Water Baptism-What is in a Name?

He is not full of unbelief. He has written various conservative books, including a systematic theology.

He is a continuationist. I haven't read that portion of his systematic theology but my guess is I wouldn't agree with it entirely. However he isn't a wild-eyed fanatic.

What I have seen from that camp is not impressive. Todd White comes to mind. Trivial deceptions such as shifting a person's shoe down a half-inch while claiming to lengthen a person's leg is a mockery of the types of miracles Jesus and the apostles did. It's laughable that people like that would put themselves on par Jesus and the apostles.

You selectively edited my post.

Although I believe in a gift of tongues, at least at one time, and using a different definition for tongues, I did not claim that speaking in tongues in a BIBLICAL sense is a wrong doctrine.

I was speaking in particular about the belief that one is brought into union with Christ through regeneration, and KEPT IN UNION with Christ by speaking in tongues. This is a false belief and you cannot prove it from Scripture, because not everyone speaks (or spoke) in tongues.

In fact, it is a dangerous belief because it causes new believers, who can't deceive themselves into "speaking in tongues", to despair over their salvation. That's exactly what happened to him.

Misquoting me like this is deceptive on your part. It shows that you are not honest. I invite others to go back to the original post and see how you selectively quoted me to make a false claim.

God seals his word and these verses of scripture are true and therefore valid.
Those full of unbelief and preaching another gospel discredit these verses.
Those who believe the word of God have their faith rewarded and these signs follow them that believe.

You are reading your opinion into the text. Besides, historical evidence has been given. Also, Jesus commands the baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Us Jewish People are well known for using short hand. The Baptisms were by the Authority of Jesus.

John 5:43I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.

Acts 4:18And calling them, they charged them not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus.

That's because you do not pray in tongues and therefore do not pray in the Spirit.
So you have no understanding of the truth of these verses.

God's word was sealed when the human authors penned the words. The autographs, or original writings, are without error.

However, all we have are manuscripts. Through examining multiple copies, we can have reasonable confidence that what we have is materially correct.

Mark 16:9-20 was not in the earlier manuscript evidence, therefore is not likely inspired. Additionally, it has been used for various kooky teachings including baptismal regeneration, snake handling and poison drinking, and denial of the bodily resurrection by cultics.

I don't think it belongs in the canon. Neither do most scholars.

At what point did God seal his word? If you are talking about the Textus Receptus, it was authored by a gay Roman Catholic priest, Erasmus, based on only about 10 manuscript copies of relative late origin. None were before 1000 AD.

The modern translations are based on about 6000 manuscripts, which are of earlier origin, some before 200 AD. Earlier manuscripts are closer to the originals (the "autographs") therefore reflect them better.

You may be able to figure out I'm not a KJVer

Well, regardless of my position on these verses, where does your KJV teach that one must maintain their union with Christ through praying in tongues, a gift that not all believers had, even at that time?

I would recommend the Cultish videos I listed earlier in this thread for those who want more info on this. It comes from Oneness Pentecostal doctrine originally. One former UPC member, a teenager at the time and now an evangelical pastor, recounts how he was filled with doubt about his salvation due to this false teaching.

Hello Rob (I am a new person). Just out of interest which Bible do you prefer then?

So those who pray privately all over the earth not in the "tongues" you speak of are not praying in the Spirit? So you think God doesn't understand all tongues and languages? How come the "Spirit" can all of a sudden understand in Church then?

Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

I like the ESV best. NASB would follow that, and then NKJV.

NIV can be useful as a secondary tool. It is more thought-for-thought, whereas the above are more word-for-word.

Both have their advantages.

You will find many that consider NIV to be "Satanic" due to KJVist propaganda. I could recommend books on that if you want.

If I could suggest a perfect combo for new Christians, it would be the Zondervan NIV Biblical Theology study bible, along with a compact large print ESV bible to compare with. That's about as close as I can get to what I'd like in one Bible.

My ideal Bible would be an ESV/NIV parallel bible with the notes from the Zondervan NIV Biblical Theology study bible. Right now I'm trying to read through the entirety of this study bible, including all the notes. They are fantastic.

I like some characteristics of the NASB too. Such as their capitalization of OT quotations in the NT. But, since I am commonly reading notes too, the notes will refer to these OT references anyways.

Please note that the main problem with the KJV is archaic language and some additions that are not canonical, for instance, the last part of Mark 16. However, it is more a situation where it's like a puzzle with some extra pieces in the box. Those extra pieces can create some bad doctrines. In addition, misunderstandings develop because words like "conversation" have changed in meaning since the original writers penned them. For instance, "conversation" in their day meant "citizenship", whereas today it means a verbal exchange. So, if a Christian's conversation is in heaven, as one KJV verse states, it means that his citizenship is in heaven, not that he can engage in verbal conversations with heavenly beings. That may happen occasionally, but one can figure out what a mentally unstable person might do with that.

Please provide records wherein the titles were spoken while water baptisms were administered.

Every prayer I utter
"Praying in the Holy Spirit" is not praying in tongues.

Every believer has the Holy Spirit interceding for him in prayer with God. This doesn't mean that the person must pray in tongues. In fact, he can pray silently in the Spirit, and God hears him just fine.

I have heard at least one person claim that if you don't pray in tongues, Satan can steal your prayers and they won't be received by God It's amazing how many superstitions still affect some Christians.

By the way with an application like OliveTree you can look at the ESV text in one pane, and the Zondervan NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible at the same time. So, it works well like that, but I'd like to have a leather copy that combines those two, as I prefer ESV over NIV. Additionally, I don't like to sit at the computer desk all the time. Sometimes I prefer to recline on the bed or in a chair and read the Bible.

Matthew 28:18-20 gives instructions by Jesus. Why do you take historical accounts, and consider them the trump card over explicit words of Jesus?

Actually these verses are all compatible if one understand that Jesus is Messiah, and that the early church was proclaiming this after his death, as well as accentuating his authority.

Also, using your worldview, do you deny all baptisms using Trinitarian language?

And, if they are invalid, are you claiming those who were baptized using Trinitarian language are unsaved?

Water baptism as the things of men is an old testament ceremonial law required when a new Priest entered the ministry .It regenerates nothing no outward signs other than ceremonial laws that look ahead .. . Honoring corrupted flesh as the wrath of God revealed from heaven is not a biblical doctrine

It is not a visual sign that represents the grace of God. we walk by faith the unseen not after the flesh the temporal

It represent someone has a desire to bring the gospel into the world.The new priesthood. . . no longer after the tribe of Levi.

No such thing as sign gifts. Not with tongues ,getting wet falling back ward on any other outward performance seen with our eyes.

We simply do not know Christ after the three avenues of this world (below) .They simply produce false pride men love their acts of self edification turning it into self fulfilled wonderments . Make an unknow noise, fall backward, get wet. have a oneness cry , or holy laughter, lay on a hand. Do something that others can see. It has become in many places a side show. Like that of the faithless Jews.
Show us some magic then we will believe. We will not walk by faith after the unseen things of God.

John 4:48Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

John 6:30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

No sign gifts called oneness Pentecostalism. (oneness sign and lying wonders)

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is "not of the Father", but is of the world.

The kingdom of God does not come by observing the corrupt rudiment's of this world .We simply walk by faith the unseen will .Never did never will. No signs. Spiritual gifts, not seen, yes.

Jesus plainly said its an evil generation that seeks after sign to confirm some work a person preforms. The last sign as a wonder was fulfilled on the cross

Trinitarian language ?

It is an ordinance of the church that is a visual representation of union with Christ. Same thing with the Lord's Supper.

I don't think priests were baptized. They experienced a washing that was similar but it is not baptism in a Christian sense. It involved being commissioned for service.

It is impossible to get around the fact that those added to the Church were baptized. However, it was not considered salvific and it was a representation of the work of the Holy Spirit in cleansing them spiritually and uniting them with Christ.

Thanks for explaining that.

By the way, I am not a new Christian (just new on the Forum). I have been studying the Word of God for over 40 years and still learning I use the KJV for the reasons here.


For nearly 400 years the King James Version remained unchallenged as the standard English Bible.


The so-called "revisions" of the King James Bible prior to 1800 were to correct typographical errors, add notes, and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments.


There were no changes in the actual TEXT of the King James Bible. The REAL changes (over 36,000 of them) didn't start until the modern revisionists came on the scene.


The King James language is not hard to understand.


Most of the so-called "archaic" words are explained by the context of the passage or by comparing the passage with other passages in the Bible where the same word is used. It is plain and simple, and it isn't in tune with high-minded vocabulary because it is supposed to be plain and simple.


In fact, the Grade Level Indicator of the Flesch-Kincaid research company says the King James language is EASIER to understand than the new versions.


We certainly agree that the language of the King James Bible is a unique language, but why shouldn't it be seeing that it is the Word of God.


That isn't to say I don't have other Bibles (I have stacks) and I like to translate from the Greek/Hebrew whenever possible as well. In fact I think it is good to compare them to see the difference actually. I have often wondered how on earth people could read the small print with some of the ancient editions I have (when were optics invented?? They didn't even have electricity so they must have had good eyesight by candlelight!)


I am just interested to know why others read what they do, so thanks!

Being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, rather than in the name of Jesus only.

I am asking him, what is the salvation status of a person who was not baptized in the name of Jesus only?

By the way, every Trinitarian baptism refers to Jesus, so I am not sure what his concern is anyways, since he is Trinitarian. Jesus hasn't been omitted.

Consider the possibility that a person was given the opportunity to hear (numerous invitations to hear God's Word) and accept the truth of the need to be water baptized but rejected all attempts when they could have in fact been obedient.

The instructions given on the Day of Pentecost were directed to everyone. "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." Acts 2:38-39

Jesus specifically states that those not accepting His words are in fact rejecting Him. Everyone will be judged by the Word. Not just portions of the Word but all of it:

"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

Beings everyone will be judged by the Word it stands to reason that all of the scriptures are accurate; this includes Jesus words on the topic of water baptism.

In each case just prior to Jesus' ascension He brings up the need for mankind's belief and the need for all to submit to water baptism:
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Matthew 28:19-20

“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized (water baptism) shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues” (Holy Spirit); Mark 16:15-17

“Then opened He (Jesus) their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And 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. And ye are witnesses of these things.” Luke 24:45-48