Baptismal Formula

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Sheeesh man, that was just rude....can you next time condense that down some

[Joseph Miller]

Originally Posted by Kutless

I think I may have asked this before so forgive me. BUt what if someone baptized saying.....

"I now baptize you in the name of the F.S. and H. which is Jesus Christ".

I think it is compromise. I wouldn't stand for it and if I was preaching a revival and it happened there I would close the revival down and leave town. I won't fellowship that type of thinking!

Let's stand for truth!

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Joseph Miller

I think it is compromise. I wouldn't stand for it and if I was preaching a revival and it happened there I would close the revival down and leave town. I won't fellowship that type of thinking!

Let's stand for truth!

Bro MIller I would tend to agree with you. The situation I'm referring to in particular has the tone of compromise. Come one come all, the baptismal formula is multiple choice. I don't get it. If I'm not mistaken they let you choose.

I was in fact just told by another trinitarian pastor that he has a preference for baptismal formula but does not force his preference on each one being baptized.

Amazing.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Gutless?

HAHA or wait...how about dagger Just kidding

How would you respond to MOW comment that we cannot know exactly what the apostles said during baptism?

[Scott Hutchinson]

There was a Trinitarian Holiness preacher not too far from here who gave people a choice in their baptism formula,I knew someone who was baptized by him who chose to be baptize in Jesus Name.
If you get baptized by me you get no option it's in the name of Jesus Christ or not at all.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Kutless

How would you respond to MOW comment that we cannot know exactly what the apostles said during baptism?

I can tell you for sure what they DIDN'T say.....they didn't say JESUS!!!! There is no way they would have used the Greek rendering. They were Jews! I am NOT advocating that we revert to saying Yeshua as the only correct way. I always use the name of Jesus when I baptize. All I'm saying is that we need to be very careful superimposing our beliefs over the Bible when it should be the other way around.

One could argue that saying, "On the command of our Lord, I now baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, which is the Lord Jesus Christ" as being more biblically inclusive than just saying the name Jesus.

I don't do it that way. I am only making a point that if we're going to get extremely technical, then we may not have the "formula" exactly right.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I can tell you for sure what they DIDN'T say.....they didn't say JESUS!!!! There is no way they would have used the Greek rendering. They were Jews! I am NOT advocating that we revert to saying Yeshua as the only correct way. I always use the name of Jesus when I baptize. All I'm saying is that we need to be very careful superimposing our beliefs over the Bible when it should be the other way around.

One could argue that saying, "On the command of our Lord, I now baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, which is the Lord Jesus Christ" as being more biblically inclusive than just saying the name Jesus.

I don't do it that way. I am only making a point that if we're going to get extremely technical, then we may not have the "formula" exactly right.

A course in the jewish roots of the early church should be a requuirement to get a licence.

We'd not have near the controversersies and heresy's in our midst if we all knew Hebraic history.

...and am not talking about just reading the Old Testament.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I can tell you for sure what they DIDN'T say.....they didn't say JESUS!!!! There is no way they would have used the Greek rendering. They were Jews! I am NOT advocating that we revert to saying Yeshua as the only correct way. I always use the name of Jesus when I baptize. All I'm saying is that we need to be very careful superimposing our beliefs over the Bible when it should be the other way around.

One could argue that saying, "On the command of our Lord, I now baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, which is the Lord Jesus Christ" as being more biblically inclusive than just saying the name Jesus.

I don't do it that way. I am only making a point that if we're going to get extremely technical, then we may not have the "formula" exactly right.

Thanks MOW I totally respect your POV.


You did say that you have baptizeed someone that way right?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Actually, from my study of the Jewish Roots of Christianity, I found that baptism was absolutely nothing new in the NT at all. Not only that, but it was not uncommon in Jesus' time for disciples to go through the Mikveh (Jewish baptism) and be immersed in the name of the Rabbi/Teacher whose teaching they were following, and to whom they were separating themselves TO. From a Jewish perspective, authority was not the focus, the person being separated TO was the focus.

So, from that standpoint, we are immersed in the name of our "Rabbi" signifying that we are separating ourselves TO Him. We are joining ourselves to His teaching etc. This was no small matter in biblical times. It was extremely serious and a big commitment as well.

Good lesson! Thanks for the nugget.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Sheeesh man, that was just rude....can you next time condense that down some

I love the way that much of the ink's colors stay vibrant even after so many centuries. I was going to post thumbnails, but I just couldn't. just look at how deep the blues remain after the passage of so much time.