More over-reacting to the "Light Doctrine"

[returnman]

Originally Posted by diakonos

So, the trinitarian dunkee that calls on Jesus during his baptism regardless of what the dunker says…

Ya know that just might be the case, if so, is that a disappointment?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by returnman

Ya know that just might be the case, if so, is that a disappointment?

As a former AG minister (later licensed with the UPCI), who is now Oneness, I still cannot understand why so many in our movement think the possibility of God accepting a baptism with a less than perfect invocation by the baptizer is such an unlikely or extreme possibility. And yes, some in our camp will be disappointed if those people are in Heaven. I have always scratched my head at this attitude.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by diakonos

So, the trinitarian dunkee that calls on Jesus during his baptism regardless of what the dunker says…

Why do so many in our camp (the oneness camp) think that God would reject such a baptism? I really would like to hear a sound soteriological argument to defend such a position. I've yet to hear one, in almost 30 years of being in this movement. And yes, some in our movement will be disappointed if those people are in Heaven.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Originalist

As a former AG minister (later licensed with the UPCI), who is now Oneness, I still cannot understand why so many in our movement think the possibility of God accepting a baptism with a less than perfect invocation by the baptizer is such an unlikely or extreme possibility. And yes, some in our camp will be disappointed if those people are in Heaven. I have always scratched my head at this attitude.

The other turn around is, why do we NEED someone to baptize the believer?

If there are not requirements for the one performing the baptism, then why not just let the guy/gal Baptize themselves.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

In regards to "proper baptism" we need to account for this:

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

Who does the "calling" here?

Looking at the Greek is helpful:

It can be seen here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/22-16.htm

Note the phrase:

βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸὄνομα αὐτοῦ

Transliterated:

baptisai kai apolusai tas harmartias sou epikalesamenos to onoma auto

If one looks closely at the verbs baptisai and apolusai and epikalesamenos , one can note that they are given to us in the middle voice.

And what is the middle voice?

From: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/middle+voice

The so-called middle voice is an approximate type of grammatical voice in which the subject both performs and receives the action expressed by the verb. In other words, the subject acts as both the agent and the receiver (i.e., the direct object) of the action.

Note: The subject (in this case Brother Saul) is commanded (by Ananias) to both perform and receive the action expressed by the three verbs.

In essence, Brother Saul was told he is to get himself baptized/baptize himself, and wash his sins away, and he is the one to call over himself the name of Him (the Lord Jesus).

As the agent or actor of the verb, Paul does the immersing, the washing, and the calling. As the recipient or benefactor of the verb, Paul is the one who gets immersed and washed as the name of the Lord Jesus, which he himself calls out, gets called out over him.

So, in this case, at least, we have one example where a new believer is ordered to go and immerse himself as he calls on the Lord Jesus.

The question then is, is this one example prescriptive for all baptisms, or was it unique to Brother Saul?

One way to possibly answer is from the example of John.

In John 1:28, we read "These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing" (ESV).

Note "where John was baptizing".

One can observe the Greek here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-28.htm

It is clear John was doing the immersing, or at least, was holding sessions in which immersions were taking place. There is room for ambiguity. Did John place his hands on people and physically take them under the water and back?

John 3:22-23 and John 4:1 are helpful here, too. But only to a degree in the sense that some ambiguity is present as well.

Finally, one Old Testament example comes to mind, that of Naaman the Leper, who was told to go and wash himself in the Jordan river. Clearly this story serves typologically of John's baptism, which was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4), understanding Naaman's leprosy to be a type to sin.

I conclude therefore that there is no obvious injunction upon the so called baptizer to physically take hold of someone and place them under the water and back, or for them to be the one to specifically, and exclusively, call on the Lord Jesus.

Rather, it seems to me that the baptizer is there to bear witness to the immersion, to see that the Lord Jesus was present, and depending on the circumstances and the gifts of grace and the Spirit available, to be there to lay hands upon the baptizee in order that he or she might receive the Holy Spirit. See:

Acts 19:5-6 (ESV),

5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

The Greek for verse 5 translates to "Having heard then they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus". It does not read that Paul did much of anything.

In fact, the verb to baptize is found to be in the passive voice.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/19-5.htm

This suggest the act of being baptized was performed upon them, but was it by Paul, or did they immerse each other, one after the other? Remember they were John's disciples, and we saw above how there was some ambiguity in just how John baptized.

Lastly in Acts 8:37-38, we see that Philip went down into the water with the Ethiopian, and there it reads, that Philip baptized him, both in English and in Greek.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/8-38.htm

Note the verb here is in the active voice. Philip took the action to do the baptism. But it doesn't tell us the precise actions Philip took. Does it mean he oversaw and facilitated the baptism? Did he personally immerse the Eunuch with his own hands? Did he say or do anything else?

We simply don't have it in the texts to tell.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

The other turn around is, why do we NEED someone to baptize the believer?

If there are not requirements for the one performing the baptism, then why not just let the guy/gal Baptize themselves.

Nobody said there are no requirements for the one performing the baptism. But humans can err, including godly, Spirit-filled people. You and I, and all believers, will be in Heaven having missed some point doctrinally. If perfection is a requirement, then nobody will be saved.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Looking at the Greek is helpful:

It can be seen here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/22-16.htm

Note the phrase:

βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸὄνομα αὐτοῦ

Transliterated:

baptisai kai apolusai tas harmartias sou epikalesamenos to onoma auto

If one looks closely at the verbs baptisai and apolusai and epikalesamenos , one can note that they are given to us in the middle voice.

And what is the middle voice?

From: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/middle+voice



Note: The subject (in this case Brother Saul) is commanded (by Ananias) to both perform and receive the action expressed by the three verbs.

In essence, Brother Saul was told he is to get himself baptized/baptize himself, and wash his sins away, and he is the one to call over himself the name of Him (the Lord Jesus).

As the agent or actor of the verb, Paul does the immersing, the washing, and the calling. As the recipient or benefactor of the verb, Paul is the one who gets immersed and washed as the name of the Lord Jesus, which he himself calls out, gets called out over him.

So, in this case, at least, we have one example where a new believer is ordered to go and immerse himself as he calls on the Lord Jesus.

The question then is, is this one example prescriptive for all baptisms, or was it unique to Brother Saul?

One way to possibly answer is from the example of John.

In John 1:28, we read "These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing" (ESV).

Note "where John was baptizing".

One can observe the Greek here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-28.htm

It is clear John was doing the immersing, or at least, was holding sessions in which immersions were taking place. There is room for ambiguity. Did John place his hands on people and physically take them under the water and back?

John 3:22-23 and John 4:1 are helpful here, too. But only to a degree in the sense that some ambiguity is present as well.

Finally, one Old Testament example comes to mind, that of Naaman the Leper, who was told to go and wash himself in the Jordan river. Clearly this story serves typologically of John's baptism, which was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4), understanding Naaman's leprosy to be a type to sin.

I conclude therefore that there is no obvious injunction upon the so called baptizer to physically take hold of someone and place them under the water and back, or for them to be the one to specifically, and exclusively, call on the Lord Jesus.

Rather, it seems to me that the baptizer is there to bear witness to the immersion, to see that the Lord Jesus was present, and depending on the circumstances and the gifts of grace and the Spirit available, to be there to lay hands upon the baptizee in order that he or she might receive the Holy Spirit. See:

Acts 19:5-6 (ESV),



The Greek for verse 5 translates to "Having heard then they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus". It does not read that Paul did much of anything.

In fact, the verb to baptize is found to be in the passive voice.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/19-5.htm

This suggest the act of being baptized was performed upon them, but was it by Paul, or did they immerse each other, one after the other? Remember they were John's disciples, and we saw above how there was some ambiguity in just how John baptized.

Lastly in Acts 8:37-38, we see that Philip went down into the water with the Ethiopian, and there it reads, that Philip baptized him, both in English and in Greek.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/8-38.htm

Note the verb here is in the active voice. Philip took the action to do the baptism. But it doesn't tell us the precise actions Philip took. Does it mean he oversaw and facilitated the baptism? Did he personally immerse the Eunuch with his own hands? Did he say or do anything else?

We simply don't have it in the texts to tell.

Now this is more like it.

The Great Commission includes a command for disciples to make more disciples "baptizing them". John baptized with water, and the early disciples did as well (see John 3:32ff and John 4:1-2). Paul admittedly did in fact baptize some people (1 Cor 1:14-16).

So the question is, "how does one baptize another?" Phillip going down into the water with the eunuch indicates more than merely observing or overseeing an otherwise self administered baptism, I would think. Since the word means "to immerse", then if you are told to "immerse a person" would that not require some kind of hands-on action of some sort whereby you put the person under water?

And passively, "being immersed" implies a person allows themself to be put under water by another, would it not?

And for the middle voice, can it be satisfied by voluntarily allowing another to immerse you, so that truly it can be said both you and the other did the baptizing? That is, you both participated willingly and thus both are responsible for the act, so that it can be said you both "did it"?

Historically, baptisms were performed by one person upon another. I would think there would be evidence of the introduction of a new method if the current method was in fact an innovation and not of apostolic origin. Like all innovations in religion I would expect it to gender controversy. I have never heard of this being the case, so I suspect the modern method whereby a person dunks another is a practice dating from the earliest time.

An interesting question is "How did 1st century Jews respond to John?" There is no record I know of indicating that what he was doing was a strange foreign idea to Judeans. Mikvah was usually self administered, you washed yourself, somebody didn't wash you (eg Naaman). But, Ex 29:4 involves a washing of the priests by Moses, it seems. Were priests "baptized" in some fashion as part of their consecration in the 1st century?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Why do so many in our camp (the oneness camp) think that God would reject such a baptism? I really would like to hear a sound soteriological argument to defend such a position. I've yet to hear one, in almost 30 years of being in this movement. And yes, some in our movement will be disappointed if those people are in Heaven.

Many trinitarian baptisms are done "because you have already been saved" (evangelical, many baptists, etc), others are done as the rite by which one joins the local church (primitive/hardshell baptist, etc), others are done "for the remission of sins" (Campbellite, Lutheran, Catholic/Orthodox, Methodist, etc). So THAT (the intention or purpose) plays a role in determining the validity of a baptism, I believe.

ALL trinitarian baptisms are done in association with a belief in the trinity, so that also plays a part.

Also, are baptisms performed by and upon heretics outside God's church valid baptisms? Or no?

These are all interrelated questions and often include the question "What actually is the church?"

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Many trinitarian baptisms are done "because you have already been saved" (evangelical, many baptists, etc), others are done as the rite by which one joins the local church (primitive/hardshell baptist, etc), others are done "for the remission of sins" (Campbellite, Lutheran, Catholic/Orthodox, Methodist, etc). So THAT (the intention or purpose) plays a role in determining the validity of a baptism, I believe.

ALL trinitarian baptisms are done in association with a belief in the trinity, so that also plays a part.



Also, are baptisms performed by and upon heretics outside God's church valid baptisms? Or no?

These are all interrelated questions and often include the question "What actually is the church?"

While the one performing the baptism may ascribe to the doctrine of the trinity, I have found that the doctrine itself has little do with the baptisms in those churches, Rather, coming to Christ as Lord is the focus.

Furthermore, some "Jesus Name" churches ascribe to the "get baptized because you've been saved" teaching. Are those baptisms also invalid even though the baptizer invoked the name Jesus? Must a baptismal candidate understand the exact moment his sins will be remitted in order for them to be remitted? What if it was discovered a UPCI minister was a closet atheist? Would the baptisms he performed be invalid even though the correct formula was used?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

While the one performing the baptism may ascribe to the doctrine of the trinity, I have found that the doctrine itself has little do with the baptisms in those churches, Rather, coming to Christ as Lord is the focus.

Possibly. After all, most churches dont really have any doctrine these days, anyway.

Furthermore, some "Jesus Name" churches ascribe to the "get baptized because you've been saved" teaching. Are those baptisms also invalid even though the baptizer invoked the name Jesus? Must a baptismal candidate understand the exact moment his sins will be remitted in order for them to be remitted?

Yes some oneness pentecostals are oneness bapticostals.

What if it was discovered a UPCI minister was a closet atheist? Would the baptisms he performed be invalid even though the correct formula was used?

Good question.

Now, do you have a definite Scripture based soeteriological thesis or argument on the subject? Just asking questions doesn't actually establish much...