Well Technically Speaking....
 

Just throwing out a question that I know has been asked and talked about on here probably a zillion times but at any rate here goes:

Saw a post today from a friend and minister and her was preaching (or ranting) about how your sins can only be remmitted if when you are baptized the preacher proclaims the name of Jesus.

Further more - he went on to say if you were baptized in the titles that you were decieved by the devil and that you would reside in the lake of fire if you are not baptized "correctly".

That is the jist at any rate. Now - I am not starting this so we all can berate one another on this subject - that said, my initial question after I read his post was - "Do we really believe that God sends people to Hell for all eternity over a technicality?"

Now, if I baptize, I do do it in the name of Jesus, and would personally not do it any other way - but that being said, I have a serious problem with grouping folks as unsaved and hellbound over what was or was not said at the moment of baptism.

Call me a coward, but it is a bit of a gray area to me and I was astonished at how bold and matter of fact this preacher friend was putting it in his post - I kinda scratched my head on that one..

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

There is one gospel. Eph. 4:5
Anyone preaching anything other than that one gospel is accursed. Gal. 1:8-9
We are to earnestly contend for that faith... Jude 1:3
That faith was once for all delivered to the saints Jude 1:3

That faith was delivered on the day of Pentecost when Peter and the other Disciples fulfilled the command of Christ.

If we are to do everything in the name of Christ then baptism is indeed a "deed" that must be done in Jesus' name. Col. 3:17

There is no other way but through Jesus Christ.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Col 3:17. Really? Do you say "in Jesus' name" when you turn on the light switch? Well, maybe if you're religious.

Col 3:17 is not about vocalizing Jesus' name. He is saying to do everything as unto the Lord.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

We don't have the authority to reduce what God has said to a technicality.

Would you call God's command that priesthood only touch the ark a technicality.
Apparently God didnt consider it such because the Bible says that "the anger of the Lord was kindled and against Uzzah: and God smote him there for his error" because of his well intentioned disobedience.

How about the specifics of offering incense in the tabernacle? Technicality?
Scripture says that "Fire went out from the Lord, and devoured" Nadab and Abihu because they brought strange fire to offer before the Lord.

How about Moses striking the rock rather than speaking to it as commanded? Just a technicality right? Nope...it's what disqualified him from entering into the land God had promised!

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Furthermore..Scripture calls those who preach "another Gospel" "accursed".
meaning doomed to destruction
Those who cease to preach the necessity of Apostolic New Birth bring destruction upon themselves.
I know its old hat. I know its been said a thousand times.
That doesnt make all of the above any less true. And the ability to come up with new arguments does not validate heresy.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Good points.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

You must truly be a blissful person...

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

I apologize. I am very sorry...





...that you don't understand what you read.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Thank God, you are looking outside the BOX! :thumbsup

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Regretfully, you are looking outside the BOOK..

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

On this we agree. :happydance

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

I am just trying to ask a question and understand full well the Apostolic viewpoint - I did not roll out of bed into church yesterday.

Even Jeff Arnold will tell you that the gospel is not ACTS 2:38 - it can be stated that it is the response but it certainly is not the gospel.

I am also friends with men like Chester Wright who will not take the position of sending AG folks to hell over the titles baptism. He will not emphatically state that he knows they are saved, but he also will not state they are not. when he and I talked he simply stated "I hope so" - this is someone who is invited to preach at many "trinitarian" pentecostal churches.

The only thing I find hard to grasp is taking a hard line stance on this - Cornelieus may have been taught more truth, but was still considered a man mighty in the scriptures. Like I said, I am not waffling on how I would baptize, just curious on the absolute dogmatic approach....

Maybe I should have kept it to myself...

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Baptism is in FACT part of the gospel.
The Philippian jailer was told the gospel and was immediately baptized.

Repeating a command is NOT the same thing as obeying a command. John said:
1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1Jn 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jn 2:4 Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,

Sins are washed away by calling upon the name not the titles.
We are baptized into HIM not THEM (Rom. 6).
Sins are remitted by the name.

I always find it amazing that some will pray in Jesus' name.
Some will cast out devils in Jesus' name.
Some will heal the sick in Jesus' name.
etc.

But refuse to use the name in baptism.

Acts 2:38 is as much part of the gospel as the cross.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

The Apostles in the book of Acts took a hardline stance..Some things are absolutely absolute. We might be able to discuss whether or not your sleeves need to be below your elbow,but if you cannot hold fast to the Doctrine of Baptism as taught by the scriptures,then please let someone else do the preaching,teaching,baptising!

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Sins are not forgiven at baptism. Acts 2:38 is not a part of the gospel.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Where is this hardline stance?

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Remission of sins has everything to do with the gospel.
And sins are forgiven/remitted by baptism in Jesus' name. :nod

Ignorance is bliss and some people are exceedingly blissful.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

It is sad that you believe so much false doctrine.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Then why do some folks plot the route through someone in addition to Jesus Christ, i.e., the saving path of a man performing the baptismal ritual 'correctly'.....the oneness Pentecostal preacher?

The route to having one's sins remitted in some oneness Pentecostal teachings is really no different than the roman catholic view. There are many romanist practices in most Christian sects today, including the oneness Pentecostal (circa 1913) sect.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

I will say that many are not baptized in a "biblical" manner and encourage that they follow the Apostolic pattern as found in Scripture. However, God alone is the judge of the heart and soul of the individual.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

This is a very good example of the mindset of oneness Pentecostalism which was presented in Thomas Fudge's excellent book "Christianity Without the Cross".

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

No you should not IMO. Sincere questions should never be kept to yourself. You have a sincere question and though you may agree or disagree there is nothing wrong with asking the question.

As you can tell in my post I absolutely believe in the necessity of Jesus name baptism. Why? Because it is FOR the remission of sins which has everything to do with the gospel. There is only one gospel.

I hope I am wrong if that makes sense but I would not count on that.
The ancient church believed baptism was part of the new birth - universally.
The ancient church believed baptism was for the remission of sins - universally.
The ancient church recognized Jesus name baptism as the most ancient form of baptism.

It was Trinitarian theology that changed baptism (Jesus name baptism) by emphasizing the need to be baptized into the trinity (titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost). A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

I baptize in Jesus name. But salvation doesn't have anything in my opinion to do with the words spoken in baptism, but with the faith of the person being baptized. I think Romans 4 is pretty clear about this and in particular verse 10.

Baptism in JN is proper because His name was invoked it is biblically and historically supported that the early church baptized invoking the name of Jesus. Paul suggest that baptism was carried out in the name of the person who was crucified for us in 1 Cor 1:13. And of course baptism is an expression of obedience, faith, and identification with Christ. But we go to far to say if certain words aren't spoken in baptism someones sins are not remitted.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

The Gospel has nothing to do with Acts at all. Acts is a book of the bible sure, but Acts also means works & works has nothing to do with salvation.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

The same book of Romans where Paul elaborates on baptism being in HIM not them!?!? Romans 6.

The same book of Romans that the way to walk in new life is to be baptized in HIM not them!?!? Romans 6:5.

We clearly disagree but I appreciate the spirit of your post. I am glad you baptize in Jesus' name and I hope and pray you will lean more my direction.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Bottom line, making it simple, it doesn't matter what another man utters while immersing someone.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

The bolded is only partly correct. The Gospel is not the book of Acts, but the book of Acts is the response to the Gospel; so Acts does have something to do with the Gospel. The response to the Gospel is described through the Acts of the Apostles. It's not that it means works and works has nothing to do with salvation. Acts is the actions which the Apostles did in response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It's a historical record of the events of the early church.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

oh good grief.

if acts means work, then repenting is work.

no difference at all.

doublegoodgrief.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

The Gospel is the death buriel and resurection of Jesus Christ.

Peter preached the Gospel in Acts 2. the people were "pricked in their hearts" and asked what they needed to do.

Peter told them. I fail to understand why we are still arguing with Peter.... the man Jebus told to tell folk what to do?

triplegoodgrief.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

I appreciate the input here...iron sharpens iron. Just for the record - asking a question and havving a good discussion about the Word is not always the same as arguing away the truth of the Word.

People need to be able to discuss, ask questions and rightly divide - not be made to feel lost and inferior for bringing something to the table to discuss - be it salvation or our favorite...holiness..

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

When an individual is baptized, is it the name, titles, or the authority which matters? I'll explain...Mt 28:19 "baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Luke 24:47 "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name..."

Does speaking the titles over someone at baptism cover the authority which comes in the name?

I believe in baptism in Jesus name; I was baptized that way, and I recommend everyone be baptized that way. However, I struggle with condemning someone to hell for being baptized under the titles.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Nobody's going to hell because of a man who says the 'wrong' words over them at baptism. The bible teaches no such thing.

Yes, the same. Chapter 4 doesn't contradict chapter 6 or 8 , it lays the foundation for the following chapters.

If someone is truly justified by faith they will want to identify with Christ in baptism and live a Sprit filled life. But salvation isn't in chapter 6, its explained in 3:21-5:2. From that point Paul moves onto elaboration, explanation, and application of the truths of justification by faith.

I'm always praying for more direction, but I've already been where you are and can't see returning to that position.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

We then must agree to disagree.

I appreciate you NOT being disagreeable and hope I have not been to you.

Take Care

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Well any doctrine could be called a technicality, Whether a person goes to Hell or not for not properly doing this or that is not for us to decide, for he is the one that created the rules and it is him who decides how much he is willing to bend the rules to let some people into heaven.

Our goal should be to adhere as much as possible to his rules, not to think that his rules are simply suggestions.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

I totally disagree, the Gospel is the life, the death, the burial and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the gospel.

If we believe the Gospel then we imitate Jesus by repentance (the Death), the burial (Baptism in the name of Jesus), the resurrection (our filling with the holy spirit) and living for him (His life).

The Gospel is what Jesus did.
Our response to the Gospel is what we do.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

This is it!:highfive

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Correct Acts 2:38 is not part of the Gospel, but sins do are remitted at baptism.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

Generally speaking baptism into the name of Jesus IS more about the convert calling on his name than about what the baptizer says. Yet if the baptizer teaches the wrong thing to the convert he will be confused.

Re: Well Technically Speaking....
 

If it doesn't matter, then it would be fine for me to baptize others in my name?

What if I decide to baptize people into the name of Bill Clinton or perhaps Ronald Regan.