For those that left the UPC...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Right. So no matter the formula or method use, baptism means nothing unless the person being baptized believes.

I wasn't speaking about a formula, method, words, water. I simply asked why would a non-believer want to be baptized?

Originally Posted by missourimary;
whoops, where did those come from? As I noted and you agreed, it would be ludicrous to baptize a non-believer. There is no power in the water or the words. We use water in obedience and as a symbol. The same may be said of any words spoken.

I didn't say it would be ludicrous to baptize a non-believer. It's getting hard to post with you because you keep saying I am saying something that I never say. And you keep saying that I "agreed". I wish you would allow me to say when I really do agree.

I said, "Why would a non-believer want to be baptized?" That's all I said, nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by missourimary;
You still can't tell me that Saul got a revelation and describe that by John 1 and 1 John 1, PO. You jumped topics in midstream, starting with baptism, then Saul on Damascus road, skipping to a general explanation of oneness using John 1 and 1 John 1, and ending on what was apparently to you an emotional high, but still not a solid explanation of anything. If you'd followed through with "who art thou, Lord?" and gone from there to describe the NT authors' concept of oneness or baptism, your explanation would have been much more solid.

You misunderstood what I said in Post 530. If you re-read that, you will see that I am speaking of Saul's words in Acts 22:16 as relating to the same wording in Acts 2:21. Calling on the "name of the Lord" would be identifying with who God was, which was very important to Saul. That is why he was persecuting the church. He believed in one God not identifying Jesus as being God in flesh.

You keep insisting that I am saying that Saul received his revelation of one God from John 1 and I John 1. That is not what I said. If you read it again, you see that I referenced how the Hebrew interprets Genesis 1:1 in the understanding of one God and creator. Saul understood this. I also referenced John 1 and I John 1 because it is beautiful how it identifies with Genesis 1.

Because we were discussing what Acts 22:16 was possibly saying, along with some agreeing that baptizing in the FS&HG was acceptable, I ended by saying:

Originally posted by Pressing-On;
To overlook the glory of this revelation and say that it's okay to baptize in the FS&HG is to not recognize the powerful, wonderful and majestic truth of who God is and what He has done.

This is what Saul experienced on the road to Damascus and he never looked back! Glory to God!!!!! He perfectly understood what Ananias was instructing him to do - Call on His name, believe in His name - God Almighty - God manifested in the flesh - Jesus Christ.

Matthew 28:19 are very powerful words and a revelation of Jesus Christ. It is not a baptismal formula. Never has been, never will be.

And I'm sorry that my - what you term "an emotional high" seemed to bother you. I call it being excited about what I read in the Word. I hope I don't ever lose that. It makes me want to shout - Hallelujah!

Originally posted by missourimary;
I just wouldn't be too quick to condemn those who were baptized using a different wording than your favorite.

So, you weren't going to answer my question? Are you saying that being immersed in water is "calling on the name of the Lord"? No words necessary?

Originally Posted by missourimary;
Lets try this from a different angle. The principles of our constitution were present before the document was drafted. However, if Jefferson had said something in, say, 1771, we couldn't possibly say he was referencing the Constitution. It hadn't been drafted. He may have been voicing the concepts that were later solidified by the Constitution, but he couldn't have referenced the Constitution, itself. Nor could we take what was said and back it, in historical context, with the Constitution, because again it had not yet been drafted.

But that is really beside the point of the main discussion. I do the same thing sometimes. It's easy to do when a person is very familiar with their topic. Just something to watch in any sort of discussion.

The Word of God was in the beginning. A little different than a secular piece of literature. Nice analogy, but we are talking about the Word of God and not the Constitution. The fact is, everything is written out for us to see. It all correlates and so we know that ALL of the Apostles understood what was going on. They wrote about it all, after the fact.

Now, I stand on believing that Ananias knew exactly what he was telling Saul and was referencing Acts 2:21 even though it was not written, as yet, in script. Apparently Ananias and Saul were familiar with the wording/teaching in Acts 2:21 or they wouldn't have used it. That is a prime example of why it was not necessary to have it written down at the time. Most of the Acts of the Apostles were a done deal before any of it was written. The difference between the Constitution and the Word of God is that His Word was forever settled in heaven. The Constitution was and is not. Now we have the NT written and it perfectly fits with the prophecy of the OT.

Now, I'm wondering why you left this portion off and didn't respond to it. I'll bump it again.

Originally Posted by missourimary

I never said Paul said the words. I stated on several occasions that he called on the name of Jesus not by his words, but by his actions, in submitting to baptism. It is through baptism that we proclaim who Jesus is and what he did for us. Thus by our actions we "call on the name of Jesus", not by any words.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I can see what you are saying, but I'm reading where Peter looks at the lame man at the gate beautiful and says, "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk" (Acts 3:6)

And in Acts 16:18, Paul turned to the damsel who had a spirit of divination and says, to the spirit, "I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her."

It appears to me that the verbal use of Jesus' name was important. That makes me think that it is also important in baptism.

[jfrog]

I like Mary's explanation that calling on the name of Jesus is done by the act of being baptized and not by the words spoken during baptism.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And I'm sorry that my - what you term "an emotional high" seemed to bother you. I call it being excited about what I read in the Word. I hope I don't ever lose that. It makes me want to shout - Hallelujah!

Emotional highs don't bother me. I just like them grounded in logic... and prefer them not to be in the middle of a discussion. If you disagreed with someone on something, and they suddenly switched from a logical discussion to an ecstatic explanation of something that was related but not on topic, would you feel they were perhaps ignoring you or trying to avoid the subject? Maybe not, but sometimes I do.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

So, you weren't going to answer my question? Are you saying that being immersed in water is "calling on the name of the Lord"? No words necessary?

I did answer your question.
I think the words are nice, but not nearly as needful as we so often emphasize.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Now, I stand on believing that Ananias knew exactly what he was telling Saul and was referencing Acts 2:21 even though it was not written, as yet, in script. Apparently Ananias and Saul were familiar with the wording/teaching in Acts 2:21 or they wouldn't have used it. That is a prime example of why it was not necessary to have it written down at the time.

I don't think that Ananias referenced Acts 2:21. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

[missourimary]

In answer to the other question, I didn't ignore it. I read it and chose not to respond, because there are too many ways I can argue this. I didn't know where to start.

Originally Posted by missourimary
I never said Paul said the words. I stated on several occasions that he called on the name of Jesus not by his words, but by his actions, in submitting to baptism. It is through baptism that we proclaim who Jesus is and what he did for us. Thus by our actions we "call on the name of Jesus", not by any words.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On
I can see what you are saying, but I'm reading where Peter looks at the lame man at the gate beautiful and says, "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk" (Acts 3:6)

And in Acts 16:18, Paul turned to the damsel who had a spirit of divination and says, to the spirit, "I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her."

It appears to me that the verbal use of Jesus' name was important. That makes me think that it is also important in baptism.

In both the verses that you list, a Christian is speaking to a non-believer. If they had not said by whose authority they were healed/delivered, the unbeliever (and other unbelievers standing around) might well have thought that Peter/Paul was doing these great things by their own power.

We baptize people who believe. They know Who they are believing in, and Who has the power to cleanse them. They have already expressed faith in Jesus by their desire to be baptized. If we say "I baptize you in Jesus name", it is for those in the audience who do NOT believe, not for the sake of the believer. It is a testimony to the unbelievers of the power of God and gives them an audible evidence of what the baptism is for.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I like Mary's explanation that calling on the name of Jesus is done by the act of being baptized and not by the words spoken during baptism.

Thanks, Jfrog.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by missourimary

In answer to the other question, I didn't ignore it. I read it and chose not to respond, because there are too many ways I can argue this. I didn't know where to start.

In both the verses that you list, a Christian is speaking to a non-believer. If they had not said by whose authority they were healed/delivered, the unbeliever (and other unbelievers standing around) might well have thought that Peter/Paul was doing these great things by their own power.

Right. So, being silent in baptism would give the same impression, IMO.

Why would Paul say what he did here if nothing was said at all?

"Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (I Cor 1:13)

We baptize people who believe. They know Who they are believing in, and Who has the power to cleanse them. They have already expressed faith in Jesus by their desire to be baptized. If we say "I baptize you in Jesus name", it is for those in the audience who do NOT believe, not for the sake of the believer. It is a testimony to the unbelievers of the power of God and gives them an audible evidence of what the baptism is for.

So, you are now saying that words are spoken?

I'm thinking of the passage in Colossians 3:17 "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

It appears that his name is very important and I can't find where not uttering that name is a very solid view of the scriptures.

I'm also thinking of James 5:14 "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:"

If they anointed with oil and nothing was said, it would be like you were mentioning above, unbelievers or anyone standing around might get the impression they were doing these acts by their own power.

So, I don't think there is solid evidence that nothing is uttered during baptism. That's all I have time for today.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by missourimary

How is that not biblical, OneFaith2? It may cross many peoples' perceptions of the interpretation of a few verses, but the context does have strong scriptural basis.

We choose to be baptized. By being baptized, WE are putting on Christ. We are demonstrating His death, burial and resurrection by being baptized by immersion. We are proclaiming His name and what He has done, identifying with Him through baptism.

Gal 3:23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

INTO Christ. Not by a pronouncement over us by another person, but INTO Him, by faith. How? By baptism itself, not a series of words spoken.

Co 2:12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Rom 6:3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Again in both these passages the act of baptism, not a series of words, identifies us with Jesus.

1Cor 10:1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
How were they baptized UNTO Moses? Not by someone pronouncing "In the name of Moses" over them as they passed through the sea, but by their faith in walking through on dry land.

Even 1 Cor 1:10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. ...13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Is, according to commentaries http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-13.htm (see lower part of the page) discussing that people are baptized INTO someone's name to profess becoming followers of that person, and that Paul was making the point that he didn't baptize them nor did he make them his own followers, but Christ's. This passage could be brought to the unstated conclusion that since they were not baptized in the name of Paul, they were baptized into a name, and that name would have been Jesus', or it could mean that Paul did not make disciples for himself, but of Jesus. Jesus died for them, and it is Him they should follow, not dividing the body of Christ with disputes, not following various leaders, but following the One who died for them and they pledged to serve by their baptism.

The entire history of baptism indicates to be baptized in the name of requires some type of formula or wording. whether it was the shorter formula first (indicated by Encyclopedia Briattanica) or the latter triune formula, to be baptized INTO something required a formula that is spoken.

The reason i am saying it is unbiblical for you to say that, is that calling on the name of the Lord was commanded in Acts 22:16 connected with the rite of baptism. If we did not have an example of what being baptized into a name was (hence an action only could be applied) then the view you have stated would definitely be probable. But history does record otherwise and hence we must take what the apostles layed out for us. It therefore was not action only but in word and in deed

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Right. So, being silent in baptism would give the same impression, IMO.

Why would Paul say what he did here if nothing was said at all?

"Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (I Cor 1:13)



So, you are now saying that words are spoken?

I'm thinking of the passage in Colossians 3:17 "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

It appears that his name is very important and I can't find where not uttering that name is a very solid view of the scriptures.

I'm also thinking of James 5:14 "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:"

If they anointed with oil and nothing was said, it would be like you were mentioning above, unbelievers or anyone standing around might get the impression they were doing these acts by their own power.

So, I don't think there is solid evidence that nothing is uttered during baptism. That's all I have time for today.

Yes and even in exorcism, the name is proclaimed to the removal of evils spirits, people are healed with the pronounciation of the name of Jesus verbally.

None of these were done in silence. Calling on the name of the Lord has always been essential and according to Acts 22:16, that is also connected in baptism.

Hence when Jesus commanded to baptize in the name of, and Peter said, be baptized every one of you, there was a certain type of formula to be used.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I like Mary's explanation that calling on the name of Jesus is done by the act of being baptized and not by the words spoken during baptism.

I do too, but its not biblically or historically accurate. Thats the problem we run into.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Right. So, being silent in baptism would give the same impression, IMO.

Why would Paul say what he did here if nothing was said at all?

"Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (I Cor 1:13)

I answered this question earlier:

Originally Posted by missourimary

Even 1 Cor 1:10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. ...13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Is, according to commentaries http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-13.htm (see lower part of the page) discussing that people are baptized INTO someone's name to profess becoming followers of that person, and that Paul was making the point that he didn't baptize them nor did he make them his own followers, but Christ's. This passage could be brought to the unstated conclusion that since they were not baptized in the name of Paul, they were baptized into a name, and that name would have been Jesus', or it could mean that Paul did not make disciples for himself, but of Jesus. Jesus died for them, and it is Him they should follow, not dividing the body of Christ with disputes, not following various leaders, but following the One who died for them and they pledged to serve by their baptism.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

So, you are now saying that words are spoken?

PO, I said "If words are spoken", not that they must be or that a certain phraseology needs to be used.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm thinking of the passage in Colossians 3:17 "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

So every time you make a pot of coffee or drop an egg in a skillet or take a step, you say the words "in the name of Jesus"? There is no need to. The verse in Colossians isn't talking about saying "in Jesus name" with every movement we make, but reminding us that we should represent Jesus in all we do.

The phrase "In the name of Jesus", BTW, often means "by the power or authority of Jesus". It reminds us to behave in a manner that represents Him, not simply to say we are, but to DO it.
12Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; 13Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. 14And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. 15And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. 16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

v17 isn't telling people how to cast out devils or heal the sick. The verse, in context, is telling people how to live-as representatives of the One who saved them, in love.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It appears that his name is very important and I can't find where not uttering that name is a very solid view of the scriptures.

I'm also thinking of James 5:14 "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:"

If they anointed with oil and nothing was said, it would be like you were mentioning above, unbelievers or anyone standing around might get the impression they were doing these acts by their own power.

So, I don't think there is solid evidence that nothing is uttered during baptism. That's all I have time for today.

You are not comprehending what I'm saying, and I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than I have. I am not saying that nothing should be uttered at baptism, but that what is said over us at baptism doesn't hold nearly as much importance as we might think, because what is said is not God's focus. The heart of the convert, calling on Him and responding to His call, is.