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.