Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

   re: 373.0 <POBOX::FOILES>

   Neil,
   
   >I have heard many opinions concerning the baptismal formula given in
   >Matthew 28:19 (baptizing in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the
   >Holy Ghost) contrasted with that presented in Acts 2:38 (baptized in the
   >name of Jesus Christ).  I would like to hear how others harmonize these
   >two passages.

       Our church baptized in the Matt 28 fashion (in the name of the Father,
   Son and Holy Spirit).  We harmonize by acknowledging that Jesus is a member
   of the Godhead and one with the Father and Holy Spirit.  We feel that by
   baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we meet the
   requirement of both Acts 2:38 and Matt 28:19.

   In Christ,
   Tony Balsamo

Those that baptize solely in the name of Jesus based
on Acts 2 are reading into Scripture something that is not
there.  Scripture does not anywhere say that we are to
baptize in the name of Jesus *alone*.  It says to baptize
in the name of Jesus.  The question then becomes, "what
does this mean".

There are two possibilities (that I see, simpleton that I
am).  Jesus could be an *addition* to the previous baptism
formula, or he could be a *replacement* to the previous
baptism formula.  Acts 2 just doesn't say.

Fortunately, Matthew 28 makes it perfectly clear.  Jesus
is an addition, not a replacement.  Personally, I think that
interpretation makes the most sense even without Matthew 28's
clear commandment.

Collis

    John the Baptist declared that he baptized with water, but that
    there would come One who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and
    with fire.
    
    In the gospel of John (4:1-2), it indicates that, in spite of rumor
    to the contrary, Jesus did not baptize (at least, not with water).
    
    It is not an uncommon interpretation of Scripture (though certainly
    an arguable one), that when Jesus commissioned his followers to, "baptize
    in the name of..," he meant to "immerse (as with water) in the NAME," and
    not with H2O at all.

    It's probably wrong.  How could classical Christianity possibly drift
    so far from what Jesus intended?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Could baptism in the name of Jesus Christ be a reference to the
    authority of Christ, a means of differentiating between John's baptism
    and Christian baptism?  In Acts 19 those who had been baptized by John
    the Baptist are said to have known only the baptism of John.  However,
    we know that God had commissioned John to baptise.  Therefore John's
    baptism was of God, not of John.
    
    Some have said that Acts is written in historical narative.  Therefore
    it does not concentrate on the details of the baptism but defines these
    events as Christian baptism.  Thus the inconsistencies, the name of
    Jesus Christ, the name of Jesus, the name of the Lord.  I don't think
    the New Testament ever describes the words spoken in a baptismal service.
    However, it seems to me that Matthew 28:19 is the most explicit description
    of such an event.
    
    In Christ,
    Neil

Re:  373.3

  >It is not an uncommon interpretation of Scripture (though certainly
  >an arguable one), that when Jesus commissioned his followers to, "baptize
  >in the name of..," he meant to "immerse (as with water) in the NAME," and
  >not with H2O at all.

  >It's probably wrong.  How could classical Christianity possibly drift
  >so far from what Jesus intended?
    
Richard,

I think you are being a little harsh here.  First, you give an alternative
explanation which is generally not accepted, then declare that it is only
"probably" wrong.  Then, assuming it is wrong, you question how classical
Christianity drifted so far away from Jesus' meaning.

First, you haven't given a very detailed explanation of what it means
to "immerse in the NAME" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  If this
is to be accepted as the preferred meaning of the passage, I think we
should know what the 1st century reads would have interpreted this as.

Secondly, baptism had a long history of being doing with water and,
although it is possible to baptize with something else (such as the
Holy Spirit), water would tend to be assumed unless something else is
specifically named.

Thirdly, the section of Scripture that you reference actually supports
the case that baptism continued to be with water.  The rumor was that
Jesus was baptizing with water; the Scripture denies that Jesus was doing
this but implies that his disciples continued to do this (presumably
with Jesus' approval).

Fourthly, baptism with water was practiced by his immediate disciples
after Jesus' resurrection.  In fact, it is *assumed* that water baptism
was *the* correct procedure after conversion.  It seems highly unlikely
to me, personally, that Jesus would desire a non-water baptism without
expressing this desire to his closest followers either before or after
His death.

How could contemporary Christianity possibly drift so far in their
understanding from what Jesus indended?  :-)  :-)

Collis

    "As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the
    eunuch said, "Look, here is water.  Why shouldn't I be baptized?  And
    he orders to stop the chariot.  Then both Phillip and the eunuch went
    down into the water and Phillip baptized him.  When they came up out
    to the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Phillip away..."
                                                         Acts 8:36-39
    
    "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water?  They
    have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have.  So he ordered them to
    be baptized in the name of the Jesus Christ."
                                                         Acts 10:47
    
    Neil
    

    It is interesting that the citation from Acts 10:47 indicates that
    people received the Holy Spirit *before* they were baptized; baptism
    was not a necessary prerequisite for receiving the Holy Spirit.  The
    water baptism thus appeared to be a kind of ritual to formalize that
    which had already, de facto, taken place.
    
    -- Mike

You are quite right, Mike.  Salvation should always precede baptism
from my understanding of the Scriptures.  And the Holy Spirit indwells
the individual from the moment of salvation.  Baptism is simply an
outward, public and visible sign of the inner belief.

Collis

    What exactly does water do?
    
    Is it purely symbolic?  If so, wouldn't a public declaration be just as
    good?
    
    Richard

  >Is it [water] purely symbolic?

As far as what Scripture teaches, it appears to be.  

  >If so, wouldn't a public declaration be just as good?

Yes, except so far as it might not be conforming with what
Jesus taught and commanded.

Collis

>> the individual from the moment of salvation.  Baptism is simply an
>> outward, public and visible sign of the inner belief.

Tell me Collis.  How does anyone know how a baby believes?  Or do we baptize
babies involuntarily due to the parents beliefs?  Just wondering.

Judy

There are reasons why some choose to baptize babies.  Personally
I disagree with them (as I understand the Bible in a manner
similar to Baptists on this issue).

Those who baptize infants do so often because they understand it as
a sign of God's grace to the infant before the age of "choice", whenever
that is, and that it essentially extends salvation to the infant during
this time (a kind of limited salvation).  Although I agree with some
of this theology, I disagree that infant baptism plays any role in
the extending of God's grace and thus prefer infant dedication which
accomplishes the same thing as infant baptism except the implication that
this ceremony somehow accomplishes "limited" salvation.

Collis

    My statement on baptism is based on Roman Catholic belief.  Baptism is
    a sacrament, an outward sign (ie rite) that was instituted by Jesus
    Christ to be a means of obtaining grace.
    
    As it is a rite, it has a matter and form.  The matter in baptism is
    water, and the form of baptism is the sign of the cross and the words
    mentioned in the previous replies.  Through Baptism we become part of
    the Christian community and obtain the grace (ie God's assistance) that
    was lost by Adam and redeemed by the sacrifice of the Son of God on the
    Cross.

    If we are to understand baptism we must start with the beliefs people
    in Jesus' day. Baptism developed out of the Jewish practice of washing
    to remove ritual uncleaness. It was a requirement that a person be
    completely immersed in the water. If even a small portion of a persons'
    head were left uncovered by the water the rabbis considered the
    cleansing to be invalid. 
    	I don't think I can prove it but I believe that Baptism as
    practiced by John the Baptist has its origin in the Essene estrangement
    from the temple service. They considered the High Priest to be wrong
    because he wasn't a descendent of Aaron.(the office had become a
    political appointment) Therefore the whole temple ritual was polluted.
     They couldn't offer sacrifices but they could cleanse the defilement of
     say touching a dead body by washing in the Miqvah. John took this a step
     further and offer it as a symbol of their acceptance with God through 
    repentance until a correct sacrifice could be done in a properly cleansed
     temple.
    	Sprinkling as a baptismal rite originates from a different concept.
    Various substances such as oil or blood were sprinkled upon a recipient
    as an annointing. Sprinkling as a substitute for baptism became
    possible only when a knowledge of Greek became rare. For a Greek
    baptism means specifically immersion in water. In fact Greek Orthodox
    even today baptise newborns in this fashion, plunging the little
    babes completely under.
    	When a person is under water he is unable to breathe. Therefore
    immersion in the water is symbolic of death. A person is raised up to a
    new life. In fact there are rumors that perhaps baptism was originally
    used to induce a near death experience. The Baptiser would hold the
    disciple under until he stopped struggling!
    
    johN

Note 373.14        -< Did S.O. just pretend to Baptise you? >-

Forgive my ignorance, but who is S.O.?

Richard

    Did you baptise yourself?

    re:4
    
    Could someone respond on the accuracy of my comments in reply 3?  I
    need to verify this position because of a situation that has risen with
    those who state that baptism in Jesus name is the only valid baptism.
    
    thanks,
    
    Neil

re Note 373.17 by POBOX::FOILES:

>     Could someone respond on the accuracy of my comments in reply 3?  I
>     need to verify this position because of a situation that has risen with
>     those who state that baptism in Jesus name is the only valid baptism.
    
        Neil,

        This is not the most likely conference in which to get a
        strongly-held, supported, "definitive" answer to your
        questions.  For many questions there isn't one.

        If you ask this question in the golf::christian conference,
        you are likely to get some such answers, perhaps several. 
        You would have to judge whether they are "right".

        Bob

Hi Neil,

In response to baptizing solely in the name of Jesus, I
wrote 373.2.  Did you have further questions on that
note?

Collis

    Hi Collis,
    
    I appreciate, and value, your comments on this question.  I read your 
    note 373.2 but I am a little fuzzy on what you mean regarding baptism 
    in Jesus name as an addition to that set forth in Matthew 28:19.  I 
    don't disagree, just confused.  I am about to leave the UPC and will
    certainly be grilled concerning this issue.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Neil 

Note 373.20

>   I am about to leave the UPC and will
>   certainly be grilled concerning this issue.

Neil,

	You've got my curiousity up.  I take it UPC stands for United
Pentecostal Church, mostly because you entered Note 374.0.  When you say
you will be grilled, do you mean that the church won't accept a simple
resignation?

Peace,
Richard

    >Will the UPC not accept a simple resignation??
    
    They most certainly will not.  If I deny the necessity of baptism in
    Jesus name, I will be labeled a heretic who has denied the Truth and
    condemned to hell.
    
    Sidepoint:  Truth is a common buzz-word in UPC circles.  It is used in
    reference to the organizations doctrinal views concerning the Godhead,
    baptism and Spirit baptism.  Hence when a member of the UPC is thankful
    for 'the Truth', he is not speaking of the Bible or his knowledge of
    Jesus Christ.  He is actually stating that he is thankful for the UPC
    revelation concerning the above mentioned topics.  Perhaps, if anyone
    is interested, I can expound on some of the other buzz-words common to
    the UPC.
    
    My allegiance is to Christ and Him alone!!!
    
    Neil

Let me try again.

People make let's of assumptions both in conversation and in
writing.  That is why it can be critical to know the context
in trying to correctly interpret either.

In the first century, baptism was commonly practiced.  This baptism
(for example, John's baptism) was done in the name of God.  To
have a baptism that either was done solely in the name of Jesus
*or* that included the name of Jesus would likely be referred to
as being baptized in the name of Jesus.

The UPC and a small number of other churches claim that the *only*
correct interpretation of Acts 2 is that the baptism was done *solely*
in the name of Jesus.  IMO (and the opinion of most translators),
this is unnecessarily restrictive of writing styles, regardless of
what other Scripture says.  When we actually compare this claim with
other Scripture, the claim loses all credibility when we read that
Jesus *himself* told us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son
and the Holy Spirit.  (Not that Paul or Peter's writing carry less
weight, mind you.  :-) )

Is that clearer?

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Now I understand what you mean and I think that we are in agreement
    (cf. 2. and .3).  Thanks again.
    
    Neil