Baptism Questions

[AndrewMichael]

This is more of an opinion than anything, but I feel this will be worth discussing.

We all know we ought to be baptized (I'm assuming, forgive me Josiah), and we know that we ought to know what we are doing before we are baptized; such as not baptizing babies such as the Catholic church. But at what age can a person, especially those who grow up in the Message really understand what baptism is? I know parents tell their children about baptism and that they ought to do so, but what would be the proper age to really consider baptism?

Personally, I believe a child under the age of accountability does not need baptism. Once they understand their sin and want to be relieved from that burden, then they ought to be baptized. Also why I have brought this up is how baptism can be such a confusion to some people. Some were baptized before they came to the Message, ought they to be re-baptized even if they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ by the promise of Acts 2:38? I believe we need to be baptized by submersion and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but does our knowledge of the Message or other scripture need to be known before baptism?

This is just out of curiousity, maybe I have missed some quotes on the subject, but I know I was baptized at an age I knew what I was doing, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and understood what faith I was being baptized into, which we know is the true revelation of God's Word. This is more for those who might be in the above situations and also if I should have children (and the Lord should tarry) in the future, how I ought to handle that.

[jordancpeterson]

but what would be the proper age to really consider baptism?

My pastor feels that if a child is old enough to ask then s/he is old enough to be baptized. He has an experience one time where he had a young boy ask him to be baptized (I don't remember how old but I think he was under 10). Anyway between him and the parents they decided to wait. The next week the boy was ran over by a car and died (I think it was a car, he died suddenly is the point). After that he decided that if they were old enough to ask to be baptized then he'd do it.

As far as your other question about knowing the Message before you are baptized correctly. I say it's not necessary to know the Message, (personal opinion), but if you are correctly baptized then you really are already hearing the Message. Maybe just not through the way you'd have thought. :) I do say though it comes down to each individual. If you have a doubt about it, do it again. I don't know of any place where it's wrong to be baptized two or more times.

By the way I appreciate your testimony and life. You seem to really want to serve the Lord and it's nice to see that! :)

[Jezz]

From my understanding some (or maybe just one?) of Brother Branham's children got baptised fairly early, around 6 maybe? I'm not sure on the details but I know that at least one of them got baptised early.

I think that you should get baptised when you feel led to really, and if you want to get baptised I think you should get baptised no matter what others think. One girl at my church wanted to get baptised and her parents wouldn't let her for some reason, now she rarely comes to church at all. I'm not sure how much say a parent should have when their child wants to be baptised, the pastor should but maybe not the parents?

[EllyMae]

This doesn't really go along with what has been previously discussed, but I do have a question about baptism.. I was baptized a little over 3 years ago (June 2003) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, even after that for a good 8 months or so, I still did worldly things (wore pants and make-up, cut my hair, listened to worldy music, etc.). However, I wasn't in the message yet. At the time I was going to a nondenominational Christian church, that did preach holiness and such.. Do you all think it is necessary for me to be rebaptized? I'm feeling led to either way, but I just want to see what your all's opinions are.

[jordancpeterson]

Do what you are feeling led! By all means! :)

[Babyruth]

Talk to your pastor and see what he says, that would be the best, at least for me.

[BroTrevor]

Acts 2:38 reads...

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.



It does NOT read....

"repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, by an approved church"

It does NOT read....

"repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ and it's only good if you don't be worldly anymore..."

I'd have faith in what I've done in the Word of God.

That being said, I know that in the early days of the church I used to attend in South Dakota, all the sisters got baptized in the name of Jesus, then everyone listened to a tape and Bro Branham hammered on sisters wearing skirts. (this was when they just learned of the message) All the sisters went home, put on skirts, and we rebaptized with skirts on.

SO that kind of thing isn't unheard of.

So...what's the point I'm trying to make?

You need to have faith in what you've done and the Word of God. If right now you don't have it, then be rebaptized. But drive the stake down! Claim the scripture for you!

If not the devil will drive a truck over your life. Today it's "you were baptized in a different church and still wore pants". Tomorrow it will be, "see you still do this or that...you need to be rebaptized". You understand?

The devil tries to push things off on works. Rebaptisms...apologizing to everyone for the slightest things...holy pilgrimages... blah blah... You understand...many of these things are good...but they are not a requirement of your salvation or the Holy Ghost.

so yeah, do what you feel led to do, but then STAND with FAITH in JESUS!

100% Faith based, love based religion.

[Angelo]

The scriptures say that baptism is our answer of a good conscience toward God. The reason we perform baptism is because we have heard the Word of God, and believe that it is the truth. I can say that it is our first step in coming to God but it does not cleanse us from the filthiness of our flesh yet it shows that there was a reaction from within to the call of God. The primary step to our salvation.

1 Peter 3:21 (Amplified Bible)

21And baptism, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you [from inward questionings and fears], not by the removing of outward body filth [bathing], but by [providing you with] the answer of a good and clear conscience (inward cleanness and peace) before God [because you are demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[EllyMae]

Thanks you all! :)

[marichino_freedom]

i had many reservations before i was baptized properly, since i was baptized catholic as an infant. i was always told that it was a sin and wrong to be baptized any other time in your life. i now know that to be the devil trying to hold me back...well, thats how i see it anyway

[joris]

wha do you do if some people seem to think you are in need of being baptised again but you yourself aren't really sure (not really seeing the need there)
-- except for praying about it

[Jezz]

Why would they want you to be baptised again? I can understand if you were baptised wrong or maybe if you were baptised long ago and then came back to the message again. I wouldn't be baptised again if I were in your shoes.

[Angelo]

wha do you do if some people seem to think you are in need of being baptised again but you yourself aren't really sure (not really seeing the need there)
-- except for praying about it
I don't think there is any outward sign that indicates one needs to be baptized or rebaptized again, because it should be an inward conviction of the person. To do it merely because others say you have to do it, will make it an invalid act. It should be the person's own desire to come to God, and not because he/she was instructed to do so. Probably what should be done is to study oneself if it was revealed, and proven by oneself that it is God that leads him.

[Unregistered]

there is no age limit - it says Only Belive, not Only Know or Only Memorise, the person must have an understanding that they want to give their lives to the Lord, so they can be worked on, recieve the Holy Spirit, and in doing so they repent of their sins. The only check box is Only Believe

16 We feel that a baby has no sin, no more than its sin that it was borned in. We're all borned in sin, shaped in iniquity, come to the world speaking lies. And now, when Jesus died at Calvary, He took away the sins of the world. Then the baby could've been born, or it might've died before it was born; or born before it comes to the age of accountability, it has no sins. Jesus took away the sins of the world. But after it gets old enough and commits sin, then it's got to confess its sins and then be baptized for the remission of its sins. You see? But now, of course, it's too young.

Peter said, "Repent, every one of you, and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the promise is to all future generations."

[God'schild]

I don't think there is any outward sign that indicates one needs to be baptized or rebaptized again, because it should be an inward conviction of the person. To do it merely because others say you have to do it, will make it an invalid act. It should be the person's own desire to come to God, and not because he/she was instructed to do so. Probably what should be done is to study oneself if it was revealed, and proven by oneself that it is God that leads him.

Amen!!!

that's very true.

[joris]

I can understand if you were baptised wrong or maybe if you were baptised long ago and then came back to the message again.they say I may have been baptised "wrong" and; at that moment I was not "in message";
but... how could baptism be "wrong" if it's in believe that Jesus came to this world and died on the cross, that Jesus, He is Lord our God, and I desperately need His sacrifice as I myself am not able to live worthy for Him (not me myself anyway), and, ow well, I long for Him to be my Father and Lord, though, I really need His help so much for me to be able to live this life in a holy way (and by that obviously a loving way); anyway if it were wrong I long for Father to tell me not for people to say it's not good enough

ow I think I strongly dislike that way of speaking, "in message"... it's so... like a denomination, look we have all the answers, you need to belong to us; no no no you need to belong to Jesus

[God'schild]

Joris i understand what you saying.....

How were you baptised??? Acts 2:38 is the scripture

do you feel like you have to get baptised again???
Pray and pray and seek the will of the LORD

Go with the Leading of the LORD that's the most important go with his leading and not with what other people say. people will always say things. FOLLOW THE LEADING OF THE LORD.

[joris]

How were you baptised???uhm with water? (sorry that's a lame joke I guess)

do you feel like you have to get baptised again???I have no idea; I doubt they baptised using those words the way you seem to want, (there's no certainty there: the audio recording was corrupted before they could give me a copy back than)
though there is no scripture to backup being rebaptised for that; no events in efeze do not back it up -- I was not baptised because I wanted to get redeemed I was baptised because I already redeemed; that's more like a bible text to backup rebaptising who was "baptised" as baby; I sure was baptised for the right reasons
FOLLOW THE LEADING OF THE LORD.He's quiet on that; now that means there's no problem right?

[Babyruth]

About "the Message," it's true it can be like a denomination. People can make a denomination out of everything. But I think that when all of us use that term, we are meaning the Message of the hour that was brought by God's prophet and servant William Branham. Every word of the Message lines up with the Bible. If it doesn't then it isn't true. So, when we say, "the Message," we are also saying "the Bible" or "God said" because He did say it, He just used a mouthpiece. Does this make sense? I think I'm speaking unclearly because of severe lack of sleep and emotional shock, but I'm trying to help.

[BroTrevor]

ow I think I strongly dislike that way of speaking, "in message"... it's so... like a denomination, look we have all the answers, you need to belong to us; no no no you need to belong to Jesus

Yeah... belonging to Jesus.

[already bought]

when were you baptise joris??
Also if your questioning if you should get batised find out why you got baptised in the first place. don't just think your sure be sure. Pray for guidence and direction and God will lead you.

[joris]

find out why you got baptised in the first place.erm, well I know why I wanted to get baptised ;)Pray for guidence and direction and God will lead you.yeah... :)

[already bought]

How were you baptised?? Name of father son holy gost (which are really only tittls because like your dad he is dad to you yet he has a name. He might be uncle to some kids yet he's got a name. He might be a friend yet he's got a name.) Or Lord Jesus Christ? Acts 2:38.
I don't mean to preach I just want to back up what I said. And father,son,holy goast is the Lord Jesus Christ just tittles. I hope that makes sence.

[joris]

How were you baptised?? Name of father son holy gost (which are really only tittls because like your dad he is dad to you yet he has a name. He might be uncle to some kids yet he's got a name. He might be a friend yet he's got a name.) Or Lord Jesus Christ? Acts 2:38.
I don't mean to preach I just want to back up what I said. And father,son,holy goast is the Lord Jesus Christ just tittles. I hope that makes sence.there's no certainty there: the audio recording was corrupted before they could give me a copy back thanthat said, it's probably 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' as quoting matt28:19 (though they might have added more to make even clearer it's Lord Jesus Christ my God and Savior)

[already bought]

that said, it's probably 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' as quoting matt28:19 (though they might have added more to make even clearer it's Lord Jesus Christ my God and Savior)

Then if its on the name of the "father, and of the son, and of the holy Ghost." Then you should be rebaptised. i will see if I can get some qoutes for you but That is not a true baptisum because Father son and holy ghost are only tittles. So if its just tittles you could get baptise in like rose of sharon, lilly of the valley, morning star. See those as well are just tittles of Jesus Christ. They explain more what he was. But that is not his name. I hope I am makeing this clear. Also why don't you email brother Trev. from here on the forums becuase I am sure he could help you out more.

[joris]

Then if its on the name of the "father, and of the son, and of the holy Ghost." Then you should be rebaptised. i will see if I can get some qoutes for you but That is not a true baptisum because Father son and holy ghost are only tittles. So if its just tittles you could get baptise in like rose of sharon, lilly of the valley, morning star. See those as well are just tittles of Jesus Christ. They explain more what he was. But that is not his name. I hope I am makeing this clear. Also why don't you email brother Trev. from here on the forums becuase I am sure he could help you out more.I stated before I knew this kind of thinking; and no, it is not so obvious; anyway not if we are still talking about the gracefull God who send Jesus because we can't save ourselves; but it seems in your eyes it has to be the "branham way", it doesn't matter to you that my baptism was really sincere, because someone else, not me, forgot to tell the people who is the Father, and the son, and the holy Ghost; calling a (shaky) step of faith worthless... it hurts :012:

but it doesn't matter: if it's such an obvious thing just show the relevant bible text of people being rebaptised after being baptised in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy Ghost.
oh wait, there are none, so you're standing on thin ice now;

[God'schild]

Joris

Matt 28:19 is in correspondance with Acts 2:38
Have you ever read the book of Acts???
Read the 2 second Chapter and the 19th Chapter... those might help you understand.....
And also search what Bro:Branham says about it...

I will be praying for you Joris....

[already bought]

ahhhhhhhhh I works so hard on the last copy then it got erased

[already bought]

ok here we go I could get it back.

I stated before I knew this kind of thinking; and no, it is not so obvious; anyway not if we are still talking about the gracefull God who send Jesus because we can't save ourselves; but it seems in your eyes it has to be the "branham way", it doesn't matter to you that my baptism was really sincere, because someone else, not me, forgot to tell the people who is the Father, and the son, and the holy Ghost; calling a (shaky) step of faith worthless... it hurts :012:
but it doesn't matter: if it's such an obvious thing just show the relevant bible text of people being rebaptised after being baptised in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy Ghost.
oh wait, there are none, so you're standing on thin ice now;
No I'm not
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizingthem in the name of the Father, and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghost:

What is the name of the Father and of the Son and Of the Holy Ghost?

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Read it for your self
If you would like I can get you more scriptures.

[joris]

Have you ever read the book of Acts???
Read the 2 second Chapter and the 19th Chapter... those might help you understand.....yes I have
Chapter 19:John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
now, to make it just clear, I did not receive the baptism of repentance; or to put it in other words: this text is not about me
And also search what Bro:Branham says about it...I don't have to, you're echoing it just fine

let me just say, I'm so glad Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, my Lord Jesus Christ, He won't call my faith, or my trying to obey, worthless; see, it feels like you're shouting at me "you did not good enough; no that doesn't quite say it: you are not good enough"
and just to summarize all this, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, my Lord Jesus Christ, He is not saying go do it again I hate how you tried before; no He isn't telling me anything like that; it's just branham saying that
now, I won't call you names; no I won't; it's not even hard to do so, but - no I won't

[God'schild]

Joris

I see that your hurting.... (emontionally)
i didn't meant to hurt you....
do you believe that Brother William Marrion Branham is the PROPHET FOR THIS LAST AGE????

will be praying for you...

[joris]

do you believe that Brother William Marrion Branham is the PROPHET FOR THIS LAST AGE????I guess I do, though I remember this man himself was careful enough to tell his fellow christians please watch that whatever I tell is according to bible as he's just man who might make mistakes now and then -- he did not claim any authority higher than scripture itself -- and the claim is he did not add to the bible nor take from it

don't say a sincere baptism is worthless as one guy -- no me, it wasn't my job -- forgot to mention our God is named Lord Jesus Christ (ow wait, "Lord" is a title, and "Christ" = anointing is one too!! that leaves out the name Jesus - yes it is a name - but that's a bit impractical as there are so many boys named like that; so let's just hold on to those titles then)

[joris]

but it doesn't matter: if it's such an obvious thing just show the relevant bible text of people being rebaptised after being baptised in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy Ghost.nobody gave that one by the way
see the point is, I don't see my baptism as being equal to that done by John the baptist, and I know I was not equal to those people; I already believed in Jesus' sacrifice and victory over death

they were even unaware of Jesus Christ, and His sacrifice, and Him being raised from death, His victory over death -- in a word, they didn't know any of what Jesus had done for all of us; now then they were told, they came to believe and then were rebaptised and received the gift of Holy Spirit.
If you read carefully that is what was going on in acts 19.

it seems so weird branham didn't even try to explain how a sincere baptism of faith, faith in Lord Jesus Christ and His sacrifice and everything -- after redemption -- is supposed to be equal to the baptism of John for people unaware of anything about Jesus Christ; or did I just not come across that clear explanation yet?
and I didn't see an explanation of why the title 'lord' is better used than the title 'father', or why 'anointing','salvation' (='Christ') is preferred over 'Holy Spirit'

[AndrewMichael]

Joris, I admire your sincerity. There are a lot of "message" people who don't have this sincerity to serve the Lord.

It is important that you do be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. We know Acts 2:38 shows the commision and we need to follow the bible to recieve the Holy Ghost. It isn't that you aren't or weren't sincere, I can tell you are, but we must bring ourselves subject to the Word. I am not going to Branhamize you. He was the prophet of Malachi 4:5-6, but what God was really doing was revealing who He was to us, admiss all the denominational confusion in the world (even though most to the Message is following the same pattern of denominalizing).

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are titles. There is no commission to be baptized in titles, but in the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which we know is the Lord Jesus Christ. There is power to a name more than a title. Such as writing "Dad" on a check won't cash, but to write "James Coressel" will, does that help?

[Jezz]

nobody gave that one by the way
see the point is, I don't see my baptism as being equal to that done by John the baptist, and I know I was not equal to those people; I already believed in Jesus' sacrifice and victory over death

they were even unaware of Jesus Christ, and His sacrifice, and Him being raised from death, His victory over death -- in a word, they didn't know any of what Jesus had done for all of us; now then they were told, they came to believe and then were rebaptised and received the gift of Holy Spirit.
If you read carefully that is what was going on in acts 19.

it seems so weird branham didn't even try to explain how a sincere baptism of faith, faith in Lord Jesus Christ and His sacrifice and everything -- after redemption -- is supposed to be equal to the baptism of John for people unaware of anything about Jesus Christ; or did I just not come across that clear explanation yet?
and I didn't see an explanation of why the title 'lord' is better used than the title 'father', or why 'anointing','salvation' (='Christ') is preferred over 'Holy Spirit'

Nobody was rebaptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ because nobody was baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That is what Brother Branham said in Revelation of Jesus Christ. He said that nobody was baptised in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost until the Nicean council. This was based on a study of history that he undertook.

I'm not sure that John's baptism is equal to being baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. From my understanding being baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is superior.

I'll have to look into this more before I make any definitive statements :)

[already bought]

[ (even though most to the Message is following the same pattern of denominalizing).



Why do you say that??

[BroTrevor]

[ (even though most to the Message is following the same pattern of denominalizing).



Why do you say that??


Well, while I don't know that I'd say most... I'd say quite a bit is trying. You don't see that??

Parousia
5-fold
tapes only
thunders
tent
return

I'm sure there's more.

"If you don't see this particular revelation you're lost."

"Those people that only listen to tapes in church... they're missing something... no way they're on the Word"

"Those people that listen to that preacher obviously don't have the Holy Ghost or they'd leave"


There's quite alot there... but that's not the fault of the message Bro Branham brought... but the devil, trying to do the same thing.

Praise God there is a crop of people that Love Jesus, and love others. This little Bride will LIVE the Word. See, it's not that they are just trying to follow the Word, and make their lives right by the Word. Instead, by the power of the Holy Ghost in their lives, they ARE the Word in reality! They are a "lived voice"!

They are just bearing wool, because they are sheep.


"baaaaaa"

-Trevor

[AndrewMichael]

Well, while I don't know that I'd say most... I'd say quite a bit is trying. You don't see that??

Parousia
5-fold
tapes only
thunders
tent
return

I'm sure there's more.

"If you don't see this particular revelation you're lost."

"Those people that only listen to tapes in church... they're missing something... no way they're on the Word"

"Those people that listen to that preacher obviously don't have the Holy Ghost or they'd leave"


There's quite alot there... but that's not the fault of the message Bro Branham brought... but the devil, trying to do the same thing.

Praise God there is a crop of people that Love Jesus, and love others. This little Bride will LIVE the Word. See, it's not that they are just trying to follow the Word, and make their lives right by the Word. Instead, by the power of the Holy Ghost in their lives, they ARE the Word in reality! They are a "lived voice"!

They are just bearing wool, because they are sheep.


"baaaaaa"

-Trevor

Thanks for clearing me up a little bit there. We all know they will try to make a denomination out of the Message, which a lot of people are getting pretty close, but there will be a Bride that will still believe in God's revelation and not in any sort of systematic Message creed. This Message was to bring us back to the same faith of Pentecost, not a new movement for us to circle around. Brother Branham died fourty years ago, he wasn't build for our day right now or he would still be here. We are equiped to live in this day, right in the midst of Satan's Eden. Brother Branham would probably go near insane if he had to live the level of sin of our day, that's why God took him off the seen when he did.

One thing I always try to say to Message people.

You CANNOT add the Message to scripture. The Message simply comes from scripture. God is still our absolute.

[HotShot53]

You CANNOT add the Message to scripture. The Message simply comes from scripture. God is still our absolute.

Agree 100%.... especially, as just noted, not everyone agrees what exaclty the "message" says ;)

[God'schild]

i agree as well that is so true......

[Angelo]

What is "5-Fold" belief?

[BroTrevor]

What is "5-Fold" belief?

as in, it's the 5 fold ministry that will carry the bride through and who cares about listening to Bro Branham's tapes....

obviously that's rather generalized...

(hopefully this doesn't open up a can of worms...)

[AndrewMichael]

as in, it's the 5 fold ministry that will carry the bride through and who cares about listening to Bro Branham's tapes....

obviously that's rather generalized...

(hopefully this doesn't open up a can of worms...)

Wow, I didn't know believing in the 5-Fold was the same as tapes only... hmm...

Well, guess I will just state my opinion here and move on.

I believe we need the five-fold ministry. However you want to look at it, the Message still needs to be brought 40 years from the prophet. I am not saying we add things to the Message but we have to make sure we don't die when Brother Branham left the scene. Such issues as internet and video games, that weren't really issues in Brother Branham's day, need to be searched out and revealed to the Bride. I'm not saying we contridict or add anything to the Message but bring it to our day, alive as it ever was.

I don't get the tape-only deal at all though. If God is still God, He is big enough to have a five-fold ministry as promised in the scriptures, even if we did send a prophet. We should still listen to tapes, but God lives through flesh, not plastic. God is alive in His people and He promised the five-fold ministry for the perfecting of the saints. We need more than a one-fold ministry (just the prophet), or God would not have ordained pastors, evangelist, apostles, and teachers as well. And why would I need to go to church to listen to a tape when I can do that anywhere? I got to church to hear and see God alive TODAY in His people. And yes, I realize our lives is really where the life of the gospel is shown, but I believe we need church to get into a real atmosphere of the Holy Ghost with other believers, to feed off one another's atmosphere and expectation. We still need the five-fold, even though this needs to come under the headship of the prophet, we still need it or God would not have ordained that so since the apostles.

Just my opinions......

[BroTrevor]

of course...

we need all that God has for us... we cannot throw out the tapes, nor can we throw out ministers.

I was merely highlighting some of the "denominationalizing" that people try to do.

I wasn't holding to any particular denomination/camp either way....

Let's not turn this thread into a preacher vs. tape discussion...please?

[jtucker]

this are great topic, though i don't at all agree with tape ministry i still feel it is important to listen to the message, but i feel going to church and sitting under a truth preaching minister is they way God wants it, but we all will live according to the seed that is in us, i hope that makes sense i don't mean to confuse anyone

[AndrewMichael]

Let's not turn this thread into a preacher vs. tape discussion...please?

You started it... lol.... or did I, ah either way... definitely.

[already bought]

I don't think we should try to get tapes vs. preaches going.
I agree with you. I do believe in the 5 fold ministry becuase if God had not wanted it he would not have said it. I also agree we need to have the message living in this day not just as histry of what a Profet spoke some 40 years ago. But I also know that the message that He spoke then is good enough now to.
I don't believe we should cut down people or write them off if they don't believe just like we do (I'm not saying you were doing this) but we ought to pray for them. And we are all in different areas with our walks with God. There maybe some part that another brother or sister has a revelation that you don't yet have and vs versy. So we need to pray for one another and have grace and relise that its only by his grace that We are where we are today.
I did not say this to cut any one down or to hurt any one. But I know for me somtimes I forget that God had grace for me so I should have grace for others. We all need more of God. We are prefect through Him yet in our bodys we make mistakes. But its not how many times we fall its how many times we we get up and try again.
God be with you one and all and Bless you. i will be praying for each one on this forum.

[BroTrevor]

this are great topic, though i don't at all agree with tape ministry i still feel it is important to listen to the message, but i feel going to church and sitting under a truth preaching minister is they way God wants it, but we all will live according to the seed that is in us, i hope that makes sense i don't mean to confuse anyone

WHOA!!!

I disrespectfully disagree with your "disagreeing with tape ministry" as a whole...

This is not the place for that discussion...

So I wont go into why.

(this is not to say that I prefer tapes over preachers or vice versa - this only goes to prove the point that this can be a "denominational difference")


Do you believe Jesus Died for your sins??
DO you believe GOd sent a prophet with a revelation for our day?
DO you believe the HOly Ghost is for you, your children, and as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Can it really be that easy??


Heard this today on a tape:

PALMERWORM.LOCUST.CANKERWORM.CATERPILLAR_ JEFF.IN V-14 N-1 SUNDAY_ 59-0823
110 The next thing that we'd like to say for, is brotherly love, has been eaten away from the vine, brotherly love. Jesus said, "This will all men know you're My disciples, when you have love one for another."
Well, now let's just take an example. If a man don't believe the same as I do, I'll go right into his congregation and preach with him, just preach what he believes, and go right ahead and let it go, 'cause I love him. By their fruits you know them. If they don't believe it, and they haven't got brotherly love, they drop out, disagree, fall away, "I'll have nothing to do with It." Why don't you come to me and talk to me about It? You don't know what I believe. See? What difference does it make, anyhow, what I believe? It's Who I believe, Jesus Christ! I've never left a meeting yet with a bad taste, as I know of. But, you see, brotherly love has been all discarded.
And Paul seen it, I Corinthians 13, he said, "Let brotherly love continue." But brotherly love has been taken away. Now watch, every time...

[Angelo]

Thanks Bro T. Sorry if I asked on details. I was just not aware of that yet.


I don't believe we should cut down people or write them off if they don't believe just like we do (I'm not saying you were doing this) but we ought to pray for them. And we are all in different areas with our walks with God. There maybe some part that another brother or sister has a revelation that you don't yet have and vs versy. So we need to pray for one another and have grace and relise that its only by his grace that We are where we are today.

I agree to that Sis Already Bought. Knowledge is not the basis of salvation, but, it may affect their walk with Christ. Every belief or word carries a spirit on it, just like the Garden of Eden encounter. Yes, we need to pray for everyone.

God bless you.

[Angelo]

(this is not to say that I prefer tapes over preachers or vice versa - this only goes to prove the point that this can be a "denominational difference")


When I was newly converted, I just never could stop reading everything that the prophet tought and said. It was like coffee that never let me sleep, the chanel that God uses to make me strong and equipped, the guard and source of strength of my experience. The blue book made me realize that I am justified before God, and it was vindicated by God by His Spirit because God can use anything or everything to vindicate His Word as long as we put our faith on it. I could never forget the joy I had when I saw those message tapes in the local church I attended (though it gathered dust and seemed unused), and for me to have the chance to listen to all of it, it became my task to make a general cleaning up in the church. I never could get tired as long as those tapes are playing. The presence of God is there with me, filling me, inspiring me, proving the words that the prophet is saying, pointing to the Word of Hour which is Christ. For me it was the voice of God in our day.

But when time runs along, and my bones tend to strengthen, I tend to hear other voices, no, not other voices, but the same Voice that spoke of the message (Christ) through the prophet. I now realized that the real voice is not the person (minister) speaking, but the Spirit that speaks through the person. Bro Branham is gone, but the Spirit that spoke through Him before and manifested the power is still present and is alive, and still speaking. I have to hear His continous revelation. He cannot stop and I won't hinder.

I'd like to share this scripture:

1 Corinthians 3:4-9 (Amplified Bible)
For when one says, I belong to Paul, and another, I belong to Apollos, are you not [proving yourselves] ordinary (unchanged) men?

What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Ministering servants [not heads of parties] through whom you believed, even as the Lord appointed to each his task:

I planted, Apollos watered, but God [all the while] was making it grow and [He] gave the increase.

So neither he who plants is anything nor he who waters, but [only] God Who makes it grow and become greater.

He who plants and he who waters are equal (one in aim, of the same importance and esteem), yet each shall receive his own reward (wages), according to his own labor.

For we are fellow workmen (joint promoters, laborers together) with and for God; you are God's [a]garden and vineyard and field under cultivation, [you are] God's building.

Lord, please receive the glory and not another. :012: :worthy: :no: :sad::(

[already bought]

When I was newly converted, I just never could stop reading everything that the prophet tought and said. It was like coffee that never let me sleep, the chanel that God uses to make me strong and equipped, the guard and source of strength of my experience. The blue book made me realize that I am justified before God, and it was vindicated by God by His Spirit because God can use anything or everything to vindicate His Word as long as we put our faith on it. I could never forget the joy I had when I saw those message tapes in the local church I attended (though it gathered dust and seemed unused), and for me to have the chance to listen to all of it, it became my task to make a general cleaning up in the church. I never could get tired as long as those tapes are playing. The presence of God is there with me, filling me, inspiring me, proving the words that the prophet is saying, pointing to the Word of Hour which is Christ. For me it was the voice of God in our day.

But when time runs along, and my bones tend to strengthen, I tend to hear other voices, no, not other voices, but the same Voice that spoke of the message (Christ) through the prophet. I now realized that the real voice is not the person (minister) speaking, but the Spirit that speaks through the person. Bro Branham is gone, but the Spirit that spoke through Him before and manifested the power is still present and is alive, and still speaking. I have to hear His continous revelation. He cannot stop and I won't hinder.

I'd like to share this scripture:

1 Corinthians 3:4-9 (Amplified Bible)


Lord, please receive the glory and not another. :012: :worthy: :no: :sad::(

I think you said it all brother. i totaly agree with you. I could not have said it better.

[jtucker]

that's very Good

[AndrewMichael]

DO you believe GOd sent a prophet with a revelation for our day?


Just a thought, but is this step really necessary in recieving the Holy Ghost? I mean Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost. If we need to recognize the messenger BEFORE we recieve the Holy Ghost why doesn't the scripture say "And understand why John the Baptist was sent"?

I am a first hand witness that a person doesn't need to know a thing about the Message to recieve the Holy Ghost, they just need to take the Scripture and believe it with all their heart. My brother knew hardly anything about anything when he recieved the Holy Ghost, but I know he did because of his life. I do agree though that the Holy Ghost will lead a person to the Message but I don't believe this line needs to be in a baptism, just "Repent", a thorough repentence is all the Bible calls for.





And I hate to have to say the following but I just have a hard time being quiet (imagine that...). But you did say the 5-fold, not the 4-fold. I believe in the 5-fold leading the rapture, and ALL five, which includes the prophet. Now I am 100% against "tape-only" for there isn't a scripture to back that up. God ordained the FIVE-fold ministry, which means we also should implement the prophet, being a part of the five-fold [Apostles (missionaries), PROPHETS, evangelists, pastors, and teachers], but we still NEED all five. The tape-only kills God back with the prophet for you turn the five-fold into a one-fold, only the prophet, which I find a very dangerous manuever. I am not all about condemning or even convicting for that matter, that's up to the Holy Ghost, but I just don't get where you can get the "tape-only" from the scripture? Maybe someone can enlighten me, but from my studies this is a very dangerous belief.

And if you think I am trying to make myself look smart, being prideful, etc etc, I only want to follow Ephesians 4:15 15But speaking the truth in love.

[JoeC]

I definately agree with Andrew on the neccessity of the five-fold ministry in the believer's life.

The Holy Ghost without receiving the Message is the only thing that gets me. It seems right...

but then, the Bible seems to indicate that the only prerequisite for the Rapture is the oil - the Holy Ghost. So, if someone can receive the Holy Ghost without the message for their day and that same person only needs the Holy Ghost to take a rapture, then it follows that a person without knowledge of the message for their day can take a rapture. This contradicts my understanding that only the Bride will take a rapture. Thus, there must be a virus in my reasoning somewhere... anyone care to debug me?

[AndrewMichael]

I definately agree with Andrew on the neccessity of the five-fold ministry in the believer's life.

The Holy Ghost without receiving the Message is the only thing that gets me. It seems right...

but then, the Bible seems to indicate that the only prerequisite for the Rapture is the oil - the Holy Ghost. So, if someone can receive the Holy Ghost without the message for their day and that same person only needs the Holy Ghost to take a rapture, then it follows that a person without knowledge of the message for their day can take a rapture. This contradicts my understanding that only the Bride will take a rapture. Thus, there must be a virus in my reasoning somewhere... anyone care to debug me?

Well, good point actually, but I do remember that the rapture will happen when the Bride reaches maturity. Recieving the Holy Ghost is just the beginning, and there is nothing about recieving the messenger of your day for recieving the Holy Ghost, but like I said the genuine Holy Ghost MUST point to the Message of the Hour, or it is just a glare from the past and not Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever. We have to get to maturity and only the ones with the Holy Ghost can reach it... I wonder if that is any clearer, I am actually checking up on my own beliefs to be honest. lol.

[blessed]

I definately agree with Andrew on the neccessity of the five-fold ministry in the believer's life.

The Holy Ghost without receiving the Message is the only thing that gets me. It seems right...

but then, the Bible seems to indicate that the only prerequisite for the Rapture is the oil - the Holy Ghost. So, if someone can receive the Holy Ghost without the message for their day and that same person only needs the Holy Ghost to take a rapture, then it follows that a person without knowledge of the message for their day can take a rapture. This contradicts my understanding that only the Bride will take a rapture. Thus, there must be a virus in my reasoning somewhere... anyone care to debug me?

Someone outside of this message can get the Holy Ghost, but its more than the Holy Ghost to make the rapture, its beign born again of the Word and growing into the stature of a perfect man. That is the prequisite,that's what makes the difference no one that is not born-again will make it into the rapture.

[BroTrevor]

Just a thought, but is this step really necessary in recieving the Holy Ghost? I mean Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost. If we need to recognize the messenger BEFORE we recieve the Holy Ghost why doesn't the scripture say "And understand why John the Baptist was sent"?


I would agree with this, but to look into your life to see if you DO have the Holy Ghost, you would want to see that your life is lining up with scripture.

The Holy Ghost will either lead you to the message, or the message will lead you to the Holy Ghost. It is necessary to have the Spirit and the truth however, for that is how we worship.



I am a first hand witness that a person doesn't need to know a thing about the Message to recieve the Holy Ghost, they just need to take the Scripture and believe it with all their heart. My brother knew hardly anything about anything when he recieved the Holy Ghost, but I know he did because of his life. I do agree though that the Holy Ghost will lead a person to the Message but I don't believe this line needs to be in a baptism, just "Repent", a thorough repentence is all the Bible calls for.



Isn't that what the message is about tho? Returning to the faith of the pentacostal fathers?



And I hate to have to say the following but I just have a hard time being quiet (imagine that...). But you did say the 5-fold, not the 4-fold. I believe in the 5-fold leading the rapture, and ALL five, which includes the prophet. Now I am 100% against "tape-only" for there isn't a scripture to back that up. God ordained the FIVE-fold ministry, which means we also should implement the prophet, being a part of the five-fold [Apostles (missionaries), PROPHETS, evangelists, pastors, and teachers], but we still NEED all five. The tape-only kills God back with the prophet for you turn the five-fold into a one-fold, only the prophet, which I find a very dangerous manuever. I am not all about condemning or even convicting for that matter, that's up to the Holy Ghost, but I just don't get where you can get the "tape-only" from the scripture? Maybe someone can enlighten me, but from my studies this is a very dangerous belief.

And if you think I am trying to make myself look smart, being prideful, etc etc, I only want to follow Ephesians 4:15 15But speaking the truth in love.

Well of course, myself being a preacher, one could hardly say I was "tape-only"

As I said, this "division" is something I didn't really want to get into a discussion about here, but would gladly speak my thoughts on a one to one basis...

I will say this, for those that can not see a "tape-only" church...and consider that 1 fold. There are those that see a "preaching-only" church and consider them 4 fold.

Turn about is fair play... the same arguement you would use to say you shouldn't have tapes only in church because that's 1 fold, is the same arguement used in reverse about being 4 fold.

I like a nice balance. I do tire of percieved "self-righteousness" on either "side"


but I just don't get where you can get the "tape-only" from the scripture?


There are those that don't get "preacher-only" from the scripture as well.


I pose a question.... Do you NEED all five to be perfected?

[blessed]

What does the scripture say, not the five fold ministry is for the perfecting of the saints but I don't think that all five may be in one church. Every one has their part to play

[Angelo]

Ephesians 4:13-14 (King James Version)

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;



I pose a question.... Do you NEED all five to be perfected?

Based on the scripture above Bro T, I believe I need all of them for me to be edified and perfected. More of Christ, more of Jesus, more and more. More of you also, and everyone that loves and serves the Lord, even from the least.

[Jezz]

I don't think you need all five to be perfected. A evangelist for example goes from place to place preaching the Word, often they'll go to places where Brother Branham's message hasn't gone yet bringing in new members to the Bride. But I was born into the message, I don't see how an evangelist is needed for me personally.

I know that without Brother Branham's message I couldn't possibly have the truth for this hour and therefore cannot be saved. Faith cometh by hearing, Brother Branham said Faith is a Revelation. So you CANNOT get revelation without hearing the Word.

Remember that a balance is almost always the right way, middle of road stuff, so extremems such as only-tapes or only-pastor or only-teacher should be avoided in my opinion. I know that without the five fold ministry I wouldn't have the revelations that I have now.

[FreeAtLast]

I know that without Brother Branham's message I couldn't possibly have the truth for this hour and therefore cannot be saved.

I don´t think I quite agree.

There are ppl in this world today that are actually saved and might have never heard the message (yet).

[BroTrevor]

Ephesians 4:13-14 (King James Version)

Based on the scripture above Bro T, I believe I need all of them for me to be edified and perfected. More of Christ, more of Jesus, more and more. More of you also, and everyone that loves and serves the Lord, even from the least.

So what you are saying is, that if I were on an island in the pacific, where there was no church, and I was the only Christian on the island, but I had a tape and a Bible, I could not be edified nor perfected? I'd be lost, even tho I believed that there was a Holy Ghost that I could be baptised with?

[Angelo]

So what you are saying is, that if I were on an island in the pacific, where there was no church, and I was the only Christian on the island, but I had a tape and a Bible, I could not be edified nor perfected? I'd be lost, even tho I believed that there was a Holy Ghost that I could be baptised with?
If the individual has a gift within him, I think God will never let it be wasted in a place where it cannot be fruitful. I believe God will make a way for it to be utilized, He is a God of economy, every member will be complementary to each other. If one is placed in a certain place or situation, provided that it is God's will and leading for him to be in that place, he will be equipped and will consider that place to be the safest place for him. Like John who chose the wilderness than the schools and seminaries of that day. He knew his message is more important than their ideas. But when we talk about availability for a regular member of the church, God's hand is not short to reach his children and provide them their needs. If there is a need, there is a supply; If there is a question, there is an answer; If there is faith, there is the preaching of the Living Word to be heard.

I just can't stop until I reach that goal of perfection, and to use everything there is that God provides.

[God'schild]

There are ppl in this world today that are actually saved and might have never heard the message (yet).

I listened to a tape a while back where brother Branham said that there will be people in every church that will be in heaven....... There are going to be people in heaven that are saved but never heard the message of the hour.........

[JoeC]

Here's the rest of the scripture that Brother Angelo didn't post:

EPHESIANS 4:11-13

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:


btw, what are apostles and what exactly do they do? Modern example?

oh, and who are the "some" the Bible speaks of here? The individuals who receive these gifts... or parts of the body of Christ? If parts of the body of Christ, then does Ephesians 4:12 mean these five collectively perfect the Bride, or are able to do so individually?

[blessed]

1. I would think that the "some" is the body of Christ
2. When you invite ministers to preach, go to camps etc, you are recieving from these different gifts/offices. We often have missionaries, pastors,evangelist etc visiting our country and I for one have greatly benefited from it especially at the last meetings we had.

[JoeC]

So under the understanding that some refers to parts of the Body, then there would be members that do not get the wealth of ALL the five mentioned. And if members of the body, then they will come to perfection (John 17:23, etc) - even those some who only receive a portion of the five fold ministry!

That pretty much answers the proposed questions (although I still would like to know what an apostle is exactly). If anyone doesn't follow my reasoning, please say so. I'm going to leave it out for brevity's sake.

[JoeC]

I know that without Brother Branham's message I couldn't possibly have the truth for this hour and therefore cannot be saved. Faith cometh by hearing, Brother Branham said Faith is a Revelation. So you CANNOT get revelation without hearing the Word.

I am in total disagreement with the idea that "only Message believers can be saved." I hope I am misinterpreting you.

While it is true that faith cometh by hearing the Word and faith is a pre-requisite for becoming saved, the Word for the day does not possess a monopoly on the entirety of the Word. The Message (what we believe is the restored Word for the Laodicean church age) was to restore what was lost through the church ages, to "turn the heart of the children back to their fathers" (Malachi 4:6). The restoration is a part of the Word. I fully believe that the denominational Christians have enough Word to receive faith for salvation... just not a rapture.

[BroTrevor]

I believe I am in agreement with JoeC's last 2 posts.

[AndrewMichael]

A modern apostle is called a missionary, which explains the actions of the first twelve apostles. Brother Branham says that many times, even though I am not quite sure, I just know I have heard it in the tapes a lot. Why they changed the names? I don't know.

[Angelo]

The Greek Word
The word apostle comes from the Greek word απόστολος (apostolos). The Friberg Greek Lexicon gives a broad definition as one who is sent on a mission, a commissioned representative of a congregation, a messenger for God, a person who has the special task of founding and establishing churches. The UBS Greek Dictionary also describes an apostle broadly as a messenger. The Louw-Nida Lexicon gives a very narrow definition of a special messenger, generally restricted to the immediate followers of Jesus, or extended to some others like Paul or other early Christians active in proclaiming the Gospel.

[JoeC]

Thanks guys. That clears things up for me. :)

[joris]

err, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with baptism anymore

Joris, I admire your sincerity. There are a lot of "message" people who don't have this sincerity to serve the Lord.
it's just that I'd get too tired of playing around without sharing what's on my heart; now, who would want that ;)
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are titles. There is no commission to be baptized in titles, but in the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which we know is the Lord Jesus Christ. There is power to a name more than a title. Such as writing "Dad" on a check won't cash, but to write "James Coressel" will, does that help?
but there you go wrong!
Lord *is* a title!
Christ/Messiah... it's a title too! it indicates that really special anointing only Lord Jesus ,who took on our sins and everything, had

is you want something resembling a last name as good as possible, the "name" will become: Jesus of Nazareth
no, nobody ever baptised like that; and no I don't think we should

[JoeC]

branham is nothing more than anyone committing suicide and nobody committing suicide is anything less than branham
then people stop judging them, instead pray for Lord to reveal the deep pains of people
after all they commit suicide as nobody was there for them, as nobody even ever cared
I really don't understand your signature, Joris. Mind explaining it?

[joris]

I really don't understand your signature, Joris. Mind explaining it?ehm, what part is it you don't understand?

[JoeC]

I don't see how the terms "Branham" and "suicide" relate.

[joris]

I don't see how the terms "Branham" and "suicide" relate.branham did commit suicide, but God did something such that he didn't die (not even being hurt by it)

[JoeC]

ah. I see now where you're coming from. :)

[Angelo]

branham did commit suicide, but God did something such that he didn't die (not even being hurt by it)
Isn't he wonderful? He did that to me also. I was destroying myself because I could never find the meaning of life, because I never knew His life. Life without a meaning and security is really hard.

[chocolateismybestfriend]

I am in total disagreement with the idea that "only Message believers can be saved." I hope I am misinterpreting you.

While it is true that faith cometh by hearing the Word and faith is a pre-requisite for becoming saved, the Word for the day does not possess a monopoly on the entirety of the Word. The Message (what we believe is the restored Word for the Laodicean church age) was to restore what was lost through the church ages, to "turn the heart of the children back to their fathers" (Malachi 4:6). The restoration is a part of the Word. I fully believe that the denominational Christians have enough Word to receive faith for salvation... just not a rapture.

We would all agree that we do need to be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ right?

REVELATION.CHAPTER.FOUR.3_ JEFF.IN ROJC 645-716 SUNDAY_ 61-0108
174 Now, my precious brother, I know this is a tape also. Now, don't get excited. Let me say this with godly love. The hour has approached where I can't hold still on these things no more: too close to the coming. See? "Trinitarianism is of the devil." I say that THUS SAITH THE LORD. Look where it come from. It come from the Nicene Council when the Catholic church become in rulership. The word "trinity" is not even mentioned in the entire Book of the Bible. And as far as three Gods, that's from hell. There's one God. That's exactly right.

With this quote you can hardly be expected to recieve salvation from being baptised in the name of the father, son and holy spirit when Bro Branham states that trinitarism is of the devil, THUS SAITH THE LORD.

Acts 2 : 37

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In previous history this revelation wasnt known and therefore wasnt a requirement. We do now have that knowledge and God does not wink at it because we are no longer igorant.

Acts 17:30 - And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent

Therefore i would have to question how one can have salvation where they have not been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ?


---------------------



Joris, read the following quotes
:)

THE.TESTIMONY.OF.A.TRUE.WITNESS_ JEFF.IN V-15 N-6 SUNDAY_ 61-1105
269 I want to make another announcement. I forgot, I didn't know it rather. There's a baptismal service following this one. If anyone here that has not been baptized in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, let me say to you as God's servant, baptism is essential to salvation. He that believeth and is baptized, and is baptized, shall be saved. Now if you haven't been baptized in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and you have believed on Him and confessed your sins, come now forward after this service and you'll can be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins.
Remember, Matthew said, "Go ye therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." The Name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost is the Lord Jesus Christ. Father, Son, Holy Ghost is titles that belong to the Name of Jesus Christ. All the early church baptized, until the birth of the Catholic church, they all baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. Take "The Nicene Council", "The Fathers" and so forth, the history and you'll find. But then they went to using titles instead of Name. We as a church, a group of people, no organization, we remain with the Bible. It's the Name of Jesus Christ...?..


29-1 THE.REVELATION.OF.JESUS.CHRIST - CHURCH.AGE.BOOK CPT.1
Yes, if there were three Gods, you might very well baptize for a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Ghost. But the REVELATION GIVEN TO JOHN was that there is ONE GOD and His Name is LORD JESUS CHRIST, and you baptize for ONE God and only one. That is why Peter baptized the way he did at Pentecost. He had to be true to the revelation which was, "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that SAME JESUS, Whom ye have crucified, BOTH LORD AND CHRIST." There He is, "The LORD JESUS CHRIST."

[joris]

We would all agree that we do need to be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ right?no it is far from "obvious" to me -- especially as I was already baptised with sincere faith
(no my knowledge was not perfect... my love for Lord or especially love for others was not perfect... but I don't see that's reason to say it was worthless: only in heaven a perfect baptism is possible)
REVELATION.CHAPTER.FOUR.3_ JEFF.IN ROJC 645-716 SUNDAY_ 61-0108
174 Now, my precious brother, I know this is a tape also. Now, don't get excited. Let me say this with godly love. The hour has approached where I can't hold still on these things no more: too close to the coming. See? "Trinitarianism is of the devil." I say that THUS SAITH THE LORD. Look where it come from. It come from the Nicene Council when the Catholic church become in rulership. The word "trinity" is not even mentioned in the entire Book of the Bible. And as far as three Gods, that's from hell. There's one God. That's exactly right.agreed, but not really relevant here (see below)
note, however, that the word "rapture" is never used in the entire bible either: that reasoning is flawed (note that Branham believes in "rapture" to happen, and I believe bible gives a lot of reasons to believe it will happen indeed)

With this quote you can hardly be expected to recieve salvation from being baptised in the name of the father, son and holy spirit when Bro Branham states that trinitarism is of the devil, THUS SAITH THE LORD.I do not believe in trinitarism (anymore);
note also that Jesus from Nazareth (you seem to be very fond of names, remember?) says:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19)
see, that phrase doesn't really prove one believes in trinitarism - or do you think Jesus believed in it right there?
I seem to remember apostel John used the same phrase in some letter (though that was not about baptism)


The Name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost is the Lord Jesus Christ. Father, Son, Holy Ghost is titles that belong to the Name of Jesus Christ. no matter how much you repeat it, it's still wrong:
Lord is in no way a name, it is a title; if it is a name it should have read Jahweh, which would mean (almost?) all bibles are translated incorrectly
Christ is no more a name than Holy Ghost: it basically means the same

that leaves "Jesus" as a true name and Branham himself was against baptising like "in the name of Jesus."

If you really want to baptise in a name, either it is "in the name of Jesus", or slightly better (still really not good enough), "in the name of Jesus from Nazareth"

[FreeAtLast]

Therefore i would have to question how one can have salvation where they have not been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ?

People don´t get saved because they are baptized in the right way.

Remember the thief on the cross? He never was baptized yet he received salvation right there and then.

I can give you a personal testimony. My father before coming into this message was saved a long time ago. God met him in a supernatural way and changed him completly.
Of course my dad didn´t know anything about the message and right baptism at that time but nevertheless he was saved by God almighty.

I believe there are ppl on this earth today who are actually baptized in the wrong way (father, son and Holy Ghost) because they don´t know better yet they are still saved.

In fact there might be even ppl in this message that are actually baptized in the right way and yet they might not be saved at all.

[JoeC]

Joris, I'm not understanding what you're getting at. Are you saying that someone who says "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ" is just as wrong as the guy who baptizes by saying "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Ghost"?

Sarah, Trinitarianism is a trick of the Devil, yes. Just like lying is a trick of the Devil, or rebellion, etc. But just because you lie doesn't mean you are not saved--likewise being baptized according to the doctrine of the Trinity. Now tell me, do you believe that if a person were to sincerely ask Christ into their heart and then die before getting the chance to get baptized that they wouldn't be saved from Hellfire? I propose that they would be saved. Granted, true baptism is necessary for going on further with Christ, but my understanding of it is that it is not a prerequisite for general salvation.


I believe there are ppl on this earth today who are actually baptized in the wrong way (father, son and Holy Ghost) because they don´t know better yet they are still saved. BOOM! It goes back to the parable of the stewards. You're accountable for what God has allotted you. If a person is ignorant, they are not accountable for that. Sorry folks, but I cannot accept that Wesley, and Luther, and all those through the church ages are in Hell because they weren't baptized correctly. It's important, yes--but being baptized wrongly in and of itself will not damn you.

[God'schild]

this might sound weird......
But at camp the brothers that were speaking for us and brother Billy Paul Branham was there he gave his testimony saturday night(never heard it before) and he said that we should only say what was on the tapes he even said that people think that if they get baptised with a senere(sp??) heart in the titles of The "Father Son and Holy Ghost" Still have to get rebaptised in the Name of Jesus Christ....... Brother Branham had THUS SAITH THE LORD...... HE NEVER ONCE MADE A MISTAKE ON A TAPE..... Bro:Billy Paul even read the quote where brother branham said "I am the Voice to this last Age" that was'nt me speaking that was him......
The Bride of Christ will believe every word that's on the tapes.... and if not then theres something wrong with us.......

[AndrewMichael]

We can't baptize in the name of "Jesus" alone because their are millions of Jesus's around the world, but only ONE Lord Jesus Christ... We can't baptize in the name of Jesus of Nazareth because that was only the name for the tabernacle, the sacrifical Lamb, and not the Spirit. The name of God is the Lord Jesus Christ, Lord signifies His authority, Christ signifies His annointing, and Jesus is His character manifested in a God-man.

But just in fear of Branhamism, Jesus Christ is the absolute, not the man William Branham. Always look to the Lord, and you will find Him in the Message but don't worship the man William Branham... just felt to throw that in there.

[joris]

Joris, I'm not understanding what you're getting at. Are you saying that someone who says "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ" is just as wrong as the guy who baptizes by saying "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Ghost"?change "as wrong as" into "as right as" and you got the picture correct; add the name "Jesus" to the mix and we all know who those titles are about

We can't baptize in the name of Jesus of Nazareth because that was only the name for the tabernacle, the sacrifical Lamb, and not the Spirit.so far so good; it's not good enough but it's the best try at baptising in purely a name.
Christ signifies His annointingagain, why would this title be better than "Holy Spirit"?

[joris]

if you are all that sure, join me in prayer that Lord will reveal to me about my sincere baptism; then also ask Him for the church at which I could be re-baptised (and which may be a home to me) because my church won't re-baptise without scriptural evidence and I cannot give it to them unless I add Branham to the bible; remember there's no biblical evidence of need to be rebaptised just because someone forgot to mention Lord is one God and Father, Son, Holy Ghost, are indeed all about this one God, Jesus Christ; ow I forgot one title... Lord Jesus Christ; also note that even if they accepted that I could not just tell my baptism was wrong as I don't know by memory whether the "wrong" words (which were indicated by Lord Jesus Christ to be used) were indeed used without also mentioning the name Jesus

then if He reveals it to me, and gives me a new church to go to, which would then both serve as a new home and as a place to get re-baptised;

though you might also want to join me in prayer that Lord Jesus Christ spares me from the rest of all rejection of this life here and just takes me to heaven right now

[Babyruth]

remember there's no biblical evidence of need to be rebaptised just because someone forgot to mention Lord is one God and Father, Son, Holy Ghost, are indeed all about this one God, Jesus Christ; ow I forgot one title... Lord Jesus Christ
I don't have the exact scripture, cause my Bible is not with me at the moment, but I know there is somewhere in the Scriptures where it says about people having to be rebaptised because it was wrong. I know it's there, my pastor made mention of it recently, can anyone help me out?

[God'schild]

i found the scripture.....

Acts 19:2-5
Paul is speaking to certian disciples
2: He said unto them, Have ye recieved the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard wherher there be any Holy Ghost.
3: And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said Unto John's baptism.
4: Then said Paul, John verily baptised with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5: When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.

[JoeC]

I posted this before, but it never reached the database before everything crashed. I rewrite it, hoping that it helps someone:


Let us begin by resolving the issue of what name to baptize in. First, let's look at the most often quoted scripture, Acts 2:38:

ACTS 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


Now, here we are instructed to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Let's look further:

ACTS 8:16
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Now we are given an example of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus. Nowhere in the bible to you have a baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I suspect that we got that from combining the two.

I think it important not to get too legalistic here. I believe that whether you baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus, Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus Christ, really doesn't make a whole lot of difference. The point is that you show your understanding that Jesus Christ is God and that he is your Lord and Saviour.

Now, the importance of baptism done the right way:

ACTS 19:1 - 6
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


Here we are given a clear example that the way in which a person is baptized is important and that baptism done incorrectly or under an understanding of the Word that is not relevant for the day merits re-baptism.

Also take into account the promise in Acts 2:38 (go back and read it). Here we are promised the Holy Ghost if baptism is done in this fashion. This scripture is to our spiritual lives what a deed is to a property. You have the right to the Holy Ghost if you are baptized in Jesus Christ's name. Without that, you can only hope for the Holy Ghost. And considering that the Holy Ghost is the token for the rapture, the seal from unbelief, one would be wise to do everything in their power to secure their own filling of the Holy Ghost.

Joris, I'll be praying for you that God gives you revelation of the Truth; even as I pray that He will reveal to me the Truth if I'm wrong. God bless! :)

[joris]

remember there's no biblical evidence of need to be rebaptised just because someone forgot to mention Lord is one God and Father, Son, Holy Ghost, are indeed all about this one God, Jesus Christ; ow I forgot one title... Lord Jesus Christ4: Then said Paul, John verily baptised with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.this makes clear why these verses are not about my baptism: I already repented, and already accepted Christ Jesus as my Lord who died to take on my sin (and a whole lot more), and was raised from the death, to proof His victory over darkness
5: When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. (look Paul did it wrong too, shamelessly disregarding the words Peter spoke! :chris: should they again be re-baptised?)The point is that you show your understanding that Jesus Christ is God and that he is your Lord and Saviour.I did not believe otherwise at the time I was baptised (nor did this believe change change - merely the image was improved of how is the Father, our God, how is the Son, our God, and how is the Holy Spirit, our God, and how is it that that is all the same person)

[JoeC]

Joris, I would still have to contend that those who have been baptized without understanding of baptism (i.e. children) and those who were baptized under a trinitarian form would have to be re-baptized if they wanted to complete that step in true Christianity. Acts 19:1-6 still aplies to the situation--it's the principle that we're looking at, not the isolated case.

To further seal the case for the neccessity of re-baptism, I refer to Brother Branham:

QUESTIONS.AND.ANSWERS.title JEFF.IN COD 54-0103M
65-40 017 But if you want to be baptized, and if you was baptized when you was thirteen, or whatever age, why, you--you be baptized if it's in your way.
But now to say that Scripturally I could say that you should be baptized again, there's only one Scriptural way that I could--could announce that people was rebaptized. There's only one Scripture in the entire Bible that people was rebaptized, and that was those who was baptized by John the Baptist before the Holy Ghost came. Paul, in Acts 19:5, told them that they had to be rebaptized again in the Name of Jesus Christ in order to receive the Holy Ghost. See?...


Taking both this quote and the scriptures we've seen, I think the case for re-baptism is strong.

Here are some more quotes:


[B]QA.IMAGE.OF.THE.BEAST.title JEFF.IN 54-0515
205-351 148 We don't have any membership at all. There's nobody a member here, but everybody comes is a member; for we believe that we're all members of one Body by the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
And we constrain you, my dear Christian brother or sister, to be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ and receive the Holy Ghost. If you've already received the Holy Ghost, after you have been baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, God bless you. You say, "Brother Branham, what should I do about it?" The question was answered. I can only say like Paul said: you must be baptized over.



SERPENT'S.SEED.title JEFF.IN V-2 N-4 58-0928E
42-6 129 Now, we're not saying leave the Baptist church, leave the Methodist church. We don't say... You go right back to your church. But if you haven't been baptized according to the Scripture in the Name of the Lord Jesus, not in the Name of Jesus only, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ (That's the Scriptures.), you're baptized wrong.
I don't want no trouble when I come to the river. I want everything as clear as I know how when I'm holding that ticket (See?), 'cause I want to get aboard at that time. I'd advise you to do the same. Go back to your church. It's up between you and God. That's all I can tell you. But no one in the Scripture was ever baptized in any other way but the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And those who were baptized was commanded by St. Paul who said, "If an angel preached anything else let him be accursed," commanded to them to come and be rebaptized again in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. That's right, and he did it. And what he did, he commissioned us to do. That's what we will do God willing.



WATER.BAPTISM.title JEFF.IN EM 15-40 59-0329M
65 043 Therefore, it is my convictions... No disregarding to people that wants to be sprinkled, poured, or immersed in "Father, Son, Holy Ghost," that's deliberately up to you, my dear brother, sister. I would not disagree with you; I just... You're--you're God's servant.
But, to me, I must be faithful and true to the Bible. Therefore, Paul commanded people that had been baptized some other way besides the Name of Jesus Christ, and constrained them to come and be rebaptized again in the Name of Jesus Christ. To preach that same Gospel, I've got to do the same thing, to restrain and to persuade people. Don't never leave your church; stay with your pastor; do everything you can in your own local church; but follow the Bible instructions.
Therefore we believe this morning, that Jesus is coming. And when I stand that day...


There's others, but for the sake of brevity I'll cut it short (unless you would like to see the others). Of course, none of these quotes mean much if you don't believe Brother Branham is the Word messenger to this day, the prophet of Malachi 4. So I have to ask, do you believe Brother Branham is such?

[EllyMae]

There's others, but for the sake of brevity I'll cut it short (unless you would like to see the others. Of course, none of these quotes mean much if you don't believe Brother Branham is the Word messenger to this day, the prophet of Malachi 4. So I have to ask, do you believe Brother Branham is such?

Joris, if you believe Brother Branham is the prophet (of Malachi 4:5 like JoeC just mentioned), then you should also believe the quotes that he also gave in the previous post. It is clear that Brother Branham says to be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[HotShot53]

The way I look at it, is that "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" isn't correct because it's being baptised to the "three persons" of the trinity, while the Lord Jesus Christ shows that it's only one person that had all three offices...

[Babyruth]

One quick interjection, I don't remember if Joris told us how he was baptised, but Joris, we are not trying to "convert you" and prove you wrong and say that you must be rebaptised. I think what we are all trying to show you is that there is one way to be baptised, the name of the Lord, Lord Jesus, or Lord Jesus Christ (I don't think the specific name is the issue, just that it is in the name, not names. Also, we are trying to show you in both the Bible and the Message from the prophet that there are circumstances when one does need to be rebaptised, not specifically you, but anyone. We are not against you, we appreciate you and care about you, that's why we want to try to show you what we have seen in the Bible and the Word.

[joris]

Joris, I would still have to contend that those who have been baptized without understanding of baptism (i.e. children) and those who were baptized under a trinitarian form would have to be re-baptized if they wanted to complete that step in true Christianity. Acts 19:1-6 still aplies to the situation--it's the principle that we're looking at, not the isolated case.As far as I can see the principle Paul indicated there was: if you did not believe in Christ Jesus when you was baptised, you have to be rebaptised; it's about the believe

[joris]

Joris, if you believe Brother Branham is the prophet (of Malachi 4:5 like JoeC just mentioned), then you should also believe the quotes that he also gave in the previous post. It is clear that Brother Branham says to be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.I strongly believe personal revelation is necessary for anything he - or whoever - says while it is not in bible; I agree with Paul and Branham in that, if you did not believe while being baptised you need to be re-baptised after redemption ;) I see no biblical proof for need for rebaptising if you already did believe in Jesus Christ

One quick interjection, I don't remember if Joris told us how he was baptised, but Joris, we are not trying to "convert you" and prove you wrong and say that you must be rebaptised.thank you for saying that
it's just; well if Lord is not revealing to me He doesn't see the need, right?

[BroTrevor]

thank you for saying that
it's just; well if Lord is not revealing to me He doesn't see the need, right?

Sure, but are you open to the revelation? From what I can tell, (and I don't mean to hurt...) you've been digging in on not seeing this, because (again from what I can tell) you don't want to consider the fact that there is a possibilty you were wrong in the past, and that God is trying to show you more now.

So I offer the question to you... Would you be open to recieving it if He did try and reveal it?

God will not push something on you that you don't want to take. You have to be willing.

Obviously, many of our positions, as Joe said, are based upon the fact that we believe William Branham to be a vindicated prophet of God. You just don't take what a prophet says and walk all over it. Those in the Bible that did, paid dearly for it.

Amos 3:7

If we are debating who is right and who is wrong in this conversation, it is frivolous and needs to stop. If we are trying to learn, understand, and grow... then please, continue.

[AgapZoe]

Sure, but are you open to the revelation? From what I can tell, (and I don't mean to hurt...) you've been digging in on not seeing this, because (again from what I can tell) you don't want to consider the fact that there is a possibilty you were wrong in the past, and that God is trying to show you more now.

So I offer the question to you... Would you be open to recieving it if He did try and reveal it?

God will not push something on you that you don't want to take. You have to be willing.

Obviously, many of our positions, as Joe said, are based upon the fact that we believe William Branham to be a vindicated prophet of God. You just don't take what a prophet says and walk all over it. Those in the Bible that did, paid dearly for it.

Amos 3:7

If we are debating who is right and who is wrong in this conversation, it is frivolous and needs to stop. If we are trying to learn, understand, and grow... then please, continue.

God bless you all. I just want to say Amen to what bro T has just posted and well,the rest of the posts on his thread.
Very true,we gotta be willing first..we just don't say..true,and walk over it? nope! that's where we've been going wrong. I believe it ain't just Joris but God's used Joris to bring this up that it may help us all. Let's be wiling to be corrected by the word,and to be straightened..as if the 'Word doesn't purify you,it burns you." If it burns you,you need to check yourself with It gain..otherwise,keep on the fire bruning for Him saints. MAy you never apply reasoning to this msg but let God fill you with the Holy Ghost which shall reveal it all to you..and help you discern the spirit/s.
God bless y'all. Love y'all.
HAve no much time left.have to rush home and make supper.
bye.

[AgapZoe]

God bless you all. I just want to say Amen to what bro T has just posted and well,the rest of the posts on his thread.
Very true,we gotta be willing first..we just don't say..true,and walk over it? nope! that's where we've been going wrong. I believe it ain't just Joris but God's used Joris to bring this up that it may help us all. Let's be wiling to be corrected by the word,and to be straightened..as if the 'Word doesn't purify you,it burns you." If it burns you,you need to check yourself with It gain..otherwise,keep on the fire bruning for Him saints. MAy you never apply reasoning to this msg but let God fill you with the Holy Ghost which shall reveal it all to you..and help you discern the spirit/s.
God bless y'all. Love y'all.
HAve no much time left.have to rush home and make supper.
bye.

I meant ''This''Thread.

[Angelo]

if you are all that sure, join me in prayer that Lord will reveal to me about my sincere baptism; then also ask Him for the church at which I could be re-baptised (and which may be a home to me) because my church won't re-baptise without scriptural evidence and I cannot give it to them unless I add Branham to the bible; remember there's no biblical evidence of need to be rebaptised just because someone forgot to mention Lord is one God and Father, Son, Holy Ghost, are indeed all about this one God, Jesus Christ; ow I forgot one title... Lord Jesus Christ; also note that even if they accepted that I could not just tell my baptism was wrong as I don't know by memory whether the "wrong" words (which were indicated by Lord Jesus Christ to be used) were indeed used without also mentioning the name Jesus

then if He reveals it to me, and gives me a new church to go to, which would then both serve as a new home and as a place to get re-baptised;

though you might also want to join me in prayer that Lord Jesus Christ spares me from the rest of all rejection of this life here and just takes me to heaven right now
Now, that's the best prayer we could all hear. I'm sure the Lord has provided a way for you Joris, the only thing that we should do is act upon it when the Lord has shown us His will.

What I see in the purpose of rebaptism is to grasp and accept the faith that is revealed (by God's message of the "hour" to you). It's purpose is like renewing your driver's licence that has expired, afterwhich you will really know that you have the new and authenticated ID. Referring to Acts 19. They were rebaptized because what was told them before no longer is valid for the time. They were commanded, and they obeyed. Otherwise, they will be rejecting the requirements for their salvation.

John 3:5

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

[blessed]

We all should remember Joris in prayer, remember its the spirit that gives revelation.

Once you are baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ no matter the church or denomination the Lord honours it. That is the requirement for baptism that it be done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, he did not say be baptised by a message minister.

[God'schild]

We all should remember Joris in prayer, remember its the spirit that gives revelation.

Once you are baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ no matter the church or denomination the Lord honours it. That is the requirement for baptism that it be done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, he did not say be baptised by a message minister.

AMEN!!!!!!

i will remember him in prayer.....

[JoeC]

...remember its the spirit that gives revelation.

Quick question here folks. I can't think of any supporting scriptures right now (I may dig them up later), but I'm pretty sure that there is something to the effect that one is to follow the precepts of the Bible even if they don't understand the "why's" or have the revelation yet. Practicing the mechanics until God comes and adds the dynamics. Am I misplaced on this issue?

[BroTrevor]

Think you're on target Joe.

[joris]

I'm pretty sure that there is something to the effect that one is to follow the precepts of the Bible even if they don't understand the "why's" or have the revelation yet. if it is fully backed up by bible, then: yes
otherwise I'm not so sure:
rom14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

[joris]

(nothing there yet, ofcourse; stupid as it is, this thing's bugging me; now waiting while it's up to God to show if there's any need for any of this - as there's no memory going back two years to remember whether the name "Jesus" got mentioned, though I assume the accompanying titles in acts 2:37 weren't mentioned -- of which some weren't mentioned by Paul either, like in acts 19:5, as we found out)

[God'schild]

i would say read the whole book of Acts.. and then go and read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John..

that's only what i suggest you don't have to do it if you don't want to.

[FreeAtLast]

(nothing there yet, ofcourse; stupid as it is, this thing's bugging me; now waiting while it's up to God to show if there's any need for any of this - as there's no memory going back two years to remember whether the name "Jesus" got mentioned, though I assume the accompanying titles in acts 2:37 weren't mentioned -- of which some weren't mentioned by Paul either, like in acts 19:5, as we found out)

Joris, do you know the story in Acts 4 where the priests came to Peter and asked him (after he had healed a man): By what power or what name have you done it?
And Peter full of the Holy Ghost told them that it was by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
A lil further on he continues to say: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved!The bible says is very plainly: there is NONE other name whereby we must be saved. There isn´t even a choice or something. None other name will do it.
Wouldn´t you want to make sure to bear that all sufficient name through baptism?

[joris]

And Peter full of the Holy Ghost told them that it was by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
A lil further on he continues to say: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved!erm... but are you actually baptising "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth"? that'd be way interesting :y10:

[FreeAtLast]

erm... but are you actually baptising "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth"? that'd be way interesting :y10:

man, you are really getting technical, aren´t you? (no offence please!)

You see when Peter spoke to those priests and men he wanted to make sure that they understood real well who he was talking about. He was very precise about his definition, not only did he tell them Jesus Christ of Nazareth but he also said to them: whom ye crucified.
For there might have been more than one Jesus even in those day but after telling them so precisely there wasn´t a doubt left who he was actually talking about.

It´s like talking about you: Joris of Holland (sorry don´t know your city. lol) That´s not your name really but it makes it clearer who I am talking about (because there might be many Joris in this world).

And those priests there with Peter no doubt understood which Jesus he was talking about.


You know what, I think you kinda know the answer of true baptism already.
For wasn´t your question at first: Why not in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (like Jesus told them in Matthew 28:19)
And then all those ppl in Acts are starting to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, because they knew that the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost was Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus never told them to baptize in the nameS (plural). But in that name (singular) for there is NONE other name! Father, Son and Holy Ghost are just titles. There is no salvation in them. For they are not the Name of God almighty!

The only sufficient and all sufficient name is:

LORD JESUS CHRIST
(Father) (Son) (Holy Ghost) (Christ means the annointed one; and isn´t the Holy Ghost the annointing of God?)

[joris]

no offence taken there

man, you are really getting technical, aren´t you? (no offence please!) yes, kind of - I'm trying to make my thinking clear as... to me it seems to be a very "technical" kind of difference in views here

You see when Peter spoke to those priests and men he wanted to make sure that they understood real well who he was talking about. He was very precise about his definition, not only did he tell them Jesus Christ of Nazareth but he also said to them: whom ye crucified.
For there might have been more than one Jesus even in those day but after telling them so precisely there wasn´t a doubt left who he was actually talking about.

It´s like talking about you: Joris of Holland (sorry don´t know your city. lol) That´s not your name really but it makes it clearer who I am talking about (because there might be many Joris in this world).

And those priests there with Peter no doubt understood which Jesus he was talking about.right... but throughout the book of acts different names are used - or, to describe it more clearly, the NAME Jesus is accompanied by many different titles and hints at exactly who is this Jesus we are talking about (our Saviour, God's Son, the Lamb who took on our sins, Jesus from Nazareth, Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the man who we crucified (anyway by rejecting Him in past), Jesus the Man without sin, etc)

The only sufficient and all sufficient name is:

LORD JESUS CHRISTto me the only possible sufficient name is Jesus; as written before, I see no name in "Lord" (even in His parables Jesus uses the word "lord" for a person, equivalent to "master" in that sence)? And you yourself indicate Christ is a title

See where I'm heading at? but baptism "in the name of Jesus" is far from sufficient as, as you indicate, there are many guys called Jesus

[FreeAtLast]

See where I'm heading at? but baptism "in the name of Jesus" is far from sufficient as, as you indicate, there are many guys called Jesus

What is sufficient then?

[FreeAtLast]

The thing is this Joris, you´ve told us about your baptism:

that said, it's probably 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' as quoting matt28:19 (though they might have added more to make even clearer it's Lord Jesus Christ my God and Savior)

and your question was: Why should this not be enough (especially since it was done with a right heart and in a very sincere way. And you also said that it was not like John´s baptism of repentance, but that you´ve already believed in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice).

I have no doubt that you did it in a very sincere way and that you got baptized because you surely believed in Jesus Christ (you were not like those disciples that were with Paul in Acts who had received John´s baptism of repentance, yet nevertheless I believe it is VERY important to get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, because there is NO power in those titles (father, son, Holy Ghost).

You wanted to know out of the bible why we think baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is so important.

Here are a few scriptures:

Acts4: 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Colossians 3:17
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.


In your last post you are even agreeing with me, saying that the sufficient name is JESUS.
(although to me Christ is part of the name. Just because Christ means: the annointed one, doesn´t mean it´s only a title. You see, my real name is Cordula and the meaning of it is: "Heart". But just because it has got a meaning to it doesn´t make it a title. It´s still my name).

The reason why baptism in Jesus´ name only is not sufficient is simply because there are so many ppl called Jesus on this earth. But there is only one Lord Jesus Christ. (Like Peter said on the day of pentecost: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ").

Because of all those scriptures I believe that baptism in those titles is not sufficient. For there is only power in the name of Jesus Christ.

[marichino_freedom]

i have to agree with you there. i felt convicted by the way i was baptized before and i felt a pull on my heart to get baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Before, it was Father, Son, Holy Ghost.........i didn't feel that was sufficient.

[joris]

i have to agree with you there. i felt convicted by the way i was baptized before and i felt a pull on my heart to get baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Before, it was Father, Son, Holy Ghost.........i didn't feel that was sufficient.
I don't think I can trust what I feel -- I think you're very blessed if you can
at best you got me more doubting (if that's improvement) - if Lord's willing I may be able to talk about this but I wouldn't exactly be looking forward to that*; it's totally different from when I wanted to be baptised, then Lord gave me to long for that (which still seems totally absurd -- assuming you're statements of it being so wrong are true, why would God lead me into doing wrong?)

*talking is in fact always something really so hard to me - especially if it's something "big"; don't expect me to make any of it work if God wouldn't be leading both me and the people I'd be talking to, especially as it's only based on opinions and such; I tried several times to tell you what I think, how I see things, but it seems you never pick it up, not even to show where it's going wrong; oh well; I hate words: I can't use them well

[God'schild]

Joris all i can say is that i will pray for you on this matter

And God never leads someone contriary(sp?) to his word.
God always leads people according to his word.

[AndrewMichael]

Revelation is beyond understanding... Dicussing this in anymore detial is pointless. Though I might find baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to be rather easily seen, and I don't bash you if you don't see it that clearly Joris, it still takes a God given revelation to accept any part of the Word, and the "study to shew thyself approved," was achieved a long while back... Just my thought at this given point.

[joris]

And God never leads someone contriary(sp?) to his word.yes, that's why it seems weird...

[FreeAtLast]

I don't think I can trust what I feel -- I think you're very blessed if you can
at best you got me more doubting (if that's improvement) - if Lord's willing I may be able to talk about this but I wouldn't exactly be looking forward to that*; it's totally different from when I wanted to be baptised, then Lord gave me to long for that (which still seems totally absurd -- assuming you're statements of it being so wrong are true, why would God lead me into doing wrong?)

*talking is in fact always something really so hard to me - especially if it's something "big"; don't expect me to make any of it work if God wouldn't be leading both me and the people I'd be talking to, especially as it's only based on opinions and such; I tried several times to tell you what I think, how I see things, but it seems you never pick it up, not even to show where it's going wrong; oh well; I hate words: I can't use them well

Joris you know what, I sincerely believe that God gave you that longing in your heart to get baptized then. God doesn´t lead you wrong. Water baptism is right. But the thing is the ppl that actually baptized you might not have known how to baptize in the right way.

All through the new testament and until about 300 years after Christ ppl were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. But than the roman catholic church started to make a creed that ppl should get baptized in those titles. And from then on all the other churches (denominations) adopted that "new doctrine" (creed or whatever you wanna call it). Since then ppl got baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost because they didn´t know better!

That´s why we believe it was necessary for God to send a prophet unto us to point us back to the truth of the bible (including the right way of water baptism).
For through all those ages quite a lot of the simple bible truth got lost and ppl started to believe in man-made creeds and doctrines instead of the pure Word of God. But that is so dangerous. For the bible says that no man should add or take away!

I honestly believe if you ask God sincerely He will lead you into all truth. But please do not expect everyone (even those other ppl you wanted to talk to) to see the things according to the truth of the scripture. (some ppl simply refuse the bible truth when shown to them and prefer to hold onto their own doctrines instead).

Joris, don´t bother about my opinion or anyone´s opinion. But please look what the Word of God says about it. For heaven and earth shall pass away but the Word of God will never pass away!

PS: """" I tried several times to tell you what I think, how I see things, but it seems you never pick it up, not even to show where it's going wrong"""
What do you mean with this? What didn´t I pick up? Please explain. I honestly don´t get it.

[joris]

:sad: oh well, I'll try to explain; trying to stretch it out such that it must be clear; as this is all a rather technical thing of what is a name and what not, it may all sound exaggerated but oh well

ow well, the thought I have, considering what Jesus said, and what Peter said, and how the believers did according to Acts - Jesus did not say "go baptise in the name of Lord Jesus Christ"; He said "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; alright we got that already
Why did He say something if He meant it must different; oh yes He says in the name, so we need a name; hmm; but does that boil down to "Lord Jesus Christ"?
I too became very fond of acts 19 and specifically of verse 5: "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

now maybe Paul made a very serious mistake, as he forgot Jesus is Christ so the poor guys need another baptism to correct for his failure; now... that's possible, though the text goes on as if everything's fine; it's also possible that somehow saying Jesus words only boil down to the name "Lord Jesus Christ" is a bit too strict

right? it all makes sence untill now, right? so... Lord is definately not a name and Paul forgot Christ; so the important name is - Jesus, accompanied with the necessary titles to indicate which Jesus we mean; now if "Lord Jesus" is allright as a name then "Jesus your Saviour" is also allright, don't you think? "Jesus from Nazareth" is not as - there may be more guys from Nazareth by the name Jesus, but more important, it doesn't indicate anything but the human background
if it all still makes sence then my conclusion that, "in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: Jesus Christ your Saviour" or, similarly (at least Paul thinks "Christ" may be left out) , "in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: Jesus your Saviour" is just fine too

[BroTrevor]

I'm still going to take a vindicated prophet's word on this one.

Personally, I want the Holy Ghost, it is the seal of redemption, and scripture easily points to Lord Jesus Christ in Acts 2:38.

I don't understand why we have to be all technical about this...

1) What is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

1.A) Jesus

2) Is Jesus Lord?
2.A) Yes

3) Is Jesus Christ?
3.A) Yes

4) Does being baptised in the name of Lord Jesus Christ agree with Matt 28:19
4.A ) Yes, see question #1

5) Does being baptised in the name of Lord Jesus Christ agree with Acts 19:5
5.A) Yes. (see question 6)

6) Is the "Lord Jesus" spoken of in Acts 19:5 the Christ?
6.A) Yes.

So, I just don't see why being baptised in the name of Lord Jesus Christ is a problem.

I do see a problem personally with Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Because that doesn't agree with Matt 28:19, nor does it agree with Col 3:17.

And then of course, a vindicated prophet of God came along and confirmed the same. Makes the choice real easy for me.




(of course the trinitarians will protest very loudly that this cannot be proper as it steps on their catholic based doctrine (no offense pianoman), but Jesus is the father, He is the son, and He is the Holy Ghost. He is one God, chop him up into 3 persons, and the one person can say "Hey, Father, come help me with this." "Sure thing, Holy Spirit, but it looks heavy, let's ask my Son to help us too... Son! Son! Ah, there you are...can you help us with this? That's not 1 God. Sure sounds like 3 to me.)

[Babyruth]

Nice post Bro. Trevor. It makes me understand a bit better. You make it nice and simple, for simple minds like me.

[FreeAtLast]

Joris, now I see where you are coming from.
And I am glad that you are actually saying that JESUS is the name. That is so much more than many will ever see.

To me savior is a title (it´s an attribute of God). For Jesus is not only a savior, he is also a healer, he is the Lily of the Valley, he is the Rose of Sharon, he is Jehovah Jireh, the morning star, Alpha and Omega... and many many more. All those words describe him: what and who He is. But in those titles there is no salvation. They describe the one true God but they are not His name.

The thing is this:
If you look at all those scriptures in the new testament (especially acts) you will see that some of those scriptures speak of the LORD JESUS and some others speak of JESUS CHRIST, yet some others again you will find that speak of the LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Now when you combine all those together what will you always get? LORD JESUS CHRIST.

There might be many ppl who claim to be a savior of some kind. There might be many Jesuses on this earth.
But there is only on Lord Jesus Christ.

You see the reason why I believe Lord Jesus Christ is the correct „formula of baptism“ (if I can put it that way) is because I believe
LORD --- stands for Father
JESUS --- the Son
CHRIST --- the Holy Ghost (the annointed one).

Yet I wouldn´t say that someone needed to get baptized again if he was „only“ baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, or in the name of the Lord Jesus. For those two I definitely find the bible. But I haven´t found anyone yet that got baptized in the name of Jesus your savior. But why should we try to make it complicated anyway? Why don´t we just simply take what the bible says about it?

In fact the bible tells us in Philippians 3:20 who the savior is:
For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Another scripture is 2 Thessalonians 1:12
„That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.“

Doesn´t that sound like Lord and Christ is part of the name of the one and only true and living God (and are not just only titles too?)

And there are many many more scriptures and you know what?

The bible even ends with this (Revelation 22:21):
„The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.“

[BroTrevor]

The bible even ends with this (Revelation 22:21):
„The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.“


Nice post. God Bless you richly FreeAtLast.

[marichino_freedom]

beautiful....i cant word things that well.

its a reassurance to my faith and everyone elses to hear those quotes.

[God'schild]

well said FreeAtLast well said..

[Nate]

If you want to be technical, His name was pronounced Yeshua. Which is actually a form of Jehoshua. In the greek, the name sounded like ee-ay-sooce'.

If you were to go back in time and say something like, "Hey Jesus!" the only way he would understand you were talking to him would be devine intervention.

[AlanaH]

Good point, hadn't thought of that...but you better believe he would understand us. He's God...God knows everything....:)

[joris]

If you want to be technical, His name was pronounced Yeshua. Which is actually a form of Jehoshua. In the greek, the name sounded like ee-ay-sooce'.if you are really technical the name Yeshua was quite common those days (hence, there's titles around Jesus name all the time to indicate which Jesus this really is)If you were to go back in time and say something like, "Hey Jesus!" the only way he would understand you were talking to him would be devine intervention.not at all, not by your words - though He would by your heart, He would see your motivations

[joris]

I don't understand why we have to be all technical about this...that's as you weren't called worthless

1) What is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

1.A) Jesus

2) Is Jesus Lord?
2.A) Yes

3) Is Jesus Christ?
3.A) Yes

4) Does being baptised in the name of Lord Jesus Christ agree with Matt 28:19
4.A ) Yes, see question #1

5) Does being baptised in the name of Lord Jesus Christ agree with Acts 19:5
5.A) Yes. (see question 6)

6) Is the "Lord Jesus" spoken of in Acts 19:5 the Christ?
6.A) Yes.

So, I just don't see why being baptised in the name of Lord Jesus Christ is a problem.nor is there, by this simple reasoning, a problem with being baptised "in the name of Jesus"

but wait, that's wrong! Branham said very specifically he won't go with baptising "in the name of Jesus", in a preaching to both people doing it that way, and people following "Father, Son and Holy Ghost", which obviously misses out the important part, the name, Jesus
now as I told you in our church the name Jesus is added to "Father, Son and Holy Ghost", making very clear which name we're talking about*

But I started another thread such that I could come to see Branham like you do, then if Lord would reveal there maybe He'd reveal how two obviously very different baptisms (one not out by faith, one by faith indeed) could possibly be the same in His views (especially if Jesus is touched all the time by faith, not by "the right words")

*) but a small chance exists this was influenced by me asking to compare Mathew with Acts, so only God could really tell me the words used three years ago;

[joris]

being baptised "in the name of Jesus"or just to make it just too silly, being baptised "in the name of Jesus, Jesus and Jesus"

[BroTrevor]

or just to make it just too silly, being baptised "in the name of Jesus, Jesus and Jesus"

You mean there's three Jesus'es you are getting baptized in the name of?



MATTHEW 15:22 - 27
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.


This woman was not a jew, she came unto Jesus asking something of him and said "thou Son of David". But she didn't have any claims to Him as the Son of David, she wasn't a Jew. But when she just said "Lord, help me" and "truth, Lord" she had the right claims to Him, He was her Lord.

I think this can partly show what we're talking about here. You want to get baptised just in the name of Jesus, go ahead...but which Jesus? The guy in Mexico?

Sure God sees your heart, but why didn't Jesus just "see the heart" of this woman in the above scripture? Why did he wait until she just said "Lord".

When you get baptised in the name of Lord Jesus Christ you are testifying that this same Jesus, that died on the cross, is your LORD and CHRIST. (which was stated as something to do and you'll recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost...let's not forget what Peter said here)



if it all still makes sence then my conclusion that, "in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: Jesus Christ your Saviour" or, similarly (at least Paul thinks "Christ" may be left out) , "in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: Jesus your Saviour" is just fine too

Except that it doesn't agree with Acts 2:38 also.


Ok, so I'm off to the prophet questions thread to answer there now.

[joris]

Which is very silly.

You mean there's three Jesus'es you are getting baptized in the name of? Absurd.no I just filled in the same name for the same Jesus just like you filled in Lord = Jesus, okay; Son = Jesus, okay; Holy Spirit = Jesus, okay

[joris]

Except that it doesn't agree with Acts 2:38 also.yes it does, or Acts 19 does not agree with Acts 2:38; you've been preaching so much on it that I actually took apart every word and found it did not correspond - Paul left out some part

[BroTrevor]

round and around we go buddy. We can play with words all day.

I can only see one form of baptism that agrees with all the scriptures.

Again,

If I baptise in the name of "Lord Jesus Christ" do I fulfill Matt 28:19?
I believe so

If I baptise in the name of "Lord Jesus Christ" do I fulfill Acts 19?
I believe so, I'm still baptising in the name of Lord Jesus. If I didn't have Acts 2:38 as well, then yes, I would be adding to the Word.

If I baptise in the name of "Lord Jesus Christ" do I fullfill Acts 2:38?
I believe so.

On top of that, I believe a vindicated prophet of God taught it this way. I must take the ENTIRE Word into account. I can't just take one scripture and run with it.

I prayed quite a bit for you last night my friend. I believe God will open your eyes and heart to see Him more.

[joris]

just for your information, nobody was claiming "Lord Jesus Christ" is against scripture, though thanks for making clear that's not against scripture
Point is "Lord Jesus" and many similar "terms" aren't against scripture either

[BroTrevor]

Point is "Lord Jesus" and many similar "terms" aren't against scripture either


Sure, I get that...but my point is, can you fullfill all scripture with anything less than "Lord Jesus Christ"

[joris]

Sure, I get that...but my point is, can you fullfill all scripture with anything less than "Lord Jesus Christ"Paul thinks "Lord Jesus" isn't less in any way, does that answer your question? do you believe those people would've needed a third (or fourth?) baptism because Paul failed to use "Lord Jesus Christ" there?

[azurity]

Woah... where have I been all this time! I didn't even realise most of this discussion had taken place.

Brother Joris, I think if I attempt to answer that last question, I will just confuse everything even more. I know how I feel about it, but I don't want to go and throw a spanner in the works.

But, may the Lord bless your heart for your hunger to know the truth!

[joris]

When you get baptised in the name of Lord Jesus Christ you are testifying that this same Jesus, that died on the cross, is your LORD and CHRIST. (which was stated as something to do and you'll recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost...let's not forget what Peter said here)maybe that's what you're talking about all the time, although it doesn't make any sence.
My baptism was testifying Lord Jesus Christ took me from death, took away my sin, took away whatever causes disease (physical and emotional), brought me back to Father, took with Him into death my ugly old life, took away all the curse, all that. In short, it was testifying Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for me

yes, I believed and do believe Jesus is my Saviour. He is my Lord. He is my God. You are totally wrong if you think my baptism was not a testimony of that; what do you think I'd call myself a christian for if I didn't believe that? I do believe that, thus my baptism was and is a testimony of that.

And by the way, no my knowledge was not perfect. Are you saying for every thing you learn you get to be rebaptised? That's nonsence. I can't find anything like that in bible, and if you can, please do point it out with some text. I have never heard of that before... It's about believe, not about how well you know every detail about the bible

[BroTrevor]

<sigh>

Acts 19.

[joris]

Acts 19.we went through that, spelt it out literally, they were baptised in ? a title! ...and the name Jesus.
you show me a text where christians are re-baptised; those people were not christians, they hadn't even heard about Jesus, so they obviously did not believe in the sacrifice

[God'schild]

if i remember Acts 19 correctly the people that got re-baptised did call themselves followers of Jesus Christ.

I will look that up and get the exact verses in Acts 19.

[eagleendtime]

Your right God'schild.
sorry to beat you, to it. But here is the scrips.


ACTS 19:1
1 ¶ And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

ACTS 19:2
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

ACTS 19:3
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

ACTS 19:4
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Their baptism was for Christ Jesus to come. Believing on a messiah. But it wasn’t good enough for the receiving of the Holy Ghost. When God prescribes a certain thing he means it. He told Moses take off your shoes, it would of done Moses no good to do anything else (like clean them), God said Take off your shoes. God said be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

ACTS 19:5
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

ACTS 19:6
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


Now they received the Holy Ghost.

ACTS 19:7
7 And all the men were about twelve.

[eagleendtime]

In Acts 18 Apollos had already instructed these people about Christ. Here is what happened
ACTS 18:24
24 ¶ And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, [and] mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

ACTS 18:25
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

ACTS 18:26
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

ACTS 18:27
27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

ACTS 18:28
28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, [and that] publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

[God'schild]

Thank You!!!:)

[joris]

I got to say that's interesting;Their baptism was for Christ Jesus to come. Believing on a messiah. But it wasn’t good enough for the receiving of the Holy Ghost.just proof by scripture it was because they had not enough because of lack of knowledge. I say it is a whole lot more likely it was because of lack of faith...

[azurity]

just proof by scripture it was because they had not enough because of lack of knowledge. I say it is a whole lot more likely it was because of lack of faith...
Romans 10:17.

[joris]

no it was knowledge that wasn't known to them; they had no way to know about Jesus Christ

[joris]

or that is - only in the wordings of scripture, that didn't exactly make clear it was Jesus, as He didn't even start to walk in His ministry (except the "hidden" part of it, not sinning)
yes they could have known Jesaja 53; in that it's lack of knowledge, though that's avoiding the point; most likely those who did know Jesus wouldn't have believed He was Messiah anyway; They wanted a beautifull king, not a poor (adopted) son of a timberman

[Benoni]

wha do you do if some people seem to think you are in need of being baptised again but you yourself aren't really sure (not really seeing the need there)
-- except for praying about it


There is one sure and true baptism and there no other. It is not about what people think however, it is what you know! And maybe if i may add, also, what you dont know! If you think you dont need no more baptism and your thought is based on ignorance of the word, then you may ask those thinkin you need baptism to give reason based on the standard measure, the bible. After that i can assure you , you will need baptism more than those who ever needed it before and maybe more than the children of Isreal needed a"GOD" at the red sea.

[joris]

If you think you dont need no more baptism and your thought is based on ignorance of the word, then you may ask those thinkin you need baptism to give reason based on the standard measure, the bible.nothing here is based on ignorance of the Word. I don't see any biblical basis for Christians getting to baptised by the baptism they already received. Those Jews were not Christians when they got baptised by John. Later on as Christians they received the Christian baptism, a testimony of faith, which is indeed something different from a testimony of intend to "live better" in own strength (the baptism by John)

I do believe in Jesus to be Lord God, and I did believe just like that when baptised. Unlike those Jews, my first baptism was the Christian baptism, a testimony of faith, not a testimony of intend to "live better" in own strength. No matter how many times you yell at me that's the same, no, I don't see that as the same.

To summarize: You say any baptism is equal to Christian baptism so get rebaptised. I say those are two different things you are calling equal.

Oh and stop accusing me

[BroTrevor]

Oh and stop accusing me

Never have "accused" you.

You asked questions, we tried to answer. Stop taking it so personal.

[JoeC]

This thread will be closed by the end of the day. Interested parties should make their last posts before then.

[Jezz]

A.TRUE.SIGN.THAT'S.OVERLOOKED_ JEFF.IN V-6 N-2 SUNDAY_ 61-1112
157 THUS SAITH THE LORD the baptism using the title of Father, Son, Holy Ghost is false. THUS SAITH THE LORD, I command every one of you on here or on tape that hasn't been baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, be baptized again in the Name of Jesus Christ.
Paul in Acts 5:9--or 19:5, said, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?"
They said, "We know not whether there be any Holy Ghost."
Said, "Then to what was you baptized?"
They said, "We been baptized." But not in Christian baptism. "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" is not Christian baptism. No Christian was ever baptized like that in the Bible or for hundreds of years after the Bible. It's a Catholic creed and not a Christian doctrine. Show me in the Bible. It's a--it's a fraud. It's the working of devils. I don't mean to say the people that's baptized like that are that way. God's got a many a person out there today that don't know no better. But the hour has come. We've got to get back to the Word if we expect God to work in this day like He did then.

Came across this quote a few weeks ago, thought I'd post it here before the thread closes.

[marichino_freedom]

AMEN! the fundamentals of understanding lie within baptism. once you get that, then the rest comes a bit easier.

[God'schild]

Thank you Jezz for posting that..

[eagleendtime]

In regards to Acts 19, as the quote jezz gives sums it up. they are christians, for they believed. And did have faith - Holy Ghost wouldn't come to them if they didn't - For without faith, no man can please God.

[God'schild]

In regards to Acts 19, as the quote jezz gives sums it up. they are christians, for they believed. And did have faith - Holy Ghost wouldn't come to them if they didn't - For without faith, no man can please God.

AMEN!!!

My point exactly!!!