What is the name of the son per Matt 28:19?

Truther

Well-known member
How does your view compare with Paul's actions in re-baptizing the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19? John's baptism was under the authority of God, right?
Paul re-baptized because he knew it was for the remission of sins VIA the name of Jesus.

Otherwise, he would not have made it into a big deal and left it alone.

We should practice re-baptism in the name of Jesus Christ as Paul did, as needed.

It is just as relevant today as back then.
 

Andreas

Active member
Maybe, you shouldn't put words in my mouth. I never said it doesn't matter what is said at baptism. I simply said rigid formulaic statements are not necessary to properly baptized someone.



Utterly irrelevant in every sense of the word irrelevant. One's personal baptism isn't the giving of a covenant. The one being baptized isn't even the one speaking, so, how can the baptizer's words effect the Covenant between
YHWH and the one being baptized?

God Bless

So, in your view, what exactly does matter in what is said at baptism? Calling on the name of the Lord isn't one of those in your view (Acts 22:16), so what is? According to Romans 6, who is one to identify with during Baptism? How did the Corinthians know they weren't baptized in the name of Paul (1 Corinthians :13)?

When Peter said to the lame man at the gate (Acts 3), "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth", can anyone know for sure that he actually said those words or do we have to just take it as a sort of metaphor?
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
So, in your view, what exactly does matter in what is said at baptism? Calling on the name of the Lord isn't one of those in your view (Acts 22:16), so what is? According to Romans 6, who is one to identify with during Baptism? How did the Corinthians know they weren't baptized in the name of Paul (1 Corinthians :13)?

I'm not saying calling on the name of the Lord isn't important. I'm saying what specific wording you use doesn't matter: You can say "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", "in the name of Jesus", "in the name of the Lord", "In the name of the Lord Jesus", "in the name of the Jesus Christ", or "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." I'm simply arguing rigid, formulaic statements are not necessary to properly baptized someone.

When Peter said to the lame man at the gate (Acts 3), "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth", can anyone know for sure that he actually said those words or do we have to just take it as a sort of metaphor?

This is way off topic, but Peter likely spoke this in Aramaic, which was recorded in Greek, and then translated into English. As long as you're okay with such ambiguity, we can basically know what he said. None of this is relevant to what's occurring with baptism. The idea of rigid, formulaic wordings that must be repeated precisely isn't Christian; it's pagan. We are not wizards or sorcerers who's power is activated by saying the right words. God is a personal God who acts in time as he sees fit. If you think God is going to condemn someone to hellfire because the one who baptized him spoke the wrong words, then you need to update your idea of who God is.

God Bless
 

MMDAN

Active member
I'm not saying calling on the name of the Lord isn't important. I'm saying what specific wording you use doesn't matter: You can say "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", "in the name of Jesus", "in the name of the Lord", "In the name of the Lord Jesus", "in the name of the Jesus Christ", or "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." I'm simply arguing rigid, formulaic statements are not necessary to properly baptized someone.
Amen! While delivering mail one day, I was approached by a customer who is a Oneness Pentecostal. She point blank asked me if I was a Christian and I said yes. She then asked me if I was baptized in "Jesus' name only." I told her that I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. She told me that my baptism was invalid and I needed to get baptized again and this time in "Jesus' name only" or else I won't be saved. She even suggested that I go home that night and baptize myself in the bath tub in "Jesus' name only."

It's so sad that certain people have more faith in rigid, formulaic statements than they do in Jesus Himself. :(
 

Truther

Well-known member
Amen! While delivering mail one day, I was approached by a customer who is a Oneness Pentecostal. She point blank asked me if I was a Christian and I said yes. She then asked me if I was baptized in "Jesus' name only." I told her that I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. She told me that my baptism was invalid and I needed to get baptized again and this time in "Jesus' name only" or else I won't be saved. She even suggested that I go home that night and baptize myself in the bath tub in "Jesus' name only."

It's so sad that certain people have more faith in rigid, formulaic statements than they do in Jesus Himself. :(
I think God is trying to tell you something, Dan.

Listen to Him.

Seriously.
 

MMDAN

Active member
I think God is trying to tell you something, Dan.

Listen to Him.

Seriously.
That wasn't from God and the customer who made that ridiculous statement to me had that 'Jim Jones' look in her eyes. She was creepy! Oneness Pentecostals also teach that speaking in tongues is a necessary requirement to demonstrate that a person has been baptized in the Holy Spirit and is, therefore, saved. Is that also from God? Do you agree with that doctrine as well?


When are you going to finally wake up and smell the coffee?
 

Truther

Well-known member
That wasn't from God and the customer who made that ridiculous statement to me had that 'Jim Jones' look in her eyes. She was creepy! Oneness Pentecostals also teach that speaking in tongues is a necessary requirement to demonstrate that a person has been baptized in the Holy Spirit and is, therefore, saved. Is that also from God? Do you agree with that doctrine as well?


When are you going to finally wake up and smell the coffee?
I know what they teach.

God is demanding that you obey Acts 2:38.

I can guarantee that.

When you are being exposed this much to it, surrender to it.

I don't care if you stay in your religion, just sneak over to your customer's church and get baptized for the remission of your sins in the name of Jesus Christ, shake her hand and go on your way.

There is no doubt in my mind that you are required to take this step by God.
 

MMDAN

Active member
I know what they teach.

God is demanding that you obey Acts 2:38.

I can guarantee that.

When you are being exposed this much to it, surrender to it.

I don't care if you stay in your religion, just sneak over to your customer's church and get baptized for the remission of your sins in the name of Jesus Christ, shake her hand and go on your way.

There is no doubt in my mind that you are required to take this step by God.
I can see that the church of Christ has really done a number on you. :(
 

Truther

Well-known member
I can see that the church of Christ has really done a number on you. :(
Forget all those groups, Dan.

Just bring an extra set of clothes or they may provide a baptismal robe and get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins as the 3000 at Pentecost did.

They are my church. Obeying Acts 2:38 causes you to join the Church of the 3000.
 

MMDAN

Active member
Forget all those groups, Dan.

Just bring an extra set of clothes or they may provide a baptismal robe and get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins as the 3000 at Pentecost did.

They are my church. Obeying Acts 2:38 causes you to join the Church of the 3000.
I was baptized several years ago in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit AFTER my conversion to Christ. Now for the umpteenth time, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47). In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18. *HERMENEUTICS*

These 3,000 folks in Acts 2 were added to the Lord upon repentance/faith (prior to receiving water baptism), just as we see in (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 26:18).

Acts 4:4 - However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 5:14 - And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women. *What happened to baptism? *HERMENEUTICS*

Your church is basically a water baptism cult. :(

It is worth mentioning that there are non-Christian cults who will baptize people “in Jesus’ name” instead of “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19-20. The reason they do this is that they believe that the proper baptismal formula is “in Jesus’ name” and will reference verses like Acts 19:5 above for their support. However, they mistakingly think that baptizing in Jesus’ name is a formula for baptism. They are incorrect. Instead, it is a designation of the authority to baptize in the name of Jesus according to what Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19-20.

 

Truther

Well-known member
I was baptized several years ago in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit AFTER my conversion to Christ. Now for the umpteenth time, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47). In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18. *HERMENEUTICS*

These 3,000 folks in Acts 2 were added to the Lord upon repentance/faith (prior to receiving water baptism), just as we see in (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 26:18).

Acts 4:4 - However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 5:14 - And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women. *What happened to baptism? *HERMENEUTICS*

Your church is basically a water baptism cult. :(

It is worth mentioning that there are non-Christian cults who will baptize people “in Jesus’ name” instead of “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19-20. The reason they do this is that they believe that the proper baptismal formula is “in Jesus’ name” and will reference verses like Acts 19:5 above for their support. However, they mistakingly think that baptizing in Jesus’ name is a formula for baptism. They are incorrect. Instead, it is a designation of the authority to baptize in the name of Jesus according to what Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19-20.

You need to be re-baptized in the name of Jesus Christ like the disciples of John in Acts 19 had to be.

The name of Jesus was the reason they had to be re-baptized.

I hate to give you this bad news, but the fella that baptized you "in the name of the son" was lying to you if he did not say the son's actual name.
 

MMDAN

Active member
You need to be re-baptized in the name of Jesus Christ like the disciples of John in Acts 19 had to be.

The name of Jesus was the reason they had to be re-baptized.

I hate to give you this bad news, but the fella that baptized you "in the name of the son" was lying to you if he did not say the son's actual name.
You sound like that Oneness Pentecostal woman who is also misguided by a false religion that is lying to her.

Your bad news is fake news. The real "good news" is not about water salvation or rigid formula salvation, but that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16) To "believe" the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-SUFFICIENT means of your salvation.

Let me know when you are ready to repent (change your mind) and BELIEVE the gospel.

In regards to Acts 19, Paul asked them in verse 2 if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed and their answer in verse 3 reveals that they were not yet believers. They had received the baptism of John but did not realize that Jesus Christ was the One to whom John's baptism pointed. Paul gave them instructions about Jesus and after they believed Paul's presentation of the gospel and came to saving faith in Christ, they were then "afterwards" baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit (which was the exception, but not the rule). This signified their inclusion in the church. Apostles were also present when the Samaritans (chapter 8) were included. The Jews were hostile towards the Samaritans, yet God's purpose for this was to emphasize unity in the church.
 

Andreas

Active member
Amen! While delivering mail one day, I was approached by a customer who is a Oneness Pentecostal. She point blank asked me if I was a Christian and I said yes. She then asked me if I was baptized in "Jesus' name only." I told her that I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. She told me that my baptism was invalid and I needed to get baptized again and this time in "Jesus' name only" or else I won't be saved. She even suggested that I go home that night and baptize myself in the bath tub in "Jesus' name only."

It's so sad that certain people have more faith in rigid, formulaic statements than they do in Jesus Himself. :(

One of the negative results of Trinitarianism is its practical deemphasis on the name of Jesus. Trinitarian traditions have replaced "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily" (Colossians 2:9) with a form of religion that messes with the identity of Jesus.

Saying the name of "Jesus" is not a "formula". It's the name of the savior! Acts 4:12 tells us there is NO OTHER name given among men to be saved. What better way to show identification with Christ and his death and burial than to actually say his name?

There was a thing going on in some branches of the military where chaplains were told not to pray actually using the name of "Jesus". Are you comfortable with that? But, when Paul preached to the people on Mars hill who had the statue to the unknown God, he didn't say "His name is whatchamacallit".

I suppose you said the "sinners prayer", was it a formula to say the name of Jesus in that prayer? Do you think it is important when people come to Christ in faith and repentance to actually say the name of "Jesus" or do you think that is optional?
 
Last edited:

MMDAN

Active member
One of the negative results of Trinitarianism is its practical deemphasis on the name of Jesus. Trinitarian traditions have replaced "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily" (Colossians 2:9) with a form of religion that messes with the identity of Jesus.

Saying the name of "Jesus" is not a "formula". It's the name of the savior! Acts 4:12 tells us there is NO OTHER name given among men to be saved. What better way to show identification with Christ and his death and burial than to actually say his name?

There was a thing going on in some branches of the military where chaplains were told not to pray actually using the name of "Jesus". When Paul preached to the people on Mars hill who had the statue to the unknown God, he didn't say "His name is whatchamacallit".

I suppose you said the "sinners prayer", was it a formula to say the name of Jesus in that prayer. Do you think it is important when people come to Christ in faith and repentance to actually say the name of "Jesus" or do you think that is optional?
Colossians 2:9 does not mess with the identity of Jesus as the fullness of the Godhead does dwell in Him bodily. Jesus is God. (John 1:1, 14)

Here is a link below to an article that may help you to understand better about this "in Jesus name only" formula confusion.

 

Truther

Well-known member
You sound like that Oneness Pentecostal woman who is also misguided by a false religion that is lying to her.

Your bad news is fake news. The real "good news" is not about water salvation or rigid formula salvation, but that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16) To "believe" the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-SUFFICIENT means of your salvation.

Let me know when you are ready to repent (change your mind) and BELIEVE the gospel.

In regards to Acts 19, Paul asked them in verse 2 if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed and their answer in verse 3 reveals that they were not yet believers. They had received the baptism of John but did not realize that Jesus Christ was the One to whom John's baptism pointed. Paul gave them instructions about Jesus and after they believed Paul's presentation of the gospel and came to saving faith in Christ, they were then "afterwards" baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit (which was the exception, but not the rule). This signified their inclusion in the church. Apostles were also present when the Samaritans (chapter 8) were included. The Jews were hostile towards the Samaritans, yet God's purpose for this was to emphasize unity in the church.
Dan, what is so bad about being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?
Does it seem revolting or something?
I didn’t think something so easy would be so hard.
 

Andreas

Active member
Colossians 2:9 does not mess with the identity of Jesus as the fullness of the Godhead does dwell in Him bodily. Jesus is God. (John 1:1, 14)

Here is a link below to an article that may help you to understand better about this "in Jesus name only" formula confusion.


I've read things similar to that before. I must say, that is one of the weakest articles I've ever read. He makes the argument about authority and uses examples of Bible people actually saying the name of Jesus to invoke that authority and then falsely concludes that its all about authority and not saying the name of Jesus.

He misses the whole point. Of course baptism is all about the authority of Jesus! That's the whole point of actually saying his name out loud!
 

MMDAN

Active member
Dan, what is so bad about being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?
Does it seem revolting or something?
I didn’t think something so easy would be so hard.
What's revolting is robbing Christ of His glory and giving it to the water and a rigid, baptism formula. What is so hard about believing in Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation instead of baptism? (John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..).

That salvation is by grace through faith and is not by works is not hard to understand. It's just hard for you to ACCEPT.
 

MMDAN

Active member
I've read things similar to that before. I must say, that is one of the weakest articles I've ever read. He makes the argument about authority and uses examples of Bible people actually saying the name of Jesus to invoke that authority and then falsely concludes that its all about authority and not saying the name of Jesus.

He misses the whole point. Of course baptism is all about the authority of Jesus! That's the whole point of actually saying his name out loud!
That article was spot on, but if you found it weak and still miss the big picture, then I can't help you any further.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
I've read things similar to that before. I must say, that is one of the weakest articles I've ever read. He makes the argument about authority and uses examples of Bible people actually saying the name of Jesus to invoke that authority and then falsely concludes that its all about authority and not saying the name of Jesus.

He misses the whole point. Of course baptism is all about the authority of Jesus! That's the whole point of actually saying his name out loud!
Speaking the name of Jesus by faith in repentance or baptism is the same as calling on the name of the Lord. Romans 10
 
Last edited:

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Dan, what is so bad about being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?
Does it seem revolting or something?
I didn’t think something so easy would be so hard.
When you call on the name of Jesus in baptism you are identifying yourself with him in his burial.
 
Top