Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | In Jesus' name...except baptism? | Col 3:17 | Ric | 931 | ||
"In the name of the Lord Jesus" reflects the thought that to act in the name of a person is to act as his representative. Whereas those who become disciples are to be baptized "into" the name of the Trinity. I guess that's the simplest way I can state it, is that what you are looking for? |
||||||
2 | In Jesus' name...except baptism? | Col 3:17 | Xapis | 941 | ||
There has been mention here of unity and division, that begs the question, What difference does it make. If one is baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus they are baptized into the Trinity. Before Jesus came there was no concept of one God existing as three separate entities. If you are baptized into the Lord Jesus you are baptized into the One True God, therefore you are baptized into the Trinity whether it is stated or not. If it is stated that you are baptized into the Trinity you are still "buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." (COL 2:12) We try to separate the Trinity, and it is impossible. God is not into formulas, He is concerned with relationships and He is concerned with us listening to Him. This discussion seems more to deal with earthly wisdom than that which is from above(James 3). |
||||||
3 | In Jesus' name...except baptism? | Col 3:17 | charis | 965 | ||
Dear Xapis, I agree with your use of Colossians 2:12. Indeed, from God's point of view, baptism is not into a 'formula,' but by faith into Him. I have no intention of separating the Trinity. However, my point is the original scripture, Colossians 3:17 and the many scriptures in the New Testament the encourage us to live and hope in the name of Jesus. But, when it comes to water baptism, there is great controversy. In the Lord, this seems strange. Since tradition strongly favors those who use the accepted 'formula,' I have no 'earthly wisdom' to protect. I ask this from a sincere desire to serve my Lord Jesus. One of the most effective ways I know to serve Him is to study and observe the heart and actions of the apostles that actually walked with Jesus, and to pursue the same Spirit that they were led by. I know they were not infallible, but I also know that God gave us a record of their walk in faith that we might be strengthened and encouraged. I continue to ask, "All in Jesus' name...except baptism?" In Christ Jesus | ||||||
4 | In Jesus' name...except baptism? | Col 3:17 | Ric | 966 | ||
Remember, that (water) Baptism is not needed for salvation, (water) Baptism is something we do (most of the time one of the first things we do) in obeying Jesus' command. A truely saved person in Christ will want to obey Jesus' commands, and we get (water) Baptized as one of our first acts of following Him as our Lord. It's symbolism, we get (water) baptized in the name of the Trinity because we are saved by the Trinity. I'm not going to talk about the method of water baptism, but we are salve by God like so - The Father whom gave us His Son and the Holy Spirit which is now in us. See, all three are part of our salvation, when we are baptized in the Trinity, it symbolizes the work of God. | ||||||
5 | In Jesus' name...except baptism? | Col 3:17 | charis | 969 | ||
see (again) Apostles mistaken? | ||||||
6 | In Jesus' name...except baptism? | Col 3:17 | Xapis | 1062 | ||
Let me add another thought. In Mat 28 the focus is the entire world, a group of people that needed to be taught that there is one God, and He exists in three persons. In Acts 2 Peter is speaking to those who worshipped the one true God. If someone who was already convinced that God is one, is ready to or just has received His Son as savior, they have already come to the understanding that God is a Trinity. Therefore Peter only needs to say "in the name of Jesus". Whereas Matthew was echoing a greater statement than just baptize them, he was saying disciple them in the fullness of the truth of who God is. That encompasses the Father, Son and Holy Spririt. I also don't see how with the limited revelation that we have that we can presume any formula to be exclusive. Baptism is a picture, a testimony of what already happened, so the words that accompany it are a testimony as well. As you can tell from the Gospels the truth can be told from different views and still be the truth. God warns us about "controversial questions and disputes about words" in 1 Tim 6. Here He is talking about depraved minds which I am convinced none of you have, but we should watch so that our desire to understand doesn't end up paralleling those with depraved minds, always searching but never coming to know the truth, because we think we need a level of revelation that isn't available. I still say that if one baptizes in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit it is one and the same. | ||||||
7 | In Jesus' name...except baptism? | Col 3:17 | charis | 1065 | ||
My dear Xapis, I very much agree with your conclusion. If the heart is right and obedience to the command of the Lord (however he is taught by those around him, depending on THEIR belief) the baptism is effective by faith in He Who saves. But, I must say that you seem to be saying that it could depend on the 'level' of faith and-or the background of the believer. Is there a test to determine the appropriate 'formula?' Sorry! My tongue got stuck in my cheek. Xapis, please trust me that it is not my intention to allow depravity (even the 'paralleled' kind) to rule over my heart. My good friend and mentor, a Lutheran (but I forgive him:-), always used to say to me, "Let's not get wrapped up in our underwear!" when discussing our faith. (1,000 pardons if you are offended by this phrase) However, the name of Jesus is not just any word, and it is not a dispute, but a scholarly discussion. If you would look at my previous postings, and my original question, you would see that it is legitimate food for discussion. I accept your attempt to explain the (perceived) discrepancy with due consideration. I know that the Bible, by definition, cannot contradict Itself, and should not be divisive. I pursue truth and eventual unity of faith. It may be that this is 'hidden' truth, but I am fairly certain that God has revealed the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to us and to the world. However, I still see a lot of emotion and tradition in some of the postings I have read, as well as lots of study, and many good hearts. Please, let us continue in this great fellowship of study and discussion, even if you don't want to address this particular question any more. By the way, in case you or anyone else is interested, I baptize believers (not kids) saying, "Shu Iesu Kirisuto no mina ni yotte." ("In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.") myself. Blessings in Christ Jesus. | ||||||
8 | In Jesus' name...except baptism? | Col 3:17 | Ray | 1735 | ||
Dear charis and Xapis, and whoever else is following this tree. I joined you late and I'm afraid just catching up. I've talked wtih charis about an interest in capitalization of deity and would like Xapis to give counsel about whether I am wrangling about words, which is useless or whether I am handling accurately or rightly dividing the word of truth. You see, I've already read Timothy and have struggled over whether those six truths should be capitalized or not. I know that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Is it worth the hassle over these truths? But I know the word of (God) is not imprisoned; I don't want to have just empty chatter. I agree that there is power in the name, (in fact I believe that Power is a name):-) Ray V.H. |
||||||