The Error is Baptism in Jesus name only for salvation

[Wansvic]

I doubt the so-called "trine formula" only emerged in the 4th century. The Didache is thought to be a second century writing at the latest (not that I think people should use the didache), and it includes the expanded "name of the father, of the son, and the holy spirit"; so, that, to me is an indication that it was already being done that way to some extent before the trinitarians formalized their explanation of the godhead.

I think a lot of the emphasis on baptismal formulae is a distraction. it's like the "our father in heaven" prayer; it's not a prescription of exact words that you need to say, but it's a pattern that teaches you how to pray and what you should be asking for. I don't believe Jesus gave them rigid instructions to perform a ritual; and if you don't do it exactly right your sins won't be remitted- I think that's a fear tactic used by some organizations. The part about immersion into the person of Jesus Christ; that much is right- but it's not about the exact words that the baptizer is saying as he is doing a water baptism.

When one understands upon obedience to baptism a person is considered buried with the one crucified to save their soul it becomes clear that baptism is to be in the name of Jesus. (Rom. 6:3-6, 1 Cor. 1:13-15)

Neither is there salvation in any other. There is no other name under Heaven WHEREBY we must be saved. Acts 4:12

 

[Cameron143]

When one understands upon obedience to baptism a person is considered buried with the one crucified to save their soul it becomes clear that baptism is to be in the name of Jesus. (Rom. 6:3-6, 1 Cor. 1:13-15)

Neither is there salvation in any other. There is no other name under Heaven WHEREBY we must be saved. Acts 4:12

When the Holy Spirit baptizes an individual into Christ, they aren't simply considered buried with Christ, but altogether are. That's the difference between a shadow and its reality.

 

[lrs68]

The word of God does not reflect that "Both Formulas" work. God established what is true for all to see. Yet, as you say many dishonor God and do what they think is best; "Who cares" is their attitude. And even worse they lead others to do the same.

And, I would caution, liking as you say, "seeing things that use to be major issues suddenly being now lesser and all about let's just come together as the Body of Christ" because it is NOT a good thing. It's called Interfaithism. And will ultimately become what the bible reveals as the endtime one world religion that many will fall prey to. (Rev. 17, 18)

I'm reminded of the enemy's tactics of deception. They remain the same as they did in the garden of Eden; hath God said... The word of God reveals exactly what He has said. And yes, it does matter.


Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him." John 14:6-7

Whether accepted or not...
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines." (Heb 13:8-9)

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2 Tim 4:3-4)

For years it did become a riddle as to why we saw Matthew 28:19 but from that point onward throughout the first Church, the Epistles by the Apostles, the letters from the sons of Mary [brothers of Yeshua] I could never find a single example of that taking place.

But I did see the Apostles water Baptizing in Yeshua's Name including Paul who wasn't present in the Gospel of Matthew.

And then one day I found a passage of Scripture showing Yeshua overseeing His Disciples water Baptizing. And I thought to myself I bet He had them Baptize using His Own Name. And this must be why they did it in the Book of Acts.

The one thing I do know is everything the Disciples did we see in the Gospels that Yeshua did. The Disciples imitated everything Yeshua did. I just believed that the Disciples were instructed in the example of them water Baptizing in Name of Yeshua because that's exactly what they did in the Book of Acts.

 

[Wansvic]

When the Holy Spirit baptizes an individual into Christ, they aren't simply considered buried with Christ, but altogether are. That's the difference between a shadow and its reality.

I agree I should not have included the word "considered." According to Paul an actual burial takes place. (Rom. 6:3-6)

 

[SomeDisciple]

I agree I should not have included the word "considered." According to Paul an actual burial takes place. (Rom. 6:3-6)

Do you agree??? Because, I'm pretty sure Cam wasn't talking about your water baptism.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

The Error is Baptism in Jesus name only for salvation

Actually the ERROR is "Baptism in any form" for salvation!!!
Baptism (Biblically by immersion) is what a person does AFTER they've been Born Again BY FAITH (Eph 2:8,9) in the SIN OFFERING made by Jesus on Calvary.

 

[Wansvic]

For years it did become a riddle as to why we saw Matthew 28:19 but from that point onward throughout the first Church, the Epistles by the Apostles, the letters from the sons of Mary [brothers of Yeshua] I could never find a single example of that taking place.

But I did see the Apostles water Baptizing in Yeshua's Name including Paul who wasn't present in the Gospel of Matthew.

And then one day I found a passage of Scripture showing Yeshua overseeing His Disciples water Baptizing. And I thought to myself I bet He had them Baptize using His Own Name. And this must be why they did it in the Book of Acts.

The one thing I do know is everything the Disciples did we see in the Gospels that Yeshua did. The Disciples imitated everything Yeshua did. I just believed that the Disciples were instructed in the example of them water Baptizing in Name of Yeshua because that's exactly what they did in the Book of Acts.

Baptism for remission of sin was introduced by John the Baptist. However, at that time no one knew the sacrifice Jesus would make.

Note, Jesus actually revealed when baptism in His name would begin. It began after His death, burial and resurrection:

Luke 24:46-47
"And (Jesus) said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."


What Jesus prophesied began when He said it would. It occurred in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost:
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine..." Acts 2:38-42

Afterward, each and every detailed account reveals the same message was carried to individuals of other nations (Acts 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16) and continues even unto today.

 

[Wansvic]

Do you agree??? Because, I'm pretty sure Cam wasn't talking about your water baptism.

I agreed that I should not have included the word considered. I did not agree to anything else he stated.

And for the record it is not my water baptism. The word of God reveals baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism:

Acts 10:47-48
"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."

 

[CS1]

Pride certainly does...If in fact either way was acceptable scripture would attest to it. It does not.

Your response implies the apostles opted to disobey Jesus and baptize in His name to spite those who ordered them to stop using His name. The fact is the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus in obedience to the command He gave in Matthew 28:19. Why? Because there is no other name under Heaven whereby everyone must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

Remember, all will be judged by what is found in the word of God. And not one water baptism was administered using the phrase, I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God's commands are not mere suggestions. They are to be obeyed as they are given for a specific purpose.

No, you assume that I have not implied such a thing. You use the name of Jesus like a magic lamp at the expense of salvation in the context of all Scripture.

 

[CS1]

1)the term "anti-trinitarian"
As if being against trinitarianism is the foremost priority. Those who people would lump in this single category have little in common besides not adhering to a strict tripersonal view of the godhead.

2)"It revives a doctrine the early church refuted nearly 1800 years ago"
Not really though. You could say they unsuccessfully refuted it, because it's existence is evident through recorded history alongside the 'orthodox'; the main difference is that orthodoxy in one form or another has more often enjoyed the protection of the state in the west- and it is also because of orthodoxy's frequent intermingling with the state that it gains more attention in history as taught by academic institutions.
While some oneness believers have some errant historical and theological understandings; the same can be said of some orthodox and protestant trinitarians as well. So, if people who believe they have a "special end-time revelation" are a discredit to oneness views; then the RCC et. al. offer even more discredit to trinitarianism.

3) Appeal to the Creeds.
As I am sure you are aware, this council and creed came about by the hand of Constantine and his "design... to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity". A clear example of government interference in the domain of the church. It is not the government's place to summon bishops and make them derive formal doctrines, so that the government can achieve it's goals of territorial religious unity... the church is not a tool of emperors; and while it should remain subject in matters of civil obedience; ecclesiastic movements of evangelism, preaching, and teaching are not accomplished by the power of, or at the whim of the government. Likewise; the government is also not a tool for christians to murder their Christological opponents.

_____________
The oneness view of the godhead has a firm historical and biblical foundation that stands apart from the shenanigans of modern oneness-pentecostal movements. I do appreciate that you didn't pull some of the tricks; and I do consider them devious; which other trinitarians have done; in order to lump oneness believers into a category with the likes of the Islamic terrorists and unbelieving Jews who altogether reject the NT scriptures as written and the Gospel written therein; and whose religious systems have fables built in to augment and re-explain the scripture that they do receive to construct their religions.

Thank you for your response And I will ask one qestion to which I have asked other and despite the historical points you have made.


Is one who is baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and Holy Spirit valid, As Mathew 28 states, yes or no?

again Thank you

 

[Wansvic]

Actually the ERROR is "Baptism in any form" for salvation!!!
Baptism (Biblically by immersion) is what a person does AFTER they've been Born Again BY FAITH (Eph 2:8,9) in the SIN OFFERING made by Jesus on Calvary.

Salvation is not possible for those who carry the stain of sin.
And the word of God reveals a believer's sin is dealt with as the result of their placing trust in Jesus and believing and obeying the command to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:4-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16...)

 

[Beckworth]

Finally:

How Did The Early Church Really Do It?

First, these are not magical incantations. Baptism is not hokus-pokus salvation. Those who insist that Acts 2:38 must be recited in order for the baptism to “work” are guilty of turning baptism into a spell.

But what did the first Christians say as they were baptizing converts? Oneness/Jesus’ Only practitioners say that the book of Acts proves their claim. But if Luke, the writer of Acts, had intended to record word-for-word the exact phrase the baptizer was to utter, then why didn’t he write it the same way every time?

• Acts 2:38 “… in the name of Jesus Christ …”
• 8:16 “… in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
• 10:48 “… in the name of Jesus Christ.”
• 19:5 “ … in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
• 22:16 “… calling on His name.”

One would think that if there is a precise formula of words that needs to be said in order for baptism to “work,” Luke would have been careful enough to record it that way every time. Luke didn’t report a formula, liturgical phrase, or incantation that was said before every baptism. He noted that these baptisms were performed under the authority of Jesus.

The emphasis in every verse is on the person being baptized, not the one doing the baptizing. This is why we don’t read “they were baptized by Paul, who said, ‘in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’”

But consider Acts 19:2-3. Paul comes to some disciples at Ephesus:

He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”

Isn’t it odd that Paul answers the admission, “we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit,” by blurting, “Into what then were you baptized?”

His response would make no sense, except that Paul can’t understand how they could have heard the baptizer say, “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” and yet claim they’d never heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. As soon as they confess their ignorance about the third Person of the Trinity, Paul knows that something was amiss with their baptisms.

Paul’s question to the people in Acts 19–Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”—also harmonizes perfectly with Acts 2:38 where Peter tells them to be baptized and they will RECEIVE the Holy Spirit. That also could have been a sign that they had not been baptized with the correct baptism.

 

[Wansvic]

No, you assume that I have not implied such a thing. You use the name of Jesus like a magic lamp at the expense of salvation in the context of all Scripture.

Your exact words: "I think many fail to see the authorial intent of why they said Jesus' name. it was a protest in the early church."

It is beyond me why anyone would think it acceptable to go directly against the word of God and opt to follow a tradition instituted by the RCC.

Jesus warned: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)

It was Jesus who said, repentance and remission of sin would be preached in His name TO ALL NATIONS, beginning in Jerusalem...(Luke 24:47) And baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin was begun in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost.

 

[CS1]

Salvation is not possible for those who carry the stain of sin.
And the word of God reveals a believer's sin is dealt with as the result of their placing trust in Jesus and believing and obeying the command to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:4-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16...)

The Blood of Jesus washed away our sins. Water in Baptism doesn't symbolize the removal of sin; it represents the grave, as Paul said in Romans 6. Why do you choose to replace the Blood of Jesus and reduce it to water as the removal of sins?

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 [a]done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been [b]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, [c]reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Wansvic]

No, you assume that I have not implied such a thing. You use the name of Jesus like a magic lamp at the expense of salvation in the context of all Scripture.

Insult all you like. But consider this, the word instructs believers to pray in the name of Jesus, cast out demons in the name of Jesus, pray for healing in the name of Jesus and baptize in the name of Jesus. Now explain why no one has a problem doing everything in the name of Jesus except water baptism.

The reason is because salvation is at stake. The enemy has been deceiving people into thinking following God's command isn't necessary. When in fact it is. God instructs nothing without a purpose behind it. Believing and obeying the water baptism command is when sins are remitted as made possible by Jesus Himself. Why? Because God said so.

 

[lrs68]

Luke 24:46-47
"And (Jesus) said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

What is most intriguing about this Verse is that we know the Gospel of Matthew was released before any of the other Gospels.

Luke is actually dated last.

And here Luke is matching up to what he wrote in the Book of Acts.

We see the Apostles Baptizing in Acts the way we read it in the Gospel of Luke and Luke's Gospel is dated last to be written.

Makes me think Luke is more accurate because it matches what he wrote in the Book of Acts.

 

[CS1]

Paul’s question to the people in Acts 19–Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”—also harmonizes perfectly with Acts 2:38 where Peter tells them to be baptized and they will RECEIVE the Holy Spirit. That also could have been a sign that they had not been baptized with the correct baptism.

which is the correct word to speak when one is Baptized IN the name of name of Jesus Christ as Acts 2:38
says
or Acts 3: 19
19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

Or ACTS 8:16 They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Or did Philp forget to says the name of Jesus in water baptism?

Acts 8:37-38

37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”

And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

 

[CS1]

Your exact words: "I think many fail to see the authorial intent of why they said Jesus' name. it was a protest in the early church."

It is beyond me why anyone would think it acceptable to go directly against the word of God and opt to follow a tradition instituted by the RCC.

Jesus warned: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)

It was Jesus who said, repentance and remission of sin would be preached in His name TO ALL NATIONS, beginning in Jerusalem...(Luke 24:47) And baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin was begun in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost.

FYI the RCC was not established in Acts, which was written in 65 - 70 AD.

Again, you ignore the words I said in the response to my post.

 

[CS1]

Insult all you like. But consider this, the word instructs believers to pray in the name of Jesus, cast out demons in the name of Jesus, pray for healing in the name of Jesus and baptize in the name of Jesus. Now explain why no one has a problem doing everything in the name of Jesus except water baptism.

The reason is because salvation is at stake. The enemy has been deceiving people into thinking following God's command isn't necessary. When in fact it is. God instructs nothing without a purpose behind it. Believing and obeying the water baptism command is when sins are remitted as made possible by Jesus Himself. Why? Because God said so.

I am not insulting you, and people in glass houses should not throw stones. Look at your post guy.


It was not I who said those baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not saved you did. Just did it in a subtle way and tried to use the word of God to justify your comments.


Water baptism doesn't complete the work of the cross or substitute the Blood of Jesus.
We are saved by Grace through faith, not of works Eph 2:8-9. If you did not repent and surrender to the Lord Jesus as the Holy Spirit convicted you of your need for forgiveness and salvation, water baptism is merely taking a bath if there is no faith and trust in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, even if you were baptized in Jesus' name or not.

Finally, Jesus said and is Supremely Authoritative :

Mathew 7:21

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.


Jesus said He has a Father, and it is His will that we do. You can say you were baptized in Jesus name or "Lord lord"


Mathew 7:22-24

22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Be baptized in Jesus name, yet Jesus can still say to you I never knew you.

 

[Wansvic]

... That also could have been a sign that they had not been baptized with the correct baptism.

Yes, the account reveals the necessity of being baptized in the name of Jesus. Once the NT began everyone that believed in Jesus death, burial and resurrection was to be baptized in His name for remission of sin. (Acts 2:38) Everyone would include those who were previously baptized by John. And I believe the same applies to those who have been baptized "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."

Note as well that Apollos knew only John's baptism until Aquila and Priscilla instructed him more perfectly. (Acts 18:25-26) This account indicates that Apollos was told of the NT baptism. For we know he was baptizing others and we know Apollos was not administering John's baptism in Corinth. (1 Cor. 1:10-15)