Water Baptism-What is in a Name?

[TheLearner]

Was it John's Baptism?

Yep, it was John's Baptism. I enjoy laughing too Brother, friend.

3 Paul asked them, “So what kind of baptism did you have?”

They said, “It was the baptism that John taught.”

4 Paul said, “John told people to be baptized to show they wanted to change their lives. He told people to believe in the one who would come after him, and that one is Jesus.”

5 When these followers heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 Then Paul laid his hands on them, and the Holy Spirit came on them. They began speaking different languages and prophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in this group.

 

[CS1]

Yep, it was John's Baptism. I enjoy laughing too Brother, friend.

3 Paul asked them, “So what kind of baptism did you have?”

They said, “It was the baptism that John taught.”

4 Paul said, “John told people to be baptized to show they wanted to change their lives. He told people to believe in the one who would come after him, and that one is Jesus.”

5 When these followers heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 Then Paul laid his hands on them, and the Holy Spirit came on them. They began speaking different languages and prophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in this group.

what was the baptism of Jesus? spoken in John 1:33?

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

Personaly i really believe you receive the holy spirit upon belief in the son, but then your baptised by the holy ghost after water baptism 😊

 

[ResidentAlien]

If baptism is supposed to be in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as you suggest,

I never suggested baptism is "supposed to be" in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; you assumed that. All I'm saying is there's nothing wrong with it. The important thing for a person to understand is they are being baptized into Christ. Legalistic rules about the words you say when baptizing are just silly in my opinion.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

I never suggested baptism is "supposed to be" in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; you assumed that. All I'm saying is there's nothing wrong with it. The important thing for a person to understand is they are being baptized into Christ. Legalistic rules about the words you say when baptizing are just silly in my opinion.

it doesn't matter, you've argued baptism should be in the name of the The father the son and the holy spirit.

When it doesn't matter.

So your arguments have caused both confusion

 

[Wansvic]

I never suggested baptism is "supposed to be" in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; you assumed that. All I'm saying is there's nothing wrong with it. The important thing for a person to understand is they are being baptized into Christ. Legalistic rules about the words you say when baptizing are just silly in my opinion.

Please seriously consider, it's not about mere words. It's about neglecting to use the name of Jesus. A practice that was begun in direct opposition to what the bible clearly teaches.

Being obedient to the gospel requires calling upon the name of Jesus. On the day of Pentecost Peter said whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. (Acts 2:21) He goes on to preach Jesus. Peter concludes by telling everyone to be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin. (Acts 2:38) In essence obedience to that command is calling upon the name of the Lord.


Also, note the connection between the name and remission of sin that Peter makes in Acts 10:43. The account concludes with obedience to the command that brings about remission of sin:
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" Acts 10:43
"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Acts 10:47-48

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Rom 10:13
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
How shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Rom. 10:14-17

 

[JaumeJ]

it doesn't matter, you've argued baptism should be in the name of the The father the son and the holy spirit.

When it doesn't matter.

So your arguments have caused both confusion

Isaiah 9:6 supports what you have posted here. Whether one is baptized in thename of Jesus or in the names the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it is the very same thing.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Please seriously consider, it's not about mere words.

I have considered. To me it's about words; and I'm okay with that. If you're at peace with what you believe, then I certainly don't want to interfere.

 

[Wansvic]

Isaiah 9:6 supports what you have posted here. Whether one is baptized in thename of Jesus or in the names the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it is the very same thing.

If this were true, why isn't baptism administered both ways in the Bible?

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

Isaiah 9:6 supports what you have posted here. Whether one is baptized in thename of Jesus or in the names the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it is the very same thing.

thanks for sharing,..😊

It's nice to see Isaiah backed up in this discussion, it's my favourite book

 

[ResidentAlien]

If this were true, why isn't baptism administered both ways in the Bible?

You don't know for sure baptism was administered your way. There are accounts from New Testament writers who said someone was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ; or the Lord Jesus. But there are no records of what was said, specifically, during the baptism. There are no records of anyone being baptized that say: "So and so, I now baptize you in the name of . . ."; fill in the blank.

 

[JaumeJ]

If this were true, why isn't baptism administered both ways in the Bible?

Both are taught in the New Testament.

 

[JaumeJ]

thanks for sharing,..😊

It's nice to see Isaiah backed up in this discussion, it's my favourite book

It is the first Book of the Bible I read through after coming to Jesus Yeshua. It has all we need to learn if our eyes are opened.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

It is the first Book of the Bible I read through after coming to Jesus Yeshua. It has all we need to learn if our eyes are opened.

my father use to call it the fifth gospel,


To me this is the day of pentacost being prophesized



Isaiah
The Branch of the Lord Glorified

2 In that day the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be the pride and honor of the survivors of Israel. 3 kAnd he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy, everyone who has been recorded for life in Jerusalem, 4 when nthe Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem

 

[CS1]

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..

In the book of Matthew, Jesus said, “…All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” He went on to say “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (28:18) Why would Jesus say that all power was given unto Him and in the next sentence state to baptize in the titles of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit? He did not. Jesus told the disciples to water baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; He was referring to His own name.

There is extensive information on the use of Jesus’ name as the baptismal formula of water baptism as recorded in history. All references indicate that the formula was changed from the use of Jesus’ name, to the phrase of “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” by the Roman Catholic Church after the development of the doctrine of the trinity in the 2nd century.

No individual or organization has the right to change what God ordains. Will we follow the direction of a worldly organization or will we stay committed to seeking and adhering to what the Lord Himself has commanded of us? And, is so clearly referenced in the Word ((Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6, 22:16)

Information pertaining to the change in historical water baptism can be found in many encyclopedias; Britannica, Canney, Catholic, Hastings, New International, Religion & Ethics, Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, New Schaff-Herzog, etc.

Never forget there is POWER in the NAME OF JESUS.

This is the error in understanding and those who choose to be legalists in water baptism.




When Jesus said all "POWER," the word in Greek is exousia, which contextually means Authority.

Matthew 28:18

Jesus says:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

Who gave him the Power? Jesus said His Father did.

Jesus said, GO, I am sending, and my authority is from the Father.
The Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit

Jesus spoke of and taught about the Father and the Holy Spirit during his earthly Ministry. To suggest Jesus would not mention baptizing in the name or by the power or the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

It was a big error when Jesus taught of Each In all three Gospels.

And to use ONE Verse in Mathew chapter 28 as if there is no other text to speak other wises is ridiculous.


Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is valid baptism, as is baptism in Jesus' Name.

Unless you deny the Father and the Holy Spirit. Because the Lord Jesus did not deny them.

 

[CS1]

That is TOTALLY FALSE. All the Greek manuscripts concur that Matthew 28:19 is genuine Scripture. It was not altered by anyone. So let me quote from the Greek Orthodox Bibles (which have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church) as well as the Received Text.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος·

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος,

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος·

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Christians have a solemn responsibility to present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Even the Critical Text has the same words:

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,

The issue, brother, is they only use one to two verses to build this doctrine at the expense of all Gospels.
That is an error.

 

[Wansvic]

You don't know for sure baptism was administered your way. There are accounts from New Testament writers who said someone was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ; or the Lord Jesus. But there are no records of what was said, specifically, during the baptism. There are no records of anyone being baptized that say: "So and so, I now baptize you in the name of . . ."; fill in the blank.

Each of records do specifically reference Jesus. And church history, etc. publications note all baptisms were done in the name of Jesus prior to the 4th century.

 

[Wansvic]

Both are taught in the New Testament.

Actually this is not correct. Please note the following:

"Matthew 28:19 is NOT an example of believers being baptized; it is the commission of Christ that must be fulfilled. Jesus instructed to baptize IN THE NAME, which both Scripture and history proves to be JESUS...

Jesus clearly stated that we make the word of God of none effect if we follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:13). He emphasized, “In vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mat. 15:9). (Also see Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 Tim. 4:3, 4 Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18, 19.)

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For IN HIM DWELLETH ALL the fullness of the Godhead bodily, And ye are COMPLETE IN HIM, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are … BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:8-12). Ye are WASHED, ye are sanctified, ye are justified IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS, and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11). “Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, DO ALL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS” (Col. 3:17). There is only ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, AND ONE BAPTISM (Eph. 4:5).

“Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32)." Excerpt from, “The Truth About Matthew 28:19,” written by Eddie Jones.

 

[JaumeJ]

my father use to call it the fifth gospel,


To me this is the day of pentacost being prophesized



Isaiah
The Branch of the Lord Glorified

2 In that day the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be the pride and honor of the survivors of Israel. 3 kAnd he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy, everyone who has been recorded for life in Jerusalem, 4 when nthe Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem

It did not occur to me yesterday, but today I remembered how Jesus Yeshua is called THE BRANCH in the OT, which in Hebrew would be a Nazar, which translates as branch

 

[mailmandan]

I never suggested baptism is "supposed to be" in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; you assumed that. All I'm saying is there's nothing wrong with it. The important thing for a person to understand is they are being baptized into Christ. Legalistic rules about the words you say when baptizing are just silly in my opinion.

Must baptism be done "in Jesus' name"? | carm.org