For those that left the UPC...

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Onefaith, those who received John's baptism weren't yet believers in Jesus. As you said, "they were baptized due to their repentance AWAITING Messiah." Yes, they certainly needed to be rebaptized once they believed in Jesus. Those baptized today, whether in Jesus name or in the titles, do believe in Jesus.



If you are serving someone in any capacity, you can most definitely do so to the glory of God. If the only things we do in Jesus name are those things we consider strictly religious in nature, we are living beneath our privileges!

Mt 25:34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.



So is what we have as history inaccurate? Is some of history possibly recorded with a Catholic (or other) bias? If so, how can you be sure that what I've said is historically inaccurate?

But again, I have not said that nothing should be said over a candidate at baptism. All I am saying is that the words said are not as important as the response of the candidate to Jesus. (And that Acts 22:16 can't be used as a proof text for Jesus name baptism, but that's gotten lost amongst the ruffled feathers somewhere.)

What Jesus is referring to is serving and yes when we serve we need to bless people in the name of Jesus. Pouring coffee can be working at a restaurant, thats a big difference.. going to the ballgame is a deed, but do you do that in the name of Jesus. My point is you cannot generalize the scripture to anything that is done.

Those who get baptized in the titles do believe in Jesus, yes. But Paul never baptized people who believed in Jesus in the titles so it would be Biblically inaccurate and that is the point of the argument from the OP side.

From your side you are saying it does not matter the words as much as it does the action or the intent of faith in Christ. Paul taught that we should abide in the doctrine that he laid out. That was not just the gospel but the church's teachings. Whether a person has knowledge that title baptism is incorrect or not, it still does not mean it is right to do. And any good hearted christian who is open to the word should see that. If they do not, the Lord has revealed it to men.

Acts 22:16 pleads the case the name of the Lord must be said. In that case its by the one being baptized. I don't throw that verse out at all.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

What Jesus is referring to is serving and yes when we serve we need to bless people in the name of Jesus. Pouring coffee can be working at a restaurant, thats a big difference.. going to the ballgame is a deed, but do you do that in the name of Jesus. My point is you cannot generalize the scripture to anything that is done.

It's a whole 'nother topic, but there would be many more Christians in the world today if we poured coffee (even as a waitress), went to ball games (if we believe in going to the games), and so forth as representatives of the One we profess on Sundays.

If we lived every minute what we say we believe, if we lived our lives "in Jesus name," or as He would want us to, no matter where we were or what we were doing... what a witness that would be!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Is it? You go on to say:

I didn't say "only." The primary purpose of the verse is not to teach how to baptize, and it is being used out of context to show otherwise. The purpose of the verse, in context, shows us how to live, not how to be baptized. So unless you live by saying "in the name of Jesus" with every breath and step, the verse cannot be used to prove anything about baptism. (See your first statement quoted above, and reanswer the question I followed it with.)

And I stated that the commentaries, of which I agree, define "word and deed" as also our application of Christian ordinances.

Your, "in the name of Jesus, for every breath and step" is a bit ridiculous to try and win an argument. No one here interprets the passage in that way. It is teaching that His name is important. That is the point.

Without faith in Jesus there is no authority in Him, I'm not sure why you state "you wouldn't be correct that it was not His name..." They used the right name, without faith, and found that without faith, even with the right name, there was no authority.

They used the name, but not in faith. To say "in the name of Jesus that Paul preaches" was not to invoke the authority of Paul, but to designate whose name, much the same as a person might have said "Nathaniel, son of Tholomew." (Nathaniel Bartholomew, "Bar" meaning "son of".) The disciples did much the same when they said "Jesus of Nazareth". In a time when there were no last names, some description of the person, affixed to their first name, helped designate who was being discussed. So the same name was still invoked, but not with faith.

They were "vagabond" Jews who had no authority to use His name. It had nothing to do with faith. They had not submitted their lives to God and had no authority to use His name. Big lesson to the readers.

"No other name" is a reference to Acts 4:12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Again, it is not the invoking of that name over the person that saves, but the faith of the believer in what Jesus has done for us.

It is both. You cannot have true faith without understanding that His name is also important and how powerful it is. If that wasn't true, the passage wouldn't begin with - "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven....."

This verse isn't discussing baptism either, but ok.

We are talking about His name and examples of it being used. If they are making "commands" toward the brethren "in His name", it only stands to reason when the Word says (Acts 2:38), "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ...", that they are using His name.

But again, I have not said that nothing should be said over a candidate at baptism. All I am saying is that the words said are not as important as the response of the candidate to Jesus. (And that Acts 22:16 can't be used as a proof text for Jesus name baptism, but that's gotten lost amongst the ruffled feathers somewhere.)

My feathers aren't ruffled at all. I just don't agree with you. Too many passages wherein they used His name. I think the whole debate has been whether we use His name in baptism. I believe that we do and I do believe the words spoken are just as important as the response by the candidate. You can't have one without the other. It's like having the candidate and no water. It all works together.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by missourimary

It's a whole 'nother topic, but there would be many more Christians in the world today if we poured coffee (even as a waitress), went to ball games (if we believe in going to the games), and so forth as representatives of the One we profess on Sundays.

If we lived every minute what we say we believe, if we lived our lives "in Jesus name," or as He would want us to, no matter where we were or what we were doing... what a witness that would be!

amen!

However if we never said the name of Jesus, we could be just looked at as good religious people. Other religions have them to.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

amen!

However if we never said the name of Jesus, we could be just looked at as good religious people. Other religions have them to.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

They were "vagabond" Jews who had no authority to use His name. It had nothing to do with faith. They had not submitted their lives to God and had no authority to use His name. Big lesson to the readers.

Could they have had authority without faith? (My answer is no.)

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It is both. You cannot have true faith without understanding that His name is also important and how powerful it is. If that wasn't true, the passage wouldn't begin with - "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven....."

I'll let the commentaries answer that:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

My feathers aren't ruffled at all. I just don't agree with you. Too many passages wherein they used His name. I think the whole debate has been whether we use His name in baptism. I believe that we do and I do believe the words spoken are just as important as the response by the candidate. You can't have one without the other. It's like having the candidate and no water. It all works together.

PO, you and Onefaith automatically have assumed that I was disagreeing with baptism in the name of Jesus, and immediately started arguing against what I said, without really reading it. Please carefully reread the initial posts that started this:

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.

Originally Posted by missourimary

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

Originally Posted by missourimary

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.

All I originally intended to do was correct Onefaith's statement "How did they baptize in the name of Jesus Christ? Acts 22:16 is the only example we see.". The statement was incorrect on two counts: the verse was taken out of content, and it is by far not the ONLY example of anything. I went on to explain that there were other ways of reading that particular verse-simply that it is not the ONLY verse and that one verse could be read other ways, were it the ONLY one. I didn't care for the verse being taken out of context and was discussing that, not arguing against one mode of baptism or for another.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Could they have had authority without faith? (My answer is no.)



I'll let the commentaries answer that:




PO, you and Onefaith automatically have assumed that I was disagreeing with baptism in the name of Jesus, and immediately started arguing against what I said, without really reading it. Please carefully reread the initial posts that started this:







All I originally intended to do was correct Onefaith's statement "How did they baptize in the name of Jesus Christ? Acts 22:16 is the only example we see.". The statement was incorrect on two counts: the verse was taken out of content, and it is by far not the ONLY example of anything. I went on to explain that there were other ways of reading that particular verse-simply that it is not the ONLY verse and that one verse could be read other ways, were it the ONLY one. I didn't care for the verse being taken out of context and was discussing that, not arguing against one mode of baptism or for another.

Honestly I do not know how you are saying I took the verse out of context. I was saying Acts 22:16 is the only one where we see the command to verbally call on the name of Jesus in baptism. You totally have misunderstood my argument.

I have stated about 5 times what you are saying. I do not believe you do not believe in JN baptism. Please reread my posts.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Could they have had authority without faith? (My answer is no.)

The "vagbond" Jews had no authority to think about administering the name of Jesus. They had no clue and were trying to incorporate that name into their everyday use of going about performing exorcisms. Faith is a side issue. It has nothing to do with that scripture reference.

PO, you and Onefaith automatically have assumed that I was disagreeing with baptism in the name of Jesus, and immediately started arguing against what I said, without really reading it. Please carefully reread the initial posts that started this:

I read everything and I believe you are watering down the power and importance of His name. A candidate's heart is just as important as His name. You must have the heart, but you must have the name. I'll show you that in the next response. It is revelation and it is power. The devil trembles at his name.

All I originally intended to do was correct Onefaith's statement "How did they baptize in the name of Jesus Christ? Acts 22:16 is the only example we see.". The statement was incorrect on two counts: the verse was taken out of content, and it is by far not the ONLY example of anything. I went on to explain that there were other ways of reading that particular verse-simply that it is not the ONLY verse and that one verse could be read other ways, were it the ONLY one. I didn't care for the verse being taken out of context and was discussing that, not arguing against one mode of baptism or for another.

The whole focus of Acts 22 is Saul's testimony. He begins with his pedigree and credentials showing that he knows what he knows - born a Jew, studied at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the perfect manner of the law and the fathers, being zealous toward God. He speaks of his persecution of the church - the way which they call heresy.

He then shares his Damascus Road encounter - "Who art thou LORD?"

So, in his testimony, he is identifying who Jesus Christ is. When he says, in Acts 22:16 - "calling on the name of the Lord", the Greek is defined as "epikaleomai", which means to "entitle". To "entitle" is to "furnish with a right or claim to something or to give a name or title to".

He is identifying, to the hearers, that the title "Lord" is none other than Jesus Christ. It is not a baptismal formula. It is a revelation.

[missourimary]

People can read the posts and determine for themselves what they want to think. But to tell me that I'm "watering down the power and importance of His name" is your idea of what I said, and it's a wrong conclusion. I could just as easily say that you are watering down the power and importance of His blood and His grace, if I were to use the same reasoning you are.

The power of Jesus' name is not in the name itself, but what that name represents.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by missourimary

People can read the posts and determine for themselves what they want to think. But to tell me that I'm "watering down the power and importance of His name" is your idea of what I said, and it's a wrong conclusion. I could just as easily say that you are watering down the power and importance of His blood and His grace, if I were to use the same reasoning you are.

The power of Jesus' name is not in the name itself, but what that name represents.

And we cannot tap into what the name represents unless we call on that name

Acts 2:21