Water Baptism

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I thought Jesus played shortstop for the Cardinals....

And "Christ" is not exactly an identifier in my mind as much as a title....Jesus Barjoseph would work, but the kids in yashiva would have laughed at Jesus BarYWHW...

If the actual utterance of the sounds is significant, how do we get around linguistic issues and those who can't speak?

See?! This is why your sabbatical virtually crippled the board. Such breadth with brevity.

If the actual utterance of the sounds is INsignificant, why wouldn't baptism be observed in total silence? Linguistics aren't a problem; Jesus or the language equivalent. Muteness would mean utilizing a pinch-speaker or tag-teaming with someone who CAN phonate, regardless of the formula OF what is spoken. I don't see any of these as different concerns than when baptizing into three titles.

I'm not making a hoop to jump through for salvific validity; I just wouldn't personally participate without specifically using the name of Jesus.

[RabbiKnife]

Understood.

To quote the great Apostle EF, "I've always called you Jesus, and you've always called me Sonny."

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I will now be telepathetic.

Since, PPS did not come from a Oneness Pentecostal background (I don't believe), I predict that PPS was baptized the first time by immersion in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. (I know this because where he came from, the Holy Ghost is NEVER the Holy Spirit, He is always the Holy Ghost).

Later, PPS either studied for himself or was taught about baptism in "the name of Jesus" as being a proper baptism and that the first one in the trinitarian formula was against what they taught in Acts, which is the pattern for all NT worship and practice. So he was rebaptized, a double dunker, so to speak.

Am I close, PPS? Had a similar doctrine taught at a Tulsa church I used to attend.

If I'm wrong, then it is because I am losing my ability to be pathetic over long distances.

Very close, for the most part. Trinitarian by familial affiliation; early profession/dunk in the name of the F/S/HS (no Ghost in the SBC, except maybe those from "A Christmas Carol"; then a later "doubt-dunk" because of OSAS confusion; then many years of ministry still lost in sin without a Savior.

After true repentance and faith, baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins and received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I'm not gonna contend everyone is unsaved because they omitted the name; I just think the name of Jesus is significant and see onoma as more than just authority.

[BroRog]

I'm not gonna contend everyone is unsaved because they omitted the name; I just think the name of Jesus is significant and see onoma as more than just authority.

What else besides authority?

[percho]

Is it the death (shed blood) and resurrection (new life) of Christ that saves us or does what he do only apply if we hear about it and are willing to be baptized into his name or into the name of the Father, Son ans Holy Spirit? Just what is salvation and who brings it forth God or Us? Maybe a combination of both?

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What else besides authority?

God expressed Himself as Ho Logos from rhema. This spoken Word is delegated exclusively to mankind in all of creation. It is the speaking forth of the very substance of God Himself to speak that name that was chosen as the linguistic representation of Him. Being baptized "in the name of Jesus" is the invocation of the Divine Expression of Him into whom we are baptized. Though you won't agree, THIS is the identity of Himself imputed to us or on our behalf.

[losthorizon]

God expressed Himself as Ho Logos from rhema. This spoken Word is delegated exclusively to mankind in all of creation. It is the speaking forth of the very substance of God Himself to speak that name that was chosen as the linguistic representation of Him. Being baptized "in the name of Jesus" is the invocation of the Divine Expression of Him into whom we are baptized. Though you won't agree, THIS is the identity of Himself imputed to us or on our behalf.

God is expressed as three eternally distinct persons, the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit and the believer is to be baptized by the authority Jesus Christ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(Matthew 28:18-19 NKJV)

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

God is expressed as three eternally distinct persons, the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit and the believer is to be baptized by the authority Jesus Christ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(Matthew 28:18-19 NKJV)

If I begin disecting your post and responding, this will simply become a trinity thread. Trinitarians will then rationalize extra-Biblical terms and express a handful of indoctrinated creedal statements, and I will have grossly violated the spiritual authority of this board.

With permission, I've elsewhere expressed a general overview of the Tripartite Divinity. I've above expressed the view of baptism in the name of Jesus, rather than F/S/HS. There's really no need to argue. I consider trinity borderline polytheism; I'd be Unitarian or Arianist before returning to trinity from whence I came. Nobody will answer my few simple questions, so I doubt anyone is considering a different view of the Godhead, regardless.

[chad]

The point I was trying to make was that Jesus never said to the thief on the cross, 'you sins are forgiven' or 'your faith has saved you' like he did the woman in Luke 7:50. The thief was saved by his belief when he said "Remember me when you come into your kingdom".

Jesus replied, Today you will be with me in paradise. Although the theif never asked for forgiveness or confessed his sin, it is implied that the thief was saved when Jesus said - ' Today you will be with me in Paradise'.

Paradise = G3857. paradeisos, par-ad'-i-sos; of Oriental or. [comp. H6508]; a park, i.e. (spec.) an Eden (place of future happiness, "paradise"):--paradise.


We do have the words of Jesus as recorded by Mark; in Mark 16:16. If you believe that what is written Mark 16:16 is the word of God, and believe the words that Jesus said to his 11 apostles were the truth, then surely we have an assurance don't we?

Technically, the same could be said for the rest of us. Think about it. We all want that assurance. But none of us is given that assurance. I never heard a voice from heaven saying, "brorog, you are saved." I don't think any of us have. We are drawn, in large part I think, to ritual experessions of the faith such as baptism because we hope to find assurance of our status before God in them. It's a trap though -- a trap that caught the Pharisees and a trap that can catch us too if we aren't careful.

[BroRog]

The point I was trying to make was that Jesus never said to the thief on the cross, 'you sins are forgiven' or 'your faith has saved you' like he did the woman in Luke 7:50. The thief was saved by his belief when he said "Remember me when you come into your kingdom".

Jesus replied, Today you will be with me in paradise. Although the theif never asked for forgiveness or confessed his sin, it is implied that the thief was saved when Jesus said - ' Today you will be with me in Paradise'.

Paradise = G3857. paradeisos, par-ad'-i-sos; of Oriental or. [comp. H6508]; a park, i.e. (spec.) an Eden (place of future happiness, "paradise"):--paradise.


We do have the words of Jesus as recorded by Mark; in Mark 16:16. If you believe that what is written Mark 16:16 is the word of God, and believe the words that Jesus said to his 11 apostles were the truth, then surely we have an assurance don't we?

I think you made an excellent point, and very insightful.

[losthorizon]

If I begin disecting your post and responding, this will simply become a trinity thread. Trinitarians will then rationalize extra-Biblical terms and express a handful of indoctrinated creedal statements, and I will have grossly violated the spiritual authority of this board.

With permission, I've elsewhere expressed a general overview of the Tripartite Divinity. I've above expressed the view of baptism in the name of Jesus, rather than F/S/HS. There's really no need to argue. I consider trinity borderline polytheism; I'd be Unitarian or Arianist before returning to trinity from whence I came. Nobody will answer my few simple questions, so I doubt anyone is considering a different view of the Godhead, regardless.

I see – you can’t really address my post via what is written in God’s word so you go off on your favorite straw-man argument that “Trinitarian” is extra-biblical but somehow your equally extra-biblical “Tripartite Divinity” is biblically acceptable. Then you go into detail about how the board management keeps you from revealing the true nature of your new and improved version of historic Sabellianism.

Why don't you PM me an outline of your version of Modalism and I will give you a 'fair and ballanced' evaluation.

[BroRog]

God expressed Himself as Ho Logos from rhema. This spoken Word is delegated exclusively to mankind in all of creation. It is the speaking forth of the very substance of God Himself to speak that name that was chosen as the linguistic representation of Him. Being baptized "in the name of Jesus" is the invocation of the Divine Expression of Him into whom we are baptized. Though you won't agree, THIS is the identity of Himself imputed to us or on our behalf.

Frankly, I can't say I agree or disagree because I have no idea what you are trying to say. But I think you are reading too much into the text. When Jesus commands the Apostles to make disciples in his name, he identifies himself as the teacher, rather than say, Peter or John or James. He isn't commanding them to USE his name in a ritual recitation of words as if he has prescribed a special formula for them to use. He didn't say, "use my name", he said "in my name", which are two completely different things.

Jesus designated twelve men, who in cooperation with the Holy Spirit will serve as his advocate and spokesmen among mankind during his extended leave of absence. While he was gone, these men were to make disciples for him, for his sake, as if he made them himself. Jesus is telling his apostles that when they make followers, these followers will not be following them, they will be following Jesus.

Today we don't baptize our students. Instead, we register them for classes. Okay? And so Jesus is telling his spokesmen: when you register students for school, make sure you tell them that Jesus is their teacher, even though you will be giving them instruction instead of Jesus doing it himself. When you register and teach them, make sure you tell them that Jesus is the teacher, not Peter, James, John and etc.

We are followers of Jesus; that's his point; that's the meaning of "in my name." The apostles are going to make disciples FOR Jesus (in his name) and not for themselves.

an advocate who represents someone else's policy or purpose

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I see – you can’t really address my post via what is written in God’s word

On the contrary... Won't and can't are very different things.

so you go off on your favorite straw-man argument that “Trinitarian” is extra-biblical but somehow your equally extra-biblical “Tripartite Divinity” is biblically acceptable.

I've bolded your above assertion that BOTH our views are extra-Biblical. Perhaps you should pursue a third choice, then, since you agree trinity is extra-Biblical while rejecting a Tripartite Divinity.

Then you go into detail about your quasi-persecution by the board management that keeps you from revealing the true nature of your new and improved version of historic Sabellianism.

I am limited, but in no way persecuted (quasi or otherwise) by board management. I was referring to my compliance and recognition of spiritual authority here, and my refusal to violate those guidelines. Several mods have been graciously lenient, but I would be abusing that privilege by going too far. I'm limiting my expression out of respect, not oppression.

Why don't you PM me an outline of your version of Modalism and I will give you a 'fair and ballanced' evaluation.

This has to be one of the most arrogant things I've heard from a human.

Why don't I?
1) It would be futile for either of us.
2) I don't consider you to be fair and balanced.
3) I don't need a repeated attempt at indoctrination.

4) Last I checked, you aren't the Holy Ghost.


Hey, maybe you could provide both sentences of your understanding of Divinity and man's constitution. There's no creed for the latter to fall back on.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Frankly, I can't say I agree or disagree because I have no idea what you are trying to say. But I think you are reading too much into the text. When Jesus commands the Apostles to make disciples in his name, he identifies himself as the teacher, rather than say, Peter or John or James. He isn't commanding them to USE his name in a ritual recitation of words as if he has prescribed a special formula for them to use. He didn't say, "use my name", he said "in my name", which are two completely different things.

Jesus designated twelve men, who in cooperation with the Holy Spirit will serve as his advocate and spokesmen among mankind during his extended leave of absence. While he was gone, these men were to make disciples for him, for his sake, as if he made them himself. Jesus is telling his apostles that when they make followers, these followers will not be following them, they will be following Jesus.

Today we don't baptize our students. Instead, we register them for classes. Okay? And so Jesus is telling his spokesmen: when you register students for school, make sure you tell them that Jesus is their teacher, even though you will be giving them instruction instead of Jesus doing it himself. When you register and teach them, make sure you tell them that Jesus is the teacher, not Peter, James, John and etc.

We are followers of Jesus; that's his point; that's the meaning of "in my name." The apostles are going to make disciples FOR Jesus (in his name) and not for themselves.

an advocate who represents someone else's policy or purpose

I see you've used the actual name of Jesus. It's kinda hard not to. Why would we avoid using His name? It's certainly not unbiblical to baptize in the actual name of Jesus.

His name (Jesus) IS the authority. Why specifically omit it?

I've expressed my studied view of Scripture related to onoma. I've not implied that it is a universally required mandate for salvation. Is anyone saying the inverse? Is baptism in the literal name of Jesus somehow invalid?

[BroRog]

I see you've used the actual name of Jesus. It's kinda hard not to. Why would we avoid using His name? It's certainly not unbiblical to baptize in the actual name of Jesus.

Again, you seem to misunderstand his statement. He isn't saying "USE my name" in a ritual. He is saying, "make followers for me." The phrase "in the name of" doesn't mean "speak the name aloud"; it means "for the person".

Look, if a person gets in the water and I say, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ", the mention of his name isn't intended as a means in itself, but simply to identify Jesus as the teacher. If for some reason, I am baptizing a deaf person and the deaf person understands that the Baptism represents a desire to become the student of Jesus Christ, than I don't have to say anything at all. The ceremony is strictly between Jesus and the one being baptized.

We get the wrong impression if we think the baptizer is baptizing us. No, we are baptizing ourselves with the help of the baptizer. The ceremony is between us and Jesus since we are becoming his disciple. Neither the baptizer nor the baptized need to say anything at all. The baptizer isn't doing anything more than helping the baptized go under the water. The interaction is between the baptized and Jesus. The baptizer doesn't need to say, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ" as if the baptized didn't already know. It isn't the spoken word, but the intent of the heart of the baptized that is significant.

His name (Jesus) IS the authority. Why specifically omit it?

A name is just a tag our parents give us so as to identify us. Names don't have authority, people do.

Is baptism in the literal name of Jesus somehow invalid?

By literal do you mean actual? I don't see anything wrong with saying, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus" using his name in the sentence. We are simply identifying which teacher, among all the teachers out there, the student has take as his or her teacher. If we said, "I baptize you in the name of John" then he would have John as his teacher. If I said, "I baptize you in the name of Buddha" he would have Buddha as his teacher. If I said "I baptize you in the name of Gandhi" he would have Gandhi as his teacher, etc.

Jesus seems to have known that a misunderstanding might arise if his disciples baptized for him, rather than doing it himself. And his suspicions were realized in Corinth, where people became confused.

I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Paul baptized folks in the name of Christ, but even then, they were confused as to what this meant. To say, "I am of Paul" is to say "Paul is my teacher. I study Paul's words; I live like Paul; I follow Paul's instructions; I give deference to Paul in matters of faith and morality." Paul would say, "No, you have got it wrong. I'm glad you want to follow my example, but don't be confused. You should follow me in as much and to the extent that I follow Christ. He is both my teacher and yours. You are Christ's disciple and you are to follow Christ, not me."