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

Bill
Bill

May 1st, 2016, 4:11 pm #21

Good. Then there should be no qualms with baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Jesus commands. However, those who strongly push for baptism in the name of Jesus only seem to believe that is the correct way to go. Moreover, perhaps there are some anti-Trinitarians who even go so far as to believe that baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit equates with baptism in the name of the Trinity and therefore is "wrong"; hence, they strongly push for baptism in the name of Jesus only.

Since the New Testament authorizes both, then baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is just as valid (if not more "complete") as baptism in the name of Jesus only.
Quote
Share

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

May 1st, 2016, 6:22 pm #22

There is NO formula which was ever pronounced by anyone.

Bible 101 knows that God knows that people OF THE WORLD will never understand the Word. Therefore, the PATTERN

Is to make a statement.
Followed with a parallel statement meaning:
What I MEAN is then defined.

Jesus COMMANDED that people be baptized in HIS name as the "only name".

Peter was there and HE clearly understood that Jesus commanded in HIS name since He has ALL of the authority vested in the always-pagan trinities or families of godS.

Jesus said baptize in the NAME SINGULAR
PETER proves "What He meant" that baptism was in HIS name since Baptism is the place where disciples CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the NAME of the Lord.

He did no say in the NAME of the father, son and spirit which would be the PAGAN-TRINITARIAN denial that ALL authority in heaven and earth is given to the MAN Jesus of Nazareth.

Col. 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed,
do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,
giving thanks to God and the Father BY him.

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 REQUEST a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

1Pet. 3:21ESV Baptism, which corresponds to this, unow saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but vas an appeal to God for a good conscience, wthrough the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

1Pet. 3:21wey And, corresponding to that figure, the water of baptism now saves you—not the washing off of material defilement, but the craving of a good conscience after God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

May 1st, 2016, 6:39 pm #23

The "formula" Jesus provides is baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as He commanded in Matt. 28:19.

The "formula" in Acts is baptism in the name of Jesus only.

So, there are two "formulas," both authorized in the New Testament. Take your pick. I prefer the former, since it seems more "complete." Anti-Trinitarians prefer the latter, since it avoids grouping the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together.
Quote
Share

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

May 1st, 2016, 8:01 pm #24

I don't know how I could have missed that verse.

Jesus said "baptize them as you pronounce 'I now baptize you in the nameS of the Name Father and the Name Son and the NAME the Holy Spirit'."

I wonder if the eunuch's baptism TOOK?

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Paul must have usurped the authority of the "preacher"?

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the NAME of the Lord.
Quote
Like
Share

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

May 1st, 2016, 9:31 pm #25

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]It is obvious that there are those who reject the content of the subject matter: "God the Father ... Gave Jesus Christ All Authority/Power". Why? Because to accept that text, which is derived from Scripture, would mean that Jesus is NOT God the Father.

In Bill's first post (April 27 2016, 3:35 PM), he commented:

[/color]
I've not heard of anyone who objected to being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, unless perhaps they thought that by doing so, they would be embracing the Trinity. Of course, Jesus did tell us to be baptized in those three "names."
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Of course, we do not reject Matt. 28.

But Bill says: "three 'names'" but can't even give us the name of "the Holy Spirit."

Whether it is Matt. 28 or the passages in Acts, it is a singular name.

Some folks still question and underestimate (if not reject) the "completeness" of "the name of Jesus Christ" when the scriptures reveal that God the Father (Jesus Christ's own Father and God) gave Jesus all authority or power and his name above every name. [/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Curly
Curly

May 1st, 2016, 10:33 pm #26

Shame on Donnie😢
Quote
Share

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

May 1st, 2016, 11:48 pm #27

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]What are you saying, Curly? I don't think that "Shame on Donnie" is an argument. So, please explain yourself. Thanks.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

May 2nd, 2016, 12:29 am #28

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]It is obvious that there are those who reject the content of the subject matter: "God the Father ... Gave Jesus Christ All Authority/Power". Why? Because to accept that text, which is derived from Scripture, would mean that Jesus is NOT God the Father.

In Bill's first post (April 27 2016, 3:35 PM), he commented:

[/color]
I've not heard of anyone who objected to being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, unless perhaps they thought that by doing so, they would be embracing the Trinity. Of course, Jesus did tell us to be baptized in those three "names."
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Of course, we do not reject Matt. 28.

But Bill says: "three 'names'" but can't even give us the name of "the Holy Spirit."

Whether it is Matt. 28 or the passages in Acts, it is a singular name.

Some folks still question and underestimate (if not reject) the "completeness" of "the name of Jesus Christ" when the scriptures reveal that God the Father (Jesus Christ's own Father and God) gave Jesus all authority or power and his name above every name. [/color]
I've said this before, but it must have gone over Donnie's head: Since the Holy Spirit has no name as such and is a designation, then "in the name of" from Matt. 28:19 actually means "by the authority of" (which Donnie rejects because it doesn't jive with his personal theology). As I said before, the same analogy is found in the well-known phrase the cops use -- "Stop in the name of the law," which means "Stop by the authority of the law." Like the Holy Spirit, "the law" has no name as such, so there, as with Matt. 28:19, "in the name of" means "by the authority of." Being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit means being baptized by the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

But as I've also said before, Donnie, being an anti-Trinitarian, prefers baptism in the name of Jesus only, so he won't have to hear "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" grouped together, because as far as he's concerned, that grouping was, is, and always will be the "Trinity," which he rejects. That's why he's been strongly pushing baptism in the name of Jesus only.
Quote
Share

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

May 2nd, 2016, 3:24 am #29

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]I asked about the name of "the holy spirit of God." I agree: God's holy spirit does not have a name because it is not a person -- it is the holy spirit OF God.

The expression "in the name of Jesus Christ" is in scripture -- it is sufficient. No need to distort the truth that the name of Jesus is above every name.

Bill, the "authority" or "power" is not the issue in Matt. 28. It becomes an issue when Bill does not accept the truth that it was God the Father who gave Jesus His Son "all authority" or "all power."

Please read Matt. 28:18 very, very, very carefully and with an open mind. It says: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." God the Father is the giver of that "all power"; Jesus is the receiver of that "all power."

The reference to the NAME (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is an embodiment of the NAME (singular) of Jesus Christ. There shouldn't be an argument there.

There is an argument when you use the passage to prove the validity of the pagan-influenced, Catholic-invented Trinity dogma.

True: there are entities involved. But note the difference between the Trinity creed and the Scripture.

The Trinity Creed states:
1. God the Father as Person No. 1 [the only one scriptural]
2. God the Son as Person No. 2 [no reference is found in Scripture]
3. God the Holy Spirit as Person No. 3 [no reference is found in Scripture]

----------------versus-----------------------

The Scripture states:
1. God the Father as the only true God [many scripture references]
2. Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son OF God [scores of scriptures]
3. The holy spirit OF God [NOTE: preposition "OF"] which we are to "grieve not"


So, Bill, why do you underestimate the authority and power that is in "the name of Jesus Christ" which God bestowed upon Jesus? Remember Matt. 28:18 (preceding verse) -- "All authority [or power] is given to me [Jesus]."[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Sarge
Sarge

May 2nd, 2016, 2:22 pm #30



Red letters are reserved for Jesus...and of coarse, the hijackers donnie and ken.
Quote
Share