For those that left the UPC...

[Rose]

Colossians 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, [do] all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. KJV

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Shingledecker

To God Be The Glory,

It's a matter of illuminination. I was baptized in a Missionary Baptist Church prior to receiving the Holy Ghost. It was explained to me in terms of "becoming a member of this church" and as an outward sign of an inward work identifying myself with my fellow-believers in that local church. I was sincere.
However,
Six months later I had received the Holy Ghost and my pastor explained to me the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the power of the name in which all Heaven and earth is named, and the day of Pentecost sermon and "altar call" by Peter, I had no choice but to be "buried with him in baptism". How could I ignore this truth?
I understoond why I was baptized in the name of F,S&HG, but a greater truth was explained to me, much like Aquila and Priscilla to Apollos in the book of Acts.
A&Ps attitude is important. They entreated Apollos like a brother...they didn't run him off or brand him as a heretic. The Acts narrative also implies that Apollos was baptizing, albeit not in the name of Jesus (probably John's baptism).
The lesson learned is that there still some honest seekers out there much like Apollos that have been baptized differently (ne: John's baptism) but should be entreated.

One Faith 2,
I agree that there may be some Christians you have met that think they will see three. So what's your approach? Smack 'em in the name of Jesus, or befriend them and entreat them and show them Jesus?
As far as how we should treat those horrible trinitarians, what is your suggestion? We've MUCH more in common with them than a moslem, a buddhist, shintoist, or any other eastern religion.
I am NOT saying that we shouldn't hold the truth dear and not let it go!

"Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding." Proverbs 23:23

I am not suggesting compromising and saying it's alright to do it either way. I am saying our attitude is everything.

"But if ye (followers of Jesus) bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another" Galatians 5:15


JMHO: There are more Apollos' out there than we would ever know who can help us win the world for Jesus if only they'd be respected and entreated rather than denigrated.

1 Faith, when was the last time you had a sit-down weekly Bible study with a "secular" christian and showed them the light?

Most of the people I have won through BIble study with the Lord's help have been from other denominational persuasion. I use a bible study that the Lord gave me.

To answer your question, I befriend then as my brother. And in doing that I plant seeds of faith and encourage them to seek for more truths and to study HG baptims, JN baptism, etc.

I give them the bible study the Lord gave me. I don't judge them at all.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by ILG

Oh, I have a long sordid, pathetic history with the Apostolic church. This is just the tip of the iceburg. "wink, wink".

Seriously though, I think if people want to be baptized in Jesus name, that's fine with me. And if they want to be baptized in the FS&HG, that's fine with me too. If we are going to talk scripture, I think baptism in Jesus name may be more correct. However, I don't see anywhere in scripture where the leap of logic is made that says if you don't get baptized with a preacher saying "Jesus" over you as you go under, you are going to hell. And that's the leap of logic made by many Oneness Pentecostals.

There no scripture saying you are going to heaven either if that is spoken. That is just the response to the gospel. repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

How did they baptize in the name of Jesus Christ?

Acts 22:16 is the only example we see.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

There no scripture saying you are going to heaven either if that is spoken. That is just the response to the gospel. repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

How did they baptize in the name of Jesus Christ?

Acts 22:16 is the only example we see.

For the record... that verse has Paul commanding the jailer to call on the name of Jesus. Not the preacher.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by missourimary

For the record... that verse has Paul commanding the jailer to call on the name of Jesus. Not the preacher.

Are you dyslexic?

[ILG]

Originally Posted by missourimary

For the record... that verse has Paul commanding the jailer to call on the name of Jesus. Not the preacher.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Are you dyslexic?

No, though I did make a mistake. I didn't read the verse in context, but assumed I knew what verse was being discussed. Interestingly, no one challenged me on it, either.

Paul is not the speaker in the verse. Ananias is. Paul is speaking of his personal testimony.

12And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 13Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.


Still, the main point is the same. The preacher told the convert to call on the name of the Lord... not the one who was baptizing him.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Still, the main point is the same. The preacher told the convert to call on the name of the Lord... not the one who was baptizing him.

The "convert" happens to be Saul of Tarsus giving an account of his life and his salvation.

A beautiful story wherein Saul had come to the realization of who this Jesus really was. Ananias was, in effect, saying the same thing that was instructed in Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Every other account of baptism doesn't give the impression that the person being baptized is saying anything at all. There are more scriptures that appear to be showing that the one baptizing is the one invoking the wording - in the name of Jesus.

Acts 8:16 "(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 10:48 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The "convert" happens to be Saul of Tarsus giving an account of his life and his salvation.

Yes, that's what I just said. He was telling what Ananias told him right after his Damascus road experience. Ananias told him to call on the name of the Lord in baptism, not to make sure someone baptized him in Jesus' name.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

A beautiful story wherein Saul had come to the realization of who this Jesus really was. Ananias was, in effect, saying the same thing that was instructed in Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Exactly. And doesn't that verse still mean the same today?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Every other account of baptism doesn't give the impression that the person being baptized is saying anything at all. There are more scriptures that appear to be showing that the one baptizing is the one invoking the wording - in the name of Jesus.

Acts 8:16 "(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 10:48 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."B]

The thing is, if the exact formula needed to be stated, wouldn't the verses read with quotations as follows:

Acts 8:16 "(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus".)

Acts 10:48 "And he commanded them to be baptized "in the name of the Lord". Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'."

Of course, we aren't reading the text in the original, and I understand that. It's just that the verses are grammatically incorrect if they were intended to direct a specific phrase invoked over candidates at baptism.

I have also wondered why, if it was so important what was said at baptism, none of the epistles were written including a reminder about baptizing a certain way or in a certain formula.


We certainly are off topic.

For the record, I was baptized in Jesus' name. I'm not arguing for a Trinitarian formula. But sometimes I think our logic on why we do certain things is off. We get so good at hitting "play back" and spouting off a few verses on certain topics, we sometimes forget to really look at them in depth.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Yes, that's what I just said. He was telling what Ananias told him right after his Damascus road experience. Ananias told him to call on the name of the Lord in baptism, not to make sure someone baptized him in Jesus' name.



Exactly. And doesn't that verse still mean the same today?




The thing is, if the exact formula needed to be stated, wouldn't the verses read with quotations as follows:

Acts 8:16 "(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus".)

Acts 10:48 "And he commanded them to be baptized "in the name of the Lord". Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'."

Of course, we aren't reading the text in the original, and I understand that. It's just that the verses are grammatically incorrect if they were intended to direct a specific phrase invoked over candidates at baptism.

I have also wondered why, if it was so important what was said at baptism, none of the epistles were written including a reminder about baptizing a certain way or in a certain formula.


We certainly are off topic.

For the record, I was baptized in Jesus' name. I'm not arguing for a Trinitarian formula. But sometimes I think our logic on why we do certain things is off. We get so good at hitting "play back" and spouting off a few verses on certain topics, we sometimes forget to really look at them in depth.

Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Acts opens up the beginning of the New Testament church - a phenomenal event. Acts 2:21 speaks to me of simply "acknowledging" and "understanding" who Jesus Christ was, what He came to do and why I need Him in my life.

Acts 22:16, IMO, is saying the same thing. To turn that into introducing the idea that it is talking about a baptismal wording for the person being baptized is bad interpretation, IMO.

Why? Because Acts 22 is Saul/Paul speaking here. We understand his actions in Acts 8:3 because of his pedigree (Philippians 3:4-6).

In Hebrew, if you have a plural noun followed by a singular verb, the noun must also be singular. So, this is what Saul/Paul knows:

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God/Elohim (plural noun) created/bara (singular verb) the heavens and the earth.

That makes God singular and the only creator. We will never find out, at any other time, that anyone created anything but God alone.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3)

The writer is identifying God, who created all things, as Jesus Christ himself!

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;." I John 1:1

They heard Him speak, saw Him with their own eyes and handled him with their own hands - the WORD of life - God himself - Jesus Christ!

To overlook the glory of this revelation and say that it's okay to baptize in the FS&HG is to not recognize the powerful, wonderful and majestic truth of who God is and what He has done.

This is what Saul experienced on the road to Damascus and he never looked back! Glory to God!!!!! He perfectly understood what Ananias was instructing him to do - Call on His name, believe in His name - God Almighty - God manifested in the flesh - Jesus Christ.

Matthew 28:19 are very powerful words and a revelation of Jesus Christ. It is not a baptismal formula. Never has been, never will be.