born of water

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I agree about the repitiveness, but most people would probably do it because they didn't get immediate results. I don't condemn them it shows faith. You sound like you don't have to use the name because you somehow possess the authority of God.

"Behold I give you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all power of the enemy."

Do you believe that Good Samaritan? Either he gave this authority when he filled you with his Spirit or he did not. The authority is present in you because he who holds all authority lives in you, not because you can rattle off his name 100 times in a minute thinking that will wear out a demon and make him leave.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Substitute the word "name" with "authority" and it will all become clear to you, brothers. And while I agree that somebody ought to be calling out his name in baptism, God does not base the forgiveness of the one being baptized on whether or not the baptizer gets it all right! It is utter soteriological nonsense to even suggest that it is a man uttering anything over you that determines whether or not God forgives you. There is not one thing taught by the Apostles that even suggests such a doctrine.

Thats how new doctrines are created, by substituting words that we dont agree with.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Let me get this straight. You believe that the baptizee is meant to call on the name of the Lord as per Acts 22:16? And does that imply the person doing the baptism does not need to call on the name in invocation? If so, then the person is baptizing him/herself, and that does not work.

The minister must invoke the name for God to act and move to do the washing away or remission of sins, otherwise the person doing the baptizing did not obey the Lords command to baptize people in Jesus' name. When devils are cast out to move the Lord into action the person being delivered does not call out the name of the Lord. That damsel did not call out in Jesus' name. So when Jesus told people to baptize in His name He did not mean for the candidate to call out His name.

When a person is baptized in the name of Jesus, that person is not the one calling out the name. They are BEING BAPTIZED BY SOMEONE in the name of Jesus. This puts the onus on the baptizer to speak the name.

Ananias did not say to Saul "And have your sins washed away by me invoking the name of the Lord over you". Yes or No?

The minister must invoke the name for God to act and move to do the washing away or remission of sins

I realize you and Sean believe in baptismal regeneration. You believe something supernatural happens in the waters of baptism. The UPCI does not believe this teaching. We do believe forgiveness happens at baptism but that regeneration only happens at Holy Ghost baptism. Score one for the UPCI on this one.

Mike, you are essentially saying that even if someone goes on to receive the Holy Ghost that unless the preacher said the correct words over them at baptism, that their sins were not forgiven. Yes or no?

Sean makes absolutely no bones about believing that by referring to Holy Ghost filled people who did not have the correct words invoked over them at baptism as "sinners with the Holy Ghost".

The clear teachings of scripture prove both of you wrong.

First look at Acts 5:30-32......

30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross.

31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins.

32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Ghost which
God has given to those who obey him".

When God give someone the Holy Ghost, he is witnessing and declaring that this person has fully obeyed the gospel and embraced the message the Apostles are declaring in this passage. He is declaring by giving them the Spirit that he has forgiven them, in spite of the fact a preacher might have stumbled at the correct words to say at baptism. To argue this point is to argue with the Apostles and with God himself. Arguing with this point also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on the significance of Spirit baptism.


a supporting passage can be found in Ephesians 1:13-14...

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

Paul cannot be anymore clearer. What can I really add here? Those who believed on Christ (which includes baptism) were marked by the Spirit of God as being .....

1. In Him

2. Included in Christ

3) sealed

4) God's possession

5) possessors of a guarantee of their inheritance.

Sean, this would include those baptized believers who were baptized by someone who needed a little more insight on how to baptize believers. God certainly does not count those folks to be "sinners with the Holy Ghost."

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Originalist

"Behold I give you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all power of the enemy."

Do you believe that Good Samaritan? Either he gave this authority when he filled you with his Spirit or he did not. The authority is present in you because he who holds all authority lives in you, not because you can rattle off his name 100 times in a minute thinking that will wear out a demon and make him leave.

No wonder you oppose the spoken name as the source of the power. You are around folks that say it 100 times a minute.

An auctioneer will make a lousy baptizer or excorciser...LOL

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Ananias did not say to Saul "And have your sins washed away by me invoking the name of the Lord over you". Yes or No?





I realize you and Sean believe in baptismal regeneration. You believe something supernatural happens in the waters of baptism. The UPCI does not believe this teaching. We do believe forgiveness happens at baptism but that regeneration only happens at Holy Ghost baptism. Score one for the UPCI on this one.

Mike, you are essentially saying that even if someone goes on to receive the Holy Ghost that unless the preacher said the correct words over them at baptism, that their sins were not forgiven. Yes or no?

Sean makes absolutely no bones about believing that by referring to Holy Ghost filled people who did not have the correct words invoked over them at baptism as "sinners with the Holy Ghost".

The clear teachings of scripture prove both of you wrong.

First look at Acts 5:30-32......



When God give someone the Holy Ghost, he is witnessing and declaring that this person has fully obeyed the gospel and embraced the message the Apostles are declaring in this passage. He is declaring by giving them the Spirit that he has forgiven them, in spite of the fact a preacher might have stumbled at the correct words to say at baptism. To argue this point is to argue with the Apostles and with God himself. Arguing with this point also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on the significance of Spirit baptism.


a supporting passage can be found in Ephesians 1:13-14...



Paul cannot be anymore clearer. What can I really add here? Those who believed on Christ (which includes baptism) were marked by the Spirit of God as being .....

1. In Him

2. Included in Christ

3) sealed

4) God's possession

5) possessors of a guarantee of their inheritance.

Sean, this would include those baptized believers who were baptized by someone who needed a little more insight on how to baptize believers. God certainly does not count those folks to be "sinners with the Holy Ghost."

Bro., the book of Ephesians was written to the saints, They were not considered saints until they were baptized.(Crucified with Christ).
Sinners had or have NO BUSINESS applying this book to their unbaptized lives.
You realize this right?
Ephesians is an EPISTLE to the saints right?
Saints are already born again right?
Saints are already baptized right?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Sean

Bro., the book of Ephesians was written to the saints, They were not considered saints until they were baptized.(Crucified with Christ).
Sinners had or have NO BUSINESS applying this book to their unbaptized lives.
You realize this right?
Ephesians is an EPISTLE to the saints right?
Saints are already born again right?
Saints are already baptized right?

Sean, I included baptism as part of being a believer in my argument. Your point is invalid.

[thephnxman]

Invoking (ask for, request, invite for the NAME) began in Genesis 4:26, when
righteous men desired to know God's NAME.

Today, we know "...the NAME that is above every name that is named..."; so we
invoke (call upon, proclaim, say aloud) the NAME when we pray, worship, preach,
baptize, etc. The only people I know that are offended by the NAME are those who
said: "...let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this
NAME. And they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the
NAME of Jesus."

There are denominations that believe that "...speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance..."
is of Satan: and I perceive that such is the doctrine that would deny the NAME of Jesus to
be invoked (uttered) over a person who is being baptized. That, my friends, is another
form of LEGALISM.

This form of LEGALISM is very insidious, because they would say that they are not really
denying the NAME! But they are.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Invoking (ask for, request, invite for the NAME) began in Genesis 4:26, when
righteous men desired to know God's NAME.

Today, we know "...the NAME that is above every name that is named..."; so we
invoke (call upon, proclaim, say aloud) the NAME when we pray, worship, preach,
baptize, etc. The only people I know that are offended by the NAME are those who
said: "...let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this
NAME. And they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the
NAME of Jesus."

There are denominations that believe that "...speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance..."
is of Satan: and I perceive that such is the doctrine that would deny the NAME of Jesus to
be invoked (uttered) over a person who is being baptized. That, my friends, is another
form of LEGALISM.

This form of LEGALISM is very insidious, because they would say that they are not really
denying the NAME! But they are.

What if one of them chose a brutal death over denying the Lord?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Sean

Bro., the book of Ephesians was written to the saints, They were not considered saints until they were baptized.(Crucified with Christ).
Sinners had or have NO BUSINESS applying this book to their unbaptized lives.
You realize this right?
Ephesians is an EPISTLE to the saints right?
Saints are already born again right?
Saints are already baptized right?

What's the matter, Sean? Cat got your tongue?


You completely ignored the last line of my post....

Sean, this would include those baptized believers who were baptized by someone who needed a little more insight on how to baptize believers in accordance with God's original intention. God certainly does not count those folks to be "sinners with the Holy Ghost."

So I was not including unbaptized people in my argument. You cannot run and hide now.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Originalist

What if one of them chose a brutal death over denying the Lord?

amen--and how do you define this "speaking in tongues..." part? Meaning that someone who isn't comfortable with the glossololia practiced today isn't necessarily denying tongues altogether...