NYLP's Post YouTube Clips Thread

[Brett Prince]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Dan,

It is not about any man. You are trying to take the focus off of what YOU stated. YOU stated that someone that rejected Jesus name baptism was in heaven. After you were called on it, YOU then stated IF. IF means that there is a chance that either the message we hold dear is not the only way, or God's Word is incorrect. Either you believe that it take ALL of ACTS 2:38 for salvation, OR you don't? There is no If's, maybe's, or hopefully's here. Either its in the book, or we stop preaching it.

Call it judgmental all you want. But if you are going to give room that there is even a possibility that someone could be saved outside of Acts 2:38, then you are not as "rock solid" as you think.

I wonder where you feel that puts me, then?

I don't see a way outside of Acts 2:38, and I doubt that anyone is saved outside of Jesus Name baptism, but leave off wondering if God might impute it to them due to: 1) The prayer they prayed before in Jesus Name, 2) a confession of faith in Jesus name said earlier (maybe two weeks or a month), 3) the prayer prayed in Jesus Name while in the water, or 4) that He might accept the fact that they are declaring themselves Christians through what the entire world views as Christian baptism. I stated that I cannot prove that God WILL accept this, and thus I would never know until we get there--but I wouldn't be mad or feel let down if God did receive as an acceptable baptism. In my view, there has to be a way for it to be considered Jesus Name baptism or it wouldn't work, and only God could judge whether He would accept it--but for me, the only thing I can do is preach Jesus Name baptism, and do Jesus Name water baptism--and baptize everybody I can in Jesus Name, including everybody who has been baptized another way.

Is that "rock solid," or...not?

The only other way that I can view it, if that is not acceptable is that we are judge and jury, and we have the right to decide what is acceptable to God and what is not. It is apparent that we don't do baptism EXACTLY like the early church in every manner. What IS apparent is that do baptize with the EXACT FORMULA that the early church did. To me, that is the key ingredient, not the others...1) Was it running water, 2) did an ordained minister do the baptism or did disciples do it, or 3) did--as I have heard or read--people baptize themselves on the Day of Pentecost while the apostles oversaw the baptism? These are questions that we can argue about over and over--but we cannot argue about the Name in the baptism. I am simply stating that we have to stop and let God decide what is "enough" for Him. Jesus? Lord Jesus? Lord Jesus Christ? Some folks don't believe it is enough unless you say all three. Yet, Peter only said two. I cannot recall every baptism I have done, but I am pretty certain that a number of them have been with my saying, "Upon your profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and your obedience to His Word, I now baptize you in the Name of Jesus..." while at other times I have said "of the Lord Jesus," and other times, "in the Name of Jesus Christ..." and I tend to end with "...for the remission of sins," but I can't say that I have always used that ending. There would be some that say that if you don't use that ending, it is not a valid baptism.

For me, if you baptise in the name of Jesus, I accept it. If not, I will hope that God will accept it, but until I get there and get His final answer, I will have to doubt it, but hope.

[NLYP]

Originally Posted by gowinsouls

Hmmm I just got a PM saying I was a liar and he didnt edit the thread? WOW I am very confused!

Not from me you didnt...

[NLYP]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

This is virtually identical to our church! Do you know our pastor, Winton Maki? (Many here probably know his brother, Jonathon.)

Winton is your Pastor!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have known that family all my life...is he still in WI??

[IAintMovin]

Originally Posted by NLYP

Not from me you didnt...

Uhh... that would be a given.....since you do not have ability to edit others post........

[NLYP]

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

Uhh... that would be a given.....since you do not have ability to edit others post........

Uhhh...if you read what he said....he said he received a PM calling him a liar....

[NLYP]

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

I wonder where you feel that puts me, then?

I don't see a way outside of Acts 2:38, and I doubt that anyone is saved outside of Jesus Name baptism, but leave off wondering if God might impute it to them due to: 1) The prayer they prayed before in Jesus Name, 2) a confession of faith in Jesus name said earlier (maybe two weeks or a month), 3) the prayer prayed in Jesus Name while in the water, or 4) that He might accept the fact that they are declaring themselves Christians through what the entire world views as Christian baptism. I stated that I cannot prove that God WILL accept this, and thus I would never know until we get there--but I wouldn't be mad or feel let down if God did receive as an acceptable baptism. In my view, there has to be a way for it to be considered Jesus Name baptism or it wouldn't work, and only God could judge whether He would accept it--but for me, the only thing I can do is preach Jesus Name baptism, and do Jesus Name water baptism--and baptize everybody I can in Jesus Name, including everybody who has been baptized another way.

Is that "rock solid," or...not?

The only other way that I can view it, if that is not acceptable is that we are judge and jury, and we have the right to decide what is acceptable to God and what is not. It is apparent that we don't do baptism EXACTLY like the early church in every manner. What IS apparent is that do baptize with the EXACT FORMULA that the early church did. To me, that is the key ingredient, not the others...1) Was it running water, 2) did an ordained minister do the baptism or did disciples do it, or 3) did--as I have heard or read--people baptize themselves on the Day of Pentecost while the apostles oversaw the baptism? These are questions that we can argue about over and over--but we cannot argue about the Name in the baptism. I am simply stating that we have to stop and let God decide what is "enough" for Him. Jesus? Lord Jesus? Lord Jesus Christ? Some folks don't believe it is enough unless you say all three. Yet, Peter only said two. I cannot recall every baptism I have done, but I am pretty certain that a number of them have been with my saying, "Upon your profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and your obedience to His Word, I now baptize you in the Name of Jesus..." while at other times I have said "of the Lord Jesus," and other times, "in the Name of Jesus Christ..." and I tend to end with "...for the remission of sins," but I can't say that I have always used that ending. There would be some that say that if you don't use that ending, it is not a valid baptism.

For me, if you baptise in the name of Jesus, I accept it. If not, I will hope that God will accept it, but until I get there and get His final answer, I will have to doubt it, but hope.

Once again Bro. Brett.....excellent post and reflective of the True heartbeat of God. Thanks for showing me a TRUE Christian response......

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

I wonder where you feel that puts me, then?

I don't see a way outside of Acts 2:38, and I doubt that anyone is saved outside of Jesus Name baptism, but leave off wondering if God might impute it to them due to: 1) The prayer they prayed before in Jesus Name, 2) a confession of faith in Jesus name said earlier (maybe two weeks or a month), 3) the prayer prayed in Jesus Name while in the water, or 4) that He might accept the fact that they are declaring themselves Christians through what the entire world views as Christian baptism. I stated that I cannot prove that God WILL accept this, and thus I would never know until we get there--but I wouldn't be mad or feel let down if God did receive as an acceptable baptism. In my view, there has to be a way for it to be considered Jesus Name baptism or it wouldn't work, and only God could judge whether He would accept it--but for me, the only thing I can do is preach Jesus Name baptism, and do Jesus Name water baptism--and baptize everybody I can in Jesus Name, including everybody who has been baptized another way.

Is that "rock solid," or...not?

The only other way that I can view it, if that is not acceptable is that we are judge and jury, and we have the right to decide what is acceptable to God and what is not. It is apparent that we don't do baptism EXACTLY like the early church in every manner. What IS apparent is that do baptize with the EXACT FORMULA that the early church did. To me, that is the key ingredient, not the others...1) Was it running water, 2) did an ordained minister do the baptism or did disciples do it, or 3) did--as I have heard or read--people baptize themselves on the Day of Pentecost while the apostles oversaw the baptism? These are questions that we can argue about over and over--but we cannot argue about the Name in the baptism. I am simply stating that we have to stop and let God decide what is "enough" for Him. Jesus? Lord Jesus? Lord Jesus Christ? Some folks don't believe it is enough unless you say all three. Yet, Peter only said two. I cannot recall every baptism I have done, but I am pretty certain that a number of them have been with my saying, "Upon your profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and your obedience to His Word, I now baptize you in the Name of Jesus..." while at other times I have said "of the Lord Jesus," and other times, "in the Name of Jesus Christ..." and I tend to end with "...for the remission of sins," but I can't say that I have always used that ending. There would be some that say that if you don't use that ending, it is not a valid baptism.

For me, if you baptise in the name of Jesus, I accept it. If not, I will hope that God will accept it, but until I get there and get His final answer, I will have to doubt it, but hope.

Bro Brett,

My issue with what you have posted above is that to say that "God might impute salvation to them" would mean that either everything we stand for is on shaky ground and we "might" be wrong, or Gods did not make it clear in scripture what it takes to be saved.

My friends, This is not about Howard Goodman, nor has it been. It is about those that say they believe the Apostles doctrine is biblically the only way, and then give leeway for folks to have a possibility of being saved outside of it. I may be accused of being judgmental, but it is not me that judges. The Word of God is the 'rule" that we are to go by. It is the Word of God that condemns the unwashed sinner, not me. It is the Word of God that either makes a man acceptable, or rejected. Those that knowingly reject the Word of God reject the God of the Word. And by that Word they will be judged.

I am going to be very blunt here. If you believe that God "might" save someone without their being water baptized in Jesus Name, then you do not truly believe that Acts 2:38 is the only method of salvation. Maybe you do not see the inconsistency of your position, but I do. And I am sure there are others that do as well.

[IAintMovin]

Originally Posted by NLYP

Uhhh...if you read what he said....he said he received a PM calling him a liar....

uhhhhh.... it also used the words "edit the thread"..........so I guess I am still right..........

[IAintMovin]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Bro Brett,

My issue with what you have posted above is that to say that "God might impute salvation to them" would mean that either everything we stand for is on shaky ground and we "might" be wrong, or Gods did not make it clear in scripture what it takes to be saved.

My friends, This is not about Howard Goodman, nor has it been. It is about those that say they believe the Apostles doctrine is biblically the only way, and then give leeway for folks to have a possibility of being saved outside of it. I may be accused of being judgmental, but it is not me that judges. The Word of God is the 'rule" that we are to go by. It is the Word of God that condemns the unwashed sinner, not me. It is the Word of God that either makes a man acceptable, or rejected. Those that knowingly reject the Word of God reject the God of the Word. And by that Word they will be judged.

I am going to be very blunt here. If you believe that God "might" save someone without their being water baptized in Jesus Name, then you do not truly believe that Acts 2:38 is the only method of salvation. Maybe you do not see the inconsistency of your position, but I do. And I am sure there are others that do as well.

Bravo....... and Ditto.........

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by NLYP

Once again Bro. Brett.....excellent post and reflective of the True heartbeat of God. Thanks for showing me a TRUE Christian response......

First Bro,

I am sorry that I hijacked your thread. This was not about Howard Goodman. It was about your proclamation that someone that rejected Jesus name baptism even "might" make it.

The True heartbeat of God is lined out, line upon line, and precept upon precept, within His Word. What you are attempting to believe makes the Word incomplete. To say that someone "might" make it outside of Acts 2:38, and then claiming you believe Acts 2:38 to be salvational, shows inconsistency, and instability in the doctrine of salvation. Either Gods word is plain about this subject, or it is not. Gods sovereignty does not go against his Word.