My Church is the Only One That is Right

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

Could it be that standards are color-coded too?

Yeah! Don't wear the red short sleeve shirt to church or church events. Make sure you wear ALL white long sleeve shirts the church and church events!

[OnTheFritz]

Originally Posted by Rico

I'm open the possibility of that being the case, but I can't say that I look at that way at this point. If the trinity folks would change how they baptize then that would definitely open the door for me. Until then, I am not comfortable with referring to them as brothers in the Lord.

If only they would read past Matthew 28:19 --- maybe they just haven't gotten to Acts yet where Matthew is clarified. Because you see, Matthew 28:19 requires INTERPRETATION. Unlike Act 2:38 which should be taken absolutely at face value, Matthew 28:19 requires you to actually go one step further and IDENTIFY the NAME of the Father, and the NAME of the Son, and the NAME of the Holy Ghost. Heaven forbid that verse be taken at face value. That would mean hell for sure.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by DerrickS

If only they would read past Matthew 28:19 --- maybe they just haven't gotten to Acts yet where Matthew is clarified. Because you see, Matthew 28:19 requires INTERPRETATION. Unlike Act 2:38 which should be taken absolutely at face value, Matthew 28:19 requires you to actually go one step further and IDENTIFY the NAME of the Father, and the NAME of the Son, and the NAME of the Holy Ghost. Heaven forbid that verse be taken at face value. That would mean hell for sure.

Derrick, it has a lot more to do with than just Acts 2:38. There are no examples of new believers being baptized using the titles in the Book of Acts. Also, it would stand to reason that the meaning of some scriptures would become clear once someone comes to a place of understanding, (revelation if it makes you feel better,) of who Jesus is.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Rico

Derrick, it has a lot more to do with than just Acts 2:38. There are no examples of new believers being baptized using the titles in the Book of Acts. Also, it would stand to reason that the meaning of some scriptures would become clear once someone comes to a place of understanding, (revelation if it makes you feel better,) of who Jesus is.

Rico,
If I, a 1-stepper, can defend you or anyother UC OP out there for their belief on standards then I can also defend trinitarians. Alot of 1-steppers see standards as not being the correct teaching or misunderstanding of scriptures. We also view the F,S,HG titles baptism the same as standards. Both are not the correct understanding of scripture based on our beliefs or at lease my beliefs. If we are to beleive that you are ok for believing standards-something not in the bible- we are to also believe that trinitarians are ok cause their belief is not in the bible either.

It comes down to a misunderstanding of scriptures on both accounts.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Rico,
If I, a 1-stepper, can defend you or anyother UC OP out there for their belief on standards then I can also defend trinitarians. Alot of 1-steppers see standards as not being the correct teaching or misunderstanding of scriptures. We also view the F,S,HG titles baptism the same as standards. Both are not the correct understanding of scripture based on our beliefs or at lease my beliefs. If we are to beleive that you are ok for believing standards-something not in the bible- we are to also believe that trinitarians are ok cause their belief is not in the bible either.

It comes down to a misunderstanding of scriptures on both accounts.

There's a big difference in misunderstanding a scripture that does not play a significant role in salvation and misunderstanding one that does. It's not the same thing, JT. Using your "standard", someone could misunderstand the need for repentance and they'd be no different from someone who understood it.

[OnTheFritz]

Originally Posted by Rico

Derrick, it has a lot more to do with than just Acts 2:38. There are no examples of new believers being baptized using the titles in the Book of Acts. Also, it would stand to reason that the meaning of some scriptures would become clear once someone comes to a place of understanding, (revelation if it makes you feel better,) of who Jesus is.

Rico, I don't understand how people honestly believe that the actual recital of the name is what has the power. Jesus has the power, not your recitation of his name. So you believe that someone with real understanding of the Godhead and the fullness of God in Christ Jesus will be penalized for not actually voicing the words? Why can't their recital of the titles be understood to mean the NAME as well. Don't you think Jesus knows their heart enough to make that leap? There are plenty of examples in the new testament where it is NOT explicit how people are baptized. It's akin to doing something in the name of America, and having to say the word America everytime you do it.

And I know this has come up before, but that means you don't think that someone without the ability to speak has the power of Jesus when performing a baptism? And people can say everything they want about exceptions and special provisions in those situations, but that doesn't cut it for me. Either it does count or it doesn't.

And as far as what I bolded.... for someone who is so cut and dry, that seems like an awful lot of justification to make it fit something you already believe. Anytime you say "it stands to reason", there is obviously some speculation on your part - wouldn't you agree?

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Rico

There's a big difference in misunderstanding a scripture that does not play a significant role in salvation and misunderstanding one that does. It's not the same thing, JT. Using your "standard", someone could misunderstand the need for repentance and they'd be no different from someone who understood it.

All I am saying is that standards to us 1-steppers is similar NOT EXACTLY THE SAME THING, similar to the titles baptism. A lot of us 1-steppers don't see standards as salvational we see it as misunderstanding of scripture. A lot of us see baptism the same way or at least I do, titles baptism is the misunderstanding of scripture too. They are not exactly equals, but they are both misunderstandings. If you or any other take the verses used to show standards then you must take them all. Can't mix fabrics and such. There would be a lot that can not be done cause of what goes along with the verses most 3-steppers use to show standards

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by 1399

Although I ill only baptize someone in the name of Jesus Christ, I don't believe this statement.

Then you don't believe the truth.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by DerrickS

Rico, I don't understand how people honestly believe that the actual recital of the name is what has the power. Jesus has the power, not your recitation of his name. So you believe that someone with real understanding of the Godhead and the fullness of God in Christ Jesus will be penalized for not actually voicing the words? Why can't their recital of the titles be understood to mean the NAME as well. Don't you think Jesus knows their heart enough to make that leap? There are plenty of examples in the new testament where it is NOT explicit how people are baptized. It's akin to doing something in the name of America, and having to say the word America everytime you do it.

And I know this has come up before, but that means you don't think that someone without the ability to speak has the power of Jesus when performing a baptism? And people can say everything they want about exceptions and special provisions in those situations, but that doesn't cut it for me. Either it does count or it doesn't.

And as far as what I bolded.... for someone who is so cut and dry, that seems like an awful lot of justification to make it fit something you already believe. Anytime you say "it stands to reason", there is obviously some speculation on your part - wouldn't you agree?

Derrick, we can go back and forth all day long when it comes to what you or I think, and it won't amount to a hill of beans. I can only go by the example laid out for me in scripture, and that example was of them using the name of Jesus when they baptized people. I don't know how to make it any more simpler than that. It's not a complicated issue for me, or something that needs analyzed in the hope of finding loopholes to avoid admitting that some people have missed the mark.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by DerrickS

Rico, I don't understand how people honestly believe that the actual recital of the name is what has the power. Jesus has the power, not your recitation of his name.

Jesus does have the power, that is why we call on His Name. When I call on Jesus, God Saves.

If we are indeed saved by grace through faith, then some thing or someone will have to be the object of that faith. For the Apostolic and the Trinitarian alike, Jesus Christ is (or should be) the object of that faith.

When we have faith in the name of Jesus, then we will follow His instructions, obey His commands. If we obey His commands, we will receive His Promises.

But the basis of our receiving is obedience. The basis of our obedience is faith. The basis of our faith is Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.