Formula - Page 4

Joseph Miller · #31 10-23-2007, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

I love my trini friends but I could never regularly attend a trini church.
The oneness revelation is too deep inside me, I love them but there are some things deep in my heart of hearts.

AMEN!!!

mizpeh · #32 10-23-2007, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost

I bet it's going to be really embarrassing to folks who realize they missed heaven because they weren't baptized in Jesus name. And all because they thought baptism was out-dated or weren't willing to be inconvenienced for two or three minutes.

Even Naaman had the "embarrassing inconvenience" of dipping seven times in a dirty River Jordan. Yet his simple obedience resulted in his complete wholeness. If he had refused, he would have left a leper.

Lu 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Joseph Miller · #33 10-23-2007, 12:34 PM

If having faith toward God at your baptism was all there was to it, why did the disciples of John HAVE to be re-baptized? I assure you that when they were baptized the first time they were wanting to please God. So if they had faith in God and wanted to please God they should have been ok.

The problem is this, it is NOT an outdated ritual or inconvience. It is a matter of salvation. How it is done is a matter of salvation. Acts 4:12 still says that neither is salvation in any other, for there is NO other name (or title) under heaven given among men where by we must be saved. Titles won't work because there is no power in calling his titles, it must be the name.

As far as the formula posted in the start of this thread, I am not comfortable with it. Mattew 28:19 is not a formula to be repeated it is a command to be obeyed. The only way to obey it is to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Jesus is the name of the Father. Jesus in the name of the Son. Jesus is the name of the Holy Ghost. Jesus is still the only saving name.

tbpew · #34 10-23-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Miller

If having faith toward God at your baptism was all there was to it, why did the disciples of John HAVE to be re-baptized? I assure you that when they were baptized the first time they were wanting to please God. So if they had faith in God and wanted to please God they should have been ok.

The problem is this, it is NOT an outdated ritual or inconvience. It is a matter of salvation. How it is done is a matter of salvation. Acts 4:12 still says that neither is salvation in any other, for there is NO other name (or title) under heaven given among men where by we must be saved. Titles won't work because there is no power in calling his titles, it must be the name.

As far as the formula posted in the start of this thread, I am not comfortable with it. Mattew 28:19 is not a formula to be repeated it is a command to be obeyed. The only way to obey it is to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Jesus is the name of the Father. Jesus in the name of the Son. Jesus is the name of the Holy Ghost. Jesus is still the only saving name.

J.M.
if any of your post is in response to my posts, please know that I am in absolute agreement with the need for our faith to be in completed work of our Lord and saviour, Jesus.

My points (in the event your post involves any of them), was an attempt to redirect the principle discussion back to the faith of the person seeking the waters of baptism and not the faciliator.

Nahum · #35 10-23-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Miller

If having faith toward God at your baptism was all there was to it, why did the disciples of John HAVE to be re-baptized? I assure you that when they were baptized the first time they were wanting to please God. So if they had faith in God and wanted to please God they should have been ok.

The problem is this, it is NOT an outdated ritual or inconvience. It is a matter of salvation. How it is done is a matter of salvation. Acts 4:12 still says that neither is salvation in any other, for there is NO other name (or title) under heaven given among men where by we must be saved. Titles won't work because there is no power in calling his titles, it must be the name.

As far as the formula posted in the start of this thread, I am not comfortable with it. Mattew 28:19 is not a formula to be repeated it is a command to be obeyed. The only way to obey it is to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Jesus is the name of the Father. Jesus in the name of the Son. Jesus is the name of the Holy Ghost. Jesus is still the only saving name.

Very well said.

Jack Shephard · #36 10-23-2007, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Miller

If having faith toward God at your baptism was all there was to it, why did the disciples of John HAVE to be re-baptized? I assure you that when they were baptized the first time they were wanting to please God. So if they had faith in God and wanted to please God they should have been ok.

The problem is this, it is NOT an outdated ritual or inconvience. It is a matter of salvation. How it is done is a matter of salvation. Acts 4:12 still says that neither is salvation in any other, for there is NO other name (or title) under heaven given among men where by we must be saved. Titles won't work because there is no power in calling his titles, it must be the name.

As far as the formula posted in the start of this thread, I am not comfortable with it. Mattew 28:19 is not a formula to be repeated it is a command to be obeyed. The only way to obey it is to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Jesus is the name of the Father. Jesus in the name of the Son. Jesus is the name of the Holy Ghost. Jesus is still the only saving name.

Brother you do know that Matthew 28:20 says, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen"

And in verse 18 it says, "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given to unto me in heaven and in earth."

If Jesus admonishes the eleven to do something you can rest assure He means for them to do it. You are right it is a command to follow, but how is there any harm in saying the very words of Jesus?

Joseph Miller · #37 10-23-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbpew

J.M.
if any of your post is in response to my posts, please know that I am in absolute agreement with the need for our faith to be in completed work of our Lord and saviour, Jesus.

My points (in the event your post involves any of them), was an attempt to redirect the principle discussion back to the faith of the person seeking the waters of baptism and not the faciliator.

It was in response to this entire thread that is what I didn't quote anyone.

Joseph Miller · #38 10-23-2007, 06:32 PM

Does any have anything to add to this thread?

Nahum · #39 10-23-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Miller

Does any have anything to add to this thread?

Nope.

You pretty much nailed it.

pelathais · #40 10-23-2007, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

There are lots of folks on AFF that view baptism that way. It's nothing more to them than an embarrassing inconvenient tradition.

Has anyone expressed it in those terms? I'm curious to see the justification for such a position.

Personally I've never seen anyone say anything like that before.