The entire history of baptism indicates to be baptized in the name of requires some type of formula or wording. whether it was the shorter formula first (indicated by Encyclopedia Briattanica) or the latter triune formula, to be baptized INTO something required a formula that is spoken.
The reason i am saying it is unbiblical for you to say that, is that calling on the name of the Lord was commanded in Acts 22:16 connected with the rite of baptism. If we did not have an example of what being baptized into a name was (hence an action only could be applied) then the view you have stated would definitely be probable. But history does record otherwise and hence we must take what the apostles layed out for us. It therefore was not action only but in word and in deed
The difference, Onefaith, is that I believe any words spoken are for a testimony to any unbelievers, rather than salvific to the person being baptized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onefaith2
Yes and even in exorcism, the name is proclaimed to the removal of evils spirits, people are healed with the pronounciation of the name of Jesus verbally.
The Bible doesn't say that the name of Jesus removes evil spirits, Onefaith. The sons of Sceva found out the hard way. (Acts 19)
And "the prayer of faith shall save the sick", not a specific pattern of words.
__________________
What we make of the Bible will never be as great a thing as what the Bible will - if we let it - make of us.~Rich Mullins
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.~Galileo Galilei
The difference, Onefaith, is that I believe any words spoken are for a testimony to any unbelievers, rather than salvific to the person being baptized.
The Bible doesn't say that the name of Jesus removes evil spirits, Onefaith. The sons of Sceva found out the hard way. (Acts 19)
And "the prayer of faith shall save the sick", not a specific pattern of words.
Acts 22:16 disagrees with you from the baptizee perspective and so does history regarding baptism. What you would be believing would be a new doctrine, not backed by early church writings for they all believed in a specific wording formula..just didn't agree on what it should be.
The sons of Sceva said in the name of Jesus whom Paul preaches.. they were not casting out demons in the authority of Christ.. however the name of Jesus was spoken when demons were removed in the bible by anyone OTHER than Jesus.
If you are having trouble, you should pray. And if you are feeling good, you should sing praises. 14If you are sick, ask the church leaders [a] to come and pray for you. [B]Ask them to put olive oil on you in the name of the Lord. 15If you have faith when you pray for sick people, they will get well. The Lord will heal them, and if they have sinned, he will forgive them. 16If you have sinned, you should tell each other what you have done. Then you can pray for one another and be healed.
Its very important to note that Prayer was made for the sick by calling on the name of the Lord.
Jesus taught this
1.John 14:13
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. John 14:12-14
2.John 15:16
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
How can you ask the Father something in Jesus name without actually verbalizing the name of Jesus?
Again history shows formulas were specific and the bible shows the name of Jesus was involked. Not just in action, but in speech.
Acts 22:16 disagrees with you from the baptizee perspective and so does history regarding baptism. What you would be believing would be a new doctrine, not backed by early church writings for they all believed in a specific wording formula..just didn't agree on what it should be.
What perspective, onefaith? What do you think I'm believing? That no words should be stated? That is not what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onefaith2
Its very important to note that Prayer was made for the sick by calling on the name of the Lord.
you already stated this, and I already responded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onefaith2
Jesus taught this
1.John 14:13
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Again, this verse does not discuss simply going around saying "in Jesus name, in Jesus name," but doing what we do in a way that glorifies Him, as good witnesses. The same is true of the other verses you mention. This lines up with James 4:3Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts-not everything we ask "in Jesus name" verbally is given to us. But if our will lines up with His will, then what we ask is given because He is glorified with both the prayers and the answers. In that way, we are asking "in Jesus name" not only with our mouths, but with our hearts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onefaith2
How can you ask the Father something in Jesus name without actually verbalizing the name of Jesus?
Ask anyone who can't speak that question. God knows our hearts, with or without verbalization. (also see explanation above).
Quote:
Originally Posted by onefaith2
Again history shows formulas were specific and the bible shows the name of Jesus was involked. Not just in action, but in speech.
history shows many things. People read into history based on their current understanding. How do you know whether historically baptism was done because people believed it was essential to have certain words uttered over the convert, or whether the words were for the benefit of the hearers and not the convert at all? That answer isn't in Britannica.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onefaith2
I would definitely caution you in this belief.
Thanks for the caution. You've done your duty, but I will still believe that baptism is effectual due to the faith of the believer and not the words of the baptizer. I see no need for caution in that.
__________________
What we make of the Bible will never be as great a thing as what the Bible will - if we let it - make of us.~Rich Mullins
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.~Galileo Galilei
So every time you make a pot of coffee or drop an egg in a skillet or take a step, you say the words "in the name of Jesus"? There is no need to.
Of course, you know this is too much of a ridiculous stretch to warrant a response. LOL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by missourimary;
Even 1 Cor 1:10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. ...13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Is, according to commentaries http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-13.htm (see lower part of the page) discussing that people are baptized INTO someone's name to profess becoming followers of that person, and that Paul was making the point that he didn't baptize them nor did he make them his own followers, but Christ's. This passage could be brought to the unstated conclusion that since they were not baptized in the name of Paul, they were baptized into a name, and that name would have been Jesus', or it could mean that Paul did not make disciples for himself, but of Jesus. Jesus died for them, and it is Him they should follow, not dividing the body of Christ with disputes, not following various leaders, but following the One who died for them and they pledged to serve by their baptism.
The bold in the second paragraph would be correct - "baptizing into a name is professing you are becoming a follower of that person."
John Gill: "The apostle did not pretend to be the author of a new revelation, or the propagator of a new religion, but was a preacher of the Gospel, and an administrator of the ordinances of Christ; wherefore he baptized not in his own name, but in the name of Christ: to whose worship and service such as are baptized are devoted, and not to the service of men, and therefore not to be called after their names."
Quote:
The verse in Colossians isn't talking about saying "in Jesus name" with every movement we make, but reminding us that we should represent Jesus in all we do.
The phrase "In the name of Jesus", BTW, often means "by the power or authority of Jesus". It reminds us to behave in a manner that represents Him, not simply to say we are, but to DO it.
12Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; 13Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. 14And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. 15And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. 16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
v17 isn't telling people how to cast out devils or heal the sick. The verse, in context, is telling people how to live-as representatives of the One who saved them, in love.
The above passage, Colossians 3:17, is not only instructing us to live as representatives of Jesus Christ, but showing us that it is also important that we use His name. And you are correct, "in the Jesus of name" is by the "power and/or authority of Jesus Christ".
Gill states that "whatsoever" also entails "action, civil or religious".
Quote:
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed,.... Whether in preaching the word of Christ, in hearing the Gospel, in singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and in conference and conversation with each other; or in whatsoever action, civil or religious throughout the whole life and conversation, in the performance of things natural, moral, and evangelical, relating to God or man, or one another, in the world or church:
Jameson, Faucett, Brown states that it includes words and deeds.
Quote:
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
17. Literally, "And everything whatsoever ye do . do all," &c.; this includes words as well as deeds.
Matthew 3:15 is saying that baptism is an act or deed to fulfill righteousness - "And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."
Note that I said to "fulfill" righteousness and not to "receive" righteousness.
Quote:
Originally posted by missourimary;
You are not comprehending what I'm saying, and I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than I have. I am not saying that nothing should be uttered at baptism, but that what is said over us at baptism doesn't hold nearly as much importance as we might think, because what is said is not God's focus. The heart of the convert, calling on Him and responding to His call, is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by missourimary;
The verse, in context, is telling people how to live-as representatives of the One who saved them, in love.
Certainly everything we do should be in love, we know that. But, just as in I Cor 12:31 "But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way", Paul is instructing that in our operation of the gifts, we can be a "tinkling cymbal and sounding brass" if we do not operate them in love. (I Cor 13:1) Same instructions in Colossians - our actions and deeds should be done in love.
There are a couple of examples that stand out showing that the Apostles used His name when handling demonic spirits and even in commands toward saints of God.
Acts 19:13-16 "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the LORD Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. (14) And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. (15) And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? (16) And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
Quote:
originally posted by missourimary;
The Bible doesn't say that the name of Jesus removes evil spirits, Onefaith. The sons of Sceva found out the hard way. (Acts 19)
The seven sons of Sceva, by way of example, were trying to come against demonic spirits using Jesus' name. The thing they found out the "hard way" is that they had no authority to use His name. So, you wouldn't be correct that it was not His name that removes evil spirits. There is no other name and it certainly wasn't by the Apostles authority either.
We also have an example of Paul "commanding" the brethren, in the name of Jesus - "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." II Thessalonians 3:6
Quote:
originally posted by missiourimary;
PO, I said "If words are spoken", not that they must be or that a certain phraseology needs to be used.
Because of all of these things I know that I cannot say that there is an "IF" anything is said or that it is not as important as we might think. The words spoken and the heartfelt obedience are both important. The water is important also. (Acts 8:36)
It is in Jesus name - Acts 2:38. I don't see any way around that one.
Last edited by Pressing-On; 09-23-2010 at 11:59 PM.
What perspective, onefaith? What do you think I'm believing? That no words should be stated? That is not what I said.
No I understand what you are saying, that the actions make it more valid necessarily than the words spoken. Good intentions are great but even the converts of John the baptist had to be rebaptized in Jesus name. They hadn't become christians yet but you have to understand that John the baptist was preparing the way for the Lord, they were baptized due to their repentance AWAITING messiah. Those are good intentions, but they still needed to be rebaptized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by missourimary
Again, this verse does not discuss simply going around saying "in Jesus name, in Jesus name," but doing what we do in a way that glorifies Him, as good witnesses. The same is true of the other verses you mention. This lines up with James 4:3Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts-not everything we ask "in Jesus name" verbally is given to us. But if our will lines up with His will, then what we ask is given because He is glorified with both the prayers and the answers. In that way, we are asking "in Jesus name" not only with our mouths, but with our hearts.
Ask anyone who can't speak that question. God knows our hearts, with or without verbalization. (also see explanation above).
history shows many things. People read into history based on their current understanding. How do you know whether historically baptism was done because people believed it was essential to have certain words uttered over the convert, or whether the words were for the benefit of the hearers and not the convert at all? That answer isn't in Britannica.
You used the analogy of pouring coffee. This verse is not talking about everything we do, we don't go to the bathroom to glorify God do we? This verse is talking about things that we would do to glorify God, those things need to be done in Jesus name.
Prayer, baptism, communion, preaching, praying for the sick, etc.. all these are religious things and all those need to be done in the name of Jesus. Jesus said you have not because you ask not. That would mean we verbally ask. OF COURSE he knows our needs before we ask, that does not mean we don't need to verbally ask. Its an expression of faith in word and in deed when we prayer, a deed, and we ask in Jesus name, a word.
I understand what you are saying, really. I wish what you were saying would be true. Bible doesn't back that up and neither does history regarding baptism. How do we know what history records? Most history comes from the catholic church right and pre catholic days. I surely don't agree with them on everything but I have to take what their history says as historical.
Of course, you know this is too much of a ridiculous stretch to warrant a response. LOL!
Is it? You go on to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
The above passage, Colossians 3:17, is not only instructing us to live as representatives of Jesus Christ, but showing us that it is also important that we use His name.
I didn't say "only." The primary purpose of the verse is not to teach how to baptize, and it is being used out of context to show otherwise. The purpose of the verse, in context, shows us how to live, not how to be baptized. So unless you live by saying "in the name of Jesus" with every breath and step, the verse cannot be used to prove anything about baptism. (See your first statement quoted above, and reanswer the question I followed it with.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
The seven sons of Sceva, by way of example, were trying to come against demonic spirits using Jesus' name. The thing they found out the "hard way" is that they had no authority to use His name. So, you wouldn't be correct that it was not His name that removes evil spirits. There is no other name and it certainly wasn't by the Apostles authority either.
Without faith in Jesus there is no authority in Him, I'm not sure why you state "you wouldn't be correct that it was not His name..." They used the right name, without faith, and found that without faith, even with the right name, there was no authority.
They used the name, but not in faith. To say "in the name of Jesus that Paul preaches" was not to invoke the authority of Paul, but to designate whose name, much the same as a person might have said "Nathaniel, son of Tholomew." (Nathaniel Bartholomew, "Bar" meaning "son of".) The disciples did much the same when they said "Jesus of Nazareth". In a time when there were no last names, some description of the person, affixed to their first name, helped designate who was being discussed. So the same name was still invoked, but not with faith.
"No other name" is a reference to Acts 4:12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Again, it is not the invoking of that name over the person that saves, but the faith of the believer in what Jesus has done for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
We also have an example of Paul "commanding" the brethren, in the name of Jesus - "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." II Thessalonians 3:6
This verse isn't discussing baptism either, but ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onefaith2
No I understand what you are saying, that the actions make it more valid necessarily than the words spoken. Good intentions are great but even the converts of John the baptist had to be rebaptized in Jesus name. They hadn't become christians yet but you have to understand that John the baptist was preparing the way for the Lord, they were baptized due to their repentance AWAITING messiah. Those are good intentions, but they still needed to be rebaptized.
Onefaith, those who received John's baptism weren't yet believers in Jesus. As you said, "they were baptized due to their repentance AWAITING Messiah." Yes, they certainly needed to be rebaptized once they believed in Jesus. Those baptized today, whether in Jesus name or in the titles, do believe in Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onefaith2
You used the analogy of pouring coffee. This verse is not talking about everything we do, we don't go to the bathroom to glorify God do we? This verse is talking about things that we would do to glorify God, those things need to be done in Jesus name. Prayer, baptism, communion, preaching, praying for the sick, etc.. all these are religious things and all those need to be done in the name of Jesus.
If you are serving someone in any capacity, you can most definitely do so to the glory of God. If the only things we do in Jesus name are those things we consider strictly religious in nature, we are living beneath our privileges!
Mt 25:34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onefaith2
How do we know what history records? Most history comes from the catholic church right and pre catholic days. I surely don't agree with them on everything but I have to take what their history says as historical.
So is what we have as history inaccurate? Is some of history possibly recorded with a Catholic (or other) bias? If so, how can you be sure that what I've said is historically inaccurate?
But again, I have not said that nothing should be said over a candidate at baptism. All I am saying is that the words said are not as important as the response of the candidate to Jesus. (And that Acts 22:16 can't be used as a proof text for Jesus name baptism, but that's gotten lost amongst the ruffled feathers somewhere.)
__________________
What we make of the Bible will never be as great a thing as what the Bible will - if we let it - make of us.~Rich Mullins
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.~Galileo Galilei
The above passage, Colossians 3:17, is not only instructing us to live as representatives of Jesus Christ, but showing us that it is also important that we use His name. And you are correct, "in the Jesus of name" is by the "power and/or authority of Jesus Christ".
WOW, what a typo of typos! I must have been up way too late! LOL!
Linear Mode
