I assume you're asking if someone doesn't have another man perform the baptismal ritual properly (whatever proper means) on behalf of the baptizee would they go to hell.
The answer is of course not.
I again assume that you're asking if redemption by the blood of Jesus Christ unto an individual hinges on the performance of the preacher during baptism, the answer is no. Redemption doesn't come through the sinner's confession + another man's performance during baptism + Jesus Christ's finished work on behalf of that individual. That's placing another man's 'righteous' work between the individual and God instead of accepting that there is only one who is the mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ.
Yes. But baptism isn't essential to redemption. There is a difference between redemption, reconciliation and salvation. In other words, a person does not have to be baptized to go to heaven but must be baptized to enter into a covenantial relationship with God through identification with Jesus Christ which is a part of salvation.
We are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb....has nothing to do with baptism.
Mark 16:16
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
John 1:10-13
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
vs 34-36 34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
This thread certainly has showed where people really stand on doctrine.
If one doesn't not believe Jesus Name baptism is the only correct method of baptism & essential to the salvation plan....
-to quote a friend "They are as lost as two boys kissing"
This thread certainly has showed where people really stand on doctrine.
If one doesn't not believe Jesus Name baptism is the only correct method of baptism & essential to the salvation plan....
-to quote a friend "They are as lost as two boys kissing"
Now let me get this straight. Over someone's baptism, if the preacher says "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", it won't work?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Now let me get this straight. Over someone's baptism, if the preacher says "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", it won't work?
would work just as well as me calling information looking for my father and asking the operator for the number to my father, and son, and car salesman. I know what his name is....why not say it?
Now let me get this straight. Over someone's baptism, if the preacher says "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", it won't work?
Correct, It would be an unBiblical baptism, therefore invalid...! Glad to see someone still holds on to Biblical truths!
To do something "in the name of" someone is to be an agent of that person. You are authorized to act on his behalf. If the Oneness tenet is correct that Jesus is the name of the Father and is the name of the Son and is the name of the Holy Ghost, then you guys are correct that baptizing in Jesus' name is the same (i.e., is obeying the command) as baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. But then, it would also be correct (i.e., it is also obeying the command) to say the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". If one is right, they are both right.
Personally, I find it really hard to believe that God is confused about who the preacher means if he lists the "offices" instead of says the name "Jesus". I think He's smarter than that.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
BTW, are there Trinitarians who think a baptism where the name Jesus is used, and not the "titles", would not work? In my 50 years in the AG, I can't say I recall the issue ever coming up.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
To do something "in the name of" someone is to be an agent of that person. You are authorized to act on his behalf. If the Oneness tenet is correct that Jesus is the name of the Father and is the name of the Son and is the name of the Holy Ghost, then you guys are correct that baptizing in Jesus' name is the same (i.e., is obeying the command) as baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. But then, it would also be correct (i.e., it is also obeying the command) to say the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". If one is right, they are both right.
Personally, I find it really hard to believe that God is confused about who the preacher means if he lists the "offices" instead of says the name "Jesus". I think He's smarter than that.
Few issues here, first of all it has nothing to do with him being confused. Its about us understanding that it's the authority of his Name that brings about the remissions of sins when baptized.
Even in the modern world, when signing a legal paper... its the authority of the name singed that makes it valid! IF the district attorney were to sign a paper as "From District Attorney" it wouldn't be valid without the name.
Jesus expected his disciples to DO what he said, not repeat it. They had enough sense to understand what he meant when he said "in the NAME" thats why you don't find one place in the Bible where anyone was baptized in titles. There is no power in a Title...
But the Name of Jesus.. which is the only name under Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved, is how everyone was Baptized...
Any way other then that is invalid, powerless, & not obeying the word!
Are you looking solely to Jesus' sacrifice and work for redemption or to a combination of having faith in another another man's performance and 'righteous' acts on your behalf plus Jesus?
Linear Mode
