Question about Acts 2:38: What about the martyrs?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I remember reading about some Oneness Pentecostal Pioneers who baptized themselves in Canada.

I remember reading some Oneness pioneers who did a bunch of stupid stuff, but thank God I don't follow Oneness pioneers.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Don't you have the same Spirit in you that resided in the Apostles??? Can't the Spirit guide you into all truth??? There comes a time when we must realize that while the Scriptures are foundational, but the Spirit must speak to us presently. What saith the Spirit???

The Spirit says nothing in addition to what the apostles said when it comes to foundational truth. There is no additions to actual foundation.

When it comes to foundational truth, NO, I do not have the same anointing they had, and neither do you. They were anointed in an office nobody has since their day. The foundation is LAID and no man can lay another foundation. Foundational word and doctrine is NOT to be added to nor taken away from. Are there apostles today? Yes! But that specific office of laying foundation IS NOT in anyone aside from those 12.

The Holy Spirit residing in me calls out that they are welcome, whosoever shall stand in the water, calling upon the name of the Lord.

You can call it the Holy Spirit, but forgive me if I don't take your word for it. Please be persuaded in your own mind. That is your liberty. I need bible foundation for anything foundation.

If Ananias meant what you say, he should have walked away and let Paul baptize himself. After all, Ananias said those words.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Don't you have the same Spirit in you that resided in the Apostles??? Can't the Spirit guide you into all truth??? There comes a time when we must realize that while the Scriptures are foundational, but the Spirit must speak to us presently. What saith the Spirit???

The Holy Spirit residing in me calls out that they are welcome, whosoever shall stand in the water, calling upon the name of the Lord.

Oh boy.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Edward Bernays would be proud.

[mfblume]

People can assume all the meanings behind words they wish. To say calling on the name of the Lord is the baptizee speaking the name, and not the baptizer, is derived from Acts 22:16 where Ananias told Paul to be baptized. The only problem is that Ananias did not walk away from Paul and let him baptize himself.

But are there other instances anywhere in scripture where someone baptized themselves?

No.

So, neither the man who said those words allowed Paul to baptize himself, and there are not incidents anywhere else where people baptized themselves.

Therefore, such an assumed interpretation is just that -- assumed. I claim he meant the baptizer needs to call on the name, just as anything else done in the name showed the one performing the act saying the name.

Peter could have told all the 3000 to baptize themselves, but he didn't. Philip did not tell the eunuch to baptize himself. Even Jesus commanded John to baptize Him. That was an issue John made and Jesus demanded otherwise. Could it be because some might think they can baptize themselves?

If the jailer was afraid enough for his life that he was ready to commit suicide upon awareness the prisoners might leave the jail, wouldn't it have been better for Paul to tell him to baptize himself, since they had to leave the jail together with Paul and find water to be baptized? I mean, if the concern was THAT risky for his life, and baptism does not need someone else baptizing you, then that would have been the wisest choice to make with the jailer that night. But, no. Paul went with the jailer and LEFT THE PRISON and got his whole family and baptized them all AT THE RISK OF DEATH!

Sorry, doesn't add up, Aquila.

[Esaias]

The bible is clear that the one who desires to be saved must call on the name of the Lord, but it is equally clear one does not baptize themself.

The myth of a "personal relationship" with God has done a lot of harm to people, unfortunately.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In light of Acts 22:16... if a believer knew of no local preacher or fellowship that would baptize in the name of Jesus... could they go out into a lake, call upon the name of Jesus, and baptize themselves for the remission of sin?

I'm not against the church and elders being involved on most normal occasions. I'm asking as to if you believe it is required and the faith of one seeking the Lord in such isolation would be in vain.

I remember reading about some Oneness Pentecostal Pioneers who baptized themselves in Canada.

Honestly, it all sounds like an effort to establish a Catholic like priesthood wherein a mediator other than Christ is established. Clergy has always sought job security. So, naturally, I'm suspicious.

I became a believer in Jesus and within two weeks I was homeless. The first night I was allowed to stay at a friend's house for one day. I baptised myself in the tub, triple immersion, praying for God to accept it "until I could be properly baptised." I didn't know a single Christian, or church (let alone any apostolics).

Within about three weeks, the following happened:

1. Wound up staying at a shelter run by a small baptist church.
2. Got the Holy Ghost (tongues and all) during closing prayer in the chapel during a service.
3. Met an apostolic who showed up as a live-in volunteer at the shelter.
4. Went to an apostolic meeting and discovered other people that had experienced what I had experienced.
5. Was shown scripture and was baptised in the name of the Lord.

I fit your hypothetical scenario TO A "T", but God worked it out according to the scriptural pattern, and not according to your theorizing. We should stick with the Word. Looking to go beyond the Word, as you constantly seem to be doing, puts a person outside the saving faith of the original church.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I became a believer in Jesus and within two weeks I was homeless. The first night I was allowed to stay at a friend's house for one day. I baptised myself in the tub, triple immersion, praying for God to accept it "until I could be properly baptised." I didn't know a single Christian, or church (let alone any apostolics).

Within about three weeks, the following happened:

1. Wound up staying at a shelter run by a small baptist church.
2. Got the Holy Ghost (tongues and all) during closing prayer in the chapel during a service.
3. Met an apostolic who showed up as a live-in volunteer at the shelter.
4. Went to an apostolic meeting and discovered other people that had experienced what I had experienced.
5. Was shown scripture and was baptised in the name of the Lord.

I fit your hypothetical scenario TO A "T", but God worked it out according to the scriptural pattern, and not according to your theorizing. We should stick with the Word. Looking to go beyond the Word, as you constantly seem to be doing, puts a person outside the saving faith of the original church.

Awesome testimony!

[good samaritan]

We see a lot of straw men arguments on here. I'll let God be the eternal judge, but I will preach, teach and baptize in the name of Jesus. If a person has a problem letting someone else baptize them they have problems. Besides, if you go under the water calling on the name of the Lord you are going to get water in your nose and mouth. lol. I am glad I can trust in the ministry of the church.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

We see a lot of straw men arguments on here. I'll let God be the eternal judge, but I will preach, teach and baptize in the name of Jesus. If a person has a problem letting someone else baptize them they have problems. Besides, if you go under the water calling on the name of the Lord you are going to get water in your nose and mouth. lol. I am glad I can trust in the ministry of the church.