Question?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by ILG

Yes, faith is the only qualifier. But the funny thing is that people always want your faith to "obey" THEIR rules. Funny thing, that.

oh--not haha funny...

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by ILG

Who is actually doing the hair splitting? I think it is splitting hairs to say you can repent, be baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost and still be lost because the preacher did not say the right things. For it is by grace you are saved by faith.

Next person I baptize, I will just baptize him or her the in the name of the Lord Buddha.

Paul was told to "call upon the name of the Lord" when he was baptized in Acts 22:16.

"Call upon" is the Greek word epikalalolei (sp?) and is reflexive. It means to summon by name and invoke over one's self out loud.

This idea that the name of Jesus in water baptism is just a technicality or that a person can be made a covenantal member of the Body of Christ without immersion into that Name isn't in agreement with the Scriptures.

Which is fine, if that's your thing. I hope we all make New Jerusalem. I can disagree without animosity.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Next person I baptize, I will just baptize him or her the in the name of the Lord Buddha.

Paul was told to "call upon the name of the Lord" when he was baptized in Acts 22:16.

"Call upon" is the Greek word epikalalolei (sp?) and is reflexive. It means to summon by name and invoke over one's self out loud.

This idea that the name of Jesus in water baptism is just a technicality or that a person can be made a covenantal member of the Body of Christ without immersion into that Name isn't in agreement with the Scriptures.

Which is fine, if that's your thing. I hope we all make New Jerusalem. I can disagree without animosity.

I think what YOU say when YOU baptize someone needs to go by your convictions. But if you said Buddha and the person was being baptized in faith I don't think it would matter a hill of beans to THEIR salvation.

And here is an interesting thing, you quoted that Paul was commanded to call upon the name of the Lord in HIS OWN baptism. I did that. I felt cleansed and justified even though the preacher said FSHG. But I myself did call on the name of Jesus! And the next preacher told me I had to get rebaptized because the preacher did the wrong thing. That was legalism.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

God said don't touch the ark. Nobody forced this man to touch it...

I was being sarcastic. When humans decide they can speak for God on what God does or does not consider a "technicality" and so, call him "fickle", I can only point out the error in the logic, because according to their logic, the references I gave would appear to be mere technicalities of a fickle God.

The testimony of God in Christ in the Holy Scriptures is that immersion in water should be done in the name of Jesus.

God says this as much as He ever said to not touch the ark. And yet one is a technicality and the other isn't?

Let's get real and make a decision. Either God really cares how we are baptized, down to every detail, and that it is necessary for salvation, or that He doesn't care and it isn't.

And if we are going to argue over it, then let's be honest. Take away one aspect of water baptism in the name of Jesus, and you're pulling on the thread of greater tapestry.

If you want to know how by the third and fourth century, it became acceptable to sprinkle a man on his death bed and call it baptism, then go back to the beginning when Justin Martyr began changing the baptismal formula of the Book of Acts.

If you take away the need for the name of Jesus to be invoked audibly over someone in faith, then eventually, the next step one takes on such a slippery slope ends up being questioning if immersion is required as part of the New Covenant, or if immersion is the only acceptable format for how to perform the act.

This is how all false doctrine begins. Saints are not careful regarding the faith, and quit contending, and so, lose those things which had been wrought. Soon enough deceivers and antichrists are being welcomed into the home, and saints are blessing them.

2 John 1:7-11,

7. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11. For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

All of the above happens when a believer decides that a core doctrine of the Bible contains mere technicalities. It may not happen in a moment, or even in a year, but after years of convincing oneself that the name of Jesus being spoken over a person isn't required by the Scriptures, when it obviously is (Acts 22:16 proves it), then down the road, eventually everyone's saved, even the un-baptized, the un-immersed in the Spirit, the un-holy, the un-regenerated.

Buy that all you want. I'm not going to.

[shazeep]

ha ok not baptizing in Buddha's name anytime soon
i see a reflection in Freed from the Law of sin and death, and will you then go break the Commandments? Heaven forbid! The difference in the letter v the spirit.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by ILG

There you go! Salvation isn't a carrot on a stick where you have to do more and more to please God and if you don't he is going to cast you into hell for eternity.

This only tells one part of the story. If Abraham had NOT OBEYED the command of God to leave his homeland before anything else ever happened in his life, there would not have been any promise for him to believe in order to receive the impartation of God's righteousness.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by ILG

Yes, faith is the only qualifier. But the funny thing is that people always want your faith to "obey" THEIR rules. Funny thing, that.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

This only tells one part of the story. If Abraham had NOT OBEYED the command of God to leave his homeland before anything else ever happened in his life, there would not have been any promise for him to believe in order to receive the impartation of God's righteousness.

But Abraham was following God Himself, doing what God required of him, not having some guy tell him what God required of him. See, I think we need to do what God requires of us. But what God requires of me may not be what you think.

[shazeep]

as alluded to by the several parables that illuminate those who did not follow your script, and yet partake of the kingdom. Baptism is a symbol, a marker of a personal declaration--or it's supposed to be. When water baptism, regardless of how verbally perfect it may be, becomes the aim of leading someone to Christ--rather than an actual, personal immersion in Christ--then it has lost its value. You may as well baptize in Budda's name then.

[shazeep]

If the pastor that baptized me had walked up to me a year--or a month--later, and asked what i had learned about Christ since then, my reaction would have mostly been "what do you mean?" But the bigger point is that he did not do this, and he was a great guy; it just isn't done, for the most part. After all, i was 'saved.'