IHOP Baptizing in Jesus Name

[Michael The Disciple]

Wow I can hardly believe it! Im watching them on the webstream from the prayer room. They were going to do a baptism so I paid close attention.

Four people so far baptized like so. In or "into" the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.....the Lord Jesus Christ. Or words very similar.

Im impressed.

http://www.ihop.org/Publisher/Articl...?ID=1000058181

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Wow I can hardly believe it! Im watching them on the webstream from the prayer room. They were going to do a baptism so I paid close attention.

Four people so far baptized like so. In or "into" the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.....the Lord Jesus Christ. Or words very similar.

Im impressed.

http://www.ihop.org/Publisher/Articl...?ID=1000058181

A lot of folks would be concerned about that being "compromise." I think it's cool that they're doing it.

Charles Fox Parham baptized "In Jesus' name into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" up until the "New Issue" became an issue and he appears to have dropped the "Jesus' name" part of the formula.

Do you think the IHOP practice is valid?

What would you say about a Oneness group (post-trib, of course) who wanted to meet folks like IHOP "halfway" for purposes of fellowship and added the titles to their "Jesus' name" formula?

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Brother David

A lot of folks would be concerned about that being "compromise." I think it's cool that they're doing it.

Charles Fox Parham baptized "In Jesus' name into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" up until the "New Issue" became an issue and he appears to have dropped the "Jesus' name" part of the formula.

Do you think the IHOP practice is valid?

What would you say about a Oneness group (post-trib, of course) who wanted to meet folks like IHOP "halfway" for purposes of fellowship and added the titles to their "Jesus' name" formula?

There are probably some who are such sticklers that unless in addition to being baptized "in Jesus name" you also must sing "I'm glad that I've been buried in the name of the Lord" after the fact. Unless both things are done you are STILL as lost as two boys kissing.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Brother David

A lot of folks would be concerned about that being "compromise." I think it's cool that they're doing it.

Charles Fox Parham baptized "In Jesus' name into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" up until the "New Issue" became an issue and he appears to have dropped the "Jesus' name" part of the formula.

Do you think the IHOP practice is valid?

What would you say about a Oneness group (post-trib, of course) who wanted to meet folks like IHOP "halfway" for purposes of fellowship and added the titles to their "Jesus' name" formula?

I am on record on this forum as saying I believe its perfectly valid to baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost......the name of Jesus Christ.

I dont agree with the other way around. Many say in the name (or authority of) Jesus I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

I figured thats what the IHOP Minister would say. But no. He did it practically the same as I would have myself.

On the issue of how to baptize hats off to IHOP!

[missourimary]

Just make sure it's "Into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost-In the name of Jesus" and not vice versa-that way the last part either clarifies or negates the first depending on stance... oh, nevermind...

I don't know how I feel about this, really. I've always heard it preached against, but I don't really see how it could be wrong. Some would say "but they don't know the power of that name" or "they don't know who Jesus really is". Hmmm... neither did I, when I was baptized. And for that matter, I doubt I truly do now. Not sure it's humanly capable to grasp everything wrapped up in that name.

[BeenThinkin]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Just make sure it's "Into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost-In the name of Jesus" and not vice versa-that way the last part either clarifies or negates the first depending on stance... oh, nevermind...

I don't know how I feel about this, really. I've always heard it preached against, but I don't really see how it could be wrong. Some would say "but they don't know the power of that name" or "they don't know who Jesus really is". Hmmm... neither did I, when I was baptized. And for that matter, I doubt I truly do now. Not sure it's humanly capable to grasp everything wrapped up in that name.

How about the following.... "In obedience to the command of our Lord, to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and in the power and authority of the name of Jesus Christ I now baptize you in water this day."

BeenThinkin

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

How about the following.... "In obedience to the command of our Lord, to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and in the power and authority of the name of Jesus Christ I now baptize you in water this day."

BeenThinkin

Just don't hold them underwater while saying all of that.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Just make sure it's "Into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost-In the name of Jesus" and not vice versa-that way the last part either clarifies or negates the first depending on stance... oh, nevermind...

I don't know how I feel about this, really. I've always heard it preached against, but I don't really see how it could be wrong. Some would say "but they don't know the power of that name" or "they don't know who Jesus really is". Hmmm... neither did I, when I was baptized. And for that matter, I doubt I truly do now. Not sure it's humanly capable to grasp everything wrapped up in that name.

Good thoughts.

I also hear endless debates about oneness and how even baptizing correctly will be negated if you do not understand one-God properly. And after hearing some of these guys debate, you'll usually walk away not knowing what one and one equals or what color the sky is.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Good thoughts.

I also hear endless debates about oneness and how even baptizing correctly will be negated if you do not understand one-God properly. And after hearing some of these guys debate, you'll usually walk away not knowing what one and one equals or what color the sky is.

Agreed. Part of it may be because I was growing up and began hearing more doubts as an adult, but I had more doubts about whether I was correctly baptized in Jesus name than I ever have about whether I was baptized in the titles. I've been told at various times that a believer must face a certain direction when baptized, be baptized in flowing water, and be totally immersed. (But sometimes that's easier said than done... fat floats!) And these statements really bothered me, because, after all, being Apostolic I was told I had to be baptized right! Was I? *gulp* If that preacher didn't get me all the way under, would God send me to Hell?

So after years of struggling with it and coming to that conclusion, how can I say that "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which is the name of Jesus" could be incorrect?

Above that, and the question of a lifetime for me... if the disciples baptized in Jesus' name because they were following the command of Mt 28:19... and if "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" means baptizing in the name of Jesus, then wouldn't the opposite also be true, that when you baptize in Jesus name, you are also baptizing by the command of Mt 28:19, and therefore into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? If these are both logical conclusions, does it matter which statement is used, since both have the same meaning? (It's late. I hope that makes sense...)

[RevDWW]

IHOP? Now I want pancakes!