Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Does the United Pentecostal Church go so far as to say those who are baptized in the Trinitarian Name are destined for Hell?
Saw this when driving to my office today.
View attachment 4354
"BAPTISM IS ONLY VALID IF DONE IN Jesus NAME"
Does the United Pentecostal Church go so far as to say those who are baptized in the Trinitarian Name are destined for Hell?
Other than JW's, I am pretty sure that in the past 30 years or so, the only people who have ever shared their faith with me outside of a church setting have been Oneness Pentecostals.
Saw this when driving to my office today.
View attachment 4354
"BAPTISM IS ONLY VALID IF DONE IN Jesus NAME"
Does the United Pentecostal Church go so far as to say those who are baptized in the Trinitarian Name are destined for Hell?
Saw this when driving to my office today.
View attachment 4354
"BAPTISM IS ONLY VALID IF DONE IN Jesus NAME"
Does the United Pentecostal Church go so far as to say those who are baptized in the Trinitarian Name are destined for Hell?
What would that look like?
We baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
I'm confused
I fail to understand the problem with baptizing in the name of Jesus/Lord Jesus Christ.
I fail to understand the problem with baptizing in the name of Jesus/Lord Jesus Christ. That is how Acts records the apostles doing it four times If I recall correctly.
I fail to understand the problem with baptizing in the name of Jesus/Lord Jesus Christ. That is how Acts records the apostles doing it four times If I recall correctly.
The statement in Acts is usually viewed as a synecdoche, meaning that it is a figure of speech in which a part is given for a whole.
If they were not baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then they were disobeying Christ's commission. It is obvious from the context that they were baptizing in obedience to the commission, therefore the phrase in Acts is best understood as a synecdoche.
I fail to understand the problem with baptizing in the name of Jesus/Lord Jesus Christ. That is how Acts records the apostles doing it four times If I recall correctly.
The statement in Acts is usually viewed as a synecdoche, meaning that it is a figure of speech in which a part is given for a whole.
If they were not baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then they were disobeying Christ's commission. It is obvious from the context that they were baptizing in obedience to the commission, therefore the phrase in Acts is best understood as a synecdoche.
I appreciate your reply but that isn't what Matthew Henry or Gill say, they both refer to those verses as a baptism literally in the name of Jesus. You can check it out on bible hub where they have commentaries under verses.
That isn't really the point though, and we could get off on what does "in the name of" mean. For us, it means in the authority of, in the full understanding of the person the name represents. And for us that name carries the full authority of the father, and the God it represents is the Father, son and spirit. Gill sees no contradiction as for example:
in the name of Jesus Christ; not to the exclusion of the Father, and of the Spirit, in whose name also this ordinance is to be administered, Matthew 28:19 but the name of Jesus Christ is particularly mentioned, because of these Jews, who had before rejected and denied him as the Messiah; but now, upon their repentance and faith, they are to be baptized in his name, by his authority, according to his command; professing their faith in him, devoting themselves to him, and calling on his name. ( re Acts 2:38 where Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus).
The UPC does not see it that way. There is one God and he was father before the incarnation, then he was Jesus, and now he is the HS. So that baptism into the name of Jesus, identifying with his death ( Romans6) does not mean Jesus is still the incarnate God-man in heaven interceeding for us before the father. Only the Spirit is up there now, there is no trinity.
So when interacting with the UPC if they bring this up, you need to admit that Acts refers four times to baptism in Jesus name. Just admit it. If Matthew Henry and Gill can admit it, you can too. Then move on to how Jesus prayed to the father repeatedly, and focus in on that. That is the real chink in their armor, Jesus praying to the father. That was where my former UPC friend finally broke.
Just my experience here, they are so brainwashed and you need to be led of the Lord how to talk to them. I would also bring up Hebrews and how Jesus is our eternal high priest and interceeds for us before the throne. Ask them about who Jesus is right now exactly, if we are to be baptized in his name. What is he like in heaven? What happened to his resurrected body? Is he coming back bodily? You can springboard into a lot of things, so I wouldn't mess up the debate trying to say the Apostles didn't really baptize in Jesus name in Acts.
"only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus:" all as yet appeared in them was, that they were believers in Christ, and had been baptized in his name, upon a profession of their faith; and more than this they had been called to, or qualified for: the word "only", does not respect the form of baptism, as if they had been baptized only in the name of Christ; whereas they were doubtless baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; but refers to baptism itself, which was the only ordinance as yet administered to them.
"In the name of Jesus Christ;" not excluding the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost, in whose name, as well as in the name of the Son, they were to baptize, Matthew 28:19: but the name of Jesus is here mentioned, because they had not yet known (but persecuted and slain) him, whom henceforward they must profess; and that they look for pardon and salvation only through him.
I fail to understand the problem with baptizing in the name of Jesus/Lord Jesus Christ. That is how Acts records the apostles doing it four times If I recall correctly. Our identification is with him, being buried with him and rising with him ( Romans 6).
Having said that, the UPC I knew said if you didn't pray in tongues you were not saved. That seemed to be a bigger deal than baptism.
With the UPC gal I knew I finally admitted that Acts shows them repeatedly baptizing in the name of Jesus, and she softened up with me because I admitted she had a scriptural precedent. Eventually she ended up a Calvinist, but it sure took a while. But if you can't conceed this baptism point you won't get anywhere. Save the fight for Paul saying he wished they all spoke in tongues, implying that some did not, but he considered them Christians w/o tongues. You have to go carefully with these people.
But I'll go on record as saying that trying to tell them the four references in Acts to baptizing in the name of Jesus don't really mean that is not a helpful way to engage with them.