Originally Posted by crazyjoe (Post 311966)

....I just heard of a pastor that is changing his method of baptizing from "In Jesus Name" to "In the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit which is Jesus".....His reasoning is combining Mathew 28:19 & Acts 2:38....he feels this will knock down barriers....is this a compromise of the plan of salvation that Peter revealed when he delivered the keys to the kingdom on the day of Pentecost or a new revelation of inclusiveness?...

Originally Posted by Neckstadt (Post 312040)

How is this a compromise?

Originally Posted by pentecostisalive (Post 312102)

Because you are trying to apply a meaning to Matt 28:19 that Jesus never intended (Using the titles in baptism), with the method that the Apostles applied to Jesus words (In the name of Jesus).

The original baptism formula, according to scripture and history, was in the name of Jesus Christ. (Or Lord Jesus Christ) When the false idea of a trinity began to make entrance into the church, via pagan influence, the formula was changed to Father, Son and Holy Ghost in Baptism, to go along with the false concept of God. This formula was never the intention of Christ.

Trinity and Titles in baptism has been together for over 1600 years. The only reason you would want to use Matt 28:19 and Acts 2:38 together in your formula (in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost which is Jesus) is to please trinitarians, who have their base theology rooted in pagan mythology. BEING TRULY APOSTOLIC is baptizing in the name of the Jesus Christ. Any other method is compromise, and was not practiced by the Apostles.

Anyone that leaves true Bible doctrine and practice, is threading on dangerous ground, and other fundamental doctrines will ultimately be compromised as well.

Please tell me how this is not a compromise, and how this is scriptural sound to do this?

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK (Post 312145)

You can not truthfully say that after reading Matthew 28:19 that Jesus' word are of no affect. I am sure that you have read the entire chapter of Matthew 28. In that chapter it says Jesus was talking to the 12 and told them how to minister. Now if Jesus actually meant 'go baptize everyone in my name' then he would have said it. IMO. I believe that Acts 2:38 gives a biblical mode of baptism. I have no trouble with some using both scriptures. The reason it is not compromise is that Jesus comanded it to be done. The 12 went and administered this in Jesus name, which is correct because Jesus is the 'name' of the F,S,and HG. It is just like someone intoducing me as a father, son, friend, brother, etc, but I am still Justin. That is how I see it.

Originally Posted by pentecostisalive (Post 312210)

Jesus words are not of no effect, however many people misapply his words in ways that he never intended.

Jesus spoke these words, and the scripture says that he opened their understanding. He didn't want them to get it wrong. When the Apostles left his moment, and then entered into Acts 2, their understanding was clear with what Jesus required, and they applied what they had been taught by baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ.

If the Apostles applied Jesus words in this way, who are we to apply them any differently? The only reason to do so would be to connect yourself to trinitarian false doctrine, and try to mix false ideology with the true. This never works, and God clearly frowns upon such attempts through the Epistles and to the Seven Churches of Revelation.

Originally Posted by pentecostisalive (Post 312213)

The discussion was not whether Jesus words are of non effect, but whether they are being misapplied and misinterpreted.

Originally Posted by OneAccord (Post 311985)

With respect to the pastor... this is " a new revelation of inclusiveness". Which is not a good thing. Years ago, a preacher said this: "The church is getting worldly and the world is getting churchy". The "revelation of inclusiveness" seems to be a modern day trend that has no basis in the Word of God. The Scriptures tell us over and over again and in many different ways to "Come out from among them... and be ye separate". God has separated His church unto Himself and from among the worlds religions. As one writer proclaimed we are a "chosen generation, a royal priesthood". Paul warned the Galations of being "entangled" with the things we have been freed from.

I'm all for unity. Spiritual unity that comes through and by the Holy Ghost. But this move to "blend" in with our counterparts, to soften our stand for what we know to be right... its troubling to say the least. I won't say this pastors efforts are a compromise. I won't make that judgement. But I will say it is unecessary. The Gospel of repentance, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost as set forth by Jesus, and as carried out by Peter and the Apostles is clear and unmistakable. The effort, however sincere, to "clean up" the Gospel, to make it more acceptable to the masses is an attempt to improve upon God's Plan. King Saul heard God's unmistakable command to destroy the enemy, but he took it upon himself to alter, to improve God's command. And, because he failed to obey, the very enemy he was commanded to destroy ultimately contributed to his own demise.
By all means, knock down the barriers. Yes, God's word calls for unity. We have a mandate to keep the unity of the faith... However, we can't change God's Word to do it. God's design is for the church to remain pristine... washed in His Blood. Why risk contamination for the sake of social acceptance? Once social acceptance becomes the goal... we have lost our vision. We've lost the purity of the Word. At what price?
Here is the question I would pose to anyone who has "a revelation of inclusiveness" or who is tempted to make his or her message more "socially acceptable":

Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Is it worth it?

Originally Posted by pentecostisalive (Post 312102)

Because you are trying to apply a meaning to Matt 28:19 that Jesus never intended (Using the titles in baptism), with the method that the Apostles applied to Jesus words (In the name of Jesus).

The original baptism formula, according to scripture and history, was in the name of Jesus Christ. (Or Lord Jesus Christ) When the false idea of a trinity began to make entrance into the church, via pagan influence, the formula was changed to Father, Son and Holy Ghost in Baptism, to go along with the false concept of God. This formula was never the intention of Christ.

Trinity and Titles in baptism has been together for over 1600 years. The only reason you would want to use Matt 28:19 and Acts 2:38 together in your formula (in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost which is Jesus) is to please trinitarians, who have their base theology rooted in pagan mythology. BEING TRULY APOSTOLIC is baptizing in the name of the Jesus Christ. Any other method is compromise, and was not practiced by the Apostles.

Anyone that leaves true Bible doctrine and practice, is threading on dangerous ground, and other fundamental doctrines will ultimately be compromised as well.

Please tell me how this is not a compromise, and how this is scriptural sound to do this?

Originally Posted by pentecostisalive (Post 312210)

Jesus words are not of no effect, however many people misapply his words in ways that he never intended.

Jesus spoke these words, and the scripture says that he opened their understanding. He didn't want them to get it wrong. When the Apostles left his moment, and then entered into Acts 2, their understanding was clear with what Jesus required, and they applied what they had been taught by baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ.

If the Apostles applied Jesus words in this way, who are we to apply them any differently? The only reason to do so would be to connect yourself to trinitarian false doctrine, and try to mix false ideology with the true. This never works, and God clearly frowns upon such attempts through the Epistles and to the Seven Churches of Revelation.

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 312242)

Originally Posted by Joseph Miller (Post 312266)

I agree with the above statements.

Stay with what the Word and history says was the original way.

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK (Post 312349)

Anyone can be wrong why not cover your bases? I agree history shows that Jesus name was administered at baptism, but does not hurt to make sure you are covered.

Originally Posted by HangingOut (Post 312363)

I am baptized in Jesus Name. No need to change that. Here is a lingeriing question I have had for years.
Sinner Joe/Sally is as contrite as the next repentent sinner only to be baptized in the titles. Tell their heart/faith means nothing and that their sins aren't forgiven/remitted. I cannot say that.

Originally Posted by Joseph Miller (Post 312361)

Well I agree that people can be wrong, but what I base my firm stand for only using Acts 2:38 is the accounts of the Word of God. It can't be wrong. The men in it were not wrong.

Why should we not add to what we are doing? If you want to add titles of who God is or rolls God takes on in our lives Matthew 28:19 is not a complete list. We could go for days quoting the titles and rolls of God before speaking the name of Jesus while standing in the water, but it is not necessary. The name JESUS sums up all the titles you could say and is the only thing that has power.

When someone wants to add F,S, and HG to their baptism formula they are trying to blend and not offend people who believe in the trinity. There is no other way to look at it.

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK (Post 312393)

I agree there are many more offices to Jesus than just F,S,HG. But none of these are mentioned when commisioned to reach the world and baptize them. If someone wants to add the titles to it that does not add to or take away from what is being done here. The name of Jesus is being spoken over them that is the thing that matters. Is it a bad thing to add it so not to offend? I do not think so. I have never added the titles to a baptism. I do not see a problem with those that do add it.

Originally Posted by stmatthew (Post 312419)

Why should baptizing in the Name only be offensive??

Originally Posted by philjones (Post 312430)

You probably think that scripture about whatsoever you do in word or deed do all in the name of Jesus is really important and means what it says, don't you? :D

And you probably think that baptism is salvific and that when the scripture declares that there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby you must be saved it is talking about Jesus. :D

Some people and their absolute faith in the sanctity and accuracy of the Word of God! I don't know what we are going to do with them. :D

Originally Posted by philjones (Post 312430)

Some people and their absolute faith in the sanctity and accuracy of the Word of God!

Originally Posted by Pragmatist (Post 312447)

If people believe in the sanctity and accuracy of the Word of God, then why is using Matt. 28:19 in addition to Jesus name a problem?

If it wasn't in error for Jesus to say it, one shouldn't be in error to include it along with Jesus name.

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK (Post 312474)

BINGO!!!! We have a winner!

Look guys, Phil and Matt, I believe the name is essential. There are different points of view about this. Matt asked is it offensive to baptixe in the name. Well it isn't. But at the expense of sound smart why should a title be offensive?

Phil, I agree that Jesus said 'in the name' that is important. But the why is it a big deal to add the titles? Does in counter-act the Jesus name part? No

Originally Posted by crazyjoe (Post 311966)

....I just heard of a pastor that is changing his method of baptizing from "In Jesus Name" to "In the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit which is Jesus".....His reasoning is combining Mathew 28:19 & Acts 2:38....he feels this will knock down barriers....is this a compromise of the plan of salvation that Peter revealed when he delivered the keys to the kingdom on the day of Pentecost or a new revelation of inclusiveness?...

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK (Post 312349)

Twisting of scripture, "Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"
This is talking about hanging on to a sinful life to gain favor in the world not following what the Bible says. Read the whole chapter it gives light to how it should be used.

If one stays with the word you can not go wrong by using both Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. Anyone can be wrong why not cover your bases? I agree history shows that Jesus name was administered at baptism, but does not hurt to make sure you are covered.

Originally Posted by OneAccord (Post 312636)

In our church, water baptism is rarely mentioned. Our effort is bringing sinners to the altar of repentance. The starting point, so to speak. We don't stand over them and say... Ya gotta repent...then ya gotta get baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ... then ya gotta get the Holy Ghost and apeak in tongues.... then ya gotta live by my standards...." But the time you do all of that, salvation becomes like a carrot dangling in front of them that can never be reached.
We invite them to repent of their sins. Once their sins are forgiven, we invite them to a new converts class where they are taught about water baptism, (its purpose, its significance). Then, they are baptized voluntarily "in the Name of Jesus Christ". We don't go into all the historical reasons for baptism and all that. We simply state two reasons for baptism in Jesus Name.: 1) its Biblical and 2) we love His Name. One Church of God brother heard those two reason why we baptize iaccording to Acts 2:38. His response: I can't argue with that". We don't fuss over the different modes. Brothers who baptize differently are still our brothers, but we choose to baptize as we do because we believe is is Biblical to do so.

Originally Posted by ChTatum (Post 312627)

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
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.


Matthew 28:19 (KJV)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

onoma, Greek 3686, Strong’s
onoma, on'-om-ah; from a presumed derivative of the base of Greek 1097 (ginosko) (compare Greek 3685 (oninemi)); a “name” (literal or figurative) [authority, character] :- called, (+ sur-) name (-d).


And the difference is......?


FTR, when I baptize people, I always say "According to the profession of your faith, and the command of our Lord, I now baptize you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin, and you SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost".