Water Baptism-What is in a Name?

[TheLearner]

It would be easier to have a discussion if your posts addressed one concept at a time. Thanks.

You made an outstanding point. Too often threads go down rabbit holes or die.

 

[TheLearner]

God was not obligated to make a way for man to come back into right standing with Him. God's grace is seen in His willingness to make a way. (Straight is the gate and narrow is the way and FEW there be that find it.) One's belief in something will be evidenced by a corresponding action. (James 2:14-26) Mankind's obligation is to BELIEVE and FOLLOW steps provided by God upon acceptance of Jesus as Messiah. Upon faith in Jesus as Messiah an individual takes a step of faith by repenting. Another step of faith is seen in their submitting to water baptism in Jesus' name. Another step of faith is seen in praying for/receiving the infilling of the Holy Ghost.

Consider what Paul meant when he stated that not all have obeyed the gospel. (Romans 10:16, 2 Thess. 1:8)

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." Romans 1;16:19

agree, see II Peter 1 and Eph 2:10

 

[TheLearner]

Romans 16:20 J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
19-20 Your loyalty to the principles of the Gospel is known everywhere, and that gives me great joy. I want to see you experts in good, and not even beginners in evil. It will not be long before the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

 

[Wansvic]

That is just your opinion, nothing more.

Paul says, the other books were written for us to learn from.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim 3:16-17

 

[TheLearner]

18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

21 Timotheus my workfellow, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you.

22 I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.

23 Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.

24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

 

[Wansvic]

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, Eph. 3:14-15

Have you taken on the name of Jesus Christ the bridegroom?
When a man and woman are united in marriage the new wife takes on her husband’s name. The preacher does not use descriptive titles associated with a fiancée in the marriage ceremony; i.e., “Mary Smith, do you take this officer, carpenter and son of Mr. and Mrs. Doe, as your lawfully wedded husband?” Rather he says “Do you take John Doe to be your lawfully wedded husband?” After the ceremony, the bride is Mrs. John Doe. The bride sheds her birth name and acquires a new name. The bride and groom are no longer two individuals but are one in the eyes of God..

 

[JaumeJ]

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, Eph. 3:14-15

Have you taken on the name of Jesus Christ the bridegroom?
When a man and woman are united in marriage the new wife takes on her husband’s name. The preacher does not use descriptive titles associated with a fiancée in the marriage ceremony; i.e., “Mary Smith, do you take this officer, carpenter and son of Mr. and Mrs. Doe, as your lawfully wedded husband?” Rather he says “Do you take John Doe to be your lawfully wedded husband?” After the ceremony, the bride is Mrs. John Doe. The bride sheds her birth name and acquires a new name. The bride and groom are no longer two individuals but are one in the eyes of God..

It would serve all well to learn how other nations, peoples that is, do not follow the order given above
It would also serve all to learn what the root origen is of names in general.
Jack from James, Jacob or John. Each of those contributing to the etymology of a simple name like Jack has a specific traqnslation to other languages and not simply the traqnsliteration.

I thing the best Example here would be dJesus Chrst orYeshua Mashiac. Yeshua Is My Redeemer Yah*weh( while Mashiach it Anointed of Yah(weh).

When wed to our Redeemer we becom His forever....He will give us each a new name, one which no one knows at present.

 

[Wansvic]

It would serve all well to learn how other nations, peoples that is, do not follow the order given above
It would also serve all to learn what the root origen is of names in general.
Jack from James, Jacob or John. Each of those contributing to the etymology of a simple name like Jack has a specific traqnslation to other languages and not simply the traqnsliteration.

I thing the best Example here would be dJesus Chrst orYeshua Mashiac. Yeshua Is My Redeemer Yah*weh( while Mashiach it Anointed of Yah(weh).

When wed to our Redeemer we becom His forever....He will give us each a new name, one which no one knows at present.

"O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them. " John 17:25-26

 

[Wansvic]

It would serve all well to learn how other nations, peoples that is, do not follow the order given above
It would also serve all to learn what the root origen is of names in general.
Jack from James, Jacob or John. Each of those contributing to the etymology of a simple name like Jack has a specific traqnslation to other languages and not simply the traqnsliteration.

I thing the best Example here would be dJesus Chrst orYeshua Mashiac. Yeshua Is My Redeemer Yah*weh( while Mashiach it Anointed of Yah(weh).

When wed to our Redeemer we becom His forever....He will give us each a new name, one which no one knows at present.

My point is people who obey Peter's command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus die to who they used to be. And, in fact have taken on the family name.

Rom 6:4-6
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.


2 Cor 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

 

[Wansvic]

It would serve all well to learn how other nations, peoples that is, do not follow the order given above
It would also serve all to learn what the root origen is of names in general.
Jack from James, Jacob or John. Each of those contributing to the etymology of a simple name like Jack has a specific traqnslation to other languages and not simply the traqnsliteration.

I thing the best Example here would be dJesus Chrst orYeshua Mashiac. Yeshua Is My Redeemer Yah*weh( while Mashiach it Anointed of Yah(weh).

When wed to our Redeemer we becom His forever....He will give us each a new name, one which no one knows at present.

Ephesians 3:15
The whole "family of God," means all his children; and the idea is, that they all bear the same name, derived from the Redeemer; all are Christians. No matter where they are, in heaven or in earth; no matter from what nation they are converted, whether Jews or Gentiles, they all have one name, and one Redeemer, and all belong to one family; see Eph 4:4-6.
(from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database Copyright © 1997, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

 

[timemeddler]

learned some history reading this.

 

[timemeddler]

been thinking and wondering what my take is on this matter, I wouldn't want to deliberately mess with how Jesus intended baptism to be carried out, on the other hand there's what he said on another matter, "Which is easier to say, your sins are forgiven or get up and walk?" though there's not as much in the bible that I've found on specifics for baptism most of it has to be inferred. I would expect it be be made clear at some point in the ceremony that Christ is what your being baptized with. I don't remember the specifics of mine, I suspect it probably was the default father, son, holy spirit type. It was a tiny Baptist church.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

though there's not as much in the bible that I've found on specifics for baptism most of it has to be inferred. I would expect it be be made clear at some point in the ceremony that Christ is what your being baptized with.

Precious friend, this may help get away from the inferences...:

In my own case there were:

1) Roman religion inferred to my parents that I "was born in sin" and if I died
I would "go to hell" unless the sacrament of religious 'saving' water prevented it.

2) church of Christ inferred Undispensational "saving water" [1/2 truth] for my
salvation.

3) baptist inferred "necessary" obedience as symbolism "to show the world"?
or 'local' congregation my "inward faith" by an outward showing.

...Moving away from these confusing 'inferences' we can see "What Saith The
Scriptures?" - borrowed [ points 4, 9 & 10 ] from "12 of Israel's baptisms":

In God's prophetic program, there is, for Israel

4. Levitical priesthood baptism (Exodus 29:4;
Leviticus 8:6; Numbers 8:7!). This washing was The Second
Requirement {The First being: "NO blemish!" (Leviticus 21:21!)},
in order to become a priest under the Law of Moses!
+
9. "water" baptism of repentance that John preached (Before The Cross),
And Peter continued (After The Cross!), to preach!
(Matthew 3:5-6; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; John 1:31; Luke 7:29-30;
Acts 10:37; Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16;
Ezekiel 36:25).

a) Does this baptism “save” anyone (Luke 7:29-30?)?
-------------------------------------------------
b1) Is this baptism in any way "connected" to baptism # 4?

b2) Wasn't John preparing National Israel for God's Promise For
them “to be a nation of priests unto God" (Exodus 19:6!)?

b3) Was not The Second Requirement for priesthood induction,
Washing? { may require re-review of baptism #4! }.

b4) Did not CHRIST And The Twelve “heal” everyone in Israel who came to
them, in order to meet “The FIRST Requirement” For the priesthood, that
Of "NO blemish!”? (Matthew 4:24; Acts 5:16 cp Leviticus 21:21!).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
c) Is this baptism “for today”? IF this baptism is FOR US Today, we have
Several More Questions:

c1) Why does NO ONE Today, “teach,” as “John ( Under The LAW! ),
Claimed: it is FOR “making CHRIST Manifest To Israel” (John 1:31!)?

c2) Why does {Almost} NO ONE Today, “Confess their sins,”
when they come to This baptism (Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:5!)?

c3) Why do not ALL Divided “denominations who WATER baptize” today,
agree AS ONE, And “teach” water as John, CHRIST, And The
Twelve ( Under The LAW! ), “taught” That “water baptism Is FOR The
Remission Of sins!” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38!).

{ instead of each one’s own inferred “symbolic Re-Interpreted Traditions!” }?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Baptism Of Anointing?:

10. Pentecostal Spirit baptism

This is the baptism "WITH" The Holy Spirit, BY JESUS CHRIST,
From Heaven, Poured Out Upon the believing remnant of Israel with
signs and powers following. (Isaiah 44:3; Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8, 16:17-18;
Luke 24:49; Acts 2:17-18, 38; Acts 8:15-17; Acts 11:16).

And, is not THIS The THIRD Requirement For "priesthood induction" =
Anointing? (compare Exodus 29:7; Leviticus 8:10-12).

Is God Performing "This" Baptism On us TODAY?
---------------------------------

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ!” (online):

In God's Other Mystery / Grace Program For The Body Of Christ, today:

Briefly:

God Only Has ONE Baptism = "BY" The ONE Spirit = God's OPERATION,
Spiritually Identifying members In (The ONE Body Of) CHRIST!!
(Ephesians 4:5; Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27;
Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13) Thus, No water Today!

FULL study is here: ONE Baptism!
---------------------
Precious friend, Hope and pray this helps even if only to start to "Clear Up
Confusion" in this highly controversial and Severely Dividing teaching.

"God Is Not the author of confusion..." (1Co 14:33)​

​

These also may be of assistance: Bible study Rules!

Precious friend:
Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified In The
Lord Jesus Christ and In His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided!

Amen.

 

[Wansvic]

been thinking and wondering what my take is on this matter, I wouldn't want to deliberately mess with how Jesus intended baptism to be carried out, on the other hand there's what he said on another matter, "Which is easier to say, your sins are forgiven or get up and walk?" though there's not as much in the bible that I've found on specifics for baptism most of it has to be inferred. I would expect it be be made clear at some point in the ceremony that Christ is what your being baptized with. I don't remember the specifics of mine, I suspect it probably was the default father, son, holy spirit type. It was a tiny Baptist church.

Jesus comment revealed He had both power and authority. (Mark 2:5-11)

Jesus said all authority has been given unto me go and baptize in the NAME...(Matt. 28:19) The apostles understood He was saying use my name as I have the authority to forgive sin. "Repent, and be baptized EVERYONE of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR remission of sin..." (Acts 2:38)

Ananias specifically told Paul that his sins would be washed away in obedience to baptism in the name of Jesus. (Acts 22:16)

There must have been much confusion concerning the purpose of baptism in Paul's day as well. Notice Paul's question to those in Rome. "Know ye not, (don't you know) that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

Paul then stresses, "...IF we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Rom. 6:3-6.

 

[ResidentAlien]

"And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' So they said to him, 'We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said to them, 'Into what then were you baptized?' So they said, 'Into John’s baptism.' " Acts 19:1-3

This passage strongly suggests that Paul understood that if they had been baptized into Christ they would've heard about the Holy Sprit when they were baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's why he asked into what they had been baptized when they said they had never heard of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Wansvic]

"And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' So they said to him, 'We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said to them, 'Into what then were you baptized?' So they said, 'Into John’s baptism.' " Acts 19:1-3

This passage strongly suggests that Paul understood that if they had been baptized into Christ they would've heard about the Holy Sprit when they were baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's why he asked into what they had been baptized when they said they had never heard of the Holy Spirit.

John's baptism was later modified to include the name of Jesus in association with His death, burial and resurrection. If baptism is supposed to be in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as you suggest, why did Paul baptize the group in the name of the Lord Jesus?

"He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost SINCE ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." Acts 19:1-6

 

[timemeddler]

I see two possible issues for why the two were rebaptised, their lack of knowledge and what they were baptised into. Understand I'm a worry some guy about matters of salvation.

 

[Wansvic]

"And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' So they said to him, 'We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said to them, 'Into what then were you baptized?' So they said, 'Into John’s baptism.' " Acts 19:1-3

This passage strongly suggests that Paul understood that if they had been baptized into Christ they would've heard about the Holy Sprit when they were baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's why he asked into what they had been baptized when they said they had never heard of the Holy Spirit.

I find it interesting that you would use that scripture to prove you do not need to be baptized in Jesus' name where it clearly states they were baptized in Jesus' name.

 

[Wansvic]

I see two possible issues for why the two were rebaptised, their lack of knowledge and what they were baptised into. Understand I'm a worry some guy about matters of salvation.

John introduced the baptism of repentance for remission of sin. Belief in the soon coming Messiah prompted adherence to the command. Initially John, as well as those he baptized, had no idea who the messiah was and what He would do in order to make salvation available. However, those who are baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin do so in association with His death, burial and resurrection.

Another thing confirmed in the account is the Holy Ghost is not automatically received when a person believes in Jesus. The sequence can differ. Note Paul asked the question, "Have you received the Holy Ghost SINCE you believed?" And the group did not receive the Holy Ghost until after they believed in Jesus and were water baptized in His name:

"...Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

 

[TheLearner]

"And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' So they said to him, 'We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said to them, 'Into what then were you baptized?' So they said, 'Into John’s baptism.' " Acts 19:1-3

This passage strongly suggests that Paul understood that if they had been baptized into Christ they would've heard about the Holy Sprit when they were baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's why he asked into what they had been baptized when they said they had never heard of the Holy Spirit.

Was it John's Baptism?