Not in those exact words, but the disdain runs like a river when baptism is mentioned, sometimes.

"Sacremental regenerationalists" is a phrase DA uses a lot.

I have no real interest in digging up everybody's posts, I have just been around here for about a year now, and have seen enough.

I do not agree there is any disdain for baptism. I feel that it is one of the most important things there is in life. Though I do not totally agree with everyones opinion on this I do agree that baptism is muy importante.

I do believe baptism should be administered in Jesus name, but I have no problem with adding F,S and HG to it. That way it covers what Jesus said and fulfills what Acts to confirms.

FAL, I agree - IF the work of the cross could be disqualified over a technicality I am quite sure none of us actually qualify.

Somewhere our doctrine has an impurity, but yet I rest in the assurance of Christ's work on the cross to make me perfect.

This would not be me.

Christian Baptism is the new believer's rite of passage of sorts. It is something to be heralded to the world.

You should be OK there Kut ! Some trust in their "rightness"...I'll trust in the cross and Jesus rightousness, imputed to me.

Wer had this conversation some time back on baptism and does it have to be done EXACTLY has we think we see in scripture.

You don't have to be much of a historical student of time of Christ or our Jewish roots to know that those that are taken under the water by the hands of another have not been baptized the way it was in done in the time of the apostles.

History will confirm that the early church baptism's , which were nothing new to the Jewish converts, were merely an extension of the Jewish Mikvah.

It is accepted among Hewbraic scholars that the earliset converst were baptized naked. They immersed themselves, no one could touch the person immersing themselves.

There's lots more but it's just easier to say it's my way or the hi way (to hell)

Yes Kutless..I think "we" are much more concerned with doctrinal purity than God is.

OK boys ...let the stones fly.

I surely hope you meant that TIC

If someone prays to Allah, does "I truly believe God is smart enough to know it is He, that is being referred to" still work?

Or how about if Noah used something other than what God told him to build an ark, does God say "Im sure he meant well" and wink at his disobedience?

Well stated. We are to follow in Christ's footsteps, and His footsteps were prefigured in the OT typology. There are lots of examples and reasons given to go through the waters of baptism, but how well we perform is no grounds for boasting because it is through the blood that we have redemption and forgiveness of sins.

That it is more important, Sam, does NOT mean what words were spoken have no importance whatsoever...

One might argue the heart is more important than the kidneys, but unless you want to spend your life on Dialysis or get a transplant, you'd still see the importance of the kidneys too, no matter how more important the heart is

My question is...does out faith and practices come from the bible or do they come from a hybrid man made version?

yes, that's why some OP preachers say don't use the "Lord Jesus Christ" formula, it's the same as saying "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Prax: I don't think the question was, is this baptism ok? In the name of the father son and holy ghost...which is Allah?

Try to stay on the thread :hypercoffee

Hopefully you don't know any Christians baptized that way?

Thankfully this silliness is a fleeting fad from the past. Though I heard of this briefly 20 years ago, I know of none currently teaching such error.

Thirty some years ago we attended a UPCI church in IL, and the pastor always used similar wording when he baptized people. He was a good pastor and Bible teacher ; a few books/booklets he wrote were published at Hazelwood;
so I just attributed it to him...a great man but not affected by UPCI peer pressure......and we were near St Louis. He had a unique ministry.

NO, it is not the same. You must use the name.

I second this. The NAME of JESUS CHRIST MUST be invoked over one during baptism.

Using "Jesus, Jesus' Name, Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ, etc" are not compatible with Acts 2:38. Saying in the Name of the "Lord Jesus Christ" is equal to saying "Father=Lord Son=Jesus Holy Ghost=Christ" a three-fold name ... I would have to conclude that JESUS CHRIST is the ONLY Name that needs to be used during baptism. Acts 4:12 said "Neither is there salvation in ANY other, there is NO other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved."

Just wondering, what was the pastor's name and are his books still available from the PPH?

I mostly use the name of Jesus Christ, and I help my pastor with baptisms, but I did baptize a woman who was in her 80s who has since gone on ,in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ I think it was valid.

Acts 2:38 be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
Acts 8:16 they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus
Acts 10:48 he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord
Acts 19:5 they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus

Seems there was diversity in the "formula"

In EVERY one of them the name of Jesus is mentioned. NO where did they use the titles. The power in the name of Jesus. Therefore the name MUST be in it.

Yes and we could say I baptize you in the name of Jesus The Christ,or we could say I indeed baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ the Mighty God .

I agree.

From what I understand, the late Bishop S.C. Johnson insisted that the three fold name Lord Jesus Christ be used. I think he ordered rebaptism for anyone who was baptized in the name of Jesus or Jesus Christ.

In 1927 Bishop Boyd Lawson left the PAW because of their use of Lord Jesus Christ and he insisted on using the name of Jesus Christ. The organization he founded was the Church of Jesus Christ and some of those ministers insisted on rebaptism if Lord Jesus Christ was used. His son, Boyd, is presiding bishop of the Churches of Jesus Christ International which is one of the groups surviving the splintering of the Church of Jesus Christ over the years. Their web site is
http://www.angelfire.com/tn3/cojci/
and on it they mention baptism in the name of Jesus

Caston Smith,
I notice that you are from Alabama.
Anywhere near Scott Hutchinson?

Just curious, do you believe that if someone was baptized in the threefold name "Lord Jesus Christ" that it would not be valid?

I'll be honest with you all. From my understanding and research this teaching of only using the Name of Jesus Christ in baptism started in 1922 amongst some men that were apart of a group that went by "The Church of Jesus Christ".

As I said to a preacher friend of mine on IM earlier, I would not, and do not feel comfortable baptizing anyone using any other Name than Jesus Christ. However I would not cut off anyone who does use LJC.

I do believe it's important to say Jesus Christ, because there are Hispanics today named Jesus, and from the Scripture we know there were other Jesus'. Only one who actually lived up to His Name, and that was Jesus Christ; God incarnate.

I know one Pastor in Caryville, Florida who is opposed to saying at the end of the baptismal invocation "that you may receive the Holy Ghost" ... his argument is that the last words before the candidate goes under water is "Holy Ghost". Perhaps you all might have some thoughts about this?

Bro. Hutchinson and I were just PMing one another. We're probably about 2 hours from one another maybe 3.

Brother Hutchinson,

Why not just do it like Peter said in Acts 2:38?

"and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ..."

My ALJC pastor used to say, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and for the reception of the Holy Ghost" and then just before plunging them backward into the water he would add "in Jesus' name."

Why add anything besides Jesus Name to the equation if it's the NAME that does the work?

Here is the way I see it. If I have a horrible allergy that can potentially take my life and all it takes is a shot of some specific medicine to cure me then, without fail, I would take it.

However, I would become tremendously concerned if they said, "We're going to give you the specific medicine that it takes to cure you! But, while we're at it, we're going to mix in some morphine, some steriods and some chemotherapy - three other elements that aren't remotely needed just to see what happens to you!"

Thanks but NO THANKS!

Just give me what it take to be cured: Jesus Name does that just fine.

Yes, this is the same information I came across about the Lawson klan in the 20's.

My family was part of the PAJC that didn't merge with the PCI in 1945 to form the UPC; due to salvational issues such as "Is one saved at repentance? Is the blood squarely applied in water baptism? etc."

So I have always been instructed, and taught that the Name Jesus Christ only is to be used during baptism. I've adhered to this teaching.

I don't see anything wrong with that. When I baptize I say

"Person's full name ________________ Upon the profession of your faith, and obedience to the Word of God I now baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins (and if they don't have the Holy Ghost I conclude by saying) that you may receive the Holy Ghost"

I was preaching at a Church one time and the Pastor asked me to baptize a couple of new converts, and I said the above, and he had me to rebaptize them without saying "that you may receive the Holy Ghost."

Brother Smith, I have to ask: Are you associated with Pastor Reckart?

To my knowledge he isn't, he has just communicated with him. That is how his letter got added to the Reckhart letter.

Praxeas, do you make commericals for Geico? lol

I couldn't resist since you have that pic.

This is why much of the discussion on this thread is a moot issue. There is a lot of personal preference out there... It almost makes baptism seem like something fabricated for pleasure of man.

Why don't we just preach Jesus and baptise those who recieve His word in His name. The scripture never gives an exact formula regarding baptism.

Dan, would you even consider casting out a devil without invoking the name of the Lord? Is the name of the Lord being used as a magical name when the sick are healed as in Acts 3?

Does this sound magical to you? The name of the Lord is a strong tower......

I've seen men of God simply lay their hands on a demon possessed person and they are liberated ... why ??? because they did so in the name of the Lord .. with His person through them .... w/ His power and authority. As I have seen Spirit-filled people cast out demons while invoking the name of our Lord.

There are layers to this, Mizpeh. If simple invocation was enough then the sons of Sceva would not have been wrecked by the demon they sought exorcise. If simply casting out demons in His name ... or possessing the power given to us to do so ... is what saves us ... then those that God will not tell some on that day ... depart from me.

Some are hung up ... on the proper verbalization ... and that is troublesome.

That's what I usually say. But of course in Acts they said Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus or the name of the Lord is mentioned so to me if the person is repentant and the name of Jesus Christ is used in the person's baptism I can live with it.

This could be because if they were new converts they may have already received the HG. So it was a contradiction to then ask for them to be filled unless perhaps you could use "baptize you in the name of Jesus.....that you may be continually filled with his spirit." Something like that.

The church I attend the Pastor asked if they have accepted Jesus into there life and has He made a change in them. Then he baptizes them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and he says, "and may you walk in the power of His spirit(Holy Spirit,Holy Ghost) all the days of your life." I like that!