...Combining Mathew 28:19 & Acts 2:38.....

[crazyjoe]

....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?...

[OneAccord]

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?

[Neck]

Originally Posted by crazyjoe

....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?...

How is this a compromise?

Originally Posted by Neckstadt

How is this a compromise?

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?

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by pentecostisalive

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?

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 JTULLOCK

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.

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.

[Joseph Miller]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

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

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

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.

I agree with the above statements.

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

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

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by pentecostisalive

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

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

I agree that people misunderstand what Jesus and writers of the Bible have said. But the true test is if a person sees that they should add F,S,HG to the verbage. There are people on this forum that have state that when they were in the UPC that they added the F,S,HG to it as well. You may not see that one should add it. Some people say that it is the most Biblical form of baptism cause you take Jesus' words for what is written. Whether Jesus intended for people to use F,S,HG or not He said it-at least we have to believe He did because it is there. You may see it as a compromise, but the people that change may not. I know people that are for both arguments, but it is only opinion because you do not know the heart of the matter.

Lets say for a moment that it was for compromise. Does it negate the baptism because you added F,S,HG in front of 'Jesus Name'? No!

[Steve Epley]

Reminds me of a song the late A.T. Surratt of Memphis used to sing "Come down, come down, come down from off that fence, the most disgusting thing on earth is a preacher on top of the fence."
Compromise to appease men.