For those that left the UPC...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by missourimary

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

I wasn't speaking about a formula, method, words, water. I simply asked why would a non-believer want to be baptized?

Originally Posted by missourimary;
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.

I didn't say it would be ludicrous to baptize a non-believer. It's getting hard to post with you because you keep saying I am saying something that I never say. And you keep saying that I "agreed". I wish you would allow me to say when I really do agree.

I said, "Why would a non-believer want to be baptized?" That's all I said, nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by missourimary;
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.

You misunderstood what I said in Post 530. If you re-read that, you will see that I am speaking of Saul's words in Acts 22:16 as relating to the same wording in Acts 2:21. Calling on the "name of the Lord" would be identifying with who God was, which was very important to Saul. That is why he was persecuting the church. He believed in one God not identifying Jesus as being God in flesh.

You keep insisting that I am saying that Saul received his revelation of one God from John 1 and I John 1. That is not what I said. If you read it again, you see that I referenced how the Hebrew interprets Genesis 1:1 in the understanding of one God and creator. Saul understood this. I also referenced John 1 and I John 1 because it is beautiful how it identifies with Genesis 1.

Because we were discussing what Acts 22:16 was possibly saying, along with some agreeing that baptizing in the FS&HG was acceptable, I ended by saying:

Originally posted by Pressing-On;
To overlook the glory of this revelation and say that it's okay to baptize in the FS&HG is to not recognize the powerful, wonderful and majestic truth of who God is and what He has done.

This is what Saul experienced on the road to Damascus and he never looked back! Glory to God!!!!! He perfectly understood what Ananias was instructing him to do - Call on His name, believe in His name - God Almighty - God manifested in the flesh - Jesus Christ.

Matthew 28:19 are very powerful words and a revelation of Jesus Christ. It is not a baptismal formula. Never has been, never will be.

And I'm sorry that my - what you term "an emotional high" seemed to bother you. I call it being excited about what I read in the Word. I hope I don't ever lose that. It makes me want to shout - Hallelujah!

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

So, you weren't going to answer my question? Are you saying that being immersed in water is "calling on the name of the Lord"? No words necessary?

Originally Posted by missourimary;
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.

The Word of God was in the beginning. A little different than a secular piece of literature. Nice analogy, but we are talking about the Word of God and not the Constitution. The fact is, everything is written out for us to see. It all correlates and so we know that ALL of the Apostles understood what was going on. They wrote about it all, after the fact.

Now, I stand on believing that Ananias knew exactly what he was telling Saul and was referencing Acts 2:21 even though it was not written, as yet, in script. Apparently Ananias and Saul were familiar with the wording/teaching in Acts 2:21 or they wouldn't have used it. That is a prime example of why it was not necessary to have it written down at the time. Most of the Acts of the Apostles were a done deal before any of it was written. The difference between the Constitution and the Word of God is that His Word was forever settled in heaven. The Constitution was and is not. Now we have the NT written and it perfectly fits with the prophecy of the OT.

Now, I'm wondering why you left this portion off and didn't respond to it. I'll bump it again.

Originally Posted by missourimary

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.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.