Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by truejew

As I said, I would not feel comfortable with that type of baptism and would reject it. If the person wants to be under my ministry, they would be rebaptized.

Okay, just to make sure that we're on the same page, I'm going to clip Reckart's text there to highlight the relevant bits:

Can a trinitarian who was never baptized in the name of Jesus Christ baptize a person in the name of Jesus Christ? Some claim it is not the spiritual condition of the baptizer, it is the faith of the baptismal candidate here.

And I do not know of a single Pastor in the Oneness ranks who believes a trinitarian who has not been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ has any scriptural authority to baptized a person in the name of Jesus Christ.

From that, I can conclude that a person who was baptized with a "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" Trinitarian baptism cannot baptize anyone in a "Jesus Only" baptism, and that anyone who was baptized by that person cannot be saved, and will be condemned unless they are re-baptized by a "Oneness" person, who was themselves baptized with the "Jesus only" baptism, by someone who was also so baptized.

Is that a valid statement? Also, what about the person who was baptized "Jesus Only" by the Trinitarian -- if he were to baptize someone with the "Jesus Only" method, would that be a valid baptism? I'm guessing that, logically, it would not be, because of the belief that only a valid "Jesus Only" baptized person could do it, but I wanted to make sure.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

As I said, I would not feel comfortable with that type of baptism and would reject it. If the person wants to be under my ministry, they would be rebaptized.

Okay, just to make sure that we're on the same page, I'm going to clip Reckart's text there to highlight the relevant bits:

Can a trinitarian who was never baptized in the name of Jesus Christ baptize a person in the name of Jesus Christ? Some claim it is not the spiritual condition of the baptizer, it is the faith of the baptismal candidate here.

And I do not know of a single Pastor in the Oneness ranks who believes a trinitarian who has not been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ has any scriptural authority to baptized a person in the name of Jesus Christ.

From that, I can conclude that a person who was baptized with a "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" Trinitarian baptism cannot baptize anyone in a "Jesus Only" baptism, and that anyone who was baptized by that person cannot be saved, and will be condemned unless they are re-baptized by a "Oneness" person, who was themselves baptized with the "Jesus only" baptism, by someone who was also so baptized.

Is that a valid statement? Also, what about the person who was baptized "Jesus Only" by the Trinitarian -- if he were to baptize someone with the "Jesus Only" method, would that be a valid baptism? I'm guessing that, logically, it would not be, because of the belief that only a valid "Jesus Only" baptized person could do it, but I wanted to make sure.

There is no Biblical evidence to support a baptism done by non-Christians.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

As I said, I would not feel comfortable with that type of baptism and would reject it. If the person wants to be under my ministry, they would be rebaptized.

Okay, just to make sure that we're on the same page, I'm going to clip Reckart's text there to highlight the relevant bits:

Can a trinitarian who was never baptized in the name of Jesus Christ baptize a person in the name of Jesus Christ? Some claim it is not the spiritual condition of the baptizer, it is the faith of the baptismal candidate here.

And I do not know of a single Pastor in the Oneness ranks who believes a trinitarian who has not been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ has any scriptural authority to baptized a person in the name of Jesus Christ.

From that, I can conclude that a person who was baptized with a "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" Trinitarian baptism cannot baptize anyone in a "Jesus Only" baptism, and that anyone who was baptized by that person cannot be saved, and will be condemned unless they are re-baptized by a "Oneness" person, who was themselves baptized with the "Jesus only" baptism, by someone who was also so baptized.

Is that a valid statement? Also, what about the person who was baptized "Jesus Only" by the Trinitarian -- if he were to baptize someone with the "Jesus Only" method, would that be a valid baptism? I'm guessing that, logically, it would not be, because of the belief that only a valid "Jesus Only" baptized person could do it, but I wanted to make sure.

There is no Biblical evidence to support a baptism done by non-Christians.

Well, that's debatable, but that's not really the point.

Do you agree with Reckart that the faith of the person being baptized has absolutely no bearing on the process, such that if the person doing the baptizing was not baptized in with the "Jesus Only" method, that person could not be saved without being re-baptized by a person who was themselves validly baptized in the "name of Jesus".

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

Do you agree with Reckart that the faith of the person being baptized has absolutely no bearing on the process, such that if the person doing the baptizing was not baptized in with the "Jesus Only" method, that person could not be saved without being re-baptized by a person who was themselves validly baptized in the "name of Jesus".

If the baptizer is not authorized to baptize, the baptism is not valid.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

Do you agree with Reckart that the faith of the person being baptized has absolutely no bearing on the process, such that if the person doing the baptizing was not baptized in with the "Jesus Only" method, that person could not be saved without being re-baptized by a person who was themselves validly baptized in the "name of Jesus".

If the baptizer is not authorized to baptize, the baptism is not valid.

Well, if being baptized the "Jesus Only" way is required, then you've a bit of a problem.

You've said that a person who is invalidly baptized cannot validly baptize anyone. Thus, if I were to baptize someone, they are not validly baptized, and that extends down from them -- until and unless someone down the line from me gets re-baptized, all subsequent baptisms are invalid. You've said in the past that even if the reason that the baptism was invalid was secret or unknown (such as a Oneness pastor being secretly a homosexual,) it didn't matter -- the person being baptized would be condemned because faith doesn't matter, it's all related to the person doing the baptizing.

But that's not your problem -- the real problem is that, by your standards, no one has ever received a valid "Jesus Only" baptism, because the "line of validity" goes both ways. You were baptized by someone who had the "Jesus Only" baptism, who in turn had been baptized by someone with a "Jesus Only" baptism, and so on and so forth... until 1914.

On April 15, 1914, Frank Ewart and Glenn Cook publicly baptized each other in "the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but as the one name of Jesus, not as a Trinitarian formula." This is considered to be the historical point when Oneness Pentecostalism emerged as a distinct movement. (Source)

Now, that doesn't say which of them did the first baptism, but let's assume it was Ewart. He baptizes Cook "In the name of Jesus", who then baptizes Ewart, and then they run around baptizing everyone who wants it, and that eventually filters down to you.

BUT... because you say that faith has nothing to do with it, and it all depends on the person doing the baptism, Ewart's baptism of Cook is invalid, because Ewart had never been baptized in the name of Jesus by someone who had been. He was either not baptized at all, or baptized as a Trinitarian.

As a result, Cook's baptism of Ewart was invalid, as was everyone that the two baptized, as was everyone subsequently so baptized, right down to you.

Your own stated rules say that, not only have you never been validly baptized, you can never be validly baptized, because your legalism has made it impossible.

reply to post by adjensen

Dear adjensen,

I've been standing by, staring in awe at your patience and persistence in this thread. I thought it was foolish. Allow me the opportunity to humble myself and bow deeply to your spirit.

You have finally, and conclusively, ended this discussion. I name you winner and champion, at least in the realm of logic, reason, and common sense.

I have never seen such a simple, and yet so devastating, knockout punch. Come on, I'll buy you a beer.

The only thing left for truejew is to argue that the Holy Spirit came down to give a legitimate baptism to these men. That claim, of course, would leave him open to the remark "Oh, really? God waited 2,000 years to give us our first valid baptism?"

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Salvation by grace through faith has never been without works.

I think genuine faith produces works. Phillipians 2:13 says God changes our will to both will and to do of his good pleasure. God saves us to do good works for Him.

And in your Noah example, his faith produced the works.

edit on 3-6-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Without the works, Noah had no faith. Just like without baptism, a person has no faith.

Hmmm, so a person can trust Christ and simultaneously not trust Christ?

Have you ever heard of the Law of Non-Contradiction before?

You're saying a person could believe in Christ and trust the He is the Savior who died for their sins and also reject Christ and not believe that He died for their sins?


Is that how it works? His sacrifice at Calvary is dependent upon our works? You know, like Jesus did some of it but He's counting on us to complete the processes ourselves??

What an absurd Humanistic soeteriology doctrine.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dear NOTurTypical,

The only thing I can think of, (Sorry to put words in his mouth.) is that truejew sees two kinds of faith, good faith and really good faith. I'll leave the definition of those concepts to him.

But I still believe that adjensen's argument, that no one could have validly baptised the two Oneness Bishops, puts an end to this portion of the discussion.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

You've said that a person who is invalidly baptized cannot validly baptize anyone.

I said, "If the baptizer is not authorized to baptize, the baptism is not valid."

In the special case of Ewart and Cook, God authorized the baptism due to His foreknowledge that the other would soon be baptized in the name of Christ. The same would have happened with the apostles.

In the case you presented, the baptizer, had no desire to be baptized into Christ.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by adjensen

 

Dear adjensen,

I've been standing by, staring in awe at your patience and persistence in this thread. I thought it was foolish. Allow me the opportunity to humble myself and bow deeply to your spirit.

You have finally, and conclusively, ended this discussion. I name you winner and champion, at least in the realm of logic, reason, and common sense.

I have never seen such a simple, and yet so devastating, knockout punch. Come on, I'll buy you a beer.

The only thing left for truejew is to argue that the Holy Spirit came down to give a legitimate baptism to these men. That claim, of course, would leave him open to the remark "Oh, really? God waited 2,000 years to give us our first valid baptism?"

With respect,
Charles1952

While you two celebrate in pride this "knockout punch" based upon a twisted view of what I said, my glory will be in Christ alone.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Salvation by grace through faith has never been without works.

I think genuine faith produces works. Phillipians 2:13 says God changes our will to both will and to do of his good pleasure. God saves us to do good works for Him.

And in your Noah example, his faith produced the works.

edit on 3-6-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Without the works, Noah had no faith. Just like without baptism, a person has no faith.

Hmmm, so a person can trust Christ and simultaneously not trust Christ?

Have you ever heard of the Law of Non-Contradiction before?

You're saying a person could believe in Christ and trust the He is the Savior who died for their sins and also reject Christ and not believe that He died for their sins?


Is that how it works? His sacrifice at Calvary is dependent upon our works? You know, like Jesus did some of it but He's counting on us to complete the processes ourselves??

What an absurd Humanistic soeteriology doctrine.

A person who claims to have faith in Christ, but the works show otherwise, is a liar.

Originally posted by truejew
In the special case of Ewart and Cook, God authorized the baptism due to His foreknowledge that the other would soon be baptized in the name of Christ.

"God authorized the baptism"? Really? That's the best you can muster?

Absolute fantasy, unsupported by any scripture or theology, and completely contrary to what you claim, that faith plays no role in baptismal validity.

If one must be baptized in the name of Jesus to baptize someone else, neither Ewart or Cook was eligible to baptize anyone. Either someone doesn't need to have that status, or no one has ever had a valid baptism, including yourself. That's not what I believe, but that's what you teach.

I must be getting prophetic. From several posts up:

I have never seen such a simple, and yet so devastating, knockout punch. Come on, I'll buy you a beer.

The only thing left for truejew is to argue that the Holy Spirit came down to give a legitimate baptism to these men. That claim, of course, would leave him open to the remark "Oh, really? God waited 2,000 years to give us our first valid baptism?"

Originally posted by charles1952
I must be getting prophetic.

Yes, "truejew", along with the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and probably a number of others. The turn of the 20th Century is littered with heretical claims of "true Christianity".

Originally posted by adjensen

Absolute fantasy, unsupported by any scripture or theology, and completely contrary to what you claim, that faith plays no role in baptismal validity.

God is not fantasy. Ewart and Cook did not live during the correct time period to be recorded in Scripture. I have not said that "faith plays no role in baptismal validity", that is something you incorrectly claim that I teach.

Originally posted by charles1952
I must be getting prophetic. From several posts up:

I have never seen such a simple, and yet so devastating, knockout punch. Come on, I'll buy you a beer.

The only thing left for truejew is to argue that the Holy Spirit came down to give a legitimate baptism to these men. That claim, of course, would leave him open to the remark "Oh, really? God waited 2,000 years to give us our first valid baptism?"

I see the methods of a false prophet.

I said nothing about the Holy Spirit coming down to give a legitimate baptism. Only that they were authorized to baptize.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by charles1952
I must be getting prophetic.

Yes, "truejew", along with the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and probably a number of others. The turn of the 20th Century is littered with heretical claims of "true Christianity".

You do realize that you are a heretic according to your Catholic Church don't you?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Salvation by grace through faith has never been without works.

I think genuine faith produces works. Phillipians 2:13 says God changes our will to both will and to do of his good pleasure. God saves us to do good works for Him.

And in your Noah example, his faith produced the works.

edit on 3-6-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Without the works, Noah had no faith. Just like without baptism, a person has no faith.

Hmmm, so a person can trust Christ and simultaneously not trust Christ?

Have you ever heard of the Law of Non-Contradiction before?

You're saying a person could believe in Christ and trust the He is the Savior who died for their sins and also reject Christ and not believe that He died for their sins?


Is that how it works? His sacrifice at Calvary is dependent upon our works? You know, like Jesus did some of it but He's counting on us to complete the processes ourselves??

What an absurd Humanistic soeteriology doctrine.

A person who claims to have faith in Christ, but the works show otherwise, is a liar.

edit on 4-6-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

Well, sure. But we aren't talking about that. So not sure why you'd go off on a red herring.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Absolute fantasy, unsupported by any scripture or theology, and completely contrary to what you claim, that faith plays no role in baptismal validity.

God is not fantasy. Ewart and Cook did not live during the correct time period to be recorded in Scripture. I have not said that "faith plays no role in baptismal validity", that is something you incorrectly claim that I teach.

Actually, that is what you teach -- I intentionally asked you whether you rejected Reckart's statement to that effect:

Some claim it is not the spiritual condition of the baptizer, it is the faith of the baptismal candidate here. One idiot had the audacity to say that even a drunk could baptise in Jesus Christ name and the person's baptism would be valid. The same idiot said the baptism of a homosexual pastor was valid if he did it in the name of Jesus Christ.

Are you now saying that you reject Gary Reckart's teaching that it is the spiritual state of the baptizer, not the faith of the one being baptized, that matters?

If not, then your claim that "God authorized" a special dispensation for Ewart and Cook is not rational, because they would have done so out of faith, and you have no basis, whatsoever, for your belief that "God authorized" anything -- it is not scriptural, there is no personal testimony to it, and it is contrary to your stated theology.

You've invented the excuse simply because you recognize that your entire "Jesus Only" baptismal theory collapses without it, and you're incapable of presenting a rational defense of it, because no such defense exists.

Originally posted by truejew
You do realize that you are a heretic according to your Catholic Church don't you?

I have never claimed to be in full compliance with the teachings of the Catholic Church, but neither do I claim that the Church teaches something that it does not. Unlike you, my faith is not rooted in legalism, and I do not believe that God is a cruel tyrant with an arbitrary checklist of esoteric works and rituals that must be attended to in order to be saved.