Apostolic 101

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that the Gospel demands that one repents of sin, is water baptized, and filled with the Holy Ghost.

However, I believe that the Apostles originally baptized in Jesus' name. The Trinitarian formula came later as a Trinitarian innovation. I believe that down through the ages many have received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Many of ancient church writings speak of those who fell into a "spiritual ecstasy" during prayer wherein there words were unintelligible, they saw visions, spoke to angels, experienced miracles, etc. I don't think they used the terms "baptism of the Holy Ghost", or "speaking in tongues" as we do today...but it was the very same experience.

God judges the heart. One need not have a theology degree and know the finer points of a theological viewpoint to be saved. All they must know is that God (and in essence salvation) is found in Jesus alone. Therefore I believe many Trinitarians down through the ages have been "saved", and no doubt discovered their theology wasn't correct on every point.

I'm a "restorationist". I believe that the church fell into Catholic apostasy and was experienced a series of "revivals" in the Reformation that brought her back in line with Scripture more and more as reform continued. Ultimately, I believe that the Apostolic movement is the advancement made to get "back to the Bible" that we've seen within the past couple generations. Here's a short break down:

Lutheran Church - AD 1517: Saw - Justification by faith...

Presbyterian Church - Ad 1536: Saw - Communion as a Memorial...

Congregational Church - AD 1580: Saw - Separation of Church and State...

Baptist Church - AD 1609: Saw - Water Baptism by Immersion...

Methodist Church - AD 1739: Saw - Personal Holiness...

Christian Church - AD 1820: Saw - Baptism for Remission of Sins...

Trinitarian Pentecostalism - AD 1900: Saw - Baptism of the Holy Ghost - Evidence: Speaking with Tongues as in Acts chapter 2 on the day of Pentecost...

Apostolic Movement - AD 1914: Saw - The revelation of God in Christ (ONENESS), and the truth of baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ was brought into full focus again.

Today, I believe a there is a more subtle "reformation" taking place wherein people are leaving instituationlized denominations and churches to fellowship in a more biblical manner in smaller bodies known as "house churches" or "simple churches". Slowly, the church is now taking the organic form like that seen in the book of Acts.

this is what we refer to as progressive revelation, however when searching early church history from 90a.d. to around 400a.d. we find many uses of baptism according to matthew 28:19 and some uses with Jesus name.

I believe this was inpart to disciples carrying around the book of matthew, as none of the other gospels give any such of scripture that could be viewed as a "formula" then ofcourse later came the book of acts.

so i say both was used and both was excepted, One man even said that they baptized the gentiles according to matthew and the jews according to acts 2:38. i would have to relook at that again to make sure though.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by acerrak

this is what we refer to as progressive revelation, however when searching early church history from 90a.d. to around 400a.d. we find many uses of baptism according to matthew 28:19 and some uses with Jesus name.

I believe this was inpart to disciples carrying around the book of matthew, as none of the other gospels give any such of scripture that could be viewed as a "formula" then ofcourse later came the book of acts.

so i say both was used and both was excepted, One man even said that they baptized the gentiles according to matthew and the jews according to acts 2:38. i would have to relook at that again to make sure though.

I have mind blower for you. I don't believe there is a "formula" in Scripture. Here's why...

Can anyone find an exact quote of what was to be said over a convert at water baptism??? No. If there was a "formula"... why don't we see it "formulated"???

We do see something very interesting. Who was told to call upon the name of Jesus at Paul's baptism?

(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.

Notice, Ananias didn't tell Paul, "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, as I call upon the name of the Lord." No... Ananias told PAUL to call upon the name of the Lord to wash away his sins.

I think "formulas" are innovations codified by legalists. The issue isn't what is being said over you by a third party. The issue is... who's name are YOU calling upon at your baptism? A "biblical" Jesus name baptism is one wherein the one being water baptized is calling upon the name of Jesus as Paul was commanded to.

If I'm wrong... please give me an exact quote of what was said over a person in water baptism. If this can't be provided.... it can hardly be claimed that it was "formulated". And if it wasn't "formulated"... we don't have a "formula".

Technically, a person could wade out into a river all alone, call on the name of Jesus for salvation, and submerge themselves... and it would be more valid and biblical than having a fancy pants institutionalist-preacher utter a phrase over them.

I mean... if we're going to call ourselves "Apostolic"... let's do it as the Apostles did it.

[Steve Epley]

I am NOT a restorationist.
Baptism and calling on the name is on the middle voice thus the name being invoked. One does not baptism themselves neither do they invoke the name. The baptizers were commanded to baptize in the name(Mt.28:19) not the one being baptized.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I am NOT a restorationist.
Baptism and calling on the name is on the middle voice thus the name being invoked. One does not baptism themselves neither do they invoke the name. The baptizers were commanded to baptize in the name(Mt.28:19) not the one being baptized.

Wrong, those being baptized were commanded to call upon the name of the Lord:

(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.

Give me an exact quote from a "baptizer" (as you call them) at the moment they were baptizing a person. Exact words please.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Wrong, those being baptized were commanded to call upon the name of the Lord:

(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.

Give me an exact quote from a "baptizer" (as you call them) at the moment they were baptizing a person. Exact words please.

In the name of Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus very simple read Acts.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

In the name of Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus very simple read Acts.

Steve, I know you're a very intelligent man. Those verses are not exact quotes at the moment of baptism. Please provide us a QUOTE of EXACTLY what was said by a "baptizer" (from the book of Acts) at the very moment they dunked a person. In other words... provide a quote of a spoken formula.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Steve, I know you're a very intelligent man. Those verses are not exact quotes at the moment of baptism. Please provide us a QUOTE of EXACTLY what was said by a "baptizer" (from the book of Acts) at the very moment they dunked a person. In other words... provide a quote of a spoken formula.

Tis enough for me. The name Jesus was the common denominator distinguished by either Lord or Christ. Jesus is the saving name that sins are remitted in. Your Campbellite doctrine will not hold water. And I noticed you did not touch my point the BAPTIZERS were told to baptize in the name NOT the converts. Mt.28:19

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I am NOT a restorationist.
Baptism and calling on the name is on the middle voice thus the name being invoked. One does not baptism themselves neither do they invoke the name. The baptizers were commanded to baptize in the name(Mt.28:19) not the one being baptized.

yes mr epley they can baptize themselves. The jews was doing self baptism's about a 1000 years before Christ was Born. they where called Mikvah's. a good study on this would show you that this was a ritual washing that was commanded for them todo.

also matthew 28:19 is not a Name, it means authority. Baptize in the authority of the father, Son, Holy Ghost

That is just like a knight who guards a Gate says "STOP IN THE NAME OF THE KING" is equal to STOP IN THE "AUTHORITY" OF THE KING"


It means He has recieved authority from the King and therefore uses that authority. A act against a kings guard was considered a act against the king himself.

you said

Baptism and calling on the name is on the middle voice thus the name being invoked.

i guarntee if you do a study on the greek word calling upon, you will not find no middle voice. its very 1st person. sorry you are incorrect.

epikaleomai has 3 different main uses in the bible. To call upon, surname, and people who are called by that name.

never a middle voice.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I have mind blower for you. I don't believe there is a "formula" in Scripture. Here's why...

Can anyone find an exact quote of what was to be said over a convert at water baptism??? No. If there was a "formula"... why don't we see it "formulated"???

We do see something very interesting. Who was told to call upon the name of Jesus at Paul's baptism?

(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.

Notice, Ananias didn't tell Paul, "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, as I call upon the name of the Lord." No... Ananias told PAUL to call upon the name of the Lord to wash away his sins.

I think "formulas" are innovations codified by legalists. The issue isn't what is being said over you by a third party. The issue is... who's name are YOU calling upon at your baptism? A "biblical" Jesus name baptism is one wherein the one being water baptized is calling upon the name of Jesus as Paul was commanded to.

If I'm wrong... please give me an exact quote of what was said over a person in water baptism. If this can't be provided.... it can hardly be claimed that it was "formulated". And if it wasn't "formulated"... we don't have a "formula".

Technically, a person could wade out into a river, call on the name of Jesus for salvation, and submerge themselves... and it would be more valid and biblical than having a fancy pants institutionalist-preacher utter a phrase over them.

nah you didnt blow my mind, cause i already dont think there is a formula, it is just a oral encovation to me that is stated for ceremonial purposes. I have stated already the one being baptized Needs to call on Jesus, nothing a 3rd party could say over you would aid in remitting you sin.

so we are in agreement as are some others

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by acerrak

nah you didnt blow my mind, cause i already dont think there is a formula, it is just a oral encovation to me that is stated for ceremonial purposes. I have stated already the one being baptized Needs to call on Jesus, nothing a 3rd party could say over you would aid in remitting you sin.

so we are in agreement as are some others

I'd go a little further though. The Bible, and earliest church writings, indicate that conversion (repentance/baptism) were not seen a two distinct things. One professed belief in Jesus and shortly after they were standing in the water, repenting of sin, and were water baptized as they called upon the name of Jesus. Essentially... baptism was their altar call. Repentance and baptism were part of a single whole in the first century church.