Apostolic Truth Questions

[Raven180]

Only the carnally religious people who do not have a solid relationship with Him would settle being "disobedient, lazy, wannabe believers/pretenders to the Throne".

True, but the temptation remains for all believers everywhere. If I know and think to prove to myself Scripturally, that I can live a second or third tier will of God and still be saved, that basically, I can be a B or C student/disciple and still get an A on the Final Grade, then I will be tempted to slack, with no apparent consequence since the reward is the same for me as for the A student/disciple. That is what I am seeing wrong with your positition. And since God tempts no man, but holds us all to the same standard for Full Salvation, I see no place for being saved without being that so-called A student/disciple.

Yes, there will be people, who post-salvation strive a little more to maintain good works than others. But all entered in the one and only Door to the sheepfold. It's the difference between A and A+ as opposed to B/C and A, if you take my meaning.

...we are dealing with people who have been scripturally obedient to Matthew...

I think I addressed this above. However, why be "scripturally obedient to Matthew" but not be scripturally obedient to Peter, Philip, or Paul? I know that that's not exactly what you are really meaning, but the question is still legitimate. It comes down to the same question I have. Why are we only required to obey certain parts of the Word and not others? It is not as though Matthew is a more valuable book or contains more necessary salvational information than Acts (or any other book, for that matter). Scripture cannot be broken. Out of the mouths or two or three witnesses let every WORD be established. Matthew, as it now reads, is one witness that doesn't actually agree with the other baptismal witnesses in Scripture without applying hermeunetical interpretations to get it to fit with everything else. So, why base baptism/salvation on one verse of Scripture and ignore the other four in Acts that specifically prove and establish Jesus' Name baptism? Why not go and get the second and third witness and find out, once and for all how to be properly baptized/saved?

Our commandment is to love the brethren, doing what we can to build up one another.

AMEN! And we must be certain that the foundation upon which we are building someone must be correct, or else it is stubble and the fire-test will burn it away (1 Corinthians 3:9-15). Now the builder (us) will be saved, but that which will be built (namely the person we are attempting to disciple and edify) may or even will be lost according to the context of the passage. Therefore we must take heed in how we build.

Really? So all those wonderful Apostolic pioneers who received the Holy Ghost at Azuza Street – instantaneously saw Jesus name baptism? It wasn't a mature, far-future revelation several years afterward? That's news to me.

Asuza happened in 1906. Charles Parham was baptizing in Jesus' Name by 1906. Secondly, had those brothers not had years of false gobblety-gook for doctrine buried into their soul by false teachers, I am convinced they would have been baptized in Jesus' Name immediately. So, from 1901 with Agnus Ozman in Topeka, KS to 1913 with R. E. McCalister in Arroyo Seco Camp Meeting, CA, the Holy Ghost was actually un-indoctrinating people so that their hearts were ready for Jesus' Name Baptism. Find a person not indoctrinated into a false view of the Godhead/Deity, and when they study Scripture, they will immediately see and receive Jesus' Name Baptism. So, yeah, it was several years for the Apostolic Pioneers, but only due to what God had to undo. No one needed years of study and revelation in the Book of Acts, especially the believers in Ephesus, who, when they heard what Paul shared, they immediately were baptized in the Name of Jesus. They had no theological argument or human tradition to break free from. In their day, there was only One God and His Name was Jesus. Still true today, but people who are coming to Christ from across the world and throughout all the denominations need to have the theological shackles of false doctrine shattered from off of their minds and hearts first.

This may take years, as they fight to be set free. But for the unshackled who comes to Christ, immediately they receive water baptism in Jesus' Name. Thank God I was one of them. And as I believe Bro. Dad was trying to point out, the only way to break those shackles is with Pure, Unadulterated Word of God Truth in Love. Those that want to be made free will come out of babylon and will separate themselves from all her plagues.

We must Love people into Truth. I love the trinitarian and the un-baptized in Jesus' Name person. I really do. I love them. I will always champion them and intercede for them to be saved. But I won't champion false doctrine.

He continuously fills repentant souls - who passed thru Calvary – with the Holy Ghost.

If anyone is not planted into the likeness of His death, they cannot be planted together into the llikeness of His resurrection. (Romans 6:3-5) Christ's death was at Calvary. We are buried with Him by baptism into death, so that like as He was raised by the glorious power of the Father, so too might we walk in newness of life. Is anyone who is not baptized in Jesus' Name planted into the likeness of His death? The Father didn't die. The Holy Spirit didn't die, either. So did such a person truly pass through Calvary? We can't get around the fact that an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ commanded people to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus after they received the Holy Ghost. Do we assume that all people since Caesarea that receive the Holy Ghost before they are water baptized in Jesus' Name are no longer under the same command simply because Peter is dead and not around to issue the order?

Luke affirms that Jesus, through the Holy Ghost, gave His Apostles commandments (Acts 1:2). When Peter ordered that household to all be baptized in Jesus' Name, Who do you think was giving the command? It wasn't Peter acting out His own version of what He thought was right and acceptable. He wasn't under any form of organizational belief system. He was filled with the Holy Ghost and authorized by Christ to bind and loose. This is what he bound because this is what Jesus Christ, through him, commanded. Jesus Himself said, "Why do you call me Lord, and do not the things I say?" In fact, in His parable of the talents, Jesus said,

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them bring thither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

If we do not those things that our Lord says, how can we call Him Lord? Are we not the workers of iniquity who call Jesus Lord, Lord? Shall we not be cast out for not submitting to Christ's reign as Absolute Monarch of the Kingdom of God? Shall we not be slain before Him for our disobedience? How then shall anyone escape who disdains or even simply ignores His direct command to those that would be His Church through His chosen and highly favored Ambassador? Had Cornelius told Peter that his order for them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus was just a nitpick or technicality because Matthew 28:19 reads differently, what do you suppose would have happened to Cornelius and his household? So what makes things different for today?

(continued...)

[Raven180]

He continuously leads into deeper truths. He continuously reveals the perfect will of His name. He continuously works in the lives of His children.

Yes, on all accounts. But who are His children? Those who are Born Again/From Above. Until a person is truly dead to self and sin through repentance, they are not planted into the likeness of His death, because His death is actually obedience, even death to the cross (Philippians 2:8 ). This obedience is obedience to the pre-determined, foreknowledge of God for Christ to be delivered up and executed as the atoning sacrifice for sins (See Acts 2:23). This obedience was accomplished first at Gethsemane and finally fulfilled on the cross at Calvary. This same level of obedience is required of us. Else, we cannot be buried with Him by baptism in His death. And until we are buried with Him by baptism into His death, how then shall any of us truly be able to be reborn? Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is the only way.

Scripture says the Holy Ghost is a gift for the redeemed children of God. A gift that the world cannot receive.

The Holy Ghost is promised to all people, not just for the select few. Every sinner can receive the Holy Ghost. Yes, it is a gift of which the Church partakes, but it's not as though it for us and no one else. It is a universal gift for all people. I know the world cannot receive it, as Jesus stated in John, because the world, as a system, is antichrist. But individuals within the world, who repent to God and have faith in Jesus can and do. There is no denying it. I am not. Millions upon millions of people, everywhere throughout the world, have received the Holy Ghost. I don't stand in the way of this. I welcome it with all my heart. It is a cause of great joy. Barnes suggests that perhaps as many as half a billion or more claim to have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. One stat I read suggested 600 million Spirit-baptized people in the world.

Do the math:  Since 1906 (Asuza) to 2006. In 100 years, for there to be 600 million people filled with the Holy Ghost breaks down to nearly 1 person filled with the Holy Ghost every second for a century. People are receiving God's Spirit faster than people are dying (every 20 seconds or so) if we take these stats as legit and spread them across the 100 years.

But there's only about 30 million people baptized in Jesus' Name according to Talmadge French. So the Holy Ghost truly is being poured out upon all flesh since Pentecost. I don't think any Spirit-filled believer, on godplace or anywhere else is against this. But we still have a lot of Cornelius' to baptize in Jesus' Name.

But, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" has proven acceptable to God. Otherwise, there would be no infilling of the Holy Ghost!

I believe I've addressed this already.

Let me clarify.  The modern, unscriptural, error-filled organization recognized as "the church".

Question. You state "organization" in the singular. Are you speaking of only one organization that you consider to be the "modern, unscriptural, error-filled" entity that people have come know or label as "the church", or is this to be broadly defined to apply to all organizations across the board?

The Bible says that the foundations of the New Jerusalem bear the names of the 12 Apostles of the Lamb.
 
Query: Were they baptized in Jesus name?    Can it be proven?

Yes. Peter states "Wherfore baptism doth also now save us...

He is not being rhetorical. He is including himself. So even though there is no specific account of it, this portion of Scripture makes it clear. And when combining it with other passages and common sense to know that the Apostles would be hypocrites to command and teach baptism if they themselves had never been baptized, shows the proof. For example, Jesus told them to make disciples of all nation, teaching them whatsoever Jesus had taught the Apostles (Matthew 18:19-20). In Acts 1:3, we see Jesus teaching the Apostles for forty days those things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. Well, since the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, and one must be born of the water and of the Spirit to see or enter it, it is safe to say that Jesus taught them, post-resurrection, about water baptism. So either the Apostles and disciples were baptized during this 40 days, (i.e. Jesus teaching by example) or else the 120 were baptized with the 3,000 who glady received the Word and were baptized.

I gave a fuller answer to a similar question at www.apostolicyouth.org/forum at his link:

http://www.apostolicyouth.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7439&p=169112#p169112

On that message board, my screen name is Crying_Abba if you care to follow it and read.

Grace and Peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,

Aaron

[apsurf]

After reading this thread and several other forums.   I have fairly well made up my mind and a decision. I am probably (and hopefully) start ignoring most of these type of threads.    I will minister what I see, and others will minister what they  see in the scriptures.   Let God be the judge at the end of our time and Let Him determine who was right.

If because of this some doesn't call me brother, (which I know many don't anymore.)   It doesn't concern me or bother me.   I will walk in what I know, and what God has shown me to walk.   It is to him I must answer.   I give my answers to others, but if they don't want to even look and consider what I say, but expect me to accomodate, everything they say, and accept it as truth without a moment's consideration.   They go straight to an ignore list (which grows daily).  It's not worth my time.

[titushome]

...there is startling evidence that suggests that Matthew 28:19, as it is now written, was not a part of the autograph, but rather a later insert. I'm not saying yea or nay on the matter, only suggesting the possibility. To read more, go here:

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/wordonmatt2819.htm

http://www.jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew2819.html

Thanks for the links.  The first one led in turn to this website:

http://www.focus-search.com/shc/matt2819.html

Very interesting reading - especially these excerpts:

"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."

Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's name."  Somehow we think that this statement is just like saying, "Hey guess what?  My name is Jesus!  I have come in my Father's name!  So that must mean that the Father's name is Jesus!"

Are we twisting the Word of God to suit ourselves?  The fact is, for Jesus to say "I am come in my Father's name" has nothing to do with His own name being Jesus, or the Father's name being Jesus.  He is making a clear claim to the authority of Heaven.  As a man, Jesus had His commission from His Father, and did all for His glory.  He said over and over that His words and His works were not His own, but were of and from the Father (John 5:19, 5:30, 5:36, 8:26-29, 10:25, 10:38, 12:49-50, 14:10 and 14:24).  Of these many references, one of the most telling in our discussion is John 10:25:

"Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me."

If the name of the Father is Jesus, wouldn't that imply that Jesus was healing and teaching in the name of Jesus?  Why then would He say that He was not representing Himself (John 5:30), if all He did and said were prefaced by and credited to His own name?  Logically it makes no sense, and hermeneutically it just doesn't fly.  He was saying that His works were done by the authority and power of Heaven, and as such testified that He was who He said He was.  In other words, Jesus' central message and claim to Messiahship was confirmed by the signs and wonders that accompanied His ministry.

Consider the fact that while Jesus was claiming to do miracles in the name of the Father, he was not actually saying "in the name of the Father" as an injunction over His deeds.  Clearly, doing the works that Jesus did, and saying the things that Jesus said, was only "in the name of the Father" inasmuch as He acted and spoke by the authority and on the behalf of the Father.

The scripture is clear that Jesus, as a man, was the physical representation of the invisible God (Hebrews 1:3).  He did not rely on His deity for His message or His miracles, but on the anointing of the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:38, Luke 4:1).  He was completely submitted to the purpose and calling of God (Philippians 2:5-8).  And so when Jesus claimed to have come in His Father's name, He was claiming to be under the Father's authority, and to be operating in both word and deed on His behalf, by His command and for His glory....

Over and over in scripture the principle of authority and representation is equated with the use of God's name.  In several Old Testament passages prophets were warned not to presume to speak in the Lord's name, or to falsely speak in His name.  Invoking God's name was tantamount to claiming to speak on His behalf, as His agent.  In Deuteronomy 18:20, the warning against this false representation was made clear:

"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die."

Acts of service, not words only, could be conveyed in the name of the Lord.  Jesus promised that "whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward." (Mark 9:41). Given with the love of God and for the glory of Christ, a simple act of kindness is said to be done in His name.

When we do what we do because Jesus has commissioned us to do it, and because it is our pleasure to please Him, we are acting (or speaking) in His name.  This is what the Apostle Paul spoke of when he wrote:

"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." Colossians 3:17

Some suggest that we should actually say "in Jesus name" as an injunction over all that we do or say.  That is not only unpractical, but it misses the point.  This commandment means wherever you are, whatever you do and whatever you say should be governed by an understanding that you represent the Master.  Whether in word or deed, you should do all things as His ambassador.  You have been given authority to represent His purpose in the world (Luke 10:19, II Corinthians 5:20), and ultimately all that you do and say should give glory to God (I Corinthians 10:31).  Simply put, doing all in the name of Jesus means that we act as his legal representative, for His sake, on His behalf and for His glory.

The notion that simply saying the name of Jesus, whether in prayer or in baptism, is enough to effect the power of Heaven is an idea that borders on magic.  I've seen people, well intentioned, who chant the name of Jesus in prayer as if saying it long enough and loud enough would eventually produce the miraculous. The name of Jesus is not a magic word.  To treat it like an "abracadabra" or "open sesame" is not only insulting, it simply will not work.  This is a lesson that the seven sons of Sceva learned the hard way (Acts 19:13-16).  And worse than making fools of ourselves, it must surely grieve the heart of God.

His name is powerful because He is powerful.  His name is beautiful because He is beautiful.  His name can and should be invoked in prayer, in baptism and in praise, not because of some formulaic or mystical power that we attribute to the word, but because in saying His name we are acting as His agents, speaking by His authority and being motivated by an unyielding passion for His glory.

Shedding light on the proper meaning and application of John 5:43 and John 14:26 takes courage considering that to do so means letting go of two major weapons in the "Jesus Name" arsenal.  But the truth is, taken out of context these verses hurt our credibility.

So what was Jesus saying?  Consider again the flow of Jesus' words:

"Go and make disciples...baptize them...teach them to do all that I have commanded"

These imperatives reveal the tone of Jesus' command.  He did not say "repeat after me" with His injunction to baptize, but rather enjoined them to do so "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."  They were to act as God's personal representatives in the world.  As His ambassadors, they were to go and do, not simply to go and "say."  And as a matter of biblical record, that is exactly what they did.

Nowhere in the Bible do we read of any of Jesus followers baptizing people while calling upon the titles of Father, Son or Holy Ghost.  Make no mistake about it, baptism does involve the invoking of a name.  It is a clear scriptural fact.  When we examine the evidence we find that over and over it is the name of Jesus that is invoked, declared and commanded.  The book of Acts reveals how the disciples understood and obeyed the command of Jesus.  They above all others knew what Jesus was talking about, and they consistently baptized new Christians in the name of Jesus.

In particular I want to take note of the parts I've bolded.

Understand what the Bible - and in turn the author quoted above - are saying concerning baptism "in Jesus' name": that when we are commanded to baptize "in Jesus' name," that firstly means that we are baptizing with the authority and according to the command of Jesus Himself.  Only secondarily does it mean that the name of Jesus is to be audibly invoked during the act of baptism.

Is it then possible that God would accept the baptism of someone over whom the titles were invoked, assuming that said person was baptized in faith, and in accordance with their current (though incomplete) understanding of what the Bible says concerning water baptism?

As Raven wrote concerning some of the Azusa Street pioneers:

Asuza happened in 1906. Charles Parham was baptizing in Jesus' Name by 1906. Secondly, had those brothers not had years of false gobblety-gook for doctrine buried into their soul by false teachers, I am convinced they would have been baptized in Jesus' Name immediately. So, from 1901 with Agnus Ozman in Topeka, KS to 1913 with R. E. McCalister in Arroyo Seco Camp Meeting, CA, the Holy Ghost was actually un-indoctrinating people so that their hearts were ready for Jesus' Name Baptism. Find a person not indoctrinated into a false view of the Godhead/Deity, and when they study Scripture, they will immediately see and receive Jesus' Name Baptism. So, yeah, it was several years for the Apostolic Pioneers, but only due to what God had to undo. No one needed years of study and revelation in the Book of Acts, especially the believers in Ephesus, who, when they heard what Paul shared, they immediately were baptized in the Name of Jesus. They had no theological argument or human tradition to break free from. In their day, there was only One God and His Name was Jesus. Still true today, but people who are coming to Christ from across the world and throughout all the denominations need to have the theological shackles of false doctrine shattered from off of their minds and hearts first.

This may take years, as they fight to be set free. But for the unshackled who comes to Christ, immediately they receive water baptism in Jesus' Name. Thank God I was one of them. And as I believe Bro. Dad was trying to point out, the only way to break those shackles is with Pure, Unadulterated Word of God Truth in Love. Those that want to be made free will come out of babylon and will separate themselves from all her plagues.

Is it not also true of most Christians today that their understanding has been shackled by years - in many cases lifetimes - of false doctrine concerning baptism?  It is concerning these believers that I ask the question I posed above: is it possible that God will accept their water baptism, if it was done in keeping with their current place of faith in Christ - even it was not done with the understanding of the audible invocation of Jesus' name?

[titushome]

Only the carnally religious people who do not have a solid relationship with Him would settle being “disobedient, lazy, wannabe believers/pretenders to the Throne”.

True, but the temptation remains for all believers everywhere. If I know and think to prove to myself Scripturally, that I can live a second or third tier will of God and still be saved, that basically, I can be a B or C student/disciple and still get an A on the Final Grade, then I will be tempted to slack, with no apparent consequence since the reward is the same for me as for the A student/disciple. That is what I am seeing wrong with your positition. And since God tempts no man, but holds us all to the same standard for Full Salvation, I see no place for being saved without being that so-called A student/disciple.

Yes, there will be people, who post-salvation strive a little more to maintain good works than others. But all entered in the one and only Door to the sheepfold. It's the difference between A and A+ as opposed to B/C and A, if you take my meaning.

I would also add this: I believe God expects all His children to be reaching and striving for the A+ level, and as long as we are doing that He will accept us no matter how far from that goal we may be.  If we reach for anything less, that demonstrates our lack of full commitment to Him, which He will NOT accept.

[Brother Dad]

After reading this thread and several other forums.   I have fairly well made up my mind and a decision. I am probably (and hopefully) start ignoring most of these type of threads.    I will minister what I see, and others will minister what they  see in the scriptures.   Let God be the judge at the end of our time and Let Him determine who was right.

If because of this some doesn't call me brother, (which I know many don't anymore.)   It doesn't concern me or bother me.   I will walk in what I know, and what God has shown me to walk.   It is to him I must answer.   I give my answers to others, but if they don't want to even look and consider what I say, but expect me to accomodate, everything they say, and accept it as truth without a moment's consideration.   They go straight to an ignore list (which grows daily).  It's not worth my time.

I think Brother if we all took this approach and just preached the Word of God and not try to put someone in Heaven or in Hell we all would be better off.  I know for me the big problem comes in when we start telling someone who does not believe the truth they are saved or unsaved.  I will continue to preach the Word of God and let God be the judge in the end.  My responsibility ends after I have delivered the message.  I am obligated to preach the Word because of the call of God on my life.  Each month the mailman brings me a power bill.  His duty ends after he has delivered the power bill.  He has not one time told me if I don't pay they will turn my power off.  It tells me that in the message he delivered from the power company.  Just as the Word of God is what we all will have to judged by in the end by God.

[OGIA]

"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."

Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's name."  Somehow we think that this statement is just like saying, "Hey guess what?  My name is Jesus!  I have come in my Father's name!  So that must mean that the Father's name is Jesus!"

Are we twisting the Word of God to suit ourselves?  The fact is, for Jesus to say "I am come in my Father's name" has nothing to do with His own name being Jesus, or the Father's name being Jesus.  He is making a clear claim to the authority of Heaven.  As a man, Jesus had His commission from His Father, and did all for His glory.  He said over and over that His words and His works were not His own, but were of and from the Father (John 5:19, 5:30, 5:36, 8:26-29, 10:25, 10:38, 12:49-50, 14:10 and 14:24).  Of these many references, one of the most telling in our discussion is John 10:25:

"Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me."

If the name of the Father is Jesus, wouldn't that imply that Jesus was healing and teaching in the name of Jesus?  Why then would He say that He was not representing Himself (John 5:30), if all He did and said were prefaced by and credited to His own name?  Logically it makes no sense, and hermeneutically it just doesn't fly.  He was saying that His works were done by the authority and power of Heaven, and as such testified that He was who He said He was.  In other words, Jesus' central message and claim to Messiahship was confirmed by the signs and wonders that accompanied His ministry.

I understand what He is saying, but remember that Jesus also said, "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world." (John 17:6)  The word "manifested", of course, means to "make known" as in 1 Timothy 3:16.  The man bore the name of Yahweh-Savior, and He revealed this same Savior to the world in name and in deed.  He let those who knew the OT God's redemptive name know that He was that same OT God and that "in flesh" was how their redemption was going to be accomplished.

So, I understand what the author is saying, and why.  He has to support his position that "in the name of" means "by the authority of" just as much as it means invoking it.  But, we can't forget that the actual utterance of the name was also made known by the man God became.

Understand what the Bible - and in turn the author quoted above - are saying concerning baptism "in Jesus' name": that when we are commanded to baptize "in Jesus' name," that firstly means that we are baptizing with the authority and according to the command of Jesus Himself.  Only secondarily does it mean that the name of Jesus is to be audibly invoked during the act of baptism.

Why does one have to take priority over the other?  Why can't they hold equal priority?  Can the authority be invoked without invoking the name?  I don't think it can.  I know you're not saying we shouldn't invoke His name, but I don't see one being more important than the other.   :grin:

Is it then possible that God would accept the baptism of someone over whom the titles were invoked, assuming that said person was baptized in faith, and in accordance with their current (though incomplete) understanding of what the Bible says concerning water baptism?

Based on the above, my answer is "no" -- God will not accept a baptism (for the purpose that water baptism accomplishes) in titles, because there is no remission in titles. 

Is it not also true of most Christians today that their understanding has been shackled by years - in many cases lifetimes - of false doctrine concerning baptism?  It is concerning these believers that I ask the question I posed above: is it possible that God will accept their water baptism, if it was done in keeping with their current place of faith in Christ - even it was not done with the understanding of the audible invocation of Jesus' name?

Again, I have to answer "no".  God will not overlook my ignorance.  I might be saved, but I will suffer loss for what I did not seek to learn.  If that involves not seeking the truth about salvation, then I will be lost, just like those who reject and/or never come to obedience to the Gospel.  It's obvious to me, according to 2 Thessalonians 1, that there will be some who "know not God" and will suffer eternal damnation.  I gotta believe that one of the reasons they didn't know Him was because of their ignorance.

[onli-one-jehovi]

Whew! This has been a busy week. Sorry for any delay.


Raven, very good thoughts and resource links. Titus pretty much answered along the lines I would. Except, he says it a lot clearer.

I will repeat the part about "the Church" being in the dark for the last 1700 yrs. That was the point I was trying to make regarding Azuza, that revelations did not come instantly, but over time. I believe that God writes all truth on our heart, as well as planting all truth in our heart when we come to Him. It is pretty well left up to us to walk after the Master and allow that truth to manifest in our soul and body. I think it is the alignment in one accord of the Head and Body that causes revelation to "explode" from the pages. The truth was always there, just awaiting the time of alignment.

Anyway, the point I am still emphasizing is that: the Church and it's brethren is bigger than a single denomination. We must come out of the mindset of all denominations and grow in Him.

Raven.... organization/denomination applies to all the divided Body of Christ.

[onli-one-jehovi]

After reading this thread and several other forums.   I have fairly well made up my mind and a decision. I am probably (and hopefully) start ignoring most of these type of threads.    I will minister what I see, and others will minister what they  see in the scriptures.   Let God be the judge at the end of our time and Let Him determine who was right.

If because of this some doesn't call me brother, (which I know many don't anymore.)   It doesn't concern me or bother me.   I will walk in what I know, and what God has shown me to walk.   It is to him I must answer.   I give my answers to others, but if they don't want to even look and consider what I say, but expect me to accomodate, everything they say, and accept it as truth without a moment's consideration.   They go straight to an ignore list (which grows daily).  It's not worth my time.

And that's all we can do. Hopefully, we are coming out of more and more of the Babylonian spritual darkness in which we were imprisoned.
These forums are interesting and helpful; divisive and frustrating. But, sometimes things can be said that witness to the inner voice of the Spirit, whispering to untold numbers of His people; telling them - hey, it's really ME. You're not crazy for seeing differently.

It's worth my time. For now.

[onli-one-jehovi]

The Bible says that the foundations of the New Jerusalem bear the names of the 12 Apostles of the Lamb.
 
Query: Were they baptized in Jesus name?    Can it be proven?


Yes. Peter states "Wherfore baptism doth also now save us...

He is not being rhetorical. He is including himself. So even though there is no specific account of it, this portion of Scripture makes it clear. And when combining it with other passages and common sense to know that the Apostles would be hypocrites to command and teach baptism if they themselves had never been baptized, shows the proof. For example, Jesus told them to make disciples of all nation, teaching them whatsoever Jesus had taught the Apostles (Matthew 18:19-20). In Acts 1:3, we see Jesus teaching the Apostles for forty days those things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. Well, since the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, and one must be born of the water and of the Spirit to see or enter it, it is safe to say that Jesus taught them, post-resurrection, about water baptism. So either the Apostles and disciples were baptized during this 40 days, (i.e. Jesus teaching by example) or else the 120 were baptized with the 3,000 who glady received the Word and were baptized.

I gave a fuller answer to a similar question at www.apostolicyouth.org/forum at his link:

http://www.apostolicyouth.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7439&p=169112#p169112

I believe all the Apostles were baptized in the name of Jesus. It is easily surmised in scripture.

However, only Paul is recorded being baptized in the name of the Lord. None of the others are. They could just as easily been baptized in the titles as Matthew recorded Jesus commanding. Or, perhaps as John the Baptist did. We cannot say for sure. All we know is that they were baptized.

So what do we look at? We look at the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. We look at God accepting them as clean and filling them with the Holy Ghost. We look at the new creation before us. We look at drug addicts becoming sunday school teachers. We look at wife beaters becoming biblical husbands. When and if the time comes to approach baptism, then the Lord will say so. Then they will be ready for that hidden manna to be revealed. Just like He does to millions of others throughout time.

As far as the attempt to remove or reinterpret Matthew 28:19... the numeric pattern of the Bible proves the scripture is authentic. Even if it wasn't, the verse is in every Bible printed, as well as being embedded upon the consciousness of all men. Can't ignore it. Has to remain valid. I still will not call unclean what God has cleaned.

[OGIA]

He has called "clean" those whose sin has been remitted, and that only comes by water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, not titles.   :grin:

[Brother Dad]

Preach the Word, Be instant in season and out.  Always abound in the the Truth.  Never compromise.  We are not the judge, nut we Will be judged.  If we mislead people and deceive them we will be held accountable for deceiving.  Never have to be ugly but stand firm on the the one and only truth the Bible declares.  After I have delivered the message it will up to those I delivered to as to whether or not they will accept the truth and be baptized in Jesus name.  But under no conditions will I allow them to think themselves OK as long as they have not fulfilled the plan of salvation.  I just tell them we must obey God's Word, because that is what we will be judged by. 

[Brother Dad]

.
 
Query: Were they baptized in Jesus name?    Can it be proven?[/b]


However, only Paul is recorded being baptized in the name of the Lord. None of the others are. They could just as easily been baptized in the titles as Matthew recorded Jesus commanding. Or, perhaps as John the Baptist did. We cannot say for sure. All we know is that they were baptized.

Yeah I guess we could say they said don't do as we do but do as we say.  You get baptized the way peter said to we are standing behind him.  But we don't need to do that we are above it.  Or as Paul re-baptized those of John's baptism.  Well we are the ones walked with Christ we don't need to do that.  We did it another way.  Yeah like that really happened how foolish to even think such or suggest such.  The eleven stood with Peter on the day of Pentecost they backed him up. 

[Brother Dad]

We will be held accountable for what we teach or don't teach.

[onli-one-jehovi]

.
 
Query: Were they baptized in Jesus name?    Can it be proven?[/b]


However, only Paul is recorded being baptized in the name of the Lord. None of the others are. They could just as easily been baptized in the titles as Matthew recorded Jesus commanding. Or, perhaps as John the Baptist did. We cannot say for sure. All we know is that they were baptized.

Yeah I guess we could say they said don't do as we do but do as we say.  You get baptized the way peter said to we are standing behind him.  But we don't need to do that we are above it.  Or as Paul re-baptized those of John's baptism.  Well we are the ones walked with Christ we don't need to do that.  We did it another way.  Yeah like that really happened how foolish to even think such or suggest such.  The eleven stood with Peter on the day of Pentecost they backed him up. 

We will be held accountable for what we teach or don't teach.

Posted by: onli-one-jehovi: I believe all the Apostles were baptized in the name of Jesus. It is easily surmised in scripture.

How convenient to leave off the opening statement. It might almost appear to be an intententional malignment. But that would never happen among brethren. 

We'll be held accountable for our attitude too. 

[onli-one-jehovi]

He has called "clean" those whose sin has been remitted, and that only comes by water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, not titles.   :grin:

**see pretty much every previous post** 

[Melody]

Jhn 3:22-33  After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.  And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Jhn 4:1-2 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) 

Act 8:16  (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Act 19:4-5  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 


Ok, it makes NO sense whatsoever for these verses and others to be in place if the disciples were not baptized in Jesus Name.  It would mean they were:

• stuck in John's repentence baptism,


• they have not put on Christ,


• they went around preaching something they themselves did not do,


• that up there in the beginning they did not have the Holy Ghost

because up until a certain point only Jesus baptized folks had gotten the Holy Ghost...-but they got it first!  So, it seems ridiculous to need a specific verse that says the_disciples_were_baptized_in_Jesus'_name.

[Brother Dad]

[We'll be held accountable for our attitude too. 

So true our attitude determines our love for God, fellowmen, and truth.  To neglect either would mean to need an attitude adjustment.  Our desire is that we grow in God, love God and our fellowmen.  Love our fellowmen to the point of teaching them the truth even if it hurts their feelings sometime.  As a child sometimes my parents taught me things I did not like or even agree with at the time but they loved me and wanted to tell me truth.  I can not let a friend or someone I love remain in a burning house because I don't want them upset because I woke them up.  attitude it is not about me but about the God that I serve.  Itt is about preaching His pure word without exception or favor.  One Lord, One faith, One baptism for all men and women.  No exceptions.  A fair God A fair Doctrine, and a fair judgement.

[onli-one-jehovi]

Jhn 3:22-33  After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.  And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Jhn 4:1-2 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) 

Act 8:16  (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Act 19:4-5  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 


Ok, it makes NO sense whatsoever for these verses and others to be in place if the disciples were not baptized in Jesus Name.  It would mean they were:

• stuck in John's repentence baptism,


• they have not put on Christ,


• they went around preaching something they themselves did not do,


• that up there in the beginning they did not have the Holy Ghost

because up until a certain point only Jesus baptized folks had gotten the Holy Ghost...-but they got it first!  So, it seems ridiculous to need a specific verse that says the_disciples_were_baptized_in_Jesus'_name.

Yes, it does seem ridiculous to need a specific verse that says the _disciples_were_baptized_in_Jesus_name. Again, the Bible implies that is so. I believe they were based upon the instructions given to others, and do not need that specific record.

But the issue is: Doing what the Apostles did. The issue is following the words of Peter {who interpreted Jesus} above Matthew {who quoted Jesus}. The scripture also says Paul was baptized. Doesn't say - "in Jesus name" or "in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". Just like all the others, it says: and was baptized.

Thus, the last 1700 yrs of Christian baptism - though not always quoting "in the name of Jesus" - has still been obedient to scripture,for the implication has always been toward Jesus; in recognition of His death, burial, and resurrection cleansing of sin. Matthew was obeyed in full faith toward God. His word is just as good as Peter's. Yes, Matthew was there with Peter and did not say anything. Yes, the evidence shows baptism was done in the name of the Lord. We know that. We know that because we've been taught that. We know that because we studied it out for ourselves.

But the bulk of Christiandom hasn't been taught that. The bulk of Christiandom hasn't studied it out for themselves. The bulk of Christiandom - including Apostolics - blindly take the word of the pulpit regarding spiritual meaning/interpretation. And God is honoring the cleansing of the cross and their faith in Him to fill with the Holy Ghost. God is birthing them into the Body and working as hard as He can to lead and guide to all truth.

Just as we recognize the Apostles' belief in Jesus' name baptism by the evidence shown; so too we recognize "trinitarian" membership in the Body by evidence shown. That is how deeper truth will be shared and accepted - today.

[OGIA]

The majority who are baptized in titles do not understand what baptism is for, so the ritual (which is what it is to the vast majority of what you call Christendom [I disagree]) simply gets them wet. 

Not only is the commandment for it to be done "in the name of Jesus Christ" but there must be the recognition that it is done for the remission of sin.  So, not understanding the necessity of uttering the name and not knowing the purpose God gave for water baptism in His name results in a person getting wet.

And, that's why it's not a work.  It's an act of faith.  But, if the person has zero clue about why they are being baptized (regardless of "why" they don't know), then the act is worthless.....as it is in the vast majority of instances.   

[Brother Dad]

But the issue is: Doing what the Apostles did. The issue is following the words of Peter {who interpreted Jesus} above Matthew {who quoted Jesus}. The scripture also says Paul was baptized. Doesn't say - "in Jesus name" or "in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". Just like all the others, it says: and was baptized.

Thus, the last 1700 yrs of Christian baptism - though not always quoting "in the name of Jesus" - has still been obedient to scripture,for the implication has always been toward Jesus; in recognition of His death, burial, and resurrection cleansing of sin. Matthew was obeyed in full faith toward God. His word is just as good as Peter's. Yes, Matthew was there with Peter and did not say anything. Yes, the evidence shows baptism was done in the name of the Lord. We know that. We know that because we've been taught that. We know that because we studied it out for ourselves.

But the bulk of Christiandom hasn't been taught that. The bulk of Christiandom hasn't studied it out for themselves. The bulk of Christiandom - including Apostolics - blindly take the word of the pulpit regarding spiritual meaning/interpretation. And God is honoring the cleansing of the cross and their faith in Him to fill with the Holy Ghost. God is birthing them into the Body and working as hard as He can to lead and guide to all truth.

Just as we recognize the Apostles' belief in Jesus' name baptism by the evidence shown; so too we recognize "trinitarian" membership in the Body by evidence shown. That is how deeper truth will be shared and accepted - today.

Paul was baptized in Jesus Name Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

This and the remainder of this post shows why you are having trouble with the the teaching of the fact people must be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ.  I don't mean to sound harsh but it is evident by this posting that you really don't understand Jesus name baptism, nor the oneness of God. I am quite certain you believe in oneness but just don't fully understand it. The early Church even by history teaches nothing but Jesus Name baptism in the first century.  I am sure that you mean well but the bottom line is you just don't understand.  I am sure you love people and would not on purpose mislead anyone.  But if we don't stand for something then we will fall for everything.  If you understood Jesus name then you would know that Peter fulfilled the qoute of Matthew 28:19.  To think that the use of titles is the same as use of name is incorrect. 

[onli-one-jehovi]

But the issue is: Doing what the Apostles did. The issue is following the words of Peter {who interpreted Jesus} above Matthew {who quoted Jesus}. The scripture also says Paul was baptized. Doesn't say - "in Jesus name" or "in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". Just like all the others, it says: and was baptized.

Thus, the last 1700 yrs of Christian baptism - though not always quoting "in the name of Jesus" - has still been obedient to scripture,for the implication has always been toward Jesus; in recognition of His death, burial, and resurrection cleansing of sin. Matthew was obeyed in full faith toward God. His word is just as good as Peter's. Yes, Matthew was there with Peter and did not say anything. Yes, the evidence shows baptism was done in the name of the Lord. We know that. We know that because we've been taught that. We know that because we studied it out for ourselves.

But the bulk of Christiandom hasn't been taught that. The bulk of Christiandom hasn't studied it out for themselves. The bulk of Christiandom - including Apostolics - blindly take the word of the pulpit regarding spiritual meaning/interpretation. And God is honoring the cleansing of the cross and their faith in Him to fill with the Holy Ghost. God is birthing them into the Body and working as hard as He can to lead and guide to all truth.

Just as we recognize the Apostles' belief in Jesus' name baptism by the evidence shown; so too we recognize "trinitarian" membership in the Body by evidence shown. That is how deeper truth will be shared and accepted - today.

Paul was baptized in Jesus Name Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

This and the remainder of this post shows why you are having trouble with the the teaching of the fact people must be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ.  I don't mean to sound harsh but it is evident by this posting that you really don't understand Jesus name baptism, nor the oneness of God. I am quite certain you believe in oneness but just don't fully understand it. The early Church even by history teaches nothing but Jesus Name baptism in the first century.  I am sure that you mean well but the bottom line is you just don't understand.  I am sure you love people and would not on purpose mislead anyone.  But if we don't stand for something then we will fall for everything.  If you understood Jesus name then you would know that Peter fulfilled the qoute of Matthew 28:19.  To think that the use of titles is the same as use of name is incorrect. 

Ah, thanks for finding that in Acts 22. I knew it was in there somewhere - I could see it in the back of my mind. I thought that's what it initially said in chapter 8.

No, I fully understand baptism in Jesus name and the oneness of God. Probably as well as you do. Yes, I know Peter and all the apostles fulfilled the quote of Mt 28:19. I never said they didn't. I'm not disputing the biblical evidence of baptizing in the name of Jesus.

I do not believe you comprehend what I'm talking about regarding the bulk of christianity. My friend John also appears unable to get out of the box of apostolic doctrinal viewpoint and see anything thing else. But that's alright. Maybe someday.

[onli-one-jehovi]

The majority who are baptized in titles do not understand what baptism is for, so the ritual (which is what it is to the vast majority of what you call Christendom [I disagree]) simply gets them wet. 

Not only is the commandment for it to be done "in the name of Jesus Christ" but there must be the recognition that it is done for the remission of sin.  So, not understanding the necessity of uttering the name and not knowing the purpose God gave for water baptism in His name results in a person getting wet.

And, that's why it's not a work.  It's an act of faith.  But, if the person has zero clue about why they are being baptized (regardless of "why" they don't know), then the act is worthless.....as it is in the vast majority of instances.    

I can't believe you said this. My God. And you think I'm confused?

[Brother Dad]

Is it not also true of most Christians today that their understanding has been shackled by years - in many cases lifetimes - of false doctrine concerning baptism?  It is concerning these believers that I ask the question I posed above: is it possible that God will accept their water baptism, if it was done in keeping with their current place of faith in Christ - even it was not done with the understanding of the audible invocation of Jesus' name?

I was rereading back up the page at some of the post and wanted to comment on this.  Who are we to try and figure out what God may or may not accept.  We were given a command to preach the Word.  Why should we preach it with a chance of exception.  we should preach the plan of salvation.  When people ask if they are ok since they have been baptized in titles, the best answer is,"well for me I know I want to be sure I have obeyed the Word of God.  I just now saw where some are coming from in what they are saying about trinitarians.  But we are to preach not judge so therefore I would never wish to tell someone well maybe God will look at this way.  I must simply preach what the Word says and let them decide what to do with.  i must show then I take a stand on the necessity of Jesus name Baptism.  And I will futher let the know the need to obey God's Word, but they will have to answer to God and not to me as far as what I show them in the Word of God.  As God said,

Isa 55:8 ¶ For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9  For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

So let us stop trying to think for God and just preach the Word without exception, favor, or respect of person.

[titushome]

So let us stop trying to think for God and just preach the Word without exception, favor, or respect of person.

I'm not trying to think for God.  I'm trying only to understand what and how God thinks.  I want to put on the mind of Christ, and think as He does.

I'm working on it, brother.