• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@1689Dave 's position is a bit naive.

The Didache (written 65-80 AD) is not Scripture and does not have the authority of Scripture BUT it does show that baptism was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

"But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water," (Didache 7:1).

Not only that but in Matthew this is how Jesus tells the Disciples to baptize. That said, both "formulas" are the same.

The argument that we are only to baptize "in the name of Jesus" is usually associated with Oneness Pentecostalism (which is a rejection of orthodox doctrine in regards to the Trinity). But there are also Reformed people who prefer to baptize in that manner. I was just not aware of Reformed Baptists that took that position (as it pretty much refutes the Baptist understanding of baptism...i.e., the vital aspect is the one being baptized and his/ her held faith rather than the person doing the dunking).

It seems @1689Dave holds a unique amalgamation of beliefs in regard to theology. As such we need to be careful not to prescribe for him a view that he does not hold (a courtesy he does not extend to others, ironically).
 

tyndale1946

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

First of all Dave I disagree... If you Baptize in the name of Jesus only, you have robbed the Godhood... I baptize thee in the name of the Father... I know you believe God the Father gave all those elect to save to the Eternal Son... Right?... I baptize thee in the name of the Son... The Eternal Son had a name... Jesus... He had a name before Mary was told what his name was... Proverbs 30:4... His designation is Christ or the (Messiah), meaning “the anointed one"... Then last of all is the person of the Holy Ghost... the regenerator of the unregenerate... The quickener of the dead... The one who convicts us of sin against an offended Holy God... The three and one Godhead, elected us, gave us and saved us and without all three SALVATION IS IMPOSSIBLE!... Therefore I baptize thee... In the name of the FATHER... And of the SON... And of the HOLY GHOST!... TO GOD BE ALL THE GLORY!... Brother Glen:)

Btw... For clarification sake, in my Old Line Baptist Church I never heard Holy Spirit used in Baptism, only Holy Ghost!... Oh and speaking of the Holy Spirit, to those in the know... I GOT THE BOOK!:Biggrin
 
Last edited:

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But how did the Apostles interpret this? They baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. = you do not understand scripture in this matter.

List of faulty arguments used by Calvinists:
#5. YOU ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE;
 

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
@1689Dave 's position is a bit naive.

The Didache (written 65-80 AD) is not Scripture and does not have the authority of Scripture BUT it does show that baptism was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

"But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water," (Didache 7:1).

Not only that but in Matthew this is how Jesus tells the Disciples to baptize. That said, both "formulas" are the same.

The argument that we are only to baptize "in the name of Jesus" is usually associated with Oneness Pentecostalism (which is a rejection of orthodox doctrine in regards to the Trinity). But there are also Reformed people who prefer to baptize in that manner. I was just not aware of Reformed Baptists that took that position (as it pretty much refutes the Baptist understanding of baptism...i.e., the vital aspect is the one being baptized and his/ her held faith rather than the person doing the dunking).

It seems @1689Dave holds a unique amalgamation of beliefs in regard to theology. As such we need to be careful not to prescribe for him a view that he does not hold (a courtesy he does not extend to others, ironically).
Many creeds come from older creeds. The LBC 1689 does too.
 

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
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.
Do you love the truth? Then learn how to Baptise believers.
 

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
So the entire church, save for Oneness heretics, have been wrong on this since day 1?
No, they were right until the Catholics changed it.

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."
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

The Catholic Church did not exist in the scond century. I qurmestion why you accept the Roman Catholic Church as an authority here.

Baptists refer to Scripture. They use the words "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" or "in the name of Jesus Christ" because of Scripture.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”.
Maybe he thinks that you only do that when you baptizing to make disciples ???


The Catholic Church did not exist in the second century. I question why you accept the Roman Catholic Church as an authority here.
Maybe he thinks Peter was the first RCC pope???
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Maybe he thinks that you only do that when you baptizing to make disciples ???



Maybe he thinks Peter was the first RCC pope???
If @1689Dave accepts the Catholic Encyclopedia as an authority (as he does here) then yes, he has to accept Peter as the first Pope. Otherwise he is his own authority.

His view of baptizing in the name of Christ mistakes what "name" means in Scripture. The Jews used "name" in a more significant way than we do today. Baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the same as baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ. It is not the words uttered but the baptism into Christ, into His death, burial, and ultimately resurrection.
 

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
If @1689Dave accepts the Catholic Encyclopedia as an authority (as he does here) then yes, he has to accept Peter as the first Pope. Otherwise he is his own authority.

His view of baptizing in the name of Christ mistakes what "name" means in Scripture. The Jews used "name" in a more significant way than we do today. Baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the same as baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ. It is not the words uttered but the baptism into Christ, into His death, burial, and ultimately resurrection.
You accept their method of baptism denying the name of Jesus Christ. Study history, they pan out in admitting they changed the apostle's manner of baptism..................... which further proves Antichrist remains seated in the temple of God........doctrinally.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
You accept their method of baptism denying the name of Jesus Christ. Study history, they pan out in admitting they changed the apostle's manner of baptism..................... which further proves Antichrist remains seated in the temple of God........doctrinally.
No. You are confused.

I accept Christ's command to baptize in "the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". That includes Jesus Christ and the method is found in "the Great Commission" (in Matthew).

Do you believe that Jesus lied to the Disciples or that the Disciples willingly disobeyed Jesus?
 

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
No. You are confused.

I accept Christ's command to baptize in "the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". That includes Jesus Christ and the method is found in "the Great Commission" (in Matthew).

Do you believe that Jesus lied to the Disciples or that the Disciples willingly disobeyed Jesus?
The disciples had the Holy Spirit and understood him. You follow the Catholics and reject his name.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Any creed that does not contradict the Ecumenical Creeds.
I'm not Catholic, so I do not care about Ecumenical Creeds or counsels except that they are useful as definitions at times.

What creed are you speaking of that are older than 65 AD????

I think that you need to study, brother, before making accusations and claims on a public forum.
 

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
I'm not Catholic, so I do not care about Ecumenical Creeds or counsels except that they are useful as definitions at times.

What creed are you speaking of that are older than 65 AD????

I think that you need to study, brother, before making accusations and claims on a public forum.
I'm not speaking of any creed except the one produced by the Catholics that you believe over God's word, resulting in your denial of Christ's name once used in baptism.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The disciples had the Holy Spirit and understood him. You follow the Catholics and reject his name.
So you believe that the Holy Spirit denounced Jesus Christ's words?

Are you now saying the name of the Triune God is The Holy Spirit?????
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I'm not speaking of any creed except the one produced by the Catholics
I absolutely agree. That is why I believe you are not Baptist.
resulting in your denial of Christ's name once used in baptism.
This is a false accusation (a lie). I just told you that I practice baptism as commanded in Matthew 28 by Jesus Christ and baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. I would typically use the words "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" because that is what it says in Matthew 28. The words include the Son.

If you were not aware, the Son is Jesus Christ.

But again, you are confused about the nature of "name" in Scripture and really need to study. You are deficient in theology and application.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top