Water Baptism

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

As I have noted throughout the thread - the one who truly believes, repents and is baptized calling on the name of the Lord is the one who will have his sins remitted.

Well, yes... BUT... I have been trying to find out whether or not you included those who have received what they refer to as Believer's Baptism, having believed they already had salvation going into the waters of baptism. In my experience, most CofCers exclude those whose faith didn't specifically include baptism. (Hence, the Exclusive and Inclusive nomenclature.) Surely you recognize this difference, even in your caution of expression to preserve truth.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Poll Summary (so far):

Baptismal Regeneration: Catholics

Essential Baptism: Restoration Churches (split between 2 flavors)

Believer's Baptism: Majority of Mainline Protestants


I'm sure a few have a type of Non-Baptism view, if it had been included. No real surprises here.

The "issue" continues to be whether Essential Baptizers include or exclude Believer's Baptism as salvific. There continues to be a paradoxical relation between Inclusive Essential and Believer's Baptism.

Nobody seems concerned in the least about excluding invocation of the actual literal vowels/consonants/syllables name of Jesus Christ.

[RabbiKnife]

Maybe because "Jesus Christ" is not a name, but a combination of the anglicized Jewish non-patronymic portion of the name given to the theoanthropos and a Greek title descriptor...

[RabbiKnife]

PPS...

I know you don't believe the claim that the invocation of the syllables of the anglicized "Jesus" or "Jeshua" or "Joshua" or "Y'shua" or however you want to pronounce it has an inherent power in terms of prayer...Said another way, praying "in Jesus' name" is not a magical or spiritual incantation, because as we all know, I can claim all sorts of things by reciting "in Jesus' name" and nothing happens. (RABBIT TRAIL...one of my favorite activities when I lived in Tulsa was going down to the casino and watching people rub the face of the slot machines and say "I decree Triple Seven's in the name of Jesus." Used to crack me up. OK, end of trail.)

So, it is your position that there is something efficacious in a recitation of "in Jesus' name" or "in the name of Jesus" as applied to water baptism?

If so, why the disparity?

[BroRog]

Well Technically Jesus did not say the thief was saved, or his sins were forgiven.

Technically, the same could be said for the rest of us. Think about it. We all want that assurance. But none of us is given that assurance. I never heard a voice from heaven saying, "brorog, you are saved." I don't think any of us have. We are drawn, in large part I think, to ritual experessions of the faith such as baptism because we hope to find assurance of our status before God in them. It's a trap though -- a trap that caught the Pharisees and a trap that can catch us too if we aren't careful.

[Slug1]

Technically, the same could be said for the rest of us. Think about it. We all want that assurance. But none of us is given that assurance. I never heard a voice from heaven saying, "brorog, you are saved." I don't think any of us have. We are drawn, in large part I think, to ritual experessions of the faith such as baptism because we hope to find assurance of our status before God in them. It's a trap though -- a trap that caught the Pharisees and a trap that can catch us too if we aren't careful.

I've asked God about an assurance of salvation. I bet all Christians do once during their relationship... during those trials where God is silent and we seek Him more than we may normally seek Him on a daily basis.

When I did, I was led to this scripture:

Romans 8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

Somewhere on this board I have the testimony or post about when God led me to the scripture... maybe in a blog?? Anyway, we will know as His Spirit will let us know, who and what we are to Him.

[BroRog]

I've asked God about an assurance of salvation. I bet all Christians do once during their relationship... during those trials where God is silent and we seek Him more than we may normally seek Him on a daily basis.

When I did, I was led to this scripture:

Romans 8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

Somewhere on this board I have the testimony or post about when God led me to the scripture... maybe in a blog?? Anyway, we will know as His Spirit will let us know, who and what we are to Him.

Real good point. Nothing in that scripture even hints at ritual practices such as baptism.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Maybe because "Jesus Christ" is not a name, but a combination of the anglicized Jewish non-patronymic portion of the name given to the theoanthropos and a Greek title descriptor...

Finally! I was having severe withdrawal symptoms without such relevant verbosity.

A partially good point, to be sure. Jesus is certainly a name, with Christ delineating "which" Jesus (versus, say, Jesus Barabbas).

PPS...
I know you don't believe the claim that the invocation of the syllables of the anglicized "Jesus" or "Jeshua" or "Joshua" or "Y'shua" or however you want to pronounce it has an inherent power in terms of prayer...Said another way, praying "in Jesus' name" is not a magical or spiritual incantation, because as we all know, I can claim all sorts of things by reciting "in Jesus' name" and nothing happens. (RABBIT TRAIL...one of my favorite activities when I lived in Tulsa was going down to the casino and watching people rub the face of the slot machines and say "I decree Triple Seven's in the name of Jesus." Used to crack me up. OK, end of trail.)

So, it is your position that there is something efficacious in a recitation of "in Jesus' name" or "in the name of Jesus" as applied to water baptism?

If so, why the disparity?

Actually, I do always pray in the literal name of Jesus. I'm not talking about rote and ritual; for me it is relational. I don't use invocation of His name as a superfluous suffix, but I always include it.

Every Scriptural reference to baptism, whether giving or receiving it, includes doing so "in the name". Of all the terms utilized, only Jesus is actually a name. I don't perceive the use of the Greek onoma to merely indicate "in/by the authority of".

Obviously, this understanding is somewhat of a package deal with my non-trinity Divinity view; and dissuading others from orthodox Divinity belief ain't happenin' any more than me being persuaded that God is "person(s)" of some quantity.

I think there is significance in the literal vowels/consonants name of Jesus. Obviously, others disagree. I'm not trying to proselyte or indoctrinate. I don't think most really give this much thought beyond tradition, though.

I'll step out back; please use big rocks for a swift and merciful end.

[losthorizon]

Well, yes... BUT... I have been trying to find out whether or not you included those who have received what they refer to as Believer's Baptism, having believed they already had salvation going into the waters of baptism.

Well – I have answered the question more than once – not sure where your hesitancy lies. One need not be a Christian theologian in order to be scripturally baptized into Christ for the remission of sins. I think the eunuch of Acts chapter 8 is a good example – he heard “Christ preached” and realized he was required to be baptized in water. He confessed Christ as instructed by the evangelist and was immersed in water for the remission of sins. Whether or not he fully understood the doctrine of Christian baptism as presented in the NT is immaterial – his sins were remitted when he obeyed from the heart the gospel message.

In my experience, most CofCers exclude those whose faith didn't specifically include baptism. (Hence, the Exclusive and Inclusive nomenclature.) Surely you recognize this difference, even in your caution of expression to preserve truth

I know a fair amount of “CofCers” and I will respectfully disagree. Most I know would agree with my evaluation above.

Surely you recognize this difference, even in your caution of expression to preserve truth.

I recognize the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 as the one baptism applicable to all believers and that one baptism is the ordinance instituted by the Lord. I find no need to devise confusing nomenclature as noted earlier on this thread.

[losthorizon]

Every Scriptural reference to baptism, whether giving or receiving it, includes doing so "in the name". Of all the terms utilized, only Jesus is actually a name. I don't perceive the use of the Greek onoma to merely indicate "in/by the authority of"

I would say "in/by the authority of" Jesus Christ is the correct understanding unless one holds a non-Trinitarian view of the Godhead and is trying to proselytize.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well – I have answered the question more than once – not sure where your hesitancy lies. One need not be a Christian theologian in order to be scripturally baptized into Christ for the remission of sins. I think the eunuch of Acts chapter 8 is a good example – he heard “Christ preached” and realized he was required to be baptized in water. He confessed Christ as instructed by the evangelist and was immersed in water for the remission of sins. Whether or not he fully understood the doctrine of Christian baptism as presented in the NT is immaterial – his sins were remitted when he obeyed from the heart the gospel message.

It's clear now.

I know a fair amount of “CofCers” and I will respectfully disagree. Most I know would agree with my evaluation above.

That's actually quite encouraging, considering my personal experiences.

I recognize the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 as the one baptism applicable to all believers and that one baptism is the ordinance instituted by the Lord. I find no need to devise confusing nomenclature as noted earlier on this thread.

Actually, many lump Essential Baptism in with Baptismal Regeneration. These are interpretations as doctrines.

Yes, Scripture is clear there is one baptism.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I would say "in/by the authority of" Jesus Christ is the correct understanding

Of course you would. :-)

unless one holds a non-Trinitarian view of the Godhead and is trying to proselytize.

Naaaaaah. Serenity Prayer: "...accept the things you cannot change.". Nobody's budgin' 'round here.

Maybe you have some irrefutable apologetics for the trinity thread in Contro. ;-)

[RabbiKnife]

I thought Jesus played shortstop for the Cardinals....

And "Christ" is not exactly an identifier in my mind as much as a title....Jesus Barjoseph would work, but the kids in yashiva would have laughed at Jesus BarYWHW...

If the actual utterance of the sounds is significant, how do we get around linguistic issues and those who can't speak?

[John146]

I thought Jesus played shortstop for the Cardinals....

And "Christ" is not exactly an identifier in my mind as much as a title....Jesus Barjoseph would work, but the kids in yashiva would have laughed at Jesus BarYWHW...

If the actual utterance of the sounds is significant, how do we get around linguistic issues and those who can't speak?

Exactly. Can people who can't speak not baptize anyone? Of course they can. It's not speaking of it being necessary to literally utter His name, as if the one doing the baptizing has to say "I baptize you in the name of Jesus...", it's speaking of the necessity of being baptized in His honor (in honor of His name) since it symbolizes His death and resurrection. What's in the heart is what matters, not what words someone uses when doing the baptizing.

[RabbiKnife]

I will now be telepathetic.

Since, PPS did not come from a Oneness Pentecostal background (I don't believe), I predict that PPS was baptized the first time by immersion in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. (I know this because where he came from, the Holy Ghost is NEVER the Holy Spirit, He is always the Holy Ghost).

Later, PPS either studied for himself or was taught about baptism in "the name of Jesus" as being a proper baptism and that the first one in the trinitarian formula was against what they taught in Acts, which is the pattern for all NT worship and practice. So he was rebaptized, a double dunker, so to speak.

Am I close, PPS? Had a similar doctrine taught at a Tulsa church I used to attend.

If I'm wrong, then it is because I am losing my ability to be pathetic over long distances.