Prophesied by Joel...

[CS1]

No offense taken.

Please consider something. If both the use of the phrase or the name of Jesus are valid why doesn't the bibical account reflect it?
The biblical record as well as historical documentation indicate water baptism was always administered in the name of Jesus.

I'm not sure if you're aware of it but the use of the phrase I baptize you "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" was begun by the forerunners of the Roman Catholic Church around 325 A.D. Interesting as well, is the Roman Catholic Church considers itself to be the mother, and now accepts as daughters all denominations that administer water baptism using the phrase. We are to be weary of religious organizations that promote interfaithism; doctrine does matter. Accepting that belief in the God of Abraham is enough and that all religions have different ways to get to God is not found in the word of God.

Also, if using the name of Jesus during baptism is optional why doesn't the same apply when petititioning God in prayer for healing, casting out demons, etc? Would anyone other than members of the Roman Catholic Church even consider petitioning God in prayer in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? If so, they are going directly against the word. It says we are to ask in the name of Jesus Christ.

Since the biblical record knows only water baptism in the name of Lord Jesus. It's apparent the apostles understood that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus. As noted, scripture reveals that in Jesus dwells all the fulness of the Godhead.

"!'m not sure if you're aware of it but the use of the phrase I baptize you "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" was begun by the forerunners of the Roman Catholic Church around 325 A.D. Interesting as well, is the Roman Catholic Church considers itself to be the mother, and now accepts as daughters all denominations that administer water baptism using the phrase. "


Matthew 28:19 is where I see it. I couldn't care less about the RCC. However, even our Reformed Brothers and founders held to MATTHEW 28:19, including Martin Luther and John Calvin.

I don't want to start a debate on the concept of The Trinity we could take this to another post or start a new one, and we can continue. Moreover, water baptism in the name o of Jesus and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are both valid.

 

[Wansvic]

I would argue that it does, in fact, By 1. The Lord Jesus himself Matthew 28:19. The statement by Peter is to be baptized every one of you in the name of means by his authority, which was known before as the baptism of John. Also, the English language we see in The KJV in the name of means by the authority to which I was sent to tell, speak, or do, just like the Seal of the King on a message.


I find it interesting That Paul did not teach Baptism in the name of Jesus in Romans chapters 6 through 8. Why? If it was so necessary for salvation to be valid, why did Paul not speak on it? That is because we do not separate the early church's action from the context of Peter and the new church that was started on the day of Pentacost. The church on that day was not instructed as they were ya ear later. Peter was baptized in the name of Jesus as a form of open rebellion against the orders not to teach or speak in the name of Jesus. Why did this doctrine not follow Paul and others?

6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised 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 united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Baptism is symbolic. The water in baptism represents the grave. As Paul said, Which the gospel message is the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord. Not water baptism. We are water-baptized to be obedient and publicly identify with Christ.


When one is water-baptized, and the person who is baptizing says by the authority given to me and whatever local fellowship they may with " by the authority given me or in the name of I baptized you in the name of The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Or it can be said by the Authroity given me by the Lord Jesus Christ, I baptized you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.


Both are correct ways of water baptism.

Note Matthew 28:19 records Jesus giving His apostles a command. The apostles did not repeat Jesus' command when administering water baptism they actually obeyed the command. All detailed accounts reveal water baptism was administered in the name of Jesus.

Paul and others did continue what Peter began. See Acts 8:12-18 and 19:1-7.

Also, please consider studying out the historical evidence concerning the change. Jesus said manmade traditions make God's word of none effect. And scripture does indicate there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved.

 

[Wansvic]

"!'m not sure if you're aware of it but the use of the phrase I baptize you "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" was begun by the forerunners of the Roman Catholic Church around 325 A.D. Interesting as well, is the Roman Catholic Church considers itself to be the mother, and now accepts as daughters all denominations that administer water baptism using the phrase. "


Matthew 28:19 is where I see it. I couldn't care less about the RCC. However, even our Reformed Brothers and founders held to MATTHEW 28:19, including Martin Luther and John Calvin.

I don't want to start a debate on the concept of The Trinity we could take this to another post or start a new one, and we can continue. Moreover, water baptism in the name o of Jesus and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are both valid.

I couldn't care less about the RCC myself. Most everything they do goes directly against the very word of God. And that is my point. Anything they do or have done is suspect on so many levels.

I'm not familiar with John Calvin's writings. However, Martin Luther acknowledged that the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus. See "The Babylonian Captivity by Martin Luther." (3.14)

 

[CS1]

Note Matthew 28:19 records Jesus giving His apostles a command. The apostles did not repeat Jesus' command when administering water baptism they actually obeyed the command. All detailed accounts reveal water baptism was administered in the name of Jesus.

Paul and others did continue what Peter began. See Acts 8:12-18 and 19:1-7.

Also, please consider studying out the historical evidence concerning the change. Jesus said manmade traditions make God's word of none effect. And scripture does indicate there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved.

The point is Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Baptism in the name of Jesus is not the only way for water baptism. The issue is those who teach Jesus' name only are not Biblical. Both are valid.

 

[CS1]

I couldn't care less about the RCC myself. Most everything they do goes directly against the very word of God. And that is my point. Anything they do or have done is suspect on so many levels.

I'm not familiar with John Calvin's writings. However, Martin Luther acknowledged that the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus. See "The Babylonian Captivity by Martin Luther." (3.14)

according to Luther's Small Catechism, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a central part of Luther's understanding of baptism. Luther believed that baptism is not just water, but water combined with God's word, and that the word of God in baptism is "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Martin Luther's Small Catechism also states that baptism signifies a change, where the old creature is drowned through daily repentance and a new person is raised to live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

 

[Wansvic]

The point is Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Baptism in the name of Jesus is not the only way for water baptism. The issue is those who teach Jesus' name only are not Biblical. Both are valid.

Jesus gave a command that the apostles obeyed.

Consider as well, if both are valid why is baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit not found in the biblical record?

 

[Wansvic]

according to Luther's Small Catechism, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a central part of Luther's understanding of baptism. Luther believed that baptism is not just water, but water combined with God's word, and that the word of God in baptism is "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Martin Luther's Small Catechism also states that baptism signifies a change, where the old creature is drowned through daily repentance and a new person is raised to live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

Even after coming out of the RCC, Martin Luther maintained many of her beliefs. He also believed infant baptism was biblical.

The reformation he began of original biblical concepts that the RCC so badly corrupted continues on today.

 

[CS1]

Jesus gave a command that the apostles obeyed.

Consider as well, if both are valid why is baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit not found in the biblical record?

that is a presupposition. The fact that the disciples were Baptized before Jesus died and rose again on the third was recorded in scripture and states that Jesus Himself did not baptize anyone.

John 4:1-2
Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), He left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

That water baptism done doesn't state it was John who did it, but it was assumed in addition, Mathew 28: 19 was said after the resurrection.

 

[CS1]

Even after coming out of the RCC, Martin Luther maintained many of her beliefs. He also believed infant baptism was biblical.

The reformation he began of original biblical concepts that the RCC so badly corrupted continues on today.

Both are valid water baptisms, and Mathew 28:19 stands authoritative.

 

[Wansvic]

that is a presupposition. The fact that the disciples were Baptized before Jesus died and rose again on the third was recorded in scripture and states that Jesus Himself did not baptize anyone.

John 4:1-2
Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), He left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

That water baptism done doesn't state it was John who did it, but it was assumed in addition, Mathew 28: 19 was said after the resurrection.

Where is the baptism of the disciples recorded?

John's baptism of repentance differed from the NT baptism. Those who submitted to "his" baptism did so as an acknowledgement of their willingness to repent of their sin. Submitting to John's baptism did not mean everyone was personally baptized by him. Also, no one, at that time, knew the coming Messiah would be crucified, buried and resurrect. Whereas those who believe in Jesus' sacrifice obey the New Testament command repent AND submit to water baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin.

Consider the Acts 19 account. It reveals those who previously obeyed John's baptism had to be water baptized in the name of Jesus acknowledging belief in His sacrifice. Peter stated that EVERYONE was to be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin. (Acts 2:38) His comment indicates the apostles would be subject to the NT baptism command regardless of whether they were or were not baptized in the past.

And lastly, it was Jesus who said that repentance and remission of sin would be preached in His name (connection to water baptism in the name of Jesus) in all nations Beginning in Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7...)

 

[Wansvic]

Both are valid water baptisms, and Mathew 28:19 stands authoritative.

The biblical account provides clear evidence Jesus' command was to be obeyed not repeated. Again, if the use of the phrase was intended why is it absent from the biblical record. Especially since every word is established by at least 2-3 scriptures. (Matt. 18:16, 2 Cor. 13:1)

Please consider studying this out. And since scripture is what all will be judged by it must be allowed to silence the voices vying for our attention.

 

[CS1]

Where is the baptism of the disciples recorded?

John's baptism of repentance differed from the NT baptism. Those who submitted to "his" baptism did so as an acknowledgement of their willingness to repent of their sin. Submitting to John's baptism did not mean everyone was personally baptized by him. Also, no one, at that time, knew the coming Messiah would be crucified, buried and resurrect. Whereas those who believe in Jesus' sacrifice obey the New Testament command repent AND submit to water baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin.

Consider the Acts 19 account. It reveals those who previously obeyed John's baptism had to be water baptized in the name of Jesus acknowledging belief in His sacrifice. Peter stated that EVERYONE was to be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin. (Acts 2:38) His comment indicates the apostles would be subject to the NT baptism command regardless of whether they were or were not baptized in the past.

And lastly, it was Jesus who said that repentance and remission of sin would be preached in His name (connection to water baptism in the name of Jesus) in all nations Beginning in Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7...)

THe disciples did in John4:1-2

 

[CS1]

Where is the baptism of the disciples recorded?

John's baptism of repentance differed from the NT baptism. Those who submitted to "his" baptism did so as an acknowledgement of their willingness to repent of their sin. Submitting to John's baptism did not mean everyone was personally baptized by him. Also, no one, at that time, knew the coming Messiah would be crucified, buried and resurrect. Whereas those who believe in Jesus' sacrifice obey the New Testament command repent AND submit to water baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin.

Consider the Acts 19 account. It reveals those who previously obeyed John's baptism had to be water baptized in the name of Jesus acknowledging belief in His sacrifice. Peter stated that EVERYONE was to be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin. (Acts 2:38) His comment indicates the apostles would be subject to the NT baptism command regardless of whether they were or were not baptized in the past.

And lastly, it was Jesus who said that repentance and remission of sin would be preached in His name (connection to water baptism in the name of Jesus) in all nations Beginning in Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7...)

Jesus said he who repents and believes in Him shall be saved.

 

[CS1]

The biblical account provides clear evidence Jesus' command was to be obeyed not repeated. Again, if the use of the phrase was intended why is it absent from the biblical record. Especially since every word is established by at least 2-3 scriptures. (Matt. 18:16, 2 Cor. 13:1)

Please consider studying this out. And since scripture is what all will be judged by it must be allowed to silence the voices vying for our attention.

I have studied it out, and I think you did not answer my qestion? But, I will ask you again, is a person baptized in the name of the FATHER AND of the Son and Holy Spirit a valid baptism, yes or no.

 

[Cameron143]

I have studied it out, and I think you did not answer my qestion? But, I will ask you again, is a person baptized in the name of the FATHER AND of the Son and Holy Spirit a valid baptism, yes or no.

Technically, you stated it again as you employed a period rather than a question mark. You may or may not find this amusing.

 

[Wansvic]

THe disciples did in John4:1-2

The scripture clarifies it wasn't Jesus but His disciples baptized more disciples than John.
"Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and bbaptizing more disciples than John 2(although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)," John 4:1-2

 

[Wansvic]

Jesus said he who repents and believes in Him shall be saved.

Do you agree with the points made. or not?

"John's baptism of repentance differed from the NT baptism. Those who submitted to "his" baptism did so as an acknowledgement of their willingness to repent of their sin. Submitting to John's baptism did not mean everyone was personally baptized by him. Also, no one, at that time, knew the coming Messiah would be crucified, buried and resurrect. Whereas those who believe in Jesus' sacrifice obey the New Testament command repent AND submit to water baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin.

Consider the Acts 19 account. It reveals those who previously obeyed John's baptism had to be water baptized in the name of Jesus acknowledging belief in His sacrifice. Peter stated that EVERYONE was to be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin. (Acts 2:38) His comment indicates the apostles would be subject to the NT baptism command regardless of whether they were or were not baptized in the past.

And lastly, it was Jesus who said that repentance and remission of sin would be preached in His name (connection to water baptism in the name of Jesus) in all nations Beginning in Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7...) "

 

[CS1]

Technically, you stated it again as you employed a period rather than a question mark. You may or may not find this amusing.

Thankl you for the correction

 

[CS1]

The scripture clarifies it wasn't Jesus but His disciples baptized more disciples than John.
"Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and bbaptizing more disciples than John 2(although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)," John 4:1-2

Yes again the Disciples baptized with Jesus Present and no ,mention of it being done in the name of Jesus . Why?

 

[Wansvic]

I have studied it out, and I think you did not answer my qestion? But, I will ask you again, is a person baptized in the name of the FATHER AND of the Son and Holy Spirit a valid baptism, yes or no.

You did indicate your belief that both are valid. (Posts 246 and 249) However, I was not aware you asked me that question. But since you ask, I don't see how both are valid since the concept is not established at the "mouth" of 2-3 witnesses in scripture.

Also, note there is no conflict between what Jesus' commanded and the actions of the apostles. The apostles obeyed Jesus' command and baptized in His name because In Jesus dwells all of the fulness of the Godhead