Water Baptism-What is in a Name?

[UnitedWithChrist]

I never said there was a specific order regarding repentance, water baptism in Jesus name and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. The biblical record makes that clear. However, each account includes belief followed by obedience to all of the instructions given on the Day of Pentecost.

OK...so do you believe that baptism in the name of Jesus only must precede salvation? That's the main question.

 

[Wansvic]

Regarding the Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion, a book called Oneness Pentecostal Churches: Their Doctrine and Practice by Bruce Tucker mentions that Hasting's works are used in a disingenous manner to support Oneness Pentecostal doctrine. I don't have access to the entire book, though.

Incomplete or misleading quotes are one way of supporting one's doctrine in a disingenuous manner.

Please see post #2 This is by no means an exhaustive list of historical encyclopedias that address the change made in the 4th Century. In fact I did not want to share something that was not true so I purposely acquired a Catholic Encyclopedia to see the evidence for myself. I have the 1907 edition that includes this information.

See Post #3 as well. The post includes a scanned image of a Roman Catholic publication that mentions the change.

Also, if interested Google "The Catholic World Report" wherein Pope Francis addresses Christians: Our common Baptism unites us.

 

[Wansvic]

When it comes down to it, I think the major issue here is that some younger or immature Christians adopt an elitist attitude and insist that others are unbelievers over some technicality like the words used for baptism.

They want to proclaim others as unbelievers and exalt themselves as the spiritually mature ones.

I did the same thing with some issues regarding Christianity in the past. It's time to shed the bottle and diapers and put on big boy pants.

I am not an immature Christian nor do I have an elitist attitude; pride is an ugly thing.

I share what I read in the Word in hopes of helping others. Sadly some people refuse to accept that fact. Nonetheless it is true.

May God Bless You!

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Please see post #2 This is by no means an exhaustive list of historical encyclopedias that address the change made in the 4th Century. In fact I did not want to share something that was not true so I purposely acquired a Catholic Encyclopedia to see the evidence for myself. I have the 1907 edition that includes this information.

See Post #3 as well. The post includes a scanned image of a Roman Catholic publication that mentions the change.

Also, if interested Google "The Catholic World Report" wherein Pope Francis addresses Christians: Our common Baptism unites us.

The chapter in this book includes other incidences of inappropriate references. Each claim would need to be examined by an impartial person who doesn't hold the aberrant theologies to see if they are reasonable and make a valid point.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Please see post #2 This is by no means an exhaustive list of historical encyclopedias that address the change made in the 4th Century. In fact I did not want to share something that was not true so I purposely acquired a Catholic Encyclopedia to see the evidence for myself. I have the 1907 edition that includes this information.

See Post #3 as well. The post includes a scanned image of a Roman Catholic publication that mentions the change.

Also, if interested Google "The Catholic World Report" wherein Pope Francis addresses Christians: Our common Baptism unites us.

My point is, source materials can either 1) be questionable themselves or 2) misquote the author, or quote him out of context.

I've seen that game played a lot, especially in the cult I belonged to.

 

[Wansvic]

OK...so do you believe that baptism in the name of Jesus only must precede salvation? That's the main question.

Yes. Obedience to the command to be water baptized is a required component of one's salvation according to the bible. If it was not, one would see an experiential record that excluded one of the components Peter gave; believe, repent, get water baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

You point out that the people in Acts 10 believed, repented and God poured the Holy Spirit upon them. If water baptism was not a requirement why did Peter bother to command them to submit to it?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Yes. Obedience to the command to be water baptized is a required component of one's salvation according to the bible. If it was not, one would see an experiential record that excluded one of the components Peter gave; believe, repent, get water baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

You point out that the people in Acts 10 believed, repented and God poured the Holy Spirit upon them. If water baptism was not a requirement why did Peter bother to command them to submit to it?

That wasn't my point. My point is that if you view speaking in tongues to be evidence of salvation, then these individuals in Acts 10 were already saved when they were baptized.

Therefore baptism wasn't a required condition to salvation.

I outlined the chain of events to prove that speaking in tongues occurred prior to baptism, therefore it cannot be considered a prerequisite to salvation.

I am not arguing whether baptism is a command that one needs to render obedience to, except for unusual circumstances. I already believe that. My issue is that baptism is not a necessary prerequisite to salvation, because these Gentiles in Acts 10 were speaking in tongues BEFORE baptism, not AFTER.

 

[Wansvic]

My point is, source materials can either 1) be questionable themselves or 2) misquote the author, or quote him out of context.

I've seen that game played a lot, especially in the cult I belonged to.

As I said, I have the actual 1907 Catholic edition.
Did you bother to check out post #3? That is an actual scan of a Catechism book cover. Or, Google the Catholic publication mentioned?

This information is there for anyone who chooses to seek out proof.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

As I said, I have the actual 1907 Catholic edition.
Did you bother to check out post #3? That is an actual scan of a Catechism book cover. Or, Google the Catholic publication mentioned?

This information is there for anyone who chooses to seek out proof.

Do you consider Roman Catholic authorities to be reliable? I don't.

For instance, they claim that the Roman Catholic Church "changed the Sabbath" from Saturday to Sunday.

They confuse the "catholic" church with themselves. Additionally, they are very much braggarts when it comes to taking responsibility for events in church history.

 

[Wansvic]

That wasn't my point. My point is that if you view speaking in tongues to be evidence of salvation, then these individuals in Acts 10 were already saved when they were baptized.

Therefore baptism wasn't a required condition to salvation.

I outlined the chain of events to prove that speaking in tongues occurred prior to baptism, therefore it cannot be considered a prerequisite to salvation.

I am not arguing whether baptism is a command that one needs to render obedience to, except for unusual circumstances. I already believe that. My issue is that baptism is not a necessary prerequisite to salvation, because these Gentiles in Acts 10 were speaking in tongues BEFORE baptism, not AFTER.

Again, according to what is recorded in the Word, all components are required for an individual to be saved. God certainly knew whether Cornelius and the others would submit to water baptism before He ever poured His Spirit upon them.

 

[Wansvic]

Do you consider Roman Catholic authorities to be reliable? I don't.

For instance, they claim that the Roman Catholic Church "changed the Sabbath" from Saturday to Sunday.

They confuse the "catholic" church with themselves. Additionally, they are very much braggarts when it comes to taking responsibility for events in church history.

It is obvious that the Roman Catholic church doctrines are not consistent with the Word. That is my exact point. Why would anyone want to follow a tradition begun by them?

 

[Wansvic]

Do you consider Roman Catholic authorities to be reliable? I don't.

For instance, they claim that the Roman Catholic Church "changed the Sabbath" from Saturday to Sunday.

They confuse the "catholic" church with themselves. Additionally, they are very much braggarts when it comes to taking responsibility for events in church history.

Even if the RCC was not the one responsible for changing the "formula" used in water baptism (which I highly doubt), the change was indeed instituted in the 4th Century.

We are admonished to earnestly seek out the faith that was given to the apostles. (Jude) And not to follow traditions of men. (Mark 7:8, Col 2:8) And for that reason I stand on the need for people to be water baptized in Jesus' name.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Wansvic]

The following scripture is scary. It expresses how God feels about people following traditions:

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:7-9

 

[garee]

Declares the unbeliever.

Tongues is prophecy, the word of God. The sign of rebellion "ehpi tnsid tb fabith" points to those who refuse prophecy sola scriptura .

God mocking those with stammering lips that mock him . You could say vengeance is the Lords .A jealous God repaying evil for evil .

They use the oral tradition of men as a tongue to make the tongue of God without effect. .Sounds again that do not carry clear meanings. so a person is forced to trust in the private interpretatio' as opinions of men .Hoping they find the right one to make the wonderment have an affect

Yet for all that they still refuse the tongue of God prophecy . written in the law found in the Old testament Isaiah 28.

They refuse to hear prophecy the tongue of God" sola scriptura) without the oral traditons of men making noises. laying on of hands as of those things used as metaphors and fall backward to show the judgment of God. Slain in the spirit. . no life of the spirit.

Self edifying life of the flesh yes like the grass here today gone in a breeze of time .

Brothers and sisters, don’t think like children. In evil things be like babies, but in your thinking you should be like full-grown adults. As the Scriptures say,“Using those who speak a different language and using the lips of foreigners, I will speak to these people.
But even then, they will not obey me.” This is what the Lord says. And from this we see that the use of different languages shows how God deals with those who don’t believe, not with those who believe. And prophecy shows how God works through those who believe, not through unbelievers. 1 Corinthians 14:20:22

Once a person confirms what the sign represent according to the law. . then the rest of the doctrine falls into place . No sign gifts. Spiritual gifts not seen yes. Adding form to a spirit . .No surprise of faith waiting, a person has received their reward a outward show. 15 minutes in the hall of self edifying. fame

 

[Wansvic]

Life through His Name:

John 17:11
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


Acts 10:43
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

 

[Dino246]

Again, according to what is recorded in the Word, all components are required for an individual to be saved. God certainly knew whether Cornelius and the others would submit to water baptism before He ever poured His Spirit upon them.

That is presumptive speculation, not practical doctrine. Yes, God knows all things, but you're trying to force-fit an anomalous event into a rigid doctrinal position that inherently excludes it.

It appears that you have built your understanding of the requirements for salvation on an incomplete Bible. Only by incorporating ALL the relevant Scripture passages can you arrive at a coherent position. Otherwise, as in this case, you have passages that don't fit, and you have to come up with fanciful explanations for them.

 

[Wansvic]

That is presumptive speculation, not practical doctrine. Yes, God knows all things, but you're trying to force-fit an anomalous event into a rigid doctrinal position that inherently excludes it.

It appears that you have built your understanding of the requirements for salvation on an incomplete Bible. Only by incorporating ALL the relevant Scripture passages can you arrive at a coherent position. Otherwise, as in this case, you have passages that don't fit, and you have to come up with fanciful explanations for them.

There is no force-fitting going on. My point was that there is no required sequence in complying with the instructions Peter gave on the day the NT Church was birthed.

As I stated, all components that Peter instructed of the listeners on the Day of Pentecost are necessary for salvation. This truth is established by over 3 witnesses within the Word. Each group was informed to obey; Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, (Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48) And, 20 years afterward Paul commanded the Ephesus disciples to obey the same instructions as well. (Acts 19:1-6)

 

[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.

interesting post. " In the name of " must be seen in the context of the Greek translated into proper English. In proper English "In the name of" was what was announced to why a decree or ruling of the King was given, when the king sent his messager who had the authority to carry out whatever he was doing as if the King was doing it himself.

"In the Name of" means By the authority of the one who sent me.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Even if the RCC was not the one responsible for changing the "formula" used in water baptism (which I highly doubt), the change was indeed instituted in the 4th Century.

We are admonished to earnestly seek out the faith that was given to the apostles. (Jude) And not to follow traditions of men. (Mark 7:8, Col 2:8) And for that reason I stand on the need for people to be water baptized in Jesus' name.

Thanks for the discussion.

Baptizing in the name of Jesus only was not the accepted mode until the 4th century. The Didache says otherwise. It was written about AD 96.

https://reformedforum.org/baptism-in-the-didache/

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

It is obvious that the Roman Catholic church doctrines are not consistent with the Word. That is my exact point. Why would anyone want to follow a tradition begun by them?

Baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit wasn't started by them. Everyone holding a weird view tries to attach it to the Roman Catholic Church. And, the Roman Catholic Church, the dolts that they are, make boasts claiming responsibility for everything, even if they didn't exist or have the power to exact such changes until centuries later.