UPCI - Page 14

jfrog · #**131** 02-11-2010, 12:51 PM

I have a hypothetical question.

If oneness is somehow wrong (or rather the belief that the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all Jesus), then how can anyone obey Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19 if they are only baptized in the name of Jesus?

Sam · #**132** 02-11-2010, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

I have a hypothetical question.

If oneness is somehow wrong (or rather the belief that the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all Jesus), then how can anyone obey Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19 if they are only baptized in the name of Jesus?

I have read trinitarians who have stated that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost share the common name of Jehovah. Now, don't ask me for specific names and quotes right now because I don't have them but I do remember reading that by at least one trinitarian.

If Jehovah or YHWH is a name shared by all persons or whatever in the "Godhead," and Jesus means YHWH-Savior, and incorporates YHWH and all the compounds such as Rapha (Healer), Shalom (Peace), etc., why couldn't Jesus be the name in this New Testament that is shared by all the persons who make up God? Couldn't Jesus be the saving name of God? Couldn't Jesus be the highest name of God in this dispensation?

Sam · #**133** 02-11-2010, 01:12 PM

In a book titled, "Foundation Life" by Dale Yerton with a copyright date of 1954 the author explains God to be a compound unity. He speaks of God as a tri-unity and uses figures to show that like:
spirit, soul, body but one person,
Father, Son, Holy Spirit but one God,
bark, pulp, sap but one tree,
shell, albumen, yolk but one egg,
liquid, ice, steam but one water,
proton, electron, neutron but one atom,
etc.

On page 157 he lists the names of God such as Elohim, El Elyon, Shaddai, and of course Jehovah with its compounds. He then goes on to say that "in the New Testament there is revealed a new compound name for God" which he says is "Lord Jesus Christ" and this man is trinitarian.

jfrog · #**134** 02-11-2010, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

I have read trinitarians who have stated that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost share the common name of Jehovah. Now, don't ask me for specific names and quotes right now because I don't have them but I do remember reading that by at least one trinitarian.

If Jehovah or YHWH is a name shared by all persons or whatever in the "Godhead," and Jesus means YHWH-Savior, and incorporates YHWH and all the compounds such as Rapha (Healer), Shalom (Peace), etc., why couldn't Jesus be the name in this New Testament that is shared by all the persons who make up God? Couldn't Jesus be the saving name of God? Couldn't Jesus be the highest name of God in this dispensation?

Maybe.

I would have answered my question more along these lines though.

1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

I would say that if we have the Son, that we have all three. How we have all three authorities is open to interpretation, but the bible seems to affirm that if you believe on the Son of God then you believe on the Father. I think this can be extended to baptism. I think that if we are baptized in the authority of the Son then we have also been baptized in the authority of the Father. I don't think its necessary to say thats because the Son is the Father or that the name Jesus refers to both. I think we have both because by accepting the Son's authority we accept the origin of the Son's authority which is the Father. For it is written in Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Therefore by having the Son's authority we also have the Father's authority for the Father gave authority to the Son.

Aquila · #**135** 02-11-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

I have a hypothetical question.

If oneness is somehow wrong (or rather the belief that the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all Jesus), then how can anyone obey Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19 if they are only baptized in the name of Jesus?

I think the problem with your question is that you're focused on formula. Ritualistic formula wasn't the purpose of Matthew 28:19 or Acts 2:38. So essentially both "formulas" are wrong.

The only time you hear of the name of Jesus being invoked during baptism was in regards to Paul's own baptism. Paul was told to be baptized, washing away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). You see, the issue wasn't what words Ananias happened to be speaking over Paul... effectual act was Paul's own calling on the name of the Lord. Thus baptism is the moment in which the candidate is to call on the name of Jesus, having full faith in Chirst's atonement, which provides for the forgivenss of his or her sins. You could have 100 Oneness preachers screaming the name of Jesus over a person at water baptism, but if that person isn't calling on the name of Jesus for their own salvation it means nothing.

Baptism was more of a time of prayer than a sacramental ritual requiring formula. Essentially the baptizer could choose to remain absolutely silent while the candidate calls on the name of Jesus in prayer at baptism...and it would be perfectly effectual.

jfrog · #**136** 02-11-2010, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think the problem with your question is that you're focused on formula. Ritualistic formula wasn't the purpose of Matthew 28:19 or Acts 2:38. So essentially both "formulas" are wrong.

The only time you hear of the name of Jesus being invoked during baptism was in regards to Paul's own baptism. Paul was told to be baptized, washing away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). You see, the issue wasn't what words Ananias happened to be speaking over Paul... effectual act was Paul's own calling on the name of the Lord. Thus baptism is the moment in which the candidate is to call on the name of Jesus, having full faith in Chirst's atonement, which provides for the forgivenss of his or her sins. You could have 100 Oneness preachers screaming the name of Jesus over a person at water baptism, but if that person isn't calling on the name of Jesus for their own salvation it means nothing.

Baptism was more of a time of prayer than a sacramental ritual requiring formula. Essentially the baptizer could choose to remain absolutely silent while the candidate calls on the name of Jesus in prayer at baptism...and it would be perfectly effectual.

If you think that is the problem with what I'm saying then you have no idea what I'm saying Aquila. Here's what I have been saying the whole time. Sounds very similar to what your saying huh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

I believe it is best to be silent where the bible is silent. The apostles words over baptism are not recorded. Clearly this implies that what is said over baptism is not very important...

If you want to take acts 2:38 and acts 19:5 as both being the actual words spoken then I suggest you take acts 10:48 as being the actual words also. But if this is the case then in Acts 10:48 they said "in the name of the Lord" which is contrary to your insistence that the word Jesus must be said over baptism. Therefore I say that in either case, whether we take the accounts as the actual words of the apostles or whether we don't, that in both cases your position that the word Jesus must be issued at baptism is not found in the bible.

EDIT: I wanted to add a bit about what I view those verses to be saying. I am reading those scriptures as having nothing to do with the words that are spoken. Baptism wasn't set up to be some kind of divine formula. Baptism is about the remission of sins and symbolizes our death, burial and resurrection with Jesus. I say that all these titles and names all refer to the same authority, for Jesus himself said that he came in his Father's name, therefore implying that his authority came from the Father. So since the authority of Jesus is the same as the authority of the Father what difference does it make whether we baptize in the authority of Jesus or in the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? In fact, I will even go so far to say that even if not one word is uttered at the baptism of a believer about whose authority or name it is being done in, then that baptism was still done both in the authority of both Jesus Christ and in the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost

Sister Alvear · #**137** 02-11-2010, 02:45 PM

Well we do know there is salvation in none other...so His name is very important. There are many ways that people expalin Father, Son and Holy Ghost even among oneness teachers...however it all comes down to SHEMA...

Aquila · #**138** 02-11-2010, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

If you think that is the problem with what I'm saying then you have no idea what I'm saying Aquila. Here's what I have been saying the whole time. Sounds very similar to what your saying huh?

I didn't say I had a problem with what you were saying... I said that there was a problem with the question. The question pitched threefold baptism against single name baptism. Both are "formulas" and are essentially unbiblical.

Hoovie · #**139** 02-11-2010, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

I have a hypothetical question.

If oneness is somehow wrong (or rather the belief that the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all Jesus), then how can anyone obey Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19 if they are only baptized in the name of Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

I have read trinitarians who have stated that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost share the common name of Jehovah. Now, don't ask me for specific names and quotes right now because I don't have them but I do remember reading that by at least one trinitarian.

If Jehovah or YHWH is a name shared by all persons or whatever in the "Godhead," and Jesus means YHWH-Savior, and incorporates YHWH and all the compounds such as Rapha (Healer), Shalom (Peace), etc., why couldn't Jesus be the name in this New Testament that is shared by all the persons who make up God? Couldn't Jesus be the saving name of God? Couldn't Jesus be the highest name of God in this dispensation?

There ya go froggie. This is the way I see it too. "The Name" is the sacred name YHWH. When we call on Jesus we are saying, "YHWH save me". The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all three the singular person of God (hence Oneness). We call on that one God when we say JESUS.

But, It cannot be said the Son (God in Flesh) IS the Father. Neither can it be said God the Father (God's existence apart from the incarnation) IS the Son.

TroubleMaker · #**140** 02-11-2010, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus is speaking to His disciples. Men who knew, especially Peter, who the name of the titles was. They knew Jesus was not just a prophet, but the son of God.

Peter was speaking to non-believers in Acts 2. Men who did not know who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were. And Peter made it clear and gave them which name the titles were for when he said they must be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ.

You can put your fingers in your earholes, yell at the top of your lungs, live up to your screen name and ignore the fact and reality, but it is what it is.

I'm not sure what to say about your "fingers in the ears, and yelling and screen name and ignoring reality" stuff. I have no idea what you're talking about with that. You and I disagree about something and really, there's no need to reduce our conversation to that.

However, I totally agree with you that "it is what it is." Matthew 28:19 is what it is and it means something.

As I said in my oversized blue post (and Renda I was NOT yelling, I was making fun of Scotty's large blue letters), it's all about authority. If one is baptizing under the authority of Jesus, one can say whatever one likes when one baptizes.

This entire issue is really very simple. It's not about words that are said when someone is submerged in water. "In the name of..." is all about authority. If one were to say, "In the name of the King", it would be clear one would have the authority for his actions. If the King's name were Herbert the 23rd, one could say, "In the name of Herbert the 23rd." Either way, one would be acting on the authority of the king and the hearer of the words would have no doubt who is being referred to.

This whole debate about what to recite when someone is dunked in water, is really ridiculous. Say whatever you like when you baptize. You are acting on the authority of Jesus. That's what matters.