Unite Us: BYOPT

Another fad.

From the article:

The goal for the Unite US movement, according to both Moran and Prewett, is salvation [from what?] for the non-believer, freedom for the believer [meaning no sanctification] and connection in the community. [IOW having friends]​
​
“We want [our impact] to be a lifelong discipleship process for the students, not a one night event,” said Prewett. “Anyone can come and experience a one night event, leave and maybe change that night, but it’s hard to walk out those changes unless you’re part of a community.” [IOW, we're a alternative to the local church.]​
​
...​
​
The night opened with a few Christian songs [to give the humanistic movement a hallowed tone] followed by J.P Pokluda, the lead pastor of Harris Creek Baptist in Waco, Texas, author and host of the podcast “Becoming Something”, who spoke out about the dangers of various addictions Gen Z face including addiction to alcohol, partying and pornography [the message of any secular psychiatrist] while encouraging attendees to seek out truth and find freedom. Pokluda shared personal anecdotes about overcoming his own challenges to find a relationship with [the] God [of his imagination.]​
​
...​
​
Next, Jennie Allen, Bible teacher and author, spoke about the dangers of social media and comparison and encouraged the audience to be open to each other about the things they have been hiding in their lives...[again, the message of any secular psychiatrist.]​
​
Basically the preaching of Mr. Worldly Wiseman.

Where was the warning to flee from the wrath to come?

​
​
 
I guess this is the time where I become a LEEEEGALIST!

Baptism is an ordinance of the Church and any legitimate baptism should be done under the authority of a Local Church Congregation! If such does not fit this basic criteria, these are not legitimate baptisms!

Now, if a local Baptist Church, Assembly of God, Calvary Chapel, or whatever was to turn a pickup truck into a baptistry and baptize new believers, This is an entirely different manner but I would question why someone would turn such a solemn event into a publicity gimmick!
 
Baptist Renegade said:
I guess this is the time where I become a LEEEEGALIST!

Baptism is an ordinance of the Church and any legitimate baptism should be done under the authority of a Local Church Congregation! If such does not fit this basic criteria, these are not legitimate baptism

Now, if a local Baptist Church, Assembly of God, Calvary Chapel, or whatever was to turn a pickup truck into a baptistry and baptize new believers, This is an entirely different manner but I would question why someone would turn such a solemn event into a publicity gimmick!
Click to expand...
was phillips baptism of the ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8; 25 to 8; 40 legitimate?.. ...which local church congregation authorized phillip to do that?..... . in Acts 8; 36 of the same section, ...as they travelled together in the chariot... the eunuch pointed to a body of water and asked phillip what would prevent him from being baptized?.... ....was phillip wrong for not explaining to him the legality of the issue as you just explained it here?..... :unsure:

make no mistake.. .. i am not in favor of showmanship when it comes to things like baptism or any church ordinance... and to me the pickup truck thing reeks of showmanship..... .........just didn;t want to see you turn into a legalist without thinking it through... ;)
 
Calvary Chapel of the Lewis Clark Valley baptizes believers at the gates of hell:
parksandrecreation.idaho.gov

Hells Gate State Park

Hells Gate lies on the river bottom left over from the great ice age floods about 15,000 years ago. At the south end of the park are basaltic columns from the Pomona flows 14 million years ago. Hells Gate State Park was once the site of a Nez Perce Village. Little is left of the […]
parksandrecreation.idaho.gov parksandrecreation.idaho.gov
 
aleshanee said:
was phillips baptism of the ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8; 25 to 8; 40 legitimate?.. ...which local church congregation authorized phillip to do that?..... . in Acts 8; 36 of the same section, ...as they travelled together in the chariot... the eunuch pointed to a body of water and asked phillip what would prevent him from being baptized?.... ....was phillip wrong for not explaining to him the legality of the issue as you just explained it here?..... :unsure:

make no mistake.. .. i am not in favor of showmanship when it comes to things like baptism or any church ordinance... and to me the pickup truck thing reeks of showmanship..... .........just didn;t want to see you turn into a legalist without thinking it through... ;)
Click to expand...
Yes, Philip was a missionary-evangelist and was duly authorized and sent by his church in Jerusalem (I believe it was still Jerusalem but I could be wrong here).

I know this account seems contrary to what I have said but the Ethiopian eunoch was in transit back to Ethiopia so it did not make sense for him to return to be baptized in the baptistry of the "First Baptist Church of Jerusalem." Christianity eventually became rather prominent in the country of Ethiopia (Which preceded its introduction to Europe BTW) and the eunoch's conversion likely played a large part in this. I am sure there was some sort of apostolic presence later on whereby churches were officially established.

I recently did a paper on baptism and addressed extenuating circumstances where such a rigid view may pose a problem. One if these is with those who are incarcerated in a penitentary for an extended sentence and possibly life. In such a case, you can have a Chaplain who is sent by and affiliated with a local church who is authorized to administer baptisms. I specifically made the stipulation that such a chaplain should be a "missionary" who is supported by the church rather than collecting a salary from the state. There is room for disagreement but such makes the best sense according to my understanding of the scriptures. I also adressed problems associated with military chaplains administering baptisms to servicemembers on deployment although sympathetic to the fact that some were going into combat and their future was uncertain regarding when (and if) they would return home to be baptized by a local congregation.

I also made the case that one did not have to be "ordained," but they should be duly authorized to perform the task by a biblical, local church. By "Duly Authorized" I mean they may authorize whoever they deem appropriate which may include parents (mothers or fathers), lay-persons, and so-forth and may also be performed in "Small-group" settings or whatever. I may not agree, but I would consider such baptisms to be valid and sanctioned by the authority of the church.
 
abcaines said:
Calvary Chapel of the Lewis Clark Valley baptizes believers at the gates of hell:
parksandrecreation.idaho.gov

Hells Gate State Park

Hells Gate lies on the river bottom left over from the great ice age floods about 15,000 years ago. At the south end of the park are basaltic columns from the Pomona flows 14 million years ago. Hells Gate State Park was once the site of a Nez Perce Village. Little is left of the […]
parksandrecreation.idaho.gov parksandrecreation.idaho.gov
Click to expand...
Yes, but as you say, "Calvary Chapel... baptizes..."

The baptisms are performed under the authority of Calvary Chapel of the Lewis Clark Valley and are therefore legitimate. Pretty cool saying you were baptized at the "Gates of Hell" if I may say so myself.:cool:

AB Caines, however, should never take it upon himself to baptize anyone anywhere!;)
 
aleshanee said:
was phillips baptism of the ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8; 25 to 8; 40 legitimate?.. ...which local church congregation authorized phillip to do that?.....
Click to expand...

The long answer is, the church at Jerusalem, which had appointed him as a deacon and an evangelist. At the time, the church had just been scattered by the persecution following Stephen's martyrdom, so Philip was on kind of an impromptu evangelism tour.

The shorter answer is, God: "Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, 'Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza'" (Acts 8:27). That meeting was providential.

in Acts 8; 36 of the same section, ...as they travelled together in the chariot... the eunuch pointed to a body of water and asked phillip what would prevent him from being baptized?.... ....was phillip wrong for not explaining to him the legality of the issue as you just explained it here?.....
Click to expand...

No. First, I think we can infer that as an evangelist, Philip was authorized to baptize disciples. Second, he was out in the middle of the wilderness, in a time when the church was scattered, with a convert who was leaving the area and likely would never be back. He couldn't exactly phone into home office for instructions. The encounter with the Ethiopian was providential, but it was also, at the moment, opportunistic. This was in the very earliest days of the church, and they were probably making up the rules as the situation warranted.
 
Ransom said:
The long answer is, the church at Jerusalem, which had appointed him as a deacon and an evangelist. At the time, the church had just been scattered by the persecution following Stephen's martyrdom, so Philip was on kind of an impromptu evangelism tour.

The shorter answer is, God: "Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, 'Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza'" (Acts 8:27). That meeting was providential.



No. First, I think we can infer that as an evangelist, Philip was authorized to baptize disciples. Second, he was out in the middle of the wilderness, in a time when the church was scattered, with a convert who was leaving the area and likely would never be back. He couldn't exactly phone into home office for instructions. The encounter with the Ethiopian was providential, but it was also, at the moment, opportunistic. This was in the very earliest days of the church, and they were probably making up the rules as the situation warranted.
Click to expand...
that;s how i always saw it too... ...God sent phillip to the eunuch as an answer to the eunuchs desire to know the truth and to understand..... and phillips was a special case with regards to baptism having direct authorization from Jesus Himself - in the flesh....

still i would never want to be too harsh criticizing the way members of another congregation or religious group handled a church ordinance - even if my first impression of what they were doing made me wonder if they were making a mockery of it.. ....but then i also wouldn;t take part in it or recommend others to get involved with it either if i felt uncomfortable with what i was seeing.... .. ..i would want to learn more about what they were doing and why....

however.. .... i was watching a news clip on a group promoting baptism enmasse to whoever wants it whether they clearly understood it or not... and the person explaining what it did for her seemed to believe the water itself had washed her sin away and all of her sin had been left in that water.... .... that made me wonder if she really understood it at all - or if she had simply mispoke herself.... ..i hope i misundertood what she was saying.... ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top