The truth about baptism

[ViaCrucis]

But what is the name of the son?

The name of the Son is Jesus.
But Jesus is not the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory", it is the Word, the only-begotten Son of the Father, who became flesh, born of Mary, and is named Jesus Christ. "You shall call Him Jesus" (Luke 1:31)

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ToBeLoved]

Forgive me, but baptism is supposed to be done in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, and not just Jesus. So from there on, go back and rework your statement.

He's a Oneness/Jesus Only person (Non Trinitarian)

 

[ViaCrucis]

Dip/submerge is the equivalent of being buried though that’s why I used burial to describe it.

Well, no. No one would have described a burial as a baptism in the ancient world.

Also as you pointed out it connotes buried with Christ.

Christian baptism does. Because Christian baptism is a specific thing: it means burial with Christ, death with Christ, being crucified with Christ, being clothed with Christ, it means remission of sin, receiving the Holy Spirit, and new birth.

I would like you all to analyze the content a bit further though rather then word choice tbh. I will change the word choice though to describe the Greek I’ll just put the official definition dip/sub though sense it seems to be bothering quite a few people.

As GingerBeer pointed out, it also can simply mean "wash"; which is why in Mark's Gospel it can describe the washing of various objects as "baptism",

"and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches." (Mark 7:4)

καὶ ἀπό ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶν (Mark 7:4)

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

That is incorrect, and a slander to all Catholics. The Didache also tells us to baptize in the Trinitarian formula.

And, in the 2nd Century, the Catholic Church was an illegal religion under constant attack. She was, along with the Orthodox Church, ONE church back then, and she did not have the power to re-write Scripture.



The Catholics NEVER changed the formula. It is the same in Greek and Latin (Vulgate, Matt 28:19 euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti--English [KJV, a Protestant Bible] “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”--Greek, 19 πορευθέντες q]">[q]οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, r]">[r]βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,)

They all say the same thing. So go back and work your statements a bit.

I asked a simple question what is the name of the son.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Well, no. No one would have described a burial as a baptism in the ancient world.



Christian baptism does. Because Christian baptism is a specific thing: it means burial with Christ, death with Christ, being crucified with Christ, being clothed with Christ, it means remission of sin, receiving the Holy Spirit, and new birth.



As GingerBeer pointed out, it also can simply mean "wash"; which is why in Mark's Gospel it can describe the washing of various objects as "baptism",

"and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches." (Mark 7:4)

καὶ ἀπό ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶν (Mark 7:4)

-CryptoLutheran

But.. if we consider the context in which the word baptized is utilized and if we are aware that baptism means buried with Christ.... wouldn’t common sense say that the dip/submerge meaning fits better? I mean what better way to be buried like Christ then to be “buried” or submerged in water? I mean I just don’t get what the problem is.

 

[ViaCrucis]

But.. if we consider the context in which the word baptized is utilized and if we are aware that baptism means buried with Christ.... wouldn’t common sense say that the dip/submerge meaning fits better? I mean what better way to be buried like Christ then to be “buried” or submerged in water? I mean I just don’t get what the problem is.

It's simply that what a word means on its own, and its use in a specific sense are important to keep in mind. Christian baptism is a very specific sense of the word "baptism", referring to the Sacrament instituted by Christ for His Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

It's simply that what a word means on its own, and its use in a specific sense are important to keep in mind. Christian baptism is a very specific sense of the word "baptism", referring to the Sacrament instituted by Christ for His Church.

-CryptoLutheran

I see I understand where you’re coming from now.

 

[DamianWarS]

Baptism in the Greek means submerge/dip. If your not buried under you’re not baptized. Acts 19King James Version (KJV)

19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

1A. It is by baptism in Jesus name that our sins are remitted/washed away/buried, because by the name of Jesus the blood of Jesus is applied to a person. (Matthew 26:28, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:43, 48, Acts 22:16(Paul when he believed Jesus as his savior was told he still had to go to Damascus to find out what he must do. Believing wasn’t enough. He got the Holy Ghost and then was told to be baptized in Jesus name for washing is his sins.), Revelation 1:5, Exodus 12:5-7, 13, 1Peter 1:18-19, Revelation 12:11, Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 1:14, Colossians 2:11-12. 1Corinthians 6:11) 2A. The Bible says we are saved by baptism. (1Peter 3:21) Water baptism in Jesus name is compared to Noah and the flood. The sin of the world in Noah’s day was washed away, while Noah was saved by the water, safe in the ark. Our sins are washed away, while we are saved by water baptism in Jesus name.ark is a type of the church. (i.e. One door – Jesus is the door.) We enter into the church by water and Spirit baptism. 2C. Water baptism in Jesus name is an essential part of obedience to the gospel. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. (1Corinthians 15:1-4, Romans 6:1-23.) We must obey the gospel in order to be saved. (2Thessalonians 1:8, 1Peter 4:17, Corinthians 9:14 Even so hath the LORD ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. Romans 10:16.) Obeying/ living the gospel is by repentance and water baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, which follows Jesus’ death (crucifixion), burial, and resurrection. . .1(Romans 6:1-4,, Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Acts 2:38.). 2D. Historical evidence of baptism In Jesus name ;

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA

11TH edition, Vol 3, Pg 365-366

The baptismal formula was changed from the name of JESUS CHRIST to the words Father, Son, & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.

________________________________________

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA

Vol 3, Pg 82

Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.

________________________________________

CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

Pg 53

The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the 2nd century.

________________________________________

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

Vol 2, Pg 263

Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.

________________________________________

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA

OF RELIGION

Vol 2, Pg 377

Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.

.

________________________________________



________________________________________

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

Vol 2, Pg 377 on ACTS 2:38

NAME was an ancient synonym for “person”. Payment was always made in the name of some person referring ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus Name became his personal property. “Ye are Christ’s.”

________________________________________



ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS

(1951), II, 384, 389

The formula used was ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion….in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. ….

________________________________________

INTERPRETERS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

(1962) I, 351

The evidence … suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, nut ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’.

________________________________________

A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT (Otto Heick)

(1965), I, 53

At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the : Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

________________________________________

HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

(1898), I, 241

[] the original form of words was ‘into the name of Jesus Christ’. .

________________________________________


THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE

(1957), I, 435

The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus …, which still occurs even in the second and third centuries.

________________________________________

CANNEY’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIONS

(1970), Pg 53

Persons were baptized at first ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ … or ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus.’… Afterwards, they were baptized ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

________________________________________

ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA

(1899), I, 473

It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times ‘in the name of Jesus Christ,’ or in that ‘of the Lord Jesus.’ This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single – not triple, as was the later creed.

________________________________________

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA

11TH edition, (1910), Vol 2, Pg 365

Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the new Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so wide spread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid.


2E. Historic evidence of baptism washing away sins.

“‘I have heard, sir,’ said I, ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’” (The Shepherd 4:3:1 to 2 [A.D. 80]).


Ignatius of Antioch


“Let none of you turn deserter. Let your baptism be your armor; your faith, your helmet; your love, your spear; your patient endurance, your panoply” (Letter to Polycarp 6 [A.D. 110]).


Second Clement


“For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey his commandments. . . . With what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?’ (Second Clement 6:7 to 9 [A.D. 150]). Clement of Alexandria


“When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal . . . ‘and sons of the Most High’ [Psalms 82:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 190]).

I believe the essence of baptism is submerged but I think we miss the point when we pick over the details like that.

The example of Acts John's disciples were baptised in Jesus' name only yet Jesus instructs himself says "...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

It's a spell and saying a string of words together in a specific order doesn't make the job "more done" God looks at the heart

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

I believe the essence of baptism is submerged but I think we miss the point when we pick over the details like that.

The example of Acts John's disciples were baptised in Jesus' name only yet Jesus instructs himself says "...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

It's a spell and saying a string of words together in a specific order doesn't make the job "more done" God looks at the heart

But the name is Jesus though that’s why they baptized in Jesus Name it’s not cause it doesn’t matter. I mean the name of the son is Jesus

 

[PeaceB]

In other words, Jesus plus something we do?

How is this different than the situation Paul spoke against where Jews were telling Gentile believers they must be circumcised?

Something you do, such as believing that Jesus is your lord and savior, perhaps?

 

[amariselle]

Something you do, such as believing that Jesus is your lord and savior, perhaps?

We've been over our differing perspectives regarding faith in another thread, as you know, so I will not go into that again.

God bless.

 

[PeaceB]

We've been over our differing perspectives regarding faith in another thread, as you know, so I will not go into that again.

God bless.

OK. We will just stick to implying that people add to the saving work of Christ, when we discuss things that other people do, but not things that we do. It's much easier to maintain our beliefs that way.

God bless you too.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

I remember that thread you two went at it. That was one of the last ones I read before I left for a bit

 

[amariselle]

OK. We will just stick to implying that people add to the saving work of Christ, when we discuss things that other people do, but not things that we do. It's much easier to maintain our beliefs that way.

God bless you too.

You may want to go back and carefully read what I wrote. It's unfortunate that you've come to the conclusion that that is what I was doing.

And no one needs to or should take my word for anything, Scripture is available for people to read and study.

 

[amariselle]

I remember that thread you two went at it. That was one of the last ones I read before I left for a bit

Yep. Which is why I'm not going there again. It's not about what I say either, it's about what the word of God says.

 

[PeaceB]

Scripture is available for people to read and study.

Well, that is something that we can agree on.

 

[Brokenhill]

I agree with the OP, a couple thoughts thoughts / counter-counter-points that I didn't notice when skimming through the thread:

1. Regardless of the Greek definition, of "baptizo"/"baptisma"/etc...the bible defines baptism itself that it is indeed FULL SUBMERSION in water:
Acts 8:38-39 "...and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away..."
Between this passage and the analogy of Romans 6 of being buried with Christ, the only logical conclusion is that water baptism=full submersion. You don't bury a person when they die by sprinkling them with dirt--they go 6 feet under. The Ethiopian couldn't have "come out" of the water if he hadn't been under it!

2. Baptism is NOT a work of man. Baptism, even just looking at the physical side, is SUBMISSION to someone else. You keep yourself still and maybe plug your nose, but that's it! Someone else puts you under the water...so it's not a doing of your own in that sense.
Let's take a look at marriage for a second...during the ceremony, a man and a woman exchange rings +verbally state "I do"...both of which are physically representing their oath. However, it's GOD who actually seals them in the bond of marraige...invisibly. Likewise, it is God who washes away sins by His grace because we chose to submit to Him. Invisibly we are granted the Holy Spirit as a part of water baptism--God's grace again...you can't jump up and snatch the HS out of the air.

If baptism is a work then so is believing in Christ. Then so is repenting. Then so is "saying the sinners prayer" or "accepting Christ as your savior in your heart"...those would all be works attempting to earn salvation if you honestly look at them the way some of you are looking at baptism.

The truth is, is that even though salvation is a gift from God, and even though Christ's righteousness and work saves us fully, and that we can never earn our salvation...
God clearly says that we must DO things to ACCEPT HIS GIFT.
God's love is unconditional.
God's gift of slavation is freely offered.
But God has EXPECTATIONS to accept that gift...in the form of HOLINESS (both heart changes and works of righteousness), or else He won't CHOOSE for to be apart of His kingdom.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter."
God's plan is to:
A: Understand Jesus/The Gospel (Romans 10:17; Ephesians 1:13-14)
B: Believe/trust in it to the point of ACTION (John 3:16; Hebrews 11)
C: Confess Christ as Lord (Matthew 10:32)
D: Repent of your sins (Luke 5:32)
E: Be baptized in water + the HS for the REMISSION OF SINS (Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21)

In short: God baptizes us into His Son's body...the water does not save us, though it is necessary as part of the process of salvation because God said so.

3. "Calling on the Name of the LORD" is actually baptism: Acts 22:16 "Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’ Baptism is HOW we call on His Name HIS WAY.

4. It's sad that this topic is considered "controversial" when the Bible is so black and white on baptism.

_____

5. James 2:26 "For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

I repeat, salvation is through God's grace + Jesus' work ALONE, but we should want to do the will of the Father because He is so gracious! God does not choose sinners to come into fellowship, but only those in Christ who have an active life of repentance and holiness.

 

[DamianWarS]

But the name is Jesus though that’s why they baptized in Jesus Name it’s not cause it doesn’t matter. I mean the name of the son is Jesus

sorry my post had some typos. It's "not a spell" is what I intended to say. The words we use of course have meaning and value but we can elevate them to levels never intended. For those who value the trinity they will always baptise in the name of the Father, Son and HS and with scriptural support. I suspect you don't value the trinity and is part of the agenda of this post.

Acts is a bit of a renegade book 'cause it doesn't follow the rules. We read of how tongues should work in 1 Corinthians 12-14 yet it doesn't even look close to this in Acts. We read of how we are to baptise yet again Acts does it's own thing. There could be an argument of different things happening here which is certainly the take of charismatics with regards to tongues. Charismatics however don't redefine the gift of tongues they expand the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit which they would argue is a subsequent experience outside of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and certainly Acts is on their side.

Charismatics argue both the gift of tongues and the manifestation of tongues from the result of the baptism of the HS can exist at the same time valuing both 1 Corinthians and Acts; this is why they look different. What it seems you are doing is crossing out the language of the great commission to argue that the way it was done in Acts is the right way (suggesting the great commission has been added or has been compromised) It's not a position I'm willing to take. If you can rephrase to show how you value the language of the great commission and value how Acts 19 demonstrates baptism at the same time than I might be with you.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

sorry my post had some typos. It's "not a spell" is what I intended to say. The words we use of course have meaning and value but we can elevate them to levels never intended. For those who value the trinity they will always baptise in the name of the Father, Son and HS and with scriptural support. I suspect you don't value the trinity and is part of the agenda of this post.

Acts is a bit of a renegade book 'cause it doesn't follow the rules. We read of how tongues should work in 1 Corinthians 12-14 yet it doesn't even look close to this in Acts. We read of how we are to baptise yet again Acts does it's own thing. There could be an argument of different things happening here which is certainly the take of charismatics with regards to tongues. Charismatics however don't redefine the gift of tongues they expand the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit which they would argue is a subsequent experience outside of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and certainly Acts is on their side.

Charismatics argue both the gift of tongues and the manifestation of tongues from the result of the baptism of the HS can exist at the same time valuing both 1 Corinthians and Acts; this is why they look different. What it seems you are doing is crossing out the language of the great commission to argue that the way it was done in Acts is the right way (suggesting the great commission has been added or has been compromised) It's not a position I'm willing to take. If you can rephrase to show how you value the language of the great commission and value how Acts 19 demonstrates baptism at the same time than I might be with you.

I understand but no what I’m saying is acts doesn’t contradict the great commission at all. Jesus is the name of the son for sure and based off scripture you can argue name of the other two as well. So when Jesus said baptized in the name of this or that he means the actual name of this or that is what I’m suggesting. But for sure name of the son. So when they baptized in Jesus Name it seems to be simply doing it in the name of the son/father/Holy Ghost. If I say write a check in my sons name for example would his name be son? Or is son just who he is to me? That’s where I’m getting at I may post scriptures also to support arguments for Jesus not just being the name of the son but name of the other two also to show value of the commission vs acts 19. I appreciate the suggestion

 

[seventysevens]

Believing wasn’t enough. He got the Holy Ghost and then was told to be baptized in Jesus name for washing is his sins.),
2A. The Bible says we are saved by baptism. (1Peter 3:21) Water baptism in Jesus name is compared to Noah and the flood.

The baptismal formula was changed from the name of JESUS CHRIST to the words Father, Son, & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.

Romans 10:13King James Version (KJV)
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved

saved by the blood washingof the lamb of God

You must be born-again as Jesus taught to be saved

When Jesus hung on the cross and spoke to the thief who accepted Jesus as the Christ and asked to be remembered when Jesus entered in to HIS Kingdom Jesus said to him
Today you shall be in Paradise with me

No He did not say , too late for you - no soup for you as you did not get dunked in water ,

Everyone should be baptized , it is an outwardly sign to people that shows the inwardly changed of the heart and mind by accepting Jesus as LORD Almighty

Men have been changing the teaching of the bible and is it often a bad thing

Blood washed in the Name of the One True God - the Alpha and the Omega

This is part of the "Oneness' movement that has caused many to believe you are not saved unless you are dunked in water -- so all the people who with their dying breath come to accept Christ as savoir are wasting their breath as they do not have enough time to get to a river to be dunked .. this is a falsehood

Sorry Scriptural teachings should not be changed