Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ?

[Darrell C]

Not sure why that needs to be explained.

I am not sure either. I have showed, over and over and over again but for some odd reason it doesn't seem to get through the skull into the brain. I used to think I was a pretty good teacher but after the last couple threads I am beginning to wonder. Maybe I am just getting too old.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Incorrect. There is no magic formula. There is only AUTHORITY.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

We baptize men in identification with the Lord.

Yes. We all know that. It is not the issue. The issue is that we, the church, have received our authority to baptize via the Great Commission.

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.

Yes, we all know that.

 

[TCassidy]

The Apostles ministered in the Name of Jesus.

Yes. With His authority. There are no magic words that make baptism valid. Just His Divine Authority.

 

[TCassidy]

More mythology, though no-one but you is preaching this, so we cannot catalog this particular error as popular pulpit theology.

So you either don't believe Jesus ascended or you don't believe He appeared to Abraham.

Okay by me. You are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. I really don't care.

 

[TCassidy]

How exactly did you arrive at this conclusion?

By two bible facts. He ascended in the first 1/3 of the 1st century AD and He appeared to Abraham around 2075 BC or so. Believe the bible or not. I don't care.

 

[TCassidy]

I mean God manifest as a man being called Jehoshua.

Sure. God manifest in the flesh in the One who grew into manhood whose Name was, in Hebrew Jehushua, in Greek Iēsous, and in English Jesus.

To quote Revmitchell, "I don't really know why this has to be explained to you."

 

[TCassidy]

Contradict yourself much?

Not at all. All three Persons of the Godhead are Eternal.

 

[1689Dave]

Just one more, lol.

This statement seems to indicate a belief that when God took on the flesh of man that He did so in entirety (which creates the concept of the Throne of God being vacant during the Incarnation).

Is that what you are saying? If so, or, if not, could you explain what you mean by this statement in a little more detail, and I will take a look when I return.


God bless.

As far as Jesus the man, he is body, soul, and spirit just as we are. But, his spirit is the triune omnipresent God. He never stopped being omnipresent. But he sometimes spoke as a man, with man's limitations and frustrations. And sometimes he spoke as God without our limitations. Jesus wept. But he also created the universe.

 

[1689Dave]

As I said in my initial post, when we are water baptized it is in identification with the Lord, and as a Trinitarian, I do not separate God into three Gods, but view Him as eternally One God. And since it is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost by which men are immersed into God, and through which they receive eternal life (because they are now in He Who is Eternal and He in them), I don't view water baptism above that which is presented in Scripture. It is a public profession of identification with Christ (which is usually made clear when people are baptized in water) which like the repentance of John's baptism professes that salvation (like the repentance) has already taken place.

So I see both as acceptable. I would also add that we have the revelation of the New Testament as a completed Canon, where they did not. We have the luxury of sitting around and taking our time to study the Word of God whereas they did not.

The Catholic Church did not, in my view, create an error with baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, just as they are not in error to teach something else in Scripture no-one ever mentioned specifically by name: the Trinity.

So in my view I think we should address the errors of the Catholic Church (which are many,unfortunately), but keep in mind that it is God, The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that saves men, and that they do not do that independently of Each Other. It is quite reasonable, in my view, to see both ways practiced, because both ways are specifically stated.

I am glad there isn't another, or more ways mentioned, lol, because two groups at each other is quite enough.

And that is about all the time I have for today, so for you I would invite you to get involved in some other discussions as well, perhaps starting some other threads. Always glad to see a new face, lol, and always hopeful for good discussion about the Word of God.

Here's a question to stir up discussion: how would you define the Baptism with the Holy Ghost?

Hope you and everyone here has a blessed day in the Lord.


God bless.

Thanks for the reply. I think church history (of course it is up for grabs) says they baptized in Jesus' name until the second century. And then the church at Rome changed it to what is common today. It's worth searching out.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit happened at Pentecost and is now part of the New Birth. If you are born-again you are also baptized in the Holy Spirit. But you need refilling from time to time and this happens through repentance from known sin and by resisting the impulses of the flesh (mind/soul) and walking in the Spirit (heart).

In the OT the Spirit was with born again believers. But since Pentecost he is IN believers. I hope this helps, it took awhile for me to understand it with all of the confusion introduced by the Pentecostals.

 

[1689Dave]

Jesus told the disciples; “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19) (NET)

“Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) (NET)

Almost every account of baptism in Acts shows the disciples baptizing believers in the name of Jesus Christ, and never baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as preferred today.

How do you resolve this with Matthew 28:19?

I understand the Acts formula as being consistent with the trinity. But believe the sects who baptize this way, yet deny the trinity are in error.

All in all, if baptism represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, why not baptize in his name as Peter did? And the early church continued to do until the Catholics changed it in the 2nd century, into today's preferred model?

 

[Darrell C]

So you either don't believe Jesus ascended or you don't believe He appeared to Abraham.

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.

Okay by me. You are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. I really don't care.

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.

By two bible facts. He ascended in the first 1/3 of the 1st century AD and He appeared to Abraham around 2075 BC or so. Believe the bible or not. I don't care.

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.

Would you care to show me where we find Jehoshua the Son of God in the Old Testament?

And I don't mean prophetic references, I mean God manifest as a man being called Jehoshua.

Sure. God manifest in the flesh in the One who grew into manhood whose Name was, in Hebrew Jehushua, in Greek Iēsous, and in English Jesus.

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.

To quote Revmitchell, "I don't really know why this has to be explained to you."

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.

 

[Darrell C]

When God manifested in physical form unto Abraham in Genesis 18...it was not the form created in Mary's womb that the Eternal Son of God took up residence in.

Of course it was. Jesus went from earth into Eternity at the Ascension then from Eternity to earth in the days of Abraham. Just how many physical bodies do you think Jesus had?

Not at all. All three Persons of the Godhead are Eternal.

Contradict yourself much?

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.

Yes. With His authority. There are no magic words that make baptism valid. Just His Divine Authority.

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.

Okay by me. You are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. I really don't care.

Sadly it shows.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I believe all who are baptised as believers by immersion are baptized. But there is Power in the Name of Jesus Christ that is missing in most cases.

Satan hates that name and has talked many out of using it.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

We baptize men in identification with the Lord.

Yes, we all know that.

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.

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.

. With His authority. There are no magic words that make baptism valid. Just His Divine Authority.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

All in all, if baptism represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, why not baptize in his name as Peter did? And the early church continued to do until the Catholics changed it in the 2nd century, into today's preferred model?

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.

 

[TCassidy]

Not everybody knows that, TCassidy.

Nobody in this thread has denied it.

 

[TCassidy]

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

Well DUH! Of course His physical body had a beginning IN TIME. But there is no "beginning" in Eternity. What is it about the timelessness of Eternity that completely escapes you?

With a curious twist. Can you present one Theologian that also believes this?

All of them who are orthodox and have an IQ greater than their hat size.

 

[1689Dave]

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.

If we can read where Peter interpreted Jesus' command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as baptizing in the personal name of the triune God - Jesus, and then reject that saying we have better light that he, we can reject all of scripture. Which BTW many do.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 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."

 

[1689Dave]

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.

Can we assume our method of baptism is superior to Peter's?