baptism

Jesus said Baptize them in the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit.
I was Baptized in my profession of Faith in Jesus Christ By following His example.
Church of Christ folks believe Baptisim is a requirement for salvation which is unscriptural just as is Baptizing in Jesus name alone is unscroptural.
the thief on the cross was not Baptized and he is now in paradice with Jesus so evidently Baptisim is not a requirement but a profession of faith
however Jesus did tell us in his words that we are to Baptize in the name's of the Trinity
It seems to me if it was a requirement for salvation they would atleast want to do it according to how jesus told us how to preform Baptisim.

 

IMO If it is a requirement for salvation I think that it would be very inportant and done according to how Jesus instructed us Preform Baptisim.
there has to be some significance to Baptisim otherwise Jesus would not hac ve commanded us to do it however it is nor a requirement for salvation for the scriptures do not say, for whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord and be baptised shall be saved.

 

By showing them scripturally of their error and by Challenging them to show you scripturally where their method is scripturally valid.

Biblical proof overrides doctrinal statement
However Chances are that you will be speaking to a block wall.

the most inportant is that they know that they know that they are saved.
which brings us to another fork in the road, they do not believe in eternal security.

 

I agree that the Scriptural method of baptism is in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but what do you do about Acts 2:38?

Like it was stated in the other thread, sometimes you have to dig a little to find the correct interpretation of a passage.

 

There is no discrepancy here at all. Peter was telling them to be baptized in submission to the authority of Jesus Christ. These same Jews had perhaps cried for Him to be crucified; mow Peter was preaching that it was upon this same Jesus that they must call.

They must be saved and baptized in accordance with Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19. Luke does not give us the exact words used in baptism by the Apostles, he merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as their Lord.

 

In addition to Acts 2:38 you also have Acts 19:4-5. While I do use the words "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (should I say "Ghost") I am not sure that this is a "baptismal formula". If it is a set formula, then it would certainly be wrong to substitute the word "spirit" for "ghost". Our should we pronounce it in Greek?

With that specific formula occuring only in one place and with two other instances with "Jesus only" (Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38; 19:5) not sure how dogmatic we should be for either position.

 

Actually 4 passages in Acts - 2:38, "in the Name of Jesus Christ;" 8:16, "in the Name of the Lord Jesus;" 10:48; "in the Name of the Lord;" and 19:5, "in the Name of the Lord Jesus." Note 3 different "formulas" among the 4 passages! Quite clearly these are not "formulas" at all, but a reference to the authority of Christ in baptism. If I sign my name to a check for a million dollars, most people would just laugh and throw it away. But if you have a check signed by a billionaire for a million dollars, his name will authorize payment. "There is none other Name ..."
Just as the Name of Jesus authorizes salvation, and just as "every knee shall (eventually) bow" at that Name, so every Christian act must be done in His Name, that is, by His authority.

If we act by His authority, surely we will act as He instructed. His terms are in Mt. 28:18-20.

Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

Thanks for the other two passages Charles. When I sign my name I do not always do it the same. For legal documents I do it one way, for most checks I do it another. Both are valid and both are my signature.

I do not see in any of these 5 passages a locked in specific formula or set of "terms". The extra 2 passages in Acts seem to further strengthen my point.

 

rjp - My point exactly - the "Acts" passages are general statements of authority, which belongs to Christ. Therefore His wording should be ours, though not a "magic formula" - no salvation in the words, any more than in the water, but to use general statements in actual baptisms sort of
"waters it down," it would seem? Best - Charles (who signs his name several ways, but doesn't authorize either baptisms or million dollar checks!) - Ro. 8:28