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.
That is an admirable thing, and because of Acts 22:16, I agree that between the two, the one immersed more so that the one immersing needs to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus. I teach it this way.
But I have no doubt that it also matters that the immerser call upon the name of the Lord, since they are commanded "whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus".
Can two walk together except be they agreed?
If a person is using a triune formula, thinking that Christ is God the Son, the second person in the Godhead, and they go baptizing invoking the titles, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit on account of that belief, but the soon to be immersed is not a Trinitarian, and understands Christ to not be what the immerser thinks/believes He is (i.e. not God the Son, but rather the Incarnation of God the Father), then why in a million years would the soon to be immersed ever agree to be so baptized (and vice versa, why would a Trinitarian minister ever agree to baptize someone with a triune formula knowing the one to be immersed didn't believe in the fundamental theology of God the one doing the immersing)?
The only way either would agree is if they both agreed that it didn't matter.
__________________
For anyone devoted to His fear:
Consider all other acts of faith, like praying for one's healing.
Simon Peter, with the lame man at the gate beautiful, called upon the name of Jesus as he reached out to help the man stand to his feet healed.
Simon uttered the name audibly.
Then, in giving an account of the man's restoration, Simon indicated that it was the name of Jesus, and faith in that name, that made the man whole.
Do you see how someone else speaking the Name in faith caused the hearer to likewise respond in faith to the Name? And when the hearer (who never called on Jesus to heal him) believed Simon Peter and the Name Simon Peter spoke, a miracle occurred.
How about baptism? Shouldn't the immerser speak the name of Jesus in faith when they immerse, likewise calling on the name of the Lord as a royal priest and intercessor whereby, in the invoking of the person of Christ, the High Priest, Jesus Himself hears from on High and so, forgives the immersed upon immersion if the person has placed full trust and reliance in His person and has repented of his or her sins?
It has ever been the duty and privilege of a priest of God to invoke the name of the Lord over and upon the people, in order to, in a symbol, transfer that Name and all the power and righteousness it represents, to the audience in need of the priestly duty.
The Aaronic blessing of Numbers 6 helps indicate this.
We now are priests of the new covenant, like Christ, after the order of Melchizedek, following in the footsteps of our High Priest, who, as the Son of God, ever lives to make intercession for us. We do likewise, petitioning the Door (i.e. Jesus, the only way to the Father; John 14:6) to open to the ones we are baptizing, that the Kingdom of God may be revealed to the immersed by the Holy Spirit when they receive the promise of the Father.
__________________
For anyone devoted to His fear:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherEastman
Oh for crying out loud!!!!!!! That made too much sense!
That is an admirable thing, and because of Acts 22:16, I agree that between the two, the one immersed more so that the one immersing needs to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus. I teach it this way.
But I have no doubt that it also matters that the immerser call upon the name of the Lord, since they are commanded "whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus".
Can two walk together except be they agreed?
If a person is using a triune formula, thinking that Christ is God the Son, the second person in the Godhead, and they go baptizing invoking the titles, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit on account of that belief, but the soon to be immersed is not a Trinitarian, and understands Christ to not be what the immerser thinks/believes He is (i.e. not God the Son, but rather the Incarnation of God the Father), then why in a million years would the soon to be immersed ever agree to be so baptized (and vice versa, why would a Trinitarian minister ever agree to baptize someone with a triune formula knowing the one to be immersed didn't believe in the fundamental theology of God the one doing the immersing)?
The only way either would agree is if they both agreed that it didn't matter.
Is the baptizer ever commanded to utter certain words over the candidate? Is there ever an example of this? He is said to "baptize in the name" but could that also not be a metaphor in Who he is following and what he stands for? Does that literally mean he must utter something verbally? Isn't the only one who is actually commanded to call on the name the candidate?
__________________
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it. ~Chinese Proverb
When I was young and clever, I wanted to change the world. Now that I am older and wiser, I strive to change myself. ~
This entire Thread is living proof that Religion is a fallacy full of lies, leading people to the bondage of unnatural Laws and arguments that never end. If someone doesn't agree with a particular method of Baptism, they are lost and going to burn in a lake of fire for eternity.
Please, folks, wake up and see the irony of this isolated theory that simply cannot be proven. This type of Theology is wrestled by the mentally challenged who live in the past, where the premise of an idea is based upon unseen, unproven, and illiterate experiences.
In the end, this is why Religion gives the insane a platform, where they can trumpet nothing but deceit and self righteous dogmas that center upon a few who think they've figured it all out. Sad.
If we truly believe in the mercy that seems to be present in Scripture, God can save a man who has NEVER been baptized, NEVER been to Church, and has NEVER agreed with Man and his Religion.
I think the whole thing begins when people get saved and then look a the Bible as a rule book rather than a guide intended for a good, clean life. They start off in righteousness by faith and then start nitpicking the Bible and saying "This person is out and that person is out because they don't measure up". It's the leaven. We are either saved by grace, by righteousness that is of faith and faith alone or we go down the path of salvation by works.
__________________
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it. ~Chinese Proverb
When I was young and clever, I wanted to change the world. Now that I am older and wiser, I strive to change myself. ~
Location: 150 miles north of the Mississiippi coast
Posts: 495
Re: Question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley
How many of y'all attend an Apostolic church? By that I mean they teach Jesus is the ONE person of the Godhead and baptize in Jesus Name and believe the Holy Ghost baptism with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues? Just wondering?
I do. And my Pastor teaches holiness standards and lives them before us.
This entire Thread is living proof that Religion is a fallacy full of lies, leading people to the bondage of unnatural Laws and arguments that never end. If someone doesn't agree with a particular method of Baptism, they are lost and going to burn in a lake of fire for eternity.
Please, folks, wake up and see the irony of this isolated theory that simply cannot be proven. This type of Theology is wrestled by the mentally challenged who live in the past, where the premise of an idea is based upon unseen, unproven, and illiterate experiences.
In the end, this is why Religion gives the insane a platform, where they can trumpet nothing but deceit and self righteous dogmas that center upon a few who think they've figured it all out. Sad.
If we truly believe in the mercy that seems to be present in Scripture, God can save a man who has NEVER been baptized, NEVER been to Church, and has NEVER agreed with Man and his Religion.
This thread was a "yes i do" "no I dont" accounting of the members of the forum. until YOU came along with a gallon of gas and a torch and did violence to the peacful little thread.
talk about hypocrisy.
YOU are the one that devolved this thread and now you run off on a tantrum about how OPs are haters?
the only person here depicting the kind of vitriol you are pointing at other is YOU the advocate of abandoning religion.
blather
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Is the baptizer ever commanded to utter certain words over the candidate? Is there ever an example of this? He is said to "baptize in the name" but could that also not be a metaphor in Who he is following and what he stands for? Does that literally mean he must utter something verbally? Isn't the only one who is actually commanded to call on the name the candidate?
If such is true, uttering the name of Jesus for any reason then becomes unnecessary.
Jesus is a real, living being, currently in heaven at the right hand of God. It's not enough to just presume that we have the authority represented by His Name. We must exercise that authority by invoking It.
When I baptize people in the name of Jesus Christ, it's not just me uttering a ritualistic phrase or incantation. When I am baptizing someone in the name of Jesus Christ, and I speak the name out loud, I, along with the immersed, am calling on the name of the Lord in faith for the person's salvation, simply because there is salvation in no other Name.
All who CALL upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. This requires using the voice and speaking the Name. The idea that the immerser just pushes a person underwater, saying nothing just doesn't match up to the requirements of Scripture.
When Paul cast the spirit of divination out of the "damsel", he verbally called out and commanded the spirit in the name of the Lord Jesus. He didn't just silently cast out the demon because he had been authorized by the One who bears that Name.
__________________
For anyone devoted to His fear:
Linear Mode
