For those that left the UPC...

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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!

Right. So no matter the formula or method use, baptism means nothing unless the person being baptized believes.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

whoops, where did those come from? As I noted and you agreed, it would be ludicrous to baptize a non-believer. There is no power in the water or the words. We use water in obedience and as a symbol. The same may be said of any words spoken.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

You still can't tell me that Saul got a revelation and describe that by John 1 and 1 John 1, PO. You jumped topics in midstream, starting with baptism, then Saul on Damascus road, skipping to a general explanation of oneness using John 1 and 1 John 1, and ending on what was apparently to you an emotional high, but still not a solid explanation of anything. If you'd followed through with "who art thou, Lord?" and gone from there to describe the NT authors' concept of oneness or baptism, your explanation would have been much more solid.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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

I just wouldn't be too quick to condemn those who were baptized using a different wording than your favorite.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

None of those scriptures are misplaced to prove a point. 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.

Lets try this from a different angle. The principles of our constitution were present before the document was drafted. However, if Jefferson had said something in, say, 1771, we couldn't possibly say he was referencing the Constitution. It hadn't been drafted. He may have been voicing the concepts that were later solidified by the Constitution, but he couldn't have referenced the Constitution, itself. Nor could we take what was said and back it, in historical context, with the Constitution, because again it had not yet been drafted.

But that is really beside the point of the main discussion. I do the same thing sometimes. It's easy to do when a person is very familiar with their topic. Just something to watch in any sort of discussion.