UPCI

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by scotty

For the sake of study and discussion, what do you believe was said over baptism. I understand your approach as far as "this was not specifically said." What, in your opinion, do you believe the diciples did say in these references ?



Nice cop out.

But seriously, I would pose the same question to you as I did Sam. The references I have quoted from scripture do tip the scales in favor of Jesus name baptizm. What scripture references do you have to offer that would give wieght to baptizm in the titles ?

On a side note, how are we reading the following scriptures as NOT being Jesus name baptizm ?

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;

Acts 19:5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus

I believe it is best to be silent where the bible is silent. The apostles words over baptism are not recorded. Clearly this implies that what is said over baptism is not very important...

If you want to take acts 2:38 and acts 19:5 as both being the actual words spoken then I suggest you take acts 10:48 as being the actual words also. But if this is the case then in Acts 10:48 they said "in the name of the Lord" which is contrary to your insistence that the word Jesus must be said over baptism. Therefore I say that in either case, whether we take the accounts as the actual words of the apostles or whether we don't, that in both cases your position that the word Jesus must be issued at baptism is not found in the bible.

EDIT: I wanted to add a bit about what I view those verses to be saying. I am reading those scriptures as having nothing to do with the words that are spoken. Baptism wasn't set up to be some kind of divine formula. Baptism is about the remission of sins and symbolizes our death, burial and resurrection with Jesus. I say that all these titles and names all refer to the same authority, for Jesus himself said that he came in his Father's name, therefore implying that his authority came from the Father. So since the authority of Jesus is the same as the authority of the Father what difference does it make whether we baptize in the authority of Jesus or in the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? In fact, I will even go so far to say that even if not one word is uttered at the baptism of a believer about whose authority or name it is being done in, then that baptism was still done both in the authority of both Jesus Christ and in the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost

[scotty]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I believe it is best to be silent where the bible is silent. The apostles words over baptism are not recorded. Clearly this implies that what is said over baptism is not very important...

If you want to take acts 2:38 and acts 19:5 as both being the actual words spoken then I suggest you take acts 10:48 as being the actual words also. But if this is the case then in Acts 10:48 they said "in the name of the Lord" which is contrary to your insistence that the word Jesus must be said over baptism. Therefore I say that in either case, whether we take the accounts as the actual words of the apostles or whether we don't, that in both cases your position that the word Jesus must be issued at baptism is not found in the bible.

So then what is the name of the Lord ?
What is the name of the Father ?
What is the name of the Holy Ghost ?
What is the name of the Son ?

Why would it be recorded in scripture if it were not important what was spoken over baptism ? To come to your conclusion you are having to ignore scripture just for the sake of ignoring the whole point of the conversation. If you have no answers then simply say so.

I see Jesus commanding them to baptize in the "name" of the Father, the "name" of Son and the "name" of the Holy Spririt. The diciples response to this command was Acts 2:38 as well as others I have posted. In light of the obvious I just cant seem to understand not only why Jesus name baptism seems so confusing to some but why bother with the argument against it.

EDIT: you answered some of my post before I got it posted with your EDIT. Thanks.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by scotty

So then what is the name of the Lord ?
What is the name of the Father ?
What is the name of the Holy Ghost ?
What is the name of the Son ?

Why would it be recorded in scripture if it were not important what was spoken over baptism ? To come to your conclusion you are having to ignore scripture just for the sake of ignoring the whole point of the conversation. If you have no answers then simply say so.

I see Jesus commanding them to baptize in the "name" of the Father, the "name" of Son and the "name" of the Holy Spririt. The diciples response to this command was Acts 2:38 as well as others I have posted. In light of the obvious I just cant seem to understand not only why Jesus name baptism seems so confusing to some but why bother with the argument against it.

EDIT: you answered some of my post before I got it posted with your EDIT. Thanks.

I added another paragraph that you can take a look at.

But it seems you already missed my point.

Acts 10:48 says they baptized in the name of the Lord. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Acts 2:38 and Acts 19:5 are both saying they baptized using the words "in the name of Jesus" then Acts 10:48 is saying they baptized using the words "in the name of the Lord". If they actually said a title when the baptized in Acts 10:48 instead of the name then I have proven that a title can be used in place of a name. Therefore what is the difference of Peter baptizing people in the title of Lord and someone today baptizing people in the titles of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Why can Peter baptize people with a title but no one today can?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by scotty

So then what is the name of the Lord ?
What is the name of the Father ?
What is the name of the Holy Ghost ?
What is the name of the Son ?

Why would it be recorded in scripture if it were not important what was spoken over baptism ? To come to your conclusion you are having to ignore scripture just for the sake of ignoring the whole point of the conversation. If you have no answers then simply say so.

I see Jesus commanding them to baptize in the "name" of the Father, the "name" of Son and the "name" of the Holy Spririt. The diciples response to this command was Acts 2:38 as well as others I have posted. In light of the obvious I just cant seem to understand not only why Jesus name baptism seems so confusing to some but why bother with the argument against it.

EDIT: you answered some of my post before I got it posted with your EDIT. Thanks.

This wasn't asked of me but I'll chime in.

Some of our elders taught that the triune or three-one God has a triune or three-one name. As Father He is called Lord; as Son He is called Jesus; and as Holy Ghost He is called Christ, therefore God's compound name is "Lord Jesus Christ." I personally do not believe that. It is my opinion that the one name shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus or Yeshua which means JHWH-Savior. Since there are several people called Jesus in our New Testament (including Joshua the successor of Moses) I believe it is best to say "Jesus Christ" to show plainly that you are speaking of Jesus the Christ/Messiah and not some other Jesus (but I'm sure God would know which Jesus you were referencing if you left off "Christ").

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by Sam

This wasn't asked of me but I'll chime in.

Some of our elders taught that the triune or three-one God has a triune or three-one name. As Father He is called Lord; as Son He is called Jesus; and as Holy Ghost He is called Christ, therefore God's compound name is "Lord Jesus Christ." I personally do not believe that. It is my opinion that the one name shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus or Yeshua which means JHWH-Savior. Since there are several people called Jesus in our New Testament (including Joshua the successor of Moses) I believe it is best to say "Jesus Christ" to show plainly that you are speaking of Jesus the Christ/Messiah and not some other Jesus (but I'm sure God would know which Jesus you were referencing if you left off "Christ").

Does Jesus know that you are referring to him when you baptize in the titles?

[scotty]

Originally Posted by jfrog

How about you stop being a hypocrite then and start ending all your posts in Jesus' name I mean if you believe ya should do ALL things in Jesus' name then its time you start doing ALL things that way.

EDIT: None of those scriptures you posted other than the ones you already have say anything about baptism. Why even bring them up?

Since you still have no meat to add to the discussion I'll leave your post with TM's.

Originally Posted by Sam

This wasn't asked of me but I'll chime in.

Some of our elders taught that the triune or three-one God has a triune or three-one name. As Father He is called Lord; as Son He is called Jesus; and as Holy Ghost He is called Christ, therefore God's compound name is "Lord Jesus Christ." I personally do not believe that. It is my opinion that the one name shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus or Yeshua which means JHWH-Savior. Since there are several people called Jesus in our New Testament (including Joshua the successor of Moses) I believe it is best to say "Jesus Christ" to show plainly that you are speaking of Jesus the Christ/Messiah and not some other Jesus (but I'm sure God would know which Jesus you were referencing if you left off "Christ").

Thanks to you and others as well for your insight and opinions.

I personally feel the same as Sam, while I see evidence in scripture that points to baptism in Jesus name, as Sam says, its not specifically stated so, though in my opinion you would have to really ignore some things to go the other way. I agree also with Steinway and Hoovie that the name of Jesus is important over baptism just so the person being dunked understands fully by what authority their sins are being washed away and forgivness is given. In saying that I could also say that if one were learned or fully understood that Jesus is that authority then if dunked under the titles it would still be baptism due to the persons full understanding of being cleansed under the blood of Christ.

Sis Alvear, So sorry for the hijacked thread. As UPC member I appreciate the good words you have said here and thank you for bothering to bring it up despite probably already knowing the rocks that would come flying your way for doing so.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by scotty

Since you still have no meat to add to the discussion I'll leave your post with TM's.

I've actually added quite a bit...

1. I've added that the apostles baptized in a title.
2. I've added that no matter how you explain them using a title it makes all the other accounts ambiguous at best because whatever principle you use to explain it away, I can use that same principle and apply it to the verses you keep quoting and explain them away.
3. I've added that Colossians 3:17 doesn't mean to literally say Jesus name over everything we do else you would be a hypocrite for accusing others of not following this scripture when you yourself don't say in Jesus name to your every action.
4. Basically my whole point was what you finally admitted to in the post below. That scripture doesn't specifically state what words should be said over baptism.

Originally Posted by scotty

Thanks to you and others as well for your insight and opinions.

I personally feel the same as Sam, while I see evidence in scripture that points to baptism in Jesus name, as Sam says, its not specifically stated so, though in my opinion you would have to really ignore some things to go the other way. I agree also with Steinway and Hoovie that the name of Jesus is important over baptism just so the person being dunked understands fully by what authority their sins are being washed away and forgivness is given. In saying that I could also say that if one were learned or fully understood that Jesus is that authority then if dunked under the titles it would still be baptism due to the persons full understanding of being cleansed under the blood of Christ.

Sis Alvear, So sorry for the hijacked thread. As UPC member I appreciate the good words you have said here and thank you for bothering to bring it up despite probably already knowing the rocks that would come flying your way for doing so.

You started this part off soooo good by saying that scripture is silent about what words should be said over baptism. But then you go right back to what got our discussion started in the first place.

You first accuse others of ignoring some things of the bible. By you doing this it is apparent that you really don't understand what I've been saying about Acts 10:48. If you had understood then you wouldn't be able to accuse others of ignoring the bible for it would be obvious how their belief makes as much sense as yours.

You then say that invoking the name of Jesus over baptism is important. You believe that the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Ghost are all Jesus. It seems to me that baptizing in the titles ought to be equivalent to baptizing in Jesus name for you. You believe both Jesus and those titles all refers to the same person therefore to the same authority. So why make such a big deal about whether baptism is in the titles or in the name? Shouldn't it all be the same to you?

In my opinion, apostolics insistence that baptism must be in Jesus name has everything to do with making a point in the oneness vs. trinity debate. And that I don't think is right because baptism was never intended to be about who God was, it was intended to be about the forgiveness of our sins and identifying with Christ. I think trintarians are guilty of the same thing though.