Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ?

Or it could be that your doctrine is horrible.

The fact of the matter is that the OP brings up a good point worthy of discussion and all you have done is be rude to a new member.

The Apostles ministered in the Name of Jesus. He has supported that with numerous texts showing that. You are trying to limit this to authority and that is what happens when people go to extremes and do not include all relevant elements of a discussion.


God bless.

 

No, there is more than authority involved. We baptize men in identification with the Lord. Remission of sins is identified with Jesus Christ, Who was made of a woman, made under Law...to redeem those who were under Law at the appointed time.


God bless.

 

False argument, again, and you know it. The issue is your teaching that the body the Son manifested in that was created in the womb of Mary ascended then went back in time to speak to Abraham on the plains of Mamre.

BUt that's the point, I, nor you, are "free to believe whatever we choose."

We are limited to the Doctrine taught in Scripture, and there is absolutely no basis for your doctrine.

I believe it was the Son of God, but not Jesus Christ, Who did not appear to men until He was born of Mary.

I have you Scripture to support that, yet I see nothing to support your own view.

Again...in the Old Testament. Several men named Joshua but not one of them said to be the Son of God.

Stated specifically that at least one of them was not:


Hebrews 4:8
King James Version (KJV)

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.


We see the name Joshua but we do not see the Name of Jesus.

Because you, like he, think for some reason people are to just take your word for it that you are right, when neither one of you actually have a very comprehensive understanding of Scripture. It is very shallow and both of you refuse to enter into a discussion like reasonable debaters, preferring instead to bathe people with condescension.

Look, I think certain approaches are necessary with some people, and that we can incorporate sarcasm and humor in our teaching, but, if you are not presenting a Scriptural Basis, nor addressing the Scriptural presentation and points raised by your antagonist, it doesn't do any good.

The OP thinks Catholicism changed the Name we baptized in, and I see that as a valid topic of discussion. "I am right and you are wrong" is never a valid approach to discussion, because it nullifies what discussion is, and it nullifies any teaching or instruction that might take place.

Address the points, address the Scripture, present the Scriptural basis for you own points.


God bless.

 

Apparently you can't see the contradiction: you are acknowledging that the Body the Son of God manifest in has a beginning in time.

With a curious twist. Can you present one Theologian that also believes this? Among Christians, that is, no fair using the teachers of cults.

I agree, but that is not all that is relevant to our baptizing people in the Name of Jesus, or the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: we are identifying these people publicly with the God of the Bible.

Sadly it shows.


God bless.

 

But, lol, Christians do not speak of Jesus Christ less because they baptize in the Name of the father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

I think that because we are indwelt by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it is quite appropriate to baptize in His Name. Most people think they are indwelt by the Spirit only, and are not aware that the Father and Son are in them as well, and they in Him.

The only power afforded us comes directly from God to the individual, so we do not, I feel, have to worry about "losing out" because those who are in leadership over us goof up.

 

Not everybody knows that, TCassidy.

It is important to understand John's Baptism, for example, and what was taking place when he baptized people "unto repentance." If we understand that those baptized are identified with John and repentance, and did not receive repentance when they were baptized, but were professing repentance, then we understnd those same principles in Christian Baptism.

When we baptize men, we are publicly identifying them as Christians, followers of Christ. They do not receive salvation, but are professing that they already have.

In regards to the "change" from baptizing in Jesus' Name to baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I see it primarily as an issue in regards to Who we are identifying them with, and for Christians, the Trinity is exclusively Christian. Whereas there are multiple cults and isms that baptize "in the Name of Jesus," yet the Jesus they preach is not the Jesus of Christianity.

A Name has to be used. And based on Scripture both are correct.

The magic words are Jesus and the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If those words are not used no-one knows who or what to identify the one being baptized with.



Think of this: Christ had His disciples baptizing men, so why is it that men had to be baptized again in the Name of Jesus?

Because the baptisms prior were according to the Old Testament Model, and there was no Cross and Resurrection which means there was no Atonement or Reconciliation.

And we do not ever see the Disciples themselves baptized in the Name of Jesus.

We both know that water baptism does not impact salvation in Christ.


God bless.

 

It is just my view but I think we, as the Church (the Body of Christ), have been given a broader understanding over time. I know that sounds strange, but we do not see, for example, as clear teaching on the Trinity as we do today. We can, unlike the Disciples, incorporate all of their teachings (Christ, the Apostles, and the Prophets) on any given subject.

And I don't think we can give the "Catholics" credit until the Fourth Century. Could you explain why you think Catholics changed it in the Second?


God bless.