Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ BAPTISM IN WHAT NAME???

[branham1965]

this is quite controversial among PENTECOSTALS.



ive noticed a few are using both formulas.

the Name LORD referred to His Deity.the Name JESUS referred to His humanity.The Name CHRIST referred to His being the Messiah.

this was in a Lester Sumrall book.he immersed in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
and he rebaptized backsliders.

Col 2:9 "for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

Dad Hagin used both formulas.and he would rebaptize backsliders Revelation 2:5.

what do you fellows think????

[titus213]

I understand Dake's idea that "in the name of" can mean "by the authority of" as when a police officer says "open the door in the name of the law". In that sense, being baptized "in the name of Jesus" means by his authority, and he said that baptism should be in the name of the Trinity. Never in the Bible are we told that baptism was done ONLY in Jesus' name. That little word adds an element which just never shows up in the New Testament.

But I personally think the meaning of Matt. 28:19-20 is even simpler than that in Greek, and basically is not meant to be a formula at all. In Greek it says "baptizing them INTO the name . . ." not IN the name. I am baptized INTO a relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A convert to Judaism was baptized into a relationship with the Jewish faith. A convert to Christianity is baptized into a relationship with the Trinity. A new life has begun.

Now in Acts, as they carry the Good News about Jesus and people respond, it's totally natural for the comment to be made that they are being baptized into a relationship with Jesus. Not Jesus only, of course, because in John's Gospel he assures us that the Father and the Spirit also enter into a relationship with us when we receive the Son. But they want to let the people understand that this Jesus they are preaching about is the very one they can know personally.

So it's not about using the right formula. It's not intended to be a formula for baptism at all (as though if you don't recite the right words the whole thing is bogus); it's a simple statement of what baptism means -- a mark that you have entered into a relationship with the Triune God himself.

[branham1965]

thanks Pastor Titus.

its just the two of us i guess.

in my view the converts were /are to be baptized with the NAME pronounced by the Preacher orally over them.

when people were healed they spoke the Name.when devils were cast out they used the Name .cf Mark 16.book of Acts.
now if its the Trinitarian formula or the name of the Lord Jesus Christ or both i believe it should be pronounced over the candidate.

i understand what you are saying.the ASV 1901 says into the Name in Matthew 28.

this is just how i was taught it and view it.

shalom.

I understand Dake's idea that "in the name of" can mean "by the authority of" as when a police officer says "open the door in the name of the law". In that sense, being baptized "in the name of Jesus" means by his authority, and he said that baptism should be in the name of the Trinity. Never in the Bible are we told that baptism was done ONLY in Jesus' name. That little word adds an element which just never shows up in the New Testament.

But I personally think the meaning of Matt. 28:19-20 is even simpler than that in Greek, and basically is not meant to be a formula at all. In Greek it says "baptizing them INTO the name . . ." not IN the name. I am baptized INTO a relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A convert to Judaism was baptized into a relationship with the Jewish faith. A convert to Christianity is baptized into a relationship with the Trinity. A new life has begun.

Now in Acts, as they carry the Good News about Jesus and people respond, it's totally natural for the comment to be made that they are being baptized into a relationship with Jesus. Not Jesus only, of course, because in John's Gospel he assures us that the Father and the Spirit also enter into a relationship with us when we receive the Son. But they want to let the people understand that this Jesus they are preaching about is the very one they can know personally.

So it's not about using the right formula. It's not intended to be a formula for baptism at all (as though if you don't recite the right words the whole thing is bogus); it's a simple statement of what baptism means -- a mark that you have entered into a relationship with the Triune God himself.

[macca]

Here is another from the Jewish NT.
therefore, go and make people from all nations into (talmidim) disciples,
immersing them into the reality of the Father, the Son and the (Ruach Ha-Kodesh) Holy Spirit,
and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.


macca

[Ironman]

Baptism In What Name?

I am a simple man. The Bible was given by God to be understood by babes! (Luke 10:21).

I will go with what Jesus said, taught, and instructed His disciples to do!

Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST:

[branham1965]

amen Haz man.

Baptism In What Name?

I am a simple man. The Bible was given by God to be understood by babes! (Luke 10:21).

I will go with what Jesus said, taught, and instructed His disciples to do!

Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST:

[titus213]

I didn't mean to suggest that we should not baptize with the Name being spoken; I have always baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. My point really was that even when we baptize in that way, it's not a formula. When we put the Name on someone (as the Aaronic Blessing did for the Israelites in Number 6:22f) or when we baptize in(to) the Name, it's not merely an incantation. I think it's also not merely "by the authority of". There is more than either of those going on. As you pointed out, we certainly see the power of the Name in action in the Book of Acts . . . but we also see there a warning that it isn't just a formula for a magic act like 'alakazam'. Acts 19 gives the humorous story of the traveling Jewish exorcists who saw Paul use the Name of Jesus, and thought they'd give it a try. When the demon-possessed man they tried it on went beserk, he jumped them, beat them, and ripped off their clothes.

thanks Pastor Titus.

its just the two of us i guess.

in my view the converts were /are to be baptized with the NAME pronounced by the Preacher orally over them.

when people were healed they spoke the Name.when devils were cast out they used the Name .cf Mark 16.book of Acts.
now if its the Trinitarian formula or the name of the Lord Jesus Christ or both i believe it should be pronounced over the candidate.

i understand what you are saying.the ASV 1901 says into the Name in Matthew 28.

this is just how i was taught it and view it.

shalom.

I understand Dake's idea that "in the name of" can mean "by the authority of" as when a police officer says "open the door in the name of the law". In that sense, being baptized "in the name of Jesus" means by his authority, and he said that baptism should be in the name of the Trinity. Never in the Bible are we told that baptism was done ONLY in Jesus' name. That little word adds an element which just never shows up in the New Testament.

But I personally think the meaning of Matt. 28:19-20 is even simpler than that in Greek, and basically is not meant to be a formula at all. In Greek it says "baptizing them INTO the name . . ." not IN the name. I am baptized INTO a relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A convert to Judaism was baptized into a relationship with the Jewish faith. A convert to Christianity is baptized into a relationship with the Trinity. A new life has begun.

Now in Acts, as they carry the Good News about Jesus and people respond, it's totally natural for the comment to be made that they are being baptized into a relationship with Jesus. Not Jesus only, of course, because in John's Gospel he assures us that the Father and the Spirit also enter into a relationship with us when we receive the Son. But they want to let the people understand that this Jesus they are preaching about is the very one they can know personally.

So it's not about using the right formula. It's not intended to be a formula for baptism at all (as though if you don't recite the right words the whole thing is bogus); it's a simple statement of what baptism means -- a mark that you have entered into a relationship with the Triune God himself.

[macca]

The gospel written by John must frustrate those dudes no-end lol

[branham1965]

they have nothing.but old slewfoot in them.

what rubbish.these men hate the Lord Jesus Christ and were/are playing with God's Holy Word .