No Jesus Name Invoked, No Valid Baptism?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

O said:
"It is actually quite the opposite. Any law school drop-out knows what it means to do something in the name of another. For the baptizee, confession with the mouth is required. For the baptizer, there is nothing that requires him to say anything, nor is there any link between his invocation and the forgiveness of the sins of the one being baptized. You are claiming relevance to the baptizer's words being connected to forgiveness, I am not. The burden of proof is on you."

See? 1. Again, you refuse to make a Scriptural case. 2. Now you shift the burden of proof. 3. I ALREADY PROVED MY CASE, but you just refuse to interact with data except to yell "heresy" and some mumbling about law school drop outs.

So, this is why it's round the mulberry bush with you. You make no case, refuse to support your theories, use ad hominems, and just repeat your opinions. Ergo, discussion is impossible.

When one is trying to establish doctrine, the burden of proof is on them to provide scriptural documentation for their teaching. Those claiming that the baptizers words are linked to the forgiveness of sin have failed in their endeavor to provide proof for their assertion.

Furthermore, any scripture I provide would already be familiar to you, like any reference to baptism post-Pentecost, in Acts and in the Epistles. Is that enough scripture for you? Must I list each one?

The disagreement you and I have is not one of scriptural documentation. Rather, our difference is on what one phrase means, "in the name of Jesus".

[TyronePalmer]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

God look upon a man’s heart and see that he has no interest in what God actually said. Last days upon us? Tyrone, why because you are blendeble and assimilate into the lion share of Churchdom. So you can go in and out of both camps patting yourself on the back. Last days? Because I don’t swallow your act? Where baptism doesn’t matter? Yes Tyrone baptism doesn’t matter to you. Scriptural baptism anyway. You posted that you baptized people in Jesus name? Is that what you posted? What for? Did you earn some points in the heavenlys?
In the words of my old pap, “religion and brains” one has nothing to do with the other. Tyrone, look at what your saying is focused primarily on emotions. Also your rebuttal is a plea to emotions. Tell you what Tyrone, go get your arguments together and prove your position.

Mr. Benincasa, you continue to disrespect me, a man you do not know. And yes these are the last days, for many more reasons than your insensitive comments.

Baptism certainly does matter to me, which is why I posted the thread in the first place, to have an intelligent godly discussion about the invocation of the name of Jesus or not, in the ordinance of baptism.

Why not just stay on topic? If you believe that Father, Son, Holy Spirit, invoked over a believer leads to an invalid baptism in God's sight, that's your belief. If you don't want to consider anything else that's your choice.

I personally believe that God would and does validate a believer's baptism if their heart was right and they confessed Jesus name before baptism and during baptism, regardless of whether the baptizer invokes Jesus name or says Father, Son, Holy Spirit. That's my belief, you can disagree, you have free will.

A man of God should not argue.

2nd Timothy 2:24-25

"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth."

And I stated my position in the original post, enough said.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

When one is trying to establish doctrine, the burden of proof is on them to provide scriptural documentation for their teaching. Those claiming that the baptizers words are linked to the forgiveness of sin have failed in their endeavor to provide proof for their assertion.

Wrong. I've done it several times on thus and other threads. You have failed to offer a rebuttal, and you have failed to make YOUR case. Any law school drop out knows how disputation works. Proof, refutation, counter proof. That you remain unconvinced of the evidence given you is irrelevant. Just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean a case hasn't been made.

Furthermore, any scripture I provide would already be familiar to you, like any reference to baptism post-Pentecost, in Acts and in the Epistles. Is that enough scripture for you? Must I list each one?

To demonstrate that your doctrine is Biblical, yes, you need to lay it out: Quote the Scripture, and show how it supports your position. Surely you know how to teach?

The disagreement you and I have is not one of scriptural documentation. Rather, our difference is on what one phrase means, "in the name of Jesus".

I have documented what the phrase means, and how it looks when put into action in regard to the conversion experience. You have not, that's the whole point. All you have to do is refute the argument that has been given you (some three times, I believe, if not four or five), and show the counter argument (book, chapter, and verse).

Or not.

[Esaias]

O said: "There is no such thing as a "Trinitarian baptism"."

Fascinating.

Trinitarian Baptism

For a sacrament to be valid, three things have to be present: the correct form, the correct matter, and the correct intention. With baptism, the correct intention is to do what the Church does, the correct matter is water, and the correct form is the baptizing "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

Unfortunately, not all religious organizations use this form. In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes use no formula at all in their baptisms, and an even larger group, the "Jesus Only" Pentecostals, baptize "in the name of Jesus." As a result, the baptisms of these groups are invalid; thus, they are not Christian, but pseudo-Christian.

Both groups also reject the Trinity. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is not God, a heresy known as Arianism (after its fourth-century founder), and the "Jesus Only" Pentecostals claim that there is only a single person, Jesus, in the Godhead, a heresy known as Sabellianism (after its inventor in the third century; see the Catholic Answers tract, God in Three Persons).

"Jesus Only" Pentecostals note that Jesus told the apostles to baptize in "the name" (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, but they make the mistake of assuming that name is Jesus. There may not be a single name that Jesus has in mind at all, just as when we say, “Stop! In the name of the law,” we do not have a personal name in mind. If he did have such a name in mind, it may have been something such as God or Yahweh or Lord.

"Jesus Only" Pentecostals also argue that the New Testament talks about people being baptized "in the name of Jesus," but there are only four such passages (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5). Further, these passages do not use the same designation in each place (some say "Lord Jesus," other say "Jesus Christ"), indicating that they were not technical formulas used in the baptism but simply descriptions by Luke. These four descriptions are not to be considered as a substitute for or contradiction of the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to: "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

Rather, the phrase "baptized in the name of Jesus" is simply Luke’s way to distinguish Christian baptism from other baptisms of the period, such as John’s baptism (which Luke mentions in Acts 1:5, 22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, 19:4), Jewish proselyte baptism, and the baptisms of pagan cults (such as Mithraism). It also indicates the person into whose Mystical Body baptism incorporates us (Rom. 6:3).
https://www.catholic.com/tract/trinitarian-baptism

[Esaias]

Boy, those catholic arguments sure sound familiar...

[Esaias]

Here's an article by a Reformed Congregationalist:

Trinitarian Baptism

Christian Baptism Is trinitarian. Christian baptism (Covenant baptism) is “one” in the same sense that the “Lord” and the “faith” are one. The unity of the Lord is not something that is built by human hands, or human understanding. It is not something that is decreed by human institutions, nor a function of human institutions. The unity of “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism” is given by God, not built or established by man. The unity of such oneness is established by God in eternity. But what kind of unity does this biblical, trinitarian understanding of God describe?

Clearly, God’s unity lies in the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three, yet one; one, yet three. Christian unity is a unique unity that is found in the character of God and is reflected in God’s creation. And because Christian baptism touches the leading edge of God’s character in the reflected character of man, who was created in God’s image, the unity of baptism follows the pattern of God’s unity, which is trinitarian.

http://pilgrim-platform.org/2010/trinitarian-baptism/

[Esaias]

Another Reformed view:


Jul 15, 2009
#2
Sven
Sven
Puritan Board Sophomore
WCF XXVIII:

"The outward Element to be used in this Sacrament is water, wherewith the Party is to be Baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto."

Confessionally for Presbyterians, baptism is to be done in the name of the Trinity.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads...baptism.50780/

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Another Reformed view:


Jul 15, 2009
#2
Sven
Sven
Puritan Board Sophomore
WCF XXVIII:

"The outward Element to be used in this Sacrament is water, wherewith the Party is to be Baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto."

Confessionally for Presbyterians, baptism is to be done in the name of the Trinity.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads...baptism.50780/

BTW, an AFF part timer was on that thread.

[Esaias]

The Presbyterian Church is a protestant denomination that believes in a triune God that expresses himself in three ways -- as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The denomination emphasizes the sovereignty of God and strives to emulate the teachings of Jesus Christ by helping the hungry and poor and by reaching out to non-believers, or strangers. Presbyterians believe in Trinitarian baptism. During the process, babies or adults receive baptism through the sprinkling of water, the pouring of water, or by being dipped into water during a ceremony that is said to symbolize Christ's death and resurrection. Once a believer is baptized, he is said to have become a part of God's family.

What is Trinitarian Baptism?
Trinitarian baptism refers to baptism in the name of the three persons of the Trinity -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Presbyterians and other Christian churches practice Trinitarian baptism based on the passage Matthew 28:19:
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ... " During a Trinitarian baptism, the presiding minister applies the water and states publicly that the candidate is being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

https://classroom.synonym.com/is-the...-12087288.html

[Esaias]

Monday, July 11, 2011
All Trinitarian Baptism is Valid—Hence, the Invalidity of Anabaptism

Christian baptism is not a baptism into a denomination, group, etc., but a baptism into the Christian faith, as grounded upon the ontological Trinity. This speaks of the universality (catholicity) of the true Church of Christ, marked by its confession of the Trinity, and that baptism in any of the different denominations, groups, etc. that have this Trinitarian confession is a valid baptism, as it is a baptism into the Trinity. Hence, Anabaptism (rebaptism) is definitely error of an egregious sort, if not utterly sinful (as absurd as regrowing foreskin for recircumcision!).

http://underdogtheology.blogspot.com...alidhence.html