What if it was the 16th century. You are reading through the bible and you come to the revelation that the first church baptized in Jesus name. You look around and nobody believes in baptism in Jesus name and so nobody will baptize you in Jesus name. What do you do?
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Didn't Epley at one point insinuate that you needed to be baptized by someone who was also baptized correctly? Basically part of an unending line which began with the first church.
I have always wondered if a person backslides and then prays back through should a second baptism be a part of his "doing your first workS over" or not? I have heard some say that there is nothing wrong with being re baptized while others say that once you have been baptized it is not necessary to do it again, ever! I was re baptized as an adult simply because the first time was when I was only 11 and I didn't even understand it except that I was told that since I had received the Holy Ghost, "now you need to be baptized in Jesus Name", so I was merely being obedient to the elders in the church. I know a few pastors who used to baptize in the name of "Jesus" who are now using the Hewbrew/Jewish name of Y'AHshua in baptism and am wondering if it matters or not?
I have always wondered if a person backslides and then prays back through should a second baptism be a part of his "doing your first workS over" or not? I have heard some say that there is nothing wrong with being re baptized while others say that once you have been baptized it is not necessary to do it again, ever! I was re baptized as an adult simply because the first time was when I was only 11 and I didn't even understand it except that I was told that since I had received the Holy Ghost, "now you need to be baptized in Jesus Name", so I was merely being obedient to the elders in the church. I know a few pastors who used to baptize in the name of "Jesus" who are now using the Hewbrew/Jewish name of Y'AHshua in baptism and am wondering if it matters or not?
As to baptism in the name of Y'SHUA depends on what is meant by does it matter. I dont think it matters to salvation itself as Jesus is the English word accepted for Messiah.
On the other hand what a blessing and privilege to be baptized into the same name as the original New Testament Church was.
BTW where and who are these Pastors? Are they teaching one would be lost for not being baptized in the original name?
This is a problem that I have with most Apostolic churches today. They are "formula" driven. Jesus name baptism isn't a "formula" or a "liturgy" to be repeated over a person by an ordained "priesthood". Let's look at Paul's baptism closely,
(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.
Paul was told to be water baptized, and wash away his sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. You see, Ananias didn’t repeat a formula over Paul. At baptism Paul himself called upon the name of Jesus for the remission (forgiveness) of his sins. Here’s the point, it doesn’t matter what a MAN speaks over you at the moment of baptism. What matters is that YOU are calling on Jesus to wash away your sins. If YOU don’t call on the name of the Lord for cleansing, you will not receive remission. You could have a Catholic priest baptize you in the names of Larry, Moe, and Curly, but if YOU are calling on the name of Jesus, your sins will be remitted. Or, you could have a Pentecostal preacher baptize you screaming, “In the name of Jesus!”, 100 times…but if YOUR not calling on the name of Jesus, the baptism is ineffectual.
Now, about the hypothetical man form the 16th century. If his heart was calling on the name of Jesus at his baptism, it doesn’t matter what “formula” or “liturgy” was used…the man’s sins were washed away. If he was baptized as an infant and chooses to be re-baptized, it doesn’t matter what’s said over him if his heart is calling on the name of the Lord.
God is concerned with the disposition of the heart…not the wording of a “formula” or “liturgy”. God's grace can cut through the muttered traditions of a priest to forgive the sins of a sincere heart.
If you look very closely at the Apostolic church of the NT... they didn't have a "formula". It was simply about the repentant calling on the name of Jesus while being burried with him in baptism.
How bout we meet you half way Mikey and baptize in the proper Anglicized name of JOSHUA?
Well I agree that the proper Anglicized name would be Joshua. Since there was originally no J in Hebrew or English what is wrong with restoring the more proper and original Y which would yield Yoshua?
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist
Different types exist among the Anabaptists, although the categorizations tend to vary with the scholar's viewpoint on origins. Estep claims that in order to understand Anabaptism, one must "distinguish between the Anabaptists, inspirationists, and rationalists." He classes the likes of Blaurock, Grebel, Balthasar Hubmaier, Manz, Marpeck, and Simons as Anabaptists. He groups Müntzer, Storch, et al. as inspirationists, and anti-trinitarians such as Michael Servetus, Juan de Valdés, Sebastian Castellio, and Faustus Socinus as rationalists. Mark S. Ritchie follows this line of thought, saying, "The Anabaptists were one of several branches of 'Radical' reformers (i.e. reformers that went further than the mainstream Reformers) to arise out of the Renaissance and Reformation. Two other branches were Spirituals or Inspirationists, who believed that they had received direct revelation from the Spirit, and rationalists or anti-Trinitarians, who rebelled against traditional Christian doctrine, like Michael Servetus." Most of the Anti-Trinitarian Anabaptists were modalistic monarchians and baptized in the shorter formula of the name of Jesus Christ. They also spoke in ecstatic languages and prophecies known as "speaking in tongues." Holiness was a very important doctrine to them.
The quite is from wikipedia, so consider the source, but the reason I googeled anabaptists and Jesus name baptism is because I read it in book several years ago.
Linear Mode
