Don't get BURNED in the Morning: Come Praise God!

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

April 28th, 2016, 5:49 am #11


Baptism in the Name of Jesus Only

Before concluding, we need to address the Oneness Pentecostal idea that only certain words may be spoken during a baptismal ceremony (e.g., “I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ”). Oneness clergymen contend that should the statement be made, “I baptize you into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” it would be a violation of Scripture, and thus negate the validity of the immersion. This exhibits a lack of biblical information on this theme.

First, let us note the illogical consequences of such a doctrine. If a specific set of words is to be pronounced at the time of a baptism, exactly what are those words? A brief look at the New Testament will reveal that a variety of expressions are employed when the terms “baptize” and “name” are connected. Observe the following:

“... baptizing them into (eis) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
“... be baptized ... in (epi) the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38).
“... baptized into (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16).
“... baptized in (en) the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48).
“... baptized into (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).

These passages contain five variant phraseologies. Which one is to be pronounced at the time of the baptism, to the exclusion of the others? The truth of the matter is none of them has reference to any set of words to be pronounced at the time of baptism.

Second, the language is designed to express certain truths, not prescribe a ritualistic set of words. If the phrase “in the name of Christ” implies the saying of those words in connection with the act to which they are enjoined, what would Colossians 3:17 require?—“And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Accordingly, one would have to preface every word and act with the phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Such highlights the absurdity of the Oneness position.

Wayne Jackson
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Thanks, Sarge, for quoting from Wayne Jackson's brief article.

The only variances I've noted are:

(1) Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit
------------------ and ---------------------
(2) Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ

... and that in Matt. 28, it was Jesus' commission to his disciples while he was living on earth with them...
... but that in Acts and thereafter, it was a directive when and after the church was established.

The holy Spirit of God (a.k.a. God's holy Spirit) is not a person, definitely not a separate person from the only true God the Father ... definitely not a separate person from God's Son Jesus Christ. Surprise, surprise!!! Nobody has provided an answer yet to the question: What is the name of God's holy spirit?

Keep in mind that a spirit is never a person. Man's spirit is not a separate person from man. God's Spirit, holy as it is, is not a person separate from God. God's spirit is spoken of as God's power or God's breath or God's mind.

Although the pronouncement of EITHER NAME in baptism is scriptural, the list of three (3) entities mentioned as ONE name in Matt. 28 does not prove the validity of Trinitarian-ISM.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

April 28th, 2016, 6:21 am #12

Donnie, just out on a whim?
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Curly, I do research a lot when time permits.

We're known to quote Eusebius and other "church fathers" when we try to prove that the early Christians met on the first day weekly to observe the Lord's Supper; etc. So, why not as to why Matt. 28 (and not another passage) mentions a list of 3 entities that Trinity advocates use to defend the God-in-Three-Persons dogma?

There's much more to say about Matt. 28:19 and the writings of Eusebius, who was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Christ being God, etc., when the Trinitarian influence was spreading. (By the way, the Trinity doctrine was unheard of and unknown to God's followers in the O.T. era.)

In a number of his writings, he mentions "in my name" rather than "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." As an example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

At this point, I'm open-minded as to what the earliest manuscripts actually read vs. what our modern Bibles say in regard to "the [one] name."
[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Sarge (Sorry It's a Position and A Name)
Sarge (Sorry It's a Position and A Name)

April 28th, 2016, 1:43 pm #13

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Thanks, Sarge, for quoting from Wayne Jackson's brief article.

The only variances I've noted are:

(1) Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit
------------------ and ---------------------
(2) Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ

... and that in Matt. 28, it was Jesus' commission to his disciples while he was living on earth with them...
... but that in Acts and thereafter, it was a directive when and after the church was established.

The holy Spirit of God (a.k.a. God's holy Spirit) is not a person, definitely not a separate person from the only true God the Father ... definitely not a separate person from God's Son Jesus Christ. Surprise, surprise!!! Nobody has provided an answer yet to the question: What is the name of God's holy spirit?

Keep in mind that a spirit is never a person. Man's spirit is not a separate person from man. God's Spirit, holy as it is, is not a person separate from God. God's spirit is spoken of as God's power or God's breath or God's mind.

Although the pronouncement of EITHER NAME in baptism is scriptural, the list of three (3) entities mentioned as ONE name in Matt. 28 does not prove the validity of Trinitarian-ISM.[/color]
When you question and tear down the KJV Bible it's time for me to go. That's just the way I was raised.

Goodbye!



Quote
Share

Bill
Bill

April 28th, 2016, 2:08 pm #14

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Better yet: leave the "Trinity" concept out of this. That passage does not prove the validity of the Trinity dogma -- the man-invented God-in-Three-Persons dogma. A mere mention of three entities, with one entity which is not a "person," does not validate TrinitarianISM.

Besides, the passage speaks of a singular name, not a multiplicity of names. "IN THE NAME OF" (singular) is a key factor in understanding the passage. I agree: it is by "the authority of." However, it is clearly stated in the preceding verse when Jesus said: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." That power was given to Jesus by God the Father.

So, there's no argument against those passages in Acts that clearly state "in the name of Jesus Christ." Remember the authority bestowed upon Jesus the Son by Whom? Of course, by the only true God the Father!!![/color]
Perhaps there are some folks who've become so brainwashed against the "Trinity" that they oppose baptism "in the name of [i.e., by the authority of] the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," though Jesus commanded it in Matt. 28:19. Seeing those three designations, all that comes to their minds is, "Trinity! Trinity! That abominable ole pagan Trinity! Jesus was wrong to tell us to be baptized in the name of what amounts to be the Trinity! No way! The baptism-in-the-name-of-Jesus-only route is the correct way to go!"

We should not allow narrow-minded prejudice and hate to prevent us from following Jesus' command to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

April 28th, 2016, 2:28 pm #15

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Thanks, Sarge, for quoting from Wayne Jackson's brief article.

The only variances I've noted are:

(1) Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit
------------------ and ---------------------
(2) Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ

... and that in Matt. 28, it was Jesus' commission to his disciples while he was living on earth with them...
... but that in Acts and thereafter, it was a directive when and after the church was established.

The holy Spirit of God (a.k.a. God's holy Spirit) is not a person, definitely not a separate person from the only true God the Father ... definitely not a separate person from God's Son Jesus Christ. Surprise, surprise!!! Nobody has provided an answer yet to the question: What is the name of God's holy spirit?

Keep in mind that a spirit is never a person. Man's spirit is not a separate person from man. God's Spirit, holy as it is, is not a person separate from God. God's spirit is spoken of as God's power or God's breath or God's mind.

Although the pronouncement of EITHER NAME in baptism is scriptural, the list of three (3) entities mentioned as ONE name in Matt. 28 does not prove the validity of Trinitarian-ISM.[/color]
That seems clear but the latter day trinitarians treat Matthew 28 as one of the FORMULATIONS which THEY must speak. Let me repeat your "formula"

Matthew 28 is what Jesus COMMANDED those with a GO button to do after He returned as HOLY SPIRIT and poured out what you see and hear. Jesus used NAME singular.

Peter was a DISCIPLE like 5 year olds because he attended synagogue where the pattern was to PREACH the Word--especially the prophets--by READING the Word. ALL ages can understand that so you don't need a "youther" to replace the "elders" commanded to teach that which has been taught.

Peter understood the DIRECT COMMAND to be TAUGHT as IN THE NAME of Jesus Christ. NAME means NAME SINGULAR. The command is to CALL UPON THE NAME of Jesus and REQUEST that HE give us A holy spirit or A good conscience, consciousness or a CO-PERCEPTION able to READ and HEAR.

1Pet. 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer [request FOR] of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1Pet. 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
1Pet. 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
1Pet. 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the WILL of God.


We worship IN THE SPIRIT in contrast to IN THE FLESH. The Kingdom does not COME with religious observations: the kingdom is within you. WE SPEAK that which is written for our learning BUT we ODE and PSALLO in the Spirit where YOU cannot see me WORSHIP nor can you LEAD me into worship. What YOU mean is that YOU dogmatically and with ELDERS AUTHORITY force ME to worship YOU or flee from Babylon.

Col. 3:16 Let the WORD of Christ [Spirit] dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
Col. 3:17 And WHATEVER ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.


The WORD OF CHRIST or SPIRIT or WILL OF THE LORD is spelled CENI.

SPEAKING which is opposite to ODE uses THE WORD OF CHRIST: that is SPEAKING in the NAME of Jesus Christ. Jesus commanded TEACHING that which HE commanded to be taught: Peter explains that as the PROPHETS by the Spirit OF Christ and the Prophecies made more certain by supernatural signs and left for OUR memory by the Eye-- and Ear-- witnesses. That record is NOT subject to private interpretation or FURTHER EXPOUNDING. Silly praise songs do not even PRETEND to further exp;ound that which is written.

What's the fuss: the trinitarians have no Purpose Drive to GO and INVITE the lost spirits who will never show up in your mega-million dollar Temple of Doom.



Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

April 29th, 2016, 7:13 am #16

Perhaps there are some folks who've become so brainwashed against the "Trinity" that they oppose baptism "in the name of [i.e., by the authority of] the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," though Jesus commanded it in Matt. 28:19. Seeing those three designations, all that comes to their minds is, "Trinity! Trinity! That abominable ole pagan Trinity! Jesus was wrong to tell us to be baptized in the name of what amounts to be the Trinity! No way! The baptism-in-the-name-of-Jesus-only route is the correct way to go!"

We should not allow narrow-minded prejudice and hate to prevent us from following Jesus' command to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill,

"By the authority of" is not the issue here. No one is disagreeing or denying that. But just make sure you fully understand that God the Father gave Jesus the "authority" (John 5:27); that it was also the Father that gave Jesus "all power" (Matt. 28:18).

Neither is "in the name of" (singular) the issue until someone suggests 3 names -- I think you've done just that.

Either name (one in Matt. 28; the other in Acts) is scriptural -- that is NOT the issue here.

The issue here is that the text in Matt. 28 is being used to defend and promote the Trinity dogma:

1) That the Father is God [the only one that the Scripture supports];
2) That Jesus the Son OF God is God [no scripture supports this belief] and
3) That the "Holy Spirit" OF God is God [no scripture supports this belief].

The brainwashing is not in being against the Trinity dogma which the Scripture does not support. Rather, the brainwashing is in believing the pagan Trinity made into a Christian doctrine. As I've said before, I've been brainwashed into accepting the man-made creed that the Father is God ... that Jesus is God ... that God's holy spirit is God ... and voila! Three Gods as one God for some "mysterious" reason!!!

Now I can say that I've been un-brainwashed.

Please don't tell me that you're accepting Matt. 28 and that you're rejecting the passages in Acts.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

April 29th, 2016, 7:50 am #17


When you question and tear down the KJV Bible it's time for me to go. That's just the way I was raised.

Goodbye!


[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Nothing to worry about, Sarge. I am not tearing down the KJV Bible. In fact, it has remained as my favorite version. (It's a bit noticeable, though, that you've been quoting from the NIV ... a lot. But that's OK.)

You should know by now that I do as much research as possible when time permits. I'd call it studying in depth when I find it worthwhile to try to learn what the early "church fathers" had to say about what the early Christians believed and practiced. Polycarp ... Eusebius ... Tertullian ... Origen ... et al?

We're here to study.

In the 1st century, it was Christ who established His church. The Roman Catholic Church has evolved from there. And when did that segment of the "Christian" Church officially become the "Catholic Church" or "The Roman Catholic Church"? 4th to 6th century?

In the Old Testament, there was not the Trinity concept (of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit). Actually, there was no Trinity concept in the New Testament church, either. So, we really ought to study the history of the Trinity, its invention, its evolution [just like the evolution of the R.C.C.], and how it's been widely accepted in Christendom. There's such a thing as fact-checking in politics and among politicians. This should be even more so (truth-checking) in what and how "Christians" have been taught.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

May 1st, 2016, 5:37 am #18

Theophilus to Autolycus who first used the word "trias"

http://www.piney.com/HsTheopTrinity.html

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Who gave Jesus Christ the authority/power?

It was God the Father (Matt. 28:18; Ephesians 1:17) who gave Jesus "all power." It is also in Scripture "... that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ<u>"</u> (Acts 2:36).

These and other passages clearly prove that God was the giver of "all power [or authority]" to Jesus. Clearly: Jesus did not make himself both Lord and Christ -- God the Father did that. Contrary to the confusing assertions that Jesus is [also] the Father and that Jesus is [also] God. Both of these assertions among others are not Scripture-based at all.

Another passage to consider is in Philippians 2:9 -- "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"

But there are those among us who underestimate or deride "the name of Jesus Christ" -- the name "above every name":

Acts.2[38] ... Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ...

Acts.8[16] ... only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts.10[48] ... he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Acts.19[5] ... they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

May 1st, 2016, 2:21 pm #19

There's certainly nothing wrong with being baptized in the name of Jesus only, since verses in Acts so authorize that. But being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as Jesus so commanded in Matt. 28:19, just seems far more...complete.

But there are those among us who underestimate or deride Jesus' mentioning "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in regard to baptism because, as prisoners of their own prejudices and biases, they see those designations as the "Trinity" which must be rejected.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

May 1st, 2016, 2:28 pm #20

We don't give or deny authority.
Quote
Like
Share