Our Baptism Mode!!

[Steve Epley]

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.

Amen there is NO example in Acts nor any reference in the Epistles to a tri-une formula.

I haven't read this entire thread but I wonder if this is done for clarity or for confusion? On the surface I know it appears to be an effort to clarify but I am sure the end result is actually confusion unless sufficient time is spent in teaching before and after the baptism event... of course since it has no real affect on the salvation of the individual I guess you could use the name of rooster cogburn and they would just as saved. (last statement is intentionally inflamatory and tongue in cheek).

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by philjones

I haven't read this entire thread but I wonder if this is done for clarity or for confusion? On the surface I know it appears to be an effort to clarify but I am sure the end result is actually confusion unless sufficient time is spent in teaching before and after the baptism event... of course since it has no real affect on the salvation of the individual I guess you could use the name of rooster cogburn and they would just as saved. (last statement is intentionally inflamatory and tongue in cheek).

I love that movie! lol!

[Pressing-On]

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.

So, do we let the Trinitarians keep it as their hallmark?

After thinking about it, I think Sherri was saying that the water is not what is saving them, but their obedience to being put down in the water.

[Jack Shephard]

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.

Question for you. If a trinitarian used the same verbage do think it would be accepted?

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.




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

TIA!

I don't think baptism saves anyone; I believe they are saved when they repent. At that point, they leave Satan's kingdom and enter God's kingdom. I don't think you can be partly saved. I think they follow through with baptism as a result of being saved; they same with receiving the Holy Ghost. We have had over 50 receive the Holy Ghost every year for the past few years. We definitely teach that it is vital to the Christian walk. But we don't teach that everyone will be lost who hasn't done the "three steps".

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Question for you. If a trinitarian used the same verbage do think it would be accepted?

If a trinitarian pastor used the exact wording we use, everyone would say he was "coming our way"!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Sherri

I don't think baptism saves anyone; I believe they are saved when they repent. At that point, they leave Satan's kingdom and enter God's kingdom. I don't think you can be partly saved. I think they follow through with baptism as a result of being saved; they same with receiving the Holy Ghost. We have had over 50 receive the Holy Ghost every year for the past few years. We definitely teach that it is vital to the Christian walk. But we don't teach that everyone will be lost who hasn't done the "three steps".

Sherri,
I guess I can't agree with you on that. The Word says in I Peter 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

It doesn't wash away our sin, but an answer of a good conscience. It isn't even a matter of being "safe than sorry". The Word says, "We are saved by it."

I'll have to stick with Acts 2:38. All the Epistles keep tying up with it.

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Sherri,
I guess I can't agree with you on that. The Word says in I Peter 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

It doesn't wash away our sin, but an answer of a good conscience. It isn't even a matter of being "safe than sorry". The Word says, "We are saved by it."

I'll have to stick with Acts 2:38. All the Epistles keep tying up with it.

I'm cool with that. I don't expect to agree on everything. But I still love you!!

[CC1]

Originally Posted by philjones

I haven't read this entire thread but I wonder if this is done for clarity or for confusion? On the surface I know it appears to be an effort to clarify but I am sure the end result is actually confusion unless sufficient time is spent in teaching before and after the baptism event... of course since it has no real affect on the salvation of the individual I guess you could use the name of rooster cogburn and they would just as saved. (last statement is intentionally inflamatory and tongue in cheek).

You could also use pop tarts and Kool Aid for communion but you would not be actually following the Biblical instructions for this sacrament as closely as possible.

I do disagree with Christ Church's position that they don't require the rebaptism of people who have not been baptized in Jesus name. I think if you feel that the biblical insruction is to baptize in Jesus name then that is what you should teach is the right thing to do regardless of whether you feel it is salvic or not.