In the "About" Section of SI - Trinity Baptism

Compliments wrote:

In baptism in water, by immersion, after regeneration, in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

In the "About" section it states:

Q. Does SermonIndex have a certain denominational emphasis? No. SermonIndex desires to be a expression of the [b]apostolic[/b] church found in Scriptures.

I am just curious, how is baptism in the Trinity Apostolic? when the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus.

To baptize in the Trinity is a denominational preference that is not apostolic, for none of the Apostles used that method, save only the name of Jesus.

Rome and her daughters do though.

Why do we choose tradition or some favourite preachers preference over what the Apostles practised?

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:

The Apostles understood that all power was given unto Jesus.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Forgive me Brother and Sisters, I never expected this to come from SermonIndex, never.

Ban me, Bar me, Rebuke me, but can someone please tell me where one Apostle baptized in the name of of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

AMEN Compliments, this is just a plain truth of the Word.

Not only that, but when does the Bible ever say that water baptism is AFTER regeneration and not a part of regneration.

To baptize in the Trinity is a denominational preference that is not apostolic, for none of the Apostles used that method, save only the name of Jesus.

Trinitarian baptism is apostolic; it is Biblical (Matt. 28:19) and water immersion in the Triune Name was practiced by the early church. Peter's command in Acts 2:38 "in the name of Jesus" literally means "[i]upon[/i] the Name of Jesus" or "[i]upon the authority of Jesus[/i]" and the Greek for "name" in Matthew 28:19 is also in singular form and used distributively as it refers to the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. These Three are One, as the apostles understood, and they were baptizing in the [i]authority[/i] of Jesus as according to His command in Matthew 28:19.

Not only that, but when does the Bible ever say that water baptism is AFTER regeneration and not a part of regneration.

Blazed, we've been through this before. The "baptism unto salvation" error is dangerous and deceptive and it strips Jesus of the sovereign redemptive power through His blood alone by faith. It is clear that this topic is no longer under investigation - it has been refuted in our earlier thread; and I would therefore kindly ask you to stop trying to propogate it on SermonIndex.

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:

This is the scripture you quoted.

What's the issue?

To baptize in the Trinity is a denominational preference that is not apostolic, for none of the Apostles used that method, save only the name of Jesus.

How do you come to that conclusion? Because there isn't an exact word upon word reproduction? An argument from silence?

Ban me, Bar me, Rebuke me, but can someone please tell me where one Apostle baptized in the name of of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

[i]Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost[/i].

Jesus told them to!

What on earth are you talking about?

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in WORD OR DEED, do [b]ALL in the name of the Lord Jesus[/b], giving thanks to God and the Father by him

Jesus taught to pray in his name, to cast out devils in his name, to heal the sick in his name, to preach the Word in his name but all of a sudden when it comes to baptism he is going to teach say Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

When JESUS the Son, is the "everlasting FATHER" according to Isa 9:6

Col 3:17 is plain, to even include water baptism in his name-which is Jesus Christ-even as Peter states in Acts 2:38

Peter in Acts 2:38 is NOT referring to or talking about baptizing them in the "Athority"- it is plain that the Name of Jesus is ABOVE every name (regardless of whatever name you try to give)

We are even saved BY the NAME;
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other [b]name[/b] under heaven given among men, [b]whereby we must be saved.[/b]

Paul West, you didn't answer the question, you stated your opinion which you have the right to do according to your convictions, [b]but so do I.[/b] My statement was: Where does the Bible say that water baptism is AFTER regeneration and not a part of regneration?

[u][b]Titus 1:10-16 (NKJV)[/b][/u]

For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

Jesus taught to pray in his name, to cast out devils in his name, to heal the sick in his name, to preach the Word in his name but all of a sudden when it comes to baptism he is going to teach say Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Mat 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:

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

I am pretty much at a loss as to just what the issue is here.

Dear friends,

I cannot imagine that anyone would object to calling the name of Jesus Christ over those who are baptised, if His name is called upon for all else.

But whatever the case, I wish you all grace.

Chris

Jesus taught to pray in his name, to cast out devils in his name, to heal the sick in his name, to preach the Word in his name but all of a sudden when it comes to baptism he is going to teach say Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Matthew 28:19? I agree with Mike - we must be missing something here.

Peter in Acts 2:38 is NOT referring to or talking about baptizing them in the "Athority"- it is plain that the Name of Jesus is ABOVE every name (regardless of whatever name you try to give)

Precisely my point.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

You're wrenching the scriptures. If the literal name of Jesus - to follow your logic - saved, Richard Dawkins, who has used the word "Jesus" in numerous discussions and debates would be converted. Roman Catholic priests who invoke His Name every Sunday in the grips of futile religiosity would deliver anointed homilies. We can apply this very same concept to water baptism (which you believe must happen to be saved), and to any other physical ordinance or sacrament of the church. But I contend that [i]it is by faith alone in what Jesus Christ has already accomplished[/i] which reconciles and justifies us before God, and nothing else can be added to the blood to make our salvation more complete or efficacious. The practice of the sacraments are most encouraged and good, but they are not at all vital or needed for salvation. To teach any other addition or requirement is error.

[i]"It is finished"[/i]

Dear Brothers,

Perhaps one might re-visit the baptism(s) in Scripture with the following a bit:

Acts 1:22
Beginning from the [b]baptism of John,[/b] unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Acts 13:24
When John had first preached before his coming[i] [b]the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.[/b][/i]

Acts 18:25
This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, [b]knowing only the baptism of John.[/b]

Acts 19:3
[b]And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.[/b]

Acts 11:16
Then I remembered what the Lord had said:[b] 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.[/b]

1 Corinthians 12:13
[b]For we were all baptized by one Spirit [/b]into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Even though I had been water-baptized (John's Baptism) by some man who claimed to have some authority on me at the time.I no longer see any requirement of the "rite" of water baptism for those who are saved by the Blood of Christ and are baptized by the Holy Spirit upon regeneration.
The apostle Paul was circumcised, but later refuted circumcision as a requirement for salvation by Grace through faith alone.

This subject has become such a confusion for all denominations and so very many Christians, I was helped quite a bit when I followed the above Scriptures taking in consideration of the timeline of the events and subjects(Jews vs Gentiles). I remember asking Dr.Dwight Pentecost at Dallas Seminary in person about this, he said that water baptism was a "Jewish Rite", a rite that our LORD required of the unrepentant Israel during HIS earthly ministry to Israel.

At the early onset of Paul's ministry to Israel before he turned to the Gentiles, he water baptized a few as one can read about his ministry in Scripture ,and asked that one should not forbid water baptism, but as for requirement to salvation, no! We read in

1 Corinthians 1:17
[b]For Christ did [i]not[/i] send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, [i]lest[/i] the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.[/b]

In Christ,
mamaluk

Acts 8:29-38 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

First the Holy Spirit sent Phillip to the eunuch, then the eunuch said that He believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. "Regeneration". For no one can say that Jesus is Lord unless he is born from above.

1Jo 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

New birth first.

Then he can be baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

In Christ: Phillip

Even though I had been water-baptized (John's Baptism) by some man who claimed to have some authority on me at the time.I no longer see any requirement of the "rite" of water baptism for those who are saved by the Blood of Christ and are baptized by the Holy Spirit upon regeneration.

But sister, what are you to do with the Lord's own words, again;

[i]Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:[/i] Mat 28:19

I wish somebody would tell me just what in the world is going on here with this. Why is this suddenly such an issue? Honestly, would somebody enlighten me to what this is all about? I am almost afraid to go on to the other extrapolations and maybe that is part of it ... How do we get around the Lord's own words? I am utterly baffled.

John's baptism was unto repentance and with reference to Him that was to come after him, namely Jesus. Jesus has come and died and rose again and this is one of the very first things He tells the disciples after He is risen. 'Go, do this'.

This subject has become such a confusion for all denominations and so very many Christians, I was helped quite a bit when I followed the above Scriptures taking in consideration of the timeline of the events and subjects(Jews vs Gentiles). I remember asking Dr.Dwight Pentecost at Dallas Seminary in person about this, he said that water baptism was a "Jewish Rite", a rite that our LORD required of the unrepentant Israel during HIS earthly ministry to Israel.

At the early onset of Paul's ministry to Israel before he turned to the Gentiles, he water baptized a few as one can read about his ministry in Scripture ,and asked that one should not forbid water baptism, but as for requirement to salvation, no! We read in

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

This is troublesome sister, to square this off as merely a 'rite' or a 'Jewish rite' as it is stated ... maybe I am beginning to pick up on the confusion or fear here but first this regarding Paul;

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

The context gives the essence, that Paul's concern was that these things would be attributed to [i]himself[/i] not that he shouldn't baptize at all or that the ordinance had some change ...

At the early onset of Paul's ministry to Israel before he turned to the Gentiles, he water baptized a few as one can read about his ministry in Scripture ,and asked that one should not forbid water baptism, but as for requirement to salvation, no! We read in

"Requirement to salvation". This stood out and if this is what this whole fear is about then we have really got to get our heads around this. I can think of the bit's and pieces over the whole schisms about whether to baptize in Jesus Name only and others but this is practically ridiculous. Trust you allow and recognize I am going off into generalities and to others who have raised this questioning here.

Are we fearful that because of the wide spread abuse of 'said' conversions or the wrong emphasis being placed, namely that 'going through the motions' such as baptism will give the wrong impression that we will now do away with ... 'the baby and the baptism water' to coin a phrase? I recognize the quick launch off unto the merely outward forms as saving graces alone, the follow along and repeat these words without any heart alteration, any exchange of wholesale disposition. But this is to confuse matters incredibly.

It is not just a 'rite' it is a [i]right[/i] and a privilege and that which the Lord Himself did though He was in no need of it in the way we are as an ultimate expression. Besides and again I am completely stuck on His own words, go, do this ... what is the trouble?

The eunuch; [i]See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.[/i]

Enthusiasm! Rejoicing!

The jailer ... [i]And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.[/i]

Straightway! Immediately!

Lest there be any confusion over whether one is expensed at the other;

[i]For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.[/i] Act 10:46-48

Think the over scrutiny about the 'name of the Lord' is not worth rehashing here. It might be said in the name of the Lord as the Lord commanded, [i]baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost[/i]. But I think this is ultimately much ado over nothing frankly. It is just not very difficult to grasp nor to do and for the life of me ...

This is the high moment if you will, the grand spectacle first unto God and to the angles and every demon and their father! Another one snatched from their clutches! It is putting them on notice that the allegiance has changed, no longer captive, but free! Free from the lies, freed from hell itself! It's both a expression and a statement to all and if anything last but still part and parcel, it is unto men as well. In that sense of proclaiming, I am no longer that which I was previous, changed, reborn ... new! New creation, all things have become ... new! Reborn from above, it is about the closest thing to an out of body in the body experience we can know. Yes, I am waxing eloquent here, how can I not? All these things are but that which leads up to and out of this giving of expression that baptism is and means and shows forth, it gets me tremendously excited at just the prospect, can you tell?

Even more redundantly I will go on repeating my thrill and rejoicing at others baptisms I was privileged, yes privileged to attend, even my own, some two years 'after he fact' ... I am telling you that day, Oh I thought for sure my face would crack, my jaw hurt from the all day long smile, remember the motherly warning about not frowning or else your face would perpetually be stuck? For certain it would be the opposite. Great joy and rejoicing! Others that I was privy to ... up and out of the water and the tears come bursting through the eye damn.

Dear saints, this is a great blessing and grand honor, how can it be ... trivialized or so distorted? I want to be careful here how I put this but we are blessed indeed, let me curb the enthusiasm a moment and bring this to a more sobering recognition. As many of us know and recognize in many places in the world this is your death sentence, baptism. The account of Richard Wurmbrandt taking new coverts to the zoo to see lions and the very [i]real[/i] prospect of what they are giving themselves to. Theirs is to put all this into right perspective. True allegiance. True willingness. True and real threats, not just from the hordes of hell but those that do their bidding. Cost!

I am really afraid that much of our squabbling is without real heart, soul, guttural, spiritual makeup. There is this penchant to take a scalpel to the scriptures and make the bit's stand on all fours. I am surely just as guilty of doing likewise to my shame. To quote the quote from Philologos; "Theology is meant to be sung" and having a academic that is choked off at the head being fed piecemeal is to starve out the soul, the spirit. Meaning. We must get to the meaning, what is said and what is meant when it is said, when [i]it is written[/i]. I fear there is often the treating of the scriptures as if they were sport for us. We do not take them collectively as the [i]full[/i] counsel of God but end up dabbing here and there building up little schemes in our heads that become a buttress and a bulwark that so much energy and exercise is expensed to tear down before we can see the foundation. I propose that it is all back-wards, that in effect we ought to completely destroy the structure and start over again, at the beginning. It is the redundant plea of Zac Poonen; To address the scriptures every day afresh, as if we have never heard them before. It can be done and it is the healthiest approach I know of. It curbs our pride and shatters the rose colored or doctrinal\\denominational
schism and ism styled glasses that we see everything through. If anything, anything at all, context! Context is King. If we cannot get ourselves disciplined enough to go through the entire Book in some form or fashion (pleading guilt here) at least, at least to familiarize ourselves with whole interior books, letters, epistles.

Perhaps all this exuberance is just my concern and it is not to overstate or understate, indict anyone ... just to consider, always to consider. I just find that there is a great deal of energy expensed over the most simplistic and innate matters. Recalling;

[i]Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.[/i] Heb 6:1-3

Compliments wrote:
Mike, Brother, I just want to know where in the Acts of the Apostles did anyone baptize in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit?

Without getting into some scholarly mode of thinking, but just pretend that your a 12 year old opening the bible to the book of Acts with that question been given to you, where is the Father Son and Holy Spirit baptism at?

As a 12 year old, what kind of answer are you going to give?

Compliments, I cannot understand neither what are you talking about and what you want to say here?

If a 12 year old opens a bible, it will read:

Mat 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:

Is it something confusing here, is this something complex for understanding? It is plain, simple commandment.

I cannot get what is your point.

Mike, Brother, I just want to know where in the Acts of the Apostles did anyone baptize in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit?

Without getting into some scholarly mode of thinking, but just pretend that your a 12 year old opening the bible to the book of Acts with that question been given to you, where is the Father Son and Holy Spirit baptism at?

As a 12 year old, what kind of answer are you going to give?

Thanks brother, just to respond as this is very baffling to me. I would give the very same words that our Lord gave;

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, [i]baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost[/i]: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you

Brother, just because there is not a didactic, word upon word sequence elsewhere does not mean that this is somehow now proving otherwise. For the life of me, what is wrong with this edict of our Lord? What is all the squirming about? If I am giving the impression of overdoing it here, that there is something ... 'magical' about it or legislative for lack of better words, it's not that, I just do not get it. Why does it matter? Is this all about the suddenly dreaded 'trinity' that seems to have come broaching these shores ... I don't want fill your mouth with words or infer anything, a statement made in generalities. Truly brother, I am baffled.

Surely not!

Further - and not at all to be cynical, but simply to take note of the many-times copied manuscripts from which we have the New Testament - it wouldn't have been very difficult to add the Father and the Holy Ghost to Matt 28:19 long after it was written. Remember, the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out - the Spirit by which we cry 'Abba! Father!' (Rom 8:15)

Looking at the sentence (in Matt 28:19) there is an uncharacteristic change of syntax, from Jesus referring to Himself as 'Me' to 'the Son'. If the disciples had heard Him say 'name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost', mightn't we have expected to find this recorded in Acts - their obedience?

You would pour suspicion into this? Another argument from silence. How many other things were not repeated verbatim? Here you go again, this is absolutely ludicrous. It's not cynical it's devilish. For crying out loud, there is nothing wrong here at all, why is there such a problem with something so straight forward and simple. Do you not recognize the sound of "Has the Lord said?"

You are making exactly my point, making sport of the scriptures and injecting insinuations and suspicion to boot. Such nonsense.

Dear brother Mike,

"For the life of me, what is wrong with this edict of our Lord?"

Dear brother, when I was baptised in water, it was at a church that believed in pronouncing the name of the Lord Jesus over those being baptised. I think what myself and others would see in this is that the Apostles obeyed the command in Matthew 28:19 by using the name of Jesus Christ, that is, that is how they identified Who it was they were representing and in Whose authority they acted on.

Brother, does that make more sense of this?

Whatever the case, I for one do not want to be contentious among you all and wish all of us only goodness and grace from God.

Much love to you,

Chris