Official Stance of UPC?

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Sam

Hey, if you want to see where the idea came from that born of water in John 3:5 means water baptism, look at the notes in a Douay Roman Catholic Bible. There Bishop Challoner (1691-1781) says, "By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism...." And, not only does that teaching have the imprimatur of Bernardus Cardinalis Griffen and publication of the London Catholic Truth Society, it has the concurrence of David Bernard and the hollow echo of several Oneness Pentecostal teachers and preachers and wannabe's.

Right on, Jim.
People that insist that they are saved AFTER they are baptized deny that faith alone can save them. It is actually a hardline oneness denominational position. That's right, denominational...

Which takes me in a different direction, but still related to UPC stances. In the past I have heard the claim of hardline oneness (such as believe in water baptism as necessary for salvation) preachers that "We are the root, and NOT the branches" who then go on to say that there has "Always been a Jesus' name baptizing, Holy Ghost filled church..." as if there is a lineage all the way back to the apostles. (This isn't only UPC folk, but they are one that comes to mind.) To say "we are the root and not one of the branches" is to make a claim on ALL truth! These are also the ones that preach the water and Spirit New Birth. The lineage claim is ridiculous; it's a grab for unentitled authority to speak outside of the Text concerning "apostolic" doctrine.

The requirement for water baptism IN ORDER to be saved is foolish. People have been taught it for so long that they actually believe it to be the gospel and have left Jesus in the dust (actually in the water ).

Interesting that some of the founders of the "United" Pentecostal Church (Howard Goss, for instance) called baptist ministers brothers in the Lord.
We've "come a long way, Baby"!


Sorry about the sedgeway!

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Sabby

Interesting that some of the founders of the "United" Pentecostal Church (Howard Goss, for instance) called baptist ministers brothers in the Lord.
We've "come a long way, Baby"!

and just to mention that some of those founding fathers did not want to re baptize anyone who had already been baptized as well

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Pendragon

I still don't see Romans 6 being addressed. ...

Not everyone believes the "baptism" spoken of in Romans 6 is the ritual but is an actual work of the Holy Spirit who places a believer into Christ and therefore the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ become a death, burial, and resurrection for or of or in the believer.

Some believe water baptism is a public burial of the old person we used to be and a public testimony that we believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and a public declaration that we are now living a new(resurrected) life since Jesus Christ has come into our heart.

Water baptism and communion are outer visible symbols of something deeper that has happened in the life of a believer.

I'm not proposing this as a debate or looking for an argument.
I realize there are different opinions among Christians on things like this.
Some people are more ritualistic or sacramental.

[Sabby]

[QUOTE=acerrak;1071090]and just to mention that some of those founding fathers did not want to re baptize anyone who had already been baptized as well[/QUOTE/]

@Ace, true that.

If people would stop, forget everything their preacher or bible college instructor has told them about John 3, and read it FOR THEMSELVES they would be able to see it pretty clearly...
They've become as inflexible as any denomination, including the RCC.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sabby

.... In the past I have heard the claim of hardline oneness (such as believe in water baptism as necessary for salvation) preachers that "We are the root, and NOT the branches" who then go on to say that there has "Always been a Jesus' name baptizing, Holy Ghost filled church..." as if there is a lineage all the way back to the apostles....

That has been discussed on this board before and the book which many have based that belief on has been exposed as being based on faulty research if not outright fraud. I don't think anyone takes that book seriously any more. I think it's more wishful thinking than anything else.

When I joined a Baptist church back in 1955 I was given a booklet that traced the Baptist church back to the Apostles and it showed an unbroken line of people preaching basic Baptist doctrine from the days of the Apostles until now. So we OP's don't hold an exclusive franchise on propaganda like that.

[Pendragon]

Originally Posted by Sam

Not everyone believes the "baptism" spoken of in Romans 6 is the ritual but is an actual work of the Holy Spirit who places a believer into Christ and therefore the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ become a death, burial, and resurrection for or of or in the believer.

Some believe water baptism is a public burial of the old person we used to be and a public testimony that we believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and a public declaration that we are now living a new(resurrected) life since Jesus Christ has come into our heart.

Water baptism and communion are outer visible symbols of something deeper that has happened in the life of a believer.

I'm not proposing this as a debate or looking for an argument.
I realize there are different opinions among Christians on things like this.
Some people are more ritualistic or sacramental.

Acts 19

1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

So in Acts 19 Paul asks the believers whose baptism they received, to which they reply 'John's'. Obviously when he said 'baptism' they knew he meant being dunked in the water by John. So the word 'baptized' in verse 5, is that a different kind of baptism? According to Strongs, they are not.

And then we have Paul talking to the church in Rome:

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

The words 'baptized' in Romans 6:3 are also the same words in Strongs as they are in Acts 19. It's very clear that Paul meant to immerse in water in both Acts 19 and Romans 6. Whether or not you feel this is a 'ritual' (or that a 'ritual' is a bad thing) has no bearing on the words of the scripture.

Those who deny baptism is a necessary step in the plan of salvation are using definitions that are different from what the writers of those verses intended. Seems to me that although '3-steppers' are in the minority, we are at least following the correct instruction of scripture.

[sbo1971]

I think some of you on here have lost it, if I understand you correctly then only a person that is born natural birth can be saved, so what happens to a baby that is killed in the womb along with the mother in say; a car wreck? OOPS you cant be saved since you were not born and died in the womb? What about Jesus saying that He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED, what did you do just throw that away since is doenst agree with your ideology? Why would I want to read a Catholic Bible to disprove something, you might as well go ahead and read the Quran, or maybe the book of Mormon, better yet try the Atheist I'm sure they have a book for you.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Acts 19

1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

So in Acts 19 Paul asks the believers whose baptism they received, to which they reply 'John's'. Obviously when he said 'baptism' they knew he meant being dunked in the water by John. So the word 'baptized' in verse 5, is that a different kind of baptism? According to Strongs, they are not.

And then we have Paul talking to the church in Rome:

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

The words 'baptized' in Romans 6:3 are also the same words in Strongs as they are in Acts 19. It's very clear that Paul meant to immerse in water in both Acts 19 and Romans 6. Whether or not you feel this is a 'ritual' (or that a 'ritual' is a bad thing) has no bearing on the words of the scripture.

Those who deny baptism is a necessary step in the plan of salvation are using definitions that are different from what the writers of those verses intended. Seems to me that although '3-steppers' are in the minority, we are at least following the correct instruction of scripture.

Good post!

[NorCal]

The problem is, people only see what they want to see. That's is why I emphatically say you must take all scripture at equal value. The "Direct" words of Jesus are just as equal as any other scripture (As they are second hand writings anyways) for "All Scripture is given by inspiration."

Paul told us in Hebrews, why re-lay the foundation of what has already been established by Christ. Proclaimed by Peter. Preached by Paul.

1) Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2) Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3) And this will we do, if God permit.

So according to Paul, there are 2 Baptisms. Water and Spirit. He preached what Christ preached. He preached what Peter preached.

The problem with non 3 steppers, is they are trying to find the minimum to be saved. Why would you do that? That is very dangerous territory.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by NorCal

The problem is, people only see what they want to see. That's is why I emphatically say you must take all scripture at equal value. The "Direct" words of Jesus are just as equal as any other scripture (As they are second hand writings anyways) for "All Scripture is given by inspiration."

Paul told us in Hebrews, why relay the foundation of what has already been established by Christ. Proclaimed by Peter. Preached by Paul.

1) Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2) Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3) And this will we do, if God permit.

So according to Paul, there are 2 Baptisms. Water and Spirit. He preached what Christ preached. He preached what Peter preached.

Hear, Hear!!!!