Proper Water Baptism procedure....

[Ricke]

First let us read Matthew 28 v 19 "Go forth teaching all nations and Baptizing them in The NAME of The Father, and Of The Son, and of The Holy Ghost." Jesus gave this command.

Did Jesus actually say to do this literally? Or it is it an allegory, a metaphor, a hidden meaning? The only way to really find out, is to see what The Original Apostles taught. Let us now go to The very first Christian conversion service on The day of Pentecost, in Jerusalem.

Acts Chapter Two. The service begins, Apostle Peter is the Preacher. We read from verse 1 to 36 Peter gives the message.
In verse 37, those who hear this message and feel heartfelt conviction ask Peter.(verse 37) "Men and Brethren WHAT MUST. WE DO"?

The following is NOT what Peter told them they must do, but because of man-made traditions what is now commonly accepted by many churches as "Salvation"..

1."Come forward, repeat the sinners prayer, accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, shake my hand, and you are now saved for all eternity"

2. Accept Jesus as your personal savior, say the sinner's prayer, and we will Baptize you in The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.


No, here is exactly what Peter told them to do; Acts 2 v 38
"Repent, and be Baptized EVERYONE OF YOU in The NAME of JESUS CHRIST for the Remission of Sins, and YOU SHALL receive The Gift of the Holy Ghost."
Verse 39..." for the promise is unto you (Jews) and to all those who are afar off (The Gentiles) even as many as our Lord God shall call".

So, we read the first requirement is to Repent.( Luke 13 v 3-5)
Next we read everyone must be Baptized in The Name of Jesus Christ then their sins are forgiven and forgotten. Next, we read that everyone who simply obeys this simple command, is promised The Holy Ghost.

Did Peter say the wrong thing regarding simply in "Jesus Name" rather then what Jesus commanded in Matthew 28v 19?
(" Father, Son, Holy Ghost") as about 98% of Churches who Water Baptize now follow? Or did Peter and the other Apostles of Jesus obey what he said to do in reality.?

First, when Jesus spoke in Matthew 28 v 19.; he said to baptize "In The Name......" Father, Son, Holy Ghost ladies and Gentlemen are not "A Name"...they are Titles . I am a Father, and I am a Son but that is NOT my Name. Try To go to your bank sign your check "Father" or "Son" and see what the Bank teller says to you....she'll want you to put your NAME on this check. Amen.

So Peter is telling us that The Name of "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" is Jesus. In the following verses you will see where folks were Baptized in Jesus' Name/ Name of the Lord/ Lord Jesus.
Acts 2 v 38

Acts 8 v 15-17

Acts 10 v 47-48

Acts 19 v 1-7

Nowhere, ( repeat) Nowhere, in the NT will you find even one verse where anyone was ever Baptized in Eater using Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Is this important? Is this Legalism ?
Apparently, clearly Peter tells us our sins will not be remitted in Acts 2 v 38 unless you follow the exact procedure. Why chance it? Why even debate or argue this?

Finally here is Proof positive what the Name of The Father, The Son, and Holy Ghost really is;

THE FATHER's Name.....

1. I John 2 v 1 (KJV) "My little children, these things I write you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with The Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (notice: "Father then COMMA Jesus Christ....")

2. John 5 v 43 (Jesus says) "I AM come in MY FATHER's NAME, and you receive me not......"

And does'nt every true Father and Son have The Same Name everybody? So what is so strange that Jesus is the Name of Both Father and Son?

Name of The Holy Ghost.........John 14 v 26 Jesus says.." But the Comforter, which is The Holy Ghost, whom THE FATHER (named Jesus) will send IN MY NAME........" Praise God!!

Conclusion.....Baptism in Jesus Name is the proper Baptism procedure, that is the NAME Jesus was referring too in Matthew 28 v 19.... I rest my case....Glory to God!!

 

[Redeemed79]

If I were to go with this well explained (by the way) meaning then I would have to say Jehovah (Yahweh) or however u pronounce it? That was the name above all names that Jesus was given when all was finished....?? now please just converse with me not TELL me whats what, I see too much of that in here and its heartbreaking. Just a convo piece

 

[Ricke]

Hi, Redeemed 79;
I see you are from New Zealand, a Nation I have yet to Visit. Thank you for answering my post, and Thank you for telling me a little about who you are. Being a single Mum is probably being not a very easy job, so Lord Bless you and give you the wisdom and strength to carry on.

Let me add this to my post, and in answer to your statement about the OT names of Jehovah, and Yahweh. If you will read. Zechariah 14 v 9 you will read In that day...(future) There would be One Lord/ One Name, this was fulfilled at The Birth of Jesus.

Next time, let me know about your beautiful country. I have been in 19 foreign lands, most because being in The U.S. Navy for 4 years. God Bless you...

 

[charisenexcelcis]

If it is a great concern, best to stick to what Jesus said. There is no indication of metaphor. The passages in Acts are not word-for-word accounts of actual water baptisms. The emphasis on Jesus name is a emphasis on His diety.

 

[Cleante]

If it is a great concern, best to stick to what Jesus said. There is no indication of metaphor. The passages in Acts are not word-for-word accounts of actual water baptisms. The emphasis on Jesus name is a emphasis on His diety.

I would agree with Charis. It was important for those evangelizing the Jews and Gentiles to stress the deity of Jesus, especially to the Jews.

 

[forerunner]

Scripture clearly teaches that baptism should be in Jesus name. Any name any other opinion comes from religion not scripture.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Scripture clearly teaches that baptism should be in Jesus name. Any name any other opinion comes from religion not scripture.

Except, of course, the words of Jesus.

 

[forerunner]

Except, of course, the words of Jesus.

Jeus never said anything but to baptize in his name. You just can't see the truth through your religion.

 

[Redeemed79]

Just to clarify my earlier post the congregation I attend baptizes in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I had not looked into this but will, not for that I dont believe people but to test everything is all, but yes i do know what the gospels say.Acts 2:38 i think and feel to bring this up at tomoros study night as Ive never really given it much thought.
Thankyou Ricke for this post and ur message. I am not a single mother tho but I would appreciate prayer as my partner of 14 yrs is not a christian and this needs more prayer than I need for being a mum lol......NZ beautiful and peaceful, i hear people that visit say its alot like numerous countries rolled in one when it comes to our scenery etc.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Jeus never said anything but to baptize in his name. You just can't see the truth through your religion.

It is not I who is reinterpreting Matthew 28:19.

 

[OFM]

i agree with Matt.28

 

[serpentslayer]

It is obvoius that u do not see that Acts is a book of transformation from the Apostles doctrine, which you have so neatly laid out and which speaks of water and Holy Spirit baptisms for the remission of sin, to Paul's doctrine, which speaks of the blood of Jesus as the 'modus operandi' for the remission of sin, and only the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Although water baptism was a 'changing of gears' for God, in that we left the business of shed blood for the remission of sins (the Law) and went into the water business, it's utlimate purpose was to prepare Jesus for His Ministry, as part of the rituals required by the Law. But, once Christ shed His blood, we left the water and went back under the Blood, but once for all, for it was Christ. 1Jn1:7 assures us that it is the Blood of Jesus which cleanses us of all sin, making no mention water: and even 1Pt3:20-21 tells us that water baptism, although a good outward sign of one's desire to be like Jesus, was only for a short time (like a boat ride) and did not cure the problems of the flesh (sin).

Now, since Eph4:5 assures us that there is only true baptism, and, since it is certain that one cannot have what one does not believe in (faith), where is your faith: in the Baptism of John (water), of the Baptism of Christ (Spirit)?
Glory to GOD.

 

[lil-rush]

I don't get it. Jesus said "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." Regardless, people are debating whether one should be baptized solely in the name of "Jesus" or in the name of "The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost"?

What part of Jesus saying "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" is unclear?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

 

[Ricke]

Serpentslayer and all;
Your assumption that Water Baptism was sort of kind of to prepare Jesus for his Ministry then not necessary after is totally false. Am I reading what you said correctly? If not, I truly apologize. Let me however go further here to explain the absolute necessity of Water Baptism. A lot of Churches today have done away with Water Baptism, creating a false impression you can avoid it, and still be in The Love of Christ.

Let us turn to Acts 8 v 27-38. We see Apostle Philip comes across an Ethiopian Eunich. Philip witnesses to this man. The Eunich confesses he beleives Jesus is The Son of God (verse 37). In verse 36 The Eunich says "See, here is Water what hinders me to be Baptized"? Then in verse 37 he says he BELEIVES, And in verse 38 Philip takes the Eunich down into the Water and Baptized him. So your statement about after Jesus being Baptized is not true.

Acts 10 we read about Cornelious, an Italian (Gentile) who in verse 2 tells us " A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, and gave much alms to the people, and Prayed to God always" Read that closely...he was according to many modern Churches a full blown Christian. With all that going for him, any Pastor would Love to have this man and his family in their Church........However Cornelious lacked one important thing, He had'nt heard he needed to be Water Baptized to finalize his covenant with God. The Angel of The Lord appears to Cornelious. The Angel tells him God is pleased with him, but send for Apostle Peter....Peter comes, teaches him what he must do, Then Peter tells Cornelious (Acts 10 v 47-48) " Can any man forbid Water, that they shouldn't be baptized, which have received The Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he (Peter) COMMANDED them to be baptized IN THE NAME of The Lord......."

And what is the Name of The Lord? It is none other then JESUS.
(Read Acts 9 verse 5 for proof positive)

As I stated my Original post; noone was ever Baptized by The Original Apostles in The TITLES "Father, Son, Holy Ghost". Show me one verse where this ever took place., just one. Jesus is the Name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. Want to see again the proof of this?
The Name of The Father.....
I John 2 v 1 "....... we have an advocate with THE FATHER, JESUS CHRIST the righteous.

John 5 v 43... Jesus said...." I Am come in My Father's NAME, and you receive me not......"

Finally .....Isaiah 9 v 6 ( prophecy) " For unto us a CHILD is BORN, unto us a SON is given, and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting FATHER, the prince of Peace" can I get a witness? Is that not JESUS?

So what is the debate about? That is why Ladies and Gentlemen, Brothers and Sisters, why, WHY Peter, Paul, and the rest of The Original Apostles ALL water Baptized in The Name of Jesus Christ.

The Bible also says this; "......Behold, to OBEY is better then sacrifice, and to hearken then the fat of rams" (I Samuel 15 v 22).

Water Baptism is Symbolic of The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are symbolically covered in "The Blood" when we obey this simple procedure. Jesus is the " Bridegroom" and the Church he purchased with his blood is called "The Bride of Christ". The Bride takes on The Bridegroom's Name. According to Apostle Peter, noone's sins are remitted UNTIL they obey what Peter said to-do in Acts 2 v 38.

And let none of us forget, Jesus handed Peter the "Keys" to The Kingdom of Heaven...Matthew 16v 17-19.

Jesus also proclaimed in Mark 16 v 16 " He that BELEIVES and is Baptized shall be saved, and He that Beleives not shall be ****ed". Any questions?......

 

[charisenexcelcis]

I believe that water baptism is an act of public confession of your faith. I do not believe that God ever intended it to become a matter of wording, but of the heart. If you are terribly concerned, the only direct instruction as to the formula is what Jesus said. If you believe that Jesus is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, then you are baptizing in His name when you use that formula. If you are a trinitarian, again you fulfill that requirement. If you are really concerned, I suggest you say it in the original Greek. I believe that the Nestle text and the Textus Recepticus are identical on this point so there shouldn't be any problem.

 

[Cleante]

I believe that water baptism is an act of public confession of your faith. I do not believe that God ever intended it to become a matter of wording, but of the heart. If you are terribly concerned, the only direct instruction as to the formula is what Jesus said. If you believe that Jesus is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, then you are baptizing in His name when you use that formula. If you are a trinitarian, again you fulfill that requirement. If you are really concerned, I suggest you say it in the original Greek. I believe that the Nestle text and the Textus Recepticus are identical on this point so there shouldn't be any problem.

The Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest of them all, would agree with you Charis.

πορευθεντεϲ μαθητευϲατε πατα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντεϲ αυτουϲ · ειϲ το ονομα του πρϲ και του ϋϊουκαι του αγιου πνϲ ˙

Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ricke]

I respectfully disagree that you can WaterBaptize in A Triune Formula; I.E."Father, Son , Holy Ghost" and it does'nt make a difference. That is your personal opinion, granted., but not spiritually based. If it did'nt make a difference to The Apostles of Jesus why did every example when they Water Baptize somebody Only in the Name of Jesus/ Name of The Lord (same thing)???
Acts 2 v 38/ Acts 8 v 15-17/ Acts 10 v 47-48/ Acts 19 v 1-7.

Now, once again I invite you or anyone who wants to jumping here to show me just one single verse where any Apostle baptized anyone in " Father, Son, Holy Ghost". One verse Amigo, show me one. If you cannot, then common sense tells us in The Name of Jesus is The ONLY way it was ever done.
I explained how and why. What else can I say? Want me to agree with some man-made religious doctrine., when it goes against what the Holy writ states to do? I don't think so.

Finally; maybe if you read this you may change your thinking.
The Apostles all baptized Jesus' Name as proven, so let us now read what Apostle Paul warned;

I Timothy 4 v 16 "Take heed to thyself, and unto the Doctrine: continue in them: for in so doing this thou shalt both SAVE THYSELF and them that hear thee".

Galatians 1 verse 8 " But though we, or an Angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed".

Now what? Was Paul whistling Dixie, or perhaps talking unto a stone wall? If you don't want to beleive it, so be it. Somebody else however just might read and heed.....God Bless y'all. Lol.

 

[forerunner]

i agree with Matt.28

So do I, we should baptize people in the singular name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For God has but one name and that name is Jesus.

 

[lil-rush]

So do I, we should baptize people in the singular name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For God has but one name and that name is Jesus.

Uhm, no. God has many names. Hashem, YHVH, I Am, God, Father, Abba, El Shaddai, Elohim, Adonai, Jehovah Jireh, Jehovah Nissi, Shepherd, etc.