The Error is Baptism in Jesus name only for salvation
- Thread starter CS1
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Do you see no significance in the fact there is not one instance where the apostles stated I baptized you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?In every baptism, oneness has failed to listen to what is being said in many Orthodox churches when baptism in water is done to a new Believer :
The pastor will say: Your profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ by the grace and mercy of God, and by the Authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and the (name of the local fellow ) I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit. down you go.
Those who fail to see Jesus' name is said, and His Lordship is stated, but the method is not what you agree with. However, it is very much Bibclial and valid. Many Senior oneness Pastors agree
I think many fail to see the authorial intent of why they said Jesus' name. it was a protest in the early church. Peter and others were ordered not to preach or teach in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. FYI, I also would state why they used Jesus of Nazareth to bring attention to the one who was crucified and who they witnessed resurrected.
The issue is not, as I said, man times Baptized in the name of Jesus or HIS authority by which you are doing the baptism; it is that the Statement of the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit is valid. and biblical. Pride blinds many of these Historical truths.
who are you asking?
Those who are baptise in the name of Jesus only will not not admit that they believe those not baptised in be name of Jesus only are not saved. They won't cause they know they will be banned on here.
Goodness knows how many times they have been asked and they skip around it and they don't believe in the trinity, hence why you cannot baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
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.
Thank You for that information.
Honestly, I have friends that have been Baptized in Name of Jesus and still believe God is Triune in functioning as the Father, Son, and Spirit. So rules like You have explained seem intriguing because God being Triune has many meanings and definitions because it's man made doctrine bottom line. We don't find a true explanation in the Bible. We only believe because man created the definition. But no matter how it's defined God is Triune and God is One.
At our church one of our elders baptises in the following words.
We baptise you into Jesus in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We(believers) are the church.
I can baptize myself. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit can fill in the blanks.
I have seen several ways since the controversy over Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 to include both in the Formula. I've seen big time Trinity Preachers come out and say who cares between the two they both work. When I was younger this was a life and death topic but today it suddenly has become it doesn't matter issue because both Formulas work. Personally speaking, I keep watching because as time gets closer to the Second Coming we're 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. I like that myself and hope the trend continues.
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.
I have personally went through archives using my access abilities to seek information based upon this because Religion or not the Educational System has recorded keeping of things that... well, makes you scratch your head.
But in my research I found several connections to the image I am posting.
I don't know what to make of it yet but it's intriguing nonetheless.
Read the last paragraph talking about the Water Baptismal Formulas. Is this true? Someone wrote it and documented it as true [in the 4th Century ]. But it's interesting no matter how anyone views it.
Attachments
It helps to read all of John 1.
https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/1#footnote68
30 This is he of whom I said, a‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but bfor this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And John cbore witness: d“I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and eit remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but fhe who sent me to baptize gwith water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, hthis is he who baptizes gwith the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son9 of God.”
Footnotes: g,h
g
Jn 8:12 Jn 9:5 Jn 12:46
h
Jn 3:19
https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/1#footnote68
30 This is he of whom I said, a‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but bfor this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And John cbore witness: d“I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and eit remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but fhe who sent me to baptize gwith water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, hthis is he who baptizes gwith the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son9 of God.”
Footnotes: g,h
g
Jn 8:12 Jn 9:5 Jn 12:46
h
Jn 3:19
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.
What's interesting is the Didache was one of the Books voted whether to be included in our Canon but the 4th Century voters believed it wasn't Inspired by God and not to be viewed as a source of Biblical proofs.
Yeah yeah yeah, I studied every manuscript lol
For example, the Roman Catholic church.
Also, see the Mormans.
If you start a cult, which you can, you might not get the same followers.
If Holy Ghost is a “title”, then what is the name of the Holy Ghost?
Since all of God’s word is true and divinely inspired, Matthew 28:18-19 is true and divinely inspired, what do you think Jesus is talking about and how were the disciples to carry it out?
Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. (Matt. 28:19) What is the name? This is revealed in how the disciples carried out/obeyed Jesus:
Peter said be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38
They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 8:12-17
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Acts 10:43-48
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:2-6
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:14-16
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)