Water Baptism-What is in a Name?

Again, I don't deny that baptism is part of the expectation of believers. It happens after faith and repentance, though, and the faith is what has saved the person.

By the way, in the Cultish videos about United Pentecostal Church - International, they also mention this idea that Peter is the head of the NT church.

Out of interest, does your group claim apostolic succession, and require that hands be laid upon those who are baptized so that they can receive the Holy Spirit by an Apostle? That was the case of the cult I belonged to.

If you are claiming Acts is your model, then wouldn't you need an Apostle to lay hands upon the person to receive the Holy Spirit? Someone claiming to be at the level of the Twelve?

The records of water baptism regarding each group; Jews, Gentiles and Samaritans, witness that all baptisms were administered in Jesus' name. Thus, one can conclude that the disciples understood that Jesus' statement recorded in Matthew meant that His name was to be used. (Acts 4:12)

The historical records purpose was not only to identify that salvation was available to Gentiles and Samaritans as well as the Jewish population. This is clear due to the record of Paul's interaction with the Ephesus disciples in Acts 19. Paul's message to them was consistent with Peter's instructions. It is important to understand that Paul was still telling people over 20 years later of their need to repent, be water baptized specifically in the name of the Lord Jesus', and assisting people to receive the Holy Ghost. (Acts 19:1-6)

All nationalities of people throughout history originate from one of the three groups that were instructed on the requirements for salvation. The biblical record shows that no one group is exempt from required obedience to the commands given.

I don't care if they were using Jesus' name in baptism. When I pray, I pray in the name of Jesus. If I were a baptizer, I'd be doing it in Jesus' name. By stating that I am baptizing the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I am identifying my action with all three, INCLUDING Jesus. It is a statement to Jesus' deity.

Is there anything complicated about this?

I think you guys are treating baptizing in the name of the Triune God, and baptizing in the name of Jesus with a false dichotomy. It isn't an either/or, it is a both/and situation.

What Scriptures are you referring to?

And, how do you deal with Matthew 28:18-20?

The Gospel is this:

Which historical records? Please post links and especially scholarly papers or book titles that have been peer reviewed. You throw out all this unsubstantiated nonsense, and expect people to swallow it. One or two Scriptures from Acts is not sufficient to make a doctrine. Another example of bad hermeneutics. Very sorry Christianity, IMHO.

Oneness Pentecostals are definitely considered a cult. They do not believe in the Triune God. They have spent too much time reading the Bible through the lens of cult leaders. They don't have a clue about exegesis, original languages or history. All filtered through the cult.

But it really bugs me when they say you are not saved, based on their heresies. Well, I am glad I am NOT a oneness pentecostal, and that God saved me, and he has been keeping me for over 40 years now. Again, when people don't live up to cult standards, they are told they are not saved. That is a very strong indication they are caught in a cult.

Which historical records? Please post links and especially scholarly papers or book titles that have been peer reviewed. You throw out all this unsubstantiated nonsense, and expect people to swallow it. One or two Scriptures from Acts is not sufficient to make a doctrine. Another example of bad hermeneutics. Very sorry Christianity, IMHO.

Which historical records? Please post links and especially scholarly papers or book titles that have been peer reviewed. You throw out all this unsubstantiated nonsense, and expect people to swallow it. One or two Scriptures from Acts is not sufficient to make a doctrine. Another example of bad hermeneutics. Very sorry Christianity, IMHO.

NO the gospel is Matthew 1:1 to Jude 1:25
Christian discipleship and the body of Christ come into being on the day of Pentecost and with believers complying
with Acts 2:38
In all the churches all disciples were baptised in water confessing their faith in Christ Jesus as their Lord and Saviour,
and all disciples were baptised in the Holy Spirit with the Bible evidence of speaking in tongues.
Acts tells us how this happened and all the epistles are written to the Pentecostal churches of the first century.

Jesus stated that all power had been given unto Him and then went on to say be baptized in the name of...

As you mention and throughout the bible we see the command to use the literal name of Jesus for many things. Upon petitioning God in prayer for ours or others needs, (John 16:23) prayer for healing, (Acts 3:6) casting out demons (Luke 10:17), etc. No one has a problem with being obedient and using Jesus' name in those cases.

Ask yourself why so many get in an uproar when they are shown that the bible records water baptisms were done in Jesus' name.

The historical record indicates the forerunners of the Roman Catholic Church took it upon themselves to remove the all powerful name of Jesus in connection with water baptism. I would think many would be concerned about relying upon a man-made tradition that began hundreds of years after the initial instruction was given and followed "to be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."

If it does not matter how one is water baptized, why does the biblical record consistently reflect the use of Jesus' name? Why are there no records stating, "And they were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?"


Consider the account in Acts 4:7-12:

And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,

If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Peter is just a human vessel. He is no different than you or I. It just so happens that Jesus chose to have him be the first to present the instructions that birthed the New Testament church into existence. (Acts 2:38)

The biblical record indicates that receiving the Holy Ghost is not dependent upon the laying on of hands. Laying hands on a person is just one of the ways a person can receive the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:12-17, 19:2-6) Luke expresses that if we ask for the gift of the Holy Ghost God will give it, (Luke 11:13) and as in the case of Cornelius and others God spontaneously poured His Holy Spirit upon them with no intervention of any kind. (Acts 10:44-48)

Jesus stated that all power had been given unto Him and then went on to say be baptized in the name of...

As you mention and throughout the bible we see the command to use the literal name of Jesus for many things. Upon petitioning God in prayer for ours or others needs, (John 16:23) prayer for healing, (Acts 3:6) casting out demons (Luke 10:17), etc. No one has a problem with being obedient and using Jesus' name in those cases.

Ask yourself why so many get in an uproar when they are shown that the bible records water baptisms were done in Jesus' name.

The historical record indicates the forerunners of the Roman Catholic Church took it upon themselves to remove the all powerful name of Jesus in connection with water baptism. I would think many would be concerned about relying upon a man-made tradition that began hundreds of years after the initial instruction was given and followed "to be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."

If it does not matter how one is water baptized, why does the biblical record consistently reflect the use of Jesus' name? Why are there no records stating, "And they were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?"


Consider the account in Acts 4:7-12:

And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,

If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION—Vol 2, pages 377, 378, 389.

“The Christian baptism was administered using the name of Jesus. The use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history, Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr, when the trinity formula was used.

Volume 2, page 377, commenting on Acts 2:38, “Name was an ancient synonym for person. Payment was always made in the name of some person, referring to ownership, therefore, one being baptized in Jesus name became his personal property, (“Ye are Christ’s I Corinthians 3:23.)

Jesus is the Messiah. He is also God.

By baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they were baptizing in the name of Jesus, as well as the entire Triune God.

Jesus alone paid the price to give all of mankind the opportunity to come back into right standing with God.

We know that in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9) therefore it is proper to be baptized in His name:
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12

In whom (Jesus) also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Col 2:11-12

Notice the inconsistencies. These guys claim that you must speak in tongues after salvation. Salvation must be preceded by baptism.

Yet, he quotes Acts 10 to show that God poured the Holy Spirit out on the Gentiles without any intervention of any kind. And he is correct. They professed belief, and then spoke in tongues, and afterwards were baptized.

However, that doesn't fit their order of salvation.

This is why it is impossible to take Acts, which is a historical account, to consistently form doctrine concerning salvation and baptism.

As I mentioned before, in Acts 10, you have individuals who hear the gospel, and are saved, and speak in tongues prior to baptism. Their order of salvation requires baptism before salvation. Therefore, you see evidence that their order of salvation is not evidenced in Acts.

Their order of salvation:

Hear the gospel => faith and repentance => baptism => salvation => speaking in tongues

Acts 10 order of salvation:

Hear the gospel => faith and repentance => salvation =>speaking in tongues => baptism

My former cult's order of salvation:

Hear the gospel => faith and repentance => baptism => laying on of hands => salvation

You could create other orders of salvation based on different episodes within Acts, and claim that those episodes have the "correct order".

Forming your theology with historical events from Acts is problematic in this way. I don't blame a church for attempting it, but since the episodes are not consistent, it is difficult to do this.

Given explicit statements that not everyone speaks in tongues also destroys their theology.

Acts was a period of transition, and certain aspects of the way events unfolded related to this transition from the Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant, from the authority of the priests to the authority of the Apostles, and from Judaism to Christianity. That is why it is impossible to discern an order of salvation from this.