born of water

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Sean

Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist View Post
"For the remission of sins" simply means "in order that your sins might be forgiven". And who forgives sins? The context here is not even orally invoking the name by the baptizer (which he should do) but one being commanded to repent and to be baptized into the authority (name) of the one Peter had been preaching about that God made to be both Lord and Christ. Is not an incantation or word taking away people's sins. It is GOD forgiving sin of those who are obedient to the message because they yielded to the Lordship of Christ by repenting and being baptized.



Is the Name of Jesus we speak an incantation?


in·can·ta·tion noun \ˌin-ˌkan-ˈtā-shən\
: a series of words used to make something magic happen

Full Definition of INCANTATION

: a use of spells or verbal charms spoken or sung as a part of a ritual of magic; also : a written or recited formula of words designed to produce a particular effect

Yes, let's spam the board with a zillion mini-posts instead of tying our thoughts together in one post.

If you believe that invoking the name of Jesus over someone you are baptizing makes something happen (namely, washes away their sins) then you indeed have turned his name into an incantation.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Yes, let's spam the board with a zillion mini-posts instead of tying our thoughts together in one post.

If you believe that invoking the name of Jesus over someone you are baptizing makes something happen (namely, washes away their sins) then you indeed have turned his name into an incantation.

oh, i totally believe that. call it whatever. but i also believes this provides us only a glimpse, and must be a naive understanding that the Holy Spirit and Christ's many other Titles aren't confined by. i am not qualified to judge whether someone else is lost by virtue of their baptism via titles, or unbaptism, for that matter.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by shazeep

oh, i totally believe that. call it whatever. but i also believes this provides us only a glimpse, and must be a naive understanding that the Holy Spirit and Christ's many other Titles aren't confined by. i am not qualified to judge whether someone else is lost by virtue of their baptism via titles, or unbaptism, for that matter.

But is anyone "qualified to judge whether someone else is lost", OR SAVED, if someone
else outwardly rejects or denies the gospel that saves, or any portion thereof.

[shazeep]

an excellent point!

Originally Posted by thephnxman

But is anyone "qualified to judge whether someone else is lost", OR SAVED, if someone
else outwardly rejects or denies the gospel that saves, or any portion thereof.

to that i would also answer "no" due to the fact that
1) we tend to judge dogmas by their representatives, who may just be door-blockers,
2) this assumes that the Gospel, which is the only one that saves, has been completely understood by those who are familiar with those Words, and is completely codified by those or relative Words--meaning that the popular premise of "i understand it to be like ________, so everyone else better understand it exactly like that, or they are lost"--which is not true, imo, and i have lots of Scripture for these, btw, and i'll just stop at
3)--although i could go on--God judges the heart of a person, and not their verbal adherence to any dogma; and we mostly judge people by their words, and appearances--iow we are not qualified to judge the time of day.

i understand that this comes with the best of intentions. i am aware of the verses--meant for self-application--that often reveal judgemental premises, and i suggest that that is largely their function. There are inevitably more verses that would allow the same accuser to include the same "outward rejecter" rather than exclude them; the choice of premises--and thus salvation--resides with the premise.

i cannot reliably claim that you are 'saved,' simply because your "end" has not come yet; you cannot reliably claim that i am lost simply because i am not comfortable with your framing of the Gospel (for instance). This is the essence of The Vineyard Owner with Two Sons, isn't it?

ok and what's this "you err, not knowing the Scriptures" jazz? are you for real? i mean, you're right, but listen to yourself. do you really even want to be that guy? A gigantic, animated index finger?

[mfblume]

Do you folks feel it is necessary to vocalize Jesus' name when casting out a devil? Ever try it?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Do you folks feel it is necessary to vocalize Jesus' name when casting out a devil? Ever try it?

Apples and oranges. We don't cast out people's sins. And vocalizing the name of Jesus to demons is not a given they will leave. Just ask the sons of Sceva in Acts. They had no authority to use the name of Jesus because they did not know Jesus by way of the new birth. Therefore, by your thinking, a sincerely repentant sinner could be baptized with the name of Jesus invoked over them and still remain in their sins if the the one baptizing was not right with God.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Apples and oranges. We don't cast out people's sins. And vocalizing the name of Jesus to demons is not a given they will leave. Just ask the sons of Sceva in Acts. They had no authority to use the name of Jesus because they did not know Jesus by way of the new birth. Therefore, by your thinking, a sincerely repentant sinner could be baptized with the name of Jesus invoked over them and still remain in their sins if the the one baptizing was not right with God.

I did not say we cast out people's sins like you tried implying from my post before about this same issue. I am asking if the name needs to be vocalized or not when casting out a devil.

Yes or no?