one being baptized. You are claiming relevance to the baptizer's words being connected to forgiveness, I am not. The burden of proof is on you.


Trinity, shminity, Willie Branham, Joe Smith, Larry, Moe, and Curly, whatever, has no effect on the validity of a baptism. You have not demonstrated that FROM THE BIBLE.



The ONLY way saying the names above in your silly illustration would invalidate a baptism would be because the baptizer was not affirming he was baptizing per the authority the Father gave the Son, and that is manifest in the believer when the receive the Holy Ghost. But, even though it is a misunderstanding to do so, reciting Mathew 28:19 is an AFFIRMATION of the baptizer that he is baptizing per God's authority. It would make more sense, however, for him to include the name Jesus in his invocation, since he is the one who was the recipient of that authority.

And that brings up the question: if what the baptizer is doing is irrelevant, then what purpose does he serve?

Brother, do really not remember the many times I've answered this question? Furthermore, who said the baptizer is "irrelevant"? It's hard to take you seriously. Would you like me to answer this question, for the final time?

Why are TWO PEOPLE required? Why must there be a baptizer? Why not self baptism?

^^^^^^^ see my last comment.

You already claimed self baptism would be acceptable if a baptizer couldn't be found. Which means a baptizer is actually unneeded.

Now you are acting like I'm making some weird exception into the rule. Again, I've explained why a baptizer is needed.

Which raises the question: why did Jesus command us to baptize? Why not command us to command others to baptize themselves?


Already answered in many previous threads. Do you need clarification?

See, your theories simply don't match up with Scripture, it's a never ending dangle glob of unexplained loose ends.

My theories add up with any interpretation based on sound hermeneutics and not viewed through Hazelwood lenses.

And the worst part? You just keep making assertions but NEVER JUST LAY OUT THE SCRIPTURES TO BUILD YOUR CASE. That's a sure sign you're flying by the seat of your pants and that you really have no BIBLE doctrine, just your personal opinion.

Dog squeeze. We are not debating "scripture" here. We are debating meaning/definition, namely, what constitutes doing something in the name of another. You and I use the same scripture. We don't agree on the meaning of words and terms.


.

[Evang.Benincasa]

1) AG believes that baptism is a "post-salvation experience". I believe it is normatively a PRE-salvation experience connected to the forgiveness of sins.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/d79bb8b068a5435a43aedb66668223ea/tenor.gif?itemid=4681374



So while I feel it is error to link forgiveness of sins in baptism to a baptizer's invocation, I still affirm baptism is an essential step of faith towards receiving the new birth of the Spirit.

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0GRkYJ1bIwmmd7YA/giphy.gif


In addition, I want the liberty to use whatever invocation God lays on my heart rather than recite their liturgy.

https://i2.wp.com/i.imgur.com/mzD4C7n.gif




2) In the AG, I would be obliged to comply with their misunderstanding that Matthew 28:19 is a baptismal invocation taught to the disciples by Christ.

Bro, your Baptist pastor and his organization believes that.



3) The AG believes that the new birth of the Spirit and the baptism in the Spirit are two distinct works of grace. I believe they are one and the same. Sadly, fewer and fewer people are receiving the Holy Ghost in North American AG churches.

Bro, I bet they are just talking like Chinamen and shouting their hair down at the Baptist church.



4) I do not feel comfortable using the title "Trinity" to describe God's existence as Father, Son and Spirit.

I had a friend who had an uncle who was comfortable wearing no pants when he walked outside. But, guess what, everyone disagreed with what he was comfortable with.


I am what you describe as a "Jesus Name" believer.
Thank you.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/b49408163b5ead7e2eb1e2a0247d072b/tumblr_inline_n2x7o6S08i1s1ggck.gif

[Originalist]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/d79bb8b068a5435a43aedb66668223ea/tenor.gif?itemid=4681374




https://media.giphy.com/media/l0GRkYJ1bIwmmd7YA/giphy.gif



https://i2.wp.com/i.imgur.com/mzD4C7n.gif




Bro, your Baptist pastor and his organization believes that.

I am not a member of a Baptist church and thus do not have a Baptist pastor.




Bro, I bet they are just talking like Chinamen and shouting their hair down at the Baptist church.

No. But there is actually more Bible ( actually teaching scripture instead of Joel Osteen sugar cookies) teaching in the SBC now than in the AG.


I had a friend who had an uncle who was comfortable wearing no pants when he walked outside. But, guess what, everyone disagreed with what he was comfortable with.

I also do not feel comfortable with people who are perpetual children, who don't know any verse except Acts 2:38, and who get uncomfortable when I share something God did in my ministry or life prior to my conversion to the Oneness movement.



https://31.media.tumblr.com/b49408163b5ead7e2eb1e2a0247d072b/tumblr_inline_n2x7o6S08i1s1ggck.gif

Nothing but harassment. The poster asked me a question. I gave my answers. Like others have pointed out, you start getting weird.

[Aquila]

Christ commanded the church to baptize. Jesus name baptism was the norm until the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Regardless as to what one believes about water baptism's role in salvation, Scripture appears to be clear that water baptism was originally performed in the singular name of Jesus only:
(Acts 2:38-41 KJV)
(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. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

(Acts 8:14-17 KJV)
(14) Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (17) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

(Acts 10:44-48 KJV)
(44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

(Acts 22:16 KJV)
(16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Also, various historians and historical sources have noted that water baptism was originally performed in the singular name of Jesus only:
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351:"The evidence suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53:"At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241:"[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58:"The trinitarian baptismal formula was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435:"The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus... which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53:"Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473:"It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365:"The trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning. Baptism into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."
With the witness of both Scripture and History, testifying to the historical reality of baptism originally being done in the name of Jesus... I have to ask you...

Why is there an issue?

[Originalist]

Christ commanded the church to baptize. Jesus name baptism was the norm until the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Regardless as to what one believes about water baptism's role in salvation, Scripture appears to be clear that water baptism was originally performed in the singular name of Jesus only:
(Acts 2:38-41 KJV)
(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. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

(Acts 8:14-17 KJV)
(14) Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (17) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

(Acts 10:44-48 KJV)
(44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

(Acts 22:16 KJV)
(16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Also, various historians and historical sources have noted that water baptism was originally performed in the singular name of Jesus only:
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351:"The evidence suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53:"At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241:"[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58:"The trinitarian baptismal formula was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435:"The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus... which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53:"Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473:"It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365:"The trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning. Baptism into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."
With the witness of both Scripture and History, testifying to the historical reality of baptism originally being done in the name of Jesus... I have to ask you...

Why is there an issue?

Again, "Jesus name baptism" has more to do with something we are DOING than something we are SAYING.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Again, "Jesus name baptism" has more to do with something we are DOING than something we are SAYING.

I think your major problem is that you have it all fragmented.

You need to get out of the Baptist church, because you not having ministry in your life is going to make you weird.

[Originalist]

I think your major problem is that you have it all fragmented.

You need to get out of the Baptist church, because you not having ministry in your life is going to make you weird.

I'll have no ministry in my life until I can provide for my family.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I am not a member of a Baptist church and thus do not have a Baptist pastor.

OK, therefore you have no pastor, and no eldership in your church fellowship.


No. But there is actually more Bible ( actually teaching scripture instead of Joel Osteen sugar cookies) teaching in the SBC now than in the AG.

Bible study in a Baptist church? If you are posting to us that your are getting fed there, then honey child, you must think taquitos at 7 eleven is authentic Mexican food.



I also do not feel comfortable with people who are perpetual children,

You mean like you? You mean how you have been such a n adult with those who opposed your message? Like that? You need to come back to earth, because Hoss, you are standing akimbo on mount olympus. Thinking you are all that and a bag of chips. Look, you were AoG, UPC, and now you are twisting in the wind, sitting like a turnip on a Baptist pew singing some song that they have good Bible studies? You might be able to run that down the road a piece, but my man, we aren't going to sit back and say nothing. Aog, UPC, and now your musty ancestral Baptist church. You can't see what's happening? Bro, you aren't getting an upgrade, not by a long shot.


who don't know any verse except Acts 2:38,

Who DOESN'T know. Well, how about sitting in the Baptist church where they John 3:16 you to death. Please, brother, please, don't come around here with some revelation how the Baptist church is deep.



and who get uncomfortable when I share something God did in my ministry or life prior to my conversion to the Oneness movement.

Like be in the thick of it during the Jimmy Swaggart scandal? That is what you posted here about your pre-Oneness experiences in ministry.


Nothing but harassment. The poster asked me a question. I gave my answers. Like others have pointed out, you start getting weird.

My boy, I haven't harassed you. That's a fact.

[Originalist]

OK, therefore you have no pastor, and no eldership in your church fellowship.
.

I am the chief Shepard. He'll put me where he wants me in his time.


Bible study in a Baptist church? If you are posting to us that your are getting fed there, then honey child, you must think taquitos at 7 eleven is authentic Mexican food.

Then what does that say for the modern AG? What does it say for modern UPC churches where nobody progresses in biblical knowledge past Acts 2:38, and till don't get that right?




You mean like you? You mean how you have been such a n adult with those who opposed your message?

Untrue. I've been stern with those who misrepresent my message.

Like that? You need to come back to earth, because Hoss,

I prefer not to be addressed in a condescending nature like "Hoss".

you are standing akimbo on mount olympus. Thinking you are all that and a bag of chips. Look, you were AoG, UPC, and now you are twisting in the wind,


You're too late. Satan already told me that. Now if you want to pile on with he Devil against me, go ahead. I'm am not twisting. I am planted on the Rock. I heard his sayings and did them. Thus, my house will not fall.




sitting like a turnip on a Baptist pew singing some song that they have good Bible studies?

Sadly, I'll be sitting in a pew doing very little until I can finish school and adequately provide for my family. But at least the Baptists haven't told me that my financial storm must of been a result of inadequate giving, like my UPC pastor and District Superintendent told me. Please spare me the tired old lies, brother. Our movement does have insight other Christians need to consider. But our goofiness hinders them from seeing it. We have been our own worse stumbling block since before we broke with the AG.

You might be able to run that down the road a piece, but my man, we aren't going to sit back and say nothing. Aog, UPC, and now your musty ancestral Baptist church. You can't see what's happening? Bro, you aren't getting an upgrade, not by a long shot.


Yes, I see what's happening. I'm broke with a family. I live with my dad in a leaky, un-heated, un- air conditioned home built in 1936, in a very rural community. Driving 25 miles to the nearest oneness church is out of the question because of gas usage. Besides, that was the church I used to attend. Not once in 3 years did the pastor ask anyone in the church to put in a word for me at their work place. But when I had no choice but to get a second job, I was kicked to the curb. Now in all fairness, this is NOTHING like the UPC church I attended for 17 years about 90 minutes from here. The pastor of that church and I think alike on many of issues. I knew when I left his bubble and got into the "UPC world" I would most likely encounter unbalanced extremists (present company excepted), and I did. But no big deal. I walked with God long before I ever dreamed of joining the UPC (something you simply cannot grasp). He hasn't changed. I see this difficult aspect of my journey as a Moses like dessert experience that makes me a clean slate for God to write on. But you will be hearing about me, I believe.



Who DOESN'T know. Well, how about sitting in the Baptist church where they John 3:16 you to death. Please, brother, please, don't come around here with some revelation how the Baptist church is deep.


Never made such a claim. I am just remaining faithful to church attendance confined by current limitations. You assume way too much. You are very judgmental. And if you really had Holy Ghost discernment, you would not be saying most of this junk. I don't let it offed me because I know your motives are good and that you are concerned.




Like be in the thick of it during the Jimmy Swaggart scandal? That is what you posted here about your pre-Oneness experiences in ministry.

I wouldn't trade those days for anything. As horrible as it was, I witnessed a major event in church history. I will write on it someday.



My boy, I haven't harassed you. That's a fact.

Not intentionally. Again, you mean well and I appreciate your concern. But remember, there is also an AG alter-ego of you speaking all of this to me from the other side. "How could you join that cult?" blah blah blah. "Don't you know they deny the Father and the Holy Spirit?" blah blah blah. Everyone's an expert. Actually, I am an expert of sorts because I know both camps inside and out. Thus, I will be writing a book. Then both sides will hate me. :heeheehee:happydance





:thumbsup

[Aquila]

When we receive the Holy Ghost, we experience regeneration through partaking in the divine nature as He comes to abide in us, in our inner man. We become branches of the True Vine, living extensions of Jesus Himself. And as a result, sins are indeed remitted by Jesus when we baptize in His name.

We are His body on Earth.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Our brothers would have us believe that Cornelius would have split hell wide open had he died of a heart attack just as Peter was getting ready to dunk him. That is making the act of baptism itself an idolatrous thing. This view weakens the message of salvation.

I believe it is normatively a PRE-salvation experience connected to the forgiveness of sins. So while I feel it is error to link forgiveness of sins in baptism to a baptizer's invocation, I still affirm baptism is an essential step of faith towards receiving the new birth of the Spirit.

How, do you reconcile these two posts?

[Aquila]

The faith of the seeker upon justifies them by their faith, but the purpose of this is so that we can be deemed worthy to be baptized in His name for the remission of our sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Not so that we can stop in the middle of the new birth process and celebrate being Baptist.

[Originalist]

How, do you reconcile these two posts?


Why should I?

Any exceptions would be so few , and under the most unique of circumstances, it wouldn't even be worth mentioning. I feel Cornelius was one of those unique cases.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I am the chief Shepard.

The above is a typo?



He'll put me where he wants me in his time.

What does that actually look like? I mean pretty much you have been making these decisions based on offenses happening? Or Did you get a new revelation of the word? If the latter why didn't you get access of brethren of like precious faith? Or just exactly how many times have you been placed on the backside of the wilderness?


Then what does that say for the modern AG? What does it say for modern UPC churches where nobody progresses in biblical knowledge past Acts 2:38, and still don't get that right?

Seriously, you aren't anyone to talk sitting in a Baptist church. talk about not getting it right, are they freewill Baptist? Are they CALVINISTS? Once saved always saved? Bro, John 3:16 fried, sauteed, boiled, baked, and tossed in a tortilla. Did you read rdp's articles on Baptism? Esaias is stuck on Acts 2:38 only? These brothers post awesome information on numerous topics. To say they are stuck on one verse is being disingenuous.




Untrue. I've been stern with those who misrepresent my message.

Hey, every man's perception is there own reality. You have no one in your fellowship who tells you no, stop, or go. Of course you see yourself as robed in saffron, walking gently on lotus petals. Telling Esaias he has a redwood tree as a beam in his eye? Bro, you are bringing forth the unorthodox belief, we never left, we still believe what we believe. You now want to stand akimbo throwing down lighting bolts to the midgets below? If we oppose you you get stern? Stop, you get mad, just tell it like it is. You get mad.


I prefer not to be addressed in a condescending nature like "Hoss".

Oh, that is a Seanism. You can do unto others its godly, but when they do it to you it is condescending? Get over yourself.


You're too late. Satan already told me that. Now if you want to pile on with he Devil against me, go ahead. I'm am not twisting. I am planted on the Rock. I heard his sayings and did them. Thus, my house will not fall.

Bro, not everything is the devil, somethings are us. That is why we fellowship with brothers of like precious faith. Because they can either pull a coattail, or give a gentle push, or a swift kick in the backside. How long you been in Churchanity? Bro, we justify all sorts of things which happen to us, to make things not our fault. Like the time the man was traveling through the woods, and heard crying, mournful low weeping. He went to look for the person who was in such sorrow filled distress, and saw it was the devil. The man shocked, asked the devil, "what are you doing? Why are you weeping? You are the devil?" The devil replied "I'm crying because everyone blames everything on me, it just isn't all my fault." Bro, it is ok to admit we are going down the wrong road, and that road was paved totally by our bad life choices. All we have to do is pick ourselves back up and get on the right track. There has to be an Apostolic One GOD Jesus name church you could go to.


Sadly, I'll be sitting in a pew doing very little until I can finish school and adequately provide for my family. But at least the Baptists haven't told me that my financial storm must of been a result of inadequate giving, like my UPC pastor and District Superintendent told me. Please spare me the tired old lies, brother. Our movement does have insight other Christians need to consider. But our goofiness hinders them from seeing it. We have been our own worse stumbling block since before we broke with the AG.

The tired old lies is that all UPCI preachers see financial struggles as a lack of giving. Some brothers understand real world real time situations. If you are having issues they help you figure out how to get finances back up. All the brothers I have known and still know, point to disaster as being caused by a lack of giving Or that Jesus is chasing us down to kill us at every turn.



Yes, I see what's happening. I'm broke with a family. I live with my dad in a leaky, un-heated, un- air conditioned home built in 1936, in a very rural community. Driving 25 miles to the nearest oneness church is out of the question because of gas usage. Besides, that was the church I used to attend. Not once in 3 years did the pastor ask anyone in the church to put in a word for me at their work place. But when I had no choice but to get a second job, I was kicked to the curb. Now in all fairness, this is NOTHING like the UPC church I attended for 17 years about 90 minutes from here. The pastor of that church and I think alike on many of issues. I knew when I left his bubble and got into the "UPC world" I would most likely encounter unbalanced extremists (present company excepted), and I did. But no big deal. I walked with God long before I ever dreamed of joining the UPC (something you simply cannot grasp). He hasn't changed. I see this difficult aspect of my journey as a Moses like dessert experience that makes me a clean slate for God to write on. But you will be hearing about me, I believe.

Can't the 90 minute away brother help you out? By the way what is your secular expertice? Carpenter, mechanic, any trade experience?



Never made such a claim. I am just remaining faithful to church attendance confined by current limitations. You assume way too much. You are very judgmental. And if you really had Holy Ghost discernment, you would not be saying most of this junk. I don't let it offed me because I know your motives are good and that you are concerned.

Bro, does the old UPCI pastor know your situation?





I wouldn't trade those days for anything. As horrible as it was, I witnessed a major event in church history. I will write on it someday.

Well, you sure taught me about the two different women that he was supposedly were with. That video you posted makes you think.




Not intentionally. Again, you mean well and I appreciate your concern. But remember, there is also an AG alter-ego of you speaking all of this to me from the other side. "How could you join that cult?" blah blah blah. "Don't you know they deny the Father and the Holy Spirit?" blah blah blah. Everyone's an expert. Actually, I am an expert of sorts because I know both camps inside and out. Thus, I will be writing a book. Then both sides will hate me.
:thumbsup


Bro, this isn't about any side but the Bible side, and I see clearly water baptism in Jesus name with the name Jesus invoked by baptizer as well as baptized repenting as a must.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Why should I?

Any exceptions would be so few , and under the most unique of circumstances, it wouldn't even be worth mentioning. I feel Cornelius was one of those unique cases.

Explain?

[TyronePalmer]

Perhaps you could show from the Scripture that "what a baptizer says is irrelevant"?

If the guy who baptized you said "...in the name of Charles Russell" would your baptism be "valid"?

I never said what the baptizer says is irrelevant. Read my original post again to see what my point is.

Have you ever heard of anyone being baptized in someone's name besides, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or Jesus? I haven't, maybe a cult or something, but that's not my case. If it was I surely wouldn't be on this forum!

[Originalist]

The above is a typo?




What does that actually look like? I mean pretty much you have been making these decisions based on offenses happening?

What "decisions"? I made no decisions. They were made for me.

Or Did you get a new revelation of the word?

My views have stayed the same.

If the latter why didn't you get access of brethren of like precious faith?

Nobody cared.

Or just exactly how many times have you been placed on the backside of the wilderness?

This is the first.



Seriously, you aren't anyone to talk sitting in a Baptist church. talk about not getting it right, are they freewill Baptist? Are they CALVINISTS? Once saved always saved? Bro, John 3:16 fried, sauteed, boiled, baked, and tossed in a tortilla. Did you read rdp's articles on Baptism?


Actually, Calvinism has not been mentioned. The pastor is preaching a series on being an "Acts 1:8 Church". Hey, we are just passing through. Sweet people. But once I find a job that can afford me to pay rent, I'll be leaving the sticks. I'm taking advantage of the time as a research opportunity.


Esaias is stuck on Acts 2:38 only? These brothers post awesome information on numerous topics. To say they are stuck on one verse is being disingenuous.

I was referring to people off of this board.





Hey, every man's perception is there own reality. You have no one in your fellowship who tells you no, stop, or go. Of course you see yourself as robed in saffron, walking gently on lotus petals. Telling Esaias he has a redwood tree as a beam in his eye?


Yes, I stand by that statement.

Bro, you are bringing forth the unorthodox belief, we never left, we still believe what we believe.

Apostolics are a diverse lot.


You now want to stand akimbo throwing down lighting bolts to the midgets below? If we oppose you you get stern? Stop, you get mad, just tell it like it is. You get mad.


Again, no discernment. Never been mad.



Oh, that is a Seanism. You can do unto others its godly, but when they do it to you it is condescending? Get over yourself.

And you don't see the irony.




Bro, not everything is the devil, somethings are us. That is why we fellowship with brothers of like precious faith.

Again, they choke out the faith with traditions of men, like "you didn't give enough". How do I "fellowship" with someone who thinks God is sending a curse on my finances?


Because they can either pull a coattail, or give a gentle push, or a swift kick in the backside. How long you been in Churchanity?


You delude yourself. Esaias does not believe in the system you cling to.


Bro, we justify all sorts of things which happen to us, to make things not our fault.

I've accepted responsibility for decisions I made a few years ago that impacted me, like not going back to school sooner, or putting money into home improvements instead of saving, only to have to sell my home at a much lower price than I had anticipated. So spare me this judgmental diatribe, brother. I've never blamed anyone but me. What I have criticized is the lack of compassion and false doctrine I encountered like "you didn't give enough" or "if you start missing Sunday night because you get a second job, you're backslid". You are obviously one of those who refuse to admit to the gross error in the church. Your whole identity is wrapped up in churchianity. So spare me.


Like the time the man was traveling through the woods, and heard crying, mournful low weeping. He went to look for the person who was in such sorrow filled distress, and saw it was the devil. The man shocked, asked the devil, "what are you doing? Why are you weeping? You are the devil?" The devil replied "I'm crying because everyone blames everything on me, it just isn't all my fault."

I've not done this.


Bro, it is ok to admit we are going down the wrong road,

And part of that road was trying to stay a part of a corrupt system. Brother, the UPC is the spiritual abuse capitol of Pentecost.


and that road was paved totally by our bad life choices. All we have to do is pick ourselves back up and get on the right track. There has to be an Apostolic One GOD Jesus name church you could go to.


There is not. But when I find one, I am going to ask the pastor to read my thesis. Most likely, he will ask me never to return.




The tired old lies is that all UPCI preachers see financial struggles as a lack of giving.

I NEVER said all, speaking of "tired old lies". Don't you see how you misrepresent, brother? But in my case, that is EXACTLY what happened. You simply do not ant to accept it because it makes you nervous and insecure.


Some brothers understand real world real time situations. If you are having issues they help you figure out how to get finances back up. All the brothers I have known and still know, point to disaster as being caused by a lack of giving Or that Jesus is chasing us down to kill us at every turn.

I've got a plan, thanks. I would not dream of joining a church again that teaches the tithe doctrine. I thought I could just ignore as I was giving 20% when my crash happened. I thought, "Even though I know this is a bogus doctrine, I don't mind giving far beyond 10%. I give because I love God". But what I discovered is my pastor did not get that 10% of zero is zero. Thus, I will never again join a church that teaches this manipulative, abusive lie.




Can't the 90 minute away brother help you out? By the way what is your secular expertice? Carpenter, mechanic, any trade experience?


His plate is full. Besides, I'm on the right tack with school. We'll come out of this.




Bro, does the old UPCI pastor know your situation?

Yes.






Well, you sure taught me about the two different women that he was supposedly were with. That video you posted makes you think.

What is this in reference to?




Bro, this isn't about any side but the Bible side, and I see clearly water baptism in Jesus name with the name Jesus invoked by baptizer as well as baptized repenting as a must.

I concur. I see that to. But I differ on what effect, if any, the baptizer's invocation actually has on the forgiveness of the one being baptized. That is truly the only area we differ on this matter.



:thumbsup

[Originalist]

I never said what the baptizer says is irrelevant.

See how they keep misrepresenting?

Read my original post again to see what my point is.


It won't do any good.

Have you ever heard of anyone being baptized in someone's name besides, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or Jesus? I haven't, maybe a cult or something, but that's not my case. If it was I surely wouldn't be on this forum!

:happydance

[Esaias]

I never said what the baptizer says is irrelevant. Read my original post again to see what my point is.

Have you ever heard of anyone being baptized in someone's name besides, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or Jesus? I haven't, maybe a cult or something, but that's not my case. If it was I surely wouldn't be on this forum!

I wasn't addressing you.

And O says I misrepresent, but if anyone read the parts you left out they will see I misrepresented nothing.

[Esaias]

O said:
"It is actually quite the opposite. Any law school drop-out knows what it means to do something in the name of another. For the baptizee, confession with the mouth is required. For the baptizer, there is nothing that requires him to say anything, nor is there any link between his invocation and the forgiveness of the sins of the one being baptized. You are claiming relevance to the baptizer's words being connected to forgiveness, I am not. The burden of proof is on you."

See? 1. Again, you refuse to make a Scriptural case. 2. Now you shift the burden of proof. 3. I ALREADY PROVED MY CASE, but you just refuse to interact with data except to yell "heresy" and some mumbling about law school drop outs.

So, this is why it's round the mulberry bush with you. You make no case, refuse to support your theories, use ad hominems, and just repeat your opinions. Ergo, discussion is impossible.

[Originalist]

O said:
"It is actually quite the opposite. Any law school drop-out knows what it means to do something in the name of another. For the baptizee, confession with the mouth is required. For the baptizer, there is nothing that requires him to say anything, nor is there any link between his invocation and the forgiveness of the sins of the one being baptized. You are claiming relevance to the baptizer's words being connected to forgiveness, I am not. The burden of proof is on you."

See? 1. Again, you refuse to make a Scriptural case. 2. Now you shift the burden of proof. 3. I ALREADY PROVED MY CASE, but you just refuse to interact with data except to yell "heresy" and some mumbling about law school drop outs.

So, this is why it's round the mulberry bush with you. You make no case, refuse to support your theories, use ad hominems, and just repeat your opinions. Ergo, discussion is impossible.


When one is trying to establish doctrine, the burden of proof is on them to provide scriptural documentation for their teaching. Those claiming that the baptizers words are linked to the forgiveness of sin have failed in their endeavor to provide proof for their assertion.

Furthermore, any scripture I provide would already be familiar to you, like any reference to baptism post-Pentecost, in Acts and in the Epistles. Is that enough scripture for you? Must I list each one?

The disagreement you and I have is not one of scriptural documentation. Rather, our difference is on what one phrase means, "in the name of Jesus".

[TyronePalmer]

God look upon a man’s heart and see that he has no interest in what God actually said. Last days upon us? Tyrone, why because you are blendeble and assimilate into the lion share of Churchdom. So you can go in and out of both camps patting yourself on the back. Last days? Because I don’t swallow your act? Where baptism doesn’t matter? Yes Tyrone baptism doesn’t matter to you. Scriptural baptism anyway. You posted that you baptized people in Jesus name? Is that what you posted? What for? Did you earn some points in the heavenlys?
In the words of my old pap, “religion and brains” one has nothing to do with the other. Tyrone, look at what your saying is focused primarily on emotions. Also your rebuttal is a plea to emotions. Tell you what Tyrone, go get your arguments together and prove your position.

Mr. Benincasa, you continue to disrespect me, a man you do not know. And yes these are the last days, for many more reasons than your insensitive comments.

Baptism certainly does matter to me, which is why I posted the thread in the first place, to have an intelligent godly discussion about the invocation of the name of Jesus or not, in the ordinance of baptism.

Why not just stay on topic? If you believe that Father, Son, Holy Spirit, invoked over a believer leads to an invalid baptism in God's sight, that's your belief. If you don't want to consider anything else that's your choice.

I personally believe that God would and does validate a believer's baptism if their heart was right and they confessed Jesus name before baptism and during baptism, regardless of whether the baptizer invokes Jesus name or says Father, Son, Holy Spirit. That's my belief, you can disagree, you have free will.

A man of God should not argue.

2nd Timothy 2:24-25

"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth."

And I stated my position in the original post, enough said.

[Esaias]

When one is trying to establish doctrine, the burden of proof is on them to provide scriptural documentation for their teaching. Those claiming that the baptizers words are linked to the forgiveness of sin have failed in their endeavor to provide proof for their assertion.

Wrong. I've done it several times on thus and other threads. You have failed to offer a rebuttal, and you have failed to make YOUR case. Any law school drop out knows how disputation works. Proof, refutation, counter proof. That you remain unconvinced of the evidence given you is irrelevant. Just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean a case hasn't been made.

Furthermore, any scripture I provide would already be familiar to you, like any reference to baptism post-Pentecost, in Acts and in the Epistles. Is that enough scripture for you? Must I list each one?


To demonstrate that your doctrine is Biblical, yes, you need to lay it out: Quote the Scripture, and show how it supports your position. Surely you know how to teach?

The disagreement you and I have is not one of scriptural documentation. Rather, our difference is on what one phrase means, "in the name of Jesus".

I have documented what the phrase means, and how it looks when put into action in regard to the conversion experience. You have not, that's the whole point. All you have to do is refute the argument that has been given you (some three times, I believe, if not four or five), and show the counter argument (book, chapter, and verse).

Or not.

[Esaias]

O said: "There is no such thing as a "Trinitarian baptism"."

Fascinating.

Trinitarian Baptism

For a sacrament to be valid, three things have to be present: the correct form, the correct matter, and the correct intention. With baptism, the correct intention is to do what the Church does, the correct matter is water, and the correct form is the baptizing "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

Unfortunately, not all religious organizations use this form. In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes use no formula at all in their baptisms, and an even larger group, the "Jesus Only" Pentecostals, baptize "in the name of Jesus." As a result, the baptisms of these groups are invalid; thus, they are not Christian, but pseudo-Christian.

Both groups also reject the Trinity. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is not God, a heresy known as Arianism (after its fourth-century founder), and the "Jesus Only" Pentecostals claim that there is only a single person, Jesus, in the Godhead, a heresy known as Sabellianism (after its inventor in the third century; see the Catholic Answers tract, God in Three Persons).

"Jesus Only" Pentecostals note that Jesus told the apostles to baptize in "the name" (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, but they make the mistake of assuming that name is Jesus. There may not be a single name that Jesus has in mind at all, just as when we say, “Stop! In the name of the law,” we do not have a personal name in mind. If he did have such a name in mind, it may have been something such as God or Yahweh or Lord.

"Jesus Only" Pentecostals also argue that the New Testament talks about people being baptized "in the name of Jesus," but there are only four such passages (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5). Further, these passages do not use the same designation in each place (some say "Lord Jesus," other say "Jesus Christ"), indicating that they were not technical formulas used in the baptism but simply descriptions by Luke. These four descriptions are not to be considered as a substitute for or contradiction of the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to: "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

Rather, the phrase "baptized in the name of Jesus" is simply Luke’s way to distinguish Christian baptism from other baptisms of the period, such as John’s baptism (which Luke mentions in Acts 1:5, 22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, 19:4), Jewish proselyte baptism, and the baptisms of pagan cults (such as Mithraism). It also indicates the person into whose Mystical Body baptism incorporates us (Rom. 6:3).
https://www.catholic.com/tract/trinitarian-baptism

[Esaias]

Boy, those catholic arguments sure sound familiar...

[Esaias]

Here's an article by a Reformed Congregationalist:

Trinitarian Baptism

Christian Baptism Is trinitarian. Christian baptism (Covenant baptism) is “one” in the same sense that the “Lord” and the “faith” are one. The unity of the Lord is not something that is built by human hands, or human understanding. It is not something that is decreed by human institutions, nor a function of human institutions. The unity of “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism” is given by God, not built or established by man. The unity of such oneness is established by God in eternity. But what kind of unity does this biblical, trinitarian understanding of God describe?

Clearly, God’s unity lies in the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three, yet one; one, yet three. Christian unity is a unique unity that is found in the character of God and is reflected in God’s creation. And because Christian baptism touches the leading edge of God’s character in the reflected character of man, who was created in God’s image, the unity of baptism follows the pattern of God’s unity, which is trinitarian.

http://pilgrim-platform.org/2010/trinitarian-baptism/

[Esaias]

Another Reformed view:


Jul 15, 2009
#2
Sven
Sven
Puritan Board Sophomore
WCF XXVIII:

"The outward Element to be used in this Sacrament is water, wherewith the Party is to be Baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto."

Confessionally for Presbyterians, baptism is to be done in the name of the Trinity.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-trinitarian-formula-in-baptism.50780/

[Esaias]

Another Reformed view:


Jul 15, 2009
#2
Sven
Sven
Puritan Board Sophomore
WCF XXVIII:

"The outward Element to be used in this Sacrament is water, wherewith the Party is to be Baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto."

Confessionally for Presbyterians, baptism is to be done in the name of the Trinity.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-trinitarian-formula-in-baptism.50780/

BTW, an AFF part timer was on that thread. :)

[Esaias]

The Presbyterian Church is a protestant denomination that believes in a triune God that expresses himself in three ways -- as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The denomination emphasizes the sovereignty of God and strives to emulate the teachings of Jesus Christ by helping the hungry and poor and by reaching out to non-believers, or strangers. Presbyterians believe in Trinitarian baptism. During the process, babies or adults receive baptism through the sprinkling of water, the pouring of water, or by being dipped into water during a ceremony that is said to symbolize Christ's death and resurrection. Once a believer is baptized, he is said to have become a part of God's family.

What is Trinitarian Baptism?
Trinitarian baptism refers to baptism in the name of the three persons of the Trinity -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Presbyterians and other Christian churches practice Trinitarian baptism based on the passage Matthew 28:19:
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ... " During a Trinitarian baptism, the presiding minister applies the water and states publicly that the candidate is being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

https://classroom.synonym.com/is-the-presbyterian-baptism-trinitarian-12087288.html

[Esaias]

Monday, July 11, 2011
All Trinitarian Baptism is Valid—Hence, the Invalidity of Anabaptism

Christian baptism is not a baptism into a denomination, group, etc., but a baptism into the Christian faith, as grounded upon the ontological Trinity. This speaks of the universality (catholicity) of the true Church of Christ, marked by its confession of the Trinity, and that baptism in any of the different denominations, groups, etc. that have this Trinitarian confession is a valid baptism, as it is a baptism into the Trinity. Hence, Anabaptism (rebaptism) is definitely error of an egregious sort, if not utterly sinful (as absurd as regrowing foreskin for recircumcision!).

http://underdogtheology.blogspot.com/2011/07/all-trinitarian-baptism-is-validhence.html

[Esaias]

The Berean Call has an article "refuting" us. But interestingly, they understand Matthew 28:19 as including the correct formula. They also understand the Acts "in the name of" passages the same way Originalist seems to. Finally, they assert that baptism is "no part of the gospel", has nothing to do with salvation or remission of sins, and anyone who thinks so is a heretic drinking from Rome's broken cisterns.

https://www.thebereancall.org/content/trinity-baptism

[Esaias]

On Trinitarian Baptism
Monday, April 2, 2012 by Admin 1 Comment
St. Basil of Caesarea ca. 330-379
Let no one be misled by the fact of the Apostle’s frequently omitting the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit when making mention of baptism, or on this account imagine that the invocation of the names is not observed (cf. Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5).

http://classicalchristianity.com/2012/04/02/on-trinitarian-baptism/

[Esaias]

"invocation OF THE NAMES"... PLURAL????

lol

[Esaias]

And so much for the idea that "there is no such thing as trinitarian baptism".

[1ofthechosen]

I would say we all agree on the fact when the scripture say’s “in the Name of Jesus” it is speaking of in the “authority of”. Now, while I do believe that, I also know that it also means much more than that! Let’s take Matthew 28:19 for example when it says: “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” that’s not only meaning “authority”. The word translated as “name” comes from the Greek word “onoma”. It is defined by “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon” as: “the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one’s rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.” Now, yes it does mean “authority”, but as you see it means way more than that.
My first statement is this that this is Matthew 28, but go with me to John 4:1-2: “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples).” This was early in Jesus’ ministry; if He only meant in the “authority of” when He spoke of “baptizing in the name of” in Matthew 28:19, they would’ve already had that “authority”! So, my question is what formula were they using, at this time for baptism? From what I see from the scripture I would believe they are doing it only in “the authority of” His name. More than likely they were doing it similar, to John’s baptism! While in Matthew 28:19 this is definitely a brand “new thing” He is bringing about! Especially, in light of Luke 24:47 “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
Let’s look at some other passages too. Let’s look also at Matthew 10:1: “when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.” How did He give them “power” over these Spirit’s? Let’s now look at Luke 10:17 “the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.” In this passage do you believe truly, it’s just meaning “in authority of”? If it only meant in the “authority of”, they could silently lay hands on people and heal them, and cast out devils! I don’t believe anyone believes that’s what this means!
When someone is baptized in Jesus’ name they enter into a covenant with Him. Which we all know is a binding contract, similar to the one that was cut with Abraham in Genesis 15:17-18: “And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.” Circumcision of the flesh, was a foreshadowing of Baptism. This covenant is a “binding contract”. As we know our country was built originally off Biblical principles. Most of it was built from the law of Moses. When you sign a contract today we have to sign our names, binding us to that contract. Now, if I go to sign a lease and sign it “Father, Husband, and Son” that’s not binding because that’s not my name! That’s the same thing as being baptized in the title’s. But when you enter into the covenant with Jesus you now can be called by His name. How, you may ask? Through His name! Yes, by “authority of”, but also by adoption.
He has now placed that name upon you, through His blood. Just as when you are born into a family you take your Father’s last name and lineage. That’s how Revelation 22:4 is fulfilled “they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.” You will either be sealed, with one mark or the other! Our God, is a very particular God. Just look at the Tabernacle, the building of the Ark of the Covenant, Noah’s Ark! What if Noah would’ve not used the right materials he was told to use? Or just made it how he believed that was best, saying to himself “well, God knows my thoughts and my intents, this will work. I’m sure God will understand.” You know what would’ve happened? He would’ve never shut that door on the Ark, because it was God that shut them in. That’s the same thing in this case!
All I can say is do what the Word say’s just obey. Because, one day we will have to stand before God and give account. Just like with what I said about Noah, you may not be responsible for building a Ark, but you are responsible for obeying His plan of salvation. He is specific, even down to the littlest detail. You can try to justify away, why it will be good enough, but you have not one leg to stand on! Not one scripture to stand on, all you have to stand on is what a lot of people will tell you. They will say “my Grandma didn’t do that, and she was a great person. I know she is in heaven. If it was good enough for Grandma, it’s good enough for me.” Then they will say, “are you saying my Grandma went to hell?” All I can say is what the Word of God tells you to do. It tells you what it takes, and it lets you know how to go about it. It also is clear on the consequences of disobedience. How you go about what has been given is entirely upon you! Many people are going to go to hell just because they take someone’s word for what God said. And some people will go to hell, “knowing” what the word said, and deciding not to do it. All because they were listening to others, instead of obeying God!

[rdp]

To say that God withholds or grants his forgiveness over an invocation by the baptizer is heresy. That is what I am saying.

Early this morning, at a local lake, i witnessed a baptism. The pastor asked the convert, "What is your profession of faith?" The lady burst in tears exclaiming,"Jesus is alive! He is Lord! He is MY Lord and Savior! I have repented of my past and give my life to serve him!". The pastor then did his typical Baptist thing, using an invocation that rightfully declares by whose authority he was baptizing, but that did not clarify that authority belongs exclusively to the Son of God. I believe she is forgiven based on her own profession of faith and invoking of the name of the Lord Jesus. None of you can give a scriptural reason as to why God would not forgive this woman.

*Actually, you've been provided a ton of biblical evidence (that you obviously did not take the time to review). For the honest seeker of biblical salvation:

https://apostolicacademics.com/

https://vimeo.com/album/2065086

[Esaias]

The Berean Call has an article "refuting" us. But interestingly, they understand Matthew 28:19 as including the correct formula. They also understand the Acts "in the name of" passages the same way Originalist seems to. Finally, they assert that baptism is "no part of the gospel", has nothing to do with salvation or remission of sins, and anyone who thinks so is a heretic drinking from Rome's broken cisterns.

https://www.thebereancall.org/content/trinity-baptism

Update: Should read "they understand Matthew 28:19 as including what they believe is the correct, trinitarian, formula".

[1ofthechosen]

https://youtu.be/y27Uw2teKT0

So watch the 2nd person baptized is this legit as long as they are calling on the name of Jesus? This just cracked me up, how do I make the video pop up instead of just the link?

[Esaias]

https://youtu.be/y27Uw2teKT0

So watch the 2nd person baptized is this legit as long as they are calling on the name of Jesus? This just cracked me up, how do I make the video pop up instead of just the link?

When you copy the link, it will be a "youtu.be/xxxxxxxx" format. Paste the link, then edit the link as follows:

After the "https://" add a "www."
Get rid of the "." between the "youtu" and the "be"
After the "youtube" add a ".com"
After the ".com/" add this "watch?v=" right between the slash and the xxxxxxx of the video link.


So then "https://youtu.be/y27Uw2teKT0" becomes "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y27Uw2teKT0"

[Esaias]

What's fascinating is, the first guy said he wanted to "leave it (past life) all in the water and be a new creature" etc. A lot of people seem to intuitively understand what baptism is for. I have found this in the prayers and songs of many people (Baptists, etc), which are outright CONTRADICTIONS of their official "theology" as espoused from their pulpits.

People are so confused.

[1ofthechosen]

When you copy the link, it will be a "youtu.be/xxxxxxxx" format. Paste the link, then edit the link as follows:

After the "https://" add a "www."
Get rid of the "." between the "youtu" and the "be"
After the "youtube" add a ".com"
After the ".com/" add this "watch?v=" right between the slash and the xxxxxxx of the video link.


So then "https://youtu.be/y27Uw2teKT0" becomes "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y27Uw2teKT0"

Appreciate ya I was wondering how to do that, but I would've never guessed all that!!

[Evang.Benincasa]

When you copy the link, it will be a "youtu.be/xxxxxxxx" format. Paste the link, then edit the link as follows:

After the "https://" add a "www."
Get rid of the "." between the "youtu" and the "be"
After the "youtube" add a ".com"
After the ".com/" add this "watch?v=" right between the slash and the xxxxxxx of the video link.


So then "https://youtu.be/y27Uw2teKT0" becomes "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y27Uw2teKT0"

Well, Todd Bentley is a reprobate.

That was pretty demonic.

I feel bad for the poor little girl.

Does Todd have TRINITY tattooed on his thumb?

[houston]

I like this one where his wife dreams of a safari wih Oral Roberts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjMYqDHbYtg&app=desktop

[houston]

I think Pooh’s dream is more prophetic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLnADKgurvc&app=desktop

[Evang.Benincasa]

I like this one where his wife dreams of a safari wih Oral Roberts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjMYqDHbYtg&app=desktop

How many wives does this guy have?

[1ofthechosen]

How many wives does this guy have?

That guy is a total sham, but I only posted it because he baptized in the name of bam. I was looking for the one somebody told me about where he baptized in the. Name of bam! Bam! Bam!. But some of the people on here seem to believe it doesn't matter what your baptized in. So I presented it to show what that looks like.

[Evang.Benincasa]

That guy is a total sham, but I only posted it because he baptized in the name of bam. I was looking for the one somebody told me about where he baptized in the. Name of bam! Bam! Bam!. But some of the people on here seem to believe it doesn't matter what your baptized in. So I presented it to show what that looks like.

Well, it would seem that some would accept the baptism of bam, bam, bam.

Therefore you actually have an individual baptizing people bam, bam, bam.

[n david]

Bentley is big into "seers" and dreams. (Also big on beards and tats)

I saw him online when he first came on the scene with GodTV in 2008 or so. I couldn't believe people were falling for his junk. He hooked up with his current wife before he was divorced and for a while left his ministry due to the scandal and alcoholism.

I see he's back again though. It's sad that so many "christians" are so blinded and have absolutely no discernment when it comes to Bentley and his ilk.

[n david]

Well, it would seem that some would accept the baptism of bam, bam, bam.

Therefore you actually have an individual baptizing people bam, bam, bam.

https://media.tenor.com/images/2cce6c5e1e297f3c503b868705c48098/tenor.gif

[Evang.Benincasa]

Bentley is big into "seers" and dreams. (Also big on beards and tats)

I saw him online when he first came on the scene with GodTV in 2008 or so. I couldn't believe people were falling for his junk. He hooked up with his current wife before he was divorced and for a while left his ministry due to the scandal and alcoholism.

I see he's back again though. It's sad that so many "christians" are so blinded and have absolutely no discernment when it comes to Bentley and his ilk.

But wait, from just seeing the nucleus of what is on religious forums. Is it any wonder? I mean it is the frog in the kettle, and our country isn't the 1950s anymore. I mean they actually sell torn jeans in stores for big money.

[1ofthechosen]

http://www.photos.app.goo.gl/LJ1hoFwgLbCjXzec2But wait, from just seeing the nucleus of what is on religious forums. Is it any wonder? I mean it is the frog in the kettle, and our country isn't the 1950s anymore. I mean they actually sell torn jeans in stores for big money.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/LJ1hoFwgLbCjXzec2

I seen these at ross

[Evang.Benincasa]

http://www.photos.app.goo.gl/LJ1hoFwgLbCjXzec2

https://photos.app.goo.gl/LJ1hoFwgLbCjXzec2

I seen these at ross

I don't believe in evolution.

But I do believe in devolution.

[1ofthechosen]

I don't believe in evolution.

But I do believe in devolution.

It's definitely true. In all areas you don't build a fence around, and allow compromise. Then they wonder whats the purpose of standards. I guess they never read Joshua or Judges; we are only one generation away from our children to know not God!! The less compromise the more you keep it genuine, and authentic. But, only time can prove those things!! But it exposes the truth to all.

[1ofthechosen]

All I know is this thread went quiet as a mouse. It's alright next time I see another thread with this "it doesn't matter what's involved in baptism" or "in the name only means in the authority of" Ill be waiting.

[Originalist]

All I know is this thread went quiet as a mouse. It's alright next time I see another thread with this "it doesn't matter what's involved in baptism" or "in the name only means in the authority of" Ill be waiting.

Waiting to do what, be wrong again?


:laffatu

[Originalist]

I thought this would be easily understood by my hermeneutically challenged brothers who think they can speak someone's sins away. Even though I did not write this, it is STILL a good read, and doctrinally sound.....:heeheehee


Doing something in someone else’s name has a distinct legal meaning that is the same under our law as well as Hebrew, Greek, and Roman law.

If you stop someone in the name of the law, it means that you have been given legal authority to stop that person, and that as a private citizen, you have no such authority.

If you donate a gift in someone else’s name, it means that they get the credit for it as if they had done it themselves. You do not get the credit for the gift.

If you put property in someone’s name, it means that they become the owner of it. You no longer control that property.

A friend of mine wanted to buy a house. Since he wasn’t going to be present for the closing, he gave me his power of attorney. I bought the house in his name. Whatever I did during the closing in my friend’s name was legally the same as if he had done it himself. I signed his name on the papers.
However, that power of attorney was limited to the real estate closing and did not permit me to do anything other than acquire the property so that the title would be in his name. When it was over, I had no benefit from the transaction except my friend’s thanks.

If a wealthy man hires me and gives me a power of attorney to purchase real estate, and if I act within that authorization, I could purchase a shopping mall in his name. I would receive no benefit from that transaction, except for his gratitude and the salary he chooses to pay me. If I tried to buy a shopping center on my own, they’d laugh me out of the bank. But if I go in his name, they would do business with me.

If you appoint someone to act in your name, it means that they can act as your agent within the restrictions you impose. Jesus has empowered His followers to act in His name to do certain specified deeds: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, preach the gospel, and so on.

If you do something in Jesus’ name it means that you do it with the authority He gave you and not on your own authority, and that you act within the limits of your authorization, whatever those limits may be. You act as His agent, in His stead, to His credit and for His benefit. You have no benefit from your deeds except His thanks and whatever reward He chooses to give you.

[1ofthechosen]

I thought this would be easily understood by my hermeneutically challenged brothers who think they can speak someone's sins away. Even though I did not write this, it is STILL a good read, and doctrinally sound.....:heeheehee

Well his position is exactly what I'm saying. because if you read what I said it means in the authority of, but it also means more "the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc."
Yes he's saying with the signing of the power of attorney but it still takes the signature. Unless you are baptized in Jesus' name with His name invoked or called over you, you don't have that. You may even receive the Holy Ghost but you are lost without the Covenant being cut with you. It would be the same as those being uncircumcised in the Old Testament. Death would still be upon you. That power of attorney would have had no power if it was signed Father, Son, Husband because that is no one's name. Through the name you receive authority. But through the blood that's applied through baptism in His name. You receive His name upon you, the blood is in the name just like if you have a child by your blood they will receive your name.

[1ofthechosen]

I would say we all agree on the fact when the scripture say’s “in the Name of Jesus” it is speaking of in the “authority of”. Now, while I do believe that, I also know that it also means much more than that! Let’s take Matthew 28:19 for example when it says: “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” that’s not only meaning “authority”. The word translated as “name” comes from the Greek word “onoma”. It is defined by “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon” as: “the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one’s rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.” Now, yes it does mean “authority”, but as you see it means way more than that.

My first statement is this that this is Matthew 28, but go with me to John 4:1-2: “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples).” This was early in Jesus’ ministry; if He only meant in the “authority of” when He spoke of “baptizing in the name of” in Matthew 28:19, they would’ve already had that “authority”! So, my question is what formula were they using, at this time for baptism? From what I see from the scripture I would believe they are doing it only in "the authority of", and may have been silent baptism. More than likely they were doing it similar, to John’s baptism! While in Matthew 28:19 this is definitely a brand “new thing” He is bringing about! Especially, in light of Luke 24:47 “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

Let’s look at some other passages too. Let’s look also at Matthew 10:1: “when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.” How did He give them “power” over these Spirit’s? Let’s now look at Luke 10:17 “the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.” In this passage do you believe truly, it’s just meaning “in authority of”? If it only meant in the “authority of”, they could silently lay hands on people and heal them, and cast out devils! I don’t believe anyone believes that’s what this means!

When someone is baptized in Jesus’ name they enter into a covenant with Him. Which we all know is a binding contract, similar to the one that was cut with Abraham in Genesis 15:17-18: “And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.” Circumcision of the flesh, was a foreshadowing of Baptism. This covenant is a “binding contract”. As we know our country was built originally off Biblical principles. Most of it was built from the law of Moses. When you sign a contract today we have to sign our names, binding us to that contract. Now, if I go to sign a lease and sign it “Father, Husband, and Son” that’s not binding because that’s not my name! That’s the same thing as being baptized in the title’s. But when you enter into the covenant with Jesus you now can be called by His name. How, you may ask? Through His name! Yes, by “authority of”, but also by adoption.

He has now placed that name upon you, through His blood. Just as when you are born into a family you take your Father’s last name and lineage. That’s how Revelation 22:4 is fulfilled “they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.” You will either be sealed, with one mark or the other! Our God, is a very particular God. Just look at the Tabernacle, the building of the Ark of the Covenant, Noah’s Ark! What if Noah would’ve not used the right materials he was told to use? Or just made it how he believed that was best, saying to himself “well, God knows my thoughts and my intents, this will work. I’m sure God will understand.” You know what would’ve happened? He would’ve never shut that door on the Ark, because it was God that shut them in. That’s the same thing in this case!

All I can say is do what the Word say’s just obey. Because, one day we will have to stand before God and give account. Just like with what I said about Noah, you may not be responsible for building a Ark, but you are responsible for obeying His plan of salvation. He is specific, even down to the littlest detail. You can try to justify away, why it will be good enough, but you have not one leg to stand on! Not one scripture to stand on, all you have to stand on is what a lot of people will tell you. They will say “my Grandma didn’t do that, and she was a great person. I know she is in heaven. If it was good enough for Grandma, it’s good enough for me.” Then they will say, “are you saying my Grandma went to hell?” All I can say is what the Word of God tells you to do. It tells you what it takes, and it lets you know how to go about it. It also is clear on the consequences of disobedience. How you go about what has been given is entirely upon you! Many people are going to go to hell just because they take someone’s word for what God said. And some people will go to hell, “knowing” what the word said, and deciding not to do it. All because they were listening to others, instead of obeying God!

I said it much more beautifully here!!

[1ofthechosen]

https://www.youtube/watch?v=y27Uw2teKT0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y27Uw2teKT0)

The 2nd person he baptizes is that a legit baptism? if she is calling on the name of Jesus in her heart? I stand on its totally illegitimate regardless of all that do to the baptizer, and the formula.

[Originalist]

I said it much more beautifully here!!

Actually that is an unreadable blob. Please divide this up into paragraphs and thanks.

[Originalist]

https://www.youtube/watch?v=y27Uw2teKT0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y27Uw2teKT0)

The 2nd person is that a legit baptism if she is calling on the name of Jesus in her heart?

Are we going to post videos or discuss what constitutes doing something in the name of Jesus?

[1ofthechosen]

Are we going to post videos or discuss what constitutes doing something in the name of Jesus?

No this is what it looks like what you say is legit. As long as the one being baptized is calling on the name of Jesus in her heart. Would you say this is legit? I say it's illegitimate do to the baptizer, and the formula it's done in. Even though this guy claims to have talked to the Apostle Paul!! Lol

Oh and I fixed the paragraphs I copy and pasted from Word and that's how it came out sorry.

[Esaias]

Are we going to post videos or discuss what constitutes doing something in the name of Jesus?

You said you can't take us seriously anymore, so why bother?

[1ofthechosen]

Fixed I realized you couldn't copy and paste my quote. So paragraphs are right, and I revised a little...

I would say we all agree on the fact when the scripture say’s “in the Name of Jesus” it is speaking of in the “authority of”. Now, while I do believe that, I also know that it also means much more than that! Let’s take Matthew 28:19 for example when it says: “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” that’s not only meaning “authority”. The word translated as “name” comes from the Greek word “onoma”. It is defined by “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon” as: “the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one’s rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.” Now, yes it does mean “authority”, but as you see it means way more than that.

My first statement is this that this is Matthew 28, but go with me to John 4:1-2: “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples).” This was early in Jesus’ ministry; if He only meant in the “authority of” when He spoke of “baptizing in the name of” in Matthew 28:19, they would’ve already had that “authority”! So, my question is what formula were they using, at this time for baptism? From what I see from the scripture I would believe they are doing it only in “the authority of Jesus" at this time, maybe even by silent baptism . More than likely they were doing it similar
to John’s baptism. While in Matthew 28:19 this is definitely a brand “new thing” He is bringing about! Especially, in light of Luke 24:47 “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

Let’s look at some other passages too. Let’s look also at Matthew 10:1: “when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.” How did He give them “power” over these Spirit’s? Let’s now look at Luke 10:17 “the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.” In this passage do you believe truly, it’s just meaning “in authority of”? If it only meant in the “authority of”, they could silently lay hands on people and heal them, and cast out devils! I don’t believe anyone believes that’s what this means!

When someone is baptized in Jesus’ name they enter into a covenant with Him. Which we all know is a binding contract, similar to the one that was cut with Abraham in Genesis 15:17-18: “And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.” Circumcision of the flesh, was a foreshadowing of Baptism. This covenant is a “binding contract”. As we know our country was built originally off Biblical principles. Most of it was built from the law of Moses. When you sign a contract today we have to sign our names, binding us to that contract. Now, if I go to sign a lease and sign it “Father, Husband, and Son” that’s not binding because that’s not my name! That’s the same thing as being baptized in the title’s. But when you enter into the covenant with Jesus you now can be called by His name. How, you may ask? Through His name! Yes, by “authority of”, but also by adoption.

He has now placed that name upon you, through His blood. Just as when you are born into a family you take your Father’s last name and lineage. That’s how Revelation 22:4 is fulfilled “they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.” You will either be sealed, with one mark or the other! Our God, is a very particular God. Just look at the Tabernacle, the building of the Ark of the Covenant, Noah’s Ark! What if Noah would’ve not used the right materials he was told to use? Or just made it how he believed that was best, saying to himself “well, God knows my thoughts and my intents, this will work. I’m sure God will understand.” You know what would’ve happened? He would’ve never shut that door on the Ark, because it was God that shut them in. That’s the same thing in this case!

All I can say is do what the Word say’s just obey. Because, one day we will have to stand before God and give account. Just like with what I said about Noah, you may not be responsible for building a Ark, but you are responsible for obeying His plan of salvation. He is specific, even down to the littlest detail. You can try to justify away, why it will be good enough, but you have not one leg to stand on! Not one scripture to stand on, all you have to stand on is what a lot of people will tell you. They will say “my Grandma didn’t do that, and she was a great person. I know she is in heaven. If it was good enough for Grandma, it’s good enough for me.” Then they will say, “are you saying my Grandma went to hell?” All I can say is what the Word of God tells you to do. It tells you what it takes, and it lets you know how to go about it. It also is clear on the consequences of disobedience. How you go about what has been given is entirely upon you! Many people are going to go to hell just because they take someone’s word for what God said. And some people will go to hell, “knowing” what the word said, and deciding not to do it. All because they were listening to others, instead of obeying God!

[Originalist]

I would say we all agree on the fact when the scripture say’s “in the Name of Jesus” it is speaking of in the “authority of”. Now, while I do believe that, I also know that it also means much more than that! Let’s take Matthew 28:19 for example when it says: “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” that’s not only meaning “authority”. The word translated as “name” comes from the Greek word “onoma”. It is defined by “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon” as: “the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one’s rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.” Now, yes it does mean “authority”, but as you see it means way more than that.

Respectfully, you are reading way too much into that. You could say the same anytime someone does something in someone else's name.


My first statement is this that this is Matthew 28, but go with me to John 4:1-2: “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples).” This was early in Jesus’ ministry; if He only meant in the “authority of” when He spoke of “baptizing in the name of” in Matthew 28:19, they would’ve already had that “authority”!

Apples and oranges. They had not been commissioned to preach the gospel of his death, burial, resurrection and exaltation. This was a completely different gospel those Jews were being baptized into, in preparation of an earthly Messianic kingdom that exclusively for the household of Israel. The Great Commission is centered around Christ's finished work of redemption and subsequent exaltation. In John 4, none of that had happened. Thus the authority they had received in John 4 was not valid for the new gospel they would be preaching after Matthew 28. All those people they baptized in John 4 had to be rebaptized after Pentecost into the authority of the EXALTED Christ. Does that make sense?



So, my question is what formula were they using, at this time for baptism? From what I see from the scripture I would believe they are doing it only in “the authority of” His name.

Again respectively, I think you're needlessly reading vocal invocations into the narrative where none are mentioned. That does not mean they did not occur. But if that was meant to be the focus of the story here, wouldn't God have made sure it was included in the narrative? There simply is not enough data to form a dogmatic opinion.



More than likely they were doing it similar, to John’s baptism!

I think that is a fair assumption, but we don't know what "formula" John used, if any.



While in Matthew 28:19 this is definitely a brand “new thing” He is bringing about! Especially, in light of Luke 24:47 “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

Exactly. He could not send anybody in his name to preach repentance and the remission of sins until the price was paid for sin at the cross.



Let’s look at some other passages too. Let’s look also at Matthew 10:1: “when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.” How did He give them “power” over these Spirit’s? Let’s now look at Luke 10:17 “the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.” In this passage do you believe truly, it’s just meaning “in authority of”? If it only meant in the “authority of”, they could silently lay hands on people and heal them, and cast out devils! I don’t believe anyone believes that’s what this means!

Again, we can only formulate opinions according to the amount of data given. As I have stated in other posts, it is indeed in order to vocalize by whose authority you are doing something, lest you are given the credit instead of the one who sent you. In the case of a demon, you are dealing with an intelligent being who understands authority. The demons knew Jesus was the Son of God when he confronted them. Thus, when those demons understood that the disciples truly had been sent by Jesus to cast them out, they had to obey. Does that make sense?


When someone is baptized in Jesus’ name they enter into a covenant with Him. Which we all know is a binding contract, similar to the one that was cut with Abraham in Genesis 15:17-18: “And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.” Circumcision of the flesh, was a foreshadowing of Baptism. This covenant is a “binding contract”. As we know our country was built originally off Biblical principles. Most of it was built from the law of Moses. When you sign a contract today we have to sign our names, binding us to that contract. Now, if I go to sign a lease and sign it “Father, Husband, and Son” that’s not binding because that’s not my name!


In my opinion, the "signature on a legal document" does not work here. Yes, I've heard it before, but it is a little off. If I tell someone I am sent by the "Son of God" instead of saying "I'm sent by Jesus", I'm still operating in the authority he gave me. By this logic, it would be wrong to call Jesus the Son of God, since "God" is not a name. We'd have to call him "Son of Jehovah".

That’s the same thing as being baptized in the title’s.

"Holy Spirit" is not really a title. It is really an adjective. Though I agree Jesus was not giving us a baptismal invocation in Matthew 28:19, I also do not think the word "name" there is referring to what someone is called. Jesus is not trying to teach us that God's name is Jesus. Sorry, but that simply is not the context. The context in Mathew 28:18-19 is authority. God's authority is being completely given to his Son when he enters into his Father's glory. Jesus is telling them to go baptize in that authority. He is really pointing to his coming exaltation. Matthew 28:18-19 really transcend anyone's Godhead view. This is applicable to both the Oneness and Trinity view. However, Peter confirms Christ's words of Matthew 28:18-19 by invoking the name of Jesus! There is nothing "wrong" per say about saying the words "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" in a baptismal invocation. But it does demonstrate a lack of understanding of the context of Christ's words. In Acts 2, Peter understood that Christ had been exalted and given the right to give people the Holy Ghost. His whole sermon in Acts 2 is on the exaltation of Christ. Thus, he knew that Jesus now possessed the "all authority" he spoke of in Matthew 28 and thus gave the baptism command in HIS name! Glory to the Lamb of God!!


But when you enter into the covenant with Jesus you now can be called by His name. How, you may ask? Through His name! Yes, by “authority of”, but also by adoption.
He has now placed that name upon you, through His blood. Just as when you are born into a family you take your Father’s last name and lineage. That’s how Revelation 22:4 is fulfilled “they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.” You will either be sealed, with one mark or the other! Our God, is a very particular God. Just look at the Tabernacle, the building of the Ark of the Covenant, Noah’s Ark! What if Noah would’ve not used the right materials he was told to use? Or just made it how he believed that was best, saying to himself “well, God knows my thoughts and my intents, this will work. I’m sure God will understand.” You know what would’ve happened? He would’ve never shut that door on the Ark, because it was God that shut them in. That’s the same thing in this case!

All I can say is do what the Word say’s just obey. Because, one day we will have to stand before God and give account. Just like with what I said about Noah, you may not be responsible for building a Ark, but you are responsible for obeying His plan of salvation. He is specific, even down to the littlest detail. You can try to justify away, why it will be good enough, but you have not one leg to stand on! Not one scripture to stand on, all you have to stand on is what a lot of people will tell you. They will say “my Grandma didn’t do that, and she was a great person. I know she is in heaven. If it was good enough for Grandma, it’s good enough for me.” Then they will say, “are you saying my Grandma went to hell?”



Here's where we might differ. I think the bigger error in most Evangelical baptism teaching is that they do not connect it in any way to the remission of sins. Their motives are pure. They truly are trying to protect the doctrine of salvation by grace. And certainly Catholics and others turned baptism into some sort of mystical rite void of any real substance. However, Evangelicals over-corrected. In fact, they actually forsook Reformation teaching. The Reformers saw no contradiction in Mark 16:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9. But I do not think this imperfect view of baptism automatically invalidates a baptism. You mentioned that you had been previously baptized with an invocation using the name Jesus, but were taught it was not for the remission of sins. Thus, you felt the need to be rebaptized after you understood better. Brother, your incomplete knowledge did not invalidate your first baptism. Many people get baptized in UPC churches not fully understanding all the ramifications. They simply are trying to give their life to God. Please don't place an un-necessary burden on them by imposing perfect knowledge as a pre-requisite to being baptized.

As for genuinely Holy Ghost regenerated people (with initial evidence) whose baptismal invocation was repetition of Mathew 28:19, we go way out on a limb by claiming God did not forgive those people when they were baptized FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! We simply cross over into unbiblical territory when we do. If they are baptized for Christ's sake, then God forgave them for Christ's sake. He then bears them witness giving them the like precious gift of the Holy Ghost.


All I can say is what the Word of God tells you to do. It tells you what it takes, and it lets you know how to go about it. It also is clear on the consequences of disobedience. How you go about what has been given is entirely upon you! Many people are going to go to hell just because they take someone’s word for what God said. And some people will go to hell, “knowing” what the word said, and deciding not to do it. All because they were listening to others, instead of obeying God!


Thanks for the dialog.

[Originalist]

No this is what it looks like what you say is legit. As long as the one being baptized is calling on the name of Jesus in her heart. Would you say this is legit? I say it's illegitimate do to the baptizer, and the formula it's done in. Even though this guy claims to have talked to the Apostle Paul!! Lol

Oh and I fixed the paragraphs I copy and pasted from Word and that's how it came out sorry.


So what if this guy was a Oneness Pentecostal claiming he was Paul reincarnated , but baptized her "correctly" by your standards. Would the baptism count? Let's just stick to debating scripture instead of extreme exceptions or curiosities.

This certainly is NOT what most baptism look like in any church. Thus, it is a poor analogy.

[1ofthechosen]

So what if this guy was a Oneness Pentecostal claiming he was Paul reincarnated , but baptized her "correctly" by your standards. Would the baptism count? Let's just stick to debating scripture instead of extreme exceptions or curiosities.

This certainly is NOT what most baptism look like in any church. Thus, it is a poor analogy.

Honestly even if he did it right I would be baptized again. The guy is a heretic, regardless of what church he would crawl out of.
I only said this because the other day you said it could be in the name of Barnabas, that wouldn't negate the baptism. I believe this is a picture of the same type of thing.

[1ofthechosen]

Thanks for the dialog.


There is a lot that I want to say but what you are saying about John 4 they already had authority. Their authority wouldn't have gone away after His resurrection. Only the formula and the way it was done was changing. It then began to be what Peter says in Acts 2:38. What I'm saying the name matters. You take out the name and what do you have? In the name is the power, and the blood. Without that you have nothing but a ritualistic tradition. It's like having a car with no gas, or house without electricity. Now, God will give you the genuine Holy Ghost, but you can tell when it's real because it will guide you into all truth. Then it becomes up to you. But He has provided the way through the scripture, and through the growth of the Oneness movement.

I'm not saying you need perfect knowledge of baptism. But He convicted me to be rebaptized for obedience of His Word. Before that I wasn't doing it in obedience to the word. I was baptized in error, and when I did get rebaptized I've absolutely been changed. But I know in my heart I wasn't even repented fully, because I had gone back to the world after being baptized the 1st time. When I did finally see the truth, I didn't immediately act on it, but then I said it's better to obey the Word then find out the hard way. No matter how it made me look. The only thing that's keeping people who have been baptized when it was in error from doing it again is pride. But, all I can say is shame the devil and do it, because he's the only one trying to keep you from the water!!

[Originalist]

Honestly even if he did it right I would be baptized again. The guy is a heretic, regardless of what church he would crawl out of.

I wouldn't let that guy baptize my dog!


I only said this because the other day you said it could be in the name of Barnabas, that wouldn't negate the baptism. I believe this is a picture of the same type of thing.

Forgive me brother, but I do not recall uttering the name "Barnabas" in any of my posts. Would you mind refreshing my memory on that one?



:thumbsup

[1ofthechosen]

:thumbsup

Man we've had this conversation on many threads. I wouldn't know where to begin to look. But you were saying it has no part to play on the baptizer at all. I can't fully agree with that. While I do believe it depends the greatest on the one being baptized, I do believe it takes both. That was the whole purpose of the video. Because He not only is not right on the formula, just being baptized by this man is truthfully a error on your account. Regardless of your intentions.

[Originalist]

There is a lot that I want to say but what you are saying about John 4 they already had authority. Their authority wouldn't have gone away after His resurrection.

They obviously had to receive new authority for new orders, though the authority came from the same source. Until Matthew 28:19, they had never been authorized to preach the gospel of his finished work to "every creature" or to "all nations". See what I mean?

Only the formula and the way it was done was changing.

Actually, the purpose was different, in many respects.


It then began to be what Peter says in Acts 2:38. What I'm saying the name matters. You take out the name and what do you have?

The only way the "name" goes away is fi the person who bears it goes away. Again, I think you are starting with a slightly flawed premise that focuses on vocalization rather than authority.

In the name is the power, and the blood. Without that you have nothing but a ritualistic tradition.

Brother, there is no literal blood. Jesus' literal blood is gone. The "power" in the blood is the fact that God will never require or accept any other propitiation than what was accomplished 2000 years ago in Christ. Because Christ was obedient unto the death of the cross, he is exalted with all authority in heaven and Earth. Submitting to that authority ("name") is the purpose of baptism. When we make him Lord in baptism, he becomes our propitiation. The cleansing does not come through vocalization, but through submission. I hope that makes sense.


It's like having a car with no gas, or house without electricity. Now, God will give you the genuine Holy Ghost, but you can tell when it's real because it will guide you into all truth.


Brother, do you have all truth? Do you currently possess all the wisdom and insight of God's word? Of course you don't, and neither do I. When Christ spoke of the Spirit leading us into all truth, he was simply saying that all the Spirit leads us into will be truth and not error. We as Apostolics err by claiming the "all truth" Jesus was speaking of is our Apostolic distinctives.

Then it becomes up to you. But He has provided the way through the scripture, and through the growth of the Oneness movement.

I'm proud of who I'm affiliated with. But I will not glory in it. We must glory only in the cross.

I'm not saying you need perfect knowledge of baptism. But He convicted me to be rebaptized for obedience of His Word. Before that I wasn't doing it in obedience to the word. I was baptized in error, and when I did get rebaptized I've absolutely been changed.

Well, it's always good to have further clarification concerning context of scripture.


But I know in my heart I wasn't even repented fully, because I had gone back to the world after being baptized the 1st time.

In that case, you were right to be rebaptized. Sadly, most UPC pastors I know do not practice such rebaptism.


When I did finally see the truth, I didn't immediately act on it, but then I said it's better to obey the Word then find out the hard way.

Your real lack was not baptismal, but a lack of love for God.


No matter how it made me look. The only thing that's keeping people who have been baptized when it was in error from doing it again is pride. But, all I can say is shame the devil and do.it, because he's the only one trying to.keep.you from the water!!

Great talking with you!!

[1ofthechosen]

Great talking with you!!

It has nothing to do with a lack of love for God. You pulled that out of context.

[Originalist]

It has nothing to do with a lack of love for God. You pulled that out of context.

Oh I didn't mean that in a derogatory way at all. I'm just saying that when someone is holding back letting Jesus be Lord of all, it denotes a lack of love. I was once an expert on that.

[FlamingZword]

The Amplified Bible is the only version to mention baptism in his verse. Don't hang your hat on that one.

Not true, the following bibles also use it.

(HCSB) “they blaspheme the noble name that was pronounced over you at your baptism?”
(CEB) “Aren’t they the ones who insult the good name spoken over you at your baptism?”
(The Message) “the ones who scorn the new name - "Christian" - used in your baptisms?”

[FlamingZword]

Only baptism in Jesus Name are sins remitted since Pentecost.

If these people truly loved the name of Jesus, they would run to get baptized in that precious holy name, their arguments against it is a clear indication that they do not love the name of Jesus. Sad indeed.

[FlamingZword]

I never said what the baptizer says is irrelevant. Read my original post again to see what my point is.

Have you ever heard of anyone being baptized in someone's name besides, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or Jesus? I haven't, maybe a cult or something, but that's not my case. If it was I surely wouldn't be on this forum!

Come on the only name is Jesus.

Father and son are not names.

I am a father, which is what my children call me.
I am a son, which is what my mother calls me, but it definitely is not a name.

Even the Holy Spirit is not a name.

The only name is Jesus.

There are millions of fathers and millions of sons, but those are not their actual names, they are roles or functions they have in the family.

[1ofthechosen]

Oh I didn't mean that in a derogatory way at all. I'm just saying that when someone is holding back letting Jesus be Lord of all, it denotes a lack of love. I was once an expert on that.

Well, I wasn't ever saying He wasnt Lord of all. Despite what anyone thinks He is Lord.
Philippians 2:10-11 tells me enough "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; [11] And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Which let's me know at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess He is Lord. Whether you do that in this life, or after its too late is up to you. But you will bow, for He is Lord of all!

But, just because He is Lord of all doesn't mean He's the Father of all! He may of created them, but only those who have the covenant cut with them can rightfully call Him Father. What I learned is it's not whether you have faith in Him, but whether He can have faith in you.John 2:24-25 "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, [25] And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man." The word translated as "commit" comes from the Greek word "pisteuō". This is the same word used over and over for our faith towards Him, which is defined "to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in." You see the other word for faith used for Him towards us in Revelation 17:14 "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful." The word translated as "faithful" comes from the Greek word "pistos". Which means "trusty, faithful,
of persons who show themselves faithful in the transaction of business, the execution of commands, or the discharge of official duties, one who kept his plighted faith, worthy of trust, that can be relied on, easily persuaded"

So people can believe what they want all day, but at the end of the say it's about what He knows about us and has faith in us. And if we don't follow His plan of salvation He isn't going to put any faith in us!

[Originalist]

Come on the only name is Jesus.

Father and son are not names.

I am a father, which is what my children call me.
I am a son, which is what my mother calls me, but it definitely is not a name.

Even the Holy Spirit is not a name.

The only name is Jesus.

There are millions of fathers and millions of sons, but those are not their actual names, they are roles or functions they have in the family.


Respectfully, I think you are missing the point here.

[Originalist]

If these people truly loved the name of Jesus, they would run to get baptized in that precious holy name, their arguments against it is a clear indication that they do not love the name of Jesus. Sad indeed.


Again, you are missing the point. In their estimation, they were baptized in the name of Jesus. Certainly the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 were not intended to be a baptismal invocation, but there have been many people baptized that way who have gladly suffered and given their very lives for the "name of Jesus". So you are way out of line claiming they don't love the "name of Jesus". It is outbursts like this that will make you lose all credibility with people you might otherwise influence to seek more truth.

[Originalist]

Not true, the following bibles also use it.

(HCSB) “they blaspheme the noble name that was pronounced over you at your baptism?”
(CEB) “Aren’t they the ones who insult the good name spoken over you at your baptism?”
(The Message) “the ones who scorn the new name - "Christian" - used in your baptisms?”

And what Greek manuscript uses it? Are you saying it took us this long to discover it?

[Aquila]

I look at it like this...

1.) Scripture only knows baptism in the name of Jesus.

2.) Baptism in the name of Jesus identified the believer with Jesus.

3.) It is evident from history that the early church baptized in the name of Jesus.

4.) Scholars in nearly every school of theology and history agree that the triune formula was a later development coinciding with the development of the Trinity doctrine.

5.) The Trinitarian baptismal formula was specifically intended to identify the believer with the doctrine of the Trinity and the tradition of orthodox state church.

6.) We need not make accommodations or compromises on our position that the only way to insure that one's baptism is valid is for them to be baptized in the name of Jesus.

Might God have mercy on those baptized in an erroneous manner? I'm sure there will be many opinions on this ranging from "most certainly", to "it depends", to "absolutely not". God is a just, righteous, and holy judge. In whatever manner God chooses to judge those baptized outside of the name of Jesus, we can rest assured that it will be a righteous, just, and holy judgment. I contend that we allow Apostolic brethren of like precious faith to believe according to their conscience on this matter. What I believe we can agree on is that the only way to insure that one's baptism is indeed valid is for them to be water baptized in the name of Jesus.

So, let us go forward defending baptism in the name, practicing baptism in Jesus name, and teaching baptism in Jesus name... and allow God to judge those who disagree with us or who have experienced a different baptism in good faith. Let us not judge them, but rather let us judge their doctrine. I think we can all agree that the triune baptism is error and those who oppose baptism in Jesus name even after seeing the testimony of Scripture and history are in willful error. May God have mercy on their souls.

[1ofthechosen]

If these people truly loved the name of Jesus, they would run to get baptized in that precious holy name, their arguments against it is a clear indication that they do not love the name of Jesus. Sad indeed.

This is a spirit that is truthfully coming against the name of Jesus. The same spirit that came against the Jews, and has us calling God the Tetragrammaton! Because we take away the name and what happens? Overtime we lose the name. So it gets to the point no one knows the name. Without the name we are powerless, and have no identity!

The devil wants that more than anything, because then we will be powerless over his attacks. For Jesus has promised us in Mark 16:17-18 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; [18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Who would want to stop that promise? I choose to stand strong against that spirit, because I love the name of Jesus! Its the most beautiful name I know!!

[Originalist]

This is a spirit that is truthfully coming against the name of Jesus.


In most cases that simply is not true. Most people who are baptized in what you refer to as "the titles" love Jesus Christ. Many die horrible death "for his name's sake".




The same spirit that came against the Jews, and has us calling God the Tetragrammaton! Because we take away the name and what happens? Overtime we lose the name. So it gets to the point no one knows the name. Without the name we are powerless, and have no identity!


If we have his Spirit, we have his name. You are not thinking rationally and analytically.



The devil wants that more than anything, because then we will be powerless over his attacks.


Those who have his Spirit are endowed with power from on high to defeat Satan. But we do not defeat him simply by saying the word "Jesus". Lee Stoneking went so far as to say that the prayers of Trintarians are powerless, even if they are prayed using the name of Jesus! It's outlandish teaching like this that makes people stay away from us, not because we invoke the name of Jesus is baptism.

For Jesus has promised us in Mark 16:17-18 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; [18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Who would want to stop that promise? I choose to stand strong against that spirit, because I love the name of Jesus! Its the most beautiful name I know!!

You do not see Trinitarian Pentecostals operating in the gifts of the Spirit saying "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost". They always say "in the name of Jesus". Yes, they should say the latter in baptism, too. But you are not being accurate in most of your summation. One faulty premise after another.








smh

[1ofthechosen]

smh

What im saying is it starts at losing the name in baptism, then as you showed of a article on already, of losing it in prayer. What happened in history will happen again, history will repeat itself. As for the things about the trinitarians, all I can say is don't believe everything you hear! They may use the name and have the Spirit but they are not in covenant outside of Jesus name baptism. That's where the blood is applied, you can argue all you want; but any real Apostolic will tell you the same thing! I'm sure here you can find some who will agree, but agreement of men doesn't matter! It only matters what Jesus say's my friend. And I have enough scripture to choke a mule.

It wouldn't help to go over it again with you, when we've been over it again and again, yet you still reject it!

[1ofthechosen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8LIZyeEPXc

For the one's who love truth, watch this. I just added this earlier. It deals, with a lot of issues we are discussing here. I just thought it was perfect for this topic, so I wanted to share it.

[Originalist]

What im saying is it starts at losing the name in baptism, then as you showed of a article on already. What happens in history will happen again history will repeat itself. As for the things about the trinitarians, all I can say is don't believe everything you hear!


Brother, I repented of my sins in a Trinitarian Pentecostal church in October 1980. Four months later God gloriously baptized me with the Holy Ghost. I grew in grace, knowledge and wisdom. People anointed by God's Spirit nurtured and discipled me. In 1986 I gained credentials with the Assemblies of God. I speak from experience. Perhaps it is you that should not believe everything you hear. You live in a bubble and do not speak from my vantage point. You really should ask God why his Spirit was moving so powerfully among people he did not have a covenant relationship with. The covenant with God begins with Holy Ghost baptism. Water baptism is a step towards that, but it does not initiate the covenant.



They may use the name and have the Spirit but they are not in covenant outside of Jesus name baptism.

They were baptized "in the name of Jesus". You really should change the way you say that to "a baptism where the baptizer said 'in the name of Jesus'".


That's where the blood is applied, you can argue all you want; but any real Apostolic will tell you the same thing!


I'm a "real Apostolic" and I tell you there is no "blood applied" EVER. Baptism is where we are FORGIVEN through the merits of the blood that was shed 2000 years ago. You have zero scriptural evidence to show how I could still be unforgiven by God, yet at the same time be "free from the Law of sin and death" through "the Spirit that gives life in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1-2). One day I hope you come to grips on how weak much of so-called Apostolic soteriology really is.


I'm sure here you can find some who will agree, but agreement of men doesn't matter! It only matters what Jesus say's my friend. And I have enough scripture to choke a mule.


And you take much of that scripture out of context, sadly.

It wouldn't help to go over it again with you, when we've been over it again and again, yet you still reject it!

I reject bad hermeneutics, indeed.






Take a course in hermeneutics, please!

[Originalist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8LIZyeEPXc

For the one's who love truth, watch this. I just added this earlier. It deals, with a lot of issues we are discussing here. I just thought it was perfect for this topic, so I wanted to share it.

His hermeneutical skills suck as well, if they are as bad as yours.

[1ofthechosen]

Take a course in hermeneutics, please!
You said:
"I'm a "real Apostolic" and I tell you there is no "blood applied" EVER. Baptism is where we are FORGIVEN through the merits of the blood that was shed 2000 years ago."

So water does it huh?

[1ofthechosen]

Take a course in hermeneutics, please!
You said:
"They were baptized "in the name of Jesus". You really should change the way you say that to "a baptism where the baptizer said 'in the name of Jesus'". "

They weren't baptized in Jesus name outside the invocation of His name!!

[1ofthechosen]

Let me ask you Originalist have you been baptized in Jesus name? Or just in the titles?

[Originalist]

Let me ask you Originalist have you been baptized in Jesus name? Or just in the titles?

You obviously don't know my testimony, brother. I was re-baptized in 1992 having the baptizer say "in the name of Jesus Christ". Why? NOT because God had really not forgiven me the first time, or that my first baptism didn't count, etc. I did it because my STUDY and RESEARCH led me to the conclusion that was how it was done originally, and I thus wanted to have experienced what I would be, from that point on, administering to others. In addition, I embraced the truth that there is indeed a connection to the forgiveness of sin and baptism. My studies also led me to other conclusions, some that you will not like. One of the main conclusions is that, in the final analysis, the baptizer saying "in the name of Jesus" is not what is connected to the forgiveness of sins and is actually incidental to baptizing someone in the name of Jesus.

This was not some hyped-up "revelation of the name" that compelled me to renounce my church associations and act like I had not really known the Lord up to that point. The Lord cautioned me to remain aloof from all the hype and remain sensitive to him, not seeking to please people in either camp.

I despise celebrations of "bein' in the truth" and all the arrogance that goes with it. I will glory only in the cross, not in Oneness Pentecostalism.

[1ofthechosen]

!

The Holy Ghost is the earnest of your inheritance, but it's entrusted to you to go the rest of the way. Even if you have the Spirit and never get baptized in Jesus name you will die lost! He gave it to you on loan, to go the rest of the way. You can receive the Spirit before or after baptism, but it you receive it before you still have to have His name called over you, or no covenant!

Exodus 30:17-21 "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, [18] Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal : and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein. [19] For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat: [20] When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the Lord : [21] So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations."
Without the washing you have death on you. This Tabernacle Plan is a perfect picture of Acts 2:38 but when Peter proclaimed it we found the name is should be done in. But that's not just in the authority but in the invocation of the name. Without invocation if the name, there is no authority!!

[Originalist]

You said:
"They were baptized "in the name of Jesus". You really should change the way you say that to "a baptism where the baptizer said 'in the name of Jesus'". "

They weren't baptized in Jesus name outside the invocation of His name!!


You have no scripture, interpreted correctly, to back up such a bizarre statement.

[1ofthechosen]

You obviously don't know my testimony, brother. I was re-baptized in 1992 having the baptizer say "in the name of Jesus Christ". Why? NOT because God had really not forgiven me the first time, or that my first baptism didn't count, etc. I did it because my STUDY and RESEARCH led me to the conclusion that was how it was done originally, and I thus wanted to have experienced what I would be, from that point on, administering to others. In addition, I embraced the truth that there is indeed a connection to the forgiveness of sin and baptism. My studies also led me to other conclusions, some that you will not like. One of the main conclusions is that, in the final analysis, the baptizer saying "in the name of Jesus" is not what is connected to the forgiveness of sins and is actually incidental to baptizing someone in the name of Jesus.

This was not some hyped-up "revelation of the name" that compelled me to renounce my church associations and act like I had not really known the Lord up to that point. The Lord cautioned me to remain aloof from all the hype and remain sensitive to him, not seeking to please people in either camp.

I despise celebrations of "bein' in the truth" and all the arrogance that goes with it. I will glory only in the cross, not in Oneness Pentecostalism.

No one glories in Oneness Pentecostalism but the truth being preached. Not the ecumenical version of Christianity that most know. What you are doing is being pro compromise towards your own angle. No one is celebrating anything, but I'm also not going to agree with this version of truth you say you have. Matter of fact , not even the most liberal of people here are agreeing with you. These are your own ideologies, nothing more than a hybrid of theologies mixed together.

[Originalist]

The Holy Ghost is the earnest of your inheritance, but it's entrusted to you to go the rest of the way. Even if you have the Spirit and never get baptized in Jesus name you will die lost!

Your statement proves you do not understand the New Covenant or the significance of Spirit baptism. Nor do you understand the significance of being baptized in the name of Jesus.


He gave it to you on loan, to go the rest of the way.

And "going the rest of the way" means to stay true to him as your Sovereign until you meet him, not nailing down a correct baptismal formula.


You can receive the Spirit before or after baptism, but it you receive it before you still have to have His name called over you, or no covenant!

We are not supposed to pray for unbaptized people to receive the Spirit in the first place. It is not biblical, even with Cornelius in mind. And "calling his name" over someone you baptize does NOT do anything except clarify to those present by whose authority you are baptizing. You are believing a very false doctrine. You love the name "Jesus" more than Jesus himself!



Exodus 30:17-21 "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, [18] Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal : and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein. [19] For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat: [20] When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the Lord : [21] So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations."


BBBAAAHHAA!! Typical. Always scouring through temple typology to invent some mystical link to your view on baptism. This is an example of bad hermeneutics. You are robbing the name of Jesus of glory rather than giving him glory.


Without the washing you have death on you. This Tabernacle Plan is a perfect picture of Acts 2:38 but when Peter proclaimed it we found the name is should be done in. But that's not just in the authority but in the invocation of the name. Without invocation if the name, there is no authority!!


This proves how much you've been brainwashed. This is why people think we are a cult. The authority PRECEEDS the invocation. An invocation can't cancel it or enhance it. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and start thinking for yourself, man!




:blah:blah

[1ofthechosen]

You have no scripture, interpreted correctly, to back up such a bizarre statement.

Yes I do every scripture on Jesus name baptism, which there's 5 or more to prove what im saying. As far as what your saying you have none, zero, zilch! Matthew 28:19 goes in the context with the rest, so it doesn't establish anything. All I can say is show me one scripture of someone getting baptized any other way. The only one there is, Acts 19:1-7 but what happened? They had to be rebaptized!! So there's the conclusion to your argument! Because they were then as it says in verse 6 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

[Originalist]

No one glories in Oneness Pentecostalism but the truth being preached. Not the ecumenical version of Christianity that most know.


Straw man. I don't embrace ecumenicalism.

What you are doing is being pro compromise towards your own angle.

No, that would be you. I'm objectively and unemotionally looking for context. You are completely immersed in hype.


No one is celebrating anything, but I'm also not going to agree with this version of truth you say you have. Matter of fact , not even the most liberal of people here are agreeing with you. These are your own ideologies, nothing more than a hybrid of theologies mixed together.

Somebody has to be the bridge. Somebody has to take the lead. I'm humbled to think God might use a nobody like me to finally get us on better track, thus making us more effective. As it stands, Evangelical apologists would eat your lunch!



I'm not following the crowd. Nobody agreed with me when I got rebaptized, either.




:nod

[1ofthechosen]

:blah:blah

You said: "We are not supposed to pray for unbaptized people to receive the Spirit in the first place. It is not biblical, even with Cornelius in mind."

You don't have to pray or lay hands on anyone to receive the Holy Ghost. God will give it, if they are repented. John 3:8 "the wind blows where it listeth." What you said here shows me enough about what you truly understand.

No baptism in Jesus name no covenant, circumcision was a type Of baptism. Which was the covenant in the old. Genesis 17:14 "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." That's the same for those not baptized with His name called over them in the new!! They can't be identified with the people of God.

[Originalist]

Yes I do every scripture on Jesus name baptism, which there's 5 or more to prove what im saying.

You take most scripture you quote out of context.




As far as what your saying you have none, zero, zilch!


I have the same scriptures you do, explained in context. No, please stop lying. We are discussing DOCTRINE her, and thus, scripture.

Matthew 28:19 goes in the context with the rest, so it doesn't establish anything.

And I have explained that verse in context. No scripture?


All I can say is show me one scripture of someone getting baptized any other way.

Whose tried to do that? You are so prone to creating straw men!

The only one there is, Acts 19:1-7 but what happened? They had to be rebaptized!!

How has ANYTHING I've stated contradicted this?

So there's the conclusion to your argument!

MY argument? No, that was not my argument. Why lie? Either you are lying here or are too mentally challenge to assimilate what you read.



Because they were then as it says in verse 6 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

How have I in anyway contradicted this?





You are like a blind boxer flailing in the air, disputing over things nobody is contesting.

[Originalist]

You said: "We are not supposed to pray for unbaptized people to receive the Spirit in the first place. It is not biblical, even with Cornelius in mind."

You don't have to pray or lay hands on anyone to receive the Holy Ghost. God will give it, if they are repented. John 3:8 "the wind blows where it listeth." What you said here shows me enough about what you truly understand.


It is a common practice in the UPCI to rush people past repentance to Spirit baptism. If God wants to sovereignly fill someone with the spirit like he did Cornelius, great. We are commissioned to lead them to repentance and baptism FIRST. That should always be normative.

No baptism in Jesus name no covenant, circumcision was a type Of baptism. Which was the covenant in the old. Genesis 17:14 "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."


So you quote a scripture and think it somehow validates your doctrine?




That's the same for those not baptized with His name called over them in the new!! They can't be identified with the people of God.

Yet, God identifies with THEM by giving them the Holy Ghost.

You are a blind guide. Those on here who believe this foolishness are not qualified to be teachers of his word. I hope God can salvage this movement!





I feel like taking a shower.

[1ofthechosen]

:nod

You said "Somebody has to be the bridge. Somebody has to take the lead. I'm humbled to think God might use a nobody like me to finally get us on better track, thus making us more effective. As it stands, Evangelical apologists would eat your lunch!"

Nobody is going to follow what your preaching. You are starting your own hybrid religion. I don't care about Evangelical apologists. They don't even have the Holy Ghost, what they say has been taught them by ecumenical theory. All they can do is go into the original language and punctuation, and try to pull out things that are not there. Scripture interprets itself.

You are looking for a answer that is not there in the scripture or in the original language meanings. Everything you are saying comes from assumption. You can go and grab sources, you cant present any scripture, or any legit sources. If I'm going to try to sway trinitarians I can use trinitarian sources to sway them. If your going to win Oneness people you have to find some Oneness sources. The thing is you cant! Not one single source!

[1ofthechosen]

Originalist all I can say in conclusion I give up. You know what your doing. You are trying to play both sides. As I look back on all the things you say. This is all a waste of time. Everytime you are proved wrong you change your stance. You twist what I say, and it's either because you are untruthful or just prideful! You go from pro Apostolic, to pro Trinitarian at the drop of a hat. You are all over the place, at this point all I can say is you don't know what you believe. There's no purpose in going further. All you have is disrespectful rebuttals to say, because you have no doctrine at all to stand on. I've said enough I'm done here. have a good day, and God bless you!

[Originalist]

You said "Somebody has to be the bridge. Somebody has to take the lead. I'm humbled to think God might use a nobody like me to finally get us on better track, thus making us more effective. As it stands, Evangelical apologists would eat your lunch!"

Nobody is going to follow what your preaching. You are starting your own hybrid religion.

You'd be amazed at what scores of UPC ministers have told me in private. Our movement is still relatively young (referring to the MODERN Oneness Pentecostal Movement). Sometimes it takes time to work the bugs out. Your claims of "hybrid religion" just demonstrate more ignorance. There nothing in my view that would parallels Evangelicalism.

I don't care about Evangelical apologists. They don't even have the Holy Ghost, what they say has been taught them by ecumenical theory. All they can do is go into the original language and punctuation, and try to pull out things that are not there. Scripture interprets itself.


Really? Oh my. Pot meet kettle! Go look in the mirror!

You are looking for a answer that is not there in the scripture or in the original language meanings.

BBAAHHAA!! I cannot believe your total hypocrisy!! YOU are the one doing the very thing you accuse me of! First you claim I use no scripture. Then you claim I'm pulling things out that are not in those scriptures I'm not using. I see a command to go forth "in his name" and I do it. You read the same command and try to link it to temple rituals, Aaronic invocational blessings, mysticism, etc. And I'M the one not letting scripture interpret itself.


Everything you are saying comes from assumption. You can go and grab sources, you cant present any scripture, or any legit sources. If I'm going to try to sway trinitarians I can use trinitarian sources to sway them. If your going to win Oneness people you have to find some Oneness sources. The thing is you cant! Not one single source!

I'm using hermeneutical law, something you know nothing about. I can't produce any scripture? BBBAAHHAA!! You are a mass of conflicting impulses.





:laffatu

[Originalist]

Originalist all I can say in conclusion I give up. You know what your doing. You are trying to play both sides. As I look back on all the things you say. This is all a waste of time. Everytime you are proved wrong you change your stance.

I challenge you to cite even the SLIGHTEST example of me ever "changing my stance" after supposedly being "proven wrong". You can either provide such documentation to back your claim or remain a liar.


You go from pro Apostolic, to pro Trinitarian at the drop of a hat. You are all over the place, at this point all I can say is you don't know what you believe.

How low can you go? This is pathetic. You view everything through your warped mind, so to you it does seem contradictory. You've been brainwashed, brother. Thankfully, not all in our movement are this far gone. So , take your last cheap shots. Do your hit'n'run attacks, declare victory, and then cowardly flee. It speaks volumes about you.

There's no purpose in going further. All you have is disrespectful rebuttals to say, because you have no doctrine at all to stand on. I've said enough I'm done here. have a good day, and God bless you!

I hope you are going to find an altar of repentance.





The fruit of decades of hermeneutical depravity.

My God, how can we dare to criticize Copeland and all the Word of Faith wolves when it is clear there our movement uses the same tactics?

[1ofthechosen]

This is a spirit that is truthfully coming against the name of Jesus. The same spirit that came against the Jews, and has us calling God the Tetragrammaton! Because we take away the name and what happens? Overtime we lose the name. So it gets to the point no one knows the name. Without the name we are powerless, and have no identity!

The devil wants that more than anything, because then we will be powerless over his attacks. For Jesus has promised us in Mark 16:17-18 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; [18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Who would want to stop that promise? I choose to stand strong against that spirit, because I love the name of Jesus! Its the most beautiful name I know!!

I'm standing on this!

[Originalist]

I'm standing on this!

You stand on a faulty premise.

[1ofthechosen]

I said:

Originalist all I can say in conclusion I give up. You know what your doing. You are trying to play both sides. As I look back on all the things you say. This is all a waste of time. Everytime you are proved wrong you change your stance.
You said:
I challenge you to cite even the SLIGHTEST example of me ever "changing my stance" after supposedly being "proven wrong". You can either provide such documentation to back your claim or remain a liar.

Anybody who has ever talked to you on here will agree. You've done it to everyone. That's your go to! Has anyone else witnessed that too per chance? "By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses all things shall be established."

[Originalist]

I said:

Originalist all I can say in conclusion I give up. You know what your doing. You are trying to play both sides. As I look back on all the things you say. This is all a waste of time. Everytime you are proved wrong you change your stance.
You said:
I challenge you to cite even the SLIGHTEST example of me ever "changing my stance" after supposedly being "proven wrong". You can either provide such documentation to back your claim or remain a liar.

Anybody who has ever talked to you on here will agree. You've done it to everyone. That's your go to! Has anyone else witnessed that too per chance? "By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses all things shall be established."


So, in other words, you can't produce what I asked for. And getting 2 or 3 other people as clueless as you to agree with you does not prove me wrong. I can find 3 JW's who say I'm wrong. Does that make them right? Again, you are all hype and emotion, no substance, no depth.







:heeheehee

[rdp]

*If a person is not water baptized in Jesus Name they are not saved. Period.

[Evang.Benincasa]

*If a person is not water baptized in Jesus Name they are not saved. Period.


There must be an invocation of the name of Jesus in the heart as well as the mouth. The main theme of this argument is to validate title baptism. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Steve Epley]

*If a person is not water baptized in Jesus Name they are not saved. Period.


Amen. Period.

[Originalist]

There must be an invocation of the name of Jesus in the heart as well as the mouth. The main theme of this argument is to validate title baptism. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh yes. That's it! You got me! Wow. I sure was dumb to think I could slip through your net, brother! Yes siree Bob! Imma tryin to get yall to change your formula. Shucks. You had done found me out. I done gone and got caught.

But you ain't seen the last of Earnest T. Bass!!


:heeheehee


The discernment of a fence post. Absolutely a legend in your own mind.

[Esaias]

There must be an invocation of the name of Jesus in the heart as well as the mouth. The main theme of this argument is to validate title baptism. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh yes. That's it! You got me! Wow. I sure was dumb to think I could slip through your net, brother! Yes siree Bob! Imma tryin to get yall to change your formula. Shucks. You had done found me out. I done gone and got caught.

But you ain't seen the last of Earnest T. Bass!!


:heeheehee


The discernment of a fence post. Absolutely a legend in your own mind.

To say that God withholds or grants his forgiveness over an invocation by the baptizer is heresy. That is what I am saying.

Early this morning, at a local lake, i witnessed a baptism. The pastor asked the convert, "What is your profession of faith?" The lady burst in tears exclaiming,"Jesus is alive! He is Lord! He is MY Lord and Savior! I have repented of my past and give my life to serve him!". The pastor then did his typical Baptist thing, using an invocation that rightfully declares by whose authority he was baptizing, but that did not clarify that authority belongs exclusively to the Son of God. I believe she is forgiven based on her own profession of faith and invoking of the name of the Lord Jesus. None of you can give a scriptural reason as to why God would not forgive this woman.

Nobody is saying you are trying to get anyone to CHANGE their baptismal formula. What was claimed is there is an effort to validate baptism using the titles ("trinitarian formula baptism"). In the last quote, you seem to do just exactly that. You describe a typical Baptist baptism (which is a baptism using the titles) and declare the person so baptised has been forgiven based on her profession of faith. Therefore, according to you, a baptism using the titles is valid for the remission of sins.

How can anyone NOT conclude that is what you are getting at?

Unless you believe that baptism is not for the remission of sins to begin with?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Nobody is saying you are trying to get anyone to CHANGE their baptismal formula. What was claimed is there is an effort to validate baptism using the titles ("trinitarian formula baptism"). In the last quote, you seem to do just exactly that. You describe a typical Baptist baptism (which is a baptism using the titles) and declare the person so baptised has been forgiven based on her profession of faith. Therefore, according to you, a baptism using the titles is valid for the remission of sins.

How can anyone NOT conclude that is what you are getting at?

Unless you believe that baptism is not for the remission of sins to begin with?


Thank you. :thumbsup

[1ofthechosen]

Nobody is saying you are trying to get anyone to CHANGE their baptismal formula. What was claimed is there is an effort to validate baptism using the titles ("trinitarian formula baptism"). In the last quote, you seem to do just exactly that. You describe a typical Baptist baptism (which is a baptism using the titles) and declare the person so baptised has been forgiven based on her profession of faith. Therefore, according to you, a baptism using the titles is valid for the remission of sins.

How can anyone NOT conclude that is what you are getting at?

Same thing I said. This is what I meant by saying that you went from Pro Oneness to Pro Trinitarianism OG. It's either one or the other bro. We can all be wrong, but we can't all be right.

[1ofthechosen]

*If a person is not water baptized in Jesus Name they are not saved. Period.


This is the most profound statement here.

[Originalist]

Same thing I said. This is what I meant by saying that you went from Pro Oneness to Pro Trinitarianism OG. It's either one or the other bro. We can all be wrong, but we can't all be right.


Keep spewing your straw man. If anyone would bother to research my posts, including the DOZENS of clarifications, you'd know you're being inaccurate. Stop trying to justify your bad behavior.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Keep spewing your straw man. If anyone would bother to research my posts, including the DOZENS of clarifications, you'd know you're being inaccurate. Stop trying to justify your bad behavior.

Yes, we have.

Look, you believe there is no difference in titles invoked baptism and Jesus invoked name baptism. Right? The people who are baptized with a Baptist or AoG saying father, son, and holy spirit and the Apostolic saying Jesus name, mean the same thing. Because the neophyte is doing it for Christ's sake. Did I misrepresent you? Isn't that what you believe? No one is building a straw man against you. Your posts go from stem to stern and my boy, you must be far out in a face to face discussion on this topic. Listen, YOU go research your POSTS, because YOU need to reread them carefully.

[Originalist]

Nobody is saying you are trying to get anyone to CHANGE their baptismal formula. What was claimed is there is an effort to validate baptism using the titles ("trinitarian formula baptism"). In the last quote, you seem to do just exactly that. You describe a typical Baptist baptism (which is a baptism using the titles) and declare the person so baptised has been forgiven based on her profession of faith. Therefore, according to you, a baptism using the titles is valid for the remission of sins.

How can anyone NOT conclude that is what you are getting at?

Unless you believe that baptism is not for the remission of sins to begin with?

I've maintained from the outset that "baptism in the name of Jesus" is referring to by whose authority we baptize. I've made it clear time and again that the minister's invocation is important so as to let it be known by whose authority he baptizes. The purpose of the baptizer also is to, as a leader, validate the conversion so the body will accept the new member. Though I made this clear, I was still repeatedly asked "why do we even need a baptizer? What purpose does he serve?" Whatever. I know I answered the question.

As for the Baptist baptism I witnessed...it made me think of Ananias' words to Saul, "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the nmae of the Lord". Here we see a direct link to remission of sins in baptism and the confession of the one being baptized. The young lady fulfilled her part. Nobody has offered sold scriptural reasons why she is still unforgiven (I'm not saying she is saved as she has not received the Holy Ghost, but this is a discussion of baptism).

As I researched baptism as an AG minister in 1992, I discovered that after the split with the AG, many in the oneness camp started moving towards the "Matthew 28:19, the revealed name of God" teaching. This seems to link baptism and the Oneness doctrine at the hip. I'm seeing a pattern here on AFF with many trying to link the one-time event of Aaron and his sons "speaking the name of God" on the people of Israel, and invoking the name of Jesus over those receiving baptism. This teaching seems to be saying that we are basically doing the same thing Aaron did, but using the revealed name of God, Jesus Christ, to "call upon" those we baptize. This teaching links this "calling the name of the Lord" upon the baptismal candidates and the forgiveness of their sins. This is where I differ from the so-called "main stream" of Oneness. I reject this teaching.

The view I have of Matthew 28:19 came to me when I better understood and fully embraced the Oneness doctrine. Jesus, the human Son of God was about to be GIVEN all power in Heaven and Earth by his Father. This would be his glorification. The Father would essentially be hiding his own identity in his Son. This is what Stephen saw when he was stoned. Thus, Jesus' instructions in Matthew 28:19 were commanding his disciples to baptize by that authority he was receiving (verse 18).

It was the Father's and was given to the Son. We receive that authority in Holy Ghost baptism. They were to baptize all nations "in the name of" or by the authority of the Father, that was given to the Son, that he shed forth by the Holy Ghost (the Spirit of Christ).

In Acts 2, Peter, knowing that the Father's authority was now the Son's, gave the commandment to be baptized in the name of that Son who had all power, Jesus Christ. This is why I only use the name of Jesus while baptizing, because all authority is His , from the Father (deity giving to humanity). I'm not "placing the name of Jesus" on anybody. I'm baptizing people "in the name of Jesus", by his authority BECAUSE those I'm baptizing have "called upon the name of the Lord" or, have confessed with their mouth the Lord Jesus Christ. It for the latter and not the former that they are forgiven.

Now does this mean I "condone" using the Matthew 28:19 wording? NO! I understand what Matthew 28:19 really means. It was not intended to be an invocation. But I cannot see how it being used prevents anyone's sins from being forgiven who has truly repented and confessed with their mouth the Lord Jesus Christ. It is just one of those things, like many others, that God has patiently been trying to correct since the Reformation. He's not through with any of us. I'm frankly not too concerned with the way anyone baptizes but me. There are too many people to reach with the gospel for me to be giving much thought to what Trinitarians do. I know what I will be saying when I baptize, that's all I care about.

Consider this my statement of faith.




If clarification is needed , I will gladly give it.

I am not getting my hopes up that anything I wrote here will be assimilated in context. Very sad.

[Originalist]

Yes, we have.

Look, you believe there is no difference in titles invoked baptism and Jesus invoked name baptism. Right?

I just love the way you word things. You pretend to be asking a question, but are really passing a judgment, and an inaccurate one at that. You're not really asking me what I believe. You're TELLING me what I believe, and no clarification on my part will satisfy you. You've already decided. This is Sean all over. So why would I continue talking to you? Even now, as you read this, your fingers are getting ready to type more of the same. You won't even acknowledge what I just said. You'll double down and say, "You ARE saying...blah blah blah". Nobody wants to talk to someone who acts like that.


The people who are baptized with a Baptist or AoG saying father, son, and holy spirit and the Apostolic saying Jesus name, mean the same thing. Because the neophyte is doing it for Christ's sake. Did I misrepresent you? Isn't that what you believe? No one is building a straw man against you. Your posts go from stem to stern and my boy, you must be far out in a face to face discussion on this topic. Listen, YOU go research your POSTS, because YOU need to reread them carefully.

You may read what I just wrote to Esaias if you need clarification on anything I believe. But it won't do a bit of good. You'll read it and then tell me what I REALLY believe, not asking for clarification. So, be prepared to be ignored.

[Esaias]

I've maintained from the outset that "baptism in the name of Jesus" is referring to by whose authority we baptize. I've made it clear time and again that the minister's invocation is important so as to let it be known by whose authority he baptizes. The purpose of the baptizer also is to, as a leader, validate the conversion so the body will accept the new member. Though I made this clear, I was still repeatedly asked "why do we even need a baptizer? What purpose does he serve?" Whatever. I know I answered the question.

If the minister's invocation is important so as to let it be known by whose authority he baptises, as well as to "validate the conversion", then how is it possible for you to (elsewhere) claim a self baptism would be acceptable "if no baptiser could be found"?

Also, if there is no COMMAND for the baptiser to say anything at all, then why is it important for the baptiser to "let it be known"? And how would the baptiser "validate the conversion" in the absence of said command? In other words, how does a person have authority to do that which is nowhere commanded?

As for the Baptist baptism I witnessed...it made me think of Ananias' words to Saul, "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the nmae of the Lord". Here we see a direct link to remission of sins in baptism and the confession of the one being baptized. The young lady fulfilled her part. Nobody has offered sold scriptural reasons why she is still unforgiven (I'm not saying she is saved as she has not received the Holy Ghost, but this is a discussion of baptism).

I would disagree that no one has given scriptural reasons, but I will try to do so as concisely as possible (again).

If baptism is for the remission of sins, and if baptism was commissioned to the disciples of Christ, to be done in His Name, then only that baptism commissioned by Christ and practiced by the apostles is for the remission of sins. If later on a schismatic heretical movement comes along and introduces a new way of doing things (namely, the catholic movement introducing their innovative "triune formula"), then THAT baptism is not the apostolic baptism, and therefore not recognised by Christ as baptism at all. And finally, if Protestants or Baptists today follow the catholic baptism, and use that rather than the original apostolic baptism, then again it is wholly invalid because it simply is not that which was authorised by Christ.

Christ did not authorise us to do whatever we feel best, to innovate where we think it best, etc. Otherwise, no baptism could be invalid as long as some "sincere believer" in Christendom was sincerely practicing it!

*And no, this does not apply to things like the use of baptismal robes, heated water, baptismal pools/tubs, etc. the reason is because those matters are what are called "accidents", and do not pertain to the essential form and matter of baptism. The essential form of baptism is immersion (upon and with the invocation of the Saviours Name) and the matter is water. I believe the intent is also important, and so a person who was baptised with the belief that they were joining a local church and are getting baptised because their sins were forgiven when they said the sinner's prayer would seem to have the wrong intent. but I will save the issue of intent for a later time.

As I researched baptism as an AG minister in 1992, I discovered that after the split with the AG, many in the oneness camp started moving towards the "Matthew 28:19, the revealed name of God" teaching. This seems to link baptism and the Oneness doctrine at the hip.

The Oneness was revealed to folks at the Arroyo Seco Campmeeting (before the split in the AoG) as a direct result of comparing Matthew 28:19 with the examples in the book of Acts. In other words, the revelation of Oneness was inspired by a look at apostolic baptism, not the other way around.

*Note, I am not saying Oneness was first revealed to anyone at the Arroyo Seco Campmeeting, because even at that campmeeting, when Jesus Name baptism was "discovered", ministers were cautioned not to pursue it because that doctrine and practice was associated with some guy named Sykes who apparently was well known among Pentecostals of the day and not liked very much.

I'm seeing a pattern here on AFF with many trying to link the one-time event of Aaron and his sons "speaking the name of God" on the people of Israel, and invoking the name of Jesus over those receiving baptism. This teaching seems to be saying that we are basically doing the same thing Aaron did, but using the revealed name of God, Jesus Christ, to "call upon" those we baptize. This teaching links this "calling the name of the Lord" upon the baptismal candidates and the forgiveness of their sins. This is where I differ from the so-called "main stream" of Oneness. I reject this teaching.

As far as I know, I am the first and only one here on AFF to point to the Aaronic Blessing in this discussion of baptism. And I never once, nor has anyone else here, claimed that apostolic baptism is a continuation or new testament equivalent or version or fulfillment of the old covenant Aaronic Blessing. What I pointed out is that "called by My Name" actually refers to having the Name of Jehovah actually vocally called upon or over the people, and this is illustrated in the Aaronic Blessing. In other words, the Aaronic Blessing demonstrates that Israel were "called by the Name" because the Name had been actually called upon or over them by the priests, and not just because the people claimed to be Jehovah's.

EDIT (I misread your statement about "mainstream")

(cont in next post)

[Esaias]

The view I have of Matthew 28:19 came to me when I better understood and fully embraced the Oneness doctrine. Jesus, the human Son of God was about to be GIVEN all power in Heaven and Earth by his Father. This would be his glorification. The Father would essentially be hiding his own identity in his Son. This is what Stephen saw when he was stoned. Thus, Jesus' instructions in Matthew 28:19 were commanding his disciples to baptize by that authority he was receiving (verse 18).

It was the Father's and was given to the Son. We receive that authority in Holy Ghost baptism. They were to baptize all nations "in the name of" or by the authority of the Father, that was given to the Son, that he shed forth by the Holy Ghost (the Spirit of Christ).

So any baptism performed by someone who does not have the Holy Ghost baptism is invalid, correct? Which means that woman at the lake you saw...?

In Acts 2, Peter, knowing that the Father's authority was now the Son's, gave the commandment to be baptized in the name of that Son who had all power, Jesus Christ. This is why I only use the name of Jesus while baptizing, because all authority is His , from the Father (deity giving to humanity). I'm not "placing the name of Jesus" on anybody. I'm baptizing people "in the name of Jesus", by his authority BECAUSE those I'm baptizing have "called upon the name of the Lord" or, have confessed with there mouth the Lord Jesus Christ. It for the latter and not the former that they are forgiven.

So you do not agree that we are to baptise people INTO the Name? and that they are to be baptised UPON the Name? That, rather, we are to be baptise people "by the authority of Jesus"? And they are to be baptised "by His authority"? Please explain.

Now does this mean I "condone" using the Matthew 28:19 wording? NO! I understand what Matthew 28:19 really means. It was not intended to be an invocation. But I cannot see how it being used prevents anyone's sins from being forgiven who has truly repented and confessed with their mouth the Lord Jesus Christ. It is just one of those things, like many others, that God has patiently been trying to correct since the Reformation. He's not through with any of us. I'm frankly not too concerned with the way anyone baptizes but me. There are too many people to reach with the gospel for me to be giving much thought to what Trinitarians do. I know what I will be saying when I baptize, that's all I care about.

This is where I ask "then what's the need for a baptiser" again. :) What you have just said is that what the baptiser does is, ultimately, irrelevant as far as anyone receiving remission of sins. You say this is something God has been trying to correct since the Reformation (I would disagree, this issue has been ongoing from the GET GO). Do you understand why we see your statements that way? Baptism is for the remission of sins, but if the baptiser says something born out of theological ignorance or heresy it has no effect on whether or not the baptism is valid. Essentially, what the baptiser says does not invalidate the baptism (within reason, of course, we would all agree that a baptiser saying "in the name of the three Stooges" would be wholly invalid, right? Please tell me you would agree such a baptism is no baptism at all?) and so therefore what the baptiser says is technically irrelevant. So that brings us back around to "what role does the baptiser play? Why is a baptiser REQUIRED?"

Do you at least see why that question keeps coming up in response to your statements? It's not meant to be a slogan repeated without thinking as a vicious straw man to be attacked. It is a sincere perception of the meaning and consequences of the things you yourself are claiming.

[1ofthechosen]

Keep spewing your straw man. If anyone would bother to research my posts, including the DOZENS of clarifications, you'd know you're being inaccurate. Stop trying to justify your bad behavior.

Og you said a straw man what does this mean you said it "Early this morning, at a local lake, i witnessed a baptism. The pastor asked the convert, "What is your profession of faith?" The lady burst in tears exclaiming,"Jesus is alive! He is Lord! He is MY Lord and Savior! I have repented of my past and give my life to serve him!". The pastor then did his typical Baptist thing, using an invocation that rightfully declares by whose authority he was baptizing, but that did not clarify that authority belongs exclusively to the Son of God. I believe she is forgiven based on her own profession of faith and invoking of the name of the Lord Jesus. None of you can give a scriptural reason as to why God would not forgive this woman"

This is exactly what I mean, I'm not misrepresenting you said it. This is just one, this is why we are saying you support baptism in the titles. That's what this is, if not then the lady getting baptized in the name of bam, bam, bam would have a legit baptism according to you. As long as she in her heart was calling on the name of Jesus. You can't argue with black and white. You said it not me.

[Evang.Benincasa]

So any baptism performed by someone who does not have the Holy Ghost baptism is invalid, correct? Which means that woman at the lake you saw...?



So you do not agree that we are to baptise people INTO the Name? and that they are to be baptised UPON the Name? That, rather, we are to be baptise people "by the authority of Jesus"? And they are to be baptised "by His authority"? Please explain.



This is where I ask "then what's the need for a baptiser" again. :) What you have just said is that what the baptiser does is, ultimately, irrelevant as far as anyone receiving remission of sins. You say this is something God has been trying to correct since the Reformation (I would disagree, this issue has been ongoing from the GET GO). Do you understand why we see your statements that way? Baptism is for the remission of sins, but if the baptiser says something born out of theological ignorance or heresy it has no effect on whether or not the baptism is valid. Essentially, what the baptiser says does not invalidate the baptism (within reason, of course, we would all agree that a baptiser saying "in the name of the three Stooges" would be wholly invalid, right? Please tell me you would agree such a baptism is no baptism at all?) and so therefore what the baptiser says is technically irrelevant. So that brings us back around to "what role does the baptiser play? Why is a baptiser REQUIRED?"

Do you at least see why that question keeps coming up in response to your statements? It's not meant to be a slogan repeated without thinking as a vicious straw man to be attacked. It is a sincere perception of the meaning and consequences of the things you yourself are claiming.

:highfive

[Originalist]

So any baptism performed by someone who does not have the Holy Ghost baptism is invalid, correct? Which means that woman at the lake you saw...?

I would consider that to be a subject for another discussion, but is indeed an interesting question. A companion question would be, what if the baptizer was performed by someone who does not have Spirit baptism, but they baptized using the name of Jesus? Would that be valid? I'm not being sarcastic. This is an interesting discussion.



So you do not agree that we are to baptise people INTO the Name? and that they are to be baptised UPON the Name? That, rather, we are to be baptise people "by the authority of Jesus"? And they are to be baptised "by His authority"? Please explain.

In Matthew 28:19 and in Acts, we see varied wording in the Greek. As you pointed out, some "in" some "upon" or "on" and some "into". All in all, I feel they all point to authority. It is not a stretch to say people are being baptized into the authority of the glorified Christ.



This is where I ask "then what's the need for a baptiser" again. :) What you have just said is that what the baptiser does is, ultimately, irrelevant as far as anyone receiving remission of sins.

Actually I was specifically speaking of the baptizer's invocation. Not what he "does", but what he "says" is irrelevant to the remission of sins.


You say this is something God has been trying to correct since the Reformation (I would disagree, this issue has been ongoing from the GET GO).

I was speaking of the correct interpretation of Mathew 28:19, yes.

Do you understand why we see your statements that way? Baptism is for the remission of sins, but if the baptiser says something born out of theological ignorance or heresy it has no effect on whether or not the baptism is valid.

Well, one could hold to a very tri-theistic Trinitarian model (Swaggart, for example) and still baptize someone the "right way". In that case, would we invalidate the baptism because of the preacher's godhead view? Again, we are narrowing our focus on people getting baptized in churches where there is enough of the gospel preached to get them to repent and truly seek the merits of the cross for cleansing. None of this would apply to purely ritual baptisms or cult baptisms, no matter what they invoked. Jason Dulle wrote an interesting article called "Are the Oneness Doctrine and Jesus Name Baptism Joined at the Hip?" Worth the read.

Essentially, what the baptiser says does not invalidate the baptism (within reason, of course, we would all agree that a baptiser saying "in the name of the three Stooges" would be wholly invalid, right? Please tell me you would agree such a baptism is no baptism at all?) and so therefore what the baptiser says is technically irrelevant.

I agree that invoking the "three stooges" would invalidate a baptism, because a pastor is supposed to invoke Christ's authority in baptism. If he is baptizing by any other authority than that granted by the God of the Bible, it ceases to be a Christian baptism. Thus, I cannot say what a baptizer says is irrelevant in that respect.


So that brings us back around to "what role does the baptiser play? Why is a baptiser REQUIRED?"

I feel he is there to fulfill the Great Commission, which is to preach AND baptize. Secondly, his presence affirms and validates the conversion of the one being baptized. The rest of the saints need to know that some wolf is not coming into their midst.

Do you at least see why that question keeps coming up in response to your statements? It's not meant to be a slogan repeated without thinking as a vicious straw man to be attacked. It is a sincere perception of the meaning and consequences of the things you yourself are claiming.

And I take you at your word, brother. I'll accept that explanation gladly. I hope I answered the question adequately and thank you for the opportunity to do so.




:thumbsup

[Originalist]

If the minister's invocation is important so as to let it be known by whose authority he baptises, as well as to "validate the conversion", then how is it possible for you to (elsewhere) claim a self baptism would be acceptable "if no baptiser could be found"?

I still chuckle a bit at that since I meant it as a passing statement, not a doctrinal affirmation. It's like asking, what about snow if water is not around? Can we baptize someone in what is basically frozen water? It's still water? Such questions are fun, but are really not relevant. The UPC pastor who rebaptized me said once he felt self-baptism would work and would be preferable to no baptism at all if a baptizer could not be found. But let's face it, that is not the norm God established.

Also, if there is no COMMAND for the baptiser to say anything at all, then why is it important for the baptiser to "let it be known"?

Dr. Bernard spoke of distinguishing pagan baptisms from Christin baptisms. If you have the Krishnas doing some water ritual (I don't know their practices) invoking the name of their deity, we certainly want to distinguish from that with a hearty "I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!".


And how would the baptiser "validate the conversion" in the absence of said command? In other words, how does a person have authority to do that which is nowhere commanded?

To baptize someone is to confirm you are satisfied they've believed in their heart and confessed with their mouth. You are validating their conversion by that very act.





I would disagree that no one has given scriptural reasons, but I will try to do so as concisely as possible (again).

If baptism is for the remission of sins, and if baptism was commissioned to the disciples of Christ, to be done in His Name, then only that baptism commissioned by Christ and practiced by the apostles is for the remission of sins. If later on a schismatic heretical movement comes along and introduces a new way of doing things (namely, the catholic movement introducing their innovative "triune formula"), then THAT baptism is not the apostolic baptism, and therefore not recognised by Christ as baptism at all.

Again, I see motive as an issue here. The Jesus name "formula" was still being used long after true conversion was on the way out. They were blessing their ritual baptism with an invocation of the name of Jesus. It is clear in the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers. This was before the wording was changed. Thus, how could those be valid baptisms?

Since I don't see a connection with the baptizer's invocation and the remission of sins, I have no trouble believing just quoting a scripture invalidates the baptism.



And finally, if Protestants or Baptists today follow the catholic baptism, and use that rather than the original apostolic baptism, then again it is wholly invalid because it simply is not that which was authorised by Christ.


Was immersion still being practiced by the time the new formula became law? I can't remember. I would not call a Baptist baptism "catholic" simply for the recital of a verse. It might be easy to assume these converts are "identifying with the Trinity" because of that "formula". But I can attest that the Trinity is the last thing on their mind. They are identifying with Jesus. That is what is so frustrating. The preacher will red from Romans 6 and talk about the convert being buried with Christ, and then recite Matthew 28:19 out of habit. Thus, I cannot invalidate those baptisms outright.

But here is another question along the same vein. We believe that baptism is linked to the forgiveness of sins, correct? What about baptisms "in the name of Jesus" done in one-stepper Oneness churches? The one being baptized believes his sins were forgiven solely through repentance. So is that a valid baptism, even if the name of Jesus was invoked by the baptizer? Just a thought.

Christ did not authorise us to do whatever we feel best, to innovate where we think it best, etc. Otherwise, no baptism could be invalid as long as some "sincere believer" in Christendom was sincerely practicing it!


Agreed. But we are all still growing and learning. I cannot claim that I'm doing everything Christ said. I'm sure I'm missing something. We all might be doing something sincerely thinking we are doing it as Christ said, only later to find ut we were not.

*And no, this does not apply to things like the use of baptismal robes, heated water, baptismal pools/tubs, etc. the reason is because those matters are what are called "accidents", and do not pertain to the essential form and matter of baptism. The essential form of baptism is immersion (upon and with the invocation of the Saviours Name) and the matter is water. I believe the intent is also important, and so a person who was baptised with the belief that they were joining a local church and are getting baptised because their sins were forgiven when they said the sinner's prayer would seem to have the wrong intent. but I will save the issue of intent for a later time.

Indeed.





The Oneness was revealed to folks at the Arroyo Seco Campmeeting (before the split in the AoG) as a direct result of comparing Matthew 28:19 with the examples in the book of Acts. In other words, the revelation of Oneness was inspired by a look at apostolic baptism, not the other way around.

*Note, I am not saying Oneness was first revealed to anyone at the Arroyo Seco Campmeeting, because even at that campmeeting, when Jesus Name baptism was "discovered", ministers were cautioned not to pursue it because that doctrine and practice was associated with some guy named Sykes who apparently was well known among Pentecostals of the day and not liked very much.

Andrew Urshan's testimony about all of this is interesting a well.






As far as I know, I am the first and only one here on AFF to point to the Aaronic Blessing in this discussion of baptism. And I never once, nor has anyone else here, claimed that apostolic baptism is a continuation or new testament equivalent or version or fulfillment of the old covenant Aaronic Blessing. What I pointed out is that "called by My Name" actually refers to having the Name of Jehovah actually vocally called upon or over the people, and this is illustrated in the Aaronic Blessing. In other words, the Aaronic Blessing demonstrates that Israel were "called by the Name" because the Name had been actually called upon or over them by the priests, and not just because the people claimed to be Jehovah's.

EDIT (I misread your statement about "mainstream")

(cont in next post)

Understood. I'll catch up tomorrow.



.

[Aquila]

A thought just came to me.

Since the origin of water baptism is deeply rooted in the Jewish mikveh, were their specific instructions regarding the convert or the rabbinical authority overseeing the mikveh, that could shed some light on what might have been expected during Christian water baptism? For example, was the convert required to declare the name of the rabbi he followed? Was the rabbi required to speak the sacred name in some fashion over the convert? What made a convert's mikveh valid in first century Judaism?

This might help us determine what would make a Christian baptism valid in the first century Jewish Christian's mind, and help us understand what we're seeing in Scripture.

[Godsdrummer]

A thought just came to me.

Since the origin of water baptism is deeply rooted in the Jewish mikveh, were their specific instructions regarding the convert or the rabbinical authority overseeing the mikveh, that could shed some light on what might have been expected during Christian water baptism? For example, was the convert required to declare the name of the rabbi he followed? Was the rabbi required to speak the sacred name in some fashion over the convert? What made a convert's mikveh valid in first century Judaism

This might help us determine what would make a Christian baptism valid in the first century Jewish Christian's mind, and help us understand what we're seeing in Scripture.

Chris

Good question, My understanding of the baptism changed after my studies of the Mikvah the baptizer was a witness more that a actual participant if my understanding is correct.

[1ofthechosen]

A thought just came to me.

Since the origin of water baptism is deeply rooted in the Jewish mikveh, were their specific instructions regarding the convert or the rabbinical authority overseeing the mikveh, that could shed some light on what might have been expected during Christian water baptism? For example, was the convert required to declare the name of the rabbi he followed? Was the rabbi required to speak the sacred name in some fashion over the convert? What made a convert's mikveh valid in first century Judaism?

This might help us determine what would make a Christian baptism valid in the first century Jewish Christian's mind, and help us understand what we're seeing in Scripture.

It was only a shadow of the things to come. The mikveh could be administered yourself. There's only 12 scriptures that even talk about it. The Bible isn't very clear on all the technicalities. You have to realize, a couple hundred years before Jesus was born, the last high priest stop saying the name of Yahweh. All in the name of not wanting to blaspheme the name. So the vocalized name hasn't been part of their culture since before Jesus.

That's why Jesus laid the foundation in Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, and John 3:5. He was speaking of things that were to come. On the day of Pentecost there came the fufillment, and the law of first mention is Acts 2:38. It doesn't matter what was before it doesn't change the way we were commanded to do it (like with the thief on the cross!). That is what scripture verifies over and over; by not only the book of Acts but in Paul's writing, and in James' too. The Bible is clear on the name being called over you! If there is a problem, it's not with Bible; it's got to be with the way we are understanding it! Period!

[Amanah]

It was only a shadow of the things to come. The mikveh could be administered yourself. But you gotta realize a couple hundred years before Jesus was born the last high priest stop saying the name of Yahweh. All in the name of not wanting to blaspheme the name. So that hasn't been part of their culture since before Jesus.

That's why Jesus laid the foundation in Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, and John 3:5. He was speaking of things that were to come. On the day of Pentecost there came the fufillment, and the law of first mention is Acts 2:38. It doesn't matter what was before it doesn't change the way we were commanded to do it (like with the thief on the cross!). That is what scripture verifies over and over; by not only the book of Acts but in Paul's writing, and in James' too. The Bible is clear on the name being called over you! If there is a problem, it's not with Bible; it's got to be with the way we are understanding it! Period!

Amen brother!

[Aquila]

It was only a shadow of the things to come. The mikveh could be administered yourself. There's only 12 scriptures that even talk about it. The Bible isn't very clear on all the technicalities. You have to realize, a couple hundred years before Jesus was born, the last high priest stop saying the name of Yahweh. All in the name of not wanting to blaspheme the name. So the vocalized name hasn't been part of their culture since before Jesus.

That's why Jesus laid the foundation in Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, and John 3:5. He was speaking of things that were to come. On the day of Pentecost there came the fufillment, and the law of first mention is Acts 2:38. It doesn't matter what was before it doesn't change the way we were commanded to do it (like with the thief on the cross!). That is what scripture verifies over and over; by not only the book of Acts but in Paul's writing, and in James' too. The Bible is clear on the name being called over you! If there is a problem, it's not with Bible; it's got to be with the way we are understanding it! Period!

:thumbsup

[Originalist]

It was only a shadow of the things to come. The mikveh could be administered yourself. There's only 12 scriptures that even talk about it. The Bible isn't very clear on all the technicalities. You have to realize, a couple hundred years before Jesus was born, the last high priest stop saying the name of Yahweh. All in the name of not wanting to blaspheme the name. So the vocalized name hasn't been part of their culture since before Jesus.

That's why Jesus laid the foundation in Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, and John 3:5. He was speaking of things that were to come. On the day of Pentecost there came the fufillment, and the law of first mention is Acts 2:38. It doesn't matter what was before it doesn't change the way we were commanded to do it (like with the thief on the cross!). That is what scripture verifies over and over; by not only the book of Acts but in Paul's writing, and in James' too. The Bible is clear on the name being called over you! If there is a problem, it's not with Bible; it's got to be with the way we are understanding it! Period!


I agree with much of what you say here. I often debate Evangelicals by reading Peter's sermon in Acts. I then read verse 37 where the Apostles are asked by the hearers, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" I cover verse 38 with my hand and ask my Evangelical friends, "Your Peter. How do you answer that question?" Then of course I get the typical responses, "I tell them to accept the Lord in their heart" or "I take them to Romans 10:9-10", etc etc. Then I uncover verse 38 and read Peter's response. Then the excuses begin. "Peter did not mean that like you think" or "The word 'for' means 'because of'. They were commanded to be baptized because their sins were already forgiven" blah blah. So you and I agree in principle concerning the law of first mention.

I'd like to see more discussion concerning comments made and questions asked by Aquilla like.....was the convert required to declare the name of the rabbi he followed? Was the rabbi required to speak the sacred name in some fashion over the convert? What made a convert's mikveh valid in first century Judaism?

Also, I'd like more discussion on the comments made by Godsdrummer...

My understanding of the baptism changed after my studies of the Mikvah the baptizer was a witness more that a actual participant if my understanding is correct.

[1ofthechosen]

I agree with much of what you say here. I often debate Evangelicals by reading Peter's sermon in Acts. I then read verse 37 where the Apostles are asked by the hearers, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" I cover verse 38 with my hand and ask my Evangelical friends, "Your Peter. How do you answer that question?" Then of course I get the typical responses, "I tell them to accept the Lord in their heart" or "I take them to Romans 10:9-10", etc etc. Then I uncover verse 38 and read Peter's response. Then the excuses begin. "Peter did not mean that like you think" or "The word 'for' means 'because of'. They were commanded to be baptized because their sins were already forgiven" blah blah. So you and I agree in principle concerning the law of first mention.

I'd like to see more discussion concerning comments made and questions asked by Aquilla like.....was the convert required to declare the name of the rabbi he followed? Was the rabbi required to speak the sacred name in some fashion over the convert? What made a convert's mikveh valid in first century Judaism?

Also, I'd like more discussion on the comments made by Godsdrummer...

I did a internet search, and it seems that is the truth. The rabbi either witnesses it, while you immerse yourself; or you speak the blessing and immerse yourself. You immerse yourself numerous times. The only thing is the word isn't very clear on a formula.

I can't say that a rabbi did invoke a name. But that got me to thinking and that's why I wrote, what I wrote. This mikveh was only a shadow of things to come. They stopped saying the name of God a couple 100 hundred years before Christ. So that hasn't been part of their culture for close to 2,500 years. Yet, I only know what the internet shows me, because I'm not a Jew or a scholar! Not by far!

[Michael The Disciple]

I never read this thread started by my friend Tyrone simply because I never had time. So this may have been mentioned. I saw on Facebook tonight apparently a Oneness Church in Chicago that teaches that the convert himself should call on the name of Jesus/Yeshua in baptism.

https://acts2216.weebly.com/1st-century-baptism.html

Hey wait a minute. I just clicked on this and it says the Pastor is post trib and he is wearing a beard! So far so good!

Hmmm. What is historic pre millenium? Have I spoke to soon?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I never read this thread started by my friend Tyrone simply because I never had time. So this may have been mentioned. I saw on Facebook tonight apparently a Oneness Church in Chicago that teaches that the convert himself should call on the name of Jesus/Yeshua in baptism.

https://acts2216.weebly.com/1st-century-baptism.html

Hey wait a minute. I just clicked on this and it says the Pastor is post trib and he is wearing a beard! So far so good!

Hmmm. What is historic pre millenium? Have I spoke to soon?

No, you didn't speak too soon. Historic Premillennial is non dispensational post tribulation.

[Originalist]

I never read this thread started by my friend Tyrone simply because I never had time. So this may have been mentioned. I saw on Facebook tonight apparently a Oneness Church in Chicago that teaches that the convert himself should call on the name of Jesus/Yeshua in baptism.

https://acts2216.weebly.com/1st-century-baptism.html

Hey wait a minute. I just clicked on this and it says the Pastor is post trib and he is wearing a beard! So far so good!

Hmmm. What is historic pre millenium? Have I spoke to soon?

I won't have time to read it all for a few days, but what I have read looks interesting.

[Esaias]

I never read this thread started by my friend Tyrone simply because I never had time. So this may have been mentioned. I saw on Facebook tonight apparently a Oneness Church in Chicago that teaches that the convert himself should call on the name of Jesus/Yeshua in baptism.

https://acts2216.weebly.com/1st-century-baptism.html

Hey wait a minute. I just clicked on this and it says the Pastor is post trib and he is wearing a beard! So far so good!

Hmmm. What is historic pre millenium? Have I spoke to soon?

I read the article. He makes a very good case for Acts 22:16, but he completely fails to address James 2:7 and Acts 15:17, which declare that the Lord's Name is "called upon" His people. When would that take place? When would the Lord's Name be "called upon" a person? (Not "when would the Lord's Name be called upon BY a person", but when would the Name be "called upon the person"?)

Taking ALL the Scriptures into account, it seems that the individual was to be baptised, calling upon the Lord's Name,* and the one baptising them was to also "call the Lord's Name" upon them. Otherwise, there is no explanation for the existence of a baptismal "formula" in Christendom at all.

*What exactly fulfills the "calling upon the Lord's Name", as per Acts 22:16? It seems that this is fulfilled by the confession of faith -

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Romans 10:8-13)

From this, it seems that Paul understood "calling upon the Name of the Lord" is fulfilled by "confessing the Lord Jesus with the mouth and believing in your heart that God has raised him from the dead." When this is combined with Paul's own conversion account in Acts 22, especially verse 16, we see that this confession occurs in relation to baptism. In Acts 8:36-37, we see this again - baptism is done upon a confession of faith in Jesus. In Acts 10 we see the Gentiles receive the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues and praising God, in response to the message of Jesus being the resurrected Christ. Thus showing they believed in their heart God raised Jesus from the dead and made Him Lord and Christ. The "magnifying God" would likely have included praise to or at least on account of Jesus and His resurrection. Whereupon they were then commanded to be baptised in the Name of the Lord.

But this raises the question: if they had already professed faith in Jesus via not merely speaking in tongues but "magnifying God", and yet were still commanded to be baptised "in the Name of the Lord", then "baptised in the Name of the Lord" cannot be fulfilled merely by a profession of faith and a dunking in water. There has to be something else that would identify the baptism as being done "in the Name of the Lord", in addition to their profession of faith.

And thus, we see that there are TWO PERSONS REQUIRED for a Christian baptism, and BOTH of them are to call upon the Name of the Lord. The one being baptised professes faith in the Lord Jesus, and one baptising them proclaims into whose Name he is immersing the confessing believer. Baptism is a three party affair - the minister, the believer, and God.

[Amanah]

I read the article. He makes a very good case for Acts 22:16, but he completely fails to address James 2:7 and Acts 15:17, which declare that the Lord's Name is "called upon" His people. When would that take place? When would the Lord's Name be "called upon" a person? (Not "when would the Lord's Name be called upon BY a person", but when would the Name be "called upon the person"?)

Taking ALL the Scriptures into account, it seems that the individual was to be baptised, calling upon the Lord's Name,* and the one baptising them was to also "call the Lord's Name" upon them. Otherwise, there is no explanation for the existence of a baptismal "formula" in Christendom at all.

*What exactly fulfills the "calling upon the Lord's Name", as per Acts 22:16? It seems that this is fulfilled by the confession of faith -

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Romans 10:8-13)

From this, it seems that Paul understood "calling upon the Name of the Lord" is fulfilled by "confessing the Lord Jesus with the mouth and believing in your heart that God has raised him from the dead." When this is combined with Paul's own conversion account in Acts 22, especially verse 16, we see that this confession occurs in relation to baptism. In Acts 8:36-37, we see this again - baptism is done upon a confession of faith in Jesus. In Acts 10 we see the Gentiles receive the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues and praising God, in response to the message of Jesus being the resurrected Christ. Thus showing they believed in their heart God raised Jesus from the dead and made Him Lord and Christ. The "magnifying God" would likely have included praise to or at least on account of Jesus and His resurrection. Whereupon they were then commanded to be baptised in the Name of the Lord.

But this raises the question: if they had already professed faith in Jesus via not merely speaking in tongues but "magnifying God", and yet were still commanded to be baptised "in the Name of the Lord", then "baptised in the Name of the Lord" cannot be fulfilled merely by a profession of faith and a dunking in water. There has to be something else that would identify the baptism as being done "in the Name of the Lord", in addition to their profession of faith.

And thus, we see that there are TWO PERSONS REQUIRED for a Christian baptism, and BOTH of them are to call upon the Name of the Lord. The one being baptised professes faith in the Lord Jesus, and one baptising them proclaims into whose Name he is immersing the confessing believer. Baptism is a three party affair - the minister, the believer, and God.

amen.

[Aquila]

I never read this thread started by my friend Tyrone simply because I never had time. So this may have been mentioned. I saw on Facebook tonight apparently a Oneness Church in Chicago that teaches that the convert himself should call on the name of Jesus/Yeshua in baptism.

https://acts2216.weebly.com/1st-century-baptism.html

Hey wait a minute. I just clicked on this and it says the Pastor is post trib and he is wearing a beard! So far so good!

Hmmm. What is historic pre millenium? Have I spoke to soon?

Historic pre-millennium is Post-Trib.

[Michael The Disciple]

Historic pre-millennium is Post-Trib.

Good! I may have been mistaken about him Pastoring in Chicago. I never found that as I was skimming last night. Will try to spend some time researching him today.

[Michael The Disciple]

Good! I may have been mistaken about him Pastoring in Chicago. I never found that as I was skimming last night. Will try to spend some time researching him today.

He is in Ft. Worth. Talked on the phone a bit today. He is a good Brother.

[Amanah]

He is in Ft. Worth. Talked on the phone a bit today. He is a good Brother.

:highfive

[Esaias]

Historic pre-millennium is Post-Trib.

Actually, "historic premillennialism" is the name erroneously used by post trib futurist premillennialists" to describe their beliefs, in contradistinction to dispensational pretrib futurists and mid trib futurists.

They often "borrow" genuine historic premillennialist expositors and claim them for their own, although those "historic premillennialists" were generally historicists, not futurists.

[Esaias]

He is in Ft. Worth. Talked on the phone a bit today. He is a good Brother.

Did you ask him what they believe in regards to headcovering?

The website says they are an international denomination, but I've never heard of them.

[Esaias]

Did you ask him what they believe in regards to headcovering?

The website says they are an international denomination, but I've never heard of them.

From their website:

A.C.T.S. Church
Bridging the Gap Between Oneness and Trinitarianism

Say what? If they ain't bringing trinitarians over to Oneness, then they will just wind up being a highway to the God Squad? Are they trying to make some kind of in between compromise? I though Sowders and Branham both tried that?

[Michael The Disciple]

From their website:

A.C.T.S. Church
Bridging the Gap Between Oneness and Trinitarianism

Say what? If they ain't bringing trinitarians over to Oneness, then they will just wind up being a highway to the God Squad? Are they trying to make some kind of in between compromise? I though Sowders and Branham both tried that?

I understand what he is saying by that. Most modern Oneness reject the teaching of the pre incarnate Logos being the form of God in the OT. They believe Logos was merely a "thought" or "plan" in Gods mind.

Meanwhile the Trins believe the pre incarnate Logos was indeed a form....but that the form was the second person of God distinct from the first. So there is a common ground to begin dialogue, for those who have a burden to reach Trins for the Oneness faith.

So the idea of trying to bridge the gap between Oneness and Trinity is just that. It's Brother Mark's way of saying he wants to bring a more perfect understanding of Oneness among Oneness and bring Trins into the truth of One instead of more than one God person.

Having said this I think (speculate) his main focus in ministry seems to be teaching that Acts 22:16 is the correct way to apply Acts 2:38. Calling on the Lord while being baptized.

[Michael The Disciple]

Did you ask him what they believe in regards to headcovering?

The website says they are an international denomination, but I've never heard of them.

No I did not ask. You know how it is when you have limited time to talk with someone about the word. Since I never saw anything on his site about it for now I will assume he does not teach it.

[1ofthechosen]

I listened to Brother Roger Perkins on this earlier he answers all the questions here. Jesus name invocation, even the Acts 22:17 thing you posted about Michael from 27:20 to about 32:00 or so in. And then the Mikveh @ 45:00 or so in. It's a great message. Listen to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d7oc9rqW2Y

[Michael The Disciple]

I listened to Brother Roger Perkins on this earlier he answers all the questions here. Jesus name invocation, even the Acts 22:17 thing you posted about Michael from 27:20 to about 32:00 or so in. And then the Mikveh @ 45:00 or so in. It's a great message. Listen to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d7oc9rqW2Y

At about 35 minutes Roger says if a man repents God forgives him. He gives no scriptural reference. I believe it must be true but I have not been able to find the verse showing it.

Do you have it?

[1ofthechosen]

At about 35 minutes Roger says if a man repents God forgives him. He gives no scriptural reference. I believe it must be true but I have not been able to find the verse showing it.

Do you have it?

Acts 3:19 says something of that effect "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

Repentance according to the Thayer's"to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins

"Repentance (metanoia, 'change of mind') involves a turning with contrition from sin to God; the repentant sinner is in the proper condition to accept the divine forgiveness."
While 1 John 1:9 is a lot like it "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

[Michael The Disciple]

Acts 3:19 says something of that effect "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

Repentance according to the Thayer's"to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins

"Repentance (metanoia, 'change of mind') involves a turning with contrition from sin to God; the repentant sinner is in the proper condition to accept the divine forgiveness."
While 1 John 1:9 is a lot like it "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

So is Acts 3:19 a part of Acts 2:38 or distinct from it? In other words does repentance alone bring forgiveness? It has been taught that Acts 3:19 repent and be converted is synonomous with Acts 2:38.

[Esaias]

Repentance leads to forgiveness, because repentance leads to baptism.

When the Bible speaks of repentance, it is not referring to what many think of: crying time at the altar, telling God you're sorry, confessing your sins, etc. Although such things are included in repentance, they are not the sum total of it. We should not divorce repentance from conversion, baptism, etc.

2 Corinthians 7:10-11 gives one of the most detailed but concise explanations of repentance. It is not merely a mental state or feeling, nor a "resolve" alone.

The alien sinner has not repented fully until they have not only renounced sin, and assented to the facts of the Gospel, but have also called upon His Name in Christian baptism and begun following the Lord as His disciple.

99 and a half won't do.

[1ofthechosen]

So is Acts 3:19 a part of Acts 2:38 or distinct from it? In other words does repentance alone bring forgiveness? It has been taught that Acts 3:19 repent and be converted is synonomous with Acts 2:38.

Synonymous with Acts 2:38. The 1st step to reconciliation.