PDA

View Full Version : Baptism


supertone
05-27-2011, 06:13 AM
My wife was discussing baptism in Jesus' name with one of her Christian friends. She received this e-mail about the subject afterwards. I have my thoughts on how to reply but I thought that I'd see some other responses first. Here is the e-mail below:

'Was having a think and read about our conversation this morning about baptism in the name of Jesus....looked up the verse you were talking about in Acts 2:38 and yes it does say in Jesus Name but when you read the notes about it at the bottom of the page it talks about why it says this and that it is not trying to contradict they Great Commission of Matt 28:19 where it does say in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. In Matt Jesus was expanding on John's baptism and in Acts Peter seems to be emphasising the Jesus part because of who he was talking to and trying to persuade them that Jesus was the messiah and whom they need to believe in and put their trust in. Both seem to be interchangeable according to scriptures from what I can find out. Hope this is helpful'

Austin
05-27-2011, 06:29 AM
My wife was discussing baptism in Jesus' name with one of her Christian friends. She received this e-mail about the subject afterwards. I have my thoughts on how to reply but I thought that I'd see some other responses first. Here is the e-mail below:

'Was having a think and read about our conversation this morning about baptism in the name of Jesus....looked up the verse you were talking about in Acts 2:38 and yes it does say in Jesus Name but when you read the notes about it at the bottom of the page it talks about why it says this and that it is not trying to contradict they Great Commission of Matt 28:19 where it does say in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. In Matt Jesus was expanding on John's baptism and in Acts Peter seems to be emphasising the Jesus part because of who he was talking to and trying to persuade them that Jesus was the messiah and whom they need to believe in and put their trust in. Both seem to be interchangeable according to scriptures from what I can find out. Hope this is helpful'

Well baptising in the name of the Father would be fine if you know his name. In the name of the son would of course be Jesus, the name of the Holy Ghost I have never heard anyone speak it.
Then if it states in the name, that word is in the singular sense which indicates one name joining all three titles.

The new testament should be called the new covenant because it became that when Jesus finished His work and joined mankind both Jew and gentile together under one covenant bu His blood.
.
Paul said, as many of you who were baptised were baptised unto Jesus death, you are there for buried in Him.

In the new covenant He is the author. He has been given a name above all names in heaven and earth. All power in heaven and earth has been given unto Him. So I think if baptised into something or unto something then it should be announced who you are being baptise to.

In the message of the Prophets He is declared to bear the name of The Everlasting Father.
I think once believers figure out who Jesus was and is they might be more at ease with what name to announce at the baptism event.
Also, don't always put a lot of validity in the notes at the bottom of the page in any bible.

mfblume
05-27-2011, 08:30 AM
They're not interchangeable. The apostles never used the titles in the book of Acts. If it was interchangeable, they would have at least done it somewhere in the titles, but they did not.

TGBTG
05-27-2011, 09:49 AM
Personally, I don't think baptism in titles vs. in Jesus' name is really about baptismal formula. I believe it has more to do with recognizing the SUPREME Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Satan does not want people to acknowledge the Full Deity of Jesus Christ, so he gives them Father, Son, and HolyGhost.

People should think for a second, why is it that all prayers is done in Jesus' name and then only baptism is done in FSH? hmmm...

NorCal
05-27-2011, 10:39 AM
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
For there is no other Name under heaven, given among men, where by ye MUST be Saved.

Aquila
05-27-2011, 11:39 AM
Here's a challenge I've yet to fully answer to my satisfaction.

I was challenged to provide an exact quote of what was spoken at the moment of baptism in the book of Acts. I was told that all things are done "in the name of Jesus", but they are to be done according to Christ's commandments. Therefore in Matthew 28:19 we have an exact quote from Jesus illustrating a triune baptism. Thus triune baptism is to be performed by the church "in the name of Jesus" (in the authority of Jesus).

Thoughts?

seekerman
05-27-2011, 11:48 AM
Here's a challenge I've yet to fully answer to my satisfaction.

I was challenged to provide an exact quote of what was spoken at the moment of baptism in the book of Acts. I was told that all things are done "in the name of Jesus", but they are to be done according to Christ's commandments. Therefore in Matthew 28:19 we have an exact quote from Jesus illustrating a triune baptism. Thus triune baptism is to be performed by the church "in the name of Jesus" (in the authority of Jesus).

Thoughts?

The words spoken are all suppositions and guesses. Some may be better guesses than others, but who knows?

acerrak
05-27-2011, 12:04 PM
The words spoken are all suppositions and guesses. Some may be better guesses than others, but who knows?
i can find more quotes of a mathew 28:19 baptism in History than i can Jesus only

and many are before the council of nicea.

Its really not as much of the words Spoken over you by the baptizer, its the faith that is in the Baptizee

seekerman
05-27-2011, 12:10 PM
Its really not as much of the words Spoken over you by the baptizer, its the faith that is in the Baptizee

I agree. The baptizee is the person calling on the name of Jesus in faith.

Aquila
05-27-2011, 12:26 PM
The words spoken are all suppositions and guesses. Some may be better guesses than others, but who knows?

Exactly, we don't have an exact quote from the book of acts as to what was said. Yet we do have the exact words of Jesus regarding baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19. Therefore... how can we know that they didn't perform triune baptism "in the name of Jesus", i.e. as He commanded?

TGBTG
05-27-2011, 12:45 PM
Exactly, we don't have an exact quote from the book of acts as to what was said. Yet we do have the exact words of Jesus regarding baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19. Therefore... how can we know that they didn't perform triune baptism "in the name of Jesus", i.e. as He commanded?

About a direct quote, we have the writer of Acts telling us how baptism was done. Notice that unlike in Acts 2:38 where Peter is giving a command, Acts 8:16 is not giving a command. It's a narrative of how the baptism was done

15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

The apostles did all things in the Name of Jesus Christ. They preached Jesus, talked Jesus, breathe Jesus, everything Jesus...

Philip preached concerning the NAME of Jesus Christ.
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men and women

The devil doesn't want people mentioning the Name above all names, so he gives them FSH.

You can't cast out devils in the name of Father, Son, HolyGhost
You can't heal the sick in the name of Father, Son, HolyGhost

Why baptize in the Name of FSH?

NorCal
05-27-2011, 12:52 PM
It's has always been Titles vs Name.

The way I see it, if we take every word that Jesus said then we should all be wheat/barley farmers.

You have to take a look at the over all look at Baptism. Why the NAME matters.

We do know that Jesus never specifically claimed to be God. He only allowed others to proclaim that. Thomas and Peter are perfect examples. So when you look at Matthew 28:19 in that manner, Jesus would never have said, go baptize in My Name. For he would have been proclaiming himself as God (like I said before he never did).

So he left it up to the disciples to declare him as "LORD and GOD". That is what Peter did on the Day of Pentecost. He Proclaimed him as The Name Above All Names.

seekerman
05-27-2011, 01:22 PM
About a direct quote, we have the writer of Acts telling us how baptism was done. Notice that unlike in Acts 2:38 where Peter is giving a command, Acts 8:16 is not giving a command. It's a narrative of how the baptism was done

15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

The apostles did all things in the Name of Jesus Christ. They preached Jesus, talked Jesus, breathe Jesus, everything Jesus...

Philip preached concerning the NAME of Jesus Christ.
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men and women

The devil doesn't want people mentioning the Name above all names, so he gives them FSH.

You can't cast out devils in the name of Father, Son, HolyGhost
You can't heal the sick in the name of Father, Son, HolyGhost

Why baptize in the Name of FSH?

There are examples of people being healed who aren't Christians and who do not call upon the FSH or Jesus.

I'm a staunch "do it all in the name of Jesus" person, but we must recognize that God's power is much broader and deeper than our sect.

acerrak
05-27-2011, 02:03 PM
About a direct quote, we have the writer of Acts telling us how baptism was done. Notice that unlike in Acts 2:38 where Peter is giving a command, Acts 8:16 is not giving a command. It's a narrative of how the baptism was done

15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

The apostles did all things in the Name of Jesus Christ. They preached Jesus, talked Jesus, breathe Jesus, everything Jesus...

Philip preached concerning the NAME of Jesus Christ.
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men and women

The devil doesn't want people mentioning the Name above all names, so he gives them FSH.

You can't cast out devils in the name of Father, Son, HolyGhost
You can't heal the sick in the name of Father, Son, HolyGhost

Why baptize in the Name of FSH?

and does that conclude us from doing matthew 28:19? that because they cast out a demon in the name of Jesus, makes it so we shouldnt baptize in the name of the father son holy Ghost?

What difference truely is there when one is baptized in the name of Jesus vs FSHG? im curious

the words pronounced over you doesnt wash away your sins. and believeing that a specific line must me stated over you at the proper time during baptism doesnt do it either.

lol Why does God baptize with the Holy Ghost before these people even get near the water.

When anyone who has recieved the Spirit is already accepted as a child of God. they have recieved the promise. Does this mean we stop baptizing. ofcourse not.

The faith to remove sins comes from the baptizee, not the words the baptizer pronounces.


if that was the case. Man could just say no more baptism in Jesus name, and thus seal off heaven from applicants. that would mean, it doesnt matter how much faith you have unless someone dunks you under water saying that you can never be saved.

so much for working out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

mfblume
05-27-2011, 02:04 PM
Here's a challenge I've yet to fully answer to my satisfaction.

I was challenged to provide an exact quote of what was spoken at the moment of baptism in the book of Acts. I was told that all things are done "in the name of Jesus", but they are to be done according to Christ's commandments. Therefore in Matthew 28:19 we have an exact quote from Jesus illustrating a triune baptism. Thus triune baptism is to be performed by the church "in the name of Jesus" (in the authority of Jesus).

Thoughts?

Again, take what was done in Jesus' name, like the distinct instance of Paul casting out a devil where he literally says "In the name of Jesus Christ."

Jesus often spoke in the third person regarding Himself. Luke 24:47-49 shows Him referring to Himself as "Christ" and "His name". I think this explains Matt 28:19.

TGBTG
05-27-2011, 02:18 PM
and does that conclude us from doing matthew 28:19? that because they cast out a demon in the name of Jesus, makes it so we shouldnt baptize in the name of the father son holy Ghost?

What difference truely is there when one is baptized in the name of Jesus vs FSHG? im curious

the words pronounced over you doesnt wash away your sins. and believeing that a specific line must me stated over you at the proper time during baptism doesnt do it either.

lol Why does God baptize with the Holy Ghost before these people even get near the water.

When anyone who has recieved the Spirit is already accepted as a child of God. they have recieved the promise. Does this mean we stop baptizing. ofcourse not.

The faith to remove sins comes from the baptizee, not the words the baptizer pronounces.


if that was the case. Man could just say no more baptism in Jesus name, and thus seal off heaven from applicants. that would mean, it doesnt matter how much faith you have unless someone dunks you under water saying that you can never be saved.

so much for working out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

It is not a formula per se. It has more to do with recognizing and acknowledging the SUPREME Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

TGBTG
05-27-2011, 02:20 PM
There are examples of people being healed who aren't Christians and who do not call upon the FSH or Jesus.

I'm a staunch "do it all in the name of Jesus" person, but we must recognize that God's power is much broader and deeper than our sect.

Are you insinuating that Jesus Christ is NOT the only way to God?

acerrak
05-27-2011, 02:22 PM
It is not a formula per se. It has more to do with recognizing and acknowledging the SUPREME Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

though i would prefer to use in the Name of Jesus at a baptism, I do not knock other peoples baptism because they were baptized according to mat 28:19

but as i stated on another thread, both baptisms all begin the same way

baptizer...Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior?
baptizee . Yes I do !!

Baptizer... on your proffesion of faith i now baptize you in the name of ........

both start out that way. a public declaration of some sorts

Sam
05-27-2011, 02:50 PM
We have a direct quote of Peter using the name of Jesus Christ in ministering healing in Acts 3:6 and we have a direct quote of Paul using the name of Jesus Christ when evicting a demon in Acts 16:18 but we do not have any such direct quote of what was said during the baptism ritual in the Book of Acts.

It is my opinion that the Apostles also used the name of Jesus Christ when baptizing just like they did in healing and exorcism.

In Acts 8:12 it says, "when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." So, Philip must have been preaching about "the name of Jesus Christ" when those folks responded by being baptized.

The wording in James 2:7 indicates that a name was invoked or called over those to whom James was writing. The NRSV reads, "Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?" Darby translates it: "And [do not] they blaspheme the excellent name which has been called upon you?" The Amplified Bible reads: "Is it not they who slander and blaspheme that precious name by which you are distinguished and called [the name of Christ invoked in baptism]?"

In his commentary on James, William Barclay translates the verse, “And is it not they who abuse the fair name by which you have been called?" He goes on to comment. “It is the rich who abuse the name by which the Christians are called. It may be the name 'Christian' by which the heathen first called the followers of Christ at Antioch and which was given at first as a jest. It may be the name of Christ, which was pronounced over a Christian on the day of his baptism. The word James uses for 'called' (epikaleisthai) is the word used for a wife taking her husband’s name in marriage or a child being called after his father. The Christian takes the name of Christ; he is called after Christ. It is as if he was married to Christ, or born and christened into the family of Christ.” This is from page 66 of "The Letters of James and Peter" by William Barclay, revised edition copyright 1976 and published by The Westminster Press

acerrak
05-27-2011, 03:08 PM
We have a direct quote of Peter using the name of Jesus Christ in ministering healing in Acts 3:6 and we have a direct quote of Paul using the name of Jesus Christ when evicting a demon in Acts 16:18 but we do not have any such direct quote of what was said during the baptism ritual in the Book of Acts.

It is my opinion that the Apostles also used the name of Jesus Christ when baptizing just like they did in healing and exorcism.

In Acts 8:12 it says, "when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." So, Philip must have been preaching about "the name of Jesus Christ" when those folks responded by being baptized.

The wording in James 2:7 indicates that a name was invoked or called over those to whom James was writing. The NRSV reads, "Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?" Darby translates it: "And [do not] they blaspheme the excellent name which has been called upon you?" The Amplified Bible reads: "Is it not they who slander and blaspheme that precious name by which you are distinguished and called [the name of Christ invoked in baptism]?"

In his commentary on James, William Barclay translates the verse, “And is it not they who abuse the fair name by which you have been called?" He goes on to comment. “It is the rich who abuse the name by which the Christians are called. It may be the name 'Christian' by which the heathen first called the followers of Christ at Antioch and which was given at first as a jest. It may be the name of Christ, which was pronounced over a Christian on the day of his baptism. The word James uses for 'called' (epikaleisthai) is the word used for a wife taking her husband’s name in marriage or a child being called after his father. The Christian takes the name of Christ; he is called after Christ. It is as if he was married to Christ, or born and christened into the family of Christ.” This is from page 66 of "The Letters of James and Peter" by William Barclay, revised edition copyright 1976 and published by The Westminster Press

james 2:7 is epikaleoami. its not a envoking over it is a associated with,

Its a type of surname.


7Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

i havent found were it means a envoking over. its usually 1st person calling on the Lord or a surname or associated with a group.


as it is in this particular passage it is a associated with a group of people

seekerman
05-27-2011, 03:12 PM
Are you insinuating that Jesus Christ is NOT the only way to God?

I'm insinuating that people have been healed who know little or nothing about the name of Jesus.

pastor RICK
05-28-2011, 07:42 AM
My wife was discussing baptism in Jesus' name with one of her Christian friends. She received this e-mail about the subject afterwards. I have my thoughts on how to reply but I thought that I'd see some other responses first. Here is the e-mail below:

'Was having a think and read about our conversation this morning about baptism in the name of Jesus....looked up the verse you were talking about in Acts 2:38 and yes it does say in Jesus Name but when you read the notes about it at the bottom of the page it talks about why it says this and that it is not trying to contradict they Great Commission of Matt 28:19 where it does say in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. In Matt Jesus was expanding on John's baptism and in Acts Peter seems to be emphasising the Jesus part because of who he was talking to and trying to persuade them that Jesus was the messiah and whom they need to believe in and put their trust in. Both seem to be interchangeable according to scriptures from what I can find out. Hope this is helpful'

i wouldnt give much credit to the notes at the bottom of the page ,as to haveing any power over the verses in the bible .
peter told them how to be saved . acts 4;12 there is no other name . JESUS.
they were also baptised saying lord JESUS twice .were commanded to be baptised in the name of the lord also..so are you just going to say LORD WHEN BAPTIZING?
A BANK WONT TAKE A CHECK WITH A NAME ON IT , WHY SHOULD THE LORD OF GLORY TAKE A BAPTISING WITHOUT A NAME . .
hard to belive this is an apostolic site and haveing trouble over this simple doctrine of baptism..IF THE NAME OF JESUS IS GOOD ENOUGH TO PRAY IN ITS GOOD ENOUGH TO BAPTISE IN ALSO..

acerrak
05-28-2011, 09:44 AM
i wouldnt give much credit to the notes at the bottom of the page ,as to haveing any power over the verses in the bible .
peter told them how to be saved . acts 4;12 there is no other name . JESUS.
they were also baptised saying lord JESUS twice .were commanded to be baptised in the name of the lord also..so are you just going to say LORD WHEN BAPTIZING?
A BANK WONT TAKE A CHECK WITH A NAME ON IT , WHY SHOULD THE LORD OF GLORY TAKE A BAPTISING WITHOUT A NAME . .
hard to belive this is an apostolic site and haveing trouble over this simple doctrine of baptism..IF THE NAME OF JESUS IS GOOD ENOUGH TO PRAY IN ITS GOOD ENOUGH TO BAPTISE IN ALSO..



the check example is lame. banks wont let you withdrawl money on faith alone either.

But its by this very faith that God saves us by his grace.

Its silly thinking your salvation or washing away of Sins is based on what comes out of another mans vocal chords. that isnt bible

Your sins are forgiven Because you call upon the Lord, not what a baptizer says over you

mfblume
05-28-2011, 10:09 AM
hard to belive this is an apostolic site and haveing trouble over this simple doctrine of baptism..IF THE NAME OF JESUS IS GOOD ENOUGH TO PRAY IN ITS GOOD ENOUGH TO BAPTISE IN ALSO..

Speaking of an apostolic site with problems over Jesus' name baptism, you (no offense intended) do not even believe Jesus is God. That is the greatest apostolic truth there is!

You are right about the notes at the bottom of the pages of the bible. Footnotes are opinions of the publishers and not inspired thoughts from God.

Sam
05-28-2011, 12:25 PM
...You are right about the notes at the bottom of the pages of the bible. Footnotes are opinions of the publishers and not inspired thoughts from God.

unless they are the notes in a Roman Catholic Bible compiled by Bishop Challoner (1691-1781) with an official imprimatur
or
The WAP Thompson Chain Bible with the 32 page insert by David Bernard
http://sales.pentecostalpublishing.com/productDetails.asp?pid=9078&sid=507&ptc=PPH123&c=BIBL&guid=A45B1EF254683DB9E044080020B266CA


just kidding

Praxeas
05-28-2011, 12:45 PM
My wife was discussing baptism in Jesus' name with one of her Christian friends. She received this e-mail about the subject afterwards. I have my thoughts on how to reply but I thought that I'd see some other responses first. Here is the e-mail below:

'Was having a think and read about our conversation this morning about baptism in the name of Jesus....looked up the verse you were talking about in Acts 2:38 and yes it does say in Jesus Name but when you read the notes about it at the bottom of the page it talks about why it says this and that it is not trying to contradict they Great Commission of Matt 28:19 where it does say in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. In Matt Jesus was expanding on John's baptism and in Acts Peter seems to be emphasising the Jesus part because of who he was talking to and trying to persuade them that Jesus was the messiah and whom they need to believe in and put their trust in. Both seem to be interchangeable according to scriptures from what I can find out. Hope this is helpful'
What notes? lol

The above makes no sense whatsoever. If what Jesus was doing was expanding on John's baptism then why baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit if it's just John's baptism expanded on?

The context tells the truth. Jesus says "All Power is given to ME in heaven and earth"

The greek word there is exousia, meaning authority.

The greek word for name is onoma. It means "name" but as in the English language "name" carries the connotation of authority too. When you do something in someone's name you are doing it by their authority.

Thus Jesus said THEREFORE, of because of the fact that HE has all authority in heaven and earth (Phil 2 the highest name named in heaven and earth)...therefore go and make disciples of Christ by baptizing them in the name or authority of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and that is exactly what the Apostles did. That authority is in the name of Jesus

Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Praxeas
05-28-2011, 12:46 PM
Speaking of an apostolic site with problems over Jesus' name baptism, you (no offense intended) do not even believe Jesus is God. That is the greatest apostolic truth there is!

You are right about the notes at the bottom of the pages of the bible. Footnotes are opinions of the publishers and not inspired thoughts from God.
Yup! Exactly!

Praxeas
05-28-2011, 12:47 PM
the check example is lame. banks wont let you withdrawl money on faith alone either.

But its by this very faith that God saves us by his grace.

Its silly thinking your salvation or washing away of Sins is based on what comes out of another mans vocal chords. that isnt bible

Your sins are forgiven Because you call upon the Lord, not what a baptizer says over you
I disagree because we are discussing name/authority to do something.

When you sign your name on a check you are giving your authority to withdraw funds

mfblume
05-28-2011, 12:53 PM
I disagree because we are discussing name/authority to do something.

When you sign your name on a check you are giving your authority to withdraw funds

Right. One does not preclude the other.

acerrak
05-28-2011, 01:07 PM
I disagree because we are discussing name/authority to do something.

When you sign your name on a check you are giving your authority to withdraw funds

but according to you oneness way of baptizing itsthe baptizer who is signing the check not the baptizee, so again nothing wrong with some one calling the name of Jesus over you, that however is not washing away your sins.

again it is from the faith that is with in the baptizee, cause if this is the cas and another man besides christ is needed to mediate, how can one work out there own salvation with fear and trembling?

again the greek supports 1st person calling upon the Lord, not a envoking over. Actually the greek is very sepcific in the calling on the name of ther Lord is upon ones own behalf.

so the Baptizee must be envoking the name, to make the baptism valid. we see this in a clear picture of Pauls baptism.

Sam
05-28-2011, 01:49 PM
...Thus Jesus said THEREFORE, of because of the fact that HE has all authority in heaven and earth (Phil 2 the highest name named in heaven and earth)...therefore go and make disciples of Christ by baptizing them in the name or authority of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and that is exactly what the Apostles did. That authority is in the name of Jesus...



yeppers

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Praxeas
05-28-2011, 01:57 PM
but according to you oneness way of baptizing itsthe baptizer who is signing the check not the baptizee, so again nothing wrong with some one calling the name of Jesus over you, that however is not washing away your sins.

According to me the baptizer is baptizing the person "in the name of Jesus"...that is he is doing it in the authority of the one that died for us and gave us the authority to continue His messianic mission to preach the gospel to the lost and make people disciples of Jesus.

Since I didn't say it's washing away sins and since the issue was about authority, I don't see the point in what you are saying

again it is from the faith that is with in the baptizee, cause if this is the cas and another man besides christ is needed to mediate, how can one work out there own salvation with fear and trembling?
I never made a comment concerning that. My only comment was about the topic of authority and signing checks...doing something in the name of Jesus

again the greek supports 1st person calling upon the Lord, not a envoking over. Actually the greek is very sepcific in the calling on the name of ther Lord is upon ones own behalf.
I have no idea what this has to do with what I posted. The point I am making has to do with authority and name.

You say "the greek supports"...the greek of what? What verse? What word? I have no idea what you are talking about

so the Baptizee must be envoking the name, to make the baptism valid. we see this in a clear picture of Pauls baptism.
Again I have no idea what you are talking about. It's like you are responding to someone elses post but you quoted me

acerrak
05-28-2011, 02:07 PM
According to me the baptizer is baptizing the person "in the name of Jesus"...that is he is doing it in the authority of the one that died for us and gave us the authority to continue His messianic mission to preach the gospel to the lost and make people disciples of Jesus.

Since I didn't say it's washing away sins and since the issue was about authority, I don't see the point in what you are saying


I never made a comment concerning that. My only comment was about the topic of authority and signing checks...doing something in the name of Jesus


I have no idea what this has to do with what I posted. The point I am making has to do with authority and name.

You say "the greek supports"...the greek of what? What verse? What word? I have no idea what you are talking about


Again I have no idea what you are talking about. It's like you are responding to someone elses post but you quoted me

im not gonna re hash the baptism debate. i have done this enough on these forums time and time again, and that i should have copied and pasted it.

Im just pointing out that the words pronounced over you at your batpism isnt what washes away sin.

and im not sure what your talking about i thought i quoted and responded, so your not making since to me in that aspect.

Praxeas
05-28-2011, 02:16 PM
im not gonna re hash the baptism debate. i have done this enough on these forums time and time again, and that i should have copied and pasted it.

Im just pointing out that the words pronounced over you at your batpism isnt what washes away sin.

and im not sure what your talking about i thought i quoted and responded, so your not making since to me in that aspect.
and I agree the words pronounced over you at baptism don't wash away sins.....in fact baptism does not wash away sins either.

Sins are forgiven by faith when we genuinely repent.

I never said a word about sins being washed away or anything else in your first post. I simply pointed out why the analogy of signing a check is a good analogy for using the name of jesus

Praxeas
05-28-2011, 02:16 PM
What notes? lol

The above makes no sense whatsoever. If what Jesus was doing was expanding on John's baptism then why baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit if it's just John's baptism expanded on?

The context tells the truth. Jesus says "All Power is given to ME in heaven and earth"

The greek word there is exousia, meaning authority.

The greek word for name is onoma. It means "name" but as in the English language "name" carries the connotation of authority too. When you do something in someone's name you are doing it by their authority.

Thus Jesus said THEREFORE, of because of the fact that HE has all authority in heaven and earth (Phil 2 the highest name named in heaven and earth)...therefore go and make disciples of Christ by baptizing them in the name or authority of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and that is exactly what the Apostles did. That authority is in the name of Jesus

Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
bump

acerrak
05-28-2011, 02:25 PM
and I agree the words pronounced over you at baptism don't wash away sins.....in fact baptism does not wash away sins either.

Sins are forgiven by faith when we genuinely repent.

I never said a word about sins being washed away or anything else in your first post. I simply pointed out why the analogy of signing a check is a good analogy for using the name of jesus

Nope were good we can stop here..


:thumbsup

Praxeas
05-28-2011, 05:19 PM
BTW my position is in agreement with the AOF of the UPC :heeheehee

acerrak
05-28-2011, 07:38 PM
BTW my position is in agreement with the AOF of the UPC :heeheehee

awe you poor thing.

Praxeas
05-28-2011, 11:56 PM
awe you poor thing.
Why would you say that? the AOF asserts the same thing I just said about when sins are forgiven.

Aquila
05-31-2011, 06:21 AM
About a direct quote, we have the writer of Acts telling us how baptism was done. Notice that unlike in Acts 2:38 where Peter is giving a command, Acts 8:16 is not giving a command. It's a narrative of how the baptism was done

15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

The apostles did all things in the Name of Jesus Christ. They preached Jesus, talked Jesus, breathe Jesus, everything Jesus...

Philip preached concerning the NAME of Jesus Christ.
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men and women

The devil doesn't want people mentioning the Name above all names, so he gives them FSH.

You can't cast out devils in the name of Father, Son, HolyGhost
You can't heal the sick in the name of Father, Son, HolyGhost

Why baptize in the Name of FSH?

The traditional answer would be, because Jesus commanded it (Matthew 28:19). We do have a quote from Christ in this verse. We don't see the exact words spoken by those baptizing in the book of Acts. We simply know that baptism was performed according to the authority and command of Christ (in the name of Christ).

Aquila
05-31-2011, 06:22 AM
It's has always been Titles vs Name.

The way I see it, if we take every word that Jesus said then we should all be wheat/barley farmers.

You have to take a look at the over all look at Baptism. Why the NAME matters.

We do know that Jesus never specifically claimed to be God. He only allowed others to proclaim that. Thomas and Peter are perfect examples. So when you look at Matthew 28:19 in that manner, Jesus would never have said, go baptize in My Name. For he would have been proclaiming himself as God (like I said before he never did).

So he left it up to the disciples to declare him as "LORD and GOD". That is what Peter did on the Day of Pentecost. He Proclaimed him as The Name Above All Names.

The denial of Christ's deity among the "Oneness" people doesn't strengthen the case for Jesus name baptism. Honor the name of Christ... but not the person of Christ? I find that problematic.

Aquila
05-31-2011, 06:24 AM
and does that conclude us from doing matthew 28:19? that because they cast out a demon in the name of Jesus, makes it so we shouldnt baptize in the name of the father son holy Ghost?

What difference truely is there when one is baptized in the name of Jesus vs FSHG? im curious

the words pronounced over you doesnt wash away your sins. and believeing that a specific line must me stated over you at the proper time during baptism doesnt do it either.

lol Why does God baptize with the Holy Ghost before these people even get near the water.

When anyone who has recieved the Spirit is already accepted as a child of God. they have recieved the promise. Does this mean we stop baptizing. ofcourse not.

The faith to remove sins comes from the baptizee, not the words the baptizer pronounces.


if that was the case. Man could just say no more baptism in Jesus name, and thus seal off heaven from applicants. that would mean, it doesnt matter how much faith you have unless someone dunks you under water saying that you can never be saved.

so much for working out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Baptism in the name of the FSH affirms one's belief in the triune God. Affirms the Father's deity, the Son's deity, and the Spirit's deity. Affirms that they are indeed personas of the one and only YHVH.

Aquila
05-31-2011, 06:27 AM
Again, take what was done in Jesus' name, like the distinct instance of Paul casting out a devil where he literally says "In the name of Jesus Christ."

Jesus often spoke in the third person regarding Himself. Luke 24:47-49 shows Him referring to Himself as "Christ" and "His name". I think this explains Matt 28:19.

I agree, it "can" explain Matthew 28:19. However, that doesn't change the fact that we don't have a single "quote" in the book of Acts with regards to baptismal formula. The only baptismal "formula" we have in Scripture that is quoted comes from Christ Himself in Matthew 28:19.

For the traditional Christian, it's hard to imagine doing anything in the name of Jesus but not doing it as Jesus Himself commanded it to be done. If Jesus would have said, "Baptizing them in the name of the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...", to baptize "in His name" would require that we speak what He commanded, would it not?

Aquila
05-31-2011, 06:30 AM
It is not a formula per se. It has more to do with recognizing and acknowledging the SUPREME Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Trinitarians acknowledge the supreme deity of Christ. In fact, Trinitarians affirm His eternal person and fullness of deity. The Oneness Christian often denies the deity of Christ's "person". The "I" of Christ, that Jesus Himself identifies with and with which Christ draws distinction from Himself and the Father, is often regarded as merely the "humanity" or "human nature" of Christ. That means that the "I" praying to the Father merely humanity. The Trinitarian gasps in horror at the thought. The very person of Christ, the one who is the Son of God, is eternally one with the Father. Not just humanity that is one with the Father beginning in Bethlehem.

Aquila
05-31-2011, 06:33 AM
Are you insinuating that Jesus Christ is NOT the only way to God?

I think they mean one's given "Christian sect" (i.e. Apostolics or UPCI).

Aquila
05-31-2011, 06:40 AM
We have a direct quote of Peter using the name of Jesus Christ in ministering healing in Acts 3:6 and we have a direct quote of Paul using the name of Jesus Christ when evicting a demon in Acts 16:18 but we do not have any such direct quote of what was said during the baptism ritual in the Book of Acts.

It is my opinion that the Apostles also used the name of Jesus Christ when baptizing just like they did in healing and exorcism.

In Acts 8:12 it says, "when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." So, Philip must have been preaching about "the name of Jesus Christ" when those folks responded by being baptized.

The wording in James 2:7 indicates that a name was invoked or called over those to whom James was writing. The NRSV reads, "Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?" Darby translates it: "And [do not] they blaspheme the excellent name which has been called upon you?" The Amplified Bible reads: "Is it not they who slander and blaspheme that precious name by which you are distinguished and called [the name of Christ invoked in baptism]?"

In his commentary on James, William Barclay translates the verse, “And is it not they who abuse the fair name by which you have been called?" He goes on to comment. “It is the rich who abuse the name by which the Christians are called. It may be the name 'Christian' by which the heathen first called the followers of Christ at Antioch and which was given at first as a jest. It may be the name of Christ, which was pronounced over a Christian on the day of his baptism. The word James uses for 'called' (epikaleisthai) is the word used for a wife taking her husband’s name in marriage or a child being called after his father. The Christian takes the name of Christ; he is called after Christ. It is as if he was married to Christ, or born and christened into the family of Christ.” This is from page 66 of "The Letters of James and Peter" by William Barclay, revised edition copyright 1976 and published by The Westminster Press

I understand your point. However, since we don't have an exact quote regarding what was spoken in the baptismal ritual, why depart from the exact quote of Christ in Matthew 28:19? Would not doing something in the name of Christ require that it be done as Christ commanded it?

I also find it interesting that every translation you referenced is one developed by Trinitarian scholars. Even William Barclay was baptized in the name of the FSH. Clearly God has chosen the Trinitarians as "keepers of His Word". Every translation by a non-Trinitarian has fallen to the wayside and has been deemed heretical.

With regards to the name that was invoked or called over the one being baptized... the very person of Christ is invoked in FSH baptism ("...and of the Son..."). This distinction also affirms His eternal person.

Lastly, most that I know pray prior to baptism asking for God's grace and keeping for the one being baptized. They pray this "in the name of Jesus" and then baptize them as Christ commanded in Matthew 28:19. In a very real way, FSH baptism more powerfully invokes Christ's deity, and is typically sealed in prayer that is made "in the name of Jesus". It's iron clad.

The oneness formula of "Jesus name" doesn't acknowledge Christ's eternal person with distinction from the Father, thus it doesn't require that one even believe in the deity of Christ (something seen among Oneness people and even on this forum, including this very thread). Also, many people were named "Jesus" in the first century. There really isn't anything unique about the name itself. However, when the Jesus being invoked is identified as "the Son" there is no question. We are talking about the eternal Son of God, the one who possessed glory and oneness with the Father before the world began.

Aquila
05-31-2011, 06:45 AM
i wouldnt give much credit to the notes at the bottom of the page ,as to haveing any power over the verses in the bible .
peter told them how to be saved . acts 4;12 there is no other name . JESUS.
they were also baptised saying lord JESUS twice .were commanded to be baptised in the name of the lord also..so are you just going to say LORD WHEN BAPTIZING?
A BANK WONT TAKE A CHECK WITH A NAME ON IT , WHY SHOULD THE LORD OF GLORY TAKE A BAPTISING WITHOUT A NAME . .
hard to belive this is an apostolic site and haveing trouble over this simple doctrine of baptism..IF THE NAME OF JESUS IS GOOD ENOUGH TO PRAY IN ITS GOOD ENOUGH TO BAPTISE IN ALSO..

A bank wont take a check that isn't properly signed either. One has to sign the check per the instuctions. It's argued by Traditional Christianity that Christ gave us the instructions regarding baptism in Matthew 28:19. Therefore to baptize someone in the name of Christ without baptizing them as Christ commanded is at worse the hight of heretical hubris, or sincere error at the very least.

Aquila
05-31-2011, 06:47 AM
the check example is lame. banks wont let you withdrawl money on faith alone either.

But its by this very faith that God saves us by his grace.

Its silly thinking your salvation or washing away of Sins is based on what comes out of another mans vocal chords. that isnt bible

Your sins are forgiven Because you call upon the Lord, not what a baptizer says over you

I think most of us can agree with the point of your post. However, we're trying to determine do we obey Christ or an inference 20th century Pentecostals have drawn from various passages in the book of Acts that don't even contain an exact quote of what was actually said at baptism?

Aquila
05-31-2011, 06:51 AM
Speaking of an apostolic site with problems over Jesus' name baptism, you (no offense intended) do not even believe Jesus is God. That is the greatest apostolic truth there is!

You are right about the notes at the bottom of the pages of the bible. Footnotes are opinions of the publishers and not inspired thoughts from God.

It is sad Rev. Blume. But this is a condition that is largely the cause of heresy. When an orthdoxy isn't strongly affirmed and heresy strongly denounced... everyone believes what is right in their own eyes. Something we see a lot of in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles.

I'm slowly learning the safety and power of orthodoxy. All that is essential is strongly affirmed, all that departs from said essentials is historically and categorically denounced as heresy. In the church I attend now we often address heresy in our discussion groups. However, it is acknowledged that there are heretics even among us. These, like most heretics, are sincere, but in error. We don't hold that God doesn't love them. Nor do we deny their "salvation". We do however affirm orthodox teaching to lay the foundation of a healthy and functional non-cultic church.

Aquila
05-31-2011, 06:52 AM
unless they are the notes in a Roman Catholic Bible compiled by Bishop Challoner (1691-1781) with an official imprimatur
or
The WAP Thompson Chain Bible with the 32 page insert by David Bernard
http://sales.pentecostalpublishing.com/productDetails.asp?pid=9078&sid=507&ptc=PPH123&c=BIBL&guid=A45B1EF254683DB9E044080020B266CA


just kidding

lol

Aquila
05-31-2011, 06:54 AM
What notes? lol

The above makes no sense whatsoever. If what Jesus was doing was expanding on John's baptism then why baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit if it's just John's baptism expanded on?

The context tells the truth. Jesus says "All Power is given to ME in heaven and earth"

The greek word there is exousia, meaning authority.

The greek word for name is onoma. It means "name" but as in the English language "name" carries the connotation of authority too. When you do something in someone's name you are doing it by their authority.

Thus Jesus said THEREFORE, of because of the fact that HE has all authority in heaven and earth (Phil 2 the highest name named in heaven and earth)...therefore go and make disciples of Christ by baptizing them in the name or authority of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and that is exactly what the Apostles did. That authority is in the name of Jesus

Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Yet if one truly honors said authority, do they not do as said authority commanded? We have an exact quote from Christ in Matthew 28:19. We can only draw inferences from the book of Acts. Traditional Christianity would state that if one baptizes "in the name of Jesus Christ" (i.e. in the authority of Christ) they will baptize as Christ commanded (Matthew 28:19).

I'm now hesitant to "explain away" the exact words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to affirm an inference drawn from various verses in the book of Acts that do not have an exact quote of what was said.

Aquila
05-31-2011, 07:01 AM
Ultimately the issue is that we have an exact quote from Jesus Christ regarding baptism and it's formula in Matthew 28:19. In Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, and 22:16 we simply have the inference made by some indicating a singular name formula. Is it safe to take inference over exact quotation? The Traditional Christian believes that every baptism in the book of Acts was performed in the authority of and giving reverence to Jesus Christ (in Jesus name). However, these baptisms were performed in obedience to the very words of Christ in Matthew 28:19.

Essentially the Trinitarian baptizing according to Matthew 28:19 cannot be accused of not obeying Christ. However, the one that baptizes using strictly a singular name formula is basing their practice on inference, and essentially neglecting the very words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19.

mfblume
05-31-2011, 01:18 PM
From TIME magazine 1957:

Record from AD100:

(See Cover) The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistry door. Standing waist-deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the wood-seller. He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him. "Credis . . . ?" he asked.

"Credo," responded Publius. "I believe that my salvation comes from Jesus the Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I die that with Him I may have Eternal Life." Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus' voice in his ear—"I baptize you in the Name of the Lord Jesus"—as the cold water closed over him.

TGBTG
05-31-2011, 01:37 PM
From TIME magazine 1957:

Record from AD100:

(See Cover) The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistry door. Standing waist-deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the wood-seller. He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him. "Credis . . . ?" he asked.

"Credo," responded Publius. "I believe that my salvation comes from Jesus the Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I die that with Him I may have Eternal Life." Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus' voice in his ear—"I baptize you in the Name of the Lord Jesus"—as the cold water closed over him.

wohooo!!!!!!!

Funny that even the catholic writings records that water baptism was done in the name of Jesus Christ.

I also read in a particular copy of the NIV that the greek word "eis" is also translated as "into". IOW, Matt 28:19 reads as:
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them INTO the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

Now, that would definitely correspond with the baptism of Rom 6.

Aquila
05-31-2011, 02:25 PM
From TIME magazine 1957:

Record from AD100:

(See Cover) The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistry door. Standing waist-deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the wood-seller. He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him. "Credis . . . ?" he asked.

"Credo," responded Publius. "I believe that my salvation comes from Jesus the Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I die that with Him I may have Eternal Life." Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus' voice in his ear—"I baptize you in the Name of the Lord Jesus"—as the cold water closed over him.

Can you provide the source with which to verify? This appears to be written like fictional narrative used by an oped writer to lay the foundation for his or her opinion piece.

Aquila
05-31-2011, 02:33 PM
From TIME magazine 1957:

Record from AD100:

(See Cover) The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistry door. Standing waist-deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the wood-seller. He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him. "Credis . . . ?" he asked.

"Credo," responded Publius. "I believe that my salvation comes from Jesus the Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I die that with Him I may have Eternal Life." Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus' voice in his ear—"I baptize you in the Name of the Lord Jesus"—as the cold water closed over him.

Isn't this a quote from Church Ages Book Chpt. 1? And doesn't this have a Branhamite connection or wasn't it written by William Branham? I'm not finding any creditable historic sources in my research for the depiction given.

pastor RICK
05-31-2011, 04:17 PM
forunatly we know that name of christ! JESUS. acts 4 ';12 ......

acerrak
05-31-2011, 05:16 PM
i can quote the didiache which is around 70 ce to 120 ce which states father son holy ghost baptism way before this. and many others from justin mayrtr and up before the council of nicea..

mfblume
05-31-2011, 09:37 PM
Isn't this a quote from Church Ages Book Chpt. 1? And doesn't this have a Branhamite connection or wasn't it written by William Branham? I'm not finding any creditable historic sources in my research for the depiction given.

Branham got it from TIME magazine. It is indeed in the TIME archives.

Sam
05-31-2011, 09:50 PM
The following is a true record of a Baptism which took place in Rome A.D. 100 and was reproduced in TIME magazine, December 5, 1955.

"The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistry door. Standing waist-deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the woodseller. He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him. ‘Credis?’ he asked. ‘Credo,’ responded Publius. ‘I believe that my salvation comes from Jesus the Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I died that with Him I may have Eternal Life.’ Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus’ voice in his ear ---- ‘I baptize you in the Name of the Lord Jesus’ ---- as the cold water closed over him."

The above appeared on one of our previous forums. The first paragraph is commentary by the one who posted it. The second paragraph is a quote from the referenced magazine.

I remember reading that magazine in the high school library in my senior year while I was in study hall. I remember that article. The article compared a first century baptism to a modern baptism by immersion. Whoever wrote the article probably made up the lead in paragraph but felt like it represented (as far as he or she knew) early Christian baptism.

I had just been baptized in Jesus' name a short time before I read that article. I had been baptized October 27, 1955 at Elim Tabernacle (UPC) in Milwaukee, WI. I had been saved since March 28, 1955 and subsequently baptized in a lake by my Baptist pastor. I was searching for more truth and a closer walk with the Lord and was pretty sure baptism in Jesus' name was Scriptural but still had some reservations even though I had gone ahead and taken the "plunge."

Reading the article that day in the high school library was sort of a confirmation that early Christian baptism involved the name of Jesus.

Over these past 50 some years every once in a while I've wondered just what the date of that article was and if I'd ever see it again.

Thank you to the person who posted that link.

You can read the article here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,893230,00.html

Aquila
05-31-2011, 10:47 PM
Branham got it from TIME magazine. It is indeed in the TIME archives.

Do you believe this is an ancient document?

Praxeas
06-01-2011, 01:37 AM
Yet if one truly honors said authority, do they not do as said authority commanded? We have an exact quote from Christ in Matthew 28:19. We can only draw inferences from the book of Acts. Traditional Christianity would state that if one baptizes "in the name of Jesus Christ" (i.e. in the authority of Christ) they will baptize as Christ commanded (Matthew 28:19).

I'm now hesitant to "explain away" the exact words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to affirm an inference drawn from various verses in the book of Acts that do not have an exact quote of what was said.
We have exact quotes from the men commissioned to teach and explain what Jesus said in the book of Acts

What many, you included, refuse to do is read what Jesus said before vs 19 where Jesus claims ALL AUTHORITY in Heaven and Earth

Aquila
06-01-2011, 04:39 AM
We have exact quotes from the men commissioned to teach and explain what Jesus said in the book of Acts

What many, you included, refuse to do is read what Jesus said before vs 19 where Jesus claims ALL AUTHORITY in Heaven and Earth



Please give me an exact quote from a baptizer speaking over a person being baptized.

Since Jesus said all authority is given Him, why not repeat exactly what He commanded?

Godsdrummer
06-01-2011, 07:21 AM
Aquila

While I can see what you are trying to say, you have one problem from what I can see. You drive home or try to drive home that Matt 28:19 is an exact quote from Jesus. Two things wrong with this is that, one. nowhere in scripture do we have an exact quote of any words of Christ. Two, Christ commands a name while trinitarians do not use a proper name with the use of titles.

In trying to say Matt 28:19 is an exact quote, we must compare the other gospels that write about the same commision, in their gosples.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Each writter put into his own words the gosples as they saw things happen. to say the words of Matt 28:19 was adirect quote is a long stretch, IMHO.

Cultism IMO comes from two different points, those that take scripture and twist it to preach things that are harder than scriputer puts them, and the other those that fall back on traditions that have come over the years by the same way, those that took scripture and twisted them to teach things that are not in scripture.

Example John 3:3-6, taking the water to preach the nessesity of Baptism as part of the salvation plan, without following the context of the passsage and the whole message Jesus taught Nicodemus in the rest of the passage.

acerrak
06-01-2011, 07:58 AM
Aquila

While I can see what you are trying to say, you have one problem from what I can see. You drive home or try to drive home that Matt 28:19 is an exact quote from Jesus. Two things wrong with this is that, one. nowhere in scripture do we have an exact quote of any words of Christ. Two, Christ commands a name while trinitarians do not use a proper name with the use of titles.

In trying to say Matt 28:19 is an exact quote, we must compare the other gospels that write about the same commision, in their gosples.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Each writter put into his own words the gosples as they saw things happen. to say the words of Matt 28:19 was adirect quote is a long stretch, IMHO.

Cultism IMO comes from two different points, those that take scripture and twist it to preach things that are harder than scriputer puts them, and the other those that fall back on traditions that have come over the years by the same way, those that took scripture and twisted them to teach things that are not in scripture.

Example John 3:3-6, taking the water to preach the nessesity of Baptism as part of the salvation plan, without following the context of the passsage and the whole message Jesus taught Nicodemus in the rest of the passage.

preterist will use historic events recorded outside the bible to justify there view of the bible. and so when people do the same with baptism as using early church history as early as 70 a.d. and upward it just gets ignored and brushed under the carpet like it didnt happent.

Thus my point is we have many recorded works of baptism with the father son and holy Ghost, many well documented using that phrase, and using it while at least one apostle was still alive.. yet in light of this historical evidence. people brush it off as the beginnings of a heretical sect growing


Im not downing you for being a preterist, im just trying to make a point that people did it like this in historical evidence outside the bible.

mfblume
06-01-2011, 09:57 AM
Do you believe this is an ancient document?

I think so. I could not find the reference, though. I mean, who in TIME magazine could think it up?

Aquila
06-01-2011, 02:29 PM
Aquila

While I can see what you are trying to say, you have one problem from what I can see. You drive home or try to drive home that Matt 28:19 is an exact quote from Jesus. Two things wrong with this is that, one. nowhere in scripture do we have an exact quote of any words of Christ. Two, Christ commands a name while trinitarians do not use a proper name with the use of titles.

In trying to say Matt 28:19 is an exact quote, we must compare the other gospels that write about the same commision, in their gosples.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Each writter put into his own words the gosples as they saw things happen. to say the words of Matt 28:19 was adirect quote is a long stretch, IMHO.

I disagree. The Gospels were written a considerable time after the life of Christ. Through divine inspiration each recorded the words they specifically remember the Lord speaking on various occasions. If what you say is true, we don't have the exact words of Christ at all. It's just a paraphrase in the author's own words. That's VERY problematic and shows a low appreciation of Holy Scripture. It also opens up a world of problems. How can we trust any of the author's interpretation or paraphrase of Christ's teaching? Maybe Jesus didn't say anything at all about baptism... Luke omits a direct comment about baptism, Mark's ending is questioned, Matthew's wasn't Christ's own words in your opinion, and John doesn't mention it either.

Cultism IMO comes from two different points, those that take scripture and twist it to preach things that are harder than scriputer puts them, and the other those that fall back on traditions that have come over the years by the same way, those that took scripture and twisted them to teach things that are not in scripture.

Baptism was essentially practiced in accordance to Christ's words. The book of Acts doesn't contain even a paraphrase regarding what formula the Apostle's used. All it contains are admonishments to be baptized "in the name of the Lord". That means, in accordance to His teaching and authority, in His honor, with recognition of His power. It doesn't say much about a "formula". If so... please provide a quote for a formula as spoken over a candidate being baptized.

Example John 3:3-6, taking the water to preach the nessesity of Baptism as part of the salvation plan, without following the context of the passsage and the whole message Jesus taught Nicodemus in the rest of the passage.

I think context in that passage is very important too. Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, a "ruler of the Jews". This means that Nicodemus was one of the top theological authorities, if not the head theological authority, among the Sanhedrin. Obviously Nicodemus wasn't sure what Jesus meant when He said that a man must be "born again". So Nicodemus questioned Him pointedly to provoke a theological explaination. Jesus explained that to be "born again" was to be "born of water and Spirit". When Jesus said that a man must be "born of water and Spirit" what would Nicodemus have thought? In rabbinical literature the mikveh pools were referred to as "the womb of the world". When one was completely immersed in the mikveh pool (tevilah) they were said to be "a little child just born" or "a child of one day". When Jesus explained the phrase "born again" by saying "born of water and of Spirit" Nicodemus would have seen it as a direct reference to mikveh (tevilah), what we understand as root practice of Christian baptism.

Now... for you full immersionists, this is EXCELLENT data supporting full immersion. lol

Pendragon
06-01-2011, 03:05 PM
Example John 3:3-6, taking the water to preach the nessesity of Baptism as part of the salvation plan, without following the context of the passsage and the whole message Jesus taught Nicodemus in the rest of the passage.

Yes, how about the context of that passage? At the end of John 3 Jesus is baptizing people.

Aquila
06-02-2011, 06:11 AM
Aquila
Example John 3:3-6, taking the water to preach the nessesity of Baptism as part of the salvation plan, without following the context of the passsage and the whole message Jesus taught Nicodemus in the rest of the passage.

Regardless of one's position on mode or formula, I believe water baptism is part of the plan of salvation. Not in that it provides any spiritual grace, but because God ordained it to be so. Much like the Lord's Supper. There are various sacraments, all serve a purpose rather one believes they are symbolic of inner truths or actual means of the impartation of grace.

I see the Christian life as a journey. That means that as the Christian grows in faith obedience will grow also. It's been said that one is lost if they perish before being water baptized. I believe God sees the heart. One who refuses to be baptized out of pride or a contrary will shall be judged by God in accordance to their disposition. One who perishes while on the way to be baptized or while learning that baptism is a Christian sacrament will be judged according to their disposition.

I'd argue that one who refuses to be baptized may not have saving faith. Thus baptism isn't the issue. It's their unbelief. They simply don't believe the Word of God.

Baptism, God ordained it, Jesus commanded it, and Christians embrace and practice it.

God is just.

Godsdrummer
06-02-2011, 07:13 AM
I disagree. The Gospels were written a considerable time after the life of Christ. Through divine inspiration each recorded the words they specifically remember the Lord speaking on various occasions. If what you say is true, we don't have the exact words of Christ at all. It's just a paraphrase in the author's own words. That's VERY problematic and shows a low appreciation of Holy Scripture. It also opens up a world of problems. How can we trust any of the author's interpretation or paraphrase of Christ's teaching? Maybe Jesus didn't say anything at all about baptism... Luke omits a direct comment about baptism, Mark's ending is questioned, Matthew's wasn't Christ's own words in your opinion, and John doesn't mention it either.

The only problem with what I have said is that it shoots holes in your teaching or idea that Matt 28:19 was Jesus exact words quoted. If your going to say Matt 28:19 is a direct quote the why is the sermon on the mount not direct quotes, what about the various differing wording of parables from one author to another. You don't have a problem with that!!! why would you have a problem that Matt 28:19 was not any more of a direct quote than either of the other gospels?

Baptism was essentially practiced in accordance to Christ's words. The book of Acts doesn't contain even a paraphrase regarding what formula the Apostle's used. All it contains are admonishments to be baptized "in the name of the Lord". That means, in accordance to His teaching and authority, in His honor, with recognition of His power. It doesn't say much about a "formula". If so... please provide a quote for a formula as spoken over a candidate being baptized.

For some one that seems to know more abut the Mikvah than most others there does not seem to be a formula for that either, as it was both a cleansing ritual and a seal (covanant sign) much like circumcision. Romans 4 As there was not formula spoken over them, as much as thier own confession of faith in the teacher they were following. Hence to be baptised in Jesus Name was to be baptized confessing to be a follower or have faith in Jesus. Why else do you think the minister speaks the words "upon the confession of your faith" As for a formula if Acts does not give a formula then neither does the gospels, all the gospels do is to give the command to be baptised!!!

I think context in that passage is very important too. Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, a "ruler of the Jews". This means that Nicodemus was one of the top theological authorities, if not the head theological authority, among the Sanhedrin. Obviously Nicodemus wasn't sure what Jesus meant when He said that a man must be "born again". So Nicodemus questioned Him pointedly to provoke a theological explaination. Jesus explained that to be "born again" was to be "born of water and Spirit". When Jesus said that a man must be "born of water and Spirit" what would Nicodemus have thought? In rabbinical literature the mikveh pools were referred to as "the womb of the world". When one was completely immersed in the mikveh pool (tevilah) they were said to be "a little child just born" or "a child of one day". When Jesus explained the phrase "born again" by saying "born of water and of Spirit" Nicodemus would have seen it as a direct reference to mikveh (tevilah), what we understand as root practice of Christian baptism.

Yet for all that Nicodemus still did not understand what Jesus was saying even in verse 11. Further it seem funny to me that if bapstim was what Jesus was speaking of that he did not futher explain himself. Instead he continues to speak of the spirit birth. Further if Jesus was refering to mikvah why be evasaive any other time he commanded baptism, he used the word baptism.


Now... for you full immersionists, this is EXCELLENT data supporting full immersion. lol

If your going to be extreme on the points we have discused I would think that you would be more a procipiant of full immersion. LOL

Godsdrummer
06-02-2011, 07:19 AM
Yes, how about the context of that passage? At the end of John 3 Jesus is baptizing people.

Yes and it fits perfectly with the MIkval (baptismal sign of followers to certain groups) Note Joh 3:26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
These were being baptises because they were beocming followers of Christ even those that were baptised of John as his followers, were being rebaptised as followers of Christ.

Godsdrummer
06-02-2011, 07:32 AM
Regardless of one's position on mode or formula, I believe water baptism is part of the plan of salvation. Not in that it provides any spiritual grace, but because God ordained it to be so. Much like the Lord's Supper. There are various sacraments, all serve a purpose rather one believes they are symbolic of inner truths or actual means of the impartation of grace.

I see the Christian life as a journey. That means that as the Christian grows in faith obedience will grow also. It's been said that one is lost if they perish before being water baptized. I believe God sees the heart. One who refuses to be baptized out of pride or a contrary will shall be judged by God in accordance to their disposition. One who perishes while on the way to be baptized or while learning that baptism is a Christian sacrament will be judged according to their disposition.

I'd argue that one who refuses to be baptized may not have saving faith. Thus baptism isn't the issue. It's their unbelief. They simply don't believe the Word of God.

Baptism, God ordained it, Jesus commanded it, and Christians embrace and practice it.

God is just.

I don't disagree other than it is not any more salvational than circumsision. Here is something to think about the Mikvah was performed imediatly after profession of faith as it was part of the individuals profession of faith. In the beleif of said teaching or teacher. As it should be today Baptism is the public confession of faith as it was in that day. Some one that does not want to publicly confess Christ, Christ says he will not confess them to his father!!!

It is all wrapped up together, salvation come through faith in the work on the cross. But if we don't confess Christ through Mikvah Christ won't confess us to his father, which basicly negates our faith until we let the world know we are followers of Christ in baptism. HMMM Faith with out works is dead. See for the most part we are on the same page just different ways of saying it.

Aquila
06-03-2011, 06:50 AM
I don't disagree other than it is not any more salvational than circumsision. Here is something to think about the Mikvah was performed imediatly after profession of faith as it was part of the individuals profession of faith. In the beleif of said teaching or teacher. As it should be today Baptism is the public confession of faith as it was in that day. Some one that does not want to publicly confess Christ, Christ says he will not confess them to his father!!!

It is all wrapped up together, salvation come through faith in the work on the cross. But if we don't confess Christ through Mikvah Christ won't confess us to his father, which basicly negates our faith until we let the world know we are followers of Christ in baptism. HMMM Faith with out works is dead. See for the most part we are on the same page just different ways of saying it.

I see. And I like the way you said it. :thumbsup

Appreciate your response bro. :)

NorCal
06-03-2011, 11:05 AM
Looks like we have all come to the same conclusion, that baptism is necessary for salvation. Wither in "profession of Faith in Christ", or for the "Remission of Sins".

acerrak
06-03-2011, 11:10 AM
Looks like we have all come to the same conclusion, that baptism is necessary for salvation. Wither in "profession of Faith in Christ", or for the "Remission of Sins".

i believe it could be for both, but the prefession of faith had to happen, just like the ethiopian and phillip.

what hinders me from being baptized? Phillip replied do you believe with all your heart and soul, and what we have here is a romans 10:9-10 comming into play. then He was baptized.

Godsdrummer
06-04-2011, 07:54 AM
The only thing I have against three steppers is that they place too much Emphasis on works (actions) taking the believers security of salvation in Christ Through faith, and placing if in the works (actions) of man.

Which brings into play adding to the word of God things that are not salvational, causing us to become like the pharise that searched scripture trying to work thier way to eternal life.

There is a grave differance between trying to accieve salvation by doing things, as apposed one that does things because of salvation and Love. Jesus said if you love me you will keep my commandments, Should maybe be read my commandments will become common place to you because you love me. When one love someone they do things for that person without thinking because it is a natural response to Love. It is not love when one does something because they think or know that it is the thing that they are supposed to do.

If one is baptised just because they think it is a commandment, and something they MUST do they are doing it for the wrong reason.

We don't take communion because it is salvational yet we are commanded to do it often in rememberance of him. Yet just because baptism is done around the time of sinners comming to Christ we have made it part of a salvation plan which was never ment to be. Think about this we are never commanded to speak in tongues, further we are not commanded to recieve the Holy Ghost. It is a gift!!! Peter never said you must recieve the holy ghost, he said YOU SHALL recieve the holy ghost for it is promised to you.

Sabby
06-04-2011, 10:15 AM
The only thing I have against three steppers is that they place too much Emphasis on works (actions) taking the believers security of salvation in Christ Through faith, and placing if in the works (actions) of man.

Which brings into play adding to the word of God things that are not salvational, causing us to become like the pharise that searched scripture trying to work thier way to eternal life.

There is a grave differance between trying to accieve salvation by doing things, as apposed one that does things because of salvation and Love. Jesus said if you love me you will keep my commandments, Should maybe be read my commandments will become common place to you because you love me. When one love someone they do things for that person without thinking because it is a natural response to Love. It is not love when one does something because they think or know that it is the thing that they are supposed to do.

If one is baptised just because they think it is a commandment, and something they MUST do they are doing it for the wrong reason.

We don't take communion because it is salvational yet we are commanded to do it often in rememberance of him. Yet just because baptism is done around the time of sinners comming to Christ we have made it part of a salvation plan which was never ment to be. Think about this we are never commanded to speak in tongues, further we are not commanded to recieve the Holy Ghost. It is a gift!!! Peter never said you must recieve the holy ghost, he said YOU SHALL recieve the holy ghost for it is promised to you.

:highfive:highfive:highfive

mfblume
06-06-2011, 01:50 PM
Godsdrummer,

Peter said baptism saves, whereas nothing was said like that about communion.