Unity & Diversity - Howard Goss

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

In a message dated 97-03-04 01:31:52 EST, you write:

<< Me:
 Don't know the rest of it, but this is 100% wrong.  The
 wording is 
 "...name of Jesus Christ "for" the remission of sins..." 
 There is no 
 lexicological magic here.  If I say I give you a dollar
 "for" the remission of John's debt, it is the dollar that
 pays the debt. >>
 
I agree with your post Bro. Litteral. I thought HF might be interested in a
post I read in the "Christian Message Boards" of AOL awhile back. So here
goes:

 From:  DWalden513      

Whoa Nellie Bozo!!!!!

Water baptism IS essential.  To speak the name Jesus over the candidate IS
essential.  I don’t know where you fellas get your doctrine from but it
didn’t come from the scriptures.  Water baptism is a commandment, and to say
that it is not essential is to say it is not essential to keep the commands
of God.  It is in the imperative in Acts 2:38 which means it is a command to
be kept.  You say that all we have to do is “believe” and we ARE saved.  What
do you do with Peter’s statement which says, “But we believe that through the
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” [ Acts 15:11
]  SHALL BE SAVED, Peter?  The word ‘believe’ has much more meaning than you
let on in your postings.  It is best observed in the text of John 3:36.  “He
that believeth not the Son shall not see life.”  The word ‘believeth not’ is
‘apeithon’ and is better translated as disobeyeth.  This is evident from the
RSV and J.P. Green interlinear translations.  Can one truly say he believes
while he disobeys?  It follows then that ‘believeth’ includes obedience to
him.

The above doctrine is illustrated in Romans 10:13-14, “For whosoever shall
call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.  How then shall they call on
him in whom they have not believed?”  In this scripture setting a preacher is
sent, he is heard, the hearers believe, they call upon the name of the Lord
in order to be saved.  The calling is done AFTER  they believe.  This shoots
down the ‘believe only’ doctrine.  This calling is done by the believer and
not God.  This is something the believer DOES.  Tell me again there is
nothing I must DO in order to be saved.  Remember that man shall not live by
bread alone but by “ every word” that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Acts 22:16 tells us WHEN this calling is to be done.  “ Arise, and be
baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”  It is
at baptism that this calling is to be done.  Without baptism, calling on the
name of the Lord is not the same calling of Rom. 10:13-14.  The ‘wash away’
in 22:16 is in the aorist imperative which speaks of an action which has not
yet started.  If prayer without baptism saves a man then Paul would not have
still had his sins when Ananias came to him for  Paul was already in prayer
as taught in Acts 9:11.  So the one being baptized is to call on the name of
the Lord AT baptism.

At the same time as above (baptism) the baptizer is to speak the name of
Jesus over the one being baptized in order to mark that one as the possession
of Jesus.  The idiom ‘epi to onomati’ (in the name) used by Peter in Acts
2:38 carries the meaning of ‘bearing the name’.  This phrase is also used in
Luke 1:59 and Acts 15:14.  In 1:59 the words ‘after the name’ is the same as
Acts 2:38 in the Greek.  “They called him Zacharias, bearing the name of  his
father.”  That is they SPOKE the name Zacharias indicating by what name they
assumed he would be called.  In Acts 15:14 one only has to check the Moffatt,
Goodspeed, Amplified, New English  versions to see ‘for his name’ (epi to
onomati) is translated ‘to bear his name’.  The idea of possession connected
to the act of baptism is seen in Acts 15:17 where we read, “ upon whom my
name is called.”  The word ‘is called’ is epikeklatai and is defined by Arndt
& Gingrich as, “Someone’s name is called over someone to designate the latter
as the property of the former...”, page 294.  This scripture quote is from
Amos the 9th chapter where the literal Hebrew reads ‘upon whom my name is
called’. [See the KJV side margin]  The Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius
Hebrew-English lexicon defines ‘is called’ as “denoting ownership”,  page
896.  Ownership and water baptism come together in the idiom ‘eis to onoma’
found in Matt. 28:19, Acts 8:16, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:12-15.  It is the latter text
which really shows the meaning of possession.  The Cor. church was a divided
church with some saying they belonged to Peter, some to Paul,  some to
Apollos.  
CONT...... 


Subj:  Re: Baptism/cont...
Date:  96-11-20 19:11:36 EST
From:  DWalden513      

This idea is brought out by the RSV, “each one of you says, ‘I belong to
Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to
Christ.’  Is Christ divided?  Was Paul crucified for you?  Or were you
baptized in the name of Paul?” The idea is ‘who do you belong to’?  What does
crucifixion have to do with possession?  In Acts 20:28 we find that God
PURCHASED his church with his own blood.  When you purchase something it
becomes your possession.  Thus does scripture teach that without baptism one
cannot call on the name of the Lord for salvation, and one cannot be the
possession of Jesus without baptism.












                                                                        David