Apostolic 101

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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

i touched it and i gave you a example of how it is used with the knight guarding the post

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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

Ah.... you're mistaken. Jesus didn't "formulate". Jesus commanded that the Apostles to essentially facilitate baptisms in His name. Who was to call upon the name at said baptisms? Well... we are to follow Paul even as he is a follower of Jesus... Who called upon the name of the Lord 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.

Paul was commanded to. This is Matthew 28:19 in action.

Essentially, we'd see the "baptizer" and the "convert" praying and calling upon the name of Jesus and then the convert would be baptized. No formula. Just a calling upon the name of Jesus.

I know Catholics and legalists like magic formulas. This wasn't one. It was a cry, a prayer to, a calling upon... performed by the convert, at their baptism. They didn't have altar calls. Back then... they didn't even have church buildings. lol

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ah.... you're mistaken. Jesus didn't "formulate". Jesus commanded that the Apostles to essentially facilitate baptisms in His name. Who was to call upon the name at said baptisms? Well... we are to follow Paul even as he is a follower of Jesus... Who called upon the name of the Lord 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.

Paul was commanded to. This is Matthew 28:19 in action.

Essentially, we'd see the "baptizer" and the "convert" praying and calling upon the name of Jesus and then the convert would be baptized. No formula. Just a calling upon the name of Jesus.

I know Catholics and legalists like magic formulas. This wasn't one. It was a cry, a prayer to, a calling upon... performed by the convert, at their baptism. They didn't have altar calls. Back then... they didn't even have church buildings. lol

God is a legalist He gave the instructions. Nothing magic about obeying Him. He said baptize IN THE NAME. Nuff said. And said it to the BAPTIZER not the convert.
AND they worshipped in the Temple also you did read that right?

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

God is a legalist He gave the instructions. Nothing magic about obeying Him. He said baptize IN THE NAME. Nuff said. And said it to the BAPTIZER not the convert.
AND they worshipped in the Temple also you did read that right?

then we have a contradiction in scripture, cause ananias told Paul to call on the Lord, ananais didnt do it for him nor does scripture say he called it over Him

according to romans 10:9-10 if the convert does call upon the lord or confess Jesus is Lord he cant be saved.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by acerrak

then we have a contradiction in scripture, cause ananias told Paul to call on the Lord, ananais didnt do it for him nor does scripture say he called it over Him

according to romans 10:9-10 if the convert does call upon the lord or confess Jesus is Lord he cant be saved.

Both are in the MIDDLE voice there is no such thing as SELF-baptism. Having the name invoked is the meaning here. Not invoking the name himself. See Acts 15:17, James 2:7

[Tim Rutledge]

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (Acts 8:38 KJV)

(Philip baptized him)

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Tim Rutledge

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (Acts 8:38 KJV)

(Philip baptized him)

The whole flimflam is an old Campbellite or Sowderite argument dodging the command and they don't even believe it themselves.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Tim Rutledge

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (Acts 8:38 KJV)

(Philip baptized him)

i agree Phillip baptized him, also scripture does not say that phillip said anything over him at the time of the baptism.

Notice what Phillip said in response to the ethiopian you must believe with all your heart and soul.

He was really stating romans 10:9-10 cause the ethiopian declared Jesus the Son of God after He stated that. Then because of His proffesion of faith in the Lord Jesus phillip baptized Him.

and i am not against anyone baptizing another man. Jewish culture had self immersion baptisms all the time. i was just pointing out that it was a common thing.

Phillip had the authority to baptize Cause Jesus gave it to Him, Just as the knight has authority from the King which was given to him.

My question is did any of the apostles get rebaptized after pentacost? Cause they had recieved johns baptism earlier.

[JamDat]

Are we commanded in the bible to be baptized? Yes, but only after we have repented. If we have repented then we have believed.

If we have believed and have repented are we then His children? Have we been blood bought? Yes? Then what is one good reason that you would not be baptized according to the bible? None, unless you are a fake conversion or have a very bad evangelist before you.

The coast guard analogy works only if the person is unconscious in the water. Yes they are being rescued, but if I were in the water it would be my nature the push up on to, grab, cling to the basket and obey the voice of the rescuer. Did I save myself? No, but there were things that would be right, reasonable, and in submission to the rescuer that were done.

We are to put on Christ and at the moment of belief this is the easiest. When we realize we are dead in our sins and need to be rescued we put on Christ like a life preserver and trust Him. If we trust Him we trust the Words He's given us because it would be in our new nature (born again) to obey Him.

In Mathew 28 Jesus commands his disciple to teach and baptize. Then reiterates by saying to teach the things that He has commanded.

It is not wrong for Steve and Tim to follow what Jesus has commanded. By saying that we don't need to baptize is like saying we don't have to go into the nations and teach what Jesus commanded.

Do Steve and Tim believe for a second that getting wet is what saves you? They both seem intelligent to me so I'll say no. They both know that it was the shedding of Jesus's blood in our place that has saved them. Are they listening and obeying the voice of the rescuer though? According the bible they are.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

God is a legalist He gave the instructions. Nothing magic about obeying Him. He said baptize IN THE NAME. Nuff said. And said it to the BAPTIZER not the convert.
AND they worshipped in the Temple also you did read that right?

So... Paul wasn't baptized biblically?