Originally posted by divegeester Can you find me any place in all of Acts or indeed the new testament where the disciples used this formula? There aren't any.
Every time the disciples baptised into the name (not names) of Jesus.
Jesus is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the "one name given amongst men by which we may be saved."
======================================
Can you find me any place in all of Acts or indeed the new testament where the disciples used this formula? There aren't any.
Every time the disciples baptised into the name (not names) of Jesus.
Jesus is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the "one name given amongst men by which we may be saved."
======================================
This passage in Matthew 28:19 was not to be a legal formulation of what has to be pronounced at a baptism. Jesus was saying to plunge the converts into the reality of the Father - Son - Holy Spirit God.
Great disputes have occured because of taking that passage as a legally binding ritual concerning what a baptizer must verbally speak during a baptism.
Any of the following pronouncements would be scriptural:
1.) "Today, we baptize you into the one Body of Christ !"
2.) "Hallalujah brother! This day we baptize you into the death of Christ."
3.) "Glory to God sister! Today we baptize you into the one Spirit."
4.) " We hereby baptize you upon the name of Jesus Christ! Praise God!"
5.) "This day we baptize you into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"
Originally posted by jaywill [b]======================================
Can you find me any place in all of Acts or indeed the new testament where the disciples used this formula? There aren't any.
Every time the disciples baptised into the name (not names) of Jesus.
Jesus is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the "one name given amongst men by ...[text shortened]... Son and the Holy Spirit"
6.) " We now baptize you into Christ. "[/b]
but the Bible says:
28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
There are lots of translations here: http://bible.cc/matthew/28-19.htm and they all name all 3 parts of the trinity.
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Where does it say that it should not be taken literally? How do you know that what was meant is different to what is reported as having been said?
[b]28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
There are lots of translations here: http://bible.cc/matthew/28-19.htm and they all name all 3 parts of the trinity.
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Where does it say that it should not be ta ...[text shortened]... u know that what was meant is different to what is reported as having been said?
--- Penguin.[/b]
Truth be told, baptism (the physical aspect of it) was specifically designed for a very narrow window in time, and that window has since been closed. During our time, when a person passes from unbeliever to believer, they are simultaneously baptized into the nature of every member of the Godhead.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Truth be told, baptism (the physical aspect of it) was specifically designed for a very narrow window in time, and that window has since been closed. During our time, when a person passes from unbeliever to believer, they are simultaneously baptized into the nature of every member of the Godhead.
Really? Is that the official position of the church? If not (and even if it is!) what evidence do we have that that is the case? Does it say so anywhere in the bible for instance?
Hang on, I have done a quick Google. From http://www.baptism.org.uk/what_is_baptism.htm:
There are, roughly speaking, four views of the effect of someone being baptised:
· Nothing. Christians need not bother with the physical sign of baptism if they experience the spiritual grace. Spirit-baptism is the fulfilment of the ceremony of water-baptism. This view is taken by churches which do not practice sacraments, such as the Quakers (Society of Friends) and Salvation Army.
· An expression of obedience to Jesus, and as such is desirable but not essential: it is a sign which symbolises an underlying reality but has no actual effect. This view is called Zwinglian (after Zwingli 1484-1531) or Baptist (but many Baptist theologians are closer to the Reformed view). One of the main points of baptism on this view is that it is a witness to others of one’s personal decision to follow Christ.
· It is a sign and seal, effecting what it signifies in the context of faith. This is the Reformed or Covenant view, held by the Church of England (in the 39 Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer) and the Presbyterian Westminster Confession. “In the context of faith” means that the New Testament’s language of efficacy (e.g. Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21) is correctly applied to those who trust in Jesus for themselves.
· it does what it says it does, actually making someone a Christian. This is called the “Catholic” or “Ex opere operato” view. (These Latin words mean it works by virtue of having been performed correctly.).
So it is either unnecessary (as you say), or it is essential, or somewhere in between. It can't be all of these options, so how do we figure out which it is (or which it is not)?
Originally posted by galveston75 No comment yet? Just the question here is the obvious one which is if Jesus is God and if all three of these beings of the Trinity are all equal and all knowing and all powerful as the trinity explains, then why wouldn't Jesus already have all the authority that the other two parts have? Did he not have it before this was given to him?
And for one part ...[text shortened]... t?
Why does the bible not say the Holy Spirit is given this same authority as Jesus is given?
Originally posted by divegeester Can you find me any place in all of Acts or indeed the new testament where the disciples used this formula? There aren't any.
Every time the disciples baptised into the name (not names) of Jesus.
Jesus is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the "one name given amongst men by which we may be saved."
You misunderstand this, I explained this a a couple months ago on
another thread. The saying "in the name of" means "in the authority of".
All authority has been given to the Son by the Father and the Holy Spirit
does the baptizing. So all three persons in the Godhead are involved.
Originally posted by galveston75 No comment yet? Just the question here is the obvious one which is if Jesus is God and if all three of these beings of the Trinity are all equal and all knowing and all powerful as the trinity explains, then why wouldn't Jesus already have all the authority that the other two parts have? Did he not have it before this was given to him?
And for one part ...[text shortened]... t?
Why does the bible not say the Holy Spirit is given this same authority as Jesus is given?
im of the mind the trinity is 3 of the same each with a gift. god the father which jesus never puts himself equal is the head, brains. jesus is the heart and lungs by which we seek to be forgiven, the spirit is the outer body which works to do the glory of the two.
jesus had the authority but had to go thro this life and death but wether he had to be raised from one the angels im uncertan.
the bible lets the reader read then its for the reader to try to understand for themselves, not easy i know but just as jesus was the christ hidden from most at the time we are presented with similar questions
Originally posted by Penguin Really? Is that the official position of the church? If not (and even if it is!) what evidence do we have that that is the case? Does it say so anywhere in the bible for instance?
Hang on, I have done a quick Google. From http://www.baptism.org.uk/what_is_baptism.htm:
There are, roughly speaking, four views of the effect of someone being bapt all of these options, so how do we figure out which it is (or which it is not)?
--- Penguin.
It is difficult for the church to possess an official position, just as it is difficult for any loosely-woven group of people to have one. Practitioners of science are called scientists, but you'd be hard-pressed to get any one to submit to an official position on anything other than the most basic of concepts... and even these will not be without objections by some.
Dispensationalism, which considers the time of man as segmented and separated by the distinct administrations of God, utilized baptism for a short amount of time. While it is not forbidden to participate in our current dispensation, any such activity is strictly for the sake of the one so engaging and offers no real spiritual benefit--- unlike in the previous dispensation when it was more than symbolic.
Originally posted by stoker im of the mind the trinity is 3 of the same each with a gift. god the father which jesus never puts himself equal is the head, brains. jesus is the heart and lungs by which we seek to be forgiven, the spirit is the outer body which works to do the glory of the two.
jesus had the authority but had to go thro this life and death but wether he had to be raise ...[text shortened]... ust as jesus was the christ hidden from most at the time we are presented with similar questions
I apprecite your comment but we really have to go on what the entire Bible says and how it describes who or what the 3 beings of the trinity doctrine are or not wha tthey are. The Bible at clearly says God is 1 God. If he were 3 beings mixed together into one somehow, this scripture should not be in the Bible or this would have been a good time to explain that he was a multiple being God but no terminology exist like that in the Bible.
Originally posted by galveston75 No comment yet? Just the question here is the obvious one which is if Jesus is God and if all three of these beings of the Trinity are all equal and all knowing and all powerful as the trinity explains, then why wouldn't Jesus already have all the authority that the other two parts have? Did he not have it before this was given to him?
And for one part ...[text shortened]... t?
Why does the bible not say the Holy Spirit is given this same authority as Jesus is given?
When Christ stepped down off of His throne (Temporally) He gave up temporally some of the attributes of the Godhead by being in the flesh. This was just a fact as being in the flesh put physical limits on Christ during His time on the earth. This is why Jesus said things like No one knows the day or hour except the father. This is also why Jesus became tired and hungry. The authority was given to Him by the father. When Christ was Resurrected He gained all of his authority and power back anyway.
From John 17:5
5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. (Sounds like equality to me Jesus and the father)
Originally posted by menace71 When Christ stepped down off of His throne (Temporally) He gave up temporally some of the attributes of the Godhead by being in the flesh. This was just a fact as being in the flesh put physical limits on Christ during His time on the earth. This is why Jesus said things like No one knows the day or hour except the father. This is also why Jesus became tire ...[text shortened]... had with You before the world was. (Sounds like equality to me Jesus and the father)
Originally posted by menace71 When Christ stepped down off of His throne (Temporally) He gave up temporally some of the attributes of the Godhead by being in the flesh. This was just a fact as being in the flesh put physical limits on Christ during His time on the earth. This is why Jesus said things like No one knows the day or hour except the father. This is also why Jesus became tire ...[text shortened]... had with You before the world was. (Sounds like equality to me Jesus and the father)
Manny
Good play with words Manny. Your still forgetting that Jesus himself said he was the first of all creations. God was never created and has always been. You guys still play with words and twist them to make them fit this made up doctrine that never existed at all in the Bible and still does not exist in the Bible.
I'm not going to get back into this with you two. You've let this trick by Satan work on you and I can tell you honestly have been suckered into this.
It's sad because you guys are too smart to let this happen.
Originally posted by galveston75 Good play with words Manny. Your still forgetting that Jesus himself said he was the first of all creations. God was never created and has always been. You guys still play with words and twist them to make them fit this made up doctrine that never existed at all in the Bible and still does not exist in the Bible.
I'm not going to get back into this wi ...[text shortened]... y have been suckered into this.
It's sad because you guys are too smart to let this happen.
Or maybe to smart to be duped by a false doctrine that denies Christ his honor and worship that He is due. You are mis-understanding the scripture about Christ being the first born of all creation.
Heb 13:8
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
The Holy Trinity
17 Jun '11 04:21
Back to Top