What is the name of the son per Matt 28:19?

[Truther]

Okay, well, because of the change of the heart. Which is effected by God, by His Spirit. Agree?

Grace and peace to you.

I agree. God gives us the ability to repent.

 

[Truther]

Absolutely. But what Peter taught and believed in Acts 2:38 is not in such a wooden sense that you suppose it to be. And it's surely not a refutation of what Jesus commanded us to do in Matthew 28:19.

Grace and peace to you.

Have you noticed that Peter obeyed Matt 28:19 per Acts 2:38?

Peter baptized in the name of the son(Jesus).

No refutation by Peter.

It is the folks that do not comprehend Matt 28:19 that refute Peter, inadvertently saying they think the name of the son is "son".

 

[tigger 2]

Again, '(from post #6 above):

New Testament language experts tell us that “name” (onoma) usually refers to a personal name (or proper noun for a thing). So why do even some very trinitarian NT language experts (who certainly want it to mean a single personal name for three “persons”!) say that it really isn’t being used that way in Matt. 28:19?

Because as W. E. Vine, the NT language expert who is so highly respected by trinitarians, tells us that Bible phrases beginning “in the name of...” indicate that the secondary meaning of “authority” or “power” was intended by the Bible writer. - p. 772, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Vine.

Therefore, Matt. 28:19 actually means: “baptizing them in recognition of the power [or the authority] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit.”

That W. E. Vine specifically includes Matt. 28:19 in this category can be further shown by his statement on p. 772 of his reference work. When discussing the secondary meaning of “name” (“authority,” “power”) he says that it is used

“in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying on or resting on), Matt. 18:20; cp. 28:19; Acts 8:16....”

Highly respected trinitarian NT Greek scholar A.T Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.1, p. 245, makes the same admission when discussing Matt. 28:19:

“The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.”

For example, see Acts 4:7 -- the Jews asked "By what power, or in what name, have ye done this? " Peter answered "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" (v. 10). ASV.

And, “So the two disciples were brought in before them. “By what power, or by whose authority have you done this?” the Council demanded.” - Acts 4:7, TLB. (Cf. NCV; ICB; EXB.)

Noted trinitarian scholars McClintock and Strong say in their Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature concerning Matthew 28:18-20:

"This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552)

And trinitarian scholar Kittel in his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

"The N[ew] T[estament] does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae [including Matthew 28:19] of the NT."

 

[Truther]

Again, '(from post #6 above):

New Testament language experts tell us that “name” (onoma) usually refers to a personal name (or proper noun for a thing). So why do even some very trinitarian NT language experts (who certainly want it to mean a single personal name for three “persons”!) say that it really isn’t being used that way in Matt. 28:19?

Because as W. E. Vine, the NT language expert who is so highly respected by trinitarians, tells us that Bible phrases beginning “in the name of...” indicate that the secondary meaning of “authority” or “power” was intended by the Bible writer. - p. 772, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Vine.

Therefore, Matt. 28:19 actually means: “baptizing them in recognition of the power [or the authority] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit.”

That W. E. Vine specifically includes Matt. 28:19 in this category can be further shown by his statement on p. 772 of his reference work. When discussing the secondary meaning of “name” (“authority,” “power”) he says that it is used

“in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying on or resting on), Matt. 18:20; cp. 28:19; Acts 8:16....”

Highly respected trinitarian NT Greek scholar A.T Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.1, p. 245, makes the same admission when discussing Matt. 28:19:

“The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.”

For example, see Acts 4:7 -- the Jews asked "By what power, or in what name, have ye done this? " Peter answered "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" (v. 10). ASV.

And, “So the two disciples were brought in before them. “By what power, or by whose authority have you done this?” the Council demanded.” - Acts 4:7, TLB. (Cf. NCV; ICB; EXB.)

Noted trinitarian scholars McClintock and Strong say in their Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature concerning Matthew 28:18-20:

"This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552)

And trinitarian scholar Kittel in his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

"The N[ew] T[estament] does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae [including Matthew 28:19] of the NT."

You folks remind me of these fellas....



17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.

18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

 

[Daniel L.]

Protestant Fathers

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Did the 8-day-old babies of the Old Covenant understand thay THEY were entering into a solemn promise with God?

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

You need to "teach" them first, "make disciples" out of them first. The old covenant was a simple commandment with no requirement, but baptism requires knowledge, they have to be taught first. So they can teach others and spread the Gospel.

 

[Daniel L.]

specific name

Judges 13:18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?

 

[Truther]

Judges 13:18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?

Jesus is a secret name?


17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.

18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

...they wish.

 

[user]

What BOL is trying to say is that we are in the old covenant too.

He baptized babies as the old covenant circumcised them.

What he fails to realize is that circumcision is of the heart in the NT, and one must make a conscious decision for a change of heart.

And BOL (Breadofdeath) takes another tragic defeat in his flawed theology.

 

[Daniel L.]

Jesus

I thought you wanted a more specific name, Jesus already existed before He became flesh. Well, I guess you already knew His Name then, I mean, who doesn't?

 

[user]

Again, '(from post #6 above):

New Testament language experts tell us that “name” (onoma) usually refers to a personal name (or proper noun for a thing). So why do even some very trinitarian NT language experts (who certainly want it to mean a single personal name for three “persons”!) say that it really isn’t being used that way in Matt. 28:19?

Because as W. E. Vine, the NT language expert who is so highly respected by trinitarians, tells us that Bible phrases beginning “in the name of...” indicate that the secondary meaning of “authority” or “power” was intended by the Bible writer. - p. 772, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Vine.

Therefore, Matt. 28:19 actually means: “baptizing them in recognition of the power [or the authority] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit.”

That W. E. Vine specifically includes Matt. 28:19 in this category can be further shown by his statement on p. 772 of his reference work. When discussing the secondary meaning of “name” (“authority,” “power”) he says that it is used

“in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying on or resting on), Matt. 18:20; cp. 28:19; Acts 8:16....”

Highly respected trinitarian NT Greek scholar A.T Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.1, p. 245, makes the same admission when discussing Matt. 28:19:

“The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.”

For example, see Acts 4:7 -- the Jews asked "By what power, or in what name, have ye done this? " Peter answered "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" (v. 10). ASV.

And, “So the two disciples were brought in before them. “By what power, or by whose authority have you done this?” the Council demanded.” - Acts 4:7, TLB. (Cf. NCV; ICB; EXB.)

Noted trinitarian scholars McClintock and Strong say in their Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature concerning Matthew 28:18-20:

"This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552)

And trinitarian scholar Kittel in his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

"The N[ew] T[estament] does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae [including Matthew 28:19] of the NT."

Matthew is not the only account of the great commission...

Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
[47] And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

[52] And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great
[53] And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

Now, we pick up the scene in Acts chapter two whereby they were filled with the Holy Ghost. And...

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
[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.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Paul is not saying we can baptise babies. If you study the passage of scripture in Romans 2 Paul is addressing concerns about whether or not new MALE believers should be getting circumcised. He explains that they should no longer be concerned with circumcision because baptism replaces that.
Saying that babies can be baptised because Paul makes a connection between circumcision and baptism is a flawed statement because of:
1) The actual context of the passage of scripture (mentioned above)
2) Because Old Testament circumcision was a MALE ONLY practice.
Genesis 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring
Old Testament circumcision was a MALE ONLY practice. So how can you say that Paul is saying male and female babies should be getting baptised? If Paul was giving the go-ahead for babies to get baptised would it make any sense whatsoever that he would use the example of a MALE ONLY practice to back it up?

The New Testament order is always: The preaching of the gospel; faith in the gospel; then, baptism. Never once is there an example of baptism preceding faith as the norm to be followed. And there are no examples or commands concerning the baptism of the infants or yet unbelieving children of believing parents.

FIRST of all – Circumcision was a MALE-ONLY practice because women were NOT perceived as equals under the Law.
In Christ, however – There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all ONE in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).

Although Baptism is the FULFILLMENT of circumcision – unlike circumcision, ALL believers are called to be Baptized.

The Bible does not teach the trinity. Because the Bible never states that Jesus isn't the father or that God isn't the son.
Please explain this to me. If God is Jesus and Jesus is God, as we know from scripture (Jesus said "before Abraham was I AM and I and my father are one") then how can Jesus not be the father?

Saying that Jesus isn't the father is essentially saying that He is not God, because God is the Father.

Are you saying that not all of God dwells within Jesus? because the Bible says In Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

From what I have researched: "sola scriptura meant Scripture was the supreme authority over the church. It did not mean Scripture was the only authority."

There's a reason why this isn't in the Bible. Because it's absolutely nuts. How can any Christian believe that God's word isn't enough for the church? It's the word of God. Believing that you need some outside the Bible opinions on what the Church should believe and teach is essentially a slap in the face to God.

Accepting Jesus as personal Lord and saviour is a doctrine that was made by taking out one verse of the Bible whilst disregarding several others. The Bible is very clear that responding to the gospel isn't just a matter of saying you accept Jesus as your personal saviour.

I want to guess that by eternal security you mean "once saved always saved." No, the Bible definitely does not teach that. Otherwise, the Bible would have stopped at the book of Acts. Also, we can use a bit of common sense for that one. If we can't walk with God here on earth we shouldn't expect to be walking with him in eternity.

Your understanding of the Gospel is qas bankrupt as your unfderstanding of Baptism in geneal.

This is nonsense. The Bible indeed teaches that God is a Trinity and I listed DOZENS of verses to that effect in post #169 – which you FAILED to respond to. And Jesus repeatedly differentiates between the Son and the Father.

So – RESPOND to post #169 instead of simply playing the “Denial Game” . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Where's the Ctucifix or ANY other sign in this buidling that this is a Catholic church?
CONTEXT, please - or you'll forrce me to post equally-bogus pictures of wacky "Protestant" services . . . . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

What BOL is trying to say is that we are in the old covenant too.
He baptized babies as the old covenant circumcised them.
What he fails to realize is that circumcision is of the heart in the NT, and one must make a conscious decision for a change of heart.

This is precisely what gappened under the New Covenant.
Acts 2:39
For the promise is for you AND FOR YOUR CHILDREN and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

What part of that is confusing to you??

 

[BreadOfLife]

We are not protestants.
We are originalists(Acts 2 adherents).

The RCC(your chaps) protested the originalists in the 4th century AD.

They stomped out the originalists of Acts 2, then installed the protestant RCC priests to deceive the world for the next 1700 years and counting.

Mama RCC is the 1st protest-ant, as she offically announced the end of Acts 2:38.

The angel Moroni also protested Acts 2:38, as the Mormons were specifically instructed to abandon Acts 2:38 and administer the titles(to also rid baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sins).

If you're a Baptized Christian and you're not Catholic or Orthodoxe - you are a Prortestant by definition.
Although, there are MANY on this forum whose wacky theology is not even Christian.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I cannot show you Peter preaching "repent and be baptized" to infants.
You will have to find that in the RCC Bible.
Jesus did not say per the verse "baptize the kids".
He just told his disciples to let the kids get hugs and be blessed by him.
Boy, you sure know how to add extra baggage and philosophy to a passage, huh.

Show me a verse where Jesus says:
"Baptiuze ONLY the adults!"

CAN'T find it??
I didn't think so, Einstein . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

You need to "teach" them first, "make disciples" out of them first. The old covenant was a simple commandment with no requirement, but baptism requires knowledge, they have to be taught first. So they can teach others and spread the Gospel.

WOW - you're FAR mopre ignorant than I thought.
Time for another Bible Lesson, son . . .

In Matt: 23:9. Jesus says to call no man "Father".
In the verse that precedes this (Matt: 23:8), Jesus tells us not to call people “Teachers”. Is Jesus telling us that we can’t call certain people "fathers" or “teachers” when they may actually be fathers or teachers? Absolutely NOT. He is telling us that no man is to be considered father above our Father in heaven and no person is to be considered teacher above our Teacher in heaven.

Jesus was speaking about the Scribes and Pharisees who exalted themselves before all: “They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.”(Matt 23:6-7)

Consider the following passages:
- Jesus said, “Your FATHER Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56).
- St. Stephen refers to "our FATHER Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
- St. Paul speaks of "our FATHER Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
- For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
- "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a TEACHER of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7).
- "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and TEACHER" (2 Tim. 1:11).
- "God has appointed in the church first Apostles, second prophets, third TEACHERs" (1 Cor. 12:28).

STUDY your Bible - don't just ignorantly quote it . . .

 

[Daniel L.]

Baptiuze ONLY the adults!

Around the 14 year of age, they had time to read the Gospel, and to be taught, after this you can baptize them:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

ignorant

ignorantly

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

 

[Truther]

And BOL (Breadofdeath) takes another tragic defeat in his flawed theology.

Amen.

Babies don't get the operation of God of the heart that circumcision represents.

Especially evident when they hit the terrible 2's...LOL

 

[Truther]

This is precisely what gappened under the New Covenant.
Acts 2:39
For the promise is for you AND FOR YOUR CHILDREN and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

What part of that is confusing to you??

When do CHILDREN obey "repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins....".

a....8 days old?

B....terrible 2's?

C....adolescent to adulthood?

Bonus question: when did you cease to be the child of your parents in their mind?

 

[Truther]

If you're a Baptized Christian and you're not Catholic or Orthodoxe - you are a Prortestant by definition.
Although, there are MANY on this forum whose wacky theology is not even Christian.

I am redefining protestantism per Acts 2:38, which banning Acts 2:38 from practice makes the RCC the mother of all protestants and the great whore of her rebellious co-protestant daughters.