Baptism for salvation questions

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Man, you're getting a little harsh there aren't you Mizpeh?

I disagree with her. If she is right then Jesus was wrong and the gates of hell did over power the church.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Many Trinitarians believe those who don't believe in the Trinity are lost. That view is considered harsh as well, I suppose.

Bob, I believe baptism in Jesus' name is for the remission of sins not because of the remission of sins. Jesus died to take away the sins of the world. If one is not baptized in his name, they are still in their sins. To not have one's sins remitted defeats the whole purpose of why Jesus came into the world.

How can I make that any more palatable for you? If I did try to sugar coat it I would be dishonest.

can you show where any baptismal formula was actually use "in the name of Jesus," in the Bible?

Originally Posted by Adino

When one understands that baptism has nothing to do with salvation before God the question of invocation becomes academic.

While I do hold that baptism is not part of the Gospel, not saving as relating to the soul, and is not the occasion for sin remission, I still see plenty of evidence to hold that it should be performed by using the "Jesus Name" invocation and that it was not "hidden from the world" until recent times. NT saving faith was to be directed to God THROUGH Christ. Baptism was the time when an individual was to openly declare his repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

Even trinitarians baptized using the Jesus name invocation. In fact, Frank Ewart began looking deeper into the nature of God only after hearing a trinitarian man, R.E. McAlister, preach a message on Jesus name baptism. McAlister, however, in no way connected this topic with the nature of God. He was using the issue to head off a growing heresy in the church which demanded that a baptismal candidate be dunked three distinct times rather than simply once.

A quick note concerning men prior to Luther and justification by faith alone:

It's my impression that Luther began to realize justification by faith alone when reading the works of Augustine (354-430AD). I suggest a book by Thomas Oden called the Justification Reader for examples of the justification by faith position from the time of Christ to Luther. If I remember correctly, Oden gets much of his information from Vatican archives which had not been released for translation unto recent years. Prior witnesses agreeing with Luther's ultimate realization were abundant.

I believe the "Jesus name" baptism was not only preached by R.E. McAlister, but another person had a vision that the "Jesus name" baptism was right, which is what started the "rebaptizing."

They died in their sins.


Quote:
2. why was this saving baptism hidden from the world, if its the only baptism that can save us?

This saving baptism is plain for all to read in the Bible. It's hidden to those who don't want to see it.

You're Trinitarian, right? This is taken from the Nicene Creed:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm

Obviously then, you must believe baptism is for the remission of sins.

Now the question is; Did the early church baptize in the name of Jesus Christ?

I have read that they did until it was changed later in the 2nd century.

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/name.htm

Mizpeh, this is one of the best posts I have ever viewed. Grand Slam!

Why are we even discussing this on AFF? I thought Trinitarians weren't allowed to push their views on others?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

can you show where any baptismal formula was actually use "in the name of Jesus," in the Bible?

Willy,

I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you want to know if there is scripture with the exact words 'in the name of Jesus' being invoked over the person to be baptized? or are you asking me why I believe baptism should be done calling on the name of the Lord instead of the titles?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by johnmark93

Mizpeh, this is one of the best posts I have ever viewed. Grand Slam!

Why are we even discussing this on AFF? I thought Trinitarians weren't allowed to push their views on others?

LOL, thanks, but there are much better posts than this written by much more articulate writers on this board. Look around in the archives and you'll find some interesting stuff.

You must be new.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Adino, it's easy to spin justification by faith and disregard baptism. You say you can explain away the scriptures that are clear on the necessity of baptismal regeneration, I don't see how you can do it convincingly. I know none of the Trinitarians I've talked to have been able to do it. I think all the verses on justification and baptism harmonize much better with the PAJC view of salvation.

I'm going to go back to your thread called Sinful Union this week and finish reading it. Maybe we can discuss our differences some more there.

Maybe you can start by looking at some comments I made concerning some of the usual scriptures offered. Feel free to tell me where these alternative interpretations fall short. We can look at the issues more closely as time permits.

Here's a link to a post dealing with a few of those passages.

[SDG]

I am glad this thread was re-opened.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

can you show where any baptismal formula was actually use "in the name of Jesus," in the Bible?

We could start with Matthew 28:19

In the Name (singular)...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Adino

When one understands that baptism has nothing to do with salvation before God the question of invocation becomes academic.

Right...baptism in Jesus name becomes irrelevant. It seems that the Oneness Pentecostal identity is being washed out yet again. Yes in history there were those that believed in baptism in Jesus name. What happened to them? And yes there were those that held to a modalistic view....and what happened to them? There were even those that believed in the gifts of the Spirit and healing...and historically they too disappeared.

However it would be short sighted to say just because water baptism does not in and of itself save someone that it has NOTHING to do with salvation. Biblically speaking the only people who were baptized were those that JUST put their faith in Christ and repented of their sins. There was no such thing as a waiting period putting baptism off for a later time. To them it was very important to salvation. They whats and whys and hows were not something to be questioned or argued. They simply obeyed.

While I do hold that baptism is not part of the Gospel, not saving as relating to the soul, and is not the occasion for sin remission, I still see plenty of evidence to hold that it should be performed by using the "Jesus Name" invocation and that it was not "hidden from the world" until recent times. NT saving faith was to be directed to God THROUGH Christ. Baptism was the time when an individual was to openly declare his repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

I would argue baptism IS a part of the "gospel", though that might depend on what someone means by the gospel. What you say here sort of clashes with the first statement. I always find it odd when someone declares baptism is NOT for salvation, and they feel they have scriptures for that. Then they declare what baptism is for, to declare his repentance and faith in Christ, but I never see scriptures for that. Might I add though, if this is true and Jesus said that to deny him before men would mean He would deny them before the Father..if one rejects being baptized are they or can they still be saved?

Even trinitarians baptized using the Jesus name invocation. In fact, Frank Ewart began looking deeper into the nature of God only after hearing a trinitarian man, R.E. McAlister, preach a message on Jesus name baptism. McAlister, however, in no way connected this topic with the nature of God. He was using the issue to head off a growing heresy in the church which demanded that a baptismal candidate be dunked three distinct times rather than simply once.

Don't the Church of Christ people do it in Jesus name? Although they do believe it is salvational