Is baptism essential unto salvation?

[LUKE2447]

nm

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Say what? I took what he said at face value.

..."everyone who has been baptized here over the past four years has been baptized in Jesus name"...

I believed in the context of the thread and above statement, that he does speak the name "Jesus" at baptism.

Do you know something I do not??

His own comments!

To answer the questions:
- Yes I still believe in the oneness. My statement on this issue is that There is but one God and He is Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
- I still baptize in Jesus name, but with a twist that most apostolics do not understand. Because it is recorded that Jesus commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I baptize using these words: "Upon the confession of your faith in Jesus the Christ as your savior and upon the command of Christ, In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I now baptize you into the Lord Jesus Christ." (Incidently, I am on staff of a Charismatic church and when the senior pastor found out how I baptize he decided that everyone will be baptized that way and now I do most of the baptizing in our church).

There is a difference between baptizing "in the name of Jesus" and baptizing while mentioning his name. Will it matter in the end? Only God will be the judge but from a technical point "in the name of" means something and he only uses that with F,S,HS.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Adino

Anyone,

Does the blood of Christ, already applied to our sins BEFORE the resurrection, need to be applied to our sins again today?

My first thought is that it, the blood, WAS applied ONCE and for ALL.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

His own comments!

To answer the questions:
- Yes I still believe in the oneness. My statement on this issue is that There is but one God and He is Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
- I still baptize in Jesus name, but with a twist that most apostolics do not understand. Because it is recorded that Jesus commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I baptize using these words: "Upon the confession of your faith in Jesus the Christ as your savior and upon the command of Christ, In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I now baptize you into the Lord Jesus Christ." (Incidently, I am on staff of a Charismatic church and when the senior pastor found out how I baptize he decided that everyone will be baptized that way and now I do most of the baptizing in our church).

There is a difference between baptizing "in the name of Jesus" and baptizing while mentioning his name. Will it matter in the end? Only God will be the judge but from a technical point "in the name of" means something and he only uses that with F,S,HS.

I really think we are quibbling now.

With all due respect to the scriptures we love, there is no exact baptismal formula given.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

My first thought is that it, the blood, WAS applied ONCE and for ALL.

I would certainly agree. YET, it seems there are some who wish to teach a doctrine which demands a second application of Christ's blood. This would deem the blood's application at Calvary inadequate.

Why would someone teach such a thing?

If the resurrection declared the remission of those sins imputed to Christ as having been accomplished (and it did - else Christ would not have been raised), it also declared the effective historic application of Christ's shed blood to those sins. It declared God's acceptance of the sacrifice as sufficient.

To teach baptismal sin remission is to teach an inadequate Cross.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

I really think we are quibbling now.

With all due respect to the scriptures we love, there is no exact baptismal formula given.

baptism is done IN the authority of Jesus. I find it funny you call it quibbling... At what point is quibbling.... words mean nothing I guess. Also by who's definition is quibbling. I see the formula all throughout the NT. It's not just baptism but healing is the same thing and it shows consistency of application was same as them saying they baptized in the name of Jesus. They called on his authority/sacrifice by his name. How was he baptized into Jesus? By who's authority/name? F,S,HS! Sorry if you can't get it and the reason it's nothing but a hack job of what the word says.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Adino

I would certainly agree. YET, it seems there are some who wish to teach a doctrine which demands a second application of Christ's blood. This would deem the blood's application at Calvary inadequate.

Why would someone teach such a thing?

If the resurrection declared the remission of those sins imputed to Christ as having been accomplished (and it did - else Christ would not have been raised), it also declared the effective historic application of Christ's shed blood to those sins. It declared God's acceptance of the sacrifice as sufficient.

To teach baptismal sin remission is to teach an inadequate Cross.

say something?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

say something?

Please, share your thoughts.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Point made Adino, and it's a good one. It is our acceptance of that fact, through faith that we "do" - at conversion, then publicize at baptism.

Right - our heart of faith rests in the historic reality of the sin remission accomplished on the Cross by the historic application Christ's shed blood.

The resurrection declared the FINISHED sin remitting work of the blood of Christ at Calvary.

Good to see you again, Stephen. I've not posted much in the past year.

[Adino]

Steve Epley posted:

"YES a man will be condemned though his sins were forgiven at Calvary ...... I contend though YOU have faith in the slain Lamb historically YOU MUST apply the blood as PRESCRIBED!"

I replied:

"Steve, I think you have a major concern here.

Why must WE apply the blood which the resurrection proves has already been applied and accepted by God?

Our sin was Christ's and it was removed BEFORE the resurrection, thus, as far as the sin imputed to Christ is concerned, it is a matter of history, proven by the resurrection, that the blood has already been applied in the eyes of God (else Christ would not have been raised).

Do you believe the blood of Christ must be applied twice? Once before the resurrection and then again when we are baptized?

AND...

What is the blood being applied to in baptism? You've already conceded that our sins were remitted before the resurrection. If they are historically removed, what is the blood being applied to in baptism?

Your position seems inconsistent. Please clarify."

Rev. Epley, your thoughts..... ???