Apostolic Truth Questions

[titushome]

Call it reading into scripture if you want, but I don't believe the Apostles baptized people who didn't have a clue why they were being baptized, and I don't think anyone today should be baptized without first acknowledging that.   :grin:

I also don't believe that the people who were baptized "didn't have a clue" as to why; they recognized Jesus for who He was, declared their belief, and wanted to join the community of Christ-followers (the Church).  So they were baptized, in obedience to the direction given by the apostles.

But the statements being made in this thread have been along the lines of "if you don't understand why you're being baptized, then you're just getting wet."  When I read that, I hear you saying that unless a person fully comprehends the spiritual significance of baptism, their being baptized is meaningless and of no effect.

I disagree.  I think we tend to make the conversion experience into something far more complicated than it should be.  It should be simple: when someone decides to give their life to Jesus, when they have declared their decision to repent of their sin and live for Him instead, then they should be baptized.  And God will fill them with His Spirit (if He hasn't already at that point).  And they will begin the process of learning to walk in the Spirit.

[OGIA]

I also don't believe that the people who were baptized "didn't have a clue" as to why; they recognized Jesus for who He was, declared their belief, and wanted to join the community of Christ-followers (the Church). 

Are you suggesting that water baptism is performed so one can "join the community of Christ-followers (the Church)"?

So they were baptized, in obedience to the direction given by the apostles.

I agree, and I believe those directions included "why" they were about to be baptized.  We have record of that in Acts 2:38.

But the statements being made in this thread have been along the lines of "if you don't understand why you're being baptized, then you're just getting wet."  When I read that, I hear you saying that unless a person fully comprehends the spiritual significance of baptism, their being baptized is meaningless and of no effect.

I think you're adding to what I'm saying or making it more difficult than it is.  You say I am demanding they "fully comprehend the spiritual significance of baptism" as if that's some BIG thing?  Like they have to be the Apostle Paul or something.     Nah.  They just need to know why so their faith can be in the Lord and His promise.

I think we tend to make the conversion experience into something far more complicated than it should be. 

This statement is why I think you are putting more into what I've said than I actually did or inferred.   

It should be simple: when someone decides to give their life to Jesus, when they have declared their decision to repent of their sin and live for Him instead, then they should be baptized. 

How does one repent of their sin?   

[bishopnl]

Here's a question:

It's been stressed that baptism is for the remission of sins.  There's been arguments in Pentecost as to whether that means "for" sins that have already been remitted, or "for" your sins TO BE remitted.

Assuming that one believes the latter--which I think would probably be the prevailing (but by no means total) view of it in our circle of Pentecost--does this mean that a person who believes and practices the former has an ineffectual baptism?

In other words, suppose I were to be baptized in Jesus name, and did it believing that it was because my sins had been remitted by my act of repentance.  Is my baptism valid?

[OGIA]

Dunno, Nate.  Good question, though.   :grin:

[titushome]

Here's a question:

It's been stressed that baptism is for the remission of sins.  There's been arguments in Pentecost as to whether that means "for" sins that have already been remitted, or "for" your sins TO BE remitted.

Assuming that one believes the latter--which I think would probably be the prevailing (but by no means total) view of it in our circle of Pentecost--does this mean that a person who believes and practices the former has an ineffectual baptism?

In other words, suppose I were to be baptized in Jesus name, and did it believing that it was because my sins had been remitted by my act of repentance.  Is my baptism valid?

Thanks for asking this question, Nate.  I think your question really gets at the heart of why it bothers me so much when it's said that a person should not be baptized until they "understand" why they're being baptized.

Suppose the person being baptized believes in the former interpretation: that their sins had been remitted at repentance.  And suppose that they're wrong, and that the true significance of baptism is that when one is baptized, then one's sins are remitted.  Does their baptism then not count, because their understanding was lacking?

I don't think so.  We can debate all day long the exact moment at which a believer's sins are remitted, but the bottom line is that new converts should be baptized upon their confession of faith in Jesus Christ.  It's as simple as that.

[OGIA]

I think I can speak for him, so I'm pretty comfortable saying that my pastor would not baptize anyone in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin IF they did not vocalize their belief in that scriptural purpose.....the only scriptural purpose we have for water baptism.

If the purpose of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is discussed before baptism, why would there ever be anyone baptized without the proper understanding??   

[Brother Dad]

In response to the understanding why a person is baptized, I find one person in the Bible that was baptized without repenting and then told he had nothing.

Acts 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

[Brother Dad]

Here's a question:

It's been stressed that baptism is for the remission of sins.  There's been arguments in Pentecost as to whether that means "for" sins that have already been remitted, or "for" your sins TO BE remitted.

Assuming that one believes the latter--which I think would probably be the prevailing (but by no means total) view of it in our circle of Pentecost--does this mean that a person who believes and practices the former has an ineffectual baptism?

In other words, suppose I were to be baptized in Jesus name, and did it believing that it was because my sins had been remitted by my act of repentance.  Is my baptism valid?

Let me throw this twist which I believe about the remittance of sins,

Acts 2:38Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
KJV

Notice the word your sins is not in this verse but sins.  I don't know how some of you may feel about generational sins but I feel that when a person has truly repented and is Baptised in the name of Jesus Christ then not only are their sins removed from their life but the generational curses that have been past from our forefathers is broken and remitted.  I know a girl that was born with a disease that is past from generation to generation.  She repented and was baptized and in the Church today.  She has three children and for some rerason the diease in the the blood is no longer there.  Time would not permit me to go on and on. 

The point is baptism covers all sins in a persons life. 

[Brother Dad]

As for understand before baptism, I think we are maybe all on the same page.  It is not that I expect people to fully understand everything.  However I do not want to baptize someone who has not truly repented.  In other word I have and am sure many of you have seen people get baptized for the wrong reason.  To please a boy friend or girl friend.  To please a family member or get someone in the Church off their back.  I have seen some just wanted to do because someone else was doing it.  Baptism is a serious step and should never be used just to boost our numbers.  I feel people should understand they must repent first before the sins can be remitted.

[bishopnl]

In response to the inderstanding why a person is baptized, I find one person in the Bible that was baptized without repenting and then told he had nothing.

My understanding of Acts 8 was not that Simon didn't have an understanding of his baptism.  When Peter told him he had neither lot nor part, he was referring to the particular ministry of laying on of hands (and people receiving the Holy Ghost), not that his baptism was invalid or ineffective.  The Bible states that Simon believed also, and there is nothing to indicate that his faith wasn't of the saving variety.  Simon's problem was that when it came to the power of God, he thought it could be purchased--and because of that corrupt view of thinking, Peter told him he would have no part of the ministry of laying on of hands, and that he needed to repent of his attitude.

Let's face it.  Baptism doesn't forever cleanse or purge you from wickedness or evil thoughts.  And that, IMO, is what Simon's problem was.  He did believe.  His baptism was effectual.  The problem was, he was still wrestling with the same problem he had before he believed and was baptized--which is not uncommon. 

I think most people who get baptized have at least a rudimentary understanding of why they are doing it.  Although, there are some, who like Bro. Dad pointed out, get baptized for the wrong reasons and don't have a clear understanding--it's incumbent upon the church to make sure that people who are being baptized understand why, and that they make sure it isn't, as has been said, just an effort to boost the numbers.

I don't want to speak for Titus or anyone else, but here is what seems to be at the heart of the matter, to me, anyway.  Most people getting baptized understand that it has to do with identification with the gospel, with the fact that they've repented of their sins, etc. etc.  So when Titus talks about joining Christ's followers, that's what I'm getting out of it...that when you are baptized, you are doing so because you have repented of your sins and want to follow Jesus Christ.  I think the crux of the matter is, does a person have to believe that your sins are not actually remitted until you are baptized?  If that's the "understanding" that is required, then everybody is not on the same page.  If baptism is valid whether you believe that your sins were remitted at repentance (and baptism is a outward but necessary sign of your burying the old man, taking on Christ's name, etc), or whether you believe that your sins are not actually remitted until you go down into the water, then there doesn't seem to be any major disagreement.  But if the "understanding" under discussion is the understanding that a valid baptism only occurs when the baptizee believes that his sins are not completely forgiven and remitted until he comes out of the water, then indeed, I'd say there is a vast difference.

[titushome]

Well said, bishop.  Concerning both the story of Simon, and the baptism of new believers.

...When Peter told him he had neither lot nor part, he was referring to the particular ministry of laying on of hands (and people receiving the Holy Ghost), not that his baptism was invalid or ineffective.  The Bible states that Simon believed also, and there is nothing to indicate that his faith wasn't of the saving variety.  Simon's problem was that when it came to the power of God, he thought it could be purchased--and because of that corrupt view of thinking, Peter told him he would have no part of the ministry of laying on of hands, and that he needed to repent of his attitude.

Let's face it.  Baptism doesn't forever cleanse or purge you from wickedness or evil thoughts.  And that, IMO, is what Simon's problem was.  He did believe.  His baptism was effectual.  The problem was, he was still wrestling with the same problem he had before he believed and was baptized--which is not uncommon. 

Most people getting baptized understand that it has to do with identification with the gospel, with the fact that they've repented of their sins, etc. etc.  So when Titus talks about joining Christ's followers, that's what I'm getting out of it...that when you are baptized, you are doing so because you have repented of your sins and want to follow Jesus Christ.  I think the crux of the matter is, does a person have to believe that your sins are not actually remitted until you are baptized?  If that's the "understanding" that is required, then everybody is not on the same page.  If baptism is valid whether you believe that your sins were remitted at repentance (and baptism is a outward but necessary sign of your burying the old man, taking on Christ's name, etc), or whether you believe that your sins are not actually remitted until you go down into the water, then there doesn't seem to be any major disagreement.  But if the "understanding" under discussion is the understanding that a valid baptism only occurs when the baptizee believes that his sins are not completely forgiven and remitted until he comes out of the water, then indeed, I'd say there is a vast difference.

[Brother Dad]

There you go,  I am trying to disagree with anyone simply saying that I want to know people have repented before I baptize them.  As I said earlier there are many today who baptize hundreds who never stay just so they have a large number.  Simply put a statement.  If anyone else want to baptize people they can have at it.  But as for me I don't just go around baptizing.

But what if a person gets baptized because they are presssured into it.   If they truly repent later was their baptism without repentance any good or should they then after repentance get baptized.  Understand I am not saying I judge them but them theirselves feel they did not repent or understand what they were doing what then.

[Brother Dad]

I think most people who get baptized have at least a rudimentary understanding of why they are doing it.  Although, there are some, who like Bro. Dad pointed out, get baptized for the wrong reasons and don't have a clear understanding--it's incumbent upon the church to make sure that people who are being baptized understand why, and that they make sure it isn't, as has been said, just an effort to boost the numbers.

Right, there is no need to try and teach the whole Bible to them before baptizing, but do need to be sure they repent.  Many any the Pentecostal ?Church jump right to getting someone filled with the Holy Ghost.  As an Apostolic I strongly urge others to start leading people to repentance.  I know this may said a little denominational but repentance still must come before anything else.

[bishopnl]

There you go,  I am trying to disagree with anyone simply saying that I want to know people have repented before I baptize them.  As I said earlier there are many today who baptize hundreds who never stay just so they have a large number.  Simply put a statement.  If anyone else want to baptize people they can have at it.  But as for me I don't just go around baptizing.

But what if a person gets baptized because they are presssured into it.   If they truly repent later was their baptism without repentance any good or should they then after repentance get baptized.  Understand I am not saying I judge them but them theirselves feel they did not repent or understand what they were doing what then.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the qualification for baptism is that people have to have truly, sorrowfully repented...am I understanding that right?

I agree.  

Interesting anecdote...my older brother got rebaptized some years after he had initially been baptized...he was probably only 7 or 8 when he was first baptized, and after later study and understanding, he decided he wanted to be rebaptized simply because he was unsure when he was first baptized whether he had really understood the signifigance and the choice he was making.

I don't think his initial baptism was ineffectual (especially since God filled him with the Holy Ghost)--but I think that anyone who feels like they were baptized without really being ready or understanding what baptism means should do it again if they so choose.  No matter which side of the fence you come down on in terms of the phrase "remission of sins", there's no denying baptism is an essential and clarifying moment in the life of every believer.

[Backseat Radio]

I"ll agree that we don't need to be baptizing just for the sake of saying "look how many I've baptized".  From my own studies I've come to believe that theres some things that need to preceed  water baptism...

1)  hearing and believing the gospel message  of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ
2)  repentance
3)  the person themself comming to the decision that they need to be baptized

I chose to be rebaptized myself because my first baptism happened simply because some in the church decided it was time for me to be baptized and took me back and got me baptized.  At that time I was just one to go along with what I was told to do, but it wasn't until years later that I come to understand my need for God and realized that I was the one that had to make the choice on being baptized.

[titushome]

Right, there is no need to try and teach the whole Bible to them before baptizing, but do need to be sure they repent.  Many any the Pentecostal ?Church jump right to getting someone filled with the Holy Ghost.  As an Apostolic I strongly urge others to start leading people to repentance.  I know this may said a little denominational but repentance still must come before anything else.

Brother Dad (and others), you're absolutely right: it's repentence that must precede baptism.  When sharing the good news of Jesus with someone results in that person's realization of who Jesus is, and their need to turn their life around (repent), and a desire to do so, then that person is ready to be baptized.

And it's not "denominational"; it's biblical. 

But what if a person gets baptized because they are presssured into it.   If they truly repent later was their baptism without repentance any good or should they then after repentance get baptized.  Understand I am not saying I judge them but them theirselves feel they did not repent or understand what they were doing what then.

In that instance - the instance in which someone is baptized without genuine repentance - I think a case can be made for that person to be re-baptized.

[Brother Dad]

There you go,  I am trying to disagree with anyone simply saying that I want to know people have repented before I baptize them.  As I said earlier there are many today who baptize hundreds who never stay just so they have a large number.  Simply put a statement.  If anyone else want to baptize people they can have at it.  But as for me I don't just go around baptizing.

But what if a person gets baptized because they are presssured into it.   If they truly repent later was their baptism without repentance any good or should they then after repentance get baptized.  Understand I am not saying I judge them but them theirselves feel they did not repent or understand what they were doing what then.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the qualification for baptism is that people have to have truly, sorrowfully repented...am I understanding that right?

I agree.  

Interesting anecdote...my older brother got rebaptized some years after he had initially been baptized...he was probably only 7 or 8 when he was first baptized, and after later study and understanding, he decided he wanted to be rebaptized simply because he was unsure when he was first baptized whether he had really understood the signifigance and the choice he was making.

I don't think his initial baptism was ineffectual (especially since God filled him with the Holy Ghost)--but I think that anyone who feels like they were baptized without really being ready or understanding what baptism means should do it again if they so choose.  No matter which side of the fence you come down on in terms of the phrase "remission of sins", there's no denying baptism is an essential and clarifying moment in the life of every believer.

Yes you understood me right.

[Brother Dad]

Glad to see we are on the same page.  If we teach people to truly repent then they we ant to follow after and please God.  I feel that sometimes people can not understand baptism because they have not truly repented.  BSR said it right and I know that the Church of Christ teaches first must come hearing which is very true.  How can they be saved without a preacher.  Hearing the Word of God will bring conviction which will result in true repentance.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

While we all know this is not the plan of salvation I did wish to point out to those reading that maybe never post.  That believing in the heart and confession with the mouth, (true repentance ) will cause you to continue on into what you must do.  Verse 10 is a very important verse, for if it is not in the heart then there can be no righteousness.

[OGIA]

So, how do we know if they have truly repented?  Are there steps they have to follow?  Are there things they have to say? 

I ask because I have moved a bit away from what most of the UPC teaches about repentance: that it is the step where one asks God to forgive them of every sin they have ever committed, known or unknown.  (It doesn't really matter that I've changed my thinking about it, as I don't push it nor am I in a position to determine if someone has repented or not; I yield to my pastor and the ministers in our church for that).  I still believe that this is a part of repentance, but how do we really know when a person has truly repented?

[bishopnl]

Well, I don't know that I (or the UPCI, although I don't speak for them) would define repentance as merely asking forgiveness for all known or unknown sins.  I think repentance embodies more than just asking forgiveness--it involves the confession of sins and/or your sinful state, the forsaking of sin and the sinful lifestyle, and turning to God in recognition that you need his grace.  That probably doesn't even adequately describe it, but it at least begins to cover it a little bit better than a mere apology.  I've heard that the word "repent" was used by the Roman army when marching in formation, that the officer would give the order to "repent" as a means of turning them in a complete about face.  I don't know if that's true or not...but an about face is much closer to actual repentance than just saying we're sorry. 

At any rate--what exactly is your thinking regarding repentance?  In my estimation, we can't decide for anyone else whether or not they've repented.  That's something that only a person can know for themselves, although I do think the fruits of repentance will be evident in a person's life...although, if you're baptizing them the same night they repent, there's not really much time to determine whether those fruits are being manifested or not.  But John the Baptist told the Pharisees and Sadducees that they should bring forth "fruits meet for repentance" and that every tree that didn't bear that fruit would be hewn down.

One things for sure...once a person receives His Spirit, there is no question that their repentance is genuine. 

[titushome]

So, how do we know if they have truly repented?

Part of the issue here is a proper understanding of what it means to repent.  Bishop has the right idea:

I think repentance embodies more than just asking forgiveness--it involves the confession of sins and/or your sinful state, the forsaking of sin and the sinful lifestyle, and turning to God in recognition that you need his grace. 

Repentance includes the recognition that God is right, and I am wrong; He is good, and there is much in me that is evil; He is the standard to which every man must conform, and I fall woefully short of meeting that standard.

Repentance includes the desire to rectify this situation, to "get right with God" as some say, to begin living my life according to His direction.  It also typically involves an awareness that these changes are impossible unless God helps me make them.

Repentance includes the actions taken as a result of this desire.  It typically begins with confession of my sins, asking forgiveness for those sins, statements of my intention to live God's way, etc.

How do we know if someone's repentance is genuine?  In the short term, we don't; we simply take their word for it.  Philip, based on nothing more than the Ethiopian eunuch's statement of faith, baptized him.  He took him at his word.  I believe that when we are walking in the Spirit, we will often be able to discern whether a person's claims of repentance are genuine.  But this method is probably not foolproof, since we humans are so prone to error.

[OGIA]

At any rate--what exactly is your thinking regarding repentance?  

I think about it much like you and titus do.  I believe we see a desire for confession and asking of forgiveness because of precisely what titus wrote about: a person recognizes that he/she is a sinner and that Jesus Christ is the only One who can take care of that problem. 

I think true repentance leads to both confession and a request for forgiveness, and that this leads to a desire to ask "what must I do?"  That's when someone says "you must now be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" and they say "ok!".  THAT is when I think someone is ready to be baptized.

[yosemite]

At any rate--what exactly is your thinking regarding repentance?  

I think about it much like you and titus do.  I believe we see a desire for confession and asking of forgiveness because of precisely what titus wrote about: a person recognizes that he/she is a sinner and that Jesus Christ is the only One who can take care of that problem. 

I think true repentance leads to both confession and a request for forgiveness, and that this leads to a desire to ask "what must I do?"  That's when someone says "you must now be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" and they say "ok!".  THAT is when I think someone is ready to be baptized.

hmmm! sure is a lot of harmony goin on around here lately.
i'm no expert on the subject but i agree to what titus and bishop and ogia and bro dad says here with very few and not worth mentioning opinions of my own.

[onli-one-jehovi]

So, how do we know if they have truly repented?

Part of the issue here is a proper understanding of what it means to repent.  Bishop has the right idea:

I think repentance embodies more than just asking forgiveness--it involves the confession of sins and/or your sinful state, the forsaking of sin and the sinful lifestyle, and turning to God in recognition that you need his grace. 

Repentance includes the recognition that God is right, and I am wrong; He is good, and there is much in me that is evil; He is the standard to which every man must conform, and I fall woefully short of meeting that standard.

Repentance includes the desire to rectify this situation, to "get right with God" as some say, to begin living my life according to His direction.  It also typically involves an awareness that these changes are impossible unless God helps me make them.

Repentance includes the actions taken as a result of this desire.  It typically begins with confession of my sins, asking forgiveness for those sins, statements of my intention to live God's way, etc.

How do we know if someone's repentance is genuine?  In the short term, we don't; we simply take their word for it.  Philip, based on nothing more than the Ethiopian eunuch's statement of faith, baptized him.  He took him at his word.  I believe that when we are walking in the Spirit, we will often be able to discern whether a person's claims of repentance are genuine.  But this method is probably not foolproof, since we humans are so prone to error.

I believe that when we are walking in the Spirit, we will often be able to discern whether a person's claims of repentance are genuine.  But this method is probably not foolproof, since we humans are so prone to error.

If we truly walk in and discern with the Spirit - there will be no error. The Spirit of Truth will reveal it. But I do agree with what you are saying. 

[onli-one-jehovi]

Something different, but still applicable to topic's title.


Is "church" - as we practice it - as important as we tend to make it? 

Is it overrated, that is, are expectations too dependent upon what we feel and experience?

Is it possible, "church" can/has become an idol?

Can we make it without routine attendence?


Some things to talk about.