Oneness Pentecostals Are Right on Baptism

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Sean

I see what you are saying bro. but think about you just wrote for a minute...

Instead of reading and agreeing with a passage and its simple meaning, you needed a paragraph and numerous verses of sorts to explain into the passage a "different" meaning.

This is PRECISELY why all of Christianity is divided today, generally speaking. Men provide "lectures" about simple passages that were originally wrote for 1st century, barely literate folks that could EASILY be understood. And have made MASTERY of the scriptures with huge commentaries of mens opinions about a super simple verse such as the one we are talking about.

These days...NOTHING means what it says anymore regarding the Bible.

Bro. I choose to read it and believe it like a 5th grader and trust it with all my heart, aside from the PHDs that spend a lifetime trying to "discipher" the so called "secret" meanings of the Bible.


Im not trying to get on your case at all here. I am just trying to make you see the big picture of what is going on in Christianity as a whole. We have 1 Bible with thousands of denominations, all with a differing meaning OF THE SAME BOOK. Doesnt that trip you out to think about?
It does me....

My only suggestion to anybody reading is DONT TRY TO OUTSMART THIS BIBLE, BECAUSE IT WILL ALWAYS OUTSMART YOU...every time!...LOL

Sean, we are to read scripture in context. Please cite where I took any scripture out of context.

The context of every baptism in Acts is the hearers responding to the message the apostles preached concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. No hidden meanings or secrets. Just plain and simple letting scripture interpret scripture.

[Sean]

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

I dont see another concept presented here to wash away sins, but to be baptized. If I was on the receiving end of that statement, I would have equated baptism with my sins being washed away. (you know..WATER(baptized)....WASH, (I kinda see it like that), just most folks use water to wash stuff, but what do I know?, maybe baptism is like a "waterless car wash"...LOL....respectfully


Brother, look at the passage again...Arise>Baptized(water)>WASH(water) AWAY THY SINS,,,,Brother, this is clean as a whistle. How my brother, can you not see that?(now that is directly contextual)

I dare you to try to "wash" the dishes tonight without water. Or take a bath for that matter.

There is more than one reason that water baptism is COMMANDED my brother.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Sean

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

I dont see another concept presented here to wash away sins, but to be baptized. If I was on the receiving end of that statement, I would have equated baptism with my sins being washed away. (you know..WATER(baptized)....WASH, (I kinda see it like that), just most folks use water to wash stuff, but what do I know?, maybe baptism is like a "waterless car wash"...LOL....respectfully


Brother, look at the passage again...Arise>Baptized(water)>WASH(water) AWAY THY SINS,,,,Brother, this is clean as a whistle. How my brother, can you not see that?(now that is directly contextual)

I dare you to try to "wash" the dishes tonight without water. Or take a bath for that matter.

There is more than one reason that water baptism is COMMANDED my brother.

The Bible also speaks of the blood of Jesus purging our conscience of dead works. Sean, do you believe that literal blood somehow passed into your conscience and cleansed it?

We can link "washing away thy sins" in that passage to "calling on the name of the Lord" just as easily. That fits perfectly with the Apostolic message that Saul had rejected to that point that Jesus was Lord. To be forgiven Saul had to accept that message by professing Jesus as Lord and being baptized. When he did that, Jesus "washed his sins away".

And I affirm that baptism is commanded and is linked to washing away or forgiveness of our sins. Have I denied that? I just happen to believe that it is Jesus himself that does the forgiving and not the water.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Originalist

It's my understanding that the term "Jesus Only" was a phrase created by our detractors to describe the way be baptize (as in, "they baptize only in the name of Jesus"), not to describe our view of the Godhead. Later people began to misunderstand and apply the term to our belief in the Godhead, erroneously. They use this term to perpetuate the myth that we deny the existence of the Father and Holy Ghost. I'm curious as to why you would be a party to perpetuating a gross misrepresentation of our beliefs.

I don't consider "Jesus Only" a misrepresentation of Oneness. Altho it refers to water baptism it also refers to the belief that ONLY Jesus is God.

Now if modern day Oneness Pentecostals (not saying you) are ashamed of that title so be it. Personally I am honored to say I believe in Jesus Only.

Here's an example.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

What name fits this scripture? I would say Yeshua or Jesus.

So I understand that those outside of the true faith will not like "Jesus Only" but will they accept when I say "Jesus is the Father"? No I have proved that hundreds if not thousands of times.

So my point is that no matter what we call ourselves our how we begin our presentation of Oneness we will have to say more then our opening statement. We will have to begin to present the multitude of scripture that backs up what we said.

Then we will have to explain Biblical Christology.

Ironically the new buzzword for the hyper grace Evangelical doctrine of salvation is "Christ Alone".

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The Bible also speaks of the blood of Jesus purging our conscience of dead works. Sean, do you believe that literal blood somehow passed into your conscience and cleansed it?

We can link "washing away thy sins" in that passage to "calling on the name of the Lord" just as easily. That fits perfectly with the Apostolic message that Saul had rejected to that point that Jesus was Lord. To be forgiven Saul had to accept that message by professing Jesus as Lord and being baptized. When he did that, Jesus "washed his sins away".

And I affirm that baptism is commanded and is linked to washing away or forgiveness of our sins. Have I denied that? I just happen to believe that it is Jesus himself that does the forgiving and not the water.

ORIGINALIST






Brother, before we start a paper chase down a rabbit hole as all of Christianity does. Imagine yourself for just a moment, living in the 1st century, you are the Paul, Ananias tells you to arise, be baptized, washing away thy sins.

Would you just say, "yes sir, I would love to be baptized and wash away my sins" ....or would you tell Ananias, "sure I will be baptized, but not to wash away my sins though, because water baptism DOES NOT WASH AWAY MY SINS".


Well that sound ridiculous, but thats what you are saying about this passage bro. Maybe you could pull out your pocket New Testament and concordance, looking up the word "blood or wash", and tell the same thing to Ananias you told me if you were the Paul.
See how complicated you have made this simple passage?

Brother, this passage is SELF INTERPRETING... just like most misinterpreted passages these days. Again, just think like Paul thought, when Ananias told him what he told him, and you cannot go wrong.

Remember this...the foundational interpretation of every passage is the passage itself. If there is absolutely no way to understand it, then hit the concordance.



That is the safest and best way to interpret scripture

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I don't consider "Jesus Only" a misrepresentation of Oneness. Altho it refers to water baptism it also refers to the belief that ONLY Jesus is God.

Now if modern day Oneness Pentecostals (not saying you) are ashamed of that title so be it. Personally I am honored to say I believe in Jesus Only.

Here's an example.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

What name fits this scripture? I would say Yeshua or Jesus.

So I understand that those outside of the true faith will not like "Jesus Only" but will they accept when I say "Jesus is the Father"? No I have proved that hundreds if not thousands of times.

So my point is that no matter what we call ourselves our how we begin our presentation of Oneness we will have to say more then our opening statement. We will have to begin to present the multitude of scripture that backs up what we said.

Then we will have to explain Biblical Christology.

Ironically the new buzzword for the hyper grace Evangelical doctrine of salvation is "Christ Alone".

Brother Michael, if someone calls me Jesus only, I correct them and tell them I believe that God was INSIDE of Jesus. They just need us to clarify our position is all. They are taught "Jesus only" as a slang word from their peers.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Sean

Brother Michael, if someone calls me Jesus only, I correct them and tell them I believe that God was INSIDE of Jesus. They just need us to clarify our position is all. They are taught "Jesus only" as a slang word from their peers.

I stand perfectly eager to explain Jesus only to them. I was in a forum today with about 25 Trins. I think there may have been one other Oneness. They were boldly proclaiming Trinity doctrine.

When I took the mic several times they had enough and took it from me.

As I said ANYTHING we might call ourselves makes them stumble. Now and then tho someone gets it.

[Sean]

Amen Bro....If we dont let them know theres a difference, who will?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Sean

ORIGINALIST






Brother, before we start a paper chase down a rabbit hole as all of Christianity does. Imagine yourself for just a moment, living in the 1st century, you are the Paul, Ananias tells you to arise, be baptized, washing away thy sins.

Would you just say, "yes sir, I would love to be baptized and wash away my sins" ....or would you tell Ananias, "sure I will be baptized, but not to wash away my sins though, because water baptism DOES NOT WASH AWAY MY SINS".


Well that sound ridiculous, but thats what you are saying about this passage bro. Maybe you could pull out your pocket New Testament and concordance, looking up the word "blood or wash", and tell the same thing to Ananias you told me if you were the Paul.
See how complicated you have made this simple passage?

Brother, this passage is SELF INTERPRETING... just like most misinterpreted passages these days. Again, just think like Paul thought, when Ananias told him what he told him, and you cannot go wrong.

Remember this...the foundational interpretation of every passage is the passage itself. If there is absolutely no way to understand it, then hit the concordance.



That is the safest and best way to interpret scripture

I understand your stance because you are one of the few Apostolics I've met that believes n baptismal regeneration. I do not. Peter declared in Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized...in order that your sins may be forgiven. Sean, do repentance and baptism have the ability to forgive sins? Are they self aware beings?

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Even then, on water baptism, only partially right.

Baptism in the NAME of JESUS is biblically and historically correct. However, their reasoning behind it is faulty.

It would be better to simply state that Christians must be baptized because it is a biblical command.

This is excellent.
It would be even better for the baptizee to literally "call on the name of The Lord Jesus" when rising out of the waters of baptism.