Re-baptism in Jesus' name Trinitarian style

[1689dave]

I see it as submitting to the Antichrist Papacy who by this proves he is still seated in the Temple of God (Christendom).

[Bootstrap]

I see it as submitting to the Antichrist Papacy who by this proves he is still seated in the Temple of God (Christendom).

What is "it" in that sentence?

I think Christianity vs. Christendom is an important concept that is helpful for seeing clearly. But do you limit Christendom to Catholicism? Do you believe there are true Kingdom of God Christians within the Catholic church as well?

[1689dave]

Paul said the man of sin would sit in the Temple as God (Vicar of Christ). The church is the temple of God = Christendom.

[Sudsy]

Interesting thread Dave. I was raised Trinitarian Pentecostal but was exposed to Oneness (no Trinity) when I dated a Oneness Pentecostal minister's daughter.

Their major text was based on what Peter said in Acts 2:37-39

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Oneness interpretation (my understanding in brief) - Repent (meaning turn from away from sinning), be baptised by immersion in Jesus name and after that you will receive the Holy Spirit as will be evidenced by speaking in an unknown tongue. There was considerable effort by that minister to have me re-baptized in Jesus name even though I had experienced speaking in an unknown tongue. I did not get re-baptized. I believe they consider what Jesus said in Matthew on baptism to mean that 'the name' referred to here was the name of Jesus, which Peter picked up on as such. And there is no scriptural reference to anyone being baptised using the Trinity 'formula'.

Here is what the Didache says to do -

Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit... If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

I don't see any scripture support for running water, whether it is hot or cold water, pouring three times on the head, both baptizer and baptizee must previous to baptism must fast as well as others who can fast, the baptizee must fast 1 to 2 days prior to being baptised.

So, imo, it becomes a matter of whether or not one is to use scripture only as their guide and also just what should be taken in scripture as literal acts of obedience. It seems to me in some areas of being obedient to scripture in practise we cherry pick and/or have our ways of explaining away literal instruction. Did Peter go against what Jesus said in how to baptize ? Or perhaps Peter understood Jesus to be referring to His name in the Matthew text ? And all these extra steps found in the Didache are they man trying to 'one up' on what scripture says ? I have wondered about these things too.

I appreciate your desire to discuss things on a 'take-it-or-leave it' basis. Imo, we get too bogged down with our interpretations of certain scripture texts that are not salvation issues and we argue that we are the ones maintaining the faith first delivered. Church history is full of arguing the ways to follow Christ and we have thousands of groups all thinking they have it all figured out. The 'seeing through a glass darkly' and now only knowing 'in part' text is not one followed well.

All this said but not trying to attempt a following. As if.

[Josh]

I see it as submitting to the Antichrist Papacy who by this proves he is still seated in the Temple of God (Christendom).

Protestants who get baptised are not submitting to this. The RCC doesn’t see them that way either.

It is also extremist to call faithful Catholics and their church an “Antichrist Papacy”.

[Bootstrap]

Paul said the man of sin would sit in the Temple as God (Vicar of Christ). The church is the temple of God = Christendom.

I think you are talking about this passage from 2 Thessalonians. But I also think you are reading a whole lot into it that is not there in the original text. Why would this man need to be Catholic? The text does not say "Vicar of Christ."

For instance, could it not equally be a secular political figure who comes to be worshiped by Christians? Or the leader of a very popular new cult? Or any of several other possibilities that would become clear only in the fullness of time?

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

[1689dave]

The only clear passage demonstrating proper baptism in the entire bible is where the Apostles baptized believers in Jesus' name. And most choose to embrace the Antichrist Pope's version. The guy who murdered thousands of believers with the help of the Protestants?

I don't think I belong here. Sayonara 1689Dave

[Outsider]

It does not matter if you are baptised “in the name of Jesus” or “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost”.

What matters is the desire of the supplicant to seek and follow Christ. Baptism is a step to do that in front of the church, and is a sign of officially joining the church.

I agree.