# United Pentecostal Church Sign Gets Confrontational



## Parakaleo (Dec 2, 2015)

Saw this when driving to my office today.





"BAPTISM IS ONLY VALID IF DONE IN Jesus NAME"

Does the United Pentecostal Church go so far as to say those who are baptized in the Trinitarian Name are destined for Hell?


----------



## Rhys (Dec 2, 2015)

Parakaleo said:


> Does the United Pentecostal Church go so far as to say those who are baptized in the Trinitarian Name are destined for Hell?



UPCI doctrine denies Trinitarianism, period.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 2, 2015)

Yeah I guess Jesus didn't know what he was talking about in Matthew 28. Oh wait, the Scriptures were corrupted by Constantine (or whomever). Nothing like building your theology on self-defeating philosophies.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 3, 2015)

Parakaleo said:


> Saw this when driving to my office today.
> 
> View attachment 4354
> 
> ...



Along with others who have moved to my home state of Louisiana, I see you've been confronted with Oneness Pentecostals, which I gather are rather rare in many parts of the country. (They seem plentiful enough up here in Arkansas.) In most parts of Louisiana, if you say "Pentecostal" UPC comes to mind rather than more orthodox Trinitarian Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God. 

Although some in those circles tend to downplay some of their more legalistic teachings and practices that were hallmarks of theirs a generation ago, the statement on the sign is one of the distinctives of Oneness Pentecostalism, which is also found in various "Apostolic" and "Jesus Name" organizations. Nowadays you can probably find people in the UPC who would disagree with the idea that one MUST be baptized in the name of Jesus (and Jesus only) to be saved, but I've found that older people tend to be more blunt in asserting that you have to be baptized in accordance with their doctrine (among other things) if you want to go to heaven. 

About 15 years ago, an old man who belonged to a prominent Oneness congregation accosted me in a parking lot and went on and on about how everybody else had baptism wrong. He ended up showing me a piece of paper that appeared to give directions on how to speak in tongues. 

Other than JW's, I am pretty sure that in the past 30 years or so, the only people who have ever shared their faith with me outside of a church setting have been Oneness Pentecostals.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Dec 3, 2015)

I think their answer to this would be that we don't accept baptisms in Jesus' name, despite examples in Acts of this being done.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 3, 2015)

Pilgrim said:


> Other than JW's, I am pretty sure that in the past 30 years or so, the only people who have ever shared their faith with me outside of a church setting have been Oneness Pentecostals.



I used to think the same thing though I know this is an area where I have been sadly mistaken. Have you ever had a religious conversation with anybody? If so the person who you spoke with shared their faith with you.


----------



## bobtheman (Dec 3, 2015)

Parakaleo said:


> Saw this when driving to my office today.
> 
> View attachment 4354
> 
> ...



What would that look like? 

We baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? 


I'm confused


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 3, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> Parakaleo said:
> 
> 
> > Saw this when driving to my office today.
> ...



They would simply baptize in the name of Jesus, and drop the Father and Holy Spirit.


----------



## Parakaleo (Dec 3, 2015)

It is a sad state of affairs. Dr. Doug Kelly (back at RTS Charlotte) would lecture at length about Trinitarian errors, saying things like, "If you don't get the Trinity right, you don't get Christ right. If you don't get Christ right, you don't get the Gospel."


----------



## lynnie (Dec 3, 2015)

I fail to understand the problem with baptizing in the name of Jesus/Lord Jesus Christ. That is how Acts records the apostles doing it four times If I recall correctly. Our identification is with him, being buried with him and rising with him ( Romans 6). 

Having said that, the UPC I knew said if you didn't pray in tongues you were not saved. That seemed to be a bigger deal than baptism. 

With the UPC gal I knew I finally admitted that Acts shows them repeatedly baptizing in the name of Jesus, and she softened up with me because I admitted she had a scriptural precedent. Eventually she ended up a Calvinist, but it sure took a while. But if you can't conceed this baptism point you won't get anywhere. Save the fight for Paul saying he wished they all spoke in tongues, implying that some did not, but he considered them Christians w/o tongues. You have to go carefully with these people.


----------



## Edward (Dec 3, 2015)

lynnie said:


> I fail to understand the problem with baptizing in the name of Jesus/Lord Jesus Christ.



Well, for those of us who subscribe to Westminster: "The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto."

Or, in your case, to the London Baptist: "The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. " 

Some PCAers will accept a Catholic baptism because it is Trinitarian; a Oneness Pentecostal should always be baptized if they join the church.


----------



## KMK (Dec 3, 2015)

WLC Q. 165. What is baptism?

A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water *in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost*,[1058] to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[1059] of remission of sins by his blood,[1060] and regeneration by his Spirit;[1061] of adoption,[1062] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[1063] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[1064] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.[1065]


The reason their baptism formula is a big deal is because they are committed Modalists. Modalism is a big deal because it makes the Gospel impossible.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 3, 2015)

lynnie said:


> I fail to understand the problem with baptizing in the name of Jesus/Lord Jesus Christ. That is how Acts records the apostles doing it four times If I recall correctly.



The statement in Acts is usually viewed as a synecdoche, meaning that it is a figure of speech in which a part is given for a whole. 

If they were not baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then they were disobeying Christ's commission. It is obvious from the context that they were baptizing in obedience to the commission, therefore the phrase in Acts is best understood as a synecdoche.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 4, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> > I fail to understand the problem with baptizing in the name of Jesus/Lord Jesus Christ. That is how Acts records the apostles doing it four times If I recall correctly.
> ...



I appreciate your reply but that isn't what Matthew Henry or Gill say, they both refer to those verses as a baptism literally in the name of Jesus. You can check it out on bible hub where they have commentaries under verses. 

That isn't really the point though, and we could get off on what does "in the name of" mean. For us, it means in the authority of, in the full understanding of the person the name represents. And for us that name carries the full authority of the father, and the God it represents is the Father, son and spirit. Gill sees no contradiction as for example:

_in the name of Jesus Christ; not to the exclusion of the Father, and of the Spirit, in whose name also this ordinance is to be administered, Matthew 28:19 but the name of Jesus Christ is particularly mentioned, because of these Jews, who had before rejected and denied him as the Messiah; but now, upon their repentance and faith, they are to be baptized in his name, by his authority, according to his command; professing their faith in him, devoting themselves to him, and calling on his name._ ( re Acts 2:38 where Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus).

The UPC does not see it that way. There is one God and he was father before the incarnation, then he was Jesus, and now he is the HS. So that baptism into the name of Jesus, identifying with his death ( Romans6) does not mean Jesus is still the incarnate God-man in heaven interceeding for us before the father. Only the Spirit is up there now, there is no trinity.

So when interacting with the UPC if they bring this up, you need to admit that Acts refers four times to baptism in Jesus name. Just admit it. If Matthew Henry and Gill can admit it, you can too. Then move on to how Jesus prayed to the father repeatedly, and focus in on that. That is the real chink in their armor, Jesus praying to the father. That was where my former UPC friend finally broke. 

Just my experience here, they are so brainwashed and you need to be led of the Lord how to talk to them. I would also bring up Hebrews and how Jesus is our eternal high priest and interceeds for us before the throne. Ask them about who Jesus is right now exactly, if we are to be baptized in his name. What is he like in heaven? What happened to his resurrected body? Is he coming back bodily? You can springboard into a lot of things, so I wouldn't mess up the debate trying to say the Apostles didn't really baptize in Jesus name in Acts.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 4, 2015)

lynnie said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > lynnie said:
> ...



Gill's view is the same as I have given above. Here is his reading of Acts 8:16:



> "only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus:" all as yet appeared in them was, that they were believers in Christ, and had been baptized in his name, upon a profession of their faith; and more than this they had been called to, or qualified for: *the word "only", does not respect the form of baptism, as if they had been baptized only in the name of Christ; whereas they were doubtless baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost*; but refers to baptism itself, which was the only ordinance as yet administered to them.



In the quote that you provided, Gill gives the reason for the synecdoche--it is a rhetorical device. Poole gives a very similar reading of Acts 2:38:



> "In the name of Jesus Christ;" *not excluding the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost, in whose name, as well as in the name of the Son, they were to baptize, Matthew 28:19: but the name of Jesus is here mentioned, because they had not yet known (but persecuted and slain) him, whom henceforward they must profess*; and that they look for pardon and salvation only through him.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 5, 2015)

lynnie said:


> I fail to understand the problem with baptizing in the name of Jesus/Lord Jesus Christ. That is how Acts records the apostles doing it four times If I recall correctly. Our identification is with him, being buried with him and rising with him ( Romans 6).
> 
> Having said that, the UPC I knew said if you didn't pray in tongues you were not saved. That seemed to be a bigger deal than baptism.
> 
> With the UPC gal I knew I finally admitted that Acts shows them repeatedly baptizing in the name of Jesus, and she softened up with me because I admitted she had a scriptural precedent. Eventually she ended up a Calvinist, but it sure took a while. But if you can't conceed this baptism point you won't get anywhere. Save the fight for Paul saying he wished they all spoke in tongues, implying that some did not, but he considered them Christians w/o tongues. You have to go carefully with these people.



So teaching that one must be immersed in the name of Jesus (and Jesus only) as a condition of salvation is not a big deal? With regard to the "fight", it is this sign that is bringing it. As I noted earlier, some of them are as apt to hammer you with their heretical baptism teaching as they are on tongues, especially those who aren't interested in passing themselves off as just another kind of evangelical. And a lot of people within and without their ranks don't really understand the issues at all.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 5, 2015)

The ones I knew were young, zealous, hungry, and I would say brainwashed. But they grasped that the bible was true and they wanted to follow it. And I saw God bring some out. 

It is not much different than a hungry Roman Catholic in my opinion- different mental bondages and false teachings, but still a strong desire to live life fully for Jesus Christ. I've met a lot of RCCs who came out. And their priests would probably say we are going to hell for being outside the true sacraments. So this sign about baptism is not much different than a statue of Mary outside a church in my opinion. It represents a false stronghold....oneness, Mary the sinless co-redemptress, both are distorted views of God. 

I suppose the question I've been thinking about is how one approaches "friendship evangelism" with the UPC, and that may be quite different than what the OP or anybody else had in mind. Since I am not all that great at evangelism I guess I'll leave that discussion to others. But I'll go on record as saying that trying to tell them the four references in Acts to baptizing in the name of Jesus don't really mean that is not a helpful way to engage with them.


----------



## KMK (Dec 5, 2015)

lynnie said:


> But I'll go on record as saying that trying to tell them the four references in Acts to baptizing in the name of Jesus don't really mean that is not a helpful way to engage with them.



This has been my experience as well. 

However, this church sign represents a false doctrine that is being propagated by an organized group of false teachers, which is different than an erroneous opinion held by a private, 'brainwashed' individual. Christ's true church must be allowed to mercilessly confront false doctrine regardless of whether it results in the conversion of individuals. We are not pragmatists.


----------

