|
Tab Menu 1
| Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun! |
 |
|
07-20-2009, 03:29 PM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 16,746
|
|
|
Re: Observations at a Contemporary Baptist Church
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC1
You are obviously way too young to have ever gone to a Marvin Hicks debate with trinitarians to hear him give the example of not being able to cash a check made out to "Son", that you actually have to have the persons name!
(I was a witness to the Hicks - Reynolds debate in Jena Lousisana sometime around 1974 - many years and several wifes ago for Marvin Hicks)
|
I have heard arguments like that but then I just come back with other examples of "ye olden days" when the kings messenger came shouting "I come in the name of the king" it meant in the name of the king with the full weight and authority of his highness.
|
07-21-2009, 12:07 AM
|
 |
Christ Follower
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 744
|
|
|
Re: Observations at a Contemporary Baptist Church
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC1
Yup. I am always amazed when someone who baptizes in the titles reads a scripture in acts proclaiming Jesus name baptism. They obviously think they have that covered by "....the Son" in their baptismal formula.
It was ironic that the slide presentation of the baptisms ended with a scripture clearly indicating the church in Acts baptized in Jesus name!
|
I could take a TON of heat and mockery for posting this, but...
A number of years ago I started baptizing by saying, "Upon the confession of your faith, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In Jesus' name."
The span of time between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2 is very short. Peter heard very well what Jesus said and there was no confusion at all. The most complete, profound, theologically sound and COMPLETE way to say, "In the name of Jesus", is to say, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
I expect I'll get thrashed for this, but....the first time I said it over a person I baptized, I wept. I've never experienced anything like it. I felt like I finally understood God in His fullness for the first time in my life.
Honestly, I'm frustrated with BOTH sides that fight over this. The harmony between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 is BEAUTIFUL and it's a crying shame that we've made such a mess of it.
You've been kind to me CC1, so no offense at all is intended.
|
07-21-2009, 12:19 AM
|
 |
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 16,840
|
|
|
Re: Observations at a Contemporary Baptist Church
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irreligious
I could take a TON of heat and mockery for posting this, but...
A number of years ago I started baptizing by saying, "Upon the confession of your faith, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In Jesus' name."
The span of time between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2 is very short. Peter heard very well what Jesus said and there was no confusion at all. The most complete, profound, theologically sound and COMPLETE way to say, "In the name of Jesus", is to say, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
I expect I'll get thrashed for this, but....the first time I said it over a person I baptized, I wept. I've never experienced anything like it. I felt like I finally understood God in His fullness for the first time in my life.
Honestly, I'm frustrated with BOTH sides that fight over this. The harmony between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 is BEAUTIFUL and it's a crying shame that we've made such a mess of it.
You've been kind to me CC1, so no offense at all is intended. |
I have no problem with you baptismal formula. I think it is fine as I do "....in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is Jesus Christ" or as Christ Church baptizes "...in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ".
Since I don't believe trinitarians are polytheistic and are in fact as monotheistic as "Oneness" folks I could go to a trinny church that baptized as you do or like the first example I gave above.
__________________
"I think some people love spiritual bondage just the way some people love physical bondage. It makes them feel secure. In the end though it is not healthy for the one who is lost over it or the one who is lives under the oppression even if by their own choice"
Titus2woman on AFF
"We did not wear uniforms. The lady workers dressed in the current fashions of the day, ...silks...satins...jewels or whatever they happened to possess. They were very smartly turned out, so that they made an impressive appearance on the streets where a large part of our work was conducted in the early years.
"It was not until long after, when former Holiness preachers had become part of us, that strict plainness of dress began to be taught.
"Although Entire Sanctification was preached at the beginning of the Movement, it was from a Wesleyan viewpoint, and had in it very little of the later Holiness Movement characteristics. Nothing was ever said about apparel, for everyone was so taken up with the Lord that mode of dress seemingly never occurred to any of us."
Quote from Ethel Goss (widow of 1st UPC Gen Supt. Howard Goss) book "The Winds of God"
|
07-21-2009, 12:20 AM
|
|
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 16,840
|
|
|
Re: Observations at a Contemporary Baptist Church
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWayne
I have heard arguments like that but then I just come back with other examples of "ye olden days" when the kings messenger came shouting "I come in the name of the king" it meant in the name of the king with the full weight and authority of his highness.
|
So you are saying the messenger would not have had to say "Burger" in front of the "King"? 
__________________
"I think some people love spiritual bondage just the way some people love physical bondage. It makes them feel secure. In the end though it is not healthy for the one who is lost over it or the one who is lives under the oppression even if by their own choice"
Titus2woman on AFF
"We did not wear uniforms. The lady workers dressed in the current fashions of the day, ...silks...satins...jewels or whatever they happened to possess. They were very smartly turned out, so that they made an impressive appearance on the streets where a large part of our work was conducted in the early years.
"It was not until long after, when former Holiness preachers had become part of us, that strict plainness of dress began to be taught.
"Although Entire Sanctification was preached at the beginning of the Movement, it was from a Wesleyan viewpoint, and had in it very little of the later Holiness Movement characteristics. Nothing was ever said about apparel, for everyone was so taken up with the Lord that mode of dress seemingly never occurred to any of us."
Quote from Ethel Goss (widow of 1st UPC Gen Supt. Howard Goss) book "The Winds of God"
|
07-21-2009, 12:29 AM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 16,746
|
|
|
Re: Observations at a Contemporary Baptist Church
Her Highness: "This is your highness, the king of Roebuck."
Larry: "Don't you mean the Sears of Roebuck?"
Her highness: "Oh no, he is related to Mongomery."
Curly: "Ooohhhhh... Montgomery Wards! Nauk nauk nauk!"
|
07-21-2009, 12:38 AM
|
|
Christ Follower
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 744
|
|
|
Re: Observations at a Contemporary Baptist Church
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC1
I have no problem with you baptismal formula. I think it is fine as I do "....in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is Jesus Christ" or as Christ Church baptizes "...in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ".
Since I don't believe trinitarians are polytheistic and are in fact as monotheistic as "Oneness" folks I could go to a trinny church that baptized as you do or like the first example I gave above.
|
Thanks CC1. I knew you'd understand. The greatest shock of my life was when I found out the monotheistic principles of so-called "trinitarians." Personally, I can't stand the term "trinitarian" or the term "oneness". I'm a follower of Christ and I have not a clue of which one I am. God is God. His name is Jesus. Walter Martin AND David Bernard would both agree with that.
|
07-21-2009, 07:37 AM
|
 |
Supercalifragilisticexpiali...
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 19,197
|
|
|
Re: Observations at a Contemporary Baptist Church
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC1
You are obviously way too young to have ever gone to a Marvin Hicks debate with trinitarians to hear him give the example of not being able to cash a check made out to "Son", that you actually have to have the persons name!
(I was a witness to the Hicks - Reynolds debate in Jena Lousisana sometime around 1974 - many years and several wifes ago for Marvin Hicks)
|
To young perhaps, but I do own the debate.
Also, this is a bad example. Being in business, I have cashed (deposited) many checks that a client had forgotten to sign at all. They generally go through.
__________________
"It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
|
07-21-2009, 07:46 AM
|
|
Supercalifragilisticexpiali...
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 19,197
|
|
|
Re: Observations at a Contemporary Baptist Church
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irreligious
Thanks CC1. I knew you'd understand. The greatest shock of my life was when I found out the monotheistic principles of so-called "trinitarians." Personally, I can't stand the term "trinitarian" or the term "oneness". I'm a follower of Christ and I have not a clue of which one I am. God is God. His name is Jesus. Walter Martin AND David Bernard would both agree with that.
|
Also interesting is that Dr Walter Martin agreed with Bernard on "Eternal Son" being a bad term.
__________________
"It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
|
07-21-2009, 07:58 AM
|
 |
Christmas 2009
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Jackson, TN
Posts: 9,788
|
|
|
Re: Observations at a Contemporary Baptist Church
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irreligious
Thanks CC1. I knew you'd understand. The greatest shock of my life was when I found out the monotheistic principles of so-called "trinitarians." Personally, I can't stand the term "trinitarian" or the term "oneness". I'm a follower of Christ and I have not a clue of which one I am. God is God. His name is Jesus. Walter Martin AND David Bernard would both agree with that.
|
In our church, we NEVER use either term; they are too divisive.
|
07-21-2009, 10:22 AM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,023
|
|
|
Re: Observations at a Contemporary Baptist Church
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irreligious
I could take a TON of heat and mockery for posting this, but...
A number of years ago I started baptizing by saying, "Upon the confession of your faith, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In Jesus' name."
The span of time between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2 is very short. Peter heard very well what Jesus said and there was no confusion at all. The most complete, profound, theologically sound and COMPLETE way to say, "In the name of Jesus", is to say, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
I expect I'll get thrashed for this, but.... the first time I said it over a person I baptized, I wept. I've never experienced anything like it. I felt like I finally understood God in His fullness for the first time in my life.
Honestly, I'm frustrated with BOTH sides that fight over this. The harmony between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 is BEAUTIFUL and it's a crying shame that we've made such a mess of it.
You've been kind to me CC1, so no offense at all is intended. |
Wow- the deception that was cast over you was great then. There are WAY too many Scriptures to even post about the reverance and awe that is supposed to be had over the name of the LORD. The power that is in the name of the LORD is great, and with remission of sins, being told to be preached in Christ's name, to hear that you went and baptized according to the titular formula (which does not understand the Scripture in its fulness) is troubling.
-Bro. Alex
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:28 PM.
| |
Linear Mode
