Nazarene Baptism?

[Methodized]

The idea that “in the name of Jesus” was something other than Luke’s short-hand for Father Son and Spirit was completely debunked by Derek Prince in his booklet “Burial by Baptism.” (1972)

Agreed. It is easy to quote Acts without remembering to quote Mathew 28:16-20.

 

[Dave-W]

Agreed. It is easy to quote Acts without remembering to quote Mathew 28:16-20.

Our friend is Apostolic, and according to their theology, the Matt 28 formula is invalid, being an add on by the Catholics. In that theology, once you are baptized according to the Triune Matt 28 formula, you are doomed.

Dr Prince’s booklet did an admirable job of showing that theory to be false, and that Luke was just using a short hand note that everyone in the first century would have understood; from the incident in Acts 19.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I agree with you.

But many Churches think they are the only VALID Christian community.

Right.
Baptism is not of a church,,,
but of God.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well, Baptists and others who rebaptize have existed since the 1600s. So, it isn't so much that anything has been watered down. They just have a different theology than we do.

I think that if some church or other required one go get rebaptized, it's a watering down of baptism.

Baptism is powerful unto intself...it has to do with God and not with a church.

Even catholics that baptize infants teach that once that infant is a grown person and of the age of reason, he must, on his own and of his own will, accept this baptism and live in the Holy Spirit- he will then be incorporated into the chuch and the Church. (BOC)

 

[Methodized]

Our friend is Apostolic, and according to their theology, the Matt 28 formula is invalid, being an add on by the Catholics. In that theology, once you are baptized according to the Triune Matt 28 formula, you are doomed.

How convenient to ignore part of the gospels you don't agree with. And thus why non-Wesleyans, by forum rules, aren't supposed to be teaching their theology here.

 

[Dave-W]

How convenient to ignore part of the gospels you don't agree with. And thus why non-Wesleyans, by forum rules, aren't supposed to be teaching their theology here.

Agreed.

 

[Brother Kasper]

The idea that “in the name of Jesus” was something other than Luke’s short-hand for Father Son and Spirit was completely debunked by Derek Prince in his booklet “Burial by Baptism.” (1972)

It isn't short hand, as you say, but rather Biblical and the proper way to carry out the command by Jesus at the conclusion of Matthew 28.

In Matthew 28:19, Jesus does tell us to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. I'm not arguing that Jesus said that, because He certainly did. Those words are in red. However, he doesn't say "repeat after me" or nothing similar. Look at how the command is laid out; Jesus says "in the name of... and of" the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, indicating that these three are One, and that only one name unites them.

That name is Jesus.

"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not." (John 5:43, KJV): Here Jesus says that he came in His Father's name, and since His name is Jesus, it is said here that Jesus is also the name of the Father.

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21, KJV): We know that the name of the Son is Jesus.

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26, KJV): Jesus tells us here that the Holy Ghost, which fell upon willing believers at Pentecost, would be sent in His name; that name being Jesus.

Jesus is the name the ties the three titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. At the conclusion of Matthew, Jesus lays out the commandment for water baptism by showing us the unity of the three titles in one liking: Jesus Christ.

Peter laid out the Plan of Salvation for the Church at Pentecost. He told us repent, be baptized in Jesus' name, and receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38). (We know that every instance in which a believer was filled with the Holy Ghost, they spoke with other tongues as the Spirit gave utterance.)

Other examples throughout the Bible tell us that baptism is correctly performed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ:

Acts 8:12 -- But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.

Acts 8:16 -- For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 -- And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Acts 19:5 -- When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 22:16 -- And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Baptism, as performed correctly by the early Church and many Christians today, is done by full immersion in water and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Dave-W]

It isn't short hand, as you say, but rather Biblical and the proper way to carry out the command by Jesus at the conclusion of Matthew 28.

In Matthew 28:19, Jesus does tell us to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. I'm not arguing that Jesus said that, because He certainly did. Those words are in red. However, he doesn't say "repeat after me" or nothing similar. Look at how the command is laid out; Jesus says "in the name of... and of" the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, indicating that these three are One, and that only one name unites them.

While i cannot state it as elegantly as Dr Prince, I will attempt to recreate his logic here. (as a classic pentecostal, his doctrinal stance was fairly square with Wesleyan theology)

Acts 19 (NASB)
1 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in 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 Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.​

Why was it Paul questioned their baptism when he discovered they had never even heard of the existence of the "Holy Spirit?"

John's baptism (now invalid in the New Covenant) was the same as the Jewish tradition of immersion and was said with only a brief blessing, and not in any particular name. But if these men had been properly baptized in full Christian water baptism, they would have heard of the Holy Spirit at that time since Christian baptism is "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

 

[GodsGrace101]

It isn't short hand, as you say, but rather Biblical and the proper way to carry out the command by Jesus at the conclusion of Matthew 28.

In Matthew 28:19, Jesus does tell us to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. I'm not arguing that Jesus said that, because He certainly did. Those words are in red. However, he doesn't say "repeat after me" or nothing similar. Look at how the command is laid out; Jesus says "in the name of... and of" the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, indicating that these three are One, and that only one name unites them.

That name is Jesus.

"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not." (John 5:43, KJV): Here Jesus says that he came in His Father's name, and since His name is Jesus, it is said here that Jesus is also the name of the Father.

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21, KJV): We know that the name of the Son is Jesus.

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26, KJV): Jesus tells us here that the Holy Ghost, which fell upon willing believers at Pentecost, would be sent in His name; that name being Jesus.

Jesus is the name the ties the three titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. At the conclusion of Matthew, Jesus lays out the commandment for water baptism by showing us the unity of the three titles in one liking: Jesus Christ.

Peter laid out the Plan of Salvation for the Church at Pentecost. He told us repent, be baptized in Jesus' name, and receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38). (We know that every instance in which a believer was filled with the Holy Ghost, they spoke with other tongues as the Spirit gave utterance.)

Other examples throughout the Bible tell us that baptism is correctly performed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ:

Acts 8:12 -- But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.

Acts 8:16 -- For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 -- And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Acts 19:5 -- When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 22:16 -- And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Baptism, as performed correctly by the early Church and many Christians today, is done by full immersion in water and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Brother Kasper,
Welcome to this forum, I see that you're new here.

If you're reading the bible, and you find some kind of "discrepancy" ...for instance Jesus says one thing and Peter or Paul or James says something a little differently,,,,

WHO do you believe is stating the correct concept?

 

[Brother Kasper]

Brother Kasper,
Welcome to this forum, I see that you're new here.

If you're reading the bible, and you find some kind of "discrepancy" ...for instance Jesus says one thing and Peter or Paul or James says something a little differently,,,,

WHO do you believe is stating the correct concept?

It isn't about deciphering who is and isn't right. It's about seeing the revelation that our God is undeniably One and that His name is Jesus.

 

[GodsGrace101]

It isn't about deciphering who is and isn't right. It's about seeing the revelation that our God is undeniably One and that His name is Jesus.

First, If there's any question about anything...
I'd say we should obey Jesus.
It's unfortunate that He didn't say the words:
"say after me" the way you would have liked Him to...However, He still knew what He was talking about and it's not up to ANY MAN to take away from what Jesus said and try to change it.

If you could do that, it means you could change ANYTHING Jesus said and so His words become irrelevant.

Secondly, it's obvious that there were two baptisms in the N.T.......
John's for the forgiveness of sins.
and Jesus' for empowerment and forgiveness and for inclusion into the New Covenant.

As to God's name,,,,
God has many names,,,,if you're talking about God Father...

And one of them is not Jesus.

The Trinity is made up of 3 persons,
God Father
God Son
God Holy Spirit

Jesus is the 2nd person of the trinity,,,the one that took on human flesh 2,000 years ago and was named JESUS by His mother because Jesus means God with Us.

God Father did not take on flesh.
God Holy Spirit did not take on flesh.

These are the names of God Father:
Elohim, El-Shaddai, Yahweh, Jehovah and Adonai

Jesus also called God Father Abba.

Jesus took on that name once He was born here on earth. Before that He did NOT HAVE this name, and yet He existed from before the foundation of the world.

And so how could Jesus possibly be the name of God Father??

 

[tz620q]

I agree with you.

But many Churches think they are the only VALID Christian community.

I bet if they lived in OT times they wouldn't be so eager to get re-circumcised.

 

[Dave-W]

I bet if they lived in OT times they wouldn't be so eager to get re-circumcised.

Re-circ is a known quantity. It is common among those converting to either Orthodox or Conservative Judaism from western countries where circ is a common medical procedure.

One poke with a sterile needle to draw one drop of blood. that is it.

 

[actionsub]

Do those on this forum believe it was necessary for him to be baptized again?

Nope. That's why my wife and I are joining a Nazarene church instead of a Southern Baptist church after leaving our declining UMC congregation. The Southern Baptist position was that, between my wife's sprinkling as a teenager in the UMC followed by an immersion by her first husband's father who was the pastor of the town's Christian Church, neither of them counted. Wifey said "no way am I getting baptized three times!"
At this point, synchronicity kicked in. The new Nazarene pastor in town wanted me to meet with her regarding the ecumenical ministry that I direct, as they are a supporting church. During our meeting, I asked her a few questions about the CotN and told her about our situation, to which she replied "we will not rebaptize her in the Church of the Nazarene."

 

[GodsGrace101]

Nope. That's why my wife and I are joining a Nazarene church instead of a Southern Baptist church after leaving our declining UMC congregation. The Southern Baptist position was that, between my wife's sprinkling as a teenager in the UMC followed by an immersion by her first husband's father who was the pastor of the town's Christian Church, neither of them counted. Wifey said "no way am I getting baptized three times!"
At this point, synchronicity kicked in. The new Nazarene pastor in town wanted me to meet with her regarding the ecumenical ministry that I direct, as they are a supporting church. During our meeting, I asked her a few questions about the CotN and told her about our situation, to which she replied "we will not rebaptize her in the Church of the Nazarene."

I'm glad your new pastor gave this answer.

The way I understand baptism, it's either something true and real in which God the Holy Spirit is present,,,or it's some farce practiced by churches at their own discretion.