Baptism in Jesus’ name (Trinitarian style)

[1689Dave]

Baptism in Jesus’ name

Jesus said: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matthew 28:19 (KJV 1900)

And the Apostles did so, or did they? “(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” Acts 8:16 (KJV 1900)

“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” Acts 10:48 (KJV 1900)

“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 19:5 (KJV 1900)

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38 (KJV 1900)

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Romans 6:3 (KJV 1900)

Why did it change from the Apostle's method?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century. (Note) This is a summary and not an actual quote.

Should we rethink baptism and return to the scriptural method? When I learned of this, They rebaptized me, as a trinitarian, in the name of Jesus Christ. The most serious charge I've received is that it is unorthodox. This means they are, like the Pharisees, placing tradition above God's word.

 

[rockytopva]

I have been baptized twice....

Baptistry - GARBC Baptist
In the River - Pentecostal Holiness

I guess that would classify me as an Ana-Baptist! I have no regrets about the baptisms.

 

[Salty]

I have been baptized twice....

Baptistry - GARBC Baptist
In the River - Pentecostal Holiness

I guess that would classify me as an Ana-Baptist! I have no regrets about the baptisms.

Couple of questions:
1) Which one was first
2) why were you re-baptized?
3) do you think it matters if it is outdoor water or a baptistery?

 

[rockytopva]

Couple of questions:
1) Which one was first
2) why were you re-baptized?
3) do you think it matters if it is outdoor water or a baptistery?

I feel complete with both the baptistry and river baptism.

1. The Baptistry - GARBC - In the 1970s
2. The River - Pentecostal Holiness - In the 1980s

The Lutherans would have big issues over the second baptism! I have no problems with it. No need, though, for a third water baptism as I believe it would be a total waste of time.

 

[Salty]

I feel complete with both the baptistry and river baptism.

1. The Baptistry - GARBC - In the 1970s
2. The River - Pentecostal Holiness - In the 1980s

The Lutherans would have big issues over the second baptism! I have no problems with it. No need, though, for a third water baptism as I believe it would be a total waste of time.

IMHO - as long as a baptism is done scriptural - there is no need for a "re-baptism"
If a church (local or denomination) required a re-baptism I would simply inform them it is not Biblical to do so
and it would be up to them if I was to be made a member or not.

As a pastor - I would not "re-baptist" a person who had previously been Scriptural baptized.

BTW, I was baptized into a GARBC church. Now, I am SB

 

[rockytopva]

IMHO - as long as a baptism is done scriptural - there is no need for a "re-baptism"
If a church (local or denomination) required a re-baptism I would simply inform them it is not Biblical to do so
and it would be up to them if I was to be made a member or not.

As a pastor - I would not "re-baptist" a person who had previously been Scriptural baptized.

BTW, I was baptized into a GARBC church. Now, I am SB

In thinking this one over it was done on Methodist grounds. This is popular among Pentecostal Holiness. As we don't have land with river frontage we often look up an old Methodist church for our baptisms. I would not have wanted to have been baptized a second time in a baptistry. Here in Virginia....

My Great (5) Grandfather Pugh served in the Revolutionary War
My Great (4) Grandfather Pugh settled here in Floyd County, VA
My Great-Great-Great Grandfather Pugh farmed the land in the mid 1800's
My Great-Great Grandfather Pugh fought in the Civil War and had 13 children
My Great Grandmother, Flora Pugh, was the twelfth child and took care of her parents until the last one passed away in 1915.

I like to go back to my Methodist heritage every now and again.

Our old Pentecostal Holiness preacher, Pastor Vaught, was from South Carolina and was like the old Methodist preachers before him in spirit. I miss him and the old Methodist ways.

 

[rockytopva]

IMHO - as long as a baptism is done scriptural - there is no need for a "re-baptism"
If a church (local or denomination) required a re-baptism I would simply inform them it is not Biblical to do so
and it would be up to them if I was to be made a member or not.

As a pastor - I would not "re-baptist" a person who had previously been Scriptural baptized.

BTW, I was baptized into a GARBC church. Now, I am SB

There are so many nice Methodist churches along rivers and creeks that are wonderful places for baptism. The problem is... The UMC owns the land! If these congregations were allowed to leave the UMC they would probably flourish and baptisms would be common. What happens is the congregation normally moves on and the church ends up abandoned.

I have an old machine operator friend who I refer to as "Brother Doug." Brother Doug, who considered himself Methodist, got his license to preach but could not go along with the UMC. He ended up having services in an abandoned Baptist church and has done quite well. He was forced to keep the name Baptist but does not mind.

In these parts when a church would have revival the other area churches would close to support it. And it was common to baptize in churches close to rivers, paying little attention to the name on the church shingle. So many issues these days! Even in my Pentecostal Holiness denomination people will leave a good husband or wife for another... And still be considered a member of the church! This did not happen in previous generations!

 

[Yeshua1]

Baptism in Jesus’ name

Jesus said: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matthew 28:19 (KJV 1900)

And the Apostles did so, or did they? “(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” Acts 8:16 (KJV 1900)

“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” Acts 10:48 (KJV 1900)

“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 19:5 (KJV 1900)

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38 (KJV 1900)

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Romans 6:3 (KJV 1900)

Why did it change from the Apostle's method?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century. (Note) This is a summary and not an actual quote.

Should we rethink baptism and return to the scriptural method? When I learned of this, They rebaptized me, as a trinitarian, in the name of Jesus Christ. The most serious charge I've received is that it is unorthodox. This means they are, like the Pharisees, placing tradition above God's word.

You are NOT advocating here to be water baptized in the same way as the Jesus Only heretics do?

 

[Marooncat79]

There is no “magic” in which words we use to baptize as my NT Professor said.

brethren actually are triple dippers, one dunk per person of the Trinity

 

[JonC]

Baptism in Jesus’ name

Jesus said: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matthew 28:19 (KJV 1900)

And the Apostles did so, or did they? “(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” Acts 8:16 (KJV 1900)

“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” Acts 10:48 (KJV 1900)

“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 19:5 (KJV 1900)

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38 (KJV 1900)

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Romans 6:3 (KJV 1900)

Why did it change from the Apostle's method?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century. (Note) This is a summary and not an actual quote.

Should we rethink baptism and return to the scriptural method? When I learned of this, They rebaptized me, as a trinitarian, in the name of Jesus Christ. The most serious charge I've received is that it is unorthodox. This means they are, like the Pharisees, placing tradition above God's word.

To clarify (for me) are you saying Jesus told the Disciples to do something and they disobeyed?

(I'm a little unclear regarding the verse comparison).

 

[Marooncat79]

There is great discussion among Biblical Scholars as to if the Trinidadian formula was used

 

[JonC]

There is great discussion among Biblical Scholars as to if the Trinidadian formula was used

Is it that they believe the text was altered (Matt. 28)?

 

[Marooncat79]

I have not spent time studying the issues. I just know that it exists

 

[1689Dave]

To clarify (for me) are you saying Jesus told the Disciples to do something and they disobeyed?

(I'm a little unclear regarding the verse comparison).

No, They had spiritual eyes and got it right. The Catholics and everyone else got it wrong.

 

[JonC]

No, They had spiritual eyes and got it right. The Catholics and everyone else got it wrong.

Do you mean that the passage in Matthew is incorrect (that the Father and Spirit" are additions in the text)?

For the record- I believe using "in the name of the Father, the Son' and "the Spirit" or "in the name of Jesus" is the same and the "debate" over the words that should be said is a product misunderstanding (that "in the name of" is not a prescription for the words to be used but rather the Character and work of God). So I do not mind the emphasis on the trinitarian nature of the Son.

But I am trying to understand the objections on either side of the argument.

 

[1689Dave]

Do you mean that the passage in Matthew is incorrect (that the Father and Spirit" are additions in the text)?

For the record- I believe using "in the name of the Father, the Son' and "the Spirit" or "in the name of Jesus" is the same and the "debate" over the words that should be said is a product misunderstanding (that "in the name of" is not a prescription for the words to be used but rather the Character and work of God). So I do not mind the emphasis on the trinitarian nature of the Son.

But I am trying to understand the objections on either side of the argument.

You are missing the meaning of Jesus' words and the Apostle's interpretation. The Catholics changed it into the tradition everyone goes by instead of scripture. Just like the Pharisees did on everything else. Don't you know the Trinity was in Jesus and He spoke as the second person?

 

[JonC]

You are missing the meaning of Jesus' words and the Apostle's interpretation. The Catholics changed it into the tradition everyone goes by instead of scripture. Just like the Pharisees did on everything else. Don't you know the Trinity was in Jesus and He spoke as the second person?

Yes, I know "in Jesus name" implies the Trinity. I disagree with the conclusion spelling it out is wrong (but since I believe both speak of the Trinity it is not a difference I am interested in debating).

For clarification- I do not believe Jesus (or the Disciples) were speaking about the words spoken during baptism.

I'm asking for clarification about the OP.

If Jesus said "baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit" and the Disciples understood this equates to baptizing in the "name of Jesus" (or at least recorded it this way in Scripture because it was the same) then there would be no issue.



I am asking if you believe Jesus' words as recorded in Scripture was an addition.

 

[1689Dave]

Yes, I know "in Jesus name" implies the Trinity. I disagree with the conclusion spelling it out is wrong (but since I believe both speak of the Trinity it is not a difference I am interested in debating).

For clarification- I do not believe Jesus (or the Disciples) were speaking about the words spoken during baptism.

I'm asking for clarification about the OP.

If Jesus said "baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit" and the Disciples understood this equates to baptizing in the "name of Jesus" (or at least recorded it this way in Scripture because it was the same) then there would be no issue.



I am asking if you believe Jesus' words as recorded in Scripture was an addition.

No, I think people are bound to their traditions passed on by the Catholics and would rather die in error than accept the truth.

 

[JonC]

No, I think people are bound to their traditions passed on by the Catholics and would rather die in error than accept the truth.

I agree with this.

But how do you know that those who baptize using "in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit" are baptizing differently than the apostles if in fact they said "in the name of Jesus" if that "formula" is the true meaning of the former?

 

[1689Dave]

I agree with this.

But how do you know that those who baptize using "in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit" are baptizing differently than the apostles if in fact they said "in the name of Jesus" if that "formula" is the true meaning of the former?

The Catholics and their minions Baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit not acknowledging what God's name is. It's like saying in the name of the moderator at Baptists forums without saying what your name is.

YHWH in the OT is Jesus Christ in the NT.