Baptism

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by NorCal

It's has always been Titles vs Name.

The way I see it, if we take every word that Jesus said then we should all be wheat/barley farmers.

You have to take a look at the over all look at Baptism. Why the NAME matters.

We do know that Jesus never specifically claimed to be God. He only allowed others to proclaim that. Thomas and Peter are perfect examples. So when you look at Matthew 28:19 in that manner, Jesus would never have said, go baptize in My Name. For he would have been proclaiming himself as God (like I said before he never did).

So he left it up to the disciples to declare him as "LORD and GOD". That is what Peter did on the Day of Pentecost. He Proclaimed him as The Name Above All Names.

The denial of Christ's deity among the "Oneness" people doesn't strengthen the case for Jesus name baptism. Honor the name of Christ... but not the person of Christ? I find that problematic.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by acerrak

and does that conclude us from doing matthew 28:19? that because they cast out a demon in the name of Jesus, makes it so we shouldnt baptize in the name of the father son holy Ghost?

What difference truely is there when one is baptized in the name of Jesus vs FSHG? im curious

the words pronounced over you doesnt wash away your sins. and believeing that a specific line must me stated over you at the proper time during baptism doesnt do it either.

lol Why does God baptize with the Holy Ghost before these people even get near the water.

When anyone who has recieved the Spirit is already accepted as a child of God. they have recieved the promise. Does this mean we stop baptizing. ofcourse not.

The faith to remove sins comes from the baptizee, not the words the baptizer pronounces.


if that was the case. Man could just say no more baptism in Jesus name, and thus seal off heaven from applicants. that would mean, it doesnt matter how much faith you have unless someone dunks you under water saying that you can never be saved.

so much for working out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Baptism in the name of the FSH affirms one's belief in the triune God. Affirms the Father's deity, the Son's deity, and the Spirit's deity. Affirms that they are indeed personas of the one and only YHVH.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Again, take what was done in Jesus' name, like the distinct instance of Paul casting out a devil where he literally says "In the name of Jesus Christ."

Jesus often spoke in the third person regarding Himself. Luke 24:47-49 shows Him referring to Himself as "Christ" and "His name". I think this explains Matt 28:19.

I agree, it "can" explain Matthew 28:19. However, that doesn't change the fact that we don't have a single "quote" in the book of Acts with regards to baptismal formula. The only baptismal "formula" we have in Scripture that is quoted comes from Christ Himself in Matthew 28:19.

For the traditional Christian, it's hard to imagine doing anything in the name of Jesus but not doing it as Jesus Himself commanded it to be done. If Jesus would have said, "Baptizing them in the name of the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...", to baptize "in His name" would require that we speak what He commanded, would it not?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

It is not a formula per se. It has more to do with recognizing and acknowledging the SUPREME Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Trinitarians acknowledge the supreme deity of Christ. In fact, Trinitarians affirm His eternal person and fullness of deity. The Oneness Christian often denies the deity of Christ's "person". The "I" of Christ, that Jesus Himself identifies with and with which Christ draws distinction from Himself and the Father, is often regarded as merely the "humanity" or "human nature" of Christ. That means that the "I" praying to the Father merely humanity. The Trinitarian gasps in horror at the thought. The very person of Christ, the one who is the Son of God, is eternally one with the Father. Not just humanity that is one with the Father beginning in Bethlehem.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Are you insinuating that Jesus Christ is NOT the only way to God?

I think they mean one's given "Christian sect" (i.e. Apostolics or UPCI).

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sam

We have a direct quote of Peter using the name of Jesus Christ in ministering healing in Acts 3:6 and we have a direct quote of Paul using the name of Jesus Christ when evicting a demon in Acts 16:18 but we do not have any such direct quote of what was said during the baptism ritual in the Book of Acts.

It is my opinion that the Apostles also used the name of Jesus Christ when baptizing just like they did in healing and exorcism.

In Acts 8:12 it says, "when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." So, Philip must have been preaching about "the name of Jesus Christ" when those folks responded by being baptized.

The wording in James 2:7 indicates that a name was invoked or called over those to whom James was writing. The NRSV reads, "Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?" Darby translates it: "And [do not] they blaspheme the excellent name which has been called upon you?" The Amplified Bible reads: "Is it not they who slander and blaspheme that precious name by which you are distinguished and called [the name of Christ invoked in baptism]?"

In his commentary on James, William Barclay translates the verse, “And is it not they who abuse the fair name by which you have been called?" He goes on to comment. “It is the rich who abuse the name by which the Christians are called. It may be the name 'Christian' by which the heathen first called the followers of Christ at Antioch and which was given at first as a jest. It may be the name of Christ, which was pronounced over a Christian on the day of his baptism. The word James uses for 'called' (epikaleisthai) is the word used for a wife taking her husband’s name in marriage or a child being called after his father. The Christian takes the name of Christ; he is called after Christ. It is as if he was married to Christ, or born and christened into the family of Christ.” This is from page 66 of "The Letters of James and Peter" by William Barclay, revised edition copyright 1976 and published by The Westminster Press

I understand your point. However, since we don't have an exact quote regarding what was spoken in the baptismal ritual, why depart from the exact quote of Christ in Matthew 28:19? Would not doing something in the name of Christ require that it be done as Christ commanded it?

I also find it interesting that every translation you referenced is one developed by Trinitarian scholars. Even William Barclay was baptized in the name of the FSH. Clearly God has chosen the Trinitarians as "keepers of His Word". Every translation by a non-Trinitarian has fallen to the wayside and has been deemed heretical.

With regards to the name that was invoked or called over the one being baptized... the very person of Christ is invoked in FSH baptism ("...and of the Son..."). This distinction also affirms His eternal person.

Lastly, most that I know pray prior to baptism asking for God's grace and keeping for the one being baptized. They pray this "in the name of Jesus" and then baptize them as Christ commanded in Matthew 28:19. In a very real way, FSH baptism more powerfully invokes Christ's deity, and is typically sealed in prayer that is made "in the name of Jesus". It's iron clad.

The oneness formula of "Jesus name" doesn't acknowledge Christ's eternal person with distinction from the Father, thus it doesn't require that one even believe in the deity of Christ (something seen among Oneness people and even on this forum, including this very thread). Also, many people were named "Jesus" in the first century. There really isn't anything unique about the name itself. However, when the Jesus being invoked is identified as "the Son" there is no question. We are talking about the eternal Son of God, the one who possessed glory and oneness with the Father before the world began.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pastor RICK

i wouldnt give much credit to the notes at the bottom of the page ,as to haveing any power over the verses in the bible .
peter told them how to be saved . acts 4;12 there is no other name . JESUS.
they were also baptised saying lord JESUS twice .were commanded to be baptised in the name of the lord also..so are you just going to say LORD WHEN BAPTIZING?
A BANK WONT TAKE A CHECK WITH A NAME ON IT , WHY SHOULD THE LORD OF GLORY TAKE A BAPTISING WITHOUT A NAME . .
hard to belive this is an apostolic site and haveing trouble over this simple doctrine of baptism..IF THE NAME OF JESUS IS GOOD ENOUGH TO PRAY IN ITS GOOD ENOUGH TO BAPTISE IN ALSO..

A bank wont take a check that isn't properly signed either. One has to sign the check per the instuctions. It's argued by Traditional Christianity that Christ gave us the instructions regarding baptism in Matthew 28:19. Therefore to baptize someone in the name of Christ without baptizing them as Christ commanded is at worse the hight of heretical hubris, or sincere error at the very least.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by acerrak

the check example is lame. banks wont let you withdrawl money on faith alone either.

But its by this very faith that God saves us by his grace.

Its silly thinking your salvation or washing away of Sins is based on what comes out of another mans vocal chords. that isnt bible

Your sins are forgiven Because you call upon the Lord, not what a baptizer says over you

I think most of us can agree with the point of your post. However, we're trying to determine do we obey Christ or an inference 20th century Pentecostals have drawn from various passages in the book of Acts that don't even contain an exact quote of what was actually said at baptism?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Speaking of an apostolic site with problems over Jesus' name baptism, you (no offense intended) do not even believe Jesus is God. That is the greatest apostolic truth there is!

You are right about the notes at the bottom of the pages of the bible. Footnotes are opinions of the publishers and not inspired thoughts from God.

It is sad Rev. Blume. But this is a condition that is largely the cause of heresy. When an orthdoxy isn't strongly affirmed and heresy strongly denounced... everyone believes what is right in their own eyes. Something we see a lot of in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles.

I'm slowly learning the safety and power of orthodoxy. All that is essential is strongly affirmed, all that departs from said essentials is historically and categorically denounced as heresy. In the church I attend now we often address heresy in our discussion groups. However, it is acknowledged that there are heretics even among us. These, like most heretics, are sincere, but in error. We don't hold that God doesn't love them. Nor do we deny their "salvation". We do however affirm orthodox teaching to lay the foundation of a healthy and functional non-cultic church.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sam

unless they are the notes in a Roman Catholic Bible compiled by Bishop Challoner (1691-1781) with an official imprimatur
or
The WAP Thompson Chain Bible with the 32 page insert by David Bernard
http://sales.pentecostalpublishing.c...44080020B266CA


just kidding

lol