born of water

[mfblume]

To go in the name of the Lord in the Old Testament, as when David did not go against Goliath with sword or spear but in the name of the Lord, or Asa did not defeat the monstrous Ethiopian army with his own army but in the name of the Lord, is to believe God for His power that is greater than anything to deliver us!

So, baptism in the name of Jesus not only recognizes JESUS IS THAT ONE LORD GOD of the Old Testament, but that His POWER is what we are calling upon by actually speaking His name, to overcome this huge monster of sin and REMIT IT! But it's not merely calling the name, for the sons of Sceva did that and got no where in casting out devils. But it is speaking the name at the same time we TRUST in God's GREATER POWER to remit sins when our own works could not scratch the surface of sin!

I think we need to keep that in mind as well!

It is seeing God's power actually work in baptism, making it far from a mere outward sign of an inward work.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

To go in the name of the Lord in the Old Testament, as when David did not go against Goliath with sword or spear but in the name of the Lord, or Asa did not defeat the monstrous Ethiopian army with his own army but in the name of the Lord, is to believe God for His power that is greater than anything to deliver us!

So, baptism in the name of Jesus not only recognizes JESUS IS THAT ONE LORD GOD of the Old Testament, but that His POWER is what we are calling upon by actually speaking His name, to overcome this huge monster of sin and REMIT IT! But it's not merely calling the name, for the sons of Sceva did that and got no where in casting out devils. But it is speaking the name at the same time we TRUST in God's GREATER POWER to remit sins when our own works could not scratch the surface of sin!

I think we need to keep that in mind as well!

It is seeing God's power actually work in baptism, making it far from a mere outward sign of an inward work.

So if we say "I baptize you in the name of the Lord", is that OK? It worked for David, huh?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

So if we say "I baptize you in the name of the Lord", is that OK? It worked for David, huh?

Jesus said to do so in Jesus' name. Why avoid the name so much? I don't understand the point.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Jesus said to do so in Jesus' name. Why avoid the name so much? I don't understand the point.

I would never dream of invoking anything while baptizing other than the name of Jesus Christ. To leave out the invoking of his name in that process is at best a misunderstanding of his original intent, and at worst a gross error.

Having said that, I do not believe God withholds forgiveness from the repentant sinner who has responded to the conviction of the Spirit based on the ignorance of the one baptizing. Remember, Peter said in Acts 5 that God gives the Holy Ghost to "them that obey him". If he bestows the gift of the Holy Ghost on someone who received what we consider to have been a less than perfect baptism, then we can say with confidence that God counts them still as having obeyed the gospel.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I would never dream of invoking anything while baptizing other than the name of Jesus Christ. To leave out the invoking of his name in that process is at best a misunderstanding of his original intent, and at worst a gross error.

Having said that, I do not believe God withholds forgiveness from the repentant sinner who has responded to the conviction of the Spirit based on the ignorance of the one baptizing. Remember, Peter said in Acts 5 that God gives the Holy Ghost to "them that obey him". If he bestows the gift of the Holy Ghost on someone who received what we consider to have been a less than perfect baptism, then we can say with confidence that God counts them still as having obeyed the gospel.

I disagree. People received the gift of the Holy Ghost in Acts 10 and God still demanded Peter to baptize them to such a degree that He gave Perter a vision about unclean animals being taken into the body. Baptism was still necessary for the them to fulfill the gospel. I cannot say one is lost without that, since the bible does not deal with it in that fashion, but it must be done to fulfill righteousness.

Paul also dealt with proper obedience when he wrote Romans 10 and said one cannot believe unless one SENT preaches the truth. To believe and yet not have believed the truth that a true minister preaches is to not really believe what Acts 5 was speaking about.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I disagree. People received the gift of the Holy Ghost in Acts 10 and God still demanded Peter to baptize them to such a degree that He gave Perter a vision about unclean animals being taken into the body. Baptism was still necessary for the them to fulfill the gospel. I cannot say one is lost without that, since the bible does not deal with it in that fashion, but it must be done to fulfill righteousness.

Mike,

I did not say anything about people who have not been baptized. I specifically referred to people who have been baptized, howbeit in an imperfect manner, but unto whom God still bestows the gift of his Spirit, thus signifying that he considers them to have obeyed the gospel per Acts 5:32.

However, speaking of Cornelius, I do feel that the fact that God was able to give him the Holy Ghost "on credit" (so to speak) before baptism is evidence that there is no literal cleansing or internal work that happens at baptism. Baptism is simply part of repentance.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Mike,

I did not say anything about people who have not been baptized. I specifically referred to people who have been baptized, howbeit in an imperfect manner, but unto whom God still bestows the gift of his Spirit, thus signifying that he considers them to have obeyed the gospel per Acts 5:32.

However, speaking of Cornelius, I do feel that the fact that God was able to give him the Holy Ghost "on credit" (so to speak) before baptism is evidence that there is no literal cleansing or internal work that happens at baptism. Baptism is simply part of repentance.

I know what you said, and I still respond the same. I knew you meant incorrect baptism. If someone is baptized incorrectly, then they're like one not baptized. Again, the truth believed is what counts in Acts 5, not just belief from a preacher who doesn't know how to properly baptize. None of the apostles would have preached anything less than Jesus' name baptism. And they repeated over and over again, as in Romans 10 as I noted, the belief can only exist if one believes what a TRUE preacher preaches. So, you cannot say a person believed adequately if they were not informed of Acts 2:38.

"On credit" baptism of the Spirit is something that really makes no sense. There does not have to be a cleansing for one to receive the Spirit. Who said there was? This comes from the same false notion that repentance is death and baptism is burial so that Spirit baptism is resurrection. But the bible does not say that anywhere. Baptism is both death and burial. And I agree repentance goes along with it.

So I maintain an actual internal work is done in baptism with repentance that is not done with repentance alone.