For those that left the UPC...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by missourimary

So... are you saying that if a person is a non-believer and is baptized, their baptism isn't effectual? Does it matter how they were baptized if they didn't believe? Why not?

Why would a non-believer want to be baptized? "Well, I don't believe any of this, but let's dunk it anyway, 'cause I love water." LOL!

Could it be because they are not proclaiming the work Jesus did through his death, burial and resurrection and claiming that in their lives if they don't believe? It doesn't matter what formula a preacher says over an atheist, or how many times they are dunked, they aren't baptized, because they don't believe. They aren't calling on the name of Jesus by their actions, because they don't have faith in Jesus, who can save. So it isn't the act of being dunked, or the words a preacher says, but what baptism means and proclaims to the believer that makes the difference.

Uh, well, yeah. LOL! A person needs to have an understanding of what they are about to do and why. So, faith/belief, the understanding through teaching from the Word, the water, the words spoken and the belief in it all kinda go hand in hand. But, it always starts with faith, of which, God gives every man a measure.

But you can't use NT scripture to prove how Paul got the revelation. It doesn't work that way. Use Is 9:6 and Gen 1:1 and verses like that. Don't talk about Paul getting a revelation and then appear to skip into the New Testament verses to prove his scriptural foundation for his new beliefs.

This is what I said:

The New Testament is a prophetic revealing of the Old Testament. Saul was well educated in the scriptures, i.e, law and the prophets.

Saul/Paul received his understanding from the Law and prophets. The NT speaks of how he came to have an encounter and revelation of Jesus Christ.

I already referenced Isaiah 9:6 and Gen. 1:1. These are but a few of the passages that Saul/Paul was very well aware of.

So, yes, I can cite NT passages as proof of his revelation because it was written after the fact. The OT passages would reference where he got that understanding that these things were true. The NT shows where and how he received a revelation of these things.

Again, I'm not relegating anything to a baptismal formula. As to the use of Act 22:16, that was my original point. It is erroneous to use that as a proof text. But that is what happened in post 523.

Oh, so you are saying that being immersed in water is "calling on the name of the Lord"? No words necessary?

Sorry, I have seen scripture misplaced to prove points many times, and talking about Paul's revelation and suddenly tying in and skipping to verses in John and 1 John was worth calling you on.

I see you keep saying this when I already responded to it, but I will try one more time.

I gave Genesis 1:1 which ties in with John 1 and I John 1 - "In the beginning". I never said that Paul got a revelation from John or I John. You know, as well as I do, that Paul's revelation preceded any of his writings in the NT as did all other books of the NT by the various authors. It doesn't take away from Paul's having a revelation from God as he knew what Genesis 1:1 was implying - there can be no other creator. He knew about Jesus saying, "When you have seen me, you have seen the father." That is why he was wrecking havoc on the church. None of those scriptures are misplaced to prove a point. It is a point, because it happened and they wrote about it later. Tying in Genesis 1:1 with John 1 and I John 1 shows how they had the understanding that these things were true. Just because it wasn't set forth, at the moment, for us to read, doesn't mean it wasn't something they understood. God used Saul's/Paul's knowledge to open up his understanding to the revelation of himself. I never only used NT scriptures to prove anything.

Exactly where in the above quote did you say that Ananias was referring to Acts 2:21, and how could he have been, since the verse hadn't yet been written?

This is a strange question as you know the book of Acts is - "the Acts of the Apostles". The action has to come before anything is written. You think that Ananias didn't know about what was said on the day of Pentecost, i.e. Acts 2:21, just because it was not formally written in script? That doesn't make sense. Their actions preceded the written Word or they would have had nothing to write about.

I never said Paul said the words. I stated on several occasions that he called on the name of Jesus not by his words, but by his actions, in submitting to baptism. It is through baptism that we proclaim who Jesus is and what he did for us. Thus by our actions we "call on the name of Jesus", not by any words.

I can see what you are saying, but I'm reading where Peter looks at the lame man at the gate beautiful and says, "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk" (Acts 3:6)

And in Acts 16:18, Paul turned to the damsel who had a spirit of divination and says, to the spirit, "I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her."

It appears to me that the verbal use of Jesus' name was important. That makes me think that it is also important in baptism.