TRANSCRIPT Of Message By HANEY!!!!!!!!!!!! - Page 32

Stephanas · #**311** 01-02-2009, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadgerBoysMom

So are you saying here that it is "in his name" simply because he was the one who baptized them? Or it because it is in his authority he exercised in the baptism? In my experience the emphasis has always been on the specific words used. "In Jesus Name". I mean what did Jesus say? In MY name? IF this is the case why did He not specifically state this in Matt 28:19? Surely He is not a God who would deliberately be ambiguous?

I have always been told when asking about the "formula" in Matt 28:19 that Jesus was not yet glorified so he would not give that specific answer?

It is my understanding that He was not yet glorified until AFTER the resurection. At this point (before the resurection) would it be considered valid?

Interesting thoughts.

The first disciples, baptized by Christ, would indeed be baptized unto or into Christ, identified with Him by the act of baptism.

We use the words, “In Jesus Name,” to indicate the object of our faith and the authority by which we baptize. I personally believe that the object of faith is more important than the words, but, since the Bible shows a consistent pattern of invoking Jesus name in baptism, we should do the same.

I do not find the Matthew 28:19 problematic at all (I don’t even have a problem with the preacher quoting this verse of Scripture at baptism, or any other relevant verse of Scripture for that matter.), but at the same time, the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles teaching and practice, and it is clear that they invoked Jesus Name over the baptismal candidates. So, quote Romans 10, Matthew 28:19, Ephesians 2, or John 3:16, but baptize them into Jesus Christ and by His authority, in Jesus Name.

Think on, Mom, think on.

jimmyrrs · #**312** 01-02-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephanas

I really don’t understand the thrust of the argument that you are encountering. A group is simply a collection of individuals, unless they are asserting that being part of a particular group entitles you to the blessing of the Holy Spirit, without consideration of the condition of the individual’s heart.

It's not an argument, I just can not find in the scripture where it reads, one person alone received the HG with evidence of speaking in tongues. I do read several palces where there are groups of people receiving the HG with tongues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephanas

In Paul's case we do have evidence that he spoke in tongues subsequent to his conversion. We must either place him in one of the group baptisms or conclude that he received a "single" experience of the Spirit.

As you noted above in the post in red, please state scripture. I may have over looked it.
I did find these scriptures speaking about Saul/Paul and the HG, but nothing about him alone speaking in tongues.

Acts 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

or

Acts 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.

I also read in 1 Cor where Paul is talking about tongues and interp.

BadgerBoysMom · #**313** 01-02-2009, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadgerBoysMom

Jesus baptized who? It doesn't really specify "who" he baptized it just says he did.

In the next verse (John 3:23) it says this...

23And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

In reading this is appears they were baptized by John. Which would lead me to the question why did they not have to be "rebaptized in Jesus name" as those in the books of Acts who were baptized unto John's baptizm.

Stephanas - Thank you for your previous response. I understand what you are saying in regards to the "in Jesus Name". However you didn't address the second part of my question. I don't see where is says specifically that Jesus baptized the apostles. If it was infact John then it would make your previous point invalid. Right? Please see my question above.

BadgerBoysMom · #**314** 01-02-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephanas

The first disciples, baptized by Christ, would indeed be baptized unto or into Christ, identified with Him by the act of baptism.

We use the words, “In Jesus Name,” to indicate the object of our faith and the authority by which we baptize. I personally believe that the object of faith is more important than the words, but, since the Bible shows a consistent pattern of invoking Jesus name in baptism, we should do the same.

I do not find the Matthew 28:19 problematic at all (I don’t even have a problem with the preacher quoting this verse of Scripture at baptism, or any other relevant verse of Scripture for that matter.), but at the same time, the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles teaching and practice, and it is clear that they invoked Jesus Name over the baptismal candidates. So, quote Romans 10, Matthew 28:19, Ephesians 2, or John 3:16, but baptize them into Jesus Christ and by His authority, in Jesus Name.

Think on, Mom, think on.

Thanks! I must say for the record (may have already said) I do advocate baptism in "Jesus Name". I believe there is sufficient scripture to support it and I believe it is commanded. BUT I also don't believe it is necessarily a "deal breaker" for someone who was baptized in FSHG if they fully understood the authority unto which they are being baptized and the representation of it.

I hope I don't get in trouble for saying that.

TRFrance · #**315** 01-02-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephanas

In Paul's case we do have evidence that he spoke in tongues subsequent to his conversion. We must either place him in one of the group baptisms or conclude that he received a "single" experience of the Spirit.

Not sure if I'm understaning you correctly on this, but... Are you referring to something like this?:

I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; (1 Cor 14:18)

jimmyrrs · #**316** 01-02-2009, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephanas

In Paul's case we do have evidence that he spoke in tongues subsequent to his conversion. We must either place him in one of the group baptisms or conclude that he received a "single" experience of the Spirit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Not sure if I'm understaning you correctly on this, but... Are you referring to something like this?:

I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; (1 Cor 14:18)

TRFrance, correct me if I'm wrong, but dosen't 1 Cor. 14:18 deal with the use of the gift of tongues and not the evidence of tongues when a person receives the HG.

ChTatum · #**317** 01-02-2009, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyrrs

TRFrance, correct me if I'm wrong, but dosen't 1 Cor. 14:18 deal with the use of the gift of tongues and not the evidence of tongues when a person receives the HG.

DING! DING! DING! You win the kewpie doll!

Two different applications of tongues, aalthough I personally believe and teach in three applications of tongues.

jimmyrrs · #**318** 01-02-2009, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChTatum

DING! DING! DING! You win the kewpie doll!

Two different applications of tongues, aalthough I personally believe and teach in three applications of tongues.

DING, DING, DING, DING DONG, care to share the three (3) with me.

Falla39 · #**319** 01-02-2009, 10:37 PM

I don't believe you will find those having the (spiritual) gifts until they
have first received the (Holy Spirit), the Giver of the gifts.

Not to offend.

Blessings,

Falla39

BadgerBoysMom · #**320** 01-05-2009, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadgerBoysMom

Jesus baptized who? It doesn't really specify "who" he baptized it just says he did.

In the next verse (John 3:23) it says this...

23And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

In reading this is appears they were baptized by John. Which would lead me to the question why did they not have to be "rebaptized in Jesus name" as those in the books of Acts who were baptized unto John's baptizm..

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadgerBoysMom

Stephanas - Thank you for your previous response. I understand what you are saying in regards to the "in Jesus Name". However you didn't address the second part of my question. I don't see where is says specifically that Jesus baptized the apostles. If it was infact John then it would make your previous point invalid. Right? Please see my question above.