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

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Why should baptizing in the Name only be offensive??

You probably think that scripture about whatsoever you do in word or deed do all in the name of Jesus is really important and means what it says, don't you?

And you probably think that baptism is salvific and that when the scripture declares that there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby you must be saved it is talking about Jesus.

Some people and their absolute faith in the sanctity and accuracy of the Word of God! I don't know what we are going to do with them.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by philjones

You probably think that scripture about whatsoever you do in word or deed do all in the name of Jesus is really important and means what it says, don't you?

And you probably think that baptism is salvific and that when the scripture declares that there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby you must be saved it is talking about Jesus.

Some people and their absolute faith in the sanctity and accuracy of the Word of God! I don't know what we are going to do with them.

What am I going to do with you?

[Pragmatist]

Originally Posted by philjones

Some people and their absolute faith in the sanctity and accuracy of the Word of God!

If people believe in the sanctity and accuracy of the Word of God, then why is using Matt. 28:19 in addition to Jesus name a problem?

If it wasn't in error for Jesus to say it, one shouldn't be in error to include it along with Jesus name.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

If people believe in the sanctity and accuracy of the Word of God, then why is using Matt. 28:19 in addition to Jesus name a problem?

If it wasn't in error for Jesus to say it, one shouldn't be in error to include it along with Jesus name.

BINGO!!!! We have a winner!

Look guys, Phil and Matt, I believe the name is essential. There are different points of view about this. Matt asked is it offensive to baptixe in the name. Well it isn't. But at the expense of sound smart why should a title be offensive?

Phil, I agree that Jesus said 'in the name' that is important. But the why is it a big deal to add the titles? Does in counter-act the Jesus name part? No

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

BINGO!!!! We have a winner!

Look guys, Phil and Matt, I believe the name is essential. There are different points of view about this. Matt asked is it offensive to baptixe in the name. Well it isn't. But at the expense of sound smart why should a title be offensive?

Phil, I agree that Jesus said 'in the name' that is important. But the why is it a big deal to add the titles? Does in counter-act the Jesus name part? No

It is all about motive. The sufficiency I find in the name and the revelation of the mighty God in Christ makes this a discussion that is moot. I know who Jesus is and find it offensive for a man with the revelation to move to such a formula when he is simply using it as a form of deceit or to hide the beauty of the revelation.

That is my opinion, warts and all and i certainly respect your right to view it differently.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Personally Just saying In The Name Of Jesus Christ for baptism works for me.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by crazyjoe

....I just heard of a pastor that is changing his method of baptizing from "In Jesus Name" to "In the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit which is Jesus".....His reasoning is combining Mathew 28:19 & Acts 2:38....he feels this will knock down barriers....is this a compromise of the plan of salvation that Peter revealed when he delivered the keys to the kingdom on the day of Pentecost or a new revelation of inclusiveness?...

I am not comfortable with this language... sounds like propaganda.

I prefer, "In accordance with the command of our Lord to be baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I baptise you in the name of Jesus Christ.

[ChTatum]

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


Matthew 28:19 (KJV)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

onoma, Greek 3686, Strong’s
onoma, on'-om-ah; from a presumed derivative of the base of Greek 1097 (ginosko) (compare Greek 3685 (oninemi)); a “name” (literal or figurative) [authority, character] :- called, (+ sur-) name (-d).


And the difference is......?


FTR, when I baptize people, I always say "According to the profession of your faith, and the command of our Lord, I now baptize you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin, and you SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost".

[OneAccord]

Ok, I'll give ya that, Brother. I may have used a Scripture out of context, but, and with respect, I didn't necessarily "twist the Scripture" which is to imply I attempted to get the Scripture to say something it doesn't say. I merely mis-applied a Scripture, in your opinion. Wrong verse, perhaps... but correct chapter. Go back to verses 6 and 11-12

6Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

11How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

12Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Thank you for pointing out my mistakes. This is a better way to point out that we should be careful when we get into mixing truth with... whatever.

Kinda like the faith healer who told the man with a headache, "Here, take these two aspirin in Jesus Name and BE HEALED!" Nothing really wrong with it, but when the Name of Jesus is the Name whereby we are saved, why mix in some titles? Cover our bases? To be safe? The NAME of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe. Pro 18:10 We are safe in Jesus' Name!

And, BTW, I never said the brother was wrong. I plainly said I wouldn't judge him for it. I did say, and still do, its not a good idea to try to improve on God's Plan.

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

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.

[OneAccord]

In our church, water baptism is rarely mentioned. Our effort is bringing sinners to the altar of repentance. The starting point, so to speak. We don't stand over them and say... Ya gotta repent...then ya gotta get baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ... then ya gotta get the Holy Ghost and apeak in tongues.... then ya gotta live by my standards...." But the time you do all of that, salvation becomes like a carrot dangling in front of them that can never be reached.
We invite them to repent of their sins. Once their sins are forgiven, we invite them to a new converts class where they are taught about water baptism, (its purpose, its significance). Then, they are baptized voluntarily "in the Name of Jesus Christ". We don't go into all the historical reasons for baptism and all that. We simply state two reasons for baptism in Jesus Name.: 1) its Biblical and 2) we love His Name. One Church of God brother heard those two reason why we baptize iaccording to Acts 2:38. His response: I can't argue with that". We don't fuss over the different modes. Brothers who baptize differently are still our brothers, but we choose to baptize as we do because we believe is is Biblical to do so.