Question?

[ILG]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

God killed Uzzah for what may seem like a technicality. And it was someone else's FAULT!

How much of a slippery slope does anyone really want to stand on when it comes to their salvation? Just so they can nitpick away at what they perceive to be a technicality?

Technically an R rated movie with graphic sex scenes is not pornography since it's not really happening in the truest sense.

A technicality? You bet, if you want to split hairs like that. Doesn't make the first morally acceptable before God to watch, however.

Who is actually doing the hair splitting? I think it is splitting hairs to say you can repent, be baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost and still be lost because the preacher did not say the right things. For it is by grace you are saved by faith.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by ILG

Who is actually doing the hair splitting? I think it is splitting hairs to say you can repent, be baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost and still be lost because the preacher did not say the right things. For it is by grace you are saved by faith.

Next person I baptize, I will just baptize him or her the in the name of the Lord Buddha.

Paul was told to "call upon the name of the Lord" when he was baptized in Acts 22:16.

"Call upon" is the Greek word epikalalolei (sp?) and is reflexive. It means to summon by name and invoke over one's self out loud.

This idea that the name of Jesus in water baptism is just a technicality or that a person can be made a covenantal member of the Body of Christ without immersion into that Name isn't in agreement with the Scriptures.

Which is fine, if that's your thing. I hope we all make New Jerusalem. I can disagree without animosity.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Next person I baptize, I will just baptize him or her the in the name of the Lord Buddha.

Paul was told to "call upon the name of the Lord" when he was baptized in Acts 22:16.

"Call upon" is the Greek word epikalalolei (sp?) and is reflexive. It means to summon by name and invoke over one's self out loud.

This idea that the name of Jesus in water baptism is just a technicality or that a person can be made a covenantal member of the Body of Christ without immersion into that Name isn't in agreement with the Scriptures.

Which is fine, if that's your thing. I hope we all make New Jerusalem. I can disagree without animosity.

I think what YOU say when YOU baptize someone needs to go by your convictions. But if you said Buddha and the person was being baptized in faith I don't think it would matter a hill of beans to THEIR salvation.

And here is an interesting thing, you quoted that Paul was commanded to call upon the name of the Lord in HIS OWN baptism. I did that. I felt cleansed and justified even though the preacher said FSHG. But I myself did call on the name of Jesus! And the next preacher told me I had to get rebaptized because the preacher did the wrong thing. That was legalism.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by ILG

I think what YOU say when YOU baptize someone needs to go by your convictions. But if you said Buddha and the person was being baptized in faith I don't think it would matter a hill of beans to THEIR salvation.

And here is an interesting thing, you quoted that Paul was commanded to call upon the name of the Lord in HIS OWN baptism. I did that. I felt cleansed and justified even though the preacher said FSHG. But I myself did call on the name of Jesus! And the next preacher told me I had to get rebaptized because the preacher did the wrong thing. That was legalism.

By your convictions and not by the word of God?

So essentially we can thumb our nose at God's word?

That's not faith. Abraham believed and YES it was credited to him for righteousness...and Abraham obeyed God.

In other words when it comes to baptizing he would have done it however God says to do it and not any way that fancied him.

All the great "faith" people of the bible obeyed what was commanded. That's not legalism. That's faith. Noah had faith and he followed God's instructions.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

By your convictions and not by the word of God?

So essentially we can thumb our nose at God's word?

That's not faith. Abraham believed and YES it was credited to him for righteousness...and Abraham obeyed God.

In other words when it comes to baptizing he would have done it however God says to do it and not any way that fancied him.

All the great "faith" people of the bible obeyed what was commanded. That's not legalism. That's faith. Noah had faith and he followed God's instructions.

The Biblical directive was to call upon the name in baptism. So why don't Jesus name preachers believe that it is enough for the person being baptized to do that?? (Acts 22:16) Why do they think a 3rd party has to do it for them? I think it is legalistic to say that a 3rd party must utter the name for the recipient. I think it is extra-biblical to say that if a recipient calls on the name it is not enough.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by ILG

The Biblical directive was to call upon the name in baptism. So why don't Jesus name preachers believe that it is enough for the person being baptized to do that?? (Acts 22:16) Why do they think a 3rd party has to do it for them? I think it is legalistic to say that a 3rd party must utter the name for the recipient. I think it is extra-biblical to say that if a recipient calls on the name it is not enough.

That's really the issue though isn't it? That's what I said before. You are assuming your biblical view is correct and ours is not and is therefore not up for debate.

You see Jesus commanded the Apostles to go out and baptize "in the name". We can wrangle over the meaning of the rest of that if you want but when Peter preached on Pentecost he said literally "Repent and get yourself baptized (Passive) in the name of Jesus"..

He was not to baptize Himself. He was to allow someone to baptize him "In Jesus name". So the biblical command was for the baptizer to do something and the baptizee to allow or submit to it.

I'll post something I wrote about why we say the name in the next post

[Praxeas]

Baptism and Discipleship...

Baptism is part of a teacher's discipleship.

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

We can see this in the gospels

Joh 4:1 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John
Joh 4:2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),

That this baptism was done in water is evident

Joh 3:22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing.
Joh 3:23 John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized

And we can see baptism was linked to discipleship in Acts

Act 19:1 And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.
Act 19:2 And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
Act 19:3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism."
Act 19:4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

You can see that they taught AND baptized disciples.

Furthermore, Jesus commissioned the church to go out and make people disciples unto Jesus, so we are authorized to do that.

Baptism in "Jesus name" both signifies by what authority we do such things but also signifies whose Disciple we are.

I believe this was part of Paul's point in 1Cor

1Co 1:12 But I say this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I give thanks to God that I did not baptize any one of you, except Crispus and Gaius,
1Co 1:15 that not anyone should say that you were baptized in my name.

Notice some believed they were "of" Paul or Apollos or Cephas and then Paul connects that to baptism? Futher more Paul seems to connect some claiming to be "of Paul" with whether or not they were baptized "In the name of Paul" or that Paul himself had baptized others..

This is why we baptize "In the name of Jesus", because we are not making disciples to ourselves but unto Him. We are the body of Christ so we are His proxy here on earth to make people HIS disciples for Him.

Mat 28 speaks of discipleship but it also emphasizes AUTHORITY. All Authority in heaven and earth is given to Christ, so therefore ALL authority is His.

The terms "Father, Son and Spirit" represents God's work in heaven and on earth. The Father's throne is heaven. The Son redeemed man here on earth and rules on the throne of David and the Spirit completes and continues the work of God in and through the Church here on earth (I believe Holy Spirit is a sort of circumlocution for the Shekina Glory).

"Name" refers to a Persons authority. "Name" also refers to the Person Himself. "Name" is often used as an idiomatic way of saying "Person".

So all the authority of Heaven and Earth is His. All the authority and domain of the Father, Son and Spirit is also His.

That is why we baptize in HIS name. That is why and how the Apostoles understood His words and baptized in HIS Name. Because all the authority is HIS and we are making people disciples unto HIM.

Further understanding of Name/Person and Authority can be learned from other texts

Act 4:12 And there is salvation in no other One; for there is no other name under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bear a son, and you shall call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins.

Act 3:16 And His name, through faith in His name, has made this man strong, this one whom you see and know, His name made firm. And the faith which came through Him has given him this perfect soundness before you.

Act 10:43 All the Prophets give witness to Him, that through His name whoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins.

Act 15:14 Even as Simon has declared how God at the first visited the nations to take out of them a people for His name.

Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted Him, and has given Him a name which is above every name,
Php 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of heavenly ones, and of earthly ones, and of ones under the earth;
Php 2:11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's really the issue though isn't it? That's what I said before. You are assuming your biblical view is correct and ours is not and is therefore not up for debate.

You see Jesus commanded the Apostles to go out and baptize "in the name". We can wrangle over the meaning of the rest of that if you want but when Peter preached on Pentecost he said literally "Repent and get yourself baptized (Passive) in the name of Jesus"..

He was not to baptize Himself. He was to allow someone to baptize him "In Jesus name". So the biblical command was for the baptizer to do something and the baptizee to allow or submit to it.

I'll post something I wrote about why we say the name in the next post

That's all fine, but people are telling others they are not saved unless they do it THIS way. The problem with that is I was saved before I did it that way and, having no biblical knowledge I believed this. It didn't seem like a big deal to be rebaptized. What was the harm in doing it, I thought? Only years later, did I understand that it put me in the position of doubting my salvation and putting me in the position of constantly doubting my salvation and asking if there was anything else I missed that God might throw me into hell for. Thus began a fear-based walk.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

By your convictions and not by the word of God?

So essentially we can thumb our nose at God's word?

That's not faith. Abraham believed and YES it was credited to him for righteousness...and Abraham obeyed God.

In other words when it comes to baptizing he would have done it however God says to do it and not any way that fancied him.

All the great "faith" people of the bible obeyed what was commanded. That's not legalism. That's faith. Noah had faith and he followed God's instructions.

Oh for crying out loud!!!!!!! That made too much sense!

[MawMaw]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

By your convictions and not by the word of God?

So essentially we can thumb our nose at God's word?

That's not faith. Abraham believed and YES it was credited to him for righteousness...and Abraham obeyed God.

In other words when it comes to baptizing he would have done it however God says to do it and not any way that fancied him.

All the great "faith" people of the bible obeyed what was commanded. That's not legalism. That's faith. Noah had faith and he followed God's instructions.

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Oh for crying out loud!!!!!!! That made too much sense!