Salvation through baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.

[justbyfaith]

Oh for goodness sake J,
When i write as staff it's in RED!

Nevertheless, I fear you.

Rom 13:7, Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

 

[justbyfaith]

He was not speaking of the FORMULA for baptism.

He was distinguishing between the baptism of John and that of Jesus.

Remember, John said that after him would come one that would baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 3:11

I think that Peter's declaration in Acts 2:38 means that the baptism that was carried out that day was in the name of Jesus Christ; as being the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (see also Colossians 2:9 (kjv)).

 

[justbyfaith]

I think that Matthew 28:19 carries a formula; while Acts 2:38 depicts a name.

 

[justbyfaith]

I know what you mean, but that doesn't make it a name.

My religion kids used to ask, at times, why Christ wasn't Jesus' last name.

It was from God's perspective. Maybe not according to His family on earth.

 

[justbyfaith]

I saw your reaction of "sad" in my post, wondering, and changed my mind about talking to you.

As with the case with Elijah in 2 Kings 1, I believe that the danger is past.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think that Matthew 28:19 carries a formula; while Acts 2:38 depicts a name.

Right.
So when baptizing,
WHAT is the formula?

 

[GodsGrace]

It was from God's perspective. Maybe not according to His family on earth.

Whatever.
But Christ is not a name.
It's a title.
Son is a title.

 

[justbyfaith]

Right.
So when baptizing,
WHAT is the formula?

I think that it is fine to use the formula in Matthew 28:19, as long as you recognize that "the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" is referring to a singular name depicted in Acts 2:38 and apply that name to the triune formula.

 

[GodsGrace]

It was from God's perspective. Maybe not according to His family on earth.

I haven't read each post...

 

[GodsGrace]

I think that it is fine to use the formula in Matthew 28:19, as long as you recognize that "the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" is referring to a singular name depicted in Acts 2:38 and apply that name to the triune formula.

Are we baptizing with names or with titles?

 

[justbyfaith]

Whatever.
But Christ is not a name.
It's a title.
Son is a title.

"Jesus Christ of Nazareth"

"Jesus of Nazareth"

"Jesus Christ"...

is who He is...

And therefore all three are what I would define as being His name.

No one is arguing that "Christ" isn't a title.

 

[justbyfaith]

Are we baptizing with names or with titles?

If we are going under the supposition that baptism saves (as in 1 Peter 3:20-21), then we baptize in a name (Acts 4:10-12).

 

[GodsGrace]

"Jesus Christ of Nazareth"

"Jesus of Nazareth"

"Jesus Christ"...

is who He is...

And therefore all three are what I would define as being His name.

No one is arguing that "Christ" isn't a title.

OK
I understand what you're doing....
But you can't get to make up the rules.
They're already established.
This is why it's difficult to speak to each other at times.
Two persons operating under different rules.
Jesus is a name.
If Jesus Christ is a name, it means that Christ is a name,,,,and it's not.

 

[GodsGrace]

If we are going under the supposition that baptism saves (as in 1 Peter 3:20-21), then we baptize in a name (Acts 4:10-12).

We baptize with titles.

We baptize with the form in Matthew 28, as per Jesus' instructions.

 

[GodsGrace]

There may be another Jesus who has lived in Nazareth at some point in history.

To be even more clear, we say that there is none other name under heaven among men whereby we must be saved, than the name of "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" (Acts 4:10-12).

Did you see my post no. 174?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

"the Father", "the Son" and "the Holy Ghost" are not names

Since a name is "a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to", then,

• when someone tells me that the set of words, "the Father", is not a name, logic dictates that he or she knows not the Father,
• when someone tells me that the set of words, "the Son", is not a name, logic dictates that he or she knows not the Son,
• when someone tells me that the set of words, "the Holy Ghost", is not a name, logic dictates that he or she knows not the Holy Ghost.

Since you disagree with what is written in the dictionary entry I've been quoting for the noun, "name", feel free to supply what you imagine its authors ought to have written instead of what they wrote.

 

[GodsGrace]

Since a name is "a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to", then,

• when someone tells me that the set of words, "the Father", is not a name, logic dictates that he or she knows not the Father,
• when someone tells me that the set of words, "the Son", is not a name, logic dictates that he or she knows not the Son,
• when someone tells me that the set of words, "the Holy Ghost", is not a name, logic dictates that he or she knows not the Holy Ghost.

Since you disagree with what is written in the dictionary entry I've been quoting for the noun, "name", feel free to supply what you imagine its authors ought to have written instead of what they wrote.

Where is said post?

 

[GodsGrace]

Since a name is "a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to", then,

• when someone tells me that the set of words, "the Father", is not a name, logic dictates that he or she knows not the Father,
• when someone tells me that the set of words, "the Son", is not a name, logic dictates that he or she knows not the Son,
• when someone tells me that the set of words, "the Holy Ghost", is not a name, logic dictates that he or she knows not the Holy Ghost.

Since you disagree with what is written in the dictionary entry I've been quoting for the noun, "name", feel free to supply what you imagine its authors ought to have written instead of what they wrote.

King Charles

Is King part of his name?
Or is it a title?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

King Charles

Is King part of his name?

I don't know what (if anything) you mean by your word, "name", so I don't know what (if anything) you are trying to ask me.

Or is it a title?

I don't know what (if anything) you mean by your word, "title", so I don't know what (if anything) you are trying to ask me.

---

Is the set of words, "King Charles", a "set of words by which a person...is known, addressed, or referred to"? Yes or No? If it is, then the dictionary I've been quoting tells us that the set of words, "King Charles", is a name. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't know what (if anything) you mean by your word, "name", so I don't know what (if anything) you are trying to ask me.

I don't know what (if anything) you mean by your word, "title", so I don't know what (if anything) you are trying to ask me.

---

Is the set of words, "King Charles", a "set of words by which a person...is known, addressed, or referred to"? Yes or No? If it is, then the dictionary I've been quoting tells us that the set of words, "King Charles", is a name. Wouldn't you agree?

Now you have to look up the word TITLE.