In the "About" Section of SI - Trinity Baptism

Compliments wrote:

In baptism in water, by immersion, after regeneration, in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

In the "About" section it states:

Q. Does SermonIndex have a certain denominational emphasis? No. SermonIndex desires to be a expression of the [b]apostolic[/b] church found in Scriptures.

I am just curious, how is baptism in the Trinity Apostolic? when the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus.

To baptize in the Trinity is a denominational preference that is not apostolic, for none of the Apostles used that method, save only the name of Jesus.

Rome and her daughters do though.

Why do we choose tradition or some favourite preachers preference over what the Apostles practised?

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

The Apostles understood that all power was given unto Jesus.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Forgive me Brother and Sisters, I never expected this to come from SermonIndex, never.

Ban me, Bar me, Rebuke me, but can someone please tell me where one Apostle baptized in the name of of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

AMEN Compliments, this is just a plain truth of the Word.

Not only that, but when does the Bible ever say that water baptism is AFTER regeneration and not a part of regneration.

To baptize in the Trinity is a denominational preference that is not apostolic, for none of the Apostles used that method, save only the name of Jesus.

Trinitarian baptism is apostolic; it is Biblical (Matt. 28:19) and water immersion in the Triune Name was practiced by the early church. Peter's command in Acts 2:38 "in the name of Jesus" literally means "[i]upon[/i] the Name of Jesus" or "[i]upon the authority of Jesus[/i]" and the Greek for "name" in Matthew 28:19 is also in singular form and used distributively as it refers to the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. These Three are One, as the apostles understood, and they were baptizing in the [i]authority[/i] of Jesus as according to His command in Matthew 28:19.

Not only that, but when does the Bible ever say that water baptism is AFTER regeneration and not a part of regneration.

Blazed, we've been through this before. The "baptism unto salvation" error is dangerous and deceptive and it strips Jesus of the sovereign redemptive power through His blood alone by faith. It is clear that this topic is no longer under investigation - it has been refuted in our earlier thread; and I would therefore kindly ask you to stop trying to propogate it on SermonIndex.

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

This is the scripture you quoted.

What's the issue?

To baptize in the Trinity is a denominational preference that is not apostolic, for none of the Apostles used that method, save only the name of Jesus.

How do you come to that conclusion? Because there isn't an exact word upon word reproduction? An argument from silence?

Ban me, Bar me, Rebuke me, but can someone please tell me where one Apostle baptized in the name of of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

[i]Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost[/i].

Jesus told them to!

What on earth are you talking about?

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in WORD OR DEED, do [b]ALL in the name of the Lord Jesus[/b], giving thanks to God and the Father by him

Jesus taught to pray in his name, to cast out devils in his name, to heal the sick in his name, to preach the Word in his name but all of a sudden when it comes to baptism he is going to teach say Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

When JESUS the Son, is the "everlasting FATHER" according to Isa 9:6

Col 3:17 is plain, to even include water baptism in his name-which is Jesus Christ-even as Peter states in Acts 2:38

Peter in Acts 2:38 is NOT referring to or talking about baptizing them in the "Athority"- it is plain that the Name of Jesus is ABOVE every name (regardless of whatever name you try to give)

We are even saved BY the NAME;
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other [b]name[/b] under heaven given among men, [b]whereby we must be saved.[/b]

Paul West, you didn't answer the question, you stated your opinion which you have the right to do according to your convictions, [b]but so do I.[/b] My statement was: Where does the Bible say that water baptism is AFTER regeneration and not a part of regneration?

[u][b]Titus 1:10-16 (NKJV)[/b][/u]

For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

Jesus taught to pray in his name, to cast out devils in his name, to heal the sick in his name, to preach the Word in his name but all of a sudden when it comes to baptism he is going to teach say Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

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

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

I am pretty much at a loss as to just what the issue is here.

Dear friends,

I cannot imagine that anyone would object to calling the name of Jesus Christ over those who are baptised, if His name is called upon for all else.

But whatever the case, I wish you all grace.

Chris

Jesus taught to pray in his name, to cast out devils in his name, to heal the sick in his name, to preach the Word in his name but all of a sudden when it comes to baptism he is going to teach say Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Matthew 28:19? I agree with Mike - we must be missing something here.

Peter in Acts 2:38 is NOT referring to or talking about baptizing them in the "Athority"- it is plain that the Name of Jesus is ABOVE every name (regardless of whatever name you try to give)

Precisely my point.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

You're wrenching the scriptures. If the literal name of Jesus - to follow your logic - saved, Richard Dawkins, who has used the word "Jesus" in numerous discussions and debates would be converted. Roman Catholic priests who invoke His Name every Sunday in the grips of futile religiosity would deliver anointed homilies. We can apply this very same concept to water baptism (which you believe must happen to be saved), and to any other physical ordinance or sacrament of the church. But I contend that [i]it is by faith alone in what Jesus Christ has already accomplished[/i] which reconciles and justifies us before God, and nothing else can be added to the blood to make our salvation more complete or efficacious. The practice of the sacraments are most encouraged and good, but they are not at all vital or needed for salvation. To teach any other addition or requirement is error.

[i]"It is finished"[/i]

Dear Brothers,

Perhaps one might re-visit the baptism(s) in Scripture with the following a bit:

Acts 1:22
Beginning from the [b]baptism of John,[/b] unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Acts 13:24
When John had first preached before his coming[i] [b]the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.[/b][/i]

Acts 18:25
This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, [b]knowing only the baptism of John.[/b]

Acts 19:3
[b]And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.[/b]

Acts 11:16
Then I remembered what the Lord had said:[b] 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.[/b]

1 Corinthians 12:13
[b]For we were all baptized by one Spirit [/b]into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Even though I had been water-baptized (John's Baptism) by some man who claimed to have some authority on me at the time.I no longer see any requirement of the "rite" of water baptism for those who are saved by the Blood of Christ and are baptized by the Holy Spirit upon regeneration.
The apostle Paul was circumcised, but later refuted circumcision as a requirement for salvation by Grace through faith alone.

This subject has become such a confusion for all denominations and so very many Christians, I was helped quite a bit when I followed the above Scriptures taking in consideration of the timeline of the events and subjects(Jews vs Gentiles). I remember asking Dr.Dwight Pentecost at Dallas Seminary in person about this, he said that water baptism was a "Jewish Rite", a rite that our LORD required of the unrepentant Israel during HIS earthly ministry to Israel.

At the early onset of Paul's ministry to Israel before he turned to the Gentiles, he water baptized a few as one can read about his ministry in Scripture ,and asked that one should not forbid water baptism, but as for requirement to salvation, no! We read in

1 Corinthians 1:17
[b]For Christ did [i]not[/i] send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, [i]lest[/i] the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.[/b]

In Christ,
mamaluk

Acts 8:29-38 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

First the Holy Spirit sent Phillip to the eunuch, then the eunuch said that He believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. "Regeneration". For no one can say that Jesus is Lord unless he is born from above.

1Jo 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

New birth first.

Then he can be baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

In Christ: Phillip

Even though I had been water-baptized (John's Baptism) by some man who claimed to have some authority on me at the time.I no longer see any requirement of the "rite" of water baptism for those who are saved by the Blood of Christ and are baptized by the Holy Spirit upon regeneration.

But sister, what are you to do with the Lord's own words, again;

[i]Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:[/i] Mat 28:19

I wish somebody would tell me just what in the world is going on here with this. Why is this suddenly such an issue? Honestly, would somebody enlighten me to what this is all about? I am almost afraid to go on to the other extrapolations and maybe that is part of it ... How do we get around the Lord's own words? I am utterly baffled.

John's baptism was unto repentance and with reference to Him that was to come after him, namely Jesus. Jesus has come and died and rose again and this is one of the very first things He tells the disciples after He is risen. 'Go, do this'.

This subject has become such a confusion for all denominations and so very many Christians, I was helped quite a bit when I followed the above Scriptures taking in consideration of the timeline of the events and subjects(Jews vs Gentiles). I remember asking Dr.Dwight Pentecost at Dallas Seminary in person about this, he said that water baptism was a "Jewish Rite", a rite that our LORD required of the unrepentant Israel during HIS earthly ministry to Israel.

At the early onset of Paul's ministry to Israel before he turned to the Gentiles, he water baptized a few as one can read about his ministry in Scripture ,and asked that one should not forbid water baptism, but as for requirement to salvation, no! We read in

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

This is troublesome sister, to square this off as merely a 'rite' or a 'Jewish rite' as it is stated ... maybe I am beginning to pick up on the confusion or fear here but first this regarding Paul;

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

The context gives the essence, that Paul's concern was that these things would be attributed to [i]himself[/i] not that he shouldn't baptize at all or that the ordinance had some change ...

At the early onset of Paul's ministry to Israel before he turned to the Gentiles, he water baptized a few as one can read about his ministry in Scripture ,and asked that one should not forbid water baptism, but as for requirement to salvation, no! We read in

"Requirement to salvation". This stood out and if this is what this whole fear is about then we have really got to get our heads around this. I can think of the bit's and pieces over the whole schisms about whether to baptize in Jesus Name only and others but this is practically ridiculous. Trust you allow and recognize I am going off into generalities and to others who have raised this questioning here.

Are we fearful that because of the wide spread abuse of 'said' conversions or the wrong emphasis being placed, namely that 'going through the motions' such as baptism will give the wrong impression that we will now do away with ... 'the baby and the baptism water' to coin a phrase? I recognize the quick launch off unto the merely outward forms as saving graces alone, the follow along and repeat these words without any heart alteration, any exchange of wholesale disposition. But this is to confuse matters incredibly.

It is not just a 'rite' it is a [i]right[/i] and a privilege and that which the Lord Himself did though He was in no need of it in the way we are as an ultimate expression. Besides and again I am completely stuck on His own words, go, do this ... what is the trouble?

The eunuch; [i]See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.[/i]

Enthusiasm! Rejoicing!

The jailer ... [i]And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.[/i]

Straightway! Immediately!

Lest there be any confusion over whether one is expensed at the other;

[i]For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.[/i] Act 10:46-48

Think the over scrutiny about the 'name of the Lord' is not worth rehashing here. It might be said in the name of the Lord as the Lord commanded, [i]baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost[/i]. But I think this is ultimately much ado over nothing frankly. It is just not very difficult to grasp nor to do and for the life of me ...

This is the high moment if you will, the grand spectacle first unto God and to the angles and every demon and their father! Another one snatched from their clutches! It is putting them on notice that the allegiance has changed, no longer captive, but free! Free from the lies, freed from hell itself! It's both a expression and a statement to all and if anything last but still part and parcel, it is unto men as well. In that sense of proclaiming, I am no longer that which I was previous, changed, reborn ... new! New creation, all things have become ... new! Reborn from above, it is about the closest thing to an out of body in the body experience we can know. Yes, I am waxing eloquent here, how can I not? All these things are but that which leads up to and out of this giving of expression that baptism is and means and shows forth, it gets me tremendously excited at just the prospect, can you tell?

Even more redundantly I will go on repeating my thrill and rejoicing at others baptisms I was privileged, yes privileged to attend, even my own, some two years 'after he fact' ... I am telling you that day, Oh I thought for sure my face would crack, my jaw hurt from the all day long smile, remember the motherly warning about not frowning or else your face would perpetually be stuck? For certain it would be the opposite. Great joy and rejoicing! Others that I was privy to ... up and out of the water and the tears come bursting through the eye damn.

Dear saints, this is a great blessing and grand honor, how can it be ... trivialized or so distorted? I want to be careful here how I put this but we are blessed indeed, let me curb the enthusiasm a moment and bring this to a more sobering recognition. As many of us know and recognize in many places in the world this is your death sentence, baptism. The account of Richard Wurmbrandt taking new coverts to the zoo to see lions and the very [i]real[/i] prospect of what they are giving themselves to. Theirs is to put all this into right perspective. True allegiance. True willingness. True and real threats, not just from the hordes of hell but those that do their bidding. Cost!

I am really afraid that much of our squabbling is without real heart, soul, guttural, spiritual makeup. There is this penchant to take a scalpel to the scriptures and make the bit's stand on all fours. I am surely just as guilty of doing likewise to my shame. To quote the quote from Philologos; "Theology is meant to be sung" and having a academic that is choked off at the head being fed piecemeal is to starve out the soul, the spirit. Meaning. We must get to the meaning, what is said and what is meant when it is said, when [i]it is written[/i]. I fear there is often the treating of the scriptures as if they were sport for us. We do not take them collectively as the [i]full[/i] counsel of God but end up dabbing here and there building up little schemes in our heads that become a buttress and a bulwark that so much energy and exercise is expensed to tear down before we can see the foundation. I propose that it is all back-wards, that in effect we ought to completely destroy the structure and start over again, at the beginning. It is the redundant plea of Zac Poonen; To address the scriptures every day afresh, as if we have never heard them before. It can be done and it is the healthiest approach I know of. It curbs our pride and shatters the rose colored or doctrinal\\denominational
schism and ism styled glasses that we see everything through. If anything, anything at all, context! Context is King. If we cannot get ourselves disciplined enough to go through the entire Book in some form or fashion (pleading guilt here) at least, at least to familiarize ourselves with whole interior books, letters, epistles.

Perhaps all this exuberance is just my concern and it is not to overstate or understate, indict anyone ... just to consider, always to consider. I just find that there is a great deal of energy expensed over the most simplistic and innate matters. Recalling;

[i]Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.[/i] Heb 6:1-3

Compliments wrote:
Mike, Brother, I just want to know where in the Acts of the Apostles did anyone baptize in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit?

Without getting into some scholarly mode of thinking, but just pretend that your a 12 year old opening the bible to the book of Acts with that question been given to you, where is the Father Son and Holy Spirit baptism at?

As a 12 year old, what kind of answer are you going to give?

Compliments, I cannot understand neither what are you talking about and what you want to say here?

If a 12 year old opens a bible, it will read:

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

Is it something confusing here, is this something complex for understanding? It is plain, simple commandment.

I cannot get what is your point.

Mike, Brother, I just want to know where in the Acts of the Apostles did anyone baptize in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit?

Without getting into some scholarly mode of thinking, but just pretend that your a 12 year old opening the bible to the book of Acts with that question been given to you, where is the Father Son and Holy Spirit baptism at?

As a 12 year old, what kind of answer are you going to give?

Thanks brother, just to respond as this is very baffling to me. I would give the very same words that our Lord gave;

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, [i]baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost[/i]: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you

Brother, just because there is not a didactic, word upon word sequence elsewhere does not mean that this is somehow now proving otherwise. For the life of me, what is wrong with this edict of our Lord? What is all the squirming about? If I am giving the impression of overdoing it here, that there is something ... 'magical' about it or legislative for lack of better words, it's not that, I just do not get it. Why does it matter? Is this all about the suddenly dreaded 'trinity' that seems to have come broaching these shores ... I don't want fill your mouth with words or infer anything, a statement made in generalities. Truly brother, I am baffled.

Surely not!

Further - and not at all to be cynical, but simply to take note of the many-times copied manuscripts from which we have the New Testament - it wouldn't have been very difficult to add the Father and the Holy Ghost to Matt 28:19 long after it was written. Remember, the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out - the Spirit by which we cry 'Abba! Father!' (Rom 8:15)

Looking at the sentence (in Matt 28:19) there is an uncharacteristic change of syntax, from Jesus referring to Himself as 'Me' to 'the Son'. If the disciples had heard Him say 'name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost', mightn't we have expected to find this recorded in Acts - their obedience?

You would pour suspicion into this? Another argument from silence. How many other things were not repeated verbatim? Here you go again, this is absolutely ludicrous. It's not cynical it's devilish. For crying out loud, there is nothing wrong here at all, why is there such a problem with something so straight forward and simple. Do you not recognize the sound of "Has the Lord said?"

You are making exactly my point, making sport of the scriptures and injecting insinuations and suspicion to boot. Such nonsense.

Dear brother Mike,

"For the life of me, what is wrong with this edict of our Lord?"

Dear brother, when I was baptised in water, it was at a church that believed in pronouncing the name of the Lord Jesus over those being baptised. I think what myself and others would see in this is that the Apostles obeyed the command in Matthew 28:19 by using the name of Jesus Christ, that is, that is how they identified Who it was they were representing and in Whose authority they acted on.

Brother, does that make more sense of this?

Whatever the case, I for one do not want to be contentious among you all and wish all of us only goodness and grace from God.

Much love to you,

Chris

Dear brother, when I was baptised in water, it was at a church that believed in pronouncing the name of the Lord Jesus over those being baptised. I think what myself and others would see in this is that the Apostles obeyed the command in Matthew 28:19 by using the name of Jesus Christ, that is, that is how they identified Who it was they were representing and in Whose authority they acted on.

Very well and take no exception to that whatsoever, again I see no reason to be overtly didactic over this or legislative\\legalistic. It is the opposite of it that leaves me more baffled, that to do so as the Lord stated is ... wrong? That is the way it has come across with these questionings and reasonings.

Been holding off stating this fearing yet another rabbit trail but it did occur to me that I wonder why this isn't actually used as further evidence of the triune nature of God itself. I don't seem to recall it being presented as such.

Still the statement from our Lords own lips (if we believe it hasn't been tampered with) stands. What is the problem?

Your confusion is that you haven't read my question. I am going to quote my question again and then I will point out why your confused about my question.

And I will point out again in the longwinded reply that we cannot base our understanding around incidents that are isolated. Brother, this is a terrible way of going about things. You cannot just segregate out and pit one thing against the other.

Without getting into some scholarly mode of thinking, but just pretend that your a 12 year old opening the bible to the book of Acts with that question been given to you, where is the Father Son and Holy Spirit baptism at?

Over in Matthew. :-)

You are not making the point brother. Try this same exercise elsewhere and you are going to have the same exact problem. Things spoken in Revelation not spoken verbatim in the book of James, where does it end?

You have still not answered the question that was brought forth in the first place. Why is this statement, from the Lord's own lips an issue?

Brother, I do hope we both become un-baffled ...

If your results are negative, then can you answer another question, why are we not following the Apostles lead?

Being that the onus is on you considering you raised the question first. Why are we not following the [i]Lords[/i] proscription?

And by the way, what makes you so certain that they did not in fact do as He instructed? Just because they didn't repeat it verbatium? Brother, it is an argument form silence, it does not prove anything.

My issue is why is this an issue? You couched as a trinitarian baptism if I recall correctly and ... this is a problem?

Just went back to something you said here brother and maybe this is the issue after all ... are you confusing baptism with salvation?

Our faith today is being questioned, picked apart and thrown out all because we claim the name of Jesus Christ as our LORD and Saviour.

There is absolutely no qualms nor a hair of dispute whatsoever here. It is so!

My contention with the Trinity baptism is in name only, it's not the formula, it's not the method, it's not the style it's name only.

But brother, then isn't your contention with the Lord's own words then? Persons. Distinctives. One God ... Oh I do not want to attempt the impossible with this, no one has ever been able to 'explain' this and never will.

But again, redundantly and even adamantly, not as axe to grind, what are you to do with that which Jesus stated? You are doing a fine job of an end around here and I am not saying that malicously, and this must be beginning to look like, 'why doesn't he just drop it' after all.

If I could it ever so bluntly ... So what? So what if you are baptised as the Lord seemingly instructed them, that is what He said correct?

There is something about this over scrutinizing that is alluding me. You have not addressed the Lords statement at all.

Wow ... now I am really perplexed.

The Command:

The Disobedience:

Are you now saying the opposite? Go back to your first post brother.

To baptize in the Trinity is a denominational preference that is not apostolic, for none of the Apostles used that method, save only the name of Jesus.

Rome and her daughters do though.

Why do we choose tradition or some favourite preachers preference over what the Apostles practised?

This isn't about prefrence or Rome or any other thing. I think you are making or attempting to make something out of nothing. But now it is even more confused because you are saying or infering the aposteles were in disobedience because they seemingly did not follow the script because you cannot find the repetive words elsewhere?

Forgive me Brother and Sisters, I never expected this to come from SermonIndex, never.

And maybe this is the only reason for carrying this on. What is this all supposed to mean brother?

Hi Compliments, Blazed…

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” – Matthew 28:19

“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.” – Acts 2:38

We have two separate commands from the Lord. One command is given by Jesus after he resurrected and one is given by Peter on the day of Pentecost. While the wording is different, isn’t the command really the same? Both believers in the Trinity and those who do not believe in a Trinity both preach a baptism that is done [i]in the name of Jesus[/i]. Some, it seems, have made a requirement out of using specific words that describe the same thing. Aren’t they both really saying the same thing?

If Michael Mukasey, the US Attorney General, delivered a message to the UK in the name of the US Government, who is he representing? Is he representing the President, who chose him for this role? Is he representing the Congress, which confirmed his appointment? Is he representing the Supreme Court, who interpreted the role of Attorney General? In truth, any of these statements is true – as is a statement that says the attorney general represents all three.

If a cop were to say, “[i]Stop in the name of the law[/i],” are we to assume that the law has a name? Or is the “name” of the law simply a recognition of the power and authority of the law? It is my belief that baptism, both in the name of “[i]the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost[/i]” and in the name of “Jesus” is really the same thing. It is being baptized with the baptism in recognition of the saving power and authority of Jesus Christ (Acts 19:3-4).

I wonder: Is this debate making “a mountain out of a molehill?”

While in high school, there was an “Apostolic” (in a strictly [i]sectarian-doctrinal[/i] sense of the word) girl who found out that I was a believer. In front of everyone, she asked me two questions:

1.\tWere you baptized in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
2.\tDid you speak in tongues when you were saved?

When I gave her my answer, she literally ridiculed my claim of salvation! She said that I must be baptized in the “name of Jesus” ONLY for me to have truly been saved. She added that if I didn’t speak in tongues when I was saved, then I wasn’t truly saved.

This young woman acted quite obstinate toward any claim that I could truly be a believer. When I told her my testimony, however, she could see the sincerity and truth in my love for Jesus. It seemed like she just didn’t know what to think. After a while of “watching me” spread the Gospel throughout my high school, I think that she was finally convinced of my love for Jesus. In fact, she actually developed a “crush” on me. She even told me that “God told her” that she was going to marry me. It was weird – but at least I knew that she didn’t question my relationship with Jesus anymore.

It has always bothered me that this silly little doctrinal question is so divisive to some that they would literally question the integrity of a person’s salvation based solely upon the terminology used at baptism. I understand the apprehension that can be felt because of a difference in opinion, but it seems that the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (…[i]baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost…”) is entirely clear and Scriptural.

Paul West, you didn't answer the question, you stated your opinion which you have the right to do according to your convictions, but so do I. My statement was: Where does the Bible say that water baptism is AFTER regeneration and not a part of regneration?

:-(

Hi Compliments...

I simply asked a question, where does it say in the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ([b]not Matthew[/b]) just the ACTS, where any Apostle baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit? Only a couple agreed but everyone else is just defending Matthew 28:19, [b]and I am not even attacking that verse[/b]. I am simply asking everyone here does everyone agree that there is no baptism of the Father Son and Holy Spirit in the Book of ACTS?

This is not a debate, I just wanted to see if we can all agree on the above question.

And if we can all agree that there is none there, my second question is simply this: [b]Why aren't we following the Apostles lead?[/b]

Brother, why do you ask a question for which you already think that you know the answer? And why do you ask a question with a second question -- voiced as a statement -- in mind? The real question, it seems, is your second question. That is why people quote Matthew 28:19.

But if you would have understood my statement, I am under the impression (as are some others) that baptism "in the name of [i]the Father, and of the Son and of the the Holy Ghost[/i]" is one and the same with baptism "in the name of [i]Jesus[/i]."

May I ask you something? Do you think that these "two" baptisms are the same or different? Do you think that there is something wrong with fulfilling Christ's command from Matthew 28:19? Do you think that the terminology signifies something other than a baptism that recognizes the power and authority of faith in Christ Jesus? I don't ask these questions in order interject a second set of questions. I am simply interested in learning your response to this.

:-)

*EDIT*

Compliments wrote:
In the "About" section it states: Quote:

Q. Does SermonIndex have a certain denominational emphasis? No. SermonIndex desires to be a expression of the apostolic church found in Scriptures.

I am just curious, how is baptism in the Trinity Apostolic? when the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus.

Hi everyone,

Brother Mike,

"Still the statement from our Lords own lips (if we believe it hasn't been tampered with) stands. What is the problem?"

No problem brother. I just think that calling the name of the Lord Jesus over those who are baptised is consistent obedience to it, because I think that all authority has been vested in Him.

Does that make sense?

It all has to do with asking everyone here to come into agreement with the scriptures that no where in the book of ACTS that the Apostles baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, and if that be the case, why are we not following their example? Since they are the founding fathers.

Brother, I don't think Greg is asking everyone to come into agreement with the statement of beliefs concerning baptism. This is his website and it is his perogative to post whatever statement of faith he wishes his ministry to be associated with. You don't have to agree, and no one will ban you or rebuke you or think any less of you if you choose to not literally interpret the Words of Christ in Matthew 28:19. I really don't understand what all the upheaval is concerning this. I do realize that there are "Oneness" believers who would state that those baptized in the Triune Name need to be re-baptized in the name of Jesus only. This "Oneness" or "Jesus Only" view has been rejected by mainline Pentecostalism as it has its roots in an ancient heresy holding there are no permanant distinctions in the Godhead. I believe it was Noetus of Smyrna who championed it in A.D. 200 and R.E. McAlister who just last century resurrected the teaching.

No malice or pre-judgment here; just trying to feel where you're coming from. If such a thing has no bearing on salvation and is not repudiated by early church history - and is taught [i]verbatim[/i] in the very Words of Christ - why create a schism? I think you'll find the vast, vast majority of preachers on SermonIndex whom you glean treasures from are Trinitarian and were themselves baptized in the Triune Name in accordance with Matthew 28:19.

Brother Paul

This is the order of scripture"

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore teach all nations, baptizing them in THE NAME of THE Father, AND OF THE Son, AND OF THE Holy Ghost

That was the INSTRUCTION:

However, when they obeyed the instruction:

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

Acts 8:12 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, [b]and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized,[/b] both men and women.... 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were [b]baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)[/b]

Acts 10:48And he [b]commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.[/b] Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were [b]baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.[/b]

When they obeyed the Instruction of Matt 28:19-they always said " In the name of Jesus"-because they understood "JESUS" to be the " singular NAME" spoken of in Matt 28:19

Also, it is clear that as far as verbage they never verbally said: In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost-(which is something that Catholics do called the sign of the cross-and catholics were even the first to ever actually say the phrase "father, Son, and Holy Ghost" in baptism)

In Acts 10:48 In the name of the Lord-the question is, what is the name of the Lord- "JESUS"

This is clear from the Damasus road experience:
Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, [b]I am Jesus[/b] whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Cols 3:17 makes it very plain that EVERYTHING we are to do, should be done in the name of Jesus Christ giving Glory to the Father through HIm

Col 3:17 And [b]whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do ALL in the NAME of the Lord Jesus[/b], giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

This would include water baptism..as it says WHATSOEVER YE DO, do ALL in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The Power is in the name of "JESUS"-we are saved by his name, and to believe on Him means to believe IN/ON HIS NAME.

1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should [b]believe ON THE NAME of his Son JESUS CHRIST,[/b] and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that [b]believe ON THE NAME of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe ON THE NAME of the Son of God.[/b]

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [b]even to them that believe ON HIS NAME:[/b]

John 20:31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life [b]through his name.[/b]

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven given among men, whereby [b]WE MUST be saved.[/b]

The fact is: Matt 28:19 "....in the name of the Father, AND OF the Son...."

Matt 5:43 reveals what the name of the Father is: Matt 5:43 [b]I am come in my Father's name,[/b] and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

What name did Jesus come to earth in?

The answer is JESUS-thus what is the the name of the Father, AND OF the Son?

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that [b]I do in my Father's name[/b], THEY BEAR WITNESS OF ME

The name of Jesus makes a difference-people don't really care if you say God, or even Lord, but when you say Jesus Christ then there's a problem:

Acts 4:17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man [b]in this name.[/b]

Acts 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should [b]not teach in this name?[/b] and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, [b]and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.[/b]

Simply the point is, the Apostles understood Jesus Christ to be the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost-

Why did they understand this; because:
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are ONE.

And they understood:
Col 2:8 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 [b]For in him dwelleth ALL the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily[/b]....12 [b]Buried WITH HIM IN BAPTISM,[/b] wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 [b]Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:[/b] that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

They plainly understood that there was no name greater than the name of JESUS CHRIST, and that everything pertaining to the Father or work of ministry was to be done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to the Glory of God the Father.

This "Oneness" or "Jesus Only" view has been rejected by mainline Pentecostalism as it has its roots in an ancient heresy holding there are no permanant distinctions in the Godhead.

How does believing in "Jesus only" have roots in ancient heresy?

(Especially when one understand that JESUS is God, and God is the Father. That is not to deny the Father or the Spirit. )

Pertaining to the Godhead, the Bible even says that Christ is the FULLNESS of the Godhead Bodily.

So how is this ancient heresy?

Matt 17:8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save [b]Jesus only[/b]

BlazedbyGod,

About those passages in 1st John about the name,

What does name mean there? Does it mean only the letters or what Christ has done?

How are people saved, by believing there is power in the letters Jesus, or that the One Who has that Name has the Power to save?

What are you trusting in?

It doesn't look like there is going to be an answer to the reason for the first post here. I am sorry you do not wish to get anywhere with this brother, I tried, I really wanted to understand just what the issue was that would make you so surprised at such a simple, scriptural statement.

I still believe you are making much ado over this and too easily and quickly casting the Lords own words behind your back all over semantics. For what it's worth I will leave off with the following;

[b]Baptizing them[/b] - as an emblem of the purifying influences of the Christian religion through the Holy Spirit, and solemnly devoting them to God.

[b]In the name[/b] ... - This phrase does not mean, here, “by the authority” of the Father, etc. To be baptized in the name of the Father, etc., is the same as to be baptized “unto” the Father; as to believe on the “name” of Christ is the same as to believe “on Christ,” Joh_1:12; Joh_2:23; Joh_3:18; 1Co_1:13. To be baptized “unto” anyone is publicly to receive and adopt him as a religious teacher or lawgiver; to receive his system of religion. Thus, the Jews were baptized “unto Moses,” 1Co_10:2. That is, they received the system that he taught; they acknowledged him as their lawgiver and teacher. So Paul asks 1Co_1:13, “Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” - that is, Were you devoted to Paul by this rite? Did you bind yourselves to “him,” and give yourselves away to “him,” or to God? So to be baptized in the name of the Father, or unto the Father, means publicly, by a significant rite, to receive his system of religion; to bind the soul to obey his laws; to be devoted to him; to receive, as the guide and comforter of the life, his instructions, and to trust to his promises. To be baptized unto the Son, in like manner, is to receive him as the Messiah - our Prophet, Priest, and King - to submit to his laws, and to receive him as a Saviour. To be baptized unto the Holy Spirit is to receive him publicly as the Sanctifier, Comforter, and Guide of the soul. The meaning, then, may be thus expressed: Baptizing them unto the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by a solemn profession of the only true religion, and by a solemn consecration to the service of the sacred Trinity.

The union of these three names in the form of baptism proves that the Son and Holy Spirit are equal with the Father. Nothing would be more absurd or blasphemous than to unite the name of a creature - a man or an angel - with the name of the ever-living God in this solemn rite. If Jesus was a mere man or an angel, as is held by many who deny his divinity, and if the Holy Spirit was a mere “attribute” of God, then it would have been the height of absurdity to use a form like this, or to direct the apostles to baptize people under them. How absurd would be the direction - nay, how blasphemous - to have said, “Baptize them unto God, and unto Paul, and unto the “wisdom or power” of God!” Can we believe that our Saviour would have given a direction so absurd as this? Yet, unless he himself is divine, and the Holy Spirit is divine, Jesus gave a direction substantially the same as this. The form of baptism, therefore, has been always regarded as an unbreakable argument for the doctrine of the Trinity, or that the Son and Holy Spirit are equal with the Father.

Albert Barnes

ChrisJD wrote:
BlazedbyGod,

About those passages in 1st John about the name,

What does name mean there? Does it mean only the letters or what Christ has done?

How are people saved, by believing there is power in the letters Jesus, or that the One Who has that Name has the Power to save?

What are you trusting in?

I am not talking about letters ChrisJD, I am talking about the name-the totality of the name. The name constitutes all that the person is/does, has done, or will do.

I am trusting in his name Chris:
Matt 12:21 And [b]in his name shall the Gentiles trust[/b]

BlazedbyGod,

"I am not talking about letters ChrisJD, I am talking about the name-the totality of the name. The name constitutes all that the person is.

I am trusting in his name Chris:
Matt 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust"

Makes sense to me,

Take care,

Chris

The union of these three names in the form of baptism proves that the Son and Holy Spirit are equal with the Father. Nothing would be more absurd or blasphemous than to unite the name of a creature - a man or an angel - with the name of the ever-living God in this solemn rite. [b]If Jesus was a mere man or an angel, as is held by many who deny his divinity, and if the Holy Spirit was a mere “attribute” of God, then it would have been the height of absurdity to use a form like this, or to direct the apostles to baptize people under them.[/b] How absurd would be the direction - nay, how blasphemous - to have said, “Baptize them unto God, and unto Paul, and unto the “wisdom or power” of God!” Can we believe that our Saviour would have given a direction so absurd as this? Yet, [b]unless he himself is divine, and the Holy Spirit is divine, Jesus gave a direction substantially the same as this. The form of baptism, therefore, has been always regarded as an unbreakable argument for the doctrine of the Trinity, or that the Son and Holy Spirit are equal with the Father.[/b]

Albert Barnes

I simply asked a question, where does it say in the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES (not Matthew) just the ACTS, where any Apostle baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit? Only a couple agreed but everyone else is just defending Matthew 28:19, and I am not even attacking that verse. I am simply asking everyone here does everyone agree that there is no baptism of the Father Son and Holy Spirit in the Book of ACTS?

No. I do not agree whatsoever. If the apostles do not baptize in accordance with Jesus express command then it would surely be disobedience. This command was given just weeks before the apostles set out in their ministry. There is no way, in my mind, that God would have changed His mind when the command itself was pointing to their future ministry. To say they did not baptize in the Trinitarian formula is an argument from silence, as has already been noted. Baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus was to distinguish this baptism from John the Baptist's Baptism (Acts 19:3-6).

There are some in recent times that have desired to followed the pattern of the book of Acts [i]and[/i] Matthew so they baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ. I don't have a problem with this, but I think it is unnecessary. In any case I believe charity is in order.

There is an interesting history to how all this played out before and after Azuza street. There was a thread some years ago here on this subject, but I'll share a few of the details again. When Robert E. McAlister preached the notorious sermon on 'Jesus name' baptism he initially did not intend to change the baptismal formula (this was around 1913 or so). He taught it himself for a while until he realized it was distorting some peoples view of the Trinity. He then, as I recall, backed off and returned to baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It happens that a man named John Schaepe took hold of McAlister's sermon comments and believed he received a revelation from God during the next night. He went through telling the people that LORD, JESUS, CHRIST was akin to Father, SON, HOLY SPIRIT. This caused quite a stir. In fact, these are some of the early history of Oneness Pentecostalism (Though older oneness type organizations claim a Modalist view of God as far back as 1910).

John Schaepe (Sheppy) and others continued with it and this ultimately resulted in a non-Trinitarian view of God that led to the split among the Pentecostals. These men believed that because the people were Baptized in Jesus name that they immediately were being baptized in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues. Soon this doctrine begat the doctrine that one must speak in tongues to have the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Although I think this is wrong, I believe also that charity is in order.

Just throwing out some key words for those who wish to research all this for themselves. Zondervan's [i]Encyclopedia of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements[/i] is an invaluable resource for a synthesis of Pentecostal history.

This is enough for me;

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This He has commanded: "baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

The whole Gospel, the Fathers Incorruptable Seed in the believer, being born again of spirit and water, and the Son our new life in God, and the Holy Spirit, the Sealer of all baptisms. This is the first, and indeed the only, place in which the Trinity of persons is expressed in this order, and in the selfsame words.

That is good enough for me: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; by the authority of these three divine persons, who all appeared, and testified their approbation of the administration of this ordinance, at the baptism of Christ: and as they are to be invocated in it, so the persons baptized not only profess faith in each divine person, but are devoted to their service, and worship, and are laid under obligation to obedience to them, Hence a confirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity, there are three persons, but one name, but one God, into which believers are baptized; and a proof of the true deity both of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and that Christ, as the Son of God, is God.

In Christ: Phillip

For what it's worth, I don't know where it says we have to say any certain phrase when we baptize people. It's a shame that some nearly turn it into a magic phrase that gives you salvation.

Is doing something in the name of someone the same as saying a phrase? If it is then the below scripture is teaching us that we must say "in the name of Jesus" while we do everything. This would turn into us repeating "in the name of Jesus" over and over and over and over...

Col 3:17 \t And 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.

Isn't it inconsistent to demand that we say a phrase when we do certain deeds but not demand that we say a phrase for every deed we do?

But let me also say that I think it is a good thing to say in whose authority you are baptizing when you do baptize someone.

Compliments,

Can you show me a verse that tells us that the Apostles said a certain phrase while the people were being baptized?

PreachParsly wrote:
For what it's worth, I don't know where it says we have to say any certain phrase when we baptize people. It's a shame that some nearly turn it into a magic phrase that gives you salvation.

Is doing something in the name of someone the same as saying a phrase? If it is then the below scripture is teaching us that we must say "in the name of Jesus" while we do everything. This would turn into us repeating "in the name of Jesus" over and over and over and over...

Col 3:17 \t And 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.

Isn't it inconsistent [b]to demand that we say a phrase[/b] when we do certain deeds but not demand that we say a phrase for every deed we do?

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye DO [b]IN WORD[/b] OR DEED, [do] all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

It includes "what you say-IN WORD" not just what we actually "do" as in deed.

The verse even says that we can "[u]DO[/u]" things by saying or in Word. This is evident in:

Mark 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one [b]casting[/b] out devils [b]in thy name[/b], and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not

"casting" is doing a deed, but he did this deed by SAYING "come out IN THE NAME OF JESUS"

Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and [b]SAID[/b] to the spirit, [b]I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.[/b] And he came out the same hour.

The point is, SAY AND DO everything in the name of the Lord Jesus to the Glory of God the Father-that the Father may be GLORIFIED in the Son.

John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall [b]ASK in my name, that will I DO[/b], that the Father may be glorified IN THE SON.

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 [b]whatsoever ye shall ASK of the Father IN MY NAME[/b], he may give it you

Col 3:17 And 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.

It includes "what you say-IN WORD" not just what we actually "do" as in deed.

The verse even says that we can "DO" things by saying or in Word

The point is, SAY AND DO everything in the name of the Lord Jesus to the Glory of God the Father-that the Father may be GLORIFIED in the Son

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 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

I don't understand what you mean by these verses. Are you saying that we must say a phrase for everything we say or do? So I should be saying "in the name of Jesus" while I type this message? Or should I by typing this message while submitted to his authority and giving Him thanks?

"casting" is doing a deed, but he did this deed by SAYING "come out IN THE NAME OF JESUS"

Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and SAID to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

Yes, but what does that have to do with baptism or do you think this shows that we must say "in the name of Jesus" for ever single act we do?

PreachParsly wrote:

"casting" is doing a deed, but he did this deed by SAYING "come out IN THE NAME OF JESUS"

Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and SAID to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

Yes, but what does that have to do with baptism or do you think this shows that we must say "in the name of Jesus" for ever single act we do?

Does the verse say do all in the "authority" of the Lord Jesus, or does it say: do all "in the NAME of the Lord Jesus"?

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do [b]all in the name of the Lord Jesus[/b], giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Does the verse say do all in the "authority" of Jesus, or does it say: do all "in the NAME of the Lord Jesus"?

Col 3:17 And 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.

I can address this if you want me to after you answer my questions. I don't want to just prove a point or just ask questions, I'd like to discuss this.

PreachParsly wrote:

Does the verse say do all in the "authority" of Jesus, or does it say: do all "in the NAME of the Lord Jesus"?

Col 3:17 And 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.

I can address this if you want me to after you answer my questions. I don't want to just prove a point or just ask questions, I'd like to discuss this.

This is how I am answering your questions. The reason for me asking that question is because the verse itself tells us what it wants us to do.

The verse doesn't mention the word "authority" in it, it mentions " saying and doing " things "in his name"-it doesn't say, "do all in the authority"

What I am saying is, to say the verse is referring to the "authority" is to assume and to add that to the text. The text is plain in saying do " all IN THE NAME"

If you want to say the "name" is the authority, I agree and believe that-but the name still must be said. You see this in:

Acts 16:18And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

Mark 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

You see the "NAME" of Jesus being the authority of Jesus in the demons leaving or coming out when being told to IN THE NAME OF JESUS.

Would everyone agree with the ACTS of the Apostles that they baptized converts in the name of Jesus Christ? And not in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit? And if they baptized in Jesus name in the book of Acts why don't we follow the Apostles example since they are the Founding Fathers?

Again, the answer is [i]no[/i]. I affirm that the Apostles did what they were told by our Lord in Matthew 28. I also affirm that terminology "In the name of Jesus" or "the Lord Jesus", etc. was an expression of the distinction between the highly popular baptism of John Baptist and the baptism that came afterwards which was of Jesus Christ.

[u]Many[/u] people had been baptised according to John's baptism. They needed to be baptised again according to Matthew 28. If a public baptism was going on and passers by asked "Is this John's baptism of repentance?" They could answer, "No, this is baptism in the name of Jesus Christ." It is not the formula for baptism. Jesus already gave that a few months before.

The name of Jesus Christ was given as a clear way to distinguish the highly popular baptism of repentance from the Baptism prescribed by our Lord in Matthew 28. You may be interested in a few other thoughts I put together in the article [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1994]the origin of Christian Baptism. [/url]

Here is the main thing I'm wondering:

I don't understand what you mean by these verses. Are you saying that we must say a phrase for everything we say or do? So I should be saying "in the name of Jesus" while I type this message?

I guess I'm thinking that if you believe that we must say "in the name of Jesus" for every word and deed we say, it practically reduces to absurdity. If I believe that is what those verses mean I need to be consistent and be repeating "in the name of Jesus" every breath I have. I really doubt you believe that, but if you don't believe that then you have to say that verse doesn't mean we have to say a phrase while doing every single deed we do. Do you know what I mean?

Many people had been baptised according to John's baptism. They needed to be baptised again according to Matthew 28. If a public baptism was going on and passers by asked "Is this John's baptism of repentance?" They could answer, "No, this is baptism in the name of Jesus Christ."

Amen.

Many people had been baptised according to John's baptism. They needed to be baptised again according to Matthew 28.

No, that is not true, they were NOT rebaptized according to Matt 28:19, they were rebaptized according to Acts 2:38 "...and be baptized IN THE NAME of Jesus Christ.." which is how we obey Matt 28:19.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, [b]Unto John's baptism.[/b] 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, [b]that is, on Christ Jesus[/b]. 5 When they heard this, [b]they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus[/b].

Matt 28:19 was the instruction TO GO.
Acts 2:38 was the first time they OBEYED Matt 28:19 (The Great Commission)

Luke 6:46 - 48 (NKJV) 46“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and [b]not do the things which I say[/b]? 47Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock.

Matthew 7:21 - 24 (NKJV) 21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but [b] he who does the will of My Father in heaven.[/b] 22Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ 24“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:

1 Corinthians 3:10 - 11 (NKJV) 10According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11[b]For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [/b]

Amazing how many times I have run into all these arguments through the years that go round and round with circular reasoning and arguing from silence as has already been stated. I live in the stronghold of "oneness" doctrine. Arguing about what formula you find in the book of Acts is futile when there is no formula and no way to twist the words in those verses quoted into what was actually said during baptism. But the above verses cover it very well. IF the apostles did not do as they were commanded THEN they were in disobedience and we know full well that they did not disobey the very Lord for whom they died. And as to the "foundation of the apostles" the apostle Paul tells us plainly that there is no other foundation but Jesus Christ. The apostles built upon His Word, and to take His Word and twist it into something other than what He said is a very grievous error. To make what HE said about HIS relationship between HIMSELF and HIS FATHER, and the relationship in which HE promised that HE would send ANOTHER Comforter, even the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, is a dangerous heresy.

And the question that keeps getting repeated by Compliments 'can we agree... in the book of Acts.
There can be no agreement, because there is NO Formula in the book of Acts, just statements regarding baptism, not one statement of what was said at baptism.

Trying to say this charitably, regarding Blazed's quotes, but also as a matter of long time observance, a touch of Gnosticism is always associated with the debate of baptism... that little tell-tale hint of the pride of knowing something that the rest of the ignorant folk just do not know... and also that little false security blanket of having the inside scoop on what Jesus "meant" when He said what He said instead of the simplicity of taking what He said to mean precisely what He said regarding Himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

Clint

I think Compliments has asked a fair and simple question, and it derserves to be answered fairly, and simply.

The apostles, when they baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, did so, baptizing people in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

For, is not His Name Jesus, that is to say, Yahweh-Saves?

What rejoicing it is for us who in Adam were broken off, separated, alienated from God... to be joined again to God by being baptized into this Man! Thank you, Jesus! Oh, what joy!

AD

broclint wrote:
Trying to say this charitably, regarding Blazed's quotes, but also as a matter of long time observance, a touch of Gnosticism is always associated with the debate of baptism... that little tell-tale hint of the pride of knowing something that the rest of the ignorant folk just do not know... and also that little false security blanket of having the inside scoop on what Jesus "meant" when He said what He said instead of the simplicity of taking what He said to mean precisely what He said regarding Himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

Clint

That is what I call judging someone...you do not know me, yet you assume I believe that I: [b]"that little tell-tale hint of the PRIDE of knowing something that the rest of the ignorant folk just do not know... and also that little FALSE security blanket of having the INSIDE SCOOP on what Jesus "meant"[/b]

I find that real charitable....especially since you assume that about me-and that I believe in " a touch of Gnosticism "-as you say

When in fact, whether someone agrees with me on this topic or not, but no one can say that I talked about no one but JESUS-go back and reread all of my posts in this thread-all you will see is me "TRUSTING IN The NAME OF JESUS" and "lifting up the NAME of JESUS"-you will see nothing else.

Matt 12:21 And [b]in his name shall the Gentiles TRUST.[/b]

No person in this thread can even say I attacked them or their beliefs, you won't find any of that on my part-ALL you could say, is that I stood up for my beliefs and what I know to be true-The Name of the LORD Jesus Christ.

Not one person can say I personally disrespected them, assumed something about them, or even remarked that they weren't saved....but I get all the abuse. It is well though...I am not offended, I still love my brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Broclint, you do not have to apologize for your assumptions, as to that is not what I am looking for.....if you feel the need to, then go ahead, I'll even accept it in advance-no hard feelings:-)

Matt 12:21 And [b]IN HIS NAME shall the Gentiles TRUST.[/b]

Would everyone agree with the ACTS of the Apostles that they baptized converts in the name of Jesus Christ? And not in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit? And if they baptized in Jesus name in the book of Acts why don't we follow the Apostles example since they are the Founding Fathers?

This has gone beyond semantics into the absurd. Both you and Blazed are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Compliments, you already have your answer, that there is no verbatim, word upon word ... sentence structure and others have already admitted this even if indirectly. The grand point of the matter is ... So what? That is neither accusatory nor malicious. There is the argument from silence and a whole other range of considerations that are to be taken into account. You appear to be stuck on this like it is of such vital importance that ... I do not know what, because I cannot see any other reason for your first mention and that which you refuse to address specifically, why you are upset and dismayed at SermonIndex for making a biblical and scriptural statement that came forth from the Lords own lips.

Now I do not again wish to put any words or any thoughts into what you are stating so take this plainly as an otherwise observation. Apparently this is a great big deal to some after all from doing a bit of digging around. What keeps coming up is that the statement made in Matthew is supposedly in dispute all due to this similar didactic reasoning. That is, there seems to be something underfoot because the apostles did not spell out or state the exact words elsewhere that Jesus did, then therefore someone has tweaked with the scriptures as was mentioned here also. I for one am not about to get into this whole business all over again as it has been covered time and again.

Something needs to give here on this as it is just going around in circles. Be plain and specific. If you have such an issue with the statement presented than the only logical answer is to ask, "How, in your estimation should it have been presented?"

What all this is leading to is suspicions and wonders for others peering into this. Is it a trinitarian issue as well? Is it indeed a suspicion of the text in Matthew? If, as you have stated;

If you were baptized in the Father Son and Holy Spirit, WONDERFUL God bless you.

If you were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, WONDERFUL God bless you.

Then why is this all being made into such an issue? And why will you not address the first post and this comment?

Forgive me Brother and Sisters, I never expected this to come from SermonIndex, never.

Ban me, Bar me, Rebuke me, but can someone please tell me where one Apostle baptized in the name of of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Has it occurred to you that maybe instead of spelling it all out word upon word that they didn't find it all that important to have to do so? Could it be merely for brevity sakes? We don't know precisely why so is this to automatically cast suspicion? And then further a presumption? You cannot force an opinion or an assumption into a statement of fact, "This proves that." No.

Really, unless this is either a translation suspicion or a divinity\\trinitarian issue there is absolutely no reason for all this, it's ridiculous brothers.

Blazed. You are taking this whole 'name' business to extremes of the worse kind and I do not think you want to hear anything but your own considerations and have not made any of this any clearer but only muddier.

Brothers, please answer the questions or drop it already.

2Ti 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

Broclint, you do not have to apologize for your assumptions, as to that is not what I am looking for.....if you feel the need to, then go ahead, I'll even accept it in advance-no hard feelings

Sorry if that quote sounded like an attack on you personally. I did not intend it to be, just the whole “oneness” argument in general. Note that I said in the beginning of my remarks that I had lived for years in a “oneness” stronghold. My statements were not specific toward any individual, just a generalization of the many experiences of run ins with oneness folk in visitations and etc. And it seemed to me that you were making some of the same arguments. And you are right, I do not know you personally and am not trying to judge you personally.

My judgments were/are upon a false doctrine, a heresy that exalts the name of Jesus but does not DO what He says, and does not believe what He says, and in fact exalts the words of Peter and makes them say more than they say, above the Words of the very Lord they claim to exalt. It is like Jude wrote in his epistle “To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:” regarding those who would “denying or contradicting (the primary Greek definition here) the very Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ”.

It has been my personal experience time after time, in this part of the country where there are those who claim to be exalting the NAME of Jesus, but His Words are downplayed and twisted to fit a doctrine rather the honesty and integrity of taking the whole context of the Word of God and the Words of the Lord Jesus Himself. I too believe in the name of Jesus as does anyone who is truly saved. But to emphasize the name Jesus to the exclusion or to the obscurity of what Jesus said about His Father, and the Holy Spirit.... to take the relationship BETWEEN the Son and the Father, is to say other than what He said. It is to honor His name, but dishonor His Word.

My apologies to all for even entering this thread.
One of those that was being handled very well without my two cents by moderators and others.

Clint

Compliments,

When you ask whether the apostles baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the answer is "we don't know". Acts doesn't record it but that is not definitive as an answer to your question. A better question might be, if Jesus commanded that we baptized in the name of the Trinity and the apostle Peter said do it in the name of Jesus, then my presumption would be that the latter would be considered by the apostles to have been equivalent in nature to the original command. Remember the context of Peter's command was to the Jews who were to that point denying the deity of Christ.

John's baptism would have been in the name of God the father in my estimate and the new baptism would be in the name not only of the Father but also His Son and His Spirit.

PLEASE, I am not looking for any answers, I am weary of reading them.

Brother in all fairness to everyone concerned here you cannot expect to ask questions even if they are in the form of a statement then turn it around and complain or not ask for, nor expect answers.

It's a discussion not a bulletin board to just post views uncontested.

You also have to consider your own culpability here, you made the post, we responded.

Hi Brother Compliments...

PLEASE, I am not looking for any answers, I am weary of reading them.

I only read in my English bible of the KJV the "name of Jesus". I am not looking for anyone to give their theological opinions, or their Trinitarian or Oneness ideas, or to defend their baptism.

Brother, I don't think that anyone will kick you off the website for these beliefs. I think that Greg, in the new About section, was simply stating that the nature of this website is apostalic is essence -- but not apostalic in a sectarian sense of the word.

The Lord bless you in your journey to find answers to your "questions."

:-)

I never expected this to come from SI because the words that were used in the "About" section for the statement of faith was that baptism was "Apostolic" my contention is simply this. Now please don't misconstrue my words here. In all the example of the Apostles who have baptized believers, are there any that baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit? And if not, how can it be "Apostolic"?

I am only speaking of the book of ACTS, not Matthew.

PLEASE, I am not looking for any answers, I am weary of reading them.

It is Apostolic because we are to understand that the Apostles were not in the habit of being disobedient. If Jesus gave a commandment, I assume that they kept His word even if it is not expressly stated. I think it is fair to say also that the scriptures presume many things so as to reduce unnecessary redundance. I believe the Apostles were obedient to Matthew 28 in all their dealing with baptism in the book of Acts. If we assume they were obedient it is a mute question. If we question their obedience then we have a pandoras box of questions that may never end.

Compliments, why are you so adamant about isolating the book of Acts? Can you show me where Jesus commanded we baptise literally "in his name" using only the book of Matthew? How about using ONLY the book of Galatians, prove that Jesus will return for a thousand year reign and then have a great day of judgment? Or using ONLY the book of John show me that we are saved by grace through faith by Jesus? This is absurd.

Assuming that "in the name of Jesus" was a formula pronounced (which I strongly disagree with) over the baptizee, then we can only reach 2 conclusions: 1)the disciples disobeyed Jesus, in which case you would promote following the slaves over the Master. 2)the text in Matthew is in error, in which case you are denying the inspiration and undermining the authority of the scriptures.

Other options for reconciliation of course are that one, the other, or both are not "formulae". Matthew 28 is a direct command. I do not see how you can argue this. As many others have pointed out, Acts is a historical book in which events are recorded. Luke at many times records in detail words that are spoken, but in connection to things being done "in the name of Jesus" it is making a distinction, not a step by step protocol. What you and seem to be doing is looking at Acts, assuming that is a formula, then interpreting Jesus' command in Matthew in light of that. This is backwards. We must interpret Acts in light of the command Jesus gave.

I agree with crsschk that I think the bigger issue here revolves around the doctrine of the Godhead. If you deny the distinct personhood of Father, Son, Holy Ghost (as the Oneness crowd does), then you MUST find a way to discount/reinterpret/manipulate Matthew 28 to say and mean something that it clearly doesn't.

Dear friends,

I do not want to add more fuel to this topic, but maybe I could ask something for, perhaps, quiet consideration:

Isn't it possible that the Apostles were obeying the commandment in Matthew 28:19 by calling the name of the Lord Jesus over those being baptised?

If He has been given a name which is above every name, and His name is the name given by which men must be saved, why would it be anything but consistent to call His name over those being baptised, in obedience to the commandment in Matthew 28:19?

Wish you all well, whatever the case may be,

Chris

Chris, yes, it is possible, although I think this is implying and reading into the text in Acts. While I don't think there is any problem with proclaiming the name of Jesus over the baptizee (although maybe there is...since the Lord commanded to do it in the name of Father, Son, Holy Ghost), the problem is that the Oneness people use this logic to say that Jesus IS the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

BeYeDoers,

Thank you for the reply, and I appreciate what you shared.

I was thinking today at work and the word ineffable came to mind.

Maybe there are somethings about God which are still, to us, ineffable.

Grace and peace,

Chris

I was thinking today at work and the word ineffable came to mind.

True Chris, there is much about God that is ineffable. But still we must be careful lest we make God [i]too[/i] mysterious.

Blessings
Jeremy H.

Jeremy,

Thank you :)

When I read your sentence I thought about 1Timothy 3:16 and I wondered, maybe that is why Paul used so few words in declaring it. Few enough as to not do damage to it, but enough to say it nonetheless?

Chris

Amen Chris,

Finite words to describe an infinite God who has called us out of this world and made us brothers in His love and grace. :)

Jeremy H.

Amen brother. Praise be to God and thanks. Amen.

Hi Compliments...

I completely understood from the get-go what you were asking.

To be clear: There is NO PLACE in the book of Acts that states that the Apostles baptized in the "name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The book of Acts states that the apostles simply baptized in the name of Jesus.

Then again, I don't believe that the book of Acts actually states the actual rhetoric that were uttered during baptism. In other words, the fact that the apostles baptized a person "in the name of Jesus" (or "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost") does not necessarily mean that the apostles uttered those words in a ritualistic type of practice. Does that make sense? I don't believe that the Lord meant to make a [i]ritual[/i] out of a particular set of words at all. It is the substance of the act that is important. In a similar means of rhetoric, I don’t [u]always[/u] begin my prayers with the exact words “[i]Our Father who art in Heaven…[/i]” Yet I believe that those prayers are just as precious to the Lord.

I believe that if a [u]mute[/u] pastor or dad were to baptize a new believer or child -- it wouldn't have mattered whether or not he necessarily uttered the words "in the name of Jesus" or "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." What would matter is that the person being baptized is actually being baptized by the baptism of Jesus (mentioned in Acts chapter 19).

This is why I asked if you thought that there was truly a difference between a baptism uttered with “[i]in the name of Jesus[/i]" or one uttered with the "[i]in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit[/i]." In my opinion, these "baptisms" are actually the [u]same[/u] baptism. The important thing is that a person is partaking of a baptism of a profession of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, rather than the baptism of John of mere repentance of sins (Acts 19:3-4). Personally, I believe that a baptism can be "real" even if we don't utter any ritualistic set of particular words. The important thing is that there is an actual profession of real faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, rather than the mere words of the person who performs the baptism.

Does that make sense?

:-)

Acts 19:1-7

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.