Billy Graham

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're right. Why be sensitive to seekers? We must crush them. lol

You're not getting it.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Everyone who quotes this argues that it applies to someone else. lol They never assume that it might be themselves. Which... ultimately is the point. Check yourself. Let us not judge another man's servant.

You're not getting it.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yep. If flew over your head. The point is... I've known folks who had no defined theology who had a "relationship" with God that is irrefutable. Of course, their theology isn't so spit and polished, and you'd judge them as doomed to Hell. But they know Him.

Doesn't matter that we know Him. Matters that He knows us.

"Depart . . . I never knew you."

Originally Posted by Aquila

Evidently you're not grasping absolute sovereignty.

I get it. What you're not getting is that absolute sovereignty is of non-effect if the person holding absolute sovereignty changes His mind depending on the person. Being absolutely sovereign requires being absolute. Fixed. No variables. Non-relative. Absolute - you MUST be born again. Not you must be born again, but if you're not but you pray a lot it's okay.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

You're not getting it.

You're not getting it.

Doesn't matter that we know Him. Matters that He knows us.

"Depart . . . I never knew you."

I get it. What you're not getting is that absolute sovereignty is of non-effect if the person holding absolute sovereignty changes His mind depending on the person. Being absolutely sovereign requires being absolute. Fixed. No variables. Non-relative. Absolute - you MUST be born again. Not you must be born again, but if you're not but you pray a lot it's okay.

Who can judge that though? You? Me? Based on what? Our own 20th Century understanding of Pentecost? Must there be a tambourine? Must there be drums? Must there be the rhythmic banging of the base drum and people jerking around uttering unintelligible tongues (I'm not making fun, that was my personal experience.)?

Repentance - That is indeed a turning from sin and self to God. Few would deny that the devout Christians in other traditions haven't repented.

Water baptism - There isn't a formula. If you can show me one, I'll stand corrected. But baptism's efficacy is predicated not upon the formulaic mutterings of some priest or preacher, but rather one's calling upon the name for remission.

Receiving the Holy Spirit - Many down through history have experienced what was called in their day a "spiritual ecstasy" that brought ecstatic utterances, unintelligible weeping, groanings, moanings, visions, miracles, etc. Must they use terms exactly as we do? Do we discount these things simply because they might not look exactly like what we have come to know as "Pentecostal tongues" in the 20th Century?

[Esaias]

1. Jewish proselyte baptism. I believe so called Jewish proselyte baptism is a post-exilic (and likely post AD70) development within Judaism. There is no Biblical example or hint of proselyte baptism.

2. John's baptism. John's baptism was not directed at gentiles, therefore was not "Jewish proselyte baptism". It was a new thing, as evidenced by the theological dilemma it posed: who are you be baptizing if not the Christ, that Prophet, or Elijah?

3. Baptism vs mikvah. Both John's baptism and Christian baptism required two participants: the baptizee, and the baptizer. Jewish mikvah requires only one participant: the one being immersed. Both John's baptism and Christian baptism were non-repeatable, that is, a person received it once and there was no provision for it to be repeated. Mikvah is repeatable.

4. Baptismal formulae. Regardless of what one believes the proper formula to be, that there IS a formula of some sort is demonstrated by the following: A) History records the early introduction of controversy surrounding the proper baptismal formula, but there is no record of an innovative introduction of a formula per se. In other words, if original baptism did not involve the baptiser using a formula at all, we would expect to be able to identify when such an innovation was brought in. We can't, and the record of baptismal controversy simply assumes a formula of some sort was always used. B) The presence of both a baptizee and a baptizer implies the use of a formula or stated declaration of intent and purpose on the part of the baptizer. Matthew 28:19 is a command to the baptizers, whereas Acts 2:38 is a command to the baptizees. Thus, BOTH are commanded to "do something in the name". If Acts 2:38 is a command for the baptizee to verbally invoke the name in baptism, then Matthew 28:19 is a command for the baptizer to do the same when baptizing. This is further indicated by James 2:7 which can be read as "that worthy name which was called upon/over you". Additionally, the priestly blessing illustrates the same principle of placing the Name upon a people via oral invocation of that Name by the representative of that Name.

Now, as far as the mechanics, Scripture gives certain directions that are essential elements, while remaining silent regarding certain other directions which therefore are accidental elements and subject to local usage. For example, two persons, water, immersion, faithful profession of faith, are essential elements. Nose held or not, forward or backward, arms crossed or not, water temperature, stream, pond, lake, ocean or bathtub, etc are all accidental elements that are up to the church, minister, or individual to decide. The same applies to the express words used in baptism: as long as the essential element of "in the name of Jesus" is included, without adding names, or otherwise subverting the intention and purpose and object of baptism, then the particular form of words is flexible. The same principle holds true in benedictions or Eucharistic prayers: as long as the essential element of thanks to God through Christ is preserved and centermost, the one praying can use whatever words they want.

As for Bible vs Bible interpretation, one might say EVERYTHING is interpretation. The question is, which interpretation is most faithful to the Biblical data? Is affusion more faithful to the Biblical data than immersion? Etc. But this gets into the question of epistemology which is beyond the scope of this thread, I think.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. Jewish proselyte baptism. I believe so called Jewish proselyte baptism is a post-exilic (and likely post AD70) development within Judaism. There is no Biblical example or hint of proselyte baptism.

2. John's baptism. John's baptism was not directed at gentiles, therefore was not "Jewish proselyte baptism". It was a new thing, as evidenced by the theological dilemma it posed: who are you be baptizing if not the Christ, that Prophet, or Elijah?

3. Baptism vs mikvah. Both John's baptism and Christian baptism required two participants: the baptizee, and the baptizer. Jewish mikvah requires only one participant: the one being immersed. Both John's baptism and Christian baptism were non-repeatable, that is, a person received it once and there was no provision for it to be repeated. Mikvah is repeatable.

4. Baptismal formulae. Regardless of what one believes the proper formula to be, that there IS a formula of some sort is demonstrated by the following: A) History records the early introduction of controversy surrounding the proper baptismal formula, but there is no record of an innovative introduction of a formula per se. In other words, if original baptism did not involve the baptiser using a formula at all, we would expect to be able to identify when such an innovation was brought in. We can't, and the record of baptismal controversy simply assumes a formula of some sort was always used. B) The presence of both a baptizee and a baptizer implies the use of a formula or stated declaration of intent and purpose on the part of the baptizer. Matthew 28:19 is a command to the baptizers, whereas Acts 2:38 is a command to the baptizees. Thus, BOTH are commanded to "do something in the name". If Acts 2:38 is a command for the baptizee to verbally invoke the name in baptism, then Matthew 28:19 is a command for the baptizer to do the same when baptizing. This is further indicated by James 2:7 which can be read as "that worthy name which was called upon/over you". Additionally, the priestly blessing illustrates the same principle of placing the Name upon a people via oral invocation of that Name by the representative of that Name.

Now, as far as the mechanics, Scripture gives certain directions that are essential elements, while remaining silent regarding certain other directions which therefore are accidental elements and subject to local usage. For example, two persons, water, immersion, faithful profession of faith, are essential elements. Nose held or not, forward or backward, arms crossed or not, water temperature, stream, pond, lake, ocean or bathtub, etc are all accidental elements that are up to the church, minister, or individual to decide. The same applies to the express words used in baptism: as long as the essential element of "in the name of Jesus" is included, without adding names, or otherwise subverting the intention and purpose and object of baptism, then the particular form of words is flexible. The same principle holds true in benedictions or Eucharistic prayers: as long as the essential element of thanks to God through Christ is preserved and centermost, the one praying can use whatever words they want.

As for Bible vs Bible interpretation, one might say EVERYTHING is interpretation. The question is, which interpretation is most faithful to the Biblical data? Is affusion more faithful to the Biblical data than immersion? Etc. But this gets into the question of epistemology which is beyond the scope of this thread, I think.

very well done.

[Aquila]

There is no set "formula" for water baptism in the book of Acts. What we see is a universal invocation of the name of Jesus, for the remission of sins. This is akin to a prayer, or plea, more than a formula. One must remember, a "formula" is a set form of words. Let's look....

(Acts 2:38-41 KJV)
(38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

(Acts 8:14-17 KJV)
(14) Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (17) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

(Acts 10:44-48 KJV)
(44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

In every event above, no formula is given. Instead, we do see the implication that the name of Jesus was invoked as part of the act of baptism. In Paul's case, we see something additional:

(Acts 22:16 KJV)
(16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Here, Paul, the one being baptized, was instructed to be baptized, calling on the name of the Lord. This draws into this subject an extra dimension, the prayer of the one being baptized. Here, Paul is instructed as part of his baptism to call upon, orally invoke, the name of Jesus, to wash away his sins.

That isn't a formula, mindlessly repeated as ritual... it's a plea. A prayer.

Consider this. And please reason with me honestly. In the churches I've attended in the past something like this was the formula repeated over one being baptized, and it was repeated almost word for word at every baptism:

"By the authority invested in my by the United Pentecostal Church, I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins."

Now, that IS a formula. The problem is... that formula isn't found in the Bible either. It's just as extra-biblical as the Trinitarian formula:

"By the authority invested in me by the First Church of the Frozen Chosen, I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Both are formulas. And both are unbiblical.

Now, the Oneness formula invokes the name. Which is biblical. But the formula itself isn't. If you can find the common word for word formula typically used by the churches in Scripture, I have a crisp $100 dollar bill for you.

The early church baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. That means, by the authority and command of, Jesus Christ. And, Christ alone was invoked, be it worded as "Jesus Christ", "the Lord Jesus Christ", "the Lord", or, "the Lord Jesus". There was no set "formula".

In addition, based on Acts 22:16, the one being baptized was to call upon the name of the Lord at this time also. They weren't to sheepishly stare into the eyes of a preacher depending upon him to utter the formulaic magic words to get his or her sins forgiven. THEY cried out, called upon, orally invoked, pleaded to, the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins as part of their baptism.

The idea of a baptismal "formula" was imposed by the early Trinitarians who established that baptism must be performed, and the words spoken, in accordance to their decree... and this required quoting the verbiage found in Matthew 28:19 as the candidate was dunked (typically three times, once for each title). This was the introduction of the error of formula. And its purpose was to establish Trinitarianism.

Sadly, in the 20th Century, Oneness organizations who came out of Trinitarian organizations didn't banish the formula to the Hell it came from. Instead, they just modified it to focus on the name of Jesus in their efforts to oppose Trinitarianism. And so, while their "formula" is closer to the reality we see in Scripture... it is still a formula... which is what we don't see in Scripture.

If anyone can find a single baptismal "formula" (2.a fixed form of words, especially one used in particular contexts or as a conventional usage), I'll stand corrected. But I assure you... no formula is mentioned. All you'll find are various implied invocations to the Lord Jesus.

There isn't even a fixed method of invoking the name of Jesus. One could simply say, "I baptize you in the name of the LORD!" (Acts 10:48), and it would be sufficient.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

"By the authority invested in my by the United Pentecostal Church, I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins."

In the dozen or so churches, campmeeting, conference and even UPCI General Conferences where baptisms have occurred, I have never - not once - heard anyone say "by the authority vested in me by the UPCI."



Where in the world??? Seriously, has anyone ever heard a minister say something like this?

Every baptism I've witnessed has a minister saying some version of this: "[Name of person being baptized] upon the profession of your faith, I now baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins."

Some add "and you shall receive the Holy Ghost."

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

In the dozen or so churches, campmeeting, conference and even UPCI General Conferences where baptisms have occurred, I have never - not once - heard anyone say "by the authority vested in me by the UPCI."



Where in the world??? Seriously, has anyone ever heard a minister say something like this?

Every baptism I've witnessed has a minister saying some version of this: "[Name of person being baptized] upon the profession of your faith, I now baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins."

Some add "and you shall receive the Holy Ghost."

Exactly. I wonder where these crazy stories come from. Probably somebody's fevered Nyquil induced dreams?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

In the dozen or so churches, campmeeting, conference and even UPCI General Conferences where baptisms have occurred, I have never - not once - heard anyone say "by the authority vested in me by the UPCI."



Where in the world??? Seriously, has anyone ever heard a minister say something like this?

Every baptism I've witnessed has a minister saying some version of this: "[Name of person being baptized] upon the profession of your faith, I now baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins."

Some add "and you shall receive the Holy Ghost."

I couldn't remember what it is exactly that those cats mutter. lol

Either way, even the "formula" you presented isn't found in Scripture.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is no set "formula" for water baptism in the book of Acts. What we see is a universal invocation of the name of Jesus, for the remission of sins. This is akin to a prayer, or plea, more than a formula. One must remember, a "formula" is a set form of words. Let's look....

(Acts 2:38-41 KJV)
(38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

(Acts 8:14-17 KJV)
(14) Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (17) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

(Acts 10:44-48 KJV)
(44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

In every event above, no formula is given. Instead, we do see the implication that the name of Jesus was invoked as part of the act of baptism. In Paul's case, we see something additional:

(Acts 22:16 KJV)
(16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Here, Paul, the one being baptized, was instructed to be baptized, calling on the name of the Lord. This draws into this subject an extra dimension, the prayer of the one being baptized. Here, Paul is instructed as part of his baptism to call upon, orally invoke, the name of Jesus, to wash away his sins.

That isn't a formula, mindlessly repeated as ritual... it's a plea. A prayer.

Consider this. And please reason with me honestly. In the churches I've attended in the past something like this was the formula repeated over one being baptized, and it was repeated almost word for word at every baptism:

"By the authority invested in my by the United Pentecostal Church, I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins."

Now, that IS a formula. The problem is... that formula isn't found in the Bible either. It's just as extra-biblical as the Trinitarian formula:

"By the authority invested in me by the First Church of the Frozen Chosen, I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Both are formulas. And both are unbiblical.

Now, the Oneness formula invokes the name. Which is biblical. But the formula itself isn't. If you can find the common word for word formula typically used by the churches in Scripture, I have a crisp $100 dollar bill for you.

The early church baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. That means, by the authority and command of, Jesus Christ. And, Christ alone was invoked, be it worded as "Jesus Christ", "the Lord Jesus Christ", "the Lord", or, "the Lord Jesus". There was no set "formula".

In addition, based on Acts 22:16, the one being baptized was to call upon the name of the Lord at this time also. They weren't to sheepishly stare into the eyes of a preacher depending upon him to utter the formulaic magic words to get his or her sins forgiven. THEY cried out, called upon, orally invoked, pleaded to, the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins as part of their baptism.

The idea of a baptismal "formula" was imposed by the early Trinitarians who established that baptism must be performed, and the words spoken, in accordance to their decree... and this required quoting the verbiage found in Matthew 28:19 as the candidate was dunked (typically three times, once for each title). This was the introduction of the error of formula. And its purpose was to establish Trinitarianism.

Sadly, in the 20th Century, Oneness organizations who came out of Trinitarian organizations didn't banish the formula to the Hell it came from. Instead, they just modified it to focus on the name of Jesus in their efforts to oppose Trinitarianism. And so, while their "formula" is closer to the reality we see in Scripture... it is still a formula... which is what we don't see in Scripture.

If anyone can find a single baptismal "formula" (2.a fixed form of words, especially one used in particular contexts or as a conventional usage), I'll stand corrected. But I assure you... no formula is mentioned. All you'll find are various implied invocations to the Lord Jesus.

There isn't even a fixed method of invoking the name of Jesus. One could simply say, "I baptize you in the name of the LORD!" (Acts 10:48), and it would be sufficient.

Amen. This is where I am at. I have learned there is some false premise used by those who DO claim a prescribed formula of invocation... and I don’t even judge their intent - I think it’s mostly pure. It is unfortunate though, that this very premise becomes the foundation of an argument to condemning other Christians. For me, it is beyond the pale...

[Aquila]

Now, with the above in mind...

Let's say that someone (anyone from any century) was being baptized by some dunderheaded ordained religious priest or fancy pants preacher... and that cleric uttered "I hereby baptize thee in the name of Larry, Moe, and Curly!"... but the one being baptized was sincerely calling upon, and praying to, the Lord Jesus for salvation... do the words of the dunderheaded priest override the sincere cry of a lost human soul before a Sovereign God???

How dependent are we on some human being to "get the words right" as it relates to our eternal destiny?