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

[Neck]

To quote RKentsmith

"The UPC needs a healer"

Still can't figure out what that means!

[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.

[joyful]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Let the man quote all the scripture he wants - just not while he's holding the candidate under the water.

This made me . I have to agree that while this is certainly unneccesary, I can't say that just quoting two scriptures could be considered "compromise" in and of itself.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Joseph Miller

I agree with the above statements.

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

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.

[Joseph Miller]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

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.

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.

[HangingOut]

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.

[Joseph Miller]

Originally Posted by HangingOut

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.

Paul could have. As a matter of fact that is about what he did in Acts 19. Acts 4:12 also would lets us know that the power is in the name. The power to remit sin is not in the titles. You must say the name. Acts 2:38 is the ONE and ONLY plan of salvation. If sinner whoever is not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ then their sins aren't remitted. They may have faith and may have repented but being baptized in the titles did nothing for them.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Joseph Miller

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.

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.

[stmatthew]

I believe those that would "add" titles to their baptism mode either (1) Don't have a good understanding of who Jesus is, and are trying to cover all the bases, or (2) Do not want to offend someone by using the Name only.

The fact is, Baptizing in Jesus name is the only way to obey the command of Matt 28:19. Jesus said to go and baptize IN THE NAME. He did not command to go and baptize IN THE TITLES.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

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.

Why should baptizing in the Name only be offensive??