Are Trinitarians Saved? - Page 14

Sam · #**131** 05-20-2010, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

There is hardly anything that can be historically back up for the first 100-150 years of christianity.

There is a writing called The Didache or the Limuda which contains the baptismal words used by most churches today. This writing is considered by some to date back to around 50 AD which would place it during the ministry of the Apostles. One Bible Version, the Aramaic English Standard Version, contains this writing as the letter sent from the Jerusalem council in AD 49/50 and includes it as part of verses 25-29 of the 15th chapter of the Book of Acts.

This is what the Didache, or the Limuda, or a small portion of Acts 15:25-29 in the AESV Bible says about water baptism:

And concerning baptism, you shall baptise in this manner:
Having first taught all of these things, baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
But if you have no living water, baptise in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm.
But if you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Sam · #**132** 05-20-2010, 02:32 PM

I personally believe the name "Jesus" was spoken audibly in early Christian baptism.

This may be reflected in James 2:7 in the Amplified Bible which says:
"Is it not they who slander and blaspheme that precious name by which you are distinguished and called [the name of Christ invoked in baptism]?"

Also by a comment by William Barclay in his comment on James 2:7 in his notes:
"It is the rich who abuse the name by which the Christians are called. It may be the name Christian by which the heathen first called the followers of Christ at Antioch and which was given at first as a jest. It may be the name of Christ, which was pronounced over a Christian on the day of his baptism. The word James uses for called (epikaleisthai) is the word used for a wife taking her husband's name in marriage or for a child being called after his father. The Christian takes the name of Christ; he is called after Christ. It is as if he was married to Christ, or born and christened into the family of Christ."
page 67 of The Letters of James and Peter

However, some believe that in places like Acts 2:38, 10:48 and others where the expression of being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Lord is used, it means in the authority of Jesus or as authorized by Jesus. So, people who understand it that way go to see where Jesus authorized baptism and by whom and they use the words of Matthew 28:19 as Jesus spoke them.

I've also seen Acts 2:38 paraphrased as "be baptized in the name of Jesus who was anointed for the the forgiveness of your sins."

Whether we agree with these interpretations or not, they are believed by some folks.

Sam · #**133** 05-20-2010, 02:39 PM

We Apostolics don't even agree among ourselves on what to say during the baptism ritual. Apostolics have been known to rebaptize a person "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" if the words "Lord" or "Christ" were not mentioned at the first baptism.

Some OP's say:
The name of the Father is Lord
the name of the Son is Jesus
the name of the Holy Ghost is Christ
so our three in one God
has a three in one name.
His full name is "Lord Jesus Christ."

Others say the name of His humanity is Jesus
the name of His deity is Jesus
so His full name is Jesus Christ.

Others insist baptism must be done using the name "Yeshua" because the English word "Jesus" is paganism.

Others use a combination formula like
"In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost"
or
"I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost in Jesus' name"
or
"I baptize you in the name of Jesus which is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
etc. etc.

I guess whenever you go to a new oneness church or get a new pastor you need to find out what he or she believes and then get baptized according to that particular pet formula just to be safe.

Jermyn Davidson · #**134** 05-20-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

There is hardly anything that can be historically back up for the first 100-150 years of christianity.

I have read in at least 2 different books where Trinitarian theologians acknowledge that the earliest "forms" of baptism were performed by immersion, with the Name of Jesus Christ spoken over the soul being baptized.

They usually follow it up with the argument that you must be careful when creating doctrine off of documented experiences and not the formulated and established teachings of the church.

Even my local Christian book store had a book on display that freely admitted the use of the Name of Jesus in baptism long before the Trinitarian formula.

Anyway, my only point was that baptism in the Name of Jesus is the correct way to baptize, as backed up by the Bible and other historical references.

I hold to baptism in Jesus Name because this doctrine doesn't need me to prop it up-- it stands all on its own!

StillStanding · #**135** 05-20-2010, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I have read in at least 2 different books where Trinitarian theologians acknowledge that the earliest "forms" of baptism were performed by immersion, with the Name of Jesus Christ spoken over the soul being baptized.

They usually follow it up with the argument that you must be careful when creating doctrine off of documented experiences and not the formulated and established teachings of the church.

Even my local Christian book store had a book on display that freely admitted the use of the Name of Jesus in baptism long before the Trinitarian formula.

Anyway, my only point was that baptism in the Name of Jesus is the correct way to baptize, as backed up by the Bible and other historical references.

I hold to baptism in Jesus Name because this doctrine doesn't need me to prop it up-- it stands all on its own!

FYI, I agree that baptism in the name of Jesus is the most biblically correct way to baptize.

Sam · #**136** 05-20-2010, 02:49 PM

Christ Church in Nashville puts it this way:
we believe
... that all of God's people are to be buried with Christ in the waters of baptism, subsequent to conversion. While we freely embrace those of contrary opinion, we feel that this rite is scripturally administered "in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Aquila · #**137** 05-20-2010, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey Boneski

The name of the Lord is Jesus...be unashamed.

The truth is that you will not find one instance in which the baptizer said the words, "...in the name of Jesus Christ", or, "...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Ananias didn't offer to baptize Paul under a liturgical or sacramental formula be it Oneness or Trinitarian. Ananias told Paul to be baptized, calling upon the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). It was Paul, the one being baptized, that was to call on the name... not the baptizer.

So in this regard both Trinitarians and Oneness Christians are wrong, because they sacramentalize baptism instead of making it the moment the believer calls on the name. If you think you're saved by what a man utters over you... you might as well be Catholic.

Hoovie · #**138** 05-20-2010, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Christ Church in Nashville puts it this way:
we believe
... that all of God's people are to be buried with Christ in the waters of baptism, subsequent to conversion. While we freely embrace those of contrary opinion, we feel that this rite is scripturally administered "in the name of the Lord Jesus."

This is the way I believe as well. It's a very strong statement actually - in spite of those who would pick it apart... "we feel that this rite is scripturally administered "in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Aquila · #**139** 05-20-2010, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

I'm still waiting on you to show me why being baptized in the name of the Lord only without Jesus is going to send me to hell...

It doesn't matter what a man says over you if you're truly calling on the name of Jesus in prayer for salvation.

Aquila · #**140** 05-20-2010, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

The men were likely naked - or nearly so. The water in Caesarea would have been comfortably warm - even the drinking water would have been.

The command to be "baptized in Jesus' name" in all likelihood wasn't understood as a command for a particular incantation as the Roman Church would develop Matthew 28:19, into later. They would have instead seen themselves as being "born" (again) into a fellowship that followed the teachings of a particular Jewish rabbi of that name.

The people weren't naked.