No Jesus Name Invoked, No Valid Baptism?

[Esaias]

I don't have to take out of context some Priestly blessing in the Old Testament that was uttered over the Hebrews and use it as a proof-text for incantational heresy.

Ah, now those who believe in the necessity of Jesus' name baptism are heretics!

lol

[Aquila]

God gave us Jesus.

Theologians gave us the Trinity.

Baptism is supposed to identify us with Christ, "buried with Him in baptism". That seals the deal and remits our sin. Think of justification at repentance as a pardon, and remission at baptism as an expungement of all record of wrongs.

To be baptized in the later development of the triune formula identifies us with the Trinity doctrine, not Christ. And it can hardly be said to remit sin.

[rdp]

https://apostolicacademics.com/

https://vimeo.com/album/2065086

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by TyronePalmer

Ok so we all know that the NAME of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit is JESUS.

So if a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ is baptized by someone who does not know this truth says, "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" does that make the believers baptism invalid in the sight of God?

This is my case by the way, I was baptized in water by full immersion, I confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and the person baptizing me said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit", I didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until eight years later. Now, one might say I need to be re-baptized in Jesus name only, but technically I was, just because the one baptizing me did not explicitly say "I now baptize you in the name of Jesus", I was still baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit which is JESUS!

I also participated in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ according to Romans 6:3-4

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

And what about the Ethiopian Eunuch?

He was baptized by Philip the Evangelist and the text does not say the Eunuch was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 8:36-38

"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him."

Was the Eunuch's baptism valid?

I certainly believe it was, the Eunuch may not have received the Holy Spirit at that point though, because earlier in the chapter we see those who were baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' as the text says, but did not receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL the apostles were called down and they land hands on the people and prayed for them to be baptized with the Spirit.

Perhaps God allowed these events to be recorded exactly as they happened so that we don't become too dogmatic about baptism or receiving the Holy Spirit? Or maybe Philip did say, 'in Jesus name', but it's not recorded?

Like Cornelius, his family, and the rest of the people in his house received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water, and not one hand was laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit.

So those who say, Trinitarians for example, should be re-baptized in Jesus name should re-think their beliefs in light of the scriptures, that show us God doesn't do things exactly the same way every time and that we don't need to get stuck in some formulaic tradition that may cause us to believe that if a person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, has an invalid baptism.

Ok I'm going to say the samething one more time. But it's very simple Jesus foreshadows in all 4 Gospels the covenant to come. I'll begin at John 3:5 "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
In Mark 16:16 He says something similar as to solidify the importance of baptism "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Now, we know it has importance so how should it be done don't worry Jesus says that too!! He tells you in Luke 24:47 "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." So how are these sins remitted?
Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and :into all nations,baptizing them in the nameof the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
He never said repeat what I said, just as the "Our Father" was a format of prayer; it was never intended to just be recited ritualistically. So what is that Name? Let's let the Bible tell us!!
On the day of Pentecost the comforter came and the beginning of the church era had begun. And then this is important, Peter proclaimed the fulfillment of all 4 of those scriptures. Now this holds weight what he says because it's called "the law of first mention". That for you who don't know "is the principle in the interpretation of Scripture which states that the first mention or occurrence of a subject in Scripture establishes an unchangeable pattern, with that subject remaining unchanged in the mind of God throughout Scripture."
So that brings us to the very first sermon, when they asked what they shall do it plainly says "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
That's the answer, not what I think, but from the Word of God!!

https://youtu.be/O7A0Pv8w5iw

Check it out hope it helps!

[TyronePalmer]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Yep, two thousand years ago there were a group who took Torah, with their oral law, mystical traditions to create a religion to circumvent what God had instructed. God views your baptism as not valid, you as you stated above have already have circumvented that, with your own justification. Therefore the well never have need of a physician. If Jesus preached and David played his harp you will still continue in your way.

So did God tell you that? Or are you just going by the letter of scripture and saying that God could never look upon a man's heart, who repented, who sincerely loves Jesus, confesses His name as Lord as he went down into the watery grave. But since the name Jesus was not invoked over me by the baptizer, my baptism was not valid in the sight of God and my former sins still remain upon me.

Surely the last days are upon us. I'll be praying for you. I would hope you pray for me, but it doesn't sound like you would.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TyronePalmer

So did God tell you that? Or are you just going by the letter of scripture and saying that God could never look upon a man's heart, who repented, who sincerely loves Jesus, confesses His name as Lord as he went down into the watery grave. But since the name Jesus was not invoked over me by the baptizer, my baptism was not valid in the sight of God and my former sins still remain upon me.

Surely the last days are upon us. I'll be praying for you. I would hope you pray for me, but it doesn't sound like you would.

Perhaps you could show from the Scripture that "what a baptizer says is irrelevant"?

If the guy who baptized you said "...in the name of Charles Russell" would your baptism be "valid"?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I don't have to take out of context some Priestly blessing in the Old Testament that was uttered over the Hebrews and use it as a proof-text for incantational heresy.

Ah, now those who believe in the necessity of Jesus' name baptism are heretics!

lol

No. Those who believe that the invocation of the baptizer remits sin are the heretics, not those who believe in the necessity of Jesus name baptism.

There is a huge difference between the two.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

God gave us Jesus.

Theologians gave us the Trinity.

Baptism is supposed to identify us with Christ, "buried with Him in baptism". That seals the deal and remits our sin. Think of justification at repentance as a pardon, and remission at baptism as an expungement of all record of wrongs.

To be baptized in the later development of the triune formula identifies us with the Trinity doctrine, not Christ. And it can hardly be said to remit sin.

Contextually it would not identify us with the Trinity doctrine, but with the authority of Christ. If the one being baptized has invoked the name of the Lord, why aren't their sins forgiven in such a baptism?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Perhaps you could show from the Scripture that "what a baptizer says is irrelevant"?

Saying the invocation of the baptizer is incidental is not saying it is irrelevant.

If the guy who baptized you said "...in the name of Charles Russell" would your baptism be "valid"?

If he said "Charles Russell", then he is claiming to be baptizing per Charles Russell's authority, and not the authority of Christ. But your example still does not prove that remission of sins comes from the baptizer's invocation.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

No. Those who believe that the invocation of the baptizer remits sin are the heretics, not those who believe in the necessity of Jesus name baptism.

There is a huge difference between the two.

Who believes "the invocation of the baptizer remits sin"? God remits sin.

You sounded like you were saying those who believe baptism in Jesus name requires the baptizer actually invoking the name of Jesus are heretics. Is that what you were saying?