Theoretical question about baptism

[Orthodoxy]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Calvinists believe they were saved before they existed since God ordained them to be saved whether they chose it or not. Virtually the same thing.

I am very much aware of what Calvinists believe, and, no, it is not the same thing.

I could try to explain, but we've already had those debates on here.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Orthodoxy

I am very much aware of what Calvinists believe, and, no, it is not the same thing.

I could try to explain, but we've already had those debates on here.

Calvinists do not say a lot of things, such as God choosing some to go to hell. But they believe it.

[Praxeas]

The UPC articles of faith state sins are forgiven by faith when we repent, not later when we are baptized

[ThePastorsCoach]

Pastor Epley never has been UPC so the AOF and the manual/rule book does not apply to him.
The UPC was high jacked by control freaks that loved to manipulate and dominate people. It is a Jezebel controlling spirit. The "standards" never were about "holiness", they have always been about CONTROL!
I tried to say that nicely! ;-)

[Amanah]

The control freak aspect of the UPC is cultish I think.
I say this while having the utmost respect for many in the UPC.
What is a bit scary, is that when the UPC identity begins to be questioned,
then everything begins to be questioned.
And you are not just talking about philosophical debates for the fun of it.
Some of the doctrines in question deal with matters of eternity.

I understand the debate between baptism being for/because of remission of sins.

http://bible-truth.org/Acts2-38.html

Grammatically Robertson shows that the use of the preposition "eis" can be equally understood as meaning either that baptism was for the remission of sin or that baptism followed true repentance and did not cause the remission of sins.

So, I think I follow the theological debates about the two possible interpretations of this passage. What I am about to say next is based on spirit, not letter.

I have always felt that there was a special annointing on preachers who preached repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues.

I know my experience is limited to what I have seen in my local area, in my life time; but, I have not experienced anything that can hold a candle to the demonstration of the Spirit that accompanies Jesus Name, One God preaching.

[Ev. Duane Williams]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The control freak aspect of the UPC is cultish I think.I say this while having the utmost respect for many in the UPC.
What is a bit scary, is that when the UPC identity begins to be questioned,
then everything begins to be questioned.
And you are not just talking about philosophical debates for the fun of it.
Some of the doctrines in question deal with matters of eternity.

I understand the debate between baptism being for/because of remission of sins.

http://bible-truth.org/Acts2-38.html

Grammatically Robertson shows that the use of the preposition "eis" can be equally understood as meaning either that baptism was for the remission of sin or that baptism followed true repentance and did not cause the remission of sins.

So, I think I follow the theological debates about the two possible interpretations of this passage. What I am about to say next is based on spirit, not letter.

I have always felt that there was a special annointing on preachers who preached repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues.

I know my experience is limited to what I have seen in my local area, in my life time; but, I have not experienced anything that can hold a candle to the demonstration of the Spirit that accompanies Jesus Name, One God preaching.

Listen to this one. A brilliant minister has been visiting our Church over the past six months or so. Feeling the call into the ministry, he applied for ordination at our convention in early October. On the application questionnaire, there is a space for "recommendation by your Pastor", so this minister asked his Pastor(UPC), who told him "Absolutely not, and you shouldn't have even been visiting that Church without MY PERMISSION!"

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The control freak aspect of the UPC is cultish I think.
I say this while having the utmost respect for many in the UPC.
What is a bit scary, is that when the UPC identity begins to be questioned,
then everything begins to be questioned.
And you are not just talking about philosophical debates for the fun of it.
Some of the doctrines in question deal with matters of eternity.

I understand the debate between baptism being for/because of remission of sins.

http://bible-truth.org/Acts2-38.html

Grammatically Robertson shows that the use of the preposition "eis" can be equally understood as meaning either that baptism was for the remission of sin or that baptism followed true repentance and did not cause the remission of sins.

So, I think I follow the theological debates about the two possible interpretations of this passage. What I am about to say next is based on spirit, not letter.

I have always felt that there was a special annointing on preachers who preached repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues.

I know my experience is limited to what I have seen in my local area, in my life time; but, I have not experienced anything that can hold a candle to the demonstration of the Spirit that accompanies Jesus Name, One God preaching.

Robertson provided commentary in his lexicon colored by his views the great majority of Linquists say 'eis' is 'in order to' or 'unto' NEVER because of in this passage.
Someone who is better computer literate than myself could bring up the thread I made about a lady sending Acts 2 :38 to Greek professors around the world and their translation of 'eis.'

[ThePastorsCoach]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I have always felt that there was a special annointing on preachers who preached repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues.

I know my experience is limited to what I have seen in my local area, in my life time; but, I have not experienced anything that can hold a candle to the demonstration of the Spirit that accompanies Jesus Name, One God preaching.

I have seen and heard "Apostolic" Preachers preach with great anointing and demonstration of the Spirit and I have seen and heard some preach without it all while saying..."I feel the Holy Ghost here" - just to whip up the emotions of the crowd. The fact is - we are all flesh and sometimes we walk in the Anointing and sometimes we don't.

I have seen the exact same with "Trinitarian Pentecostal" preachers - some with the Anointing and some without. I was in a Jimmy Swaggart meeting many years ago where I saw for myself over 2000 people filled with the Holy Ghost that had never had the Holy Ghost before. Some of my greatest meetings have been with crowds of over 100,000 in West Africa never heard of baptism in the Name of Jesus until I began to baptize them. I had a permit to baptize 200 every Saturday and every Saturday, 200 new ones continue to be baptized in the wonderful Name of Jesus Christ.

I have had the Holy Ghost since I was 5 years old and preached since I was 16. I have preached with the anointing and without but it is a WHOLE LOT BETTER to have the Anointing when you are ministering.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Calvinists do not say a lot of things, such as God choosing some to go to hell. But they believe it.

Wrong, in Calvinism...

All of mankind is fallen and sinful and will be lost without intervention. God chose a remnant.

All deserve Hell. None deserve Heaven.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Wrong, in Calvinism...

All of mankind is fallen and sinful and will be lost without intervention. God chose a remnant.

All deserve Hell. None deserve Heaven.

So he made a way of escape for a few, but certainly not all...