Our Baptism Mode!!

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

I've even heard the way Matt.28:19 is worded is not in the original text ?
Perhaps someone has some info on this ?

For OP's to start denying parts of the bible is a slippery slope. To say that a verse they don't like was misinterpreted opens up a pandora's box for folks to discount any and all verses they don't like.

Originally Posted by Sherri

He sure never said NOT to. Who would have ever thought the words of our Lord would be offensive?

Who said the words of our Lord were offensive? Not me. Not anyone here that I have read.

I don't know about you, but *I* am one of those 'Jesus only' Pentecostals, meaning I believe the name of Jesus is sufficient.

We have historically intentionally REFUSED to use the trinitarian formula because:

1. It is not commanded.

2. It is not a valid baptismal formula.

3. It is the hallmark symbol of trinitarian religion.

It would perhaps be one thing to tell a candidate for baptism 'Jesus commanded us to baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And we understand that name to be JESUS CHRIST and so, I now baptise you in the name of JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins...'

BUT, to say 'I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is JESUS CHRIST' is unclear, vague, potentially misleading, and worst of all an obvious compromise with the trinitarian formula.

It is unclear and vague as to what is actually the formula - the words 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost'? Or the NAME of 'JESUS CHRIST'? It is unclear as to whether one holds to a Biblical view of God and Christ or whether one has accepted that trinitarian views are 'acceptable'.

It is potentially misleading, because it may lead a person to think that trinitarian baptism is acceptable, or that either form is acceptable.

It is a compromise with the trinitarian formula because those who propose such hybrid formulas do not have the faith to stand on the name of JESUS CHRIST ALONE, or else do not wish to offend trinitarians.

I do not know your husband's heart. But would he be willing to use ONLY the name of our Lord in baptising? Or would he feel 'unsure' as if he may have left something out?

THAT is the key, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by CC1

For OP's to start denying parts of the bible is a slippery slope. To say that a verse they don't like was misinterpreted opens up a pandora's box for folks to discount any and all verses they don't like.

Slippery slope?

Aw, come on, CC! The water's fine!

We got rid of 1 John 5:7, why not Matthew 28:19?????

Hey, Sherri, I just read the opening post in this thread.

NEVER MIND!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Hey, Sherri, I just read the opening post in this thread.

NEVER MIND!

EXACTLY.

The mode offered by Sherri, after quoting Matthew 28, God's breath inspired Word, emphatically states that this verse Mat. 28 is fulfilled in Acts 2 ... a mainstay of Oneness doctrine

yet because the preliminary remarks before this Jesus name baptism contains the 3 dreaded titles of God in sequence ... it is discounted as blasphemous.

Its almost hilarious to hear ministers of the Word, and the protectors of Truth, react in such a manner about the same message they preach ...

can't y'all realize that this is a Jesus name baptism? or
does your vitriole towards your trinitarian brethren or anything remotely trinitarian sounding destroy the synapses leading to your brain and cloud your better judgment?

Does this mode ... buckle your brick wall theology?
Does this phraseology as stated and preached by you in the same manner ... make you a compromiser?

Does the mention of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in that order, give you the heeby jeebys, make you foam from the mouth and writhe in pain?

Let go and let God ... ___________

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

EXACTLY.

The mode offered by Sherri, after quoting Matthew 28, God's breath inspired Word, emphatically states that this verse Mat. 28 is fulfilled in Acts 2 ... a mainstay of Oneness doctrine

yet because the preliminary remarks before this Jesus name baptism contains the 3 dreaded titles of God in sequence ... it is discounted as blasphemous.

Its almost hilarious to hear ministers of the Word, and the protectors of Truth, react in such a manner about the same message they preach ...

can't y'all realize that this is a Jesus name baptism? or
does your vitriole towards your trinitarian brethren or anything remotely trinitarian sounding destroy the synapes leading to your brain and cloud your better judgment?

Does this mode ... buckle your brick wall theology?
Does this phraseology as stated and preached by you in the same manner ... make you a compromiser?

Does the mention of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in that order, give you the heeby jeebys and make you writhe in pain?

Let go and let God ... ___________

I honestly had not read her opening post until AFTER I responded. I was just going with the flow of the discussion.



(See? Even I can admit when I made a mistake!)

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Slippery slope?

Aw, come on, CC! The water's fine!

We got rid of 1 John 5:7, why not Matthew 28:19?????

LOL!! Ain't that the truth.

I do think it is profitable for folks to understand the cultural / historical situation scripture was written in as well as the writing style of the original language and also of the translators. Not to mention the actual meaning of some obscure words if one is using the KJV.

I remember my childhood preacher quoting the scripture with the word "divers" as if it were speaking about scuba divers rather than the modern english word "diverse". I always had this mental pictures of scuba divers when he preached from that and assumed "divers places" would be somewhere under the ocean!

[Esther]

Is that not in the scriptures?

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Who said the words of our Lord were offensive? Not me. Not anyone here that I have read.

I don't know about you, but *I* am one of those 'Jesus only' Pentecostals, meaning I believe the name of Jesus is sufficient.

We have historically intentionally REFUSED to use the trinitarian formula because:

1. It is not commanded.

2. It is not a valid baptismal formula.

3. It is the hallmark symbol of trinitarian religion.

It would perhaps be one thing to tell a candidate for baptism 'Jesus commanded us to baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And we understand that name to be JESUS CHRIST and so, I now baptise you in the name of JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins...'

BUT, to say 'I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is JESUS CHRIST' is unclear, vague, potentially misleading, and worst of all an obvious compromise with the trinitarian formula.

It is unclear and vague as to what is actually the formula - the words 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost'? Or the NAME of 'JESUS CHRIST'? It is unclear as to whether one holds to a Biblical view of God and Christ or whether one has accepted that trinitarian views are 'acceptable'.

It is potentially misleading, because it may lead a person to think that trinitarian baptism is acceptable, or that either form is acceptable.

It is a compromise with the trinitarian formula because those who propose such hybrid formulas do not have the faith to stand on the name of JESUS CHRIST ALONE, or else do not wish to offend trinitarians.

I do not know your husband's heart. But would he be willing to use ONLY the name of our Lord in baptising? Or would he feel 'unsure' as if he may have left something out?
THAT is the key, in my opinion.

No, he would not do it any other way than what I posted in POST #1. This is the way we baptized in UPC and since we've been out. He feels that it is the most biblical way to baptize, and it explains what Jesus meant by His wording in Matthew 28:19. It's not a matter of Trinitarian versus Oneness; it's just Biblical.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Sherri

No, he would not do it any other way than what I posted in POST #1. This is the way we baptized in UPC and since we've been out. He feels that it is the most biblical way to baptize, and it explains what Jesus meant by His wording in Matthew 28:19. It's not a matter of Trinitarian versus Oneness; it's just Biblical.

Sherri,
My problem wasn't with how you baptist - because - you don't say in the nameof the FS&H.

My problem is with this below. I don't quite understand what you mean and I wish you could explain that to me. I apologize if I am misreading or misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Sherri

I will say this once and then I'm done with this discussion...........we tell everyone who comes to the Lord that they need to be baptized. We always baptize them in Jesus' name and we always will. I don't think it saves them, but they do it in obedience because they are saved.

All others who are baptized in the titles, but they know that they did it out of a relationship with Jesus Christ and turning their lives over to Him.....I sure would not ever say they are lost.

Many of you will be very surprised to see who is in heaven spending an eternity with Jesus!!

Please explain what you mean by "we don't think it saves them....."

TIA!