1689Dave
Well-Known Member
But only in the name of Jesus Christ?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
My Position as a Baptist Believer
- Thread starter 1689Dave
- Start date
- Status
Local is hard to do where I live.... so few authentic Christian churches these days... and it used to bother me, but this is the world I must accept. I focus on the remnant churches that teach the Word and the Holy Spirit does the rest. The knowing and the serving Christ is my joy and my solice.
Without socializing, why attend?
I thought the same thing. It feels like we are the audience for a TV production.
Thus the human element of pressing the flesh, looking into someone’s eyes, watching someone’s body language etc is eliminated. You can get content at arms length
nope, as they water baptized in all 3 Persons!
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Prove it. It's not there.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Acts 2:38, "And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Acts 10:48, "And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days."
Acts 19:5, "And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
So the entire church, save for Oneness heretics, have been wrong on this since day 1?
Does not mean just in the name of Jesus only!
37818
Well-Known Member
I personally agree. But that is an interpretation applying an understanding of Jesus' instructions as found in Matthew 28:19.
Only ones ever heard though of his stance are the Jesus Only cult!
Stance of the "Death Cult' the OP says he escaped from:
Churches that Abuse: Hobart Freeman's Faith Assembly
"Freeman believed that the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19 is improper, although he held to a traditional, orthodox view of the Trinity, members are baptized in the name of Jesus only."
1689Dave says he now subscribes to the 1689 Baptist Confession, but look at its edict:
ARBCA
Confession 29:3
"the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19, 20"
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
The fact is in the book of the Acts of the Apostles immersion in the name of Jesus Christ is what is simply to be read.
Last edited:
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
The Lord isn't going to condemn us over the specific words spoken in baptism, especially when Paul himself said his focus wasn't baptism (1Co.1:17). What a waste of a time of a thread. It's like debating how many angels can stand on the head of a needle.
2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
NEXT.
2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
NEXT.
yes, but does not mean only in His name!
The way Oneness view this though is heresy!
True. Such arguments seem to approach that the idea of baptism is an incantation (you have to say the right words).
I think that this is a good point. Sometimes people look at Scripture nullifying other passages (which is, IMHO, a wrong approach).
Baptizing in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit IS the exact same baptism because Scripture is not talking about the words we use with the idea of "name". Luke was not nullifying Jesus' instruction to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Nor was he adding to Jesus' words. He was saying the same thing differently. Paul does this often with "baptism" as well.
Your childish put downs have no basis in reality.
I gave your the words of the Lord Jesus Christ.
YOU obviously want to think the apostles “modified” the Lord’s words by interpretations.
Such displays not only ignorance of the Scriptures, but a technique often used by modernist liberal theologians looking for an excuse to reject the truth of the Christ’s teaching.
Now if we are finished trying to achieve some nebulous point gain by putting each other down, perhaps you will attend to why you think the apostles had either authority or desire to modify the teaching of the Christ.
Try to answer without writing something demeaning and belittling of those who post in response.
- Status